Talk:Marbled polecat

Conservation status update

This was one of the first articles my friend and I provided some guidance despite being quite new myself at the time. I see now we managed to list the conservation status (vulnerable) for the subspecies peregusna, rather than the species peregusna (least concern). I noticed the discrepancy that LC was added to the info-box in contradiction to the text of the article, and I have now added to the infobox a hotlink to the textual notes. MaxEnt (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC) --67.5.0.220 (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Brenden G.

Inclusion of Jordan

I also noted in the edit history that Jordan was added to the long list of countries in the species range that was extremely well cited in the original version. However, it is unclear that any of the citations previously given included Jordan, as the list was intended to be fairly comprehensive of the countries named by those citations, or so I thought. I'm going to make a pedantic edit to distinguish Jordan from the previously cited list. If someone wishes to attest that any one of those citations support Jordan, feel free to change it back. MaxEnt (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The mammalian species account does not include Jordan, nor does a mashup source that claims to echo the Red Book.

Country Distribution: Vormela peregusna is found in the following countries:

Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, China, Georgia, Greece, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of, Mongolia, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

(IUCN Red List).

The Mongolian Red List does not include Jordan, either.

ISSN:
1751-0031
Citation:
Clark, E. L., Munkhbat, J., Dulamtseren, S., Baillie, J. E. M., Batsaikhan, N.,
Samiya, R. and Stubbe, M. (compilers and editors) (2006). Mongolian Red List
of Mammals. Regional Red List Series Vol. 1. Zoological Society of London,
London. (In English and Mongolian)

Global distribution: Serbia and Montenegro, Greece, Romania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Turkey, Russian Federation, Lebanon, Israel, Syrian Arab Republic, Georgia, Iraq, Armenia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Mongolia. Regional distribution: Steppe and occasionally desert and semi-desert habitats in Dzungarian Govi Desert, Great Lakes Depression, Valley of the Lakes, Trans Altai Govi Desert, Northern Govi, Eastern Govi and Alashan’ Govi Desert (Bannikov, 1954; Dulamtseren, 1970, Sokolov and Orlov, 1980; Chotolchu et al., 1989; Dulamtseren et al., 1999).

I did find an indirect indication that it must exist in Jordan, because its population was studied there. From Zoology in the Middle East

Volume 17, 1999: Rifai, L. B., D. M. Al-Shafee, W. N. Al-Melhim & Z. S. Amr: Status of the Marbled Polecat, Vormela peregusna (Gülden­staedt, 1770), in Jordan

Turns out this source was already in the list of references supplied at the end of countries of origin statement, so the whole exercise was circular. MaxEnt (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wormlein

I see this is now tagged as [citation needed] and surprisingly, Google does not provide anything which is not circular back to this article on Wikipedia. First added by Wgors, who originally supplied the thick sheaf of refs, so it is probably true. We'll try to dig up the cite. MaxEnt (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Google scholar locates WA Gorsuch, S Larivière, M Polecat - Mammalian Species - bioone.org with an excerpt of the text on the search results page which confirms that this statement about Wormlein is present in the Mammalian Species account, but page itself is coin-operated and can only be viewed from participating institutions. I'm becoming increasingly cranky about Google retreiving useful excerpts under links to locked doors, but what can you do? MaxEnt (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wormlein is German, not some form of (Common) Germanic.Rex (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed back to German, as it was originally. MaxEnt (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Still no source for the etymology is provided.Rex (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Marbled polecat/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==About the initial B rating== This was actually a good rating, as only 4 of 73 mustelid articles were given this rating at the outset. User:Warlordjohncarter did an enormous amount of work very quickly to provide these initial classifications. I've requested specific comments on further improvements at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Mustelids work group because I feel this article could reach GA status without too much additional work, and could perhaps serve as a template for other lesser-known yet important mustelids to emulate. MaxEnt (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I reviewed the other three B class articles, one of which concerns a fictional mustelid. Obviously, this article is not going to achieve the breadth of the more general articles such as ferret. Then I reviewd this article and I see a couple of issues myself: excessive use of external links inline, not hard to fix a fair amount of technical vocabulary that could perhaps be written more accessibly a citation-heavy writing style, but I'm not sure this detracts from a more specialized article such as this one little account of human relations with v.p. supposing there is much of anything to relate the sub-species and conservation treatment could be standardized, given a standard to comform to MaxEnt (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 23:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Article References are Screwed Up

Hi. Has anyone noticed how screwed up the article references are? There are 56 references according to the article and yet only 19 of them are displayed. Some are actually written into the Reference Section but that only accounts for a handful of them. There are more than 35 references that do not appear as references in the Reference Section display. How does that happen? I cannot even imagine how that can be done, in pursuit of trying to determine what the actual problem is. Will anyone else take a look at the Reference Section to try to discern the disparity between the 56 references and the 19 displayed ones? Thanks... Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• NOTE: Apparently, we need to restore the references that were embedded directly in the Reference Section (by someone obviously well-intentioned but misguided in their efforts) into their appropriate place in the rest of the article. I believe it entails putting the "key" references into the article and the rest of it may flow appropriately, but I don't know how to set those up properly, as I use the long method when I build references in articles. But I have now changed the Reference Section so it displays the first 4 references that were done properly, followed by the last 19 references that were added directly to the Reference Section, which need to be added directly to the article by someone who knows the syntax and how to set up what I refer above to "key" references. After those are put in, many of the other - now unseen - references should be visually enumerated... Please help... Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I can fix this, when I find some time. On extremely hasty inspection, this problem seemingly dates back to the original work in 2006 when I was still pretty green on Wikipedia, and my friend with the fat polecat species account bibliography knew nothing whatsoever about Wikipedia markup. I was happy to see the present version. All things considered, this article has aged well. — MaxEnt 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

infobox image

Would be be better off with File:Tigeriltis.jpg? Its of a significantly higher resolution.©Geni (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)