Talk:Wolf/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Good Article status re-validation

Back in 2005, Gray wolf was promoted to the prestigious Featured Article status, the first within genus Canis. Her tracks were followed in 2007 by the Beagle. In 2009, Gray wolf lost its FA status. In 2011, the Australian Cattle dog gained FA status, and in 2012 User:LittleJerry was able to achieve a Good Article status for Gray wolf. For the next 5 years things remained the same with FA status being held only by the 2 dogs.

In 2017, the Gray wolf's two extinct sisters the Dire wolf and the Beringian wolf claimed FA status on behalf of the wolves, matching the two dogs. Later in the same year, Golden jackal became the only wild extant Canis at FA level. A decade has now passed since Gray wolf's demotion from FA, and it is now time to regain her lost crown.

Back in 2016, an interested group of Gray wolf editors formed together as a project team to reduce the article's size from 200kb down to 150kb, demonstrating what can be done when the wolf-pack works together. Perhaps we can do something similar once again.

As a first stage, we intend to ensure that as of 2019, the Wolf article is at least at the GA level that it was awarded back in 2011. This will entail some changes being made shortly. I have set out the proposed works below so that other editors know what the plan is and there are no surprises. We would be pleased if other editors could join us in this undertaking.

Status	Editor	Contributions proposed
Done	William Harris	Structure: Golden jackal is the only wild extant Canis at FA level that was achieved less than 2 years ago. Therefore, the structure for Wolf should follow it as much as possible. Else, we could take a well respected reference on Wolves (perhaps Dave Mech, or Mech & Boitani) and replicate the structure of that book, which may reveal some gaps in what needs to be included in a thorough coverage of the wolf, and what is currently included that might not.
Done	William Harris	Size: At 172kb Wolf is way WP:TOOBIG. "Too wordy" was one of the criticisms summarised at its loss of FA status. Our target size will be towards 120kb - that would allow 80kb for the article's content plus 40kb for references, which would bring it down to the size that it was when it achieved GA in 2012 (122kb), and around the same size as Golden Jackal (and with both being a little larger than Dire wolf and Beringian wolf). The highly important - and growing in public interest - section on Conservation is 34kb by itself and warrants a WP:SPINOFF into its own article. Another editor may have an interest in then combining it with the List of gray wolf population by countries to make a very fine article, as they are both on the same theme. If an editor has an interest in wolf conservation and would like to create the new spinoff article please let me know either here or on my Talk page. (POST-SCRIPT: The spinoff that was actioned is now Wolf distribution, with conservation being kept in this article)
Done	William Harris	Size part 2: Back in 2016, I reduced Dog in size noticeably by moving material back to its various contributing articles, and later as a group we had limited success with Wolf because it does not have as many other contributing articles to relocate back to. One section we do have is Hybridisation with other Canis - we currently have 7.3kb on a topic that is not about the wolf but about the hybrid offspring that no longer bear its name. A section is warranted, but not this undue amount. There are other sections under Relationships with humans where much content could be moved back to the contributing article, as they are detracting from the main topic - the wolf. At 20k, Relationships with humans might be WP:SPINOFF, and along with Conservation would deliver a size reduction of 55k (then we would need to add back some kb with two short sections that introduce these topics in the main article). If other editors have an opinion on this we would be pleased to hear it. (POST-SCRIPT: The spinoff that was actioned is now Wolf communication)
Done	LittleJerry	Graphics: All need to be re-validated for legality. Some may not be illustrating the topic and need replacement or removal.
Done	William Harris	Copyright violations, disambig pages, broken links to articles - a scan by the three relevant pieces of software to rectify. Earwig: copyright violation unlikely, 5% or less - multiple mirror sites Checklinks: fixed broken/suspect/redirect/unsecure links Disimbag links: No action required
Done	LittleJerry	Lack of "Sourcing", and use of "more journal refs" - two points of the criticisms summarised at Gray wolf's loss of FA status. To be rectified, with Citation bot run as often as needed. If other editors would like to assist please contact LittleJerry either here or on his Talk page.

