Talk:Mink

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This wikiproject is for the superfamily of Musteloidea which currently and surprisingly does not have an article yet. This superfamily includes ferrets and weasels and all of our other furry little weasel like friends. Please put your name on it so this article could have it's very own wikiproject outside of wikiproject animals.

Teh Ferret 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims the European mink is endangered. How can this be? In Scandinavia the mink is concidered a pest and there is open hunting on them all year around. Where is the source for this statement? --J-Star 08:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it isn't the American mink? (escapes)Mweites (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can a mink climb trees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.57.144 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editor keeps reverting referenced text with his own unreferenced, incorrect text without offering any explanation for the changes. I have contacted the user on his talk page. I will revert this page unless consensus demands that the existing version stay. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't kill any more mink. Wait until they're overpopulating. Dirty Dan

Dirty Dan, are you just ignorant or do you work for PETA? Some real information might help you (and them). Wild American mink in its natural state, is worthless. It's coat (color-wise) is uneven, it's size varies to great to be bundled and their numbers are commercially unviable. Mink raised on farms however, are uniform in color, in size, their farming is ecological and they can be as plentiful as the farmer dictates.

Why is there a mink page when there is already a page for the American Mink, Sea Mink, and European Mink? This page entitled “mink” is far inferior to any of the other pages, and the way it stands now doesn't really say anything. I don't see what the point is in having two separate pages on the same topic competing with each other. I tried to make this a general page that refers people to the pages that speak specifically, and in much more detail, about the different types of mink, but people keep erasing what I write and try to write more information on the American Mink. If you want to write on the American Mink go to the American Mink page and post stuff there. I don't under stand why this page even needs to exist unless it briefly describes the differences in the different mink species, then refers the reader to the different pages on each specific mink species. That's my opinion, if you want two competing pages on the same topic in Wikipedia, then fine, keep writing stuff about the American Mink on this page and confuse people. That's just my opinion, I'm not mad, and I'm not trying to accuse any one of any thing, I'm just stating my opinion. I mean no offense to any one, and I hope no one's mad at me.

Sincerely, Joseph David Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph David Carter (talk • contribs) 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joseph - thanks for replying on this page. What you say makes sense. You clearly know more about mink than I do. My problem was just that you were reverting existing information without supplying a reference for doing so - which is a Wiki no-no. I also left you a couple of messages about this on your talk page, if you haven't seen that. You can always reply to those by clicking the talk link by my name. It would be great if you could work on these various mink pages so that they make more sense, but if you change something like "there are 3 species of mink" to "there are two species of mink" you should supply a reference to support your change. This article is pretty thin on references, too, so any that you can supply would be helpful. You can click the Help link in the left side Interaction nav box to see how references should be used, if you haven't done this. Sorry, I'm not expert on that either. If you make drastic changes in an article (remove referenced material or insert material which contradicts existing or removed content) you'll almost always need a ref. Also, it's always a good idea if you make major changes to add a note to the discussion page explaining why you made the changes so other editors know that there was a reason. My apologies if I seemed heavy handed, but I was trying to get your attention with edit summaries and notes on your page.Bob98133 (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I feel should be done with this page, since the way it currently stands, this page is redundant. Since Wikipedia already has a page for each species of mink (American, European, and

nk, they can get to this page and learn that there are two different living and one extinct species of mustelids commonly called mink. If that person then wants detailed information on any one of the mink species, they can then click on the link that leads them to the correct Wikipedia page on the different individual mink species. Any one wanting to post general information on any one of the mink species, can then simply go to the individual pages on the specific mink species and post that information there. I would be more than happy to construct this page as I have just described, but I need every one else's approval and cooperation first. Otherwise my efforts will be useless, and we will all be working against each other. So what is everyone else's opinions on my proposition for this page? Are you for or against my proposition?

