Misplaced Pages

Talk:Wolf: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:13, 19 September 2007 edit208.102.84.41 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:01, 16 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,586 edits Removing expired RFC template. 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FAR}} {{Talk header}}
{{Canadian English}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{Article history
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR |action1=PR
|action1date=17:46, 22 August 2005 |action1date=17:46, 22 August 2005
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Gray Wolf |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Gray Wolf/archive1
|action1result=reviewed |action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=21581702 |action1oldid=21581702
Line 10: Line 10:
|action2=FAC |action2=FAC
|action2date=05:32, 29 August 2005 |action2date=05:32, 29 August 2005
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Gray Wolf |action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Gray Wolf/archive1
|action2result=promoted |action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=22023176 |action2oldid=22023176


|action3=FAR
|maindate=October 31, 1998
|action3date=11:46, 19 September 2007
|currentstatus=FA
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Gray Wolf/archive1
}}
|action3result=removed
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
|action3oldid=158855438
{{WikiProject Dogs|nested=yes|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{MaTalk|nested=yes|class=FA|importance=High}}
}}


|action4=PR
{{V0.5|class=FA|category=Natsci|small=yes}}
|action4date=04:52, 10 November 2009
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Gray Wolf/archive2
|action4result=reviewed
|action4oldid=324741329


|action5=GAN
{{archivebox|
|action5date=17:42, 1 April 2012
]<br />
|action5link=Talk:Gray wolf/GA1
]
|action5result=listed
}}
|action5oldid=485023087


|action6=PR
== Cougar attacks ==
|action6date=04:59:33 12 January 2020 (UTC)
''..and the other showed no signs of canine puncture marks or other cougar related injury.''
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Wolf/archive1
|action6result=reviewed
|action6oldid=938205315


|action7 = FAC
Wha....? How is this evidence of a cougar attack if there were no cougar related injuries? It's like saying ''"A man was shot today, though there were no signs of a bullet hole."''] 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
|action7date = 2020-03-30
|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Wolf/archive1
|action7result = promoted
|action7oldid = 948157987


|currentstatus=FA
:I don't know how this got put together, but nothing about canine puncture marks is mentioned in the reference. I think an editor who doesn't like the idea of cougars taking wolves just made it up out of thin air, but who knows? I changed the entire statement to match the reference. Thanks for pointing it out. ] 17:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
|maindate=October 31, 2005
|maindate2=June 7, 2020
|topic=natsci
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Dogs|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Mammals|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Twofingered Typist|date=December 17, 2019}}
}}


{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
== The proper name of short legged wolf ==
{{Annual readership|days=180}}
I remembered that my dad said that in Hong Kong, there was a special wolf race nicknamed "Short legged wolf" that used to roam in the New Territories area during the early 20th century. The wolf legs are of course shorter than the "normal" wolf that appear in China he said, anyways I wonder if this type of wolf still exist and also what is their proper scientific name? ] 24 May 2007
}}

{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|Catfurball|Important}}
I've never heard of it, but then again, China is a little behind in wolf studies, so an undocumented subspecies is possible. Are you sure he wasnt referring to foxes or dholes?] 12:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(365d)
No, I doubt that, since Hong Kong doesnt have much foxes, even before the "urbanisation" in the 50's... I dont even think the wolf he was refering was Eurasian wolf. I think this wolf could be from specific breeding that made their legs gone short or has died out before anyone could record this species in time. However my dad says that when he was little, he did heard stories about this type of wolves roaming around in his village and eating live stocks. ] 25 May 2007
| archive = Talk:Wolf/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 7
==Archives?==
| maxarchivesize = 150K

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
What happened to all the old discussions? This is an old article, but there's only one archive with a single entry in it. -- ] 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
:Okay, I see the permanant link now. Gonna fix that, and clean up the Archive box. -- ] 02:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
| minthreadsleft = 5
::There. Hopefully that looks better. I've managed to clean up the archives, using the copy & paste method. Everything should be in its proper place now. Let me know if anything looks wrong, and I'll gladly fix it. -- ] 03:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
}}

{{annual readership}}
== Capitalization issues ==
{{section size}}

{{featured article tools}}
Why is "Gray Wolf" capitalized in the article and title? It is clearly not a proper noun. This article needs to be moved to ] where it belongs. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> ] 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:Please see ], followed by ]. The short version? There's no real agreement on how it should be done, just that the articles should be consistant. All ]-related articles use capitalization for the entire name, so it should be kept there unless the standard changes as a whole. -- ] 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::That's pretty lame. Where do you see "Gray Wolf" capitalized in scientific texts and journals? Nowhere, that's where. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> ] 04:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:::This is what happens when you get thousands of people working on articles. There's bound to be some conflict, and capitalization is kinda down the list of priorities for policy-making. For something like this, the way it's done now is "close enough." -- ] 04:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

== Inconsistency ==

"The main differences between wolves and domestic dogs are that wolves have, on average, 30% larger brains..."

then in the chart:

"Domestic Dog Canis lupus familiaris
Typically, a smaller subspecies, with 20% smaller brains..."

