Raccoon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 22, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed December 21, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Mammals High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

dont want to edit just to point out that there is a masive diference between square miles and km squared—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.86.105 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 July 2009

You are correct. The conversion factor was inverted. It is now fixed. I assumed the metric numbers were the originals. DGERobertson (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... it isn't fixed. Perhaps you fix was reverted at some point? Reads stuff like "While population densities range from 0.5 to 3.2 animals per square kilometre (0.2–1.2 animals per square mile) in prairies" at the moment. At any rate, it would be nice to get the actual numbers from the cited source instead of assuming which is correct. Anyone have access to it? Krushia (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my calculator, those are correct conversions. DGERobertson (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably confused density with area. A larger area will enclose more animals. A square mile is larger than a square kilometer. There should then be more animals in a square mile than in a square kilometer. Basically, you need to convert "backwards" if converting density with an area conversion function. I haven't had any luck finding the data source online btw. Krushia (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without doing any math I see that something went wrong. I know that a kilometer is shorter than a mile. So, a square kilometer is less land than a square mile. Therefore, the square mile, being bigger, can't contain fewer animals (0.2 to 1.2) than the number of animals (0.5 to 3.2) contained in a square kilometer, which is smaller. Further down in the "Urban Raccoons" section the article's math passes this instant less-than/greater-than judgment: the article converts 50 animals in a square kilometer to MORE THAN 50 in a square mile, and converts 150 animals in a square kilometer to MORE THAN 150 in a square mile. 69.86.126.190 (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

I'm back, with some math. The reciprocal of 0.5 animals per square kilometer is 2 square kilometers per animal. Since a square kilometer is 0.3861 square miles, the 2 square kilometers housing one raccoon is equal to 0.7722 square miles. The reciprocal of 0.7722 square miles per animal is 1.29499 animals per square mile (not 0.2 animals per square mile). Replacing 0.5 animals per square kilometer (the lower limit) on my spreadsheet with 3.2 animals per square kilometer (the upper limit), I find the reciprocal to be 0.3125 square kilometers per animal, which is the same as 0.12066 square miles per animal, whose reciprocal is 8.28796 animals per square mile (not 1.2 animals per square mile). Expressed using square kilometers the most-dense given in the article is 6.4 times as dense as the least-dense: 0.5 X 6.4 = 3.2. Expressed using square miles the upper limit I get is still, as it should be, 6.4 times as dense as the lower limit I get (since 1.29499 X 6.4 = 8.28796). Another check is to note that the reciprocal of 1 square kilometer equalling 0.3861 square miles is that 1 square mile therefore equals 2.5899 square kilometers. Then you can just multiply the count of animals in the least-dense and most-dense square kilometers each by 2.5899 to enlarge the square kilometer, and therefore the count of animals therein, to a square mile. The result is still a range of 1.29499 to 8.28796 animals per square mile.69.86.126.190 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

In Olympia, Washington, USA there is a group of killer raccoons. They have killed ten cats,attacked one dog, and bitten at least one pet owner, who had to get a rabies shot. Here is the link. [[1]]

Teamedward12 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's some sensationalism in the reporting ('psych' has no place in an encyclopedia) but I can't see that the article offers anything not already covered under "raccoons and people". Do you see something?DavidOaks (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map is missing Prince Edward Island - raccoons are probably introduced here, not native, but they are very firmly established. --24.142.28.199 (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed a couple of instances of "douse" with its connotations of "extinguish fire by pouring water" over it, to "dunk", "to dip into a liquid", but I realised that douse was being used so consistently that it must be deliberate and not just a slip of the tongue. I would still favour dunk, but am prepared to defer if others feel differently. Awien (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douse isn't being used incorrectly here, as supported by the sources and obvious common English usage of the term. See the first definition at Merriam Webster ("to plunge into water"[2]) and the Oxford English Dictionary (douse v2: "To plunge vigorously in water, or the like"). There's also dousing and wiktionary:douse, which find similar conclusions. I advocate changing most instances back to "douse", as "dunk" may remind one of basketball and bobbing for apples. María (habla conmigo) 02:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My (old) Concise Oxford has "lower (sail), close (porthole); extinguish (light); throw water over, drench". We seem to have a case of different usage (or at least connotations) different sides of the pond . . . Awien (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff like "With a body length of 41 to 72 cm (16.1 to 28.3 in) ..." sets the alarm bells ringing. We've got quite a wide range (55 ± 30% cm) with quite precise end points (to the nearest centimetre i.e. ± 1–3%). Introduced about two years ago and, it seems, never questioned. Forty-one to seventy-two not forty to seventy centimetres. To make matters worse the measurement is converted to the nearest tenth of an inch ... more false precision. What's going on? If we convert 16 to 28 inches to the nearest centimetre, we get 41 to 71 cm. Convert that to the nearest tenth of an inch and we get 16.1 to 28.0 inches which is what was added in August 2008. Somehow the larger raccoons gained a centimetre since then but it's all very silly. We should be converting to the nearest ten centimetres for such a range ... if it is a conversion from inches. Of course the 16 to 28 inches could be a conversion from 40 to 70 cm after all. Nor does it stop there. JIMp _talk·cont 06:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the SECOND time this article has been the FA? Are we running that short on good ones? DavidOaks (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. See Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/February_2004 ff. I doubt Wikipedia is running short on good featured articles: there are currently 2924 featured articles (Wikipedia:Featured_articles); this is the 2313th time a featured article has appeared on the Main Page; and, in the year from June 2009 to May 2010, 372 more articles have been promoted to featured status than demoted (Wikipedia:Featured_article_statistics). 68.109.117.85 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to edit it because I'm not an expert on raccoons but the dousing section states that dousing behavior has not been observed in the wild? If this is true then why do most names for raccoons refer to washing? Also, I'm pretty sure I saw video of a raccoon dousing food in a river on the Discovery channel a while back. Myth318 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the phrase "medium size"? Relative to what? Perhaps someone could reword or remove that phrasing? ---99.92.190.23 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? How about "Raccoons as Food"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedyboy (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

emerging infectious diseases Vol. 8, No. 4 April 2002 Baylisascaris procyonis, a roundworm infection of raccoons, is emerging as an important helminthic zoonosis, principally affecting young children. Raccoons have increasingly become peridomestic animals living in close proximity to human residences. When B. procyonis eggs are ingested by a host other than a raccoon, migration of larvae through tissue, termed larval migrans, ensues. This larval infection can invade the brain and eye, causing severe disease and death. The prevalence of B. procyonis infection in raccoons is often high, and infected animals can shed enormous numbers of eggs in their feces. These eggs can survive in the environment for extended periods of time, and the infectious dose of B. procyonis is relatively low. Therefore, the risk for human exposure and infection may be greater than is currently recognized.

Current evidence indicates that B. procionis infection is not in any sense "mild" ,mortality and disability is very high, the paragraph in Health does not reflect it, should a change be made? 74.243.219.174 (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that paragraph contradicts what's here. In the last sentence, the author admits that the disease is not currently recognized as a high risk. The author clearly wants it to be recognized as a greater threat, and think it might be a higher risk than we think, but unless reliable sources show that it actually is considered a high risk, we shouldn't change the article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]