Talk:Beaver
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beaver article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | Beaver is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2023. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Link in German to Biber
I was surprised that the English Beaver article did not have a German equivalent. When I looked at the German Biber page, I saw that it links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoridae instead. I would think that Beaver = Biber. For Castoridae a German equivalent would need to be created in German. --Bernburgerin (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- I came here to comment on exactly that point, namely to provide a link to the Biber article on Wikipedia DE. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2020
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on Species it says "The North American and Eurasian beavers are the only extant members of the family Castoridae, contained within the monotypic genus, Castor."
A monotypic genus is a genus that contains ONE species. That's what mono means.
Maybe the intended author intended to state that Castoridae is a monotypic family, which would be true if Castor was the only genus in the family, but that is only true if you only consider extant genera as there are other extinct genera.
Please remove the "monotypic" adjective from before the word genus. That adjective really does not belong anywhere in this article. Pipfrosch (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Done Good point. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 13:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi. I note the article on beavers says their guard hairs are "5 - 6 meters (16 - 20 ft) long." I think you mean centimeters, or roughly 2 inches long. 41.65.35.162 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Next time
Dunkleosteus77 and Hog Farm, I will add a bit more for next time but it is unfair to expect me in get discuss things like hunting quotas which are more important for the articles on the individual species not this one. I had already mentioned how beavers have gotten protections which should give an indication on the state of hunting. Also, I already have written about beaver evolution and extinct relatives. Am I really suppose to write more on extinct species? And as I explained over and over again, if their was more information on Eurasian beaver hunting, I would have added it. LittleJerry (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- My oppose was mostly based on the fact that, IMO, this wasn't ready for an FAC nom. For one thing, if an article has to be listed at GOCE, that generally means the prose isn't FAC-ready. When every time I read through it, I spot multiple more prose issues, it makes it hard to look through for other issues. It's also problematic that when certain points are brought up, the offending area is removed. For instance, when I brought up that the 7.5 mya separation point is a rough estimate, and that it should be clarified as such, it was just removed (maybe you misunderstood what I wanted done). When I brought up the issue with the conversion template for celsius to fahrenheit, the exact numbers were removed, when they're clearly relevant; what should have happened is a manual conversion, which isn't particularly complex math, and which I would have been willing to do if it came to that. It's hard to engage on what issues are known/not known (I'm okay if the information truly isn't available) when the prose isn't quite ready for a FAC nomination and other issues are just being removed from the article, rather than tweaked. @Dunkleosteus77, LittleJerry, and SandyGeorgia: - Maybe this makes me a jerk for opposing this, and if its not an actionable oppose, then just ignore my comments here. If this was a bad oppose as not actionable, or if I was just a jerk, tell me, and I'll quit reviewing things at FAC. Hog Farm Bacon 15:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hog Farm, your reviewing is excellent. Not-a-jerk. I regret that I haven't been able to review YOUR FACs (and others) because of time spent on ill-prepared noms, which is a poor use of reviewer time. We all need to make better use of peer review. If this article had been better prepared, you two could have had a short discussion about whether to include more on hunting-- easily resolved-- but when lost amid of sea of other issues, becomes difficult. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- For my own part, I am glad to see a copyedit is underway, concerned about the comprehensive issues raised by Dunkleosteus77 and myself, and expect to see a more compelling lead written prior to a return to FAC, which I look forward to, as these broad topics are important !! LittleJerry, please keep in mind that if you satisfy reviewers earlier than the two-week wait period, you can always ask a Coord for permission to re-nominate earlier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hog Farm I removed the numbers because you stated "Second, it's very unclear what 0.5 °C is suppose to mean here. It reads like it's suppose to mean that 0.5 °C is the temperature the water stays at, which seems implausible. Climactic conditions around the beaver's range means it isn't going to stick at 32.9 degrees Fahrenheit all winter". So I removed that number. I'm ready not experienced with converting numbers on temperature so I had not idea what you were talking about. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- My question was more on the line of the phrasing. What I'm pretty sure you meant is that the water was, on average, 0.5 °C cooler within the dam, but the way it was written, the article was saying that the water was always 0.5°C in the dam. It's hard to communicate on issues when there's enough copy edit issues it impairs the reviewer's understanding of what you're trying to say. Another issue is that the conversion templates only do a set conversion of a fixed temperature, so if you put 2°C in the conversion template, it will tell you what that exact temperature is in F. To get 2 individual relative degrees, you'll probably have to convert by hand, as I'm not aware of the convert template being set up like that. Thankfully, the C to F conversion is pretty simple, and can be done with any calculator that can add, subtract, multiply, and divide. Hog Farm Bacon 15:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I also got completely lost in that same passage. Anyway, unwatching for now; please ping me if ready to go back to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- My question was more on the line of the phrasing. What I'm pretty sure you meant is that the water was, on average, 0.5 °C cooler within the dam, but the way it was written, the article was saying that the water was always 0.5°C in the dam. It's hard to communicate on issues when there's enough copy edit issues it impairs the reviewer's understanding of what you're trying to say. Another issue is that the conversion templates only do a set conversion of a fixed temperature, so if you put 2°C in the conversion template, it will tell you what that exact temperature is in F. To get 2 individual relative degrees, you'll probably have to convert by hand, as I'm not aware of the convert template being set up like that. Thankfully, the C to F conversion is pretty simple, and can be done with any calculator that can add, subtract, multiply, and divide. Hog Farm Bacon 15:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hog Farm I removed the numbers because you stated "Second, it's very unclear what 0.5 °C is suppose to mean here. It reads like it's suppose to mean that 0.5 °C is the temperature the water stays at, which seems implausible. Climactic conditions around the beaver's range means it isn't going to stick at 32.9 degrees Fahrenheit all winter". So I removed that number. I'm ready not experienced with converting numbers on temperature so I had not idea what you were talking about. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- For the decline of the Eurasian beaver, this says "Demands for its pelt, meat and the medicinal properties of its castoreum, combined with habitat loss, resulted in its disappearance from most parts of Europe by the end of the nineteenth century" and provides several further sources if you want to go even further in depth on the subject (like, specifically what does habitat loss entail?) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The article already states that information. And again, beavers are not one species, they are two species and details about conservation, hunting, ect, are better suited for the species articles. For zebra, I tried to be as general as possible in regards to conservation and exploitation and it passed with no problem. LittleJerry (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I should also point out that the paragraphs on meat and castoreum use are more bias towards the Eurasian beaver so there is a balance. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia I don't get what you mean by the lede. I've always written them that way in other FACs and have had no problem. LittleJerry (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is best to fine tune leads when the content in the body is nailed down, so we aren’t chasing our tails. Pls ping me back in when the body is settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia. The article has now been copyedited and I added in more bits of information. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am looking at the Ecology section (which I originally had problems with), and still seeing lots of prose issues. I will dig in tomorrow after my regular FAC run and start a list; I suggest holding off on the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia. The article has now been copyedited and I added in more bits of information. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Continuing
I have not looked beyond the "Ecology" section, as there are still issues there. (A "true" copyedit always involves a lot of back-and-forth between the copyeditor and the writer, to make sure intended meaning is understood; I did not see that happen here, so am not surprised there are still issues.) I don't think we can move on to fine tuning the lead until the article has had a thorough prose review. I recommend first putting the article into Word for spell check. And then, print the article out, and sit down to read a hard copy with a red pen and highlighter handy. It can be too hard to overlook issues on the screen when you are too close to the text. As examples of what I see in the Ecology section only:
they require a yearly supply that is sufficient for swimming, diving, floating logs, protection of lodge entrances and safety from land-dwelling predators
What does this mean? "Yearly supply" sounds like they can get a once-a-year order from The Culligan Man. Can they go nine months without water? Do they need water only once a year? Undeniably, this is not the intended meaning here. I wonder if the word "year-round" was intended ?- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
With streams, beavers prefer to use slow-moving water, typically with a gradient or steepness of one percent, though they have been recorded using streams with gradients as high as 15%.