] 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:It's not as inconsistent as you would think. If dogs have the "baseline brain", then the wolf brain is about 1.3 times the size of a dog brain. Let's say the dog brain is 80cc in size, then the wolf brain would be 104cc. If you then look at things in reverse, taking the wolf brain as baseline, the dog brain is 20% smaller, or 80% the size of a wolf's brain. 80% of 104 is 83.2, or close to the previous size used. Probably the wolf brain is a little less than 30% larger than the dog brain. - ] ] 15:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== Canadian timber wolf ==

Is the canadian timber wolf the same as the alaskan timber wolf? If so, is the canadian/alaskan timber wolf simply another name for the Mackenzie valley wolf? It was me who suggested it in the main Mackenzie wolf article, but I only did so because Alaskan/Canadian timber wolf doesnt seem to be a subspecies, but simply a generic term for large, snow dwelling North American wolves.] 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


== New article needed == == Suggested Correction to Behavior ==
{{Edit semi-protected|Wolf|answered=yes}}
Within the topic of "Behavior," under the subtopic "Social Structure," the final line of the section states: "one study concluding that 14–65% of wolf deaths in Minnesota and the Denali National Park and Preserve were due to other wolves." However, the study actually states that "39%—65% of total mortality" (Mech, 1998) was due to other wolves. The "14%" comes in the following sentences, in reference to human-caused deaths of wolves within the Denali population.


Additionally, the source referenced only refers to wolves in Denali, Alaska, stating nothing about wolves in Minnesota. Either an additional source should be added in reference to Minnesota, or it should be removed.
Apparently, the Indian wolf is no longer considered a subspecies of grey wolf, however, the wolves of Turkey and other Middle Eastern countries (which were originally thought to be Indian wolves) should get their own article under Southern-east Asian Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes), which is still classed as a subspecies of grey wolf.] 10:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


As the is a protected page, I cannot edit it myself. I suggest someone who can do so. ] (]) 03:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
== Indian Wolf ==
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ] 11:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
::The issue here is with the final sentence in the "Social Structure" section, which reads: "Territorial fights are among the principal causes of wolf mortality, one study concluding that 14–65% of wolf deaths in Minnesota and the Denali National Park and Preserve were due to other wolves." The numbers are incorrect, and the claim is unsupported by the cited study. A correct statement utilizing the information from this study would instead be: "In wolf populations with a low rate of human-caused mortality, territorial fighting can be the principal cause of death among wolves. In a study performed at Denali National Park and Preserve, where the human-caused mortality rate among the total wolf population is less than 4%, it was estimated that 39%—65% of deaths amongst radio-collared wolves within the park were due to other wolves."
::The source for this is the exact one already cited, which I've pasted below for convenience. The "14%" figure seems to have been taken from the amount of wolf deaths caused by humans, and the study was performed in Denali, Alaska, not Minnesota. The phrasing of "Territorial fights are among the principal causes of wolf mortality" is an assumption not supported by the study. It is also important to note that the study emphasizes that this population has a low rate of human-caused deaths, and that the various mortality rates were calculated using data from radio-collared wolves.
::Mech, L. David; Adams, L. G.; Meier, T. J.; Burch, J. W.; Dale, B. W. (2003). "Ch.8-The Denali Wolf-Prey System". The Wolves of Denali. University of Minnesota Press. p. 163. ISBN 0-8166-2959-5. ] (]) 18:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Hello BananaVendetta, you are indeed right about the Denali National Park and Preserve proportion of wolf mortality due to other wolves. However, wolves in Minnesota, as you might know, are not as protected as in Denali because their studied populations are not all in protected settings, thus wolf-on-wolf killings sharply decrease in terms of %. Wolf-on-wolf killing is the primary mortality cause of grey wolves worldwide that is natural, obviously human-caused wolf mortality is the highest death cause worldwide. In national parks, wolf-on-wolf killings, in terms of % and occurence, sharply rise as compared to this cause of death proportion outside the park, for various reasons. 1) Usually more wolves are concentrated in protected areas, thus competition for ressources and territories is higher, therefore increasing interactions between packs and logically, increasing the probability of a wolf being killed by another wolf or wolf pack. 2) As with protected areas in general, prey abundance is generally higher, therefore packs can carve inside smaller territories, and thus, there is a much bigger wolf density and wolf packs numbers inside an area. Young adult wolves, both males and females, often disperse from their natal pack to try to find a group or an unrelated wolf to start a new pack and build a family of their own. However, if the wolf density is higher and packs are crammed, it faces a much more challenging ordeal than a wolf dispersing from a pack outside of an protected area with a stable population. They each faces challenges of course. One must navigate thru many pack territories and avoiding conflicts from usually bigger packs (pack size is usually larger inside of protected areas than outside) in high stakes area. The other must thrive on its own and moved significantly while avoiding being killed by humans. They both have the problem of not knowing the area they disperse (or at least, they rarely do). 3) Wolves lifespan is short. In national parks, for instance Yellowstone, the mean age at death for a wolf is 4.4 years. Outside of this park, in the neighboring areas, it is only a tad over 2 years (2.2). It's very problematic and exemplify the complexity of wolf-human coexistence and breaks the line between "natural untouched ecosystems" and "a landscape of fear and stress". Wolves in North America comes to breeding age at 22 months (1 year 10 months), with extremely rare occurrences of pup reproduction (at 10 months)...
:::Many newly formed packs outside of national parks just can't go pass their first 3 years, because humans kill one or both breeders too fast for pack numbers stabilization...
:::My reply could be repetitive and unhelpful, but I think dissecting the conditions in which wolf populations of both regions lives and their protection status help understand why the natural mortality causes are very high in Denali and not in Minnesota. ] (]) 10:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


