Talk:European mole

This article is rated Start-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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Dutch WP has good information on this that could be used to expand this article: nl:Mol (dier) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wouterstomp (talk • contribs) 06:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the use of both 12 centimeters and 5 inches as measurements in the description as it is phrased. Even though we're working with approximate measurements, and both values may be quite valid standard measurements of these moles, the phrasing implies a conversion. MOS:CONVERSIONS would seem to provide that 4.7 inches, as produced by the {{convert}} template, would be a better conversion, as equating 12 centimeters to 5 inches would represent a significant distortion. 5 inches is much closer to 13 centimeters, after all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that if you like. I plan to expand this article considerably when I can get around to it, and add detailed measurements (using fractions with Old English measurements, and for that reason not the convert template). —innotata 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve recently added the last missing citation. I believe the ‘missing citations’ message can now be removed. However, since I’m relatively new here, I may need confirmation from someone else that I or someone else can remove it. 2A02:C7C:368E:8100:5115:4C0C:C157:AAB6 (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You supplied an invalid reference. I reverted your change. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? How? 2A02:C7C:368E:8100:5115:4C0C:C157:AAB6 (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by ‘invalid’? Is it inaccurate or did I cite it wrong? 2A02:C7C:368E:8100:5115:4C0C:C157:AAB6 (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, the link was to the main iNaturalist website, not to the species. Second, iNat is not valid as a reference for text, as their description is a mirror of our article, making it a circular reference, which is not valid. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thanks.

I guess I’ll have to find a new source 2A02:C7C:368E:8100:5115:4C0C:C157:AAB6 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - Now I’ve found a proper source. The website doesn’t seem to be a mirror of Wikipedia and I’ve made the link work properly. Feel free to tell me if something is wrong. 2A02:C7C:368E:8100:5115:4C0C:C157:AAB6 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not good. That is a blog site. Blogs are generally not reliable. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don’t think there’s any reliable sources. Should the sentence that needs the citation be removed? 2A02:C7C:368E:8100:5115:4C0C:C157:AAB6 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve scouted the web. Nothing I could find (aside from more Wikipedia - pasted articles) 2A02:C7C:368E:8100:5115:4C0C:C157:AAB6 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]