I can't even figure out what this is saying. Use "slow-moving water" for what? Beavers prefer slow-moving water then inhabit streams?- Changed to "slower". Streams and rivers can move slowly. That's why there's a gradient measurement system. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Wider streams around 8 m (26 ft) are used more than narrower ones in the 1.4 m (4 ft 7 in) range.
This is just odd because beavers surely don't go around with tape measures, and there is a big gap inbetween those two numbers, so I can't tell what this sentence wants to say. Most streams inhabited by beavers are more than 26 feet wide, while those under 5 feet are almost never inhabited by beavers ???- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Dispersing beavers will use certain habitats temporarily before arriving at their final destinations, particularly in spring.
I can't figure out what this is saying; don't know where to start. What are dispersing beavers? They arrive in spring? They "disperse" in spring?- They usually disperse in spring. LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why are their diseases included in the same paragraph as their diet; is there a connection I am missing?
- Diet (what they eat) leads to predation (what eats them) and then to other forms of mortality. The sentences are too short to be seperated. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
They can fall trees in an average of 1.24 minutes, but this can depend on the circumference of the trunk. Those 25 cm (9.8 in) and larger require over four hours.
Excess precision, and very labored. Depending on the circumference of the trunk, beavers can fall a tree in about one-and-a-half minutes; trees as large as 25 cm can require over four hours.- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- The flow about their different abodes is all wrong. For example, we encounter, oddly, this sentence in the middle of other stuff ...
Lake-dwelling beavers do not need to build dams.
but we aren't told at that point then, where do they live? Only later do we find that they have other kinds of abodes. Much later we find there are multiple types of lodges. The entire organization here is off. First, beavers use shelters for x. Next, they build three kinds of houses. Next what those are. Next how they are built. Next, what beavers in lakes do ... etc. Air vents are mentioned twice.- I made some rearrangements. However, some of this is nitpicky. In particular, the first sentence mentions what dams are for (impounding flowing water) and so it is natural to then mention that lake beaver don't make then (since they don't live in flowing water) There is no indication that they live in dams or that dams are an "abode". LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- This precision surprises:
These are aligned in the direction of the water's flow at an angle of 30 degrees.
Always 30 degrees? Average 30 degrees? Between 35 and 45 degrees? I find it surprising that beavers always hit a specific number.- That's what the source says. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why is the fish "trout" linked, but salmon is not? And why not links on these ... including total suspended solids, total nitrogen, phosphates, carbon and silicates
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Grammatical error:
their dams has been shown to have a positive effect on trout by increasing their numbers, their size, or both.
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
That's where I stopped. Please print it out, and give it a thorough going over. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- This seems rather bizarre. I've done a ton of FAs and have never had to "print out and look over with red ink". LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then perhaps they aren't truly FAs, as there are considerable prose problems here, and fixing the sample I mentioned is not sufficient; independent eyes are needed to review all the text, and one way to find such problems is to print out and read your article. Perhaps @Jimfbleak and FunkMonk: would go through-- this might be within their territory. I have fixed the errors you introduced to the formatting (see edit history). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe a peer review would be in order? FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm happy to take a look either here or at peer review if that's preferred. I was just about to return to reviewing at TFA after a long absence since I will soon be unleashing my first FAC for a year. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Listed for PR. LittleJerry (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm happy to take a look either here or at peer review if that's preferred. I was just about to return to reviewing at TFA after a long absence since I will soon be unleashing my first FAC for a year. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe a peer review would be in order? FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then perhaps they aren't truly FAs, as there are considerable prose problems here, and fixing the sample I mentioned is not sufficient; independent eyes are needed to review all the text, and one way to find such problems is to print out and read your article. Perhaps @Jimfbleak and FunkMonk: would go through-- this might be within their territory. I have fixed the errors you introduced to the formatting (see edit history). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- This seems rather bizarre. I've done a ton of FAs and have never had to "print out and look over with red ink". LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome
I routinely ensure there are blank lines (completely invisible to the reader and therefore irrelevant to MOS) immediately before and after each heading because they might be useful at some point to some editor – or so I've been told, via talk page and email. I also routinely ensure there's a blank line immediately before the first word of every paragraph (visible to the reader but barely noticeable – again, per request). If there's a policy or guideline indicating they should be removed, or consensus that I should stop, please share.