== Including a note about a paper reporting a lone wolf that ate 181 grasshoppers ==
Before we keep reverting, how about someone explain why the Indian wolf keeps getting removed an added on the actual article Talk page, hm? -- ] 11:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:] cites the '''' as the basis of his edit. The authors of ''Mitochondrial DNA coding region sequences support the phylogenetic distinction of two Indian wolf species'', believe their results supports the reclassification of ''C. lupus chanco'' (Himalayan wolf) and ''C. lupus pallipes'' (Indian wolf) as ''C. himalayensis'' and ''C. indica'' respectively. As from the ] suggests, genetic analysis is raising many questions about how taxonomic trees should be drawn. I suspect a few entries in the ] may need to be revised as genetic analysis proceeds.
:The one discomfort I have of Retron's citation is that it is a primary academic source documenting research within a very specific scope. I find myself in agreement with the ] guideline, which prefers secondary sources that may not reflect current debate, but which draws from many primary sources and often cut directly to the results of scientific debate, without lingering on intermediary detail that might be lost on the general reader. I would prefer grounding changes to this table on references such as those rather than highly specific research articles.
:What concerns me, though, is that it is not really clear upon what references — secondary or primary — that this table is grounded. What is the basis of the claim that the table is a "new and widely accepted list", and that such a list "has been condensed to 13 living subspecies, 15 including the common dog and dingo, and 2 recently extinct subspecies." The breezy certainty this sentence exhibits appears to come from a different planet than the one from the previous paragraph, which soberly notes that subspecies classification remains controversal among scientists.
:Indeed, the database maps only one subspecies to the ''Canis lupis'' search string: ''.'' It's not the business of the Red List to document unthreatened species or subspecies, so there is no criteria for completeness here. Nonetheless, it's not clear to me where we found the endangerment data that the subspecies table states in every row.
: is a more general purpose database that the Red List often references; it identifies six ''canis lupus'' sub-species, but makes no claim that this list is complete or comprehensive; it's what they have in their database at present. The NatureServe Explorer identifies ''Canis lupus ligoni'' (Alexander Archipelago Wolf) as a subspecies; this is not in the subspecies list. ] currently has eighteen subspecies articles for ''canis lupus'' but has cites for twenty-three more subspecies; perhaps many of the latter are extinct prehistoric varients. This not-very-comprehensive sampling, in hand with Retron's reference, suggests to me that if we do the reference due-diligence currently expected from ] and ], we may end up with a different count of subspecies, some qualified with hedging references as the scientific debate on what constitutes various subspecies, which Retron's article is part of, advances on its merry way. — ] 21:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::To satisfy my own curiosity as to the basis of the table, I took a walk though dusty page histories and archives:
::*First subspecies list: by ] at 04:00, 15 January 2004
::*First appearance of '13 living subspecies', reflecting very nearly the list in the current table by ] at at 15:25, 13 May 2005
::**Archive discussion of 13 May 2005 revision ]
::** preservation of supporting reference.
::*Conversion to table, introduction of endangerment data by ] at 22:56, 20 April 2006.
::*Introduction of ''canis lupus familiaris'' by ] at 01:53, 4 September 2006.
::*Introduction of ''canis lupus dingo'' by ] at 01:30, 17 December 2006
::Reference supporting many table entries: Sillero-Zubiri, Claudio , 2004, The World Conservation Union (IUCN) page 124 - 127 — ] 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


