Talk:Wolverine

Disamiguation

Does this page need a disamiguation page? These two types of "Wolverines" are unrelated. Frecklefoot 17:31 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

Maybe, though I'm not sure it's worth it as long as both entries are so small. Wesley

I removed the Marvel character part since it has its own (lengthy) entry. See disambiguation page.

I was wondering why there is a reference to the movie Red Dawn, but not even a little mention of the comic book character with a link to Wolverine (comics) at all on this page.

Kire1975 (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Hey this is Haylee ummm why are we talking about comic books???

I would say because this is an article about the mammal, not every use of the term; because the comic book character has its own article; and because anyone interested in the latter can easily find it via the disambiguation page. The Red Dawn reference by contrast receives no mention if it is not mentioned here (though to be honest I would prefer that trivial popular culture references such as that be removed anyhow). JohnInDC (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Versus Talk

I don't understand why when it comes to animal predators that it always seems necessary to have the "versus" discussion. Can we please edit all the info regarding a wolverine being able to win or lose particular battles against other animals. The Badger article is well written in comparison, "Badgers are capable of fighting off much larger animals such as wolves, coyotes and bears", enough said.

Makes sense to me - JohnInDC 10:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not? A LOT of people find it intrinsically fascinating and to the vast majority of readers, accounts of animal combat have no less practical relevance than any other piece of information155.205.201.11 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalized

11/16/06 This page has been vandalized recently, ie the tree frog entry. I surmise that it may be the work of an Ohio State fan since there is a big fooball game between the Michigan Wolverines and Ohio State Buckeyes soon.

15 kilo??

In Sweden we have wolverines @ a maximum 45 kilo, and 30 kilo is quite common. And we have beards also. Hello mom.

Heraldry

Where did this stuff come from? I've split it out into a separate section but it looks wild. --Phil | Talk 17:07, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Napoleon gone

To the person who removed the Napoleon Dynamite reference on 24 Jan 2005... i came to this entry earlier to learn about gulo gulo and that sentence really put a smile on my face. a little whit is what we all need to brighten our days. are you a stodgy librarian?

I don't know who removed it, but come on . . . it didn't belong there. What might be funny to you might be irritating to someone else. Funnyhat 04:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Killing a Moose?

Man, this would be awesome if it's true, but I'm a bit skeptical. Can someone provide a reference for this happening? I've seen moose up close and personal, and they are HUGE, and have no problem being violent. I have a hard time believing a 66-pound animal could kill one, unless the moose was sick, injured, or juvenile. Can somebody fact-check?

Taking prey from a polar bear? This would only really work if it was "snatched" and run away with. A polar bear would gut a wolverine with a single swipe.

Source: Alaska Fish and Games: In the right situations, wolverines can kill moose or caribou, but these occurrences are rare. http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/furbear/wolverin.php Egberts 09:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Source: Some individual wolverines can become good hunters and can kill young and adult ungulates, or animals with hooves, such as caribou and even moose, if the prey is in poor physical condition or if the wolverine has manoeuvred it into a disadvantaged position, such as in heavy snow. http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=108 Egberts 09:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, heavy snow is the key - I've seen images of a wolverine killing a wapiti caught in heavy snow. Anyways, a reference here and a request for it on the main page? Fixed. WilyD 13:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction... Wolverine has a unique combo of quickness, evasiveness, agility and lethality (powerful crushing jaws). I've only got my grandfather (the Michigan State Game Warden for Oscoda, Mason County, Michigan) who relayed that ¨you only need to witness just once a wolverine take down a black bear with relative ease, and I DO mean relative killing ease. If matched with a grizzly, I'd put money on the wolverine any day.¨ Most bears avoid the wolverines after the first experience and I suspect that bears now avoided wolverine mostly by instinct. A couple of Yogi (dumb) bears would venture and experiment with a wolverine (much to their dissatisfaction) Egberts 09:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup. They kill moose by climbing trees, then they jump on moose that walk underneath and kill them. They do the same for deer. 61.230.72.211 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources can be rong and I doubt this. A pack of wovles has trouble killing a moose. But one wolverine can. This is ridiculous. I guess if the moose was in a trap and couldn't fight back. A wolverine vs a grizzly one, if not the largest carnavoire in the world. Yeah righ.t. While wolverines are fierce, they simply cannot take on animals 10 or 20 times their size. Just because a bear or a moose avoids a wolverine means the wolverine can kill it.

But it is true wolverines hunt deer. Dora Nichov 14:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of nonsense in this section. The average wolverine weighs fifty pounds. The average black bear, 300; grizzly, 400-500; polar bear, 700-800; moose, 1200; elk, 450. Black bear are timid by nature; they don't want to fight anything, so it's no surprise that they would shy away from a tussle with a wolverine. Grizzlies are a whole different matter; they could knock a wolverine twenty or thirty feet with one swat or crush its skull or break ribs or any number of things; being able to run as fast as a horse, they could make sure that the wolverine wouldn't get away. A wolverine might be able to dispatch a sick, exhausted elk stuck in a snowdrift but otherwise the elk would literally kick the crap out of it. A wolverine might be able to jump out of a tree onto the back of a moose calf but a full-grown adult? Give me a break! If you have been close to a moose in the wild, you would know how silly this is. They're huge, and they're not scared. They don't care what you are. Moreover, the habitat of the moose and the habitat of the wolverine rarely intersect. Even if a wolverine could jump on a moose's back and stay there, it's jaws are too small to kill it. If anyone claims to have seen a wolverine take a moose down, he needs to get back on his meds. Likewise with the polar bear: it's silly to think that a wolverine could seriously make the challenge, and besides, it would be extremely rare for the two to meet.

As to the claim that wolverine take down deer, maybe so. They probably can, but I doubt that they do. They're too slow by far to outrun one, and deer are far too wary, their hearing and sense of smell far too acute for them to wander under a tree with a waiting wolverine in the branches. It's way too far-fetched.

Furthermore, recent research has shown that a wolverine's main diet is carrion. It's probably one of the reasons they are known to stink so bad.

To end, all these claims to have seen wolverine in these bizarre confrontations are statistically suspect. Wolverines themselves are so wary that they are rarely spotted in the wild, even at their most concentrated, which is not very. I know many outdoorsmen. I have only heard one say he spotted a wolverine, and that was unconfirmed.Uniquerman (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservation status

I thought the wolverine was fairly common, at least in Canada. Does this refer to its status throughout its range? Fishhead64 08:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Size

The Wolverine Foundation website puts the wolverine's size much smaller than this article (http://www.wolverinefoundation.org/faq.htm). This article also only mentions the maximum size. An idea of what's average could be useful.

This entry in wikipedia desperately needs a cleanup.

Can someone suggest this article as one that is very badly in need of a total re-write? It's awful, filled with claims that really do require citation or even general fact-checking.

A Spelling Mistake -

There was a spelling mistake(Ferocius) That I would like to correct: The Word is Ferocious. Also, Despite the common idea that they(wolverines) are reticent and avoid humans, the one I encountered, proved otherwise, and enforced a speedy retreat back down the trail I was walking down, away from my cabin... And No, it is a valid POV word, not an invalid one. NPOV, could and should only be used when valid. After all, Whether POV or Not, this whole wikipedia thing is about POV. Any other encyclopedia is about pov, also, because that is what defines works of literature be they factual or fiction...

Michael 00:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

On Range Section

I grew up in the northwest region of Iowa and I have seen wolverines occasionally wandering on the land we lived on in the country. My mom told me she has seen wolverines crawling into their dens at sunset in the ditches beside the road. I thought this unusual, considering wolverines are usually reclusive toward humans or anything to do with humans. But, I am sure I have seen them in parts of north and central Iowa.Wolfranger 14:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Range

What about the range outside of Northern America? Punkmorten 11:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Much cleanup needed

This article is full of mistakes and errors. Starting from scientific name (Gulo luscus and then /correct/ Gulo gulo). Please, corrent it googling some decent zoological entry.

wolverine vs. black bear

hehe, thanks to Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg for correcting my error - don't know how i got that wrong, i've prob read that (cited) article a dozen times! - Metanoid 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

range in kilometers?

i added the home range sizes from an already cited article, but it's in square miles. i really prefer to use metric as a standard, esp in science entries. can anyone calculate that for me? thx! - Metanoid 19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the conversion but I did change the text from "240 miles square" (a box 240 miles on each side) to "240 square miles", which is much smaller, much more likely, and consistent with the cited article. JohnInDC 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

jeez, where's my brain.... much appreciated! - Metanoid 06:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wolverines in Michigan

