Talk:List of mammals of Connecticut

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Connecticut B‑class Mid‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trivial?[edit]

In relation to this edit—the added text introduced a mention of a color variant of the eastern gray squirrel occurring in one Connecticut town, and of black bears occurring in another. I stand by my assessment that both are trivial—there is no reason for this article to cover every local variation of a variable species, or every record of a not-too-uncommon animal. Ucucha 17:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment is contrary to longstanding content elsewhere on the page, which I started with my old user name, Noroton. Look at the sections on Moose and deer. From the start, some information on variations of various sorts has been part of the article in order to better describe the existence of various species in the state. It is not trivial, for instance, that Fairfield County may (or may not) have the highest concentrations of deer, that moose have caused traffic accidents and deaths, or that the extent of the territory where black bears can be found extends as far south and west as Greenwich. It is not trivial that Stratford has white squirrels -- it's a nontrivial fact about the subject of eastern gray squirrels in Connecticut. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pieces about the two deer are also too much for a general list of this nature—this ought to be a list of mammal species in Connecticut, not a list of individual moose seen in Connecticut. I think the Fairfield County example is also different, in that it is not anecdotal—it explicitly compares the county to the rest of the state. Ucucha 17:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid snarky comments on this talk page and in edit summaries. What are you talking about when you say "two deer"? You haven't addressed my points about the usefulness of knowing the extent of black bears as far south and west as Greenwich, and it simply is the case that longstanding spotting of white squirrels in Stratford indicates an ongoing population of them in that town. I agree that information in the article about particular places or events should have some purpose in illustrating something worth knowing about some species. Anecdotes can be good illustrations or examples or otherwise reveal some fact worth knowing. If a wolf were found on New Haven Green or in Hartford's downtown Bushnell Park, for instance, that would tell us something worth knowing about wolves in the state. I think the article should be chock-full of that kind of worthwhile information. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've been snarky; if you think I was, it was not my intention, and I'm sorry for it.

"Two deer" refers to the two species of deer in Connecticut, the moose and the white-tailed deer. I don't disagree that it is useful to give some of those records, but I think you're going into too much detail; I think it would be enough to say "[bears have expanded from their core habitat in the state's northwestern hills], with records as far southwest as Greenwich as of 2010". As for the squirrels, color variants of the eastern gray are not uncommon as far as I'm aware, and I still don't see their relevance. Ucucha 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link to white squirrel. Ongoing populations of them are so uncommon that some towns have established festivals around them. If someone sees (or has read about or is curious about) a white squirrel in Connecticut, the passage about them would be useful and encyclopedic. I don't have a problem with rewriting the sentence about Greenwich as you suggest, but I'd add " where sightings had been reported each year for the past several years." because that reinforces the point that the bear was not just passing through, the way, for instance, that the moose appear to have passed through towns in Fairfield County at some points. I would certainly want to include what numbers we have on the growing population of bears over time. In the United States, moose are not commonly called deer. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the piece about the bear. I'm not fully convinced about the squirrel, but I see your point and I'll stop arguing about it.

For the moose, would it perhaps be better to continue in the vein of the sentence that's already there—"From 1995 to 2006, there was an average of one collision a year of a moose and an automobile across the state, but in the first half of 2007, there were four."—with more recent statistics, and than mention some of the southernmost or otherwise unusual places where they have turned up. Ucucha 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your bear edit was fine (I tweaked it slightly). I rewrote the Moose section, removing anecdotal information except when it clearly illustrated the general points. [1] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, there seems to be no content on black squirrels, which also exist in Stratford, Connecticut in Roosevelt Forest and on the Shakespeare Theatre grounds. Markvs88 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture sizes[edit]

The photos on this page really shouldn't be hard-coded to size. My picture preference is 300 px, but I'm seeing tiny thumbs here. MeegsC | Talk 00:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]