I attempted to include a sentence about a report that a lone wolf may have consumed 181 grasshoppers in a single night, but it proved controversial: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wolf&curid=33702&diff=1244457753&oldid=1244416467 May I add it to the article? citation: https://trophiccascades.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/Barton_et_al-2019-Ecology.pdf it's a short read, 4 pages ] (]) 08:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I made those changes (changing the number of living subspecies to 12) based on the studies of Nowak, which are also referenced in the IUCN action plan. It certainly seems the most conclusive and realistic list. Whether or not these Indian and Himalayan groups are separate species I think needs more research and publicity before it can be included in wikipedia, with confidence. --] 21:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


:Why? What use is it? ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
==Dewclaw==
::It's an unusual example of the dietary breadth wolves can exhibit, thereby bolstering the point made by the sentences preceding the one I wrote. Additionally, there is precedent in Misplaced Pages for the inclusion of detailed information regarding animal diets, e.g. this article on golden eagle diets: ] . Multiple references to single-occurence observations — like the one I intended to add to the wolf article — were even added to this Misplaced Pages article on golden eagles. ] (]) 10:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
the line "Wolves also do not possess dewclaws, unlike dogs" should be ammended to read "Wolves also do not possess dewclaws on their hind legs, unlike dogs". Wolves do have front dewclaws, same as dogs. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if: 07:24, August 1, 2007 (UTC)|&#32; 07:24, August 1, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::This dietary detail is not limited solely to articles dedicated to diet either. The article on bald eagles, which is a featured article, no less, contains an extensive survey of bald eagle prey species: ] . ] (]) 10:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:I removed the statement entirely since the ] on the forefeet is already mentioned in the physical characteristics section.] 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


:::The article states that wolves will eat some types of insects when these are plentiful. I cannot see a reason why the volume of consumption should not be included. ] (]) 05:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, it seems this still elicits pushback: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wolf&action=history Can you provide more substantive reasons why this shouldn't be in the article? @] ] (]) 21:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::Can't believe this is a serious considered addition to the article. There is zero context here.... calorie wise is this a lot or a little? Is this comparable to eating a squirrel or a cow? Is this abnormal or normal behavior? Sounds to me like a trivial fact.... was this in the wild or in captivity. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 21:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::These are questions covered in the paper being cited. Should I simply add more detail from the paper in my edit? Regardless, Misplaced Pages is a summary of available knowledge, not a site of post-publication peer review. This paper is a peer-reviewed publication with little apparent scientific controversy, going by , so I don't understand the resistance against its inclusion. ] (]) 22:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Please stop referencing this page in your edit summaries when there is no agreement to adding the grasshopper information. Should you repeat your behavior, I will request action against you. ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::And just so you know silence ≠ consensus. ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)


== Project banners ==
==newb edit==
How about a verb in the third sentence of the leading paragraph?
: Hopefully that's now a bit better. ] <sub>]</sub> 03:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Would someone like to reveal what Wikiprojects this article falls under, please. ] (]) 01:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
== Two refs ==


:Can you now click the link in the banner? - ] ] 02:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Someone might wanna fix the two broken references at the "Notes and references" section, ref numbers #62 & #63. One has a date that's hyper linked wrong, the other is blank. ]


== Biased / emotional writing == == Largest extant Canidae Claim ==


This is factually incorrect:
For example in body language:
Several domestic breeds of dogs outweigh and are larger than wolves. The English Mastiff outweighs the wolf by an average of 50kg ( 110 lbs.), and both the Irish Wolfhound and Great Dane stand taller than the wolf at the shoulders. The wolf stands at an average of 80 to 85 cm (30 to 32 inches) at the shoulder; but for Great Danes and Irish Wolfhounds, these are the minimum heights with the average being 90 cm (35 inches).
<blockquote>The wolf rolls on its back and '''exposes its vulnerable throat and underside'''.</blockquote>


Before attempting to edit, I wanted to bring this to discussion. ] (]) 08:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Does the writer come to assume that he knows what the wolf has in mind when acting submissive. Even if not, the explicit addition of this obviously irrelevant piece of information seems forcing the reader to understand the wolf as an explicitly savage animal which would rip it's own family members to shreads if only given the chance... which it is not. (Objectivelly it's a bit like saying "A mother holds a baby in her arms, the baby's thoat and vulnerable underside exposed"). And there are a few other examples of this kind of thinking spread troughout the article. I don't think this is appropriate for an encyclopedia article and would like to see it removed.


