Misplaced Pages

Talk:Wolf

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 15 September 2007 (Removing {{FAOL}} from FA per User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Re:_FAOL). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:00, 15 September 2007 by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) (Removing {{FAOL}} from FA per User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Re:_FAOL)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.

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, 7
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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 22, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 29, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.

Template:V0.5


Archives

Archive 1: 2004 - June 2006
Archive 2: August 2006 - April 2007


Cougar attacks

..and the other showed no signs of canine puncture marks or other cougar related injury.

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."Dark hyena 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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. Sperril 17:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The proper name of short legged wolf

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? hanchi 24 May 2007

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?129.12.230.169 12:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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. hanchi 25 May 2007

Archives?

What happened to all the old discussions? This is an old article, but there's only one archive with a single entry in it. -- Kesh 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see the permanant link now. Gonna fix that, and clean up the Archive box. -- Kesh 02:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Kesh 03:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization issues

Why is "Gray Wolf" capitalized in the article and title? It is clearly not a proper noun. This article needs to be moved to gray wolf where it belongs. = ∫t 5th Eye 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalization of common names of species, followed by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mammals#Capitalization. The short version? There's no real agreement on how it should be done, just that the articles should be consistant. All Wolf-related articles use capitalization for the entire name, so it should be kept there unless the standard changes as a whole. -- Kesh 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. = ∫t 5th Eye 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." -- Kesh 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..."

68.101.137.239 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. - UtherSRG (talk) 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.87.102.75.202 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New article needed

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.83.187.226.147 10:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Indian Wolf

Before we keep reverting, how about someone explain why the Indian wolf keeps getting removed an added on the actual article Talk page, hm? -- Kesh 11:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Retron cites the Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 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 this article from the Smithsonian National Zoological Park suggests, genetic analysis is raising many questions about how taxonomic trees should be drawn. I suspect a few entries in the subspecies table 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 primary and secondary sources 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 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species database maps only one subspecies to the Canis lupis search string: canis lupus dingo. 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.
NatureServe Explorer 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. Wikispecies 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 feature and good article candidates, 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. — Gosgood 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:
Reference supporting many table entries: Sillero-Zubiri, Claudio Canids: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan, 2004, The World Conservation Union (IUCN) page 124 - 127 — Gosgood 01:09, 11 July 2007 (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. --Tommyknocker 21:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dewclaw

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.70.136.240 (talk • contribs) 07:24, August 1, 2007 (UTC).

I removed the statement entirely since the dewclaw on the forefeet is already mentioned in the physical characteristics section.Coaster1983 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


newb edit

How about a verb in the third sentence of the leading paragraph?

Hopefully that's now a bit better. SparrowsWing (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Two refs

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. Lord Sesshomaru

Biased / emotional writing

For example in body language:

The wolf rolls on its back and exposes its vulnerable throat and underside.

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.

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? --89.212.75.6 21:50, 3 August 2007 (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. :) - Arcayne () 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Kesh 01:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
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.
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. :) - Arcayne () 02:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
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. --DustWolf 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? -- Kesh 23:17, 6 August 2007 (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 here. 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".

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.

In the meantime, I’m removing them from the “Extinct subspecies” subsection.
—GrittyLobo441 04:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor word usage, or bias

"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". —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattWilcox (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories: