| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shrew article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This 
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Should be some cross-reference to the insulting human meaning ( Taming of the Shrew)... AnonMoos 18:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- hear, hear! IMO 'shrew' is used in English far more often with this meaning in mind than with regard to the biological species. --Marlow4 21:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) hello
The source article echolocating shrew is barely a stub. It should be merged into shrew as a new section. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Bearian 18:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.164.221.212 ( talk) 04:01, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Could someone follow the following article - I think it needed to be added and I have no enough expertise to edit Wikipedia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8152000/8152862.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.246.247.240 ( talk) 12:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was moved – Juliancolton | Talk 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Shrew (animal) → Shrew — See Talk:Shrew (disambiguation). This is clearly the primary meaning. Ucucha 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- No argument from me there. Even in a dictionary, it's likely to be the primary meaning; when searching for information in an encyclopedia, it seems obvious that this is overwhelmingly likely to be most commonly intended meaning. Anaxial ( talk) 15:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support. And to move what's on the
Shrew page currently to
Shrew (disambiguation).
Rob Sinden (
talk) 15:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I think it's clear that consensus was reached at what is now Talk:Shrew (disambiguation). -- Aranae ( talk) 16:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose — It is a misplaced dab page, which normally should be moved to the ambiguous base name. That is, Shrew (disambiguation) → Shrew. It was misplaced yesterday. Please move it back. Shrew has over 300 incoming links. I do agree that Shrew (animal) is badly named, since there are 4 (?) different families of animals called shrews. I suggest moving Shrew (animal) to Soricidae. -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose; My position is summed up by a comment on the disambiguation talk page: "Shrew" shoud be for the animal." Shrew is a name used for several animals; the average reader doesn't know this; and I'm not comfortable asking them to read their way into an article in order to figure it out. Since the main meanings of the term "Shrew" are so easily confused, a disambiguation page is best. Move to
Shrew (Soricidae) or
Soricidae.
Hesperian 06:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- The other groups are never called "shrew". They are called "tree shrew", "elephant shrew", and in the case of Nesophontes, usually just Nesophontes. I highly doubt that anyone would search for "shrew" when meaning these animals.
Ucucha 11:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I can't envision anyone looking for elephant shrews, tree shrews, or otter shrews under just plain "shrew". The same goes for Nesophontes which is only rarely referred to as Puerto Rican shrew, West Indian shrew, or something along those lines. I think there should be quick reference to other animals with shrew in their names in the shrew article, but I really don't envision people making that mistake. These animals should be on the disambiguation page, though. --
Aranae (
talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let's not forget the other shrews, both of which are more likely to be the
primary topic. Google web: shrew taming 9 million; shrew woman 1 million; shrew Soricidae 100,000. Google books: shrew taming 6,300; shrew woman 4,500; shrew Soricidae 797.
Here is an etymology of shrew, which is very complicated; perhaps there should be a Wikipedia article on the word itself:
Shrew (word). --
Una Smith (
talk) 14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not inclined to trust a 19th-century etymology much more than I would trust a 19th-century taxonomy. As it appears in more recent sources, "shrew" apparently did originally mean "soricid", though its pre-Old English etymology is unclear. Also, I believe your Google results are deflated by using "Soricidae", which is unlikely to occur in non-technical mentionings of shrews. "Shrew mammal" yields far more results.
- But neither etymology nor Google results come to the heart of the question. What I think we should be considering is what people who search for "shrew" in Wikipedia are going to be looking for and how similar situations are handled in other Wikipedia articles. Then we see that articles like rat, donkey, or hawk also have the biological meaning as the primary topic. Furthermore, usage of "shrew" for a particular kind of woman (and occasionally man) is very closely associated with Shakespeare's play, and I highly doubt that there will be many people who will search for it on Wikipedia. If there are, there is always the hat. Finally, Wikipedia is of course not a dictionary, and shrew as a term for a person is not a very encyclopedic topic, as illustrated by the fact that there is still no article on it. Ucucha 19:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let's not forget the other shrews, both of which are more likely to be the
primary topic. Google web: shrew taming 9 million; shrew woman 1 million; shrew Soricidae 100,000. Google books: shrew taming 6,300; shrew woman 4,500; shrew Soricidae 797.
Here is an etymology of shrew, which is very complicated; perhaps there should be a Wikipedia article on the word itself:
Shrew (word). --
Una Smith (
talk) 14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I can't envision anyone looking for elephant shrews, tree shrews, or otter shrews under just plain "shrew". The same goes for Nesophontes which is only rarely referred to as Puerto Rican shrew, West Indian shrew, or something along those lines. I think there should be quick reference to other animals with shrew in their names in the shrew article, but I really don't envision people making that mistake. These animals should be on the disambiguation page, though. --
Aranae (
talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- The other groups are never called "shrew". They are called "tree shrew", "elephant shrew", and in the case of Nesophontes, usually just Nesophontes. I highly doubt that anyone would search for "shrew" when meaning these animals.
Ucucha 11:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and arguments above. — AjaxSmack 02:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support, or create a primary topic redirect to Soricidae with a redirect hatnote for Shrew (disambiguation). The Shakespearean usage of the word is not a topic within the scope of the encyclopedia (perhaps Wiktionary), and "shrew" alone is usually used to refer to this family, not the others. Dekimasu よ! 23:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
- Ok, that was good, but now the "for other uses" link doesn't work anymore. Chrisrus ( talk) 03:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
According to http://www.nwf.org/NationalWildlife/article.cfm?issueID=127&articleID=1684, Shews' "...have the fastest heartbeat (1,200 per minute) ... of any mammal..." Chrisrus ( talk) 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's unlikely to be true for all shrews, though--there's 400 species of them, some quite specialized. It would be nice if we had some studies that specifically mention that they measured this in some species and found 1200 per minute figure. Ucucha 02:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good. Mammalian Species accounts may well have information on this. Ucucha 03:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
And now that we're talking here anyway - "shrew mouse" does seem to be an occasional synonym for "shrew" ( [1350%3AEITSMM2.3.CO%3B2], for example), but it can also refer to various rodents (not only Pseudohydromys, but also Archboldomys, Microhydromys, Coelomys (subgenus of Mus), and Blarinomys, and possibly others). We should have a disambiguation page, which I'll create. "Mouse shrew", on the other hand, generally refers to Myosorex species. Ucucha 03:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good idea, the disambiguation page for shrew-mouse/mouse shrew. I noticed that New Guinea is one of the only shrewless places, and the only place you can find shrew-mice. I'm noticing that there are many results for "fastest metabolism shrew". I'll try to cherry-pick some citable ones, but I'd like to say now that it seems to be a very commonly cited fact in discussions of longevity, and is often tied to mention of their short life spans, which are called among the shortest of all mammals. Chrisrus ( talk) 03:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
According to http://www.freebase.com/view/en/pallass_long_tongued_bat, Pallas's Long-tongued Bat, Glossophaga soricina, has the fastest metabolism of any mammal. But then again, who the heck is freebase dot com?
We can confidently say that shrews are known for their fast metabolisms.
- :-) 82.14.55.102 ( talk) 18:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This article stayui tes shrews are not rodents, but are closely more related to voles. The article on voles states voles are themselves rodents. It doesn't make sense. I think most people identify mice, moles, voles, and shrews, along with other animals, as rodents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.43.152 ( talk) 00:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I think this particular image of the (seemingly still alive but severely injured) trapped shrew normalizes killing those animals in this fashion, and it also seems to look as though it was not painful, in this particular picture. I think it is necessary to comment on what exactly is happening in this picture, in the caption. The entry on traps should be linked to.
(I am not going to do this because I'm not a native speaker and it would have to be re-written / I don't want to mess with the article.) -- 77.12.213.155 ( talk) 14:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- C-Class mammal articles
- Mid-importance mammal articles
- WikiProject Mammals articles