We now initiate the GA re-validation. William Harristalk 08:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello all. I propose that the section in the article titled "Wolf communication" be WP:SPINOFF as its own article, as has been Dog communication from the Dog article. This would then further cross-pollination and development between those two articles, given that the two canines are of the same species. Does anyone have any views on this? William Harristalk 22:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Actioned. William Harristalk 11:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

We have now completed the Good Article status re-validation. The gray wolf has lost weight and is now back down to 120 kb in size. William Harristalk 13:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer review

The next stage for this article's development is preparation for Wikipedia:Peer review. This may take some time with ongoing edits. There will be a need to validate a number of the references cited that might be challenged by the reviewers. We could use a hand with this, so if any editors could help - especially of they hold copies of some of the texts cited - we would be most appreciative. If you have an interest in a certain section of the article and could help by validating its references, that would also be appreciated. William Harristalk 10:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Mariomassone, would you be able to expand the conservation section? LittleJerry (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

LittleJerry, currently on a roadtrip, but sure, though I'm afraid I'm only familiar with a few specific countries in Eastern Europe and Asia. Mariomassone (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Automated Peer review produced the following...

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

  "it has been"

might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armor (A) (British: armour), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), anemia (A) (British: anaemia), diarrhea (A) (British: diarrhoea), travelled (B) (American: traveled), cosy (B) (American: cozy), gray (A) (British: grey), grey (B) (American: gray), programme (B) (American: program ).
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]

--MONGO (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, the article was FA then demoted long ago. While it has surely changed significantly in the subsequent years, I suggest reviewing the rationale for the demotion from FA at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gray Wolf/archive1--MONGO (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO, comments noted. William Harristalk 08:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello All, this article is now open for peer review - please see link at the top of this page. William Harristalk 07:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Comparison to cheetah

The felids, except for the cheetah, stalk or ambush their prey and stop it by clinging to it. The large felids are able to deliver a killing bite and then commence eating. In contrast with the felids, the wolf, African wild dog, and the hyena must give chase and gain on its fleeing prey, slow it down by biting through thick hair and hide, and then disable it enough to begin feeding.

Wolves are canids. They are coursorial hunters by definition. This sentence is better suited for the more general Canidae or Canis page, as it is describing social canids as a whole rather than anything unique to the wolf.

If we are to use felids as a basis of comparison, why not return to the physical description section and include the bite force data from lions and jaguars too? Or state the obvious fact that their non-retractable claws are in contrast to felids? So far, all interspecific comparisons in the article have been with other canid species and bringing up felids is just jarring. Mariomassone (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the need to include this. oknazevad (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Your reasoning is sound and I will revert my edit. Bear in mind that the article "Canidae" receives 1,500 visitors per day, "Canis" 600, but "Wolf" 3,600. I put to you that the average visitor to Wolf will not be visiting the other two articles to compare the hunting style difference between the wolf and large felids, they will be expecting to find it here. William Harristalk 05:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the comparison to other hunting styles is a useful addition. However, the focus on the felids first was a bit jarring. Describe the wolf chasing prey first, then contrast with the felids. Some mention of the felid hunting style is necessary if the "greater risk of injury or death than the felids" is still mentioned. Perhaps " ... than felids, who generally ambush their prey and deliver a quick killing bite". Also the paragraph opens by describing the wolf giving chase to its fleeing prey while the examples of prey given "stand their ground". It seems the danger is large prey standing their ground and mode of killing rather than anything to do with the coursorial hunting style. And do we know that lack of fear is the reason for the standing ground? Large prey with antlers and horns might be better off facing the predator rather than running and exposing their backs.   Jts1882 | talk  08:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It gets down the the bigger question of "What are we all doing here?" Is it to provide text for external readers seeking information, or for other knowledgeable editors who can find their way around Wikipedia's carnivores? It would appear to be the latter. If I were a user and wanted to know how the hunting style of the wolf compares with the lion, where would I start? The Wolf page perhaps? Then the Lion next. I would suggest that your average visitor here would think that Canis has something to do with the domestic dog and Canidae sounds similar to some form of medical issue to best be avoided. Given that members of the Felidae were involved, even these two articles would not be appropriate in the world of Wikipedia editors, the correct page would be Carnivora - even we don't always get it right. However, it is not an issue for me, the entire "Hunting" section requires rewriting because its current structure is WP:SYNTHESIS and the knowledge-base has moved on from the date of writing for many of its references. William Harristalk 21:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

diet in cold vs warm months

I feel like the section on Diet could spend more time differentiating between warm and cold parts of the year. For many wolves, these are essentially different diets. Their poops are totally different. What do people think? Pauldemello (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Buying a wolf