The news article about the Wolverine sighting in the Thumb (I think that's where it was) didn't strike me as contradicting or even really calling into question the essential (and rather amusing) fact that the animal isn't indigenous to Michigan. In fact the contrary - one sighting in 200 years seems rather to suggest that, in fact, they just don't live there. Particularly when you consider that their current known range isn't even anywhere close. JohnInDC 12:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In what way is there any contradiction? The detail does not make any assertion that Michigan is a part of the Wolverine's normal range. It is however an interesting and unusual observation. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be mentioned. older ≠ wiser 22:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the more interesting and unusual (not to mention amusing) item is that the state animal isn't indigenous to the state at all, an observation that is now missing from the text. This sighting - plainly an aberration - is described in a way to suggest that the animal is simply elusive, rather than altogether absent. Perhaps there is a way to tweak it to say both, eh? I took a shot at it. JohnInDC 01:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are helpful clarification. I only noticed that the reference had been deleted some time ago by an anon IP and I restored the content. older ≠ wiser 02:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's better with the article too - JohnInDC 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Article placement

Surely the Marvel Comics Wolverine is more widely-known than the animal. I think this should be at Wolverine (animal) and the comics character at Wolverine. At the very least, the primary Wolverine article should be a dab page. 76.178.95.219 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the actual living animal from which the fictional comic character takes its name should be located at the primary article, current comparative public awareness or popularity in certain demographics notwithstanding. In other words I think it's good as it is. JohnInDC 11:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Subspecies

I changed back the number of subspecies to two. Since 1982 it has been recognized that the Vancouver Island wolverines were identical with the mailand ones. Here are some references: [1] [2] [3] I've also noticed that for conservation purposes, the Canadian government considers only two populations of Gulo gulo, the eastern and the western. However it mentions the possibility that the Vancouver island population might be a subspecies (however most likely extirpated), and that more studies are required: "A single subspecies of wolverine ranges across most of Canada. Further studies are required to determine if the Vancouver Island population is a separate subspecies" from [4]. 194.94.96.194 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision of range map needed

I think we need a new range map. Compare the wiki map with this one Hinterland Who's Who Range map. The current wiki range map shows Wolverines down into Oregon and California. In Oregon they are reported only in Linn county, Crook county, Harney, and Deschutes county, according to the USDA Forest Service website. The current wiki map shows them all over Oregon, in places like Washington, Columbia and Tillamook county where they don't seem to live. I think the new range map should have two colors, one for the known current range, and the other for sightings. The known current range for the USA, if made accurately, will look more like a bunch of spots than wide swaths of color. - Tsarevna 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains more detail and information than would be expected of a Stub, and of low importance, as I do not feel that this topic is essential to understanding Canada. Cheers, CP 17:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

YouTube

The rule can't be simply "YouTube is not a reliable source". While it is certainly true that something being portrayed on YouTube does not necessarily make it true, the same can be said from time to time for Fox News. Or CBS. Or - well, pick your source. Here we have a video that illustrates a characteristic of wolverines. It is helpful, the point is fairly uncontroversial, and there is no apparent reason to think that the video was doctored or the situation contrived. It's not a *great* video, and I don't understand Norwegian (if it is Norwegian), but it's still at least incrementally informative, and taking it out just because it happens to be delivered on YouTube diminishes the article by that increment. JohnInDC 13:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The video is a slow-mo of a wolverine growling and two wolves dancing about. It establishes nothing; certainly not that wolverines can "usually" over power everything smaller than an adult brown bear. And YouTube is not a reliable source—it does not meet WP:V in the slightest. Marskell 08:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and "the point is fairly uncontroversial"? That wolverines can match wolf packs, cougars, and black bears? Hmm. Marskell 08:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Not in the slightest" is incorrect. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples. The exceptions pretty well swallow the rule. In short, YouTube is reliable if the thing being portrayed can be established as reliable, which was more or less my point. This video is a useful and illuminating example of wolverine behavior - something that, given the animal's reclusivity, is not easy to come by, and rather than remove this example, the better solution would be simply to amend the text to match the video. I do agree, however, that the provenance of the video is uncertain - as I said I don't speak Norwegian - and I can't vouch for the copyright status either, so for those reasons re-linking it is not appropriate.

I think, however, that the lesson is not to remove YouTube videos willy-nilly but to pause to consider what the actual objection to the link is.

