Talk:Fisher (animal)

Fisher (animal) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 23, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
January 4, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Mammals: Mustelids Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Mustelids work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Canada High‑importance

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

United States High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fishers have killed lynx - wow!

An anonymous editor just added some items to this saying that fishers were held responsible for the death of a couple of lynx in Maine. I assumed that he/she was kidding, but the references show otherwise. (Hooray for good references)

Holy toledo - these guys are even fiercer than I realized. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fisher (animal)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 07:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will read this article now, and review it within the next couple of hours. The article looks very good, so most of my comments are merely suggestions. I've fixed some minor issues along the way.

Though authors of several synonyms are mentioned under taxonomy, there's no mention of Erxleben, who coined the original species name. Perhaps he should be mentioned?

He wasn't mentioned in the references that I read, another editor added the synonyms. I'll look into it. Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I find such info interesting myself, so it's nice to have. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the reference by Elliot Coues published in 1877. You can read it here [1] on page 66. Its rather confusing. Apparently three different taxonomists described the same specimen calling it different names, apparently unaware of each other's work. Pennant's name stuck. Erxleben and another taxonomist Schreber described it 6 years later (using Pennant's data) but Erxleben published first using the name as Mustela pennantii (two i's). Erxleben also used Schreber's name Mustela canadensis as a separate species in the same publication. At the time, the fisher was listed under a different genus Mustela, the weasel family. So it's a mug's game about who deserves the credit. Atrian (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could a brief sumamry of the situation be included?FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I'll take another look at it. Atrian (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the etymology section should be a subsection under taxonomy?

Etymology is about how names are derived, a study of linguistics. Taxonomy is the scientific classification of species based on morphological characteristics. It might be better to place evolution under taxonomy as this is more closely related. Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the dentition info should go under description?

I placed dentition under taxonomy because it factored into the placement of the genus, Martes as opposed to Mustela. However a case could be made for putting it under description. Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the paragraph could well go under description, since comparison with related animals are often placed there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following seems incorrect: "Although some debate still exists, in general it is recognized that the fisher is a monotypic genus with no extant subspecies.[10]" There seem to be other species in the genus Martes, so perhaps species is meant?

You are right. I corrected the sentence. Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it might have been hard to find good images, as there don't seem to be many on Commons. Found this free one on Flickr[2], not too good, but it shows an alert pose not seen in other photos in the article. Since much of the article covers fur skins, perhaps show a picture[3] of one?

If I want to use these images, can I just upload them to Wikimedia? What source do I use? Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last ones are already on Commons, I've uploaded the first one here:[4] As for other Flickr images, you need to do a search for freely licensed images there, and then you can use this tool[5] to upload them. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence seems a bit odd: "there is speculation that they are used for communication for reproduction." Maybe change the wording, should it be "during/prior to reproduction" or something like that?

You're right the wording was odd but I wasn't sure how to word it appropriately. I took a stab at it. Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new sentence is much clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems quite amazing: "While uncommon, fishers have been found to kill larger animals such as wild turkey, bobcat and lynx.[18][19][20]" Were those adult lynxes and bobcats? Should probably be specified.

These were definitely exceptional situations. How the fishers accomplished these feats is unclear. It's possible that the fisher cornered the animals in deep snow, possibly dropping on them from above. The fishers can climb trees after all. It's also possible that the larger animals were old or weak from disease. Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. If anything more specific turns up, it could be nice to have in. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit unclear: "Male and female fishers have overlapping territories. This behavior is imposed on females by males due to dominance in size and a male desire to increase mating success.[25]" Does this mean that males intrude on the territory of the females?

I suppose the males do that because they can. I need to look at the reference material again. Atrian (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "distribution" should be a subsection under "habitat", as in other articles?

I was using the raccoon article as a model which has distribution and habitat as subsections under range. Since the range of the fisher is not as large a topic as it is for raccoons, I left them as two separate sections. Atrian (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of paragraphs under "Fishers and people" that lack citation in the end. Perhaps the title should be changed to "Relationship with people/humans"?

I did some minor edits on the placement of the citations. Only the first paragraph lacks a citation. I wrote that as an intro to the whole section. I read somewhere in the MOS that you shouldn't have a subsection title directly underneath a section title. This paragraph was my answer. As for the section title, I was using the raccoon article as a template. Atrian (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could a citation be added anyway, for the sake of verifiability? I think everything within the main text should have citations, only the lead is exempt. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it might take a couple of days since I have to visit the library to read some of the original references. Atrian (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can just use some of the same refs that are used below the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the info under distribution seems to overlap with that in the conservation section.

True. In the distribution section I was looking for a way to link the historical reduction and expansion of the range due to trapping with the topic of reintroductions and how that has restored their range. In the conservation section, the efforts were more related to restoring a sustainable population for trapping. Maybe I should have a separate conservation section? Atrian (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big problem, you can leave it as is. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The part under distribution about the relationship with porcupines seems to be about ecology, and perhaps more suited in the behaviour section?