You can buy a wolf for 2,000 to 40,000 dollars it depends on what it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:8101:1D20:588C:2E30:914:538F (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Range map needs updating

The map of the range of the wolf in this article needs to be updated. It's currently showing that there are no wolves in California and none in Oregon except for a tiny dot on the border with Idaho. However, there are at apparently least 10 wolves in California, at least most of which are in the northwestern part of the state [1]. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Services says that there is a minimum of 137 wolves in that state, "likely more," and has a map showing that they are known to be in more places than our map shows [2]. I respectfully request that the map here be updated. Display name 99 (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The first 3 wolf pups born in northern California for the first time in over a century is confirmed by CDFW. (I assume that wolves are following the Cascade Range from British Columbia down south as far as northern California, but we need a reference for that.) The article depicts Korean wolves mating (although in a zoo), the map shows no wolves in Korea, yet the article List of mammals of Korea#Order Carnivora: carnivores shows the wolf in Korea to be endangered, with references. Boitani 2018 - IUCN - shows the Korean Peninsula as part of the wolf's range. Mario, are you able to update, please? William Harristalk 09:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Further, there are now wolves in Washington State living west of the Cascade crest. They are also expanding across Oregon to the south, and have reached the southern Cascades in that state. From there it is an easy trot to Lassen, California and the current Lassen pack. William Harristalk 10:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there should be a "definitive" range map based solely on the IUCN google earth one, and updated only if IUCN does so. Mariomassone (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There are two arguments. One is that the IUCN map is at least 2 years old, we know that wolves can disperse 600-1,000 km in one year, and the Parks & Wildlife authorities in each of the affected states are WP:RELIABLE sources. The other is that we need a standard, and the best available is the IUCN with their wolf distribution map. Do other editors have an opinion they would like to share? William Harristalk 21:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

If a reliable source says that wolves are known to be somewhere, I don't see a reason for why we shouldn't note it on the map. There is no supreme source which trumps all other reliable sources and forces us to go by whatever it says even when a multitude of sources agree that there is information being left out. Display name 99 (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

