This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greenland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Greenland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.GreenlandWikipedia:WikiProject GreenlandTemplate:WikiProject GreenlandGreenland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic 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.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
The article states that "unlike brown bears, polar bears are not territorial". I don't think this is a valid comparison, since as far as I know brown bears aren't territorial in the classic sense of the term either, and only engage in conflicts when certain resources are directly threatened by others of their kind. This is also supported by the Wikipedia article about the species. TheBlackCaiman (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that Polar bear range map is partly wrong regarding its message that there are polar bears on Greenland's inland ice, see c:File talk:Polar bear range map.png. Unfortunately, both editors involved seem to be inactive since 2018 and 2020 respectively. Is anybody able to modify the map? --Kuhni74 (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
may I resume my question? --Kuhni74 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polar bears are listed as “vulnerable” on this page, but the source for that came out in 2015 (8-9 years ago). Obviously this information can’t be updated without any new data, but we should look for more recent sources on the polar bear’s conservation status. LordOfWalruses (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It states in Characteristics that polar bears are dichromats and lack the cones for green. This was changed sometime since last August, but I haven’t figured out the revision history interface to figure out when.
Mammalian dichromats have cones sensitive to more-or-less blue and more-or-less green, but lack cones sensitive to more-or-less red. If polar bears lacked green-sensitive cones, they would be monochromats, so this is likely vandalism.
The previous text mentioned blue-violet and yellow-green, but lacking a reference, I think it is best simply to specify that they are dichromats, which is linked. Applying human color terms to peak sensitivities in nanometers is somewhat subjective, and unless the specific peaks for polar bears, or at least for Ursidae, have been measured, it’s less than useful.
I’d fix it, but I haven’t done much editing in many years, and I don’t want to just jump into a semi-protected article, especially when the bulk of recent edits have been by a small group of editors. Curtis Clark (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that polar bears have L (for yellow but I think this is an error, it should be red) and S cone cells (for blue-violet) and that "humans have an additional cone in the middle that is most sensitive to green, giving us trichromatic vision". LittleJerry (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this reference by Peichl. It states that polar bears have L- and S-cones. They don't have M-cones. This seems to be a feature of semi-aquatic mammals including river otters and pygmy hippotamuses. Axl¤[Talk] 18:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Axl Can some L cones be suited more for yellow light then red? LittleJerry (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure. I found this reference. I shall keep looking. Axl¤[Talk] 00:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is already an FA. It doesn't need student editors which often do them no good. Try less developed articles please. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second this. We have literally hundreds of thousands of underdeveloped taxon articles that could use some love and would be improved tremendously by a student editor. This in't one of those. I understand that new editors like trying to improve high-traffic articles, but I'd recommend others like warthog, stork, or pangolin as examples of articles that do need some work. AryKun (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pangolin is an irredeemable mess until the scope is narrowed to the only extant family Manidae, same issue for the hyrax page and the Procaviidae family. Maybe it'd be of interest to make move requests someday? PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent replacement and would be much more suitable for a student editor to work on. AryKun (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've complained about this in the past too, with no one listening; there is no need for these assignments to include featured articles, which they can barely improve, but instead often make worse. A general complaint about this should probably be raised in a more central venue where it can be seen by all. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the Dashboard emails students when they assign an FA or GA and ask them to pick a less well-developed article. Sage is working on tool to prevent this at the point where the students assign themselves articles (see this post) which hopefully will be active before too long. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