Finally it would seem that if the point is controversial and - without the video, wholly unsourced - then it should not be in the article at all, and I've edited the text to that effect. JohnInDC 12:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your link is to an essay, not a policy. But do note: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution." I am going to continue to remove it, willy-nilly. Marskell 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I can't stop you but I don't see how Wikipedia is improved through the black-and-white application of a rule that is plainly drawn in shades of gray. Wikipedia:Use common sense. JohnInDC 13:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see YouTube as a shade of grey. Clearly, there is no editorial oversight and that is the basic determinant of reliability. Our policies have evolved a necessary rigidity over time but there are allowances made. Do give V a read, if you haven't. Marskell 13:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree we're pretty well beating a dead wolverine now, WP:V directs the reader right back to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples for further insight into the reliability of self-published sources like YouTube. There we have the statement - essay - that says, in essence, "YouTube is unreliable except for when it is". I understand the general principle of editorial oversight and reliability but YouTube is just a medium, and when it serves as a window to another source that *does* reflect editorial oversight, then the link is, or can be, reliable. The video that you originally deleted fails that test, no argument there any more, but I really am perplexed by the assertion that YouTube links are simply verboten and must be stricken when encountered. That doesn't match up with either Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples or Wikipedia:Use common sense. JohnInDC 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not say "except for when it is." It says that it may occasionally used as a primary source, and even then with caution. The material here required a secondary source. A vast majority of YouTube videos amount, in a sense, to anecdotes. You can't extrapolate from a single video to make a claim about behaviour, unless a reliable secondary source has done so. YouTube might, sometimes, be useful in the External links section. Incidentally, where V and any guideline appear to be in contradiction, V trumps. I wouldn't even depend on RS, it's such a moving target. Marskell 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing, and I think fairly. It certainly does say that, "YouTube videos are unreliable", yet also that YouTube videos may sometimes be acceptable as primary or secondary sources. So they are unreliable, except when they can be shown to be reliable. The greatest problem, I imagine, is that most YouTube videos that meet the reliability test are also likely to pose copyright problems. But that is not the same as inherent unreliability.

I am hardly a Wikipedia maven so I cannot intelligently discuss the hierarchy of various forms of guidance found on Wikipedia, but it seems to me that if the principles of V trump the specific examples to which V expressly directs the inquiring editor, then V should not link to the examples; that, or the reference in V should at least be qualified in a way that informs the uninformed that the linked discussion cannot be relied upon. JohnInDC 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If a YouTube video has, say, an ABC News description I could imagine using it—but then you're citing ABC, not YouTube. YouTube per se cannot be used as a secondary source.

There is human error built into the P&Gs, obviously. In theory, nothing that V links to should contradict it. In practice, that might happen. Marskell 14:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

wolverine nourishment

where does a wolverine gets it nourishment for water? Does it each plants for water or does it drink from a stream

Jack Michels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.153.221 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Need citation!

"Some authors recognize two subspecies: the Old World form Gulo gulo gulo and the New World form G. g. luscus. A third subspecies limited to Vancouver Island (G. g. vancouverensis) is also occasionally described. However craniomorphic evidence suggests that the Vancouver Island wolverines are properly included within G. g. luscus."

Who are "some authors"? What craniomorphic evidence? Why? Please don't add things to articles without citations or explanations.

"Wolverines, as other mustelids, possess a special upper molar in the back of the mouth that is rotated 90 degrees, or sideways. This special characteristic allows wolverines to tear off meat from prey or carrion that has been frozen solid and also to crush bones, which enables the wolverine to extract marrow."

Crushing bones to extract marrow is not an ability specific to mustelids and their specialized teeth, though I'm sure they help. Most, if not all carnivores can do this, including domestic cats and dogs. I can't look up a source right now, as I am at work, but this is being posted from a veterinary hospital, hopefully that is sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.73.10 (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wolverines almost look like a cross of a dog and a small bear! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.230.133 (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

X-men reference?

You mention schools, sport teams, and various other things that have wolverines as a mascot/symbol. However, there is no mention of Wolverine from X-men. When I read the description of a real wolverine it pretty much goes hand and hand with the Wolverine from X-men. Maybe someone should add that in there on the symbol section even though it is more of a character than a symbol. Although, I suppose most people already know of Wolverine from X-men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.92.162 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Importance rating

This article has a high hit count [5], so the importance was raised from low rating in SK to mid, they are rated as high importance for the arctic SriMesh | talk 03:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder howm uch of this new growth has been the result of x-men.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Additions, revisions, to-do list

I revised and reorganized the lead, the taxonomy, the physical characterstics ([6]). Here's a brief list of other "to-do" items:

• Rewrite "Range", including more detailed discussion of current ranges and history of extirpation/recovery (currently, for example, wolverines live "in Siberia ... and are also native to Russia").
• Expand "Behavior" to including rearing, social behavior, movements and dispersal, seasonal variation, more information on diet.
• Surely there is more information on cultural significance of the wolverine, including use by people throughout the range and history of commercial fur harvest
• Reference formatting clean-up!