== Domestication ==
Does anyone else agree with me here? Should I go ahead with the slight cleanup or is there something about that form of expression that points out an important fact about wolves that I fail to see? --] 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


I agree with the recent addition of the passage on domestication. A summary of this material should be present here, together with a link to the main article. But the copied text could be shortened a bit more, we probably don't need all these specifics with their attendant references. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:No, I think you bring up a valid point. I looked at your user contributions and not e that you have been editing since November of last year. Perhaps it is time to now become a regular member (it is free, after all), to unlock all that wonderful editing capabilities that are pretty much kept on a higher shelf (with the cookie jar and the hard liquor), away from the anonymous and casual users. I recommend this, as you seem to know what needs doing. So sign up, and go do that voodoo you want to do. :) - ] ] 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:"The material is from a non-FA article"...? Getting a little grotesque in our gatekeeping criteria, are we? Anyway, correct re duplication, as the Evolution section does do a good job of covering the ground here. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 07:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)


==RFC on Grasshoppers in Diet==
:I have to disagree with your interpretation. The fact is, that the submissive posture ''does'' expose the more vulnerable parts of the body. Perhaps citations should be added for the scientific interpretation of this act, but it's rather obvious that the act itself exposes those areas. -- ] 01:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
<!-- ] 07:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1734764466}}
::The basic flaw in your argument is that without citation, anything that you consider obvious is just that: what ''you'' consider obvious. More neutral writing is called for, in the absence of citation.
Should the following sentence be included in the article, in the '''Diet''' section, immediately following: {{tq|When such foods are insufficient, they prey on lizards, snakes, frogs, and large insects when available.}}
::As an aside, if User89 has trouble getting up to speed if and when they start ther account, drop me a line on my talk page. I will help you hit the ground running. :) - ] ] 02:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


::::One wolf was even known to have eaten 181 ] in a single sitting.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Barton |first1=Brandon T. |last2=Hill |first2=JoVonn G. |last3=Wolff |first3=Carter L. |last4=Newsome |first4=Thomas M. |last5=Ripple |first5=William J. |last6=Lashley |first6=Marcus A. |date=2019-09-18 |title=Grasshopper consumption by grey wolves and implications for ecosystems |url=https://trophiccascades.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/Barton_et_al-2019-Ecology.pdf |journal=Ecology |language=en |volume=101 |issue=2 |pages=e02892 |doi=10.1002/ecy.2892 |pmid=31531974 |issn=0012-9658}}</ref>
:: I do have an account... this is it, just often neglect to log in (I find it pointless since my static IP can only be me anyway). My argument regarding Kesh's observation is well: The exact same thing could be said about a human mother holding a baby, it's both true and clearly observable, still it's not something you'd put into an encyclopedia about human behaviour for the simple reason of it being completely irrelevant and decieving. I could provide more humanly debatable examples of the same problem, as we have no wolves here to argument their defense on their own. --] 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


?
:::If the only real objection is a lack of citation, I'll look through some of my books this week. It's such a common observance, finding a citation should be trivial. As for "decieving," I'm not sure what your point is. If you're disputing the purpose of the behavior, do you have alternate citations showing it has nothing to do with pack dominance behavior? -- ] 23:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
] (]) 06:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)


:'''Yes.''' The scientific article cites two other previously documented consumption of grasshoppers in grey wolves as well other canids. The article opens the possibility for new areas of research, as most wolf studies have focussed on large ungulate kill sites. If nature does not heed to taxonomic boundaries imposed by ecologists, is worth exploring and worth a mention in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
==Newfoundland Wolf==
''C. l. beothucus'', along with two dozen other former North American gray wolf subspecies, were consolidated into five subspecies in the early nineties. This information is summarized . ''C. l. beothucus'', though considered extinct when it was believed to be a unique subspecies, no longer qualifies as "extinct" given this new taxonomic structure. Basically, though the Newfoundland Wolf was considered extinct in 1911, since it has since been determined that they were not genetically dissimilar from all the other subspecies that were consolidated into ''C. l. nubilus'' (Great Plains Wolf), they never truly were a unique subspecies and therefore cannot be "extinct".


{{reflist-talk}}
My suggestion is to list them under the "former subspecies" subsection, explaining briefly how they were once considered extinct but have since been lumped with the Great Plains Wolf which are, of course, not extinct. TBH, it would be a wonderful idea to do this for all the former subspecies listed on the above-linked page. However, instead of giving each its own Misplaced Pages page, perhaps simply create a subsection under whatever subspecies they were lumped with. Each former subspecies wouldn’t warrant thorough details. They could just be listed.


