Talk:Ferret

Recent "rvv" Edit against split9102

Split9102 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It was not deserving of being called vandalizem.
My internet cord is broken, and often jumbles up my posts on websites albeit.
My main edit was that for ferrets, toys are a necessity.
All of the books I own about ferrets say so.
Thank you for reading, and I hope you understand what I mean.

New Image (?)

from TiHa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.230.137 (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reduction of the section on Ferret's status internationally

Most of the first five or six sections merely take up one or two lines; not enough for a section. I figured it would be better to keep them in bulletin form, rather than pad the table of contents for the article with redundant fluff. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the same be done for the import laws section? Seems to be a similar situation. -- Greyed (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

European polecat

According to this link from U of Michigan the ferret is indeed a subspecies of the European polecat. I thought maybe we can include that even though it comes from an anon user with doubtful record. The only thing I have not verified is the latin translation, but it sounds plausible. Dr.K. (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the claim from the U of Michigan, as there is no evidence in support of it; many authorities consider the correct scientific name for the ferret to be Mustela furo, to make that clear. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before, here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. But this discussion link is not very exhaustive and not very detailed. Maybe some more effort shouProxy-Connection: keep-alive

Cache-Control: max-age=0

be dProxy-Connection: keep-alive

Cache-Control: max-age=0

ected in determining this, since anecdotal refereProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

es to a scientist using the name M. furo in preference to Mustela putorius furo are not exactly reliable. And the question remains how can a distinguished University such as Michigan make such an assertion if it were false. Seems like a reliable source to me. Dr.K. (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not the university that is making the claim, it is simply a web site containing information from an anonymous source. All that can be said with any certainty is that the use of the trinomial implies that ferrets are a subspecies of the European polecat, but there has as yet been no evidence produced to support that claim. Hence many authorities refer to the ferret as Mustela furo. If you - or the U of Michigan - are aware of any evidence to support the notion that ferrets are a subspecies of Mustela putorius then let's see it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the university as in here:

Overview

Animal Diversity Web (ADW) is an online database of animal natural history, distribution, :classification, and conservation biology at the University of Michigan

Quote: If you - or the U of Michigan - are aware of any evidence to support the notion that ferrets are a subspecies of Mustela putorius then let's see it.

I didn't know that I or for that matter the university have to provide any evidence other than the one presented in the website. The logic goes as follows: University of Michigan is a reliable source. The website is from the University of Michigan, i.e. reliable. Therefore let's quote the website. In fact the onus is the other way around. It is on the editor who wrote that there is a controversy to cite this controversy using a reliable source. The way it is now, without a citation is unacceptable. Anyone can write anything they want. Without a citation this claim is basically meaningless. Dr.K. (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(Unident) To make it more clear I quote again: All that can be said with any certainty is that the use of the trinomial implies that ferrets are a subspecies of the European polecat, but there has as yet been no evidence produced to support that claim. Hence many authorities refer to the ferret as Mustela furo

If we can substatntiate that: many authorities refer to the ferret as Mustela furo using citations this will be fine. Otherwise the word many, without a citation, is a prime example of WP:WEASEL. Dr.K. (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How ironic, when you consider what the article is on! LOL! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where I do agree with you is that the claim made later in the lead about the uncertainty of the ferret's ancestry does need to be supported by a citation, which I will provide. Where I don't agree with you is that a disputed naming convention sheds any light on the ferret's genetic origin in the absence of any supporting evidence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. Let's split the difference and agree on your first point. That will be sufficient for strengthening your argument and therefore will make the second point moot. Thank you for an interesting discussion. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a citation as promised. Looking at that References section, I really think that it needs to be beefed up. I've made a start, what do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your citation is excellent. The size of the references section seems to be ok. At first glance some sections such as "Activity and nature" need a little beefing up because the citations there seem sparse. Your citation has strengthened the lead and therefore the confidence the readers feel as they read further into the article. Thank you for taking the time to address this point. It's been a pleasure. Dr.K. (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead section intro

"A ferret is a domestic mammal...". I'm almost certain this is - whilst still a minor problem - part of the overall problem with this article. I think it ought to be reworded so it reads something like "Ferrets are domestic mammals..." and so forth. The Bold text bit, I believe, is supposed to be the direct start of the article. This is what I'm going to do right now. If anyone reverts me, please leave a detailed explanation as to why below this message. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of this being done for all articles, as a matter of fact.

Instead of just one plain sandbox in Wikipedia, and a few owned by some users, why don't we create a sandbox for each article? We can make the sandboxes look exactly like the articles, only here the vandalizers are allowed to play around with the page! I'm posting this here because Ferret gets vandalized alot. If someone could point to me the proper project page to post this on, I'll repeat myself there. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it would do any good. Vandals mess up articles because they enjoy causing trouble, and I don't think we should be going out of our way to accomidate them.JeffStickney (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I probably misunderstand the meaning of "accomidate", but that's what I thought we would be stopping. Oh well; easy come, easy go. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandals usually do what they do simply to mess with people. Making a Sandbox for each article for the Vandals to play in would defeat the purpose of vandalism: They'd be doing what you wanted them to do. No one wouold use it because there's no fun in blanking an article that's already been thoroughly screwed with. 70.70.97.117 (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ferrets in literature

--Isn't there also a poem by Jean Follaine titled "Death of a Ferret?"66.217.45.44 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)--Ray

Yes. You are correct. I'll put it in. Dr.K. (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a large portion of the content from this section, as it was unreferenced. Anything that is notable enough to be included in an "in popular culture" section should at least have a website that can be cited. Sorry if this upsets anyone, but verifiability is rather important. CCG _(T-C) 01:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree; had I been brave enough I'd have done it myself. In fact I'm not at all sure that there's a place for this Triva section at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For this section it is kind of tricky. Sources do NOT have to be websites Wikipedia:Citing sources verifies that books and print-only magazine articles are acceptable sources, whether they are online or not. In this section since we are discussing instances where ferrets are clearly shown in TV shows movies and books, the show or book itself IS the source. (Acceptable primary sources according to WP:PRIMARY). To verify the claim that a ferret appears in a movie or book, you are told which movie to watch or book to read- so everything is verifiable. By its very nature everything in this section is automatically sourced. The section is overlong, and a lot of it could be deleted as non-notable trivia, but everything in here is sourced.JeffStickney (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree up to a point. For example let's look at these facts:

• The main character in the manga series Peach Fuzz is a ferret named Peach who has delusions of being a princess.
• Former Doctor Who lead actor Sylvester McCoy got his acting start as Sylvester McCoy, the Human Bomb, a stage act that consisted of stuffing live ferrets down his trousers.
• In the film The Big Lebowski, Lebowski is attacked in the bathroom by a "Marmot" which is really a ferret.

1. The Peach Fuzz fact is easy to verify since the ferret is shown on the movie poster.
2. The Doctor Who fact must be verified because it does not involve a movie or a book.
3. In the The Big Lebowski the phrase "... attacked by a Marmot which is really a ferret" verges on WP:OR.

So we should not accept all of these facts without examining each one individually. Of course the need to keep any trivia section like this one in any article is a system-wide question and is a matter of policy. Dr.K. (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. If there is any room for question or interpretation it needs a secondary source. Only if there is no ambiguity that a ferret is shown or mentioned would the book, show,etc would be acceptable. For most of this section the source mentioned is acceptable, but I stand corrected on my claim that all of it is. The real problems with this are trivia and notability, and the question of which ones are notable and which are not is a matter of opinion guaranteed to start an edit war. JeffStickney (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a trivia section is always problematic but this is a generic problem with all such sections in any article. Notability of these facts is not always clear. Edit warring over trivia sections happens for sure but I think it is normally tied to verifiability, not notability. Anyway I just supplied the citations for two of the rather less obvious facts. As a corollary to the above we should not summarily erase facts, even if improbable sounding, before we Google a few keywords first. It takes a bit more work to do this but it can salvage an interesting fact or two. In this sense your reinstatement of the facts was a good idea. Dr.K. (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could trim the detail. Instead of having a paragraph added for each movie going into excessive detail about the plot, we could combine them into a couple paragraphs like "Ferrets are featured in the movies Kindergarten Cop, Starship Troopers, The Beastmaster,..." along with a footnote that clarifies that in these cases the Movies are themselves the source. That way we could keep all the mentions without making the section over long. And it would appear organized rather than haphazard.JeffStickney (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started on reorganizing this section. I broke it into a few subsections and reorganized the film and TV section. Still a long ways to go.JeffStickney (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally like it. Good job. Dr.K. (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue ferret?

I am almost certain there is no blue ferret even though it is listed as a color. If there is no such thing then it should be deleted. I'm not 100% sure so that's why I haven't deleted it. There could be that slight chance that there is.Mikeyc4023 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There are "blue ferrets", but of course they're not really blue. Just a very slight hint of blue in some with very light fur when seen in a particular light. I think the same description is used in cats and dogs? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sable ferrets will look kinda blue when their fur grows back out (from an operation for example) here is a [photo] to illustrate --Erlend Aakre (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrets belong to a kind and genorouse family the same with other animals they don't need to be treated like crap some people treat them like crap if u don't like them after you have them and they don't work out well talk them back to the place you got them or ask if any body alse want's it or them but don't let them run free because other people hate them so just eather ask or take them or it back Just please don't hurt any animal they don't diserve it be kind to any animal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.54.210 (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

someone put that ferrets have lifespan of 30-45 minutes, I reverted it back 66.119.9.207 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Types of ferrets

Ferrets are usally three grougs European Albino and Black-footed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.181.192 (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

that does not make much sense, care to specify? --Erlend Aakre (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)