These come to mind immediately. I doubt I will be able to attack too many of these in the immediate future, but may they hang out here to dry in the barren winds of Wikipedia!

I also went ahead and made Wolverine move directly to this page and recreated the Wolverine (disambiguation) page. This is consistent with any other significant animal, all of the other meanings are derivative from the organism. Thus: Lion, Wolf, Tiger are lead directly to animal articles and not disambigs. Seal isn't only because the accessory definitions are unrelated to the animal itself.

Best, Eliezg (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Names and their importance

There are some almost contradictory statements about the names and their derivation. I'm highly skeptical about any name for the animal having being derived from old finnish, as they used to be common all around the northern hemisphere, not only the part of old finno-ugric occupation (I expect Canada and Siberia to have the highest population). Ahma is the name for the animal, and must be related to the word ahmatti, i.e. "glutton", though. However, I've never heard of the other name given, or how it could be related to the slavic names. Wolverines are rarer in southern latitudes though, and they were seen as "little wolves" because they were lesser killers of cattle and sheep. I've never seen a live wolverine, and hope never to come by one in the forest. They are reputed to be vicious, like the Tasmanian devil, with which they hold the same niche. I'd be more afraid of a wolverine than a wolf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.231.13 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Gluttony not reflected in English?

"Purported gluttony is reflected neither in English nor in North Germanic languages. The English word wolverine (alteration of the earlier form wolvering of uncertain origin) probably implies 'a little wolf'. The name in Old Norse, Jarfr, lives on in the regular Icelandic name jarfi, regular Norwegian name jerv, regular Swedish name järv and regular Danish name jærv."

Yes, except 'to wolf' has come to mean 'to devour voraciously' and a wolf 'a cruelly rapacious person.' [dictionary.com].

So, if there was a false etymology it might have been aided by the associations people brought to it by comparing it to a wolf. If wolves were thought of in terms of their eating habits; people might imagine it as more gluttonous than a wolf in its eating habits because of its smaller size.

Range in Sweden

According to Swedish sources, wolverines are living not only in the region of Norbotten, but also in Dalarna, Jämtland and Västerbotten. Someone good at finding English sources, might want to check this. I personally live in Sweden, and put much trust into my Swedish sources, so I definately think they are telling the truth. Vigfus (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wolverines Reproduce....

Can you people tell me how wolverines reproduce? This is for a life project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.84.172 (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If the answer's not here you'll need to go look it up on line somewhere - good luck! JohnInDC (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

description by chantell october 6:38 2009 wolverines are very rair speche they have very sharp claws there discription is they have not to long but long claws they are in a group and in a family of mustelidae.wolverines are from anamali these wolverines are very hard and very rair to find.these wolverines can kill humen speche.I barely know about wolverines somewolverines are very smart.I dont know my question is do wolverines travel? do wolverines live or like the cold? orhot?.please who ever would like to take the time and effort to answer all my questions please and thankyou i would like my answer by tommorrow. but you probabaly cant right answers anywere so you can erase all of mine and right a reply of an answe rplease znd thankyou for your time.

Heading Changes

[7]

According to the edit summary, there was no meritable reason given to the revision.

The reason that these headings are better is because WP:HEAD states: "Titles should be nouns or noun phrases (nominal groups)", e.g: "Effects of the wild, not About the effects of the wild.".

The prior heading, "in culture", made more sense than the new one, "cultural impact". The section is not about the effect that wolverines have had on culture but instead the reflection, in various cultural forms and traditions, of the traits and characteristics of the wolverine. The new caption suggests that somehow the wolverine was a motive force in these effects, which makes little sense - and is unsupported to boot. JohnInDC (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Because of the wolverine, and all an individuals "traits and characteristics" is what has impacted societies, cultures and religions, unless you want to rename it ==Social impact==.174.3.123.220 (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Impact" is still the wrong word. Polar bears may have a social "impact" in Churchill, Manitoba, where they are omnipresent and unavoidable. In the case of the wolverine, societies choose - or don't - to describe themselves in ways that echo a wolverine's characteristics. Society isn't the recipient of these metaphors, they're not imposed or caused by the wolverine. Even social "expressions" or "manifestations" would be better, if they didn't sound like a crummy college thesis. JohnInDC (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Changed it to "manifestations". Even a clumsy word is better than the wrong one. JohnInDC (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wolverines in captivity