--Bofuses (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
p.s. Notice the absence of the word between in this context.
Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have found some information that appears to be incorrect abour beavers. I would greatly appreciate the ability to make minor changes to this page. 86.8.85.239 (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Ref error
Müller-Schwarze & Sun 2003, pp. 48–50. does not link any citation
- Buidhe, I formatted it like the others so I don't know what's wrong. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It does look like you cited more academically focused books, which seems to be what sank the last FAC. (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- It was because of overciting of two books. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hood and Bayley study data incorrectly used in "Environment Effects" section
1. I am troubled by these two sentences in the first paragraph of the Environmental Effects section and I suggest the first should be removed and the second corrected:
In one study, beavers were associated with a 9-fold increase in open-water areas. When beavers returned to an area, 60% more open-water was available during droughts than in previous years when they were absent.
It is written as if the two sentences are based on the same Hood and Bayley study, but a nine-fold increase would be a 900% increase, not a 60% increase.
2. The 9-fold increase stated in the article seems to be derived from this sentence of the Hood and Bayley study's abstract:
In addition, during wet and dry years, the presence of beaver was associated with a 9-fold increase in open water area when compared to a period when beaver were absent from those same sites.
but I think this sentence of the abstract is incorrect. It does not properly summarize the study. That sentence in the abstract appears to be based on this sentence in the study's Discussion section (the only place in the study itself where a nine-fold increase is mentioned):
It is possible that because of lag effects from abandoned dams and channels, inactive ponds in 1996 and 2001 retained significantly more open water than inactive ponds in both 1948 and 1950. This 9-fold difference existed despite the fact that 1996 and 2001 had less combined total precipitation than 1950 and 1948.
which in turn is a discussion of the Group 2 ponds in Figure 7 of the study; but the Group 2 ponds (the "inactive ponds" cited above) never had beavers in them, as far as the authors know. Hood and Bayley are trying to account for why the recent beaverless ponds in 1996 and 2001 had nine times as much open water as the earlier beaverless ponds in 1950 and 1948. They are speculating ("It is possible...") that the beaverless ponds in the recent period (when beavers were widespread in the vicinity) actually did have beavers in them at some unknown time, and that those long-gone beavers left abandoned dams and channels which accounted for that otherwise inexplicable open water in the recent beaverless ponds. But Hood and Bayley tell us this is just their speculation -- they can't back it up.
So I suggest that this sentence:
In one study, beavers were associated with a 9-fold increase in open-water areas.
be removed from the Wikipedia article.
3. The second sentence in the Wikipedia article extract above:
When beavers returned to an area, 60% more open-water was available during droughts than in previous years when they were absent.
is also troubling. It seems to be based on this sentence from the Hood and Bayley study:
In 1950, when beaver were not present, wetlands held 61% less open water (228.7 ha) than in 2002 when beaver were well established (593.90 ha, Fig. 5).
The Hood and Bayley sentence can be rephrased as saying that the difference between the 2002 (593.90 ha) and 1950 (228.7 ha) open water values is
593.90 ha - 228.7 ha = 365.2 ha
365.2 ha is 61% of 593.90 ha (365.2 / 593.9 = 0.61 = 61%)
The corresponding Wikipedia sentence is not exactly equivalent to the Hood and Bayley sentence. Hood and Bayley are talking about a "% less than" relation and the Wikipedia article is talking about a "% more than" relation. The Wikipedia sentence should read:
When beavers returned to an area, 160% more open-water was available during droughts than in previous years when they were absent.
That is, the difference between the 2002 and 1950 open water values is
593.90 ha - 228.7 ha = 365.2 ha
365.2 ha is 160% of 228.7 ha (365.2 / 228.7 = 1.597 = 160%)
Dieter.Meinertzhagen (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's what I get for copying (and altering) text from the Environmental impacts of beavers article, which I did not write. I changed it. LittleJerry (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
