Talk:European mole

Untitled

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)

On measurements

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)

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)

Citations fixed

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

omnivore

Moles are not omnivore! 78.43.40.66 (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Please suggest an edit, and support it with a well formulated reliable reference. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

On Venomous status

I cannot find any confirmation that these creatures are in fact venomous as it is categorised. Related issue with the venomous animals page. Citations seem to support this only as postulation based on enlarged submandibular glands. No Chemical description of any venom is available anywhere as far as I can tell. Below are two related citations. Citations on Venomous animals page do not support claim. Most sources don't even mention the European mole, here are the two that I found that do, and neither of them claim definitively that it is venomous.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2012.02.012
https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-7258(92)90009-o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.134.75 (talk)