=== Survey ===
In the meantime, I’m removing them from the “Extinct subspecies” subsection.<br>—] 04:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Please enter '''Yes''' or '''No''' with a brief explanation. Please do not reply to the statement of other editors in this section. That is what the Discussion section is for.
*'''No''' As others have said, that is trivia. ] (]) 06:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. It already says that they will sometimes eat large insects, so this is somewhat redundant, and unless there is reason to believe that this number of grasshoppers is typical, I'd say it's not very illuminating, possibly misleading, and generally trivial. -- ] (]) 09:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. Similar one-off dietary observations are included in other featured articles, such as the Bald Eagle article. ] (]) 00:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' somewhat redundant and has zero context. Is this a lot or little is this even a sustainable diet.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 02:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' A case of a single specimen cannot be considered representative of the entire species. We will need much more than this in order to find relevance. ] (]) 03:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' {{small|Arriving from ]}} - This seems like a good candidate for an endnote comment, expanding on the statement that they eat insects with an extreme example of this being observed. It seems a little too in-depth for the main body of the article, in my opinion. ] (]) 07:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. It seems superfluous since insects are already mentioned. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. It's trivia, not encyclopedic. ] (]) 19:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. The mentioned text is too trivial and in-depth. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 10:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


===Discussion===
==Poor word usage, or bias==
*I have no strong feelings; I understand the argument that it verges on ], but I admit it is interesting and does show the dietary diversity of wolves—it'd be a good fact at DYK :) I do however have a nitpick on the wording. Reading the source, it says {{tq|Only one scat sample contained grasshopper parts, but the presence of 362 forewings revealed that this wolf had consumed at least 181 grasshoppers in a short amount of time (i.e., quickly enough to be deposited as a single scat).}} I don't think that supports the "single sitting" wording. While I understand that "single sitting" is an English turn of phrase (and a fun and evocative one at that), I rather doubt the wolf ate them all at once, or that it was sitting, given that the paper elaborates on how hard it would be to catch that many grasshoppers. It seems more accurate to keep the original wording of the source and say {{tq|One wolf was even known to have eaten 181 Payette's short-winged grasshoppers in a short period of time}}. ] <sup>]</sup>] 07:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
"The first layer is made up of tough guard hairs designed to repel water and dirt" - 'designed' is used in the wrong context, hair has not undergone the design process. Should read "The first layer is made of tough guard hairs which repel water and dirt". <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*:A reasonable suggestion! ] (]) 01:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree with this, and I especially appreciate the idea of the rewrite to "short period of time". ] 19:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*Seems more on the trivial side. I've found information in a tertiary source that dogs have eaten: '40 starfish, fiberglass insulation, drywall, part of a home foundation, light bulbs, and glass', but I didn't feel the need to include it in ]. ] (]) 09:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:01, 16 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wolf 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
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Featured articleWolf is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 31, 2005, and on June 7, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 22, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 29, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
September 19, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
November 10, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
April 1, 2012Good article nomineeListed
January 12, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
March 30, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconDogs Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

WikiProject iconMammals High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on December 17, 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
          Other talk page banners
WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Section sizes
Section size for Wolf (35 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 5,128 5,128
Etymology 1,067 1,067
Taxonomy 2,452 12,542
Subspecies 1,455 1,455
Evolution 5,929 5,929
Admixture with other canids 2,706 2,706
Description 3,503 7,898
Pelage 4,395 4,395
Ecology 14 12,547
Distribution and habitat 1,168 1,168
Diet 4,622 4,622
Interactions with other predators 4,021 4,021
Infections 2,722 2,722
Behaviour 66 14,624
Social structure 4,236 4,236
Communication 2,312 2,312
Reproduction 4,309 4,309
Hunting and feeding 3,701 3,701
Status and conservation 1,388 8,912
North America 2,433 2,433
Eurasia 5,091 5,091
Relationships with humans 32 17,458
In culture 19 7,007
In folklore, religion and mythology 3,244 3,244
In fable and literature 3,744 3,744
Conflicts 175 9,865
Predation on livestock 2,428 2,428
Competition with dogs 2,202 2,202
Attacks on humans 3,305 3,305
Human hunting of wolves 1,755 1,755
Wolves as pets and working animals 554 554
Notes 27 27
References 43,245 43,245
Bibliography 1,898 1,898
External links 1,085 1,085
Total 126,431 126,431
Toolbox

Suggested Correction to Behavior

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Within the topic of "Behavior," under the subtopic "Social Structure," the final line of the section states: "one study concluding that 14–65% of wolf deaths in Minnesota and the Denali National Park and Preserve were due to other wolves." However, the study actually states that "39%—65% of total mortality" (Mech, 1998) was due to other wolves. The "14%" comes in the following sentences, in reference to human-caused deaths of wolves within the Denali population.

Additionally, the source referenced only refers to wolves in Denali, Alaska, stating nothing about wolves in Minnesota. Either an additional source should be added in reference to Minnesota, or it should be removed.