The relationship between porcupine and fisher populations is related to the reintroduction. That's why I mentioned it. Atrian (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it from me. FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments. It's been a big help. Atrian (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a pleasure. Makes me want to review more GAs, because I actually learn something in the process, when the articles are already this good. Apart from three or four issues, it's ready to go. I assume you'll continue working on it even if I pass it now, so I will, as it is already a GA so to speak. Fixing the remaining issues could help it get to FA, perhaps. FunkMonk (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Outdated range map

The range map appears to be out of date. According to http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/wildlife/living/living_with_fisher.htm , the fisher is spreading back into suburban regions of southern New England and I assume similar changes may be happening elsewhere.Weebro55 (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted IUCN about this in mid-January and they said they would update their range map, which is the source of the map used in this article. They welcome any info regarding the species they track: redlist at iucn dot org. I took a quick look at the fisher page there,and don't see any range map, but I might not have delved deep enough. Eric ^talk 21:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when you open the page on the top left side of the screen is a button that says view map. click on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.69.108 (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of would-be fisher image

I question the accuracy of one of the photos used near the end of this article (labeled "fisher near Ipswich Massachusetts) I believe that this is actually an American Marten (Martes americana). I point to the larger and fox shaped ears, and slimmer body. Cross reference to the title photo of the American Marten in Wikipedia http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/American_marten and to the title photo in this article. The ears of the Fisher are more similar to those of the Mink Neovison vison and the Fisher has a thicker, and generally larger, body than either the Mink or the Marten. Seamountie (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to judge, since the tail isn't visible. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all- I put that pic on commons after being told by the photographer that it was a fisher. Never thought to verify... If we can find someone who really knows these animals, I'd love have my info there corrected. I could re-post the pic with a corrected name. Thanks in advance. Eric ^talk 16:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image of face

A photo of the face of an individual was removed.[6] The editor argued that it shows a m,ink. What is the rationale behind this? And if true, the description and category of the image itself should be changed as well, to avoid future confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not "part of the Marten species"

I know that species is a murky concept but I think that wording is very bad. Part of the same genus? probably. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat information likely out of date

I attended a lecture by Roland Kays (who is cited several times herein) recently, in which he provided detailed evidence about the fishers living in habitats other than old-growth forests, which is the assertion made in the habitat section, In fact, Kays' own research that shows how successful the animals are in suburban areas is cited in the very next section, dealing with distribution. During the lecture, Kays referred to the idea that fishers are restricted to old growth forests as outdated.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to Kays' paper from 2013 cited in this article, or I would use it to update the information myself. Any editor who has access to it, or other relevant research, is encouraged to bring this entry up to date.--~T P W 01:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan

". . . a fisher kept in captivity that lived to be ten years old, well beyond its natural lifespan." Yet the article omits any information as to what that lifespan actually is. Orthotox (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, the natural lifespan is 7 years and I've added a cited source proving it.BearGlyph (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Predation on domestic house cats

In my area Fisher's are eating house cats. I think we should add this to the article! 14:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be a documented incident. Unless you can definitively prove that fisher's are taking domestic cats someone could question that it might be some other predator, eg. marten, lynx, bobcat, bear, coyote, fox, etc. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pekania, not Martes, pennati?

A number of recent authors have started to use the genus name Pekania in light of the distinctness of pennati from other Martes, beginning with Sato et al. (2012). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The paper only recommends that Pekania be used instead of Martes (p755). There is no definitive decision. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, I believe that these phylogenetic results + suggested alternate name should at least be mentioned in the body of the article. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been changed to use Pekania exclusively, including the genus listing. That seems to be jumping the gun, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to edit the issue. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine hunting

Native people here in northern British Columbia say that in the winter fishers kill porcupines by tunnelling under the snow, coming up beneath them, and tearing into the unprotected belly. I don't know whether there is any literature on this.Bill (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fisher (animal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fisher (animal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150405091543/http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/f/fisher_(animal).htm to http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/f/fisher_%28animal%29.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the map?

I know that we have fishers in Connecticut, and I was just wondering where the map (which says otherwise) was pulled from. Kielbasa1 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kielbasa1: I also wanted to know. According to the file's description on Commons, its data came from here. It doesn't specify a dataset, though. :/ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fishers have become common in northern and Central Pennsylvania https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU7juOX2p38 (at 4:50) so the map is quite out of date.Yunzer (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is opposed to this move at the present time. (non-admin closure) Calidum 03:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher (animal) → Fisher cat – I live in Connecticut. I have not once in my life hear someone refer to this animal as a fisher.
In multiple WP:RS it has been referred to as a fisher cat.^{[7][8][9][10][11][12]} It's the WP:COMMONNAME.^[13] It's the logo for the Bill Weld 2020 presidential campaign.^[14] It's even the name of a baseball team. Per WP:NATURALDIS, we should be using the term that's informal but recognized over the parenthetical disambugation. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I honestly don't know why I have this article in my watchlist. I saw the comment in my watchlish I was interested to see what the fisher is. I did a quick search in google and I saw that "Fisher (animal)" gives a lot of results but most of these results are not related to this animal. When I search for "Fisher cat" I find a lot of results but almost all of them are about this animal.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: The article itself says that the animal is not a cat and that the term "fisher cat" is misleading. Aside from acknowledging that the misleading term exists, the article doesn't use the term, and it is probably frowned upon among biologists. Many of the cited sources do not use the term. It may be better to leave it alone. The described Google results don't seem very relevant. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - I live in New Hampshire, and even though Fisher Cats is the name of our baseball team, most people know it's not called "fisher cat" and that it's not a cat. Fisher is a commonly used term and name; there's no need to change the article. Fisher cat goes to a disambig. page which leads to this article, so people can find it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidWBrooks: But what for WP:NATURALDIS? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher cat might seem more "natural", but it is also more ambiguous (see the dab page) and misleading (the animal is not a cat). —BarrelProof (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, a guinea pig is not a pig, and a prairie dog is not a dog. CThomas³ (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. But nobody calls them "guinea" or "prairie" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do people in the upper parts of New England really refer to this as a fisher? That feels so weird to me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Often, yes. Saying "fisher cat" is one of those widespread errors that are increasingly known to be an error, like calling a whale a fish. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. As stated in the article, "it is not a cat." Let's not confuse our readers. We can always create redirects when necessary. However, my oppose vote is weak because I do not know about this animal. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 04:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do people really get it confused with a cat? It's a like a weasel or a ferret. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me, there are few clearer ways of saying “it’s a cat” than including “cat” in the title. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See above point about other misleading but common names. Electric eels aren't eels, Red pandas aren't closely related to pandas, the Seahorse is not a horse, the Starfish isn't a fish, and the Mantis shrimp isn't even in the Decapoda order. The only difference here to the Koala bear is that the primary topic for Fisher isn't the animal, but something else. Natural disamb. should win out here like it has for any of the above examples. It's worth noting that Guinea pig is a Featured article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Judging by this reference book and the OED, it appears that "fisher" is the common name, with "fisher cat" being just one of several regional or alternative names, now used mostly in New England. Seems to me that Fisher (animal) is the best title here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cúchullain: ..but WP:NATURALDIS though... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally a big supporter of NATURALDIS, but I don't think the sources support that here given the negatives of "fisher cat" (the fact that the name is mostly regional, the fact that most sources we've found use "fisher", the fact that it's not a cat, etc.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it may not be as common of a term for the animal outside of my region, but a good number of the sources I provided use the term fisher cat. Naturaldis states as such: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names. I also really don't think people will be that confused about the whole cat situation. It's just what people call it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Never heard of it called a 'fisher cat,' but I have heard of a fishing cat (which is an actual cat). Using fisher cat would perpetuate confusion. Also, Fisher cat is a disambiguation page, so you'd theoretically need to move the article to Fisher cat (musetlid) or something equally awkward. --Nessie (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nessie: Fisher cat should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that page since the baseball team is literally named after the animal (and Fishing cat ==/== fisher cat). Really, it makes no sense for why fisher cat doesn't already redirect here, but that shouldn't be a reason to oppose. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely shouldn't use "Fisher cat" if there also exists a "Fishing cat." --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. That's what {{Distinguish}} is for. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me, adjusting titles to avoid confusion makes plenty of sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that isn't what you are doing here. You are requesting unnecessary disambugation just because the terms are similar. For example, Cod Island isn't titled Cod Island (Canada) just to avoid the potential confusion with Codfish Island. Your suggestion is not standard practice. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - While "Fishing cat" is an alternative term that may be used in some regions, "Fisher" is the more commonly used (and correct) term. In addition to the references mentioned above, I note that both COSEWIC (Canada) and USFWS (USA) use the term "Fisher" as the primary (and perhaps only) name in their reports. Loopy30 (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. From the article itself, "It is sometimes misleadingly referred to as a fisher cat". Why perpetrate an error? Narky Blert (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:SURPRISE, since it's not a cat._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I was sort of done commenting here because I didn't want to WP:BLUDGEON, but... Calling this WP:SURPRISE is a step too far for me. We already have the fact it's not a cat in the article despite its name (which, if you ask me, is put in a WP:NPOV manner which chastises those who use the popular regional term).
Honestly, if I applied this logic to its fullest extent, then I would feel the need to remind people that fat cats aren't actually cats; they're people. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.