With respect, what does trump it is the WP:CONSENSUS of editors who have an interest in this article. I believe we are still at the views-seeking stage. Especially when one of those views is that of the man who does the actual update of the map. Certainly the "Korea, Democratic People's Republic of; Korea, Republic of" needs to be included as per the UICN article and map. If I am reading the enlarged version of that map correctly, the wolf has followed the Rocky Mountains all the way down to Salt Lake in Utah - perhaps some of our US-based cousins could advise on that? The IUCN map can be found here. William Harristalk 04:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The IUCN map seems somewhat overblown. No way are wolves found everywhere on the Arabian Peninsula. I think the current map is more accurate. LittleJerry (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we are not beholden to any one source, but should use all reliable sources. So if the IUCN map is outdated because it's a few years old and there's reliable sources saying other places now have wolves, there's no reason not to update our map. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes multiple sources, not one that simply repeats one source. oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Certainly the IUCN map is in error regarding the Arabian Peninsula, and based on expert sources neither the Arabian wolf nor the Indian wolf have a range that includes that whole area. (Interestingly the map appears to be correct regarding wolf activity down the Rocky Mountains - wolves visit Utah from neighbouring Idaho and Wyoming occasionally, and the Utah government has a Wolf Management Plan!) We have the state wildlife authorities documenting wolf distribution in Washington State, Oregon State, and northern California down to Lassen Peak, and current for this year. As they reach a point where the area they are in can no longer support more wolves, they disperse southwards down the range, as they have done with the Rockies. Given these points, I recommend that the wolf distribution map now include the area of the Cascade Range from the border with British Columbia down to approximately Lassen Peak in California. Your position now, please Mario? William Harristalk 22:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this, but I'm quite sure the range in southeast Asia is wrong. The shape just doesn't look natural at all. Mariomassone (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, were you referring to the IUCN map or the article's current map? William Harristalk 22:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Current article's map. Mariomassone (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The map includes India then ends abruptly on the border with the nation of Myanmar (Burma). Regarding Myanmar, I don't think anyone really knows and I would be inclined to leave it as is. The real issue is China. As the Wolf distribution article states: "In 2017, a comprehensive study found that the gray wolf was present across all of mainland China, both in the past and today. It exists in southern China, which refutes claims made by some researchers in the Western world that the wolf had never existed in southern China." Not only do we have A Guide to the Mammals of China, published by Princeton University Press with 7 editors including Wilson and Wozencraft stating that the wolf can be found all across China, we have the 2016 secondary review by Wang supported by the 2017 work by Greger Larson himself stating that Wang is correct. Based on these, all of mainland China should be shown as part of the wolf's range. That includes the most populous southeastern section. This will be important shortly, because some work has been done on the taxonomically unclassified wolf from that region that will be released shortly, and which will raise some interest. William Harristalk 22:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Mariomassone, William Harris, Oknazevad, and LittleJerry, I have never edited this article and don't know about all of the different sources. It just seems like a very basic application of Wikipedia policy and good common sense that when reliable sources show information to be inaccurate, as parts of this map has been show to be, it should be changed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

For my part, I cannot assist here. I do a number of things on Wikipedia but maps is not one of them. I tried it once, and found it to be very time consuming and frustrating. William Harristalk 12:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Me too. I'd like to be able to update maps but that is something for the future. In the absence of a suitable map, perhaps a temporary solution would be note added to the caption along the lines of "recent evidence suggests the wolf range extends into southern China^[ref]".   Jts1882 | talk  12:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jts, I have initiated something - let us see what other editors think of it. This range map and commentary will probably be an issue at Peer Review or FAC, however we have some other things to attend to before then. William Harristalk 11:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to do a revised map. Just post the sources (preferably with ready-made maps of their own) and I'll include them in the image description box. Mariomassone (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mario, will do - you remain a vital contributor to Wikipedia's collection of "things that bite"! William Harristalk 12:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Mariomassone; to help speed things up more. Would you be able to do a source checking/review for "Relationships with humans" section? You can skip the "In mythology and folklore" subsection since I wrote that. LittleJerry (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wouldn't be very helpful in that regard, as I wrote most of those sections. The only exception is the dog part. Mariomassone (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Well that's good then since William Harris has less to review. LittleJerry (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

We can tick that section off our "To-Do" list - I am responsible for the Conflicts with dogs section. William Harristalk 21:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Range map - further

Further on this one, Mario. The range map remains the article's weakness; the FAC review team will want to know its source. I have searched the internet for the most recent AND authoritative map - we come back to Boitani et al 2018 which provided the IUCN map. This map is endorsed by the UICN Canid Specialist Group. Both Little Jerry and I had some doubts about that map because it showed wolves being found across all of the Arabian Peninsula, but since then I have become aware of Bray 2014 Genetic variation and subspecific status of the grey wolf (Canis lupus) in Saudi Arabia, with 3 of their specimens taken from the heart of the Arabian Peninsula i.e. where we had thought that they could not exist. Therefore, I am leaning towards your earlier position of using the UICN map as the basis of the range map. We would then place a note below the map to cover those areas that were not included but for which we have reliable sources.

The UICN map does not illustrate the historic range but we can live without that, and there is no reference supporting it anyway. Nor does it include national boundaries, something wolves ignore and for which we have the article List of gray wolf populations by country to cover this topic.