As the is a protected page, I cannot edit it myself. I suggest someone who can do so. BananaVendetta (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The issue here is with the final sentence in the "Social Structure" section, which reads: "Territorial fights are among the principal causes of wolf mortality, one study concluding that 14–65% of wolf deaths in Minnesota and the Denali National Park and Preserve were due to other wolves." The numbers are incorrect, and the claim is unsupported by the cited study. A correct statement utilizing the information from this study would instead be: "In wolf populations with a low rate of human-caused mortality, territorial fighting can be the principal cause of death among wolves. In a study performed at Denali National Park and Preserve, where the human-caused mortality rate among the total wolf population is less than 4%, it was estimated that 39%—65% of deaths amongst radio-collared wolves within the park were due to other wolves."
The source for this is the exact one already cited, which I've pasted below for convenience. The "14%" figure seems to have been taken from the amount of wolf deaths caused by humans, and the study was performed in Denali, Alaska, not Minnesota. The phrasing of "Territorial fights are among the principal causes of wolf mortality" is an assumption not supported by the study. It is also important to note that the study emphasizes that this population has a low rate of human-caused deaths, and that the various mortality rates were calculated using data from radio-collared wolves.
Mech, L. David; Adams, L. G.; Meier, T. J.; Burch, J. W.; Dale, B. W. (2003). "Ch.8-The Denali Wolf-Prey System". The Wolves of Denali. University of Minnesota Press. p. 163. ISBN 0-8166-2959-5. BananaVendetta (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello BananaVendetta, you are indeed right about the Denali National Park and Preserve proportion of wolf mortality due to other wolves. However, wolves in Minnesota, as you might know, are not as protected as in Denali because their studied populations are not all in protected settings, thus wolf-on-wolf killings sharply decrease in terms of %. Wolf-on-wolf killing is the primary mortality cause of grey wolves worldwide that is natural, obviously human-caused wolf mortality is the highest death cause worldwide. In national parks, wolf-on-wolf killings, in terms of % and occurence, sharply rise as compared to this cause of death proportion outside the park, for various reasons. 1) Usually more wolves are concentrated in protected areas, thus competition for ressources and territories is higher, therefore increasing interactions between packs and logically, increasing the probability of a wolf being killed by another wolf or wolf pack. 2) As with protected areas in general, prey abundance is generally higher, therefore packs can carve inside smaller territories, and thus, there is a much bigger wolf density and wolf packs numbers inside an area. Young adult wolves, both males and females, often disperse from their natal pack to try to find a group or an unrelated wolf to start a new pack and build a family of their own. However, if the wolf density is higher and packs are crammed, it faces a much more challenging ordeal than a wolf dispersing from a pack outside of an protected area with a stable population. They each faces challenges of course. One must navigate thru many pack territories and avoiding conflicts from usually bigger packs (pack size is usually larger inside of protected areas than outside) in high stakes area. The other must thrive on its own and moved significantly while avoiding being killed by humans. They both have the problem of not knowing the area they disperse (or at least, they rarely do). 3) Wolves lifespan is short. In national parks, for instance Yellowstone, the mean age at death for a wolf is 4.4 years. Outside of this park, in the neighboring areas, it is only a tad over 2 years (2.2). It's very problematic and exemplify the complexity of wolf-human coexistence and breaks the line between "natural untouched ecosystems" and "a landscape of fear and stress". Wolves in North America comes to breeding age at 22 months (1 year 10 months), with extremely rare occurrences of pup reproduction (at 10 months)...
Many newly formed packs outside of national parks just can't go pass their first 3 years, because humans kill one or both breeders too fast for pack numbers stabilization...
My reply could be repetitive and unhelpful, but I think dissecting the conditions in which wolf populations of both regions lives and their protection status help understand why the natural mortality causes are very high in Denali and not in Minnesota. Gimly24 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Including a note about a paper reporting a lone wolf that ate 181 grasshoppers

