Jump to content

Talk:Canada lynx

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BattyBot (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 19 February 2016 (→top: talk page general fixes & other cleanup per WP:TPL using AWB (11894)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Name

Please revert back to "Canada Lynx," the correct name. "Canadian Lynx" is incorrect and makes the article look unprofessional.

I changed all occurences of "Canadian Lynx" to the correct "Canada Lynx." Can anyone please correct the article title and links, which still read "Canadian."

IUCN, most trained experts, and that paper encyclopedia call this cat the Canada lynx. Note that Canada is capitalized and lynx is not. Yea, "Canada" doesn't sound as elegant, but it is this lynx's name. Please conform this article to this standard. RastaKins 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed., is the foremost authority on species names, and they say Canadian Lynx. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History's Mammals Species of the World. It lists lynx canadensis' common name as Canada Lynx. Isn't this list derived from the book you cite? [1] RastaKins 20:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the website is still using the 2nd edition's information, from 1993. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what Beyazid said is true. there is no "official" standard as there is with WP:BIRD (as there is no WP:Mammal). it is simply by convention that mammal articles follow it. besides, c'mon -- it takes mere seconds to revert such relatively simple "large scale" changes as capitalization. this was a good-faith edit based on sound reasoning that just happens to conflict with the unwritten standard for a Mammal page. new editors should be bold! right? shouldn't this 'rule' be put into print somewhere? it's just an edit-war waiting to happen, imo. - Metanoid (talk, email) 19:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no argument with Beyazid's inital action, wrong as it was. And I reverted with an appropriate edit summary. Beyazid's continued reverts, however, after learning there is conflict on this matter are a different story. There has been shown to be no consensus to make all cat or any other subsection of the mammal articles to conform either way, and so no changes should be made in this regard until the community has come to a decision. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And why was my initial action "wrong"? You claim that "no changes should be made" without community decision. Two points: Already have community decision, it's called WP:MOS. Secondly, do as you say but not as you do, huh? Super. Beyazid (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone new to this dispute, it is spread over a large number of articles affected by the same problem. A newer discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals#Capitalization re-visited, where I recommend all further discussion is made. Thanks! BigBlueFish (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Lynx is wrong. It should be Canada Lynx. Bush league. Muckapedia 08:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Negative. See MSW3. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, assuming I’m not a zoologist, why is bucknell a more authoritative source than the Smithsonian? This ongoing thread proves at least that the alternate name is widespread enough to merit inclusion. (ie: it is not an error, it is a different name, like wolverine v. carcajou or elk v. wapati).— Muckapedia07:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Globalise

I don’t understand the relevance of the link you have supplied. It seemed to focus on Capitalisation and nominating the MSW3 as an authority on Animal names. I am not debating the validity of Canadian Lynx as a label — I am sure that in the American dialect of English Canadian Lynx is valid, perhaps even the most common name. But, because 1) the animal is eponymously associated with Canada, and 2) more widespread in Canada than it is in the United States, the article should seek to reflect the local English (ie: Canadian English) usage (vis MOS:TIES and Wikipedia:English) which is unquestionably Canada Lynx, as evidenced by Government of Canada, Canadian Geographic, The CBC, and the Toronto Zoo. — Muckapedia07:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The MSW3 site explicitly states “this currently existing online list was compiled under the auspices of the American Society of Mammalogists”. The American Society of Mammologists sets out in its style guide the provision that American English be used exclusively. This directly contravenes Wikipedia style, and with specific regard to this dispute, compromises the applicability of the source. For a reference reflecting local usage, see the equivalent Canadian organisation, the Canadian Zoological Society, where on page 48 of this document the attested “Canada Lynx” may be found. — Muckapedia 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible references to enhance this article

I'll see what else I can come up with.--MONGO 15:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual aid (graph) for the population variation

I can't make it myself, but after reading the explanation of the fluctuating population, I think a graph would be useful, since the fluctuation seems to follow an interesting pattern. Anchoress 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered in the United States?

I believe they are considered an endangered species in the US. Some states have re-introduced them, I think, Colorado? There was a big stink where people tried to ban foothold traps in some NE states because they feared that lynx migrating down from Canada might be killed in foothold traps (an erroneous belief as footholds don't injure the cat's foot, and a trapper can just simply release a lynx.) Well, the point being, they might be of "least concern" in Canada, but not in the U.S. Tsarevna (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Least Concern status is "global" for the entire species, set by the IUCN. The US FWS lists them as "Threatened" in the US. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of 3/14/2003, the Associated Press reported that four wildlife public interest groups sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for having delayed implementing a recovery plan for the Canada Lynx for 13 years since its designation as endangered in the contiguous United States. That same report stated that only a few hundred of these animals remain in the continguous United States, which directly contradicts certain of the statements currently appearing in this article with regard to the population levels for the Canada Lynx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.109.84.5 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which "certain of the statements currently appearing in this article" are you referring to? I don't see a contradiction: this article does not include population numbers, but data from a reliable source could be a useful addition. Do you have a link to the report that was referenced in the AP news article? 108.127.160.149 (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle of abundance section needs fleshing out

Leaving this note here for comments as well as to remind myself to come back and take a whack at it. The paper cited in the cycle of abundance section actually says that the Hudson Bay Company records may not accurately reflect shifts in population but a more complex interrelation between trappers, predators, and prey: ie. in years when the spp. trappers caught to feed themselves were less abundant the trappers were unable to spend as much time setting lynx traps and hence caught fewer lynx. AP (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add: the paper is from '76 and I've read similar reports of their predator-prey cycle with hare elsewhere so there are likely better sources to be had, which is why I'm leaving it until I have more time to investigate. AP (talk)

Vandal revert

Deep breath ... not a vandal, my edit from feb 5 was good faith. Was just about to add the citation when you reverted. Check my edit history. I deserve a barnstar for not including profanity in this post. — Muckapedia (talk) 5e fév. 2014 22h35 (−4h)

No vandalism was mentioned. I checked on the term and it does not merit being in the lede. It is an archaic or local term and probably should be applied to bobcats not lynxes. I suggest if you want to include it to add it to another part of the article as an anecdote. Not all names for an animal need to be included especially if they are very local names. Dger (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or have not been used as a common name for decades.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link: Reference 14

The link for reference 14 is a dead link. It should be: http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/assets/docs/yir2003.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hifear267 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting this. I think I have fixed it with this edit. You are welcome to make such fixes yourself on unprotected articles like this one. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_lynx&oldid=705823415"