On the UICN map webpage there is an icon in the top right hand corner, which shows that the map is currently in "Topographic view". One of the other options is the "Dark gray canvas view", which might provide the basis for our map. Placing it in Full-Screen mode, then press the zoom in button once to magnify it, then a print-screen to capture the image, then a paste into MS Paint or other software, and we have it captured for cropping, then some very-dark-greying to colour over the legend. Your view, please? William Harristalk 09:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm down with that. I'll get to it. Should it be an entirely new upload or an overwrite of the current one?Mariomassone (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. I recommend a new upload. The current file also appears on "List of gray wolf populations by country" and it is fine for that purpose, but it would not pass FAC and therefore must be removed from Wolf. William Harristalk 09:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Taking a while, particularly reconstructing the fragmented range in Europe. Mariomassone (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Citation consistency needed for FAC

This is moved from Wikipedia:Peer review/Wolf/archive1, where I had posted it as part of the Peer Review process:

reference info for Wolf

unnamed refs	7
named refs	96
self closed	137
cs1 refs	102
cs1 templates	110
cs1-like refs	1
cs1-like templates	1
sfn templates	141
uses ldr	yes
dead link templates	1
use xxx dates	mdy
cs1|2 dmy dates	3
cs1|2 mdy dates	5
cs1|2 ymd dates	2
cs1|2 last/first	100
cs1|2 author	1
List of cs1 templates Cite book (11) cite book (22) cite journal (45) Cite journal (9) cite web (19) Cite web (4)
List of cs1-like templates cite iucn (1)
List of sfn templates sfn (141)
explanations

FACs should have consistent, error-free citation formatting. The table at right shows the citation formats used in the article. See Template:Ref info for an explanation of the terms.

As of this time stamp, I see:

• Untemplated citations.

Can you list them? LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think these are all fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Citations that use |authors= (not recommended) and |vauthors=, citations that use |author=, and citations that use |last=/|first=. Choose one. Last/First is probably the best, since it works best with short references (e.g. sfn).

I have fixed all of these, as far as I can tell. See table to the right. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Same as above, but for |editors=/|editor=/|editor-last=/|editor-first=.

I have fixed all of these, as far as I can tell. See table to the right. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Citations with typos in them, like this set of names: "Stronen, Astrid V.; Jä™Drzejewska, Bogumiå'a; Pertoldi, Cino; Demontis, Ditte; Randi, Ettore; Niedziaå'Kowska, Magdalena; Pilot, MaÅ'Gorzata;"

Could you list them all? LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I found that one by looking carefully through the citations for errors and inconsistencies. If I see more, I will post them here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Citations consisting of bare URLs.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Author initials without spaces between the letters. See MOS:INITIALS.

Same. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed these. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Journal citation without a journal name (author Goldthorpe).

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone bolder than I might consider creating short citations for all sources and grouping sources into books, journal articles, and other/news/web/reports, or similar categories. That might require some discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you found and fixed the untemplated citation(s). The author initials have not yet been fixed, e.g. (Miquelle, D.G. or Fox, M.W.); copying the page into a text editor and doing a regex search for "[a-z]\.[a-z]\." should help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

As of this time stamp, I believe that all of the problems are fixed except for the author names with typos. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't find any. LittleJerry (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Dead section link

Under "Taxonomy"=>"Subspecies", it reads: "...a number of these canines as subspecies or even separate species has recently *been challenged* by zoologists...", but "been challenged" links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf#Disputed_subspecies_and_species (a section that doesn't exist). Skimming through the history, it was added in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolf&oldid=922017867 but that section didn't even exist then. None of the other revisions I checked had that section either. 2001:56A:F1C6:9300:79F3:CD08:37C0:E36E (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The section was moved to a spin-off article: Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus#Disputed_subspecies. I've made the change but this type of linking is not the style encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. The link to the Dingo article is also questionable.   Jts1882 | talk  16:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Canadian spelling

Once again, I had to explain that this article is written in Canadian English. Can an administrator please post a Canadian English tag above the editing template (like in lion) so no one changes the spelling again. LittleJerry (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Seems template editor rights can do this, too.   Jts1882 | talk  16:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources review

LittleJerry asked me to review the sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• The first two sentences of the "Etymology" section are sourced to Boitani. However I can't seem to find support for the statements in the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• The Online Etymology Dictionary seems