Joseph David Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph David Carter (talk • contribs) 02:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has commented on my proposition, I'm going to go ahead and change this page as I have proposed. The information currently on this page which should be on the American Mink page, I have transferred to that page, so I didn't erase it, I just moved it to its proper place. Any additions to this page from here on out, should discuss the differences between the different mink species, as that is now the sole purpose of this page. Any one who wants to add information on the habits of mink should go to the proper page that discusses the individual mink species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph David Carter (talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has taken it upon themselves to create a number of sections that describe the attributes of 'mink', mostly based on the features and behaviour of american mink. There is already a very detailed page for that species, and likewise for European mink. The aditional information on this page is not only superfluous but also vauge and of poor quality. In keeping with the above proposal I have deleted the extra sections and have left the section that describes the existence of different mink species in a general manner and the section that links to the detailed pages on each species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbuck ram (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar vandalism on the mink page, I switched it back to the last good version. Don't know if vandalism will persist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.210.168 (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the distribution section should be increased. As of this edit it seems to only be referencing the mink in the United Kingdom areas. BossMafia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Article doesn't cover where the fur comes from, how it's prepared, and how male & female mink interact. I saw an interesting assertion of common knowledge: "Since sexual relations between minks is so brutal as to render female pelts not usable for fur..." yet no coverage of it. The article is incomplete. --Gwern (contribs) 21:33 10 December 2009 (GMT)

Hi, I made a small change,hope you will accept... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.6.126 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Living species of what? Animal? Plant? Chordate? Arthropod? Protozoon? Silicon-based lifeform? Not very encyclopedic to start the article with writing like that.

71.173.11.145 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'two living species referred to as "mink"'. Dger (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the size/length of a mink? 1 foot/30 centimeters , 2 feet/75 centimeters?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is horrible. There's more information about the cockroach, than there is here.Dcrasno (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's more information about the cockroach here than there is about minkDcrasno (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You could help fill in the gaps, which is how things get done around here. Wikipedia is and always will be a work in progress. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this page just redirect to (or be merged with) Mustelinae? Another option is to make it just a disambiguation page between American mink and European mink.

The introduction to the article states that the name Mink applies to some members of Mustelinae only. As a common name, non-cladistic clasification (two genera in a subfamily) I think it would fit well as a section of the broader article (it, in turn, has links to the other two. Besides, it would solve the complaints by (seemingly) several users about poor quality.

I'm adding a merge template.Cato censor (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging an article on two well-known species into essentially a list of species makes no sense. Dger (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are in favor of the disambiguation or some other option? I'm convinced there is no good reason to have one article about two species having in common a word in their name, provided they are two separate genera (with their own, extensive articles BTW) and they directly belong to a subfamily including more genera. Isn't it like having separate articles for Wolf, Red wolf and Gray wolf? (in the later case, Wolf redirects to Gray Wolf, being by far the most common of them, and Gray Wolf, in turn, has a link to a disambiguation page). Cato censor (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this helps, but there is an article called Dog, but a seperate article on many of the breeds. Some of these are further divisible, such as Collie. I have been working recently on Rodents and it is extremely difficult to write a General article without covering some of the text in the infant articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the point, I think. In the case of dogs AND rodents, both are broadly recognized biological categories, which is not the case with mink and wolf where it seems to be a rather customary name match: why include these two while excluding other species that are related to the same degree? Cato censor (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per WP:CONSENT. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mink&diff=667180317&oldid=666957730 is a concern. user:Mcgiwer looks like a copy and paste from http://floridiannature.com/evergladesmink.htm. Please paraphrase. --Lucas559 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In Mink#Working, regrettably, the references are advertisory (but I have no connection with the advertizers). We await a neutral (newspaper or book) report on the subject. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for the "Minkenry" paragraph is just some guy's wordpress blog. Why is that worth putting in the encyclopedia? Furthermore it's not well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.189.174 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I just removed it I am sure someone will come along and revert that because everyone seems to gatekeep everything, but whatever I tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.189.174 (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Move Neogale macrodon to below Mustela lutreola (extant species above extinct) 149.119.162.157 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be evidence of people using American mink to hunt for vermin, such as rats, mice, muskrat. This seems to be largely in its infancy, but examples do exist, such as Joseph Carter the Mink Man, who may also have coined the word minkenry, though I might be wrong. Carter has his own merch site dedicated to the activity. Here's an article about him in Modern Farmer. Here's also a tiktok video of a "trained" mink killing a frog. Thoughtnmemory (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 10 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eliseleroi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: KayleeT1127, Elijah Whalen.

— Assignment last updated by Cahof (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]