I attempted to include a sentence about a report that a lone wolf may have consumed 181 grasshoppers in a single night, but it proved controversial: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wolf&curid=33702&diff=1244457753&oldid=1244416467 May I add it to the article? citation: https://trophiccascades.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/Barton_et_al-2019-Ecology.pdf it's a short read, 4 pages Nagging Prawn (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Why? What use is it? Wolverine XI 22:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
It's an unusual example of the dietary breadth wolves can exhibit, thereby bolstering the point made by the sentences preceding the one I wrote. Additionally, there is precedent in Misplaced Pages for the inclusion of detailed information regarding animal diets, e.g. this article on golden eagle diets: Dietary biology of the golden eagle . Multiple references to single-occurence observations — like the one I intended to add to the wolf article — were even added to this Misplaced Pages article on golden eagles. Nagging Prawn (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
This dietary detail is not limited solely to articles dedicated to diet either. The article on bald eagles, which is a featured article, no less, contains an extensive survey of bald eagle prey species: Bald eagle#Diet and feeding . Nagging Prawn (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The article states that wolves will eat some types of insects when these are plentiful. I cannot see a reason why the volume of consumption should not be included. 14.2.206.29 (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it seems this still elicits pushback: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wolf&action=history Can you provide more substantive reasons why this shouldn't be in the article? @Moxy Nagging Prawn (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Can't believe this is a serious considered addition to the article. There is zero context here.... calorie wise is this a lot or a little? Is this comparable to eating a squirrel or a cow? Is this abnormal or normal behavior? Sounds to me like a trivial fact.... was this in the wild or in captivity. Moxy🍁 21:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
These are questions covered in the paper being cited. Should I simply add more detail from the paper in my edit? Regardless, Misplaced Pages is a summary of available knowledge, not a site of post-publication peer review. This paper is a peer-reviewed publication with little apparent scientific controversy, going by the citations on google scholar, so I don't understand the resistance against its inclusion. Nagging Prawn (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Please stop referencing this page in your edit summaries when there is no agreement to adding the grasshopper information. Should you repeat your behavior, I will request action against you. Wolverine XI 21:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
And just so you know silence ≠ consensus. Wolverine XI 21:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Project banners

Would someone like to reveal what Wikiprojects this article falls under, please. 14.2.206.29 (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you now click the link in the banner? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Largest extant Canidae Claim

This is factually incorrect: Several domestic breeds of dogs outweigh and are larger than wolves. The English Mastiff outweighs the wolf by an average of 50kg ( 110 lbs.), and both the Irish Wolfhound and Great Dane stand taller than the wolf at the shoulders. The wolf stands at an average of 80 to 85 cm (30 to 32 inches) at the shoulder; but for Great Danes and Irish Wolfhounds, these are the minimum heights with the average being 90 cm (35 inches).

Before attempting to edit, I wanted to bring this to discussion. 91.21.30.93 (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Domestication

I agree with the recent addition of the passage on domestication. A summary of this material should be present here, together with a link to the main article. But the copied text could be shortened a bit more, we probably don't need all these specifics with their attendant references. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"The material is from a non-FA article"...? Getting a little grotesque in our gatekeeping criteria, are we? Anyway, correct re duplication, as the Evolution section does do a good job of covering the ground here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Grasshoppers in Diet

Should the following sentence be included in the article, in the Diet section, immediately following: When such foods are insufficient, they prey on lizards, snakes, frogs, and large insects when available.

One wolf was even known to have eaten 181 Payette's short-winged grasshoppers in a single sitting.

? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The scientific article cites two other previously documented consumption of grasshoppers in grey wolves as well other canids. The article opens the possibility for new areas of research, as most wolf studies have focussed on large ungulate kill sites. If nature does not heed to taxonomic boundaries imposed by ecologists, is worth exploring and worth a mention in Misplaced Pages. Rigorousmortal (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Barton, Brandon T.; Hill, JoVonn G.; Wolff, Carter L.; Newsome, Thomas M.; Ripple, William J.; Lashley, Marcus A. (2019-09-18). "Grasshopper consumption by grey wolves and implications for ecosystems" (PDF). Ecology. 101 (2): e02892. doi:10.1002/ecy.2892. ISSN 0012-9658. PMID 31531974.

Survey

Please enter Yes or No with a brief explanation. Please do not reply to the statement of other editors in this section. That is what the Discussion section is for.

Discussion

  • I have no strong feelings; I understand the argument that it verges on WP:TRIVIA, but I admit it is interesting and does show the dietary diversity of wolves—it'd be a good fact at DYK :) I do however have a nitpick on the wording. Reading the source, it says Only one scat sample contained grasshopper parts, but the presence of 362 forewings revealed that this wolf had consumed at least 181 grasshoppers in a short amount of time (i.e., quickly enough to be deposited as a single scat). I don't think that supports the "single sitting" wording. While I understand that "single sitting" is an English turn of phrase (and a fun and evocative one at that), I rather doubt the wolf ate them all at once, or that it was sitting, given that the paper elaborates on how hard it would be to catch that many grasshoppers. It seems more accurate to keep the original wording of the source and say One wolf was even known to have eaten 181 Payette's short-winged grasshoppers in a short period of time. CaptainEek ⚓ 07:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    A reasonable suggestion! Nagging Prawn (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with this, and I especially appreciate the idea of the rewrite to "short period of time". bedazzledunicorn 19:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Seems more on the trivial side. I've found information in a tertiary source that dogs have eaten: '40 starfish, fiberglass insulation, drywall, part of a home foundation, light bulbs, and glass', but I didn't feel the need to include it in Dog. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: