Talk:North American beaver

message: This photo is okay, but it doesn't give us a full view of the animal.  It would be nice to have a pic that shows the animal's distinctive tail.
the photo on the article has no copyright tag.LadyofHats 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: The name North American Beaver is perfectly ok, but it has been shortened to "American Beaver" (As in the USA's beaver). Canada is the country where most of them live, and the Canadian Beaver is an icon of the country. You will never see a cartoon beaver draped in the stars and stripes, but always in the red and white Canadian flag. 
The title of this article is a slap across the face of all Canadians. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to change it without disruption in Wikipedia. 
68.145.210.24 18:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't interpret "American" as being equatable to "US" in this context. In taxonomy, "America," "American," and "Americus" often seem to distinguish species of the American continents, or North American continent, from similar species on other continents. In the US and Canada, colloquially we just call them beavers. "American" or "Canadian" beaver seems important only when distinguishing them from the European beaver, or speaking more formally or scientifically. Determining which is really the most common formal name is subjective. While there may be more beavers in Canada, there are more humans in the US. *shrug*. -Agyle 09:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   "American" Beaver 

message: Aren't American Beaver also native to Finland?
: They're an alian species common in Finland and Russia, and are sparsely found in some other European countries. , Table 1.  --Interiot 16:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finland 

message: Regarding whether the common name of this species is Canadian, American or North American Beaver,   implies one species Castor canadensis is called both Canadian and North American, but there are 24 subspecies.   has more detailed info and shows the regional distribution across the continent of castor c. Most scientific papers on google seem to imply its North American Beaver and that would be more accurate, sorry as I am to deprive Canada of a national symbol.  But I'm not certain, I guess this is why we use scientific rather than common names. Even among flowers and trees the same species can have several common names that are perfectly valid. The Mountain Beaver for instance is neither beaver nor lives in mountains Mhicaoidh 03:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Names

message: Just wanted to point this out in case anyone is wondering. An anon IP added this external link, and it was properly (I think) removed:
*GLOBIO's Glossopedia; American Beaver-childrens science and nature encyclopedia
It contains useful info not found here, but WP:EL says to avoid linking to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." -Agyle 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for external link removal 

message: move to American Beaver. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose, sometimes people have to be bold to get things done. GreenJoe 13:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, besides "ILIKEIT", do you also have a legitimate argument? --Old Hoss (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
I propose we rename the article Castor canadensis, and create redirects at North American Beaver, Canadian Beaver, American Beaver etc. Mindmatrix 14:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It is a reasonable compromise, but an unnecessary one. Other than the editor who moved the article and the opposing editor above, who are both Canadians, the consensus was to adhere to the recognized common name, American beaver. --Old Hoss (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. I am endorsing Mindmatrix proposal to rename the article Castor canadensis. This is a reasonable compromise, and will cut all the POV crap with whole "american", or "canadian" thing. nat.utoronto 16:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see how the recognized common name is POV, that seems to be a non-sequitor Wikipedia argument meant for an individual editor's assertions, not applicable to reliable outside sources. POV cannot be applied to scientific journals; unless you are claiming that quoting those sources is POV. Respectfully, in this situation, POV seems to be a cop out argument to avoid the real debate. ;) --Old Hoss (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should move the page to the latin name. That should eliminate the problem. Well, not really, but maybe it will be less of an issue. Kaldari (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree. We do not do this for mammals. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested reversal of undiscussed move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose, sometimes people have to be bold to get things done. GreenJoe 13:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, besides "ILIKEIT", do you also have a legitimate argument? --Old Hoss (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
I propose we rename the article Castor canadensis, and create redirects at North American Beaver, Canadian Beaver, American Beaver etc. Mindmatrix 14:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a reasonable compromise, but an unnecessary one. Other than the editor who moved the article and the opposing editor above, who are both Canadians, the consensus was to adhere to the recognized common name, American beaver. --Old Hoss (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. I am endorsing Mindmatrix proposal to rename the article Castor canadensis. This is a reasonable compromise, and will cut all the POV crap with whole "american", or "canadian" thing. nat.utoronto 16:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see how the recognized common name is POV, that seems to be a non-sequitor Wikipedia argument meant for an individual editor's assertions, not applicable to reliable outside sources. POV cannot be applied to scientific journals; unless you are claiming that quoting those sources is POV. Respectfully, in this situation, POV seems to be a cop out argument to avoid the real debate. ;) --Old Hoss (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should move the page to the latin name. That should eliminate the problem. Well, not really, but maybe it will be less of an issue. Kaldari (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree. We do not do this for mammals. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The article says the American beaver is smaller than the European beaver, but American's average size is 20 kg while the European average is 18 kg, and the American ones can weigh "up to 45 kg" but the largest European wieghed 31.7 kg.  I think there's a mistake somewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.191.176 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: The article doesn't say.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.37.174 (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do they eat? 

message: extirpation roughly means 'to the brink of regional or total extinction as a result of being hunted due to undesirability'. these animals were not extirpated. they were just hunted to the point of regional extinction as a result of their desirable fur. there aren't many instances where extirpation would be the right word. maybe in a large city or conserved forest... but not when they were killed BECAUSE of their desirability. i find there is too much (mis)use of this specific word in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.93.246.16 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Usage examples which confirm the general meaning (i.e. synonymous with locally extinct) are easy to find with Google, but I see no evidence that the cause of extinction does or doesn't matter (nor any other precise definition of the term for that matter).  You'll need to find a source that backs you up and use it to correct locally extinct. --Jesdisciple (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I did find this, but it is not targeted to ecology and no other definitions allude to motive.  The second definition here looked promising, but it is user-submitted. Usage examples in the more general ecological sense abound here.  The ecological community seems to generally understand that the motive behind extinction is irrelevent to the definition, yet no one has documented this de facto standard. --Jesdisciple (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's up with extirpation being misused over and over and over 

message: I don't know where to ADD a new edit request, but there are several locations that the term "breech" is used where "breach" is meant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.158.194 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You should add it to the end of the Duscussion. There is usually a tab for a "new section".  If not start the addition with a title between double equal signs on a new line (i.e., ==title==). I fixed the spelling error. Don't forget to sign your additions with four tildes (~~~~) Dger (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Breech vs. breach

message: There has been some recent back and forth about the spelling of "behaviour". Per WP:ENGVAR, there is a method to decide this. Since beavers occur in both Canada and the United States, "strong national ties to a topic" isn't useful. The second revision of the article, by the article creator, introduced the word "behaviour", so "retaining the existing variety" seems to be the best guide.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Curtis Clark. The Manual of Style is clear on this point and "behaviour" should be retained. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be quite an annoying point but the reversion to Canadian English seems appropriate here. It might be a nice feature for Wikipedia to have a tag that indicates the original English variation that is used. It is difficult for editors to have to go back and find out which one (UK/Canada/US etc.) is the default.  DGERobertson 18:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; this should be in Canadian English. There indeed doesn't seem to be a template to indicate that, though we do have . Ucucha 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that in order to achieve consistency within articles that the Canadian spelling rules must be applied to all words and just not to behaviour.  For example, seems like colour might be appropriate as well as perhaps metric units if they are spelled out.  I would also suggest inserting an editor’s note in a strategic location within the article explaining this judgment as an aid to future editing.  Pinethicket (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the spelling changes as suggested above. The problem of metric names is eliminated when abbreviations are used. They are the same in all English varities with a few exceptions. DGERobertson (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engvar 

message: I think the statement that appears in the section "Urban Beavers" that states "In Birmingham, Alabama in 2008, approximately 12,000 [81] endangered watercress darters were killed when workers from the city removed a beaver dam at Roebuck Springs, emptying one of only four ponds where the colourful fish is found. The beaver pond was emptied because it often flooded a nearby tennis court. The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources is suing the City of Birmingham for destroying an endangered species and their wetland habitat" should be removed.  If not the paragraph, then most certainly the picture.  Although well sourced, it does not seem to be a relevant enough event to be mentioned in this article. If it does it should be in a different section, however I think it needs to be removed entirely.  Any thoughts?  Mikist4 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about removing information 

message: This is a well researched article but seems to have a bias toward recent studies out west, and a lot of what I've discovered while watching beavers in northern New York for 17 years is missing. That said, a 1988 study of beavers in Alberta is one that describes what I frequently see: dams breeched by otters in the winter and not repaired by beavers until after the spring run-off if then. Perhaps, rather than always spreading the good news about beavers, the article could take a more common sense approach. Beavers are made to appear so remarkably beneficial in this article, I am tempted to point out that beavers are only human. Bob Arnebeck, New York  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnebeck (talk • contribs) 03:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias toward beavers in the west 

message: Hi, right now the taxobox lists C. c. pacificus Rhoads 1892 and C. c. leucodontus Gray, 1869 as two distinct subspecies. However, Jenkins & Busher 1979 (ref in article) writes that they're synonyms, as does Hall 1981 [cited in ]. Is there a source that claims they *aren't* synonyms? Umimmak (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subspecies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on North American beaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614040715/http://bnhm.berkeley.edu/browse/vertebrates_Mammalia_Rodentia_Castoridae_Castor_all.php?ViewResults=vertebrates_Mammalia_Rodentia_Castoridae_Castor_all to http://bnhm.berkeley.edu/browse/vertebrates_Mammalia_Rodentia_Castoridae_Castor_all.php?ViewResults=vertebrates_Mammalia_Rodentia_Castoridae_Castor_all
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304035814/http://www.landscouncil.org/documents/Beaver_Project/Articles/Naiman_et_al_1988_alter_n_american_streams_by_beaver.pdf to http://www.landscouncil.org/documents/Beaver_Project/Articles/Naiman_et_al_1988_alter_n_american_streams_by_beaver.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://wildlife.state.co.us/Education/TeacherResources/ColoradoWildlifeCompany/CWCSum91Beavers.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513004457/http://landscouncil.org/documents/Beaver_Project/Hood_Bayley.pdf to http://landscouncil.org/documents/Beaver_Project/Hood_Bayley.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.beaversinengland.com/downloads/ReintroducingtheEuropeanBeaverinBritain.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707103342/http://www.albergstein.com/cao/Best%20Available%20Science/Fish/Beaver%20dam%20effects%20paper%20final.pdf to http://www.albergstein.com/cao/Best%20Available%20Science/Fish/Beaver%20dam%20effects%20paper%20final.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on North American beaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726061601/http://americanbear.org/faq.htm to http://www.americanbear.org/faq.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925014013/http://www.ktvz.com/news/29230615/detail.html to http://www.ktvz.com/news/29230615/detail.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929091158/http://www.fobr.org/article-meadows_mist.html to http://www.fobr.org/article-meadows_mist.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224090313/http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_nws/NWSci%20journal%20articles/1992%20files/Issue%204/v66%20p218%20Leidholt-Bruner%20et%20al.PDF to http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_nws/NWSci%20journal%20articles/1992%20files/Issue%204/v66%20p218%20Leidholt-Bruner%20et%20al.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090704200432/http://www.landscouncil.org/beaversolution/what_can_beavers_do.asp to http://www.landscouncil.org/beaversolution/what_can_beavers_do.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821173132/http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/travelleisure/article/1324978 to http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/travelleisure/article/1324978
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Is the range of the North American beaver shown in the map and article text accurate? I can only find sources for Castor canadiensis in part of Finland, rather than the wide area shown. Rauisuchian (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castor canadiensis - range in Europe? 

message: This article mentions that beavers piled mud and sticks on a tape  recording of running water sounds on dry land.  I have the cited article (Richard 1983) open in front of me.  It makes no mention of this experiment.  Is there a real experiment than someone can cite?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmccabe (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I learned that this was work in the 1960s by Wilsson in Sweden and therefore not the North American Species.  Wilsson's work is cited by Richards but there's still no mention of the recording in the Richards paper.Dmccabe (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be removed? Or maybe reduced to a smaller statement since it is a different species of beaver? Rauisuchian (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to water sound recording 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North Ameican Beaver. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Regards, SONIC678 17:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "North Ameican Beaver" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The article looks to be quite thoroughly sourced. If there are unsupported statements, mark them with citation needed templates. But as a whole I think the citations for verification flag can be removed. Rauisuchian (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Citations for verification template still needed? 

message: In the diet section, the article currently states about water lilies: "The rhizomes are stored in the food cache and remain actively growing." The linked reference says: "Its edible rhizomes remain succulent after cutting and are often stored in a food cache for winter use." I did not read the whole referenced article, but I don't see evidence supporting this claim of continued growth in the cache. Should this sentence be changed/removed, or am I missing something? — Epastore (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhizome storage