I'm not sure what the point is of the list - it just keeps slowly growing, and sooner or later it'll just expand to include every captive wolverine in the world. If there were only three or four then maybe it'd be encyclopedic but there seem to be enough now that the list borders on the trivial. I intend to remove the thing unless someone objects. JohnInDC (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the whole section. Folks can go to http://isis.org to find out which zoos have wolverines or any species. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section was listy and full of excessive detail, but I think it's still worth saying something about the general topic. I've added a very brief summary as a subsection of the "Range" section, although I'm not sure if that's the best place for it. -- Avenue (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks good to me - thanks for the refinement. JohnInDC (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast. I don't believe less than four hours on 9 May 2010 is enough time to achieve consensus. In the USA, the Bush administration refused to give Wolverines endangered species protection, however, that decision could be reversed by the Obama administration. According to the isis website there are approximately only 104 wolverines in captivity worldwide! Wolverines are a very rare and special animal. (It is not like listing all the goats or sheep in the world.) I believe the captivity information is very helpful. Especially with links to the specific zoos that have wolverines. If some people feel this information is "listy and full of excessive detail" or "trivial" the perhaps there is another way. If all else fails a separate wiki article on wolverines in captivity could be started. Please respond with some creative suggestions other than deletion. Thanks Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, three editors who don't otherwise interact with one another achieved very quick agreement (including at least one revision to the original complete deletion) within the space of a few hours on a Talk page that doesn't really get much attention. I don't know that we were really obliged to hold off on the changes until July to see if anyone else had comments, so I'm quite comfortable with how the edits were handled. As for the edit itself, I personally think that the current summary treatment about captive animals, with a link to a comprehensive listing of each animal in captivity, is a nice compromise that provides easy and obvious access to all the information without simply repeating it, and keeps listy clutter down as well. Certainly the decision can be revisited, but I do think it's incumbent upon the one person who appears to object to the status quo to suggest alternatives to it, rather than upon the ones who are responsible for (and content with) it. JohnInDC (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, JohnInDC. I agree that waiting till July is too long. But, in my opinion, less than 4 four hours is not enough time to reach a consensus on deleting content that has been present in an article for a long time. Regarding my 2 July 2010 comment, I have only heard from one editor (JohnInDC) so I waiting to see if more editors express an opinion at this time. The Alternatives To Deletion policy WP:ATD states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." I am hoping we can come up with a consensus that is an alternative to deletion.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just make a "List of Wolverines in Captivity" article that can be linked to from here? You completely avoid the issue of clutter and disproportionate coverage in the main article (as well as the need to discuss it) and you can reformat the information from the source article in any way you find useful. (WP:ATD, incidentially, refers to deletion of entire pages, not to deletion of content within them, and so the phrase you quoted doesn't apply here.) JohnInDC (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. A new article with a name like "List of Wolverines in Captivity" might work. I am hoping to hear from other editors before proceeding with this new article. Also, you are correct that the main thrust of WP:ATD is deletion of entire pages. However, in my opinion, the guidance in WP:ATD applies to deletion of any major content that has the potential to become a separate page in the future.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime you could create the article on a user subpage so that when the time comes you can just move it into place in the new article. I do think that this information - which is not much more than a list mirroring the external source - is better lodged in a separate article than tacked on here. JohnInDC (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

When I get a chance I will start pulling together the draft article in my user space.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no objection to a separate List of wolverines in captivity, especially if it becomes more comprehensive than the previous list included in this article, and isn't based solely on the one source we now cite. I still think that including a detailed list in this article would probably be overkill. --Avenue (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wolverine sighting in Southern Oregon.

In the spring of 2010 there was an unconfirmed sighting of a wolverine in the Rogue River watershed of southwest Oregon. The person who saw it was driving a truck along a country road and spotted this large "badger-like" animal emerge from a blackberry bramble. Growling, hissing, and baring its teeth in an awful grimace, it walked right onto the road and challenged the truck.

So what do you think this was? he asked me. A wolverine?

Are you sure it wasn't a badger? I asked.

If it was, it was the biggest damn badger I ever seen. It was the size of a pit bull, and a whole lot scarier. I wouldn't have got out of that truck for nothing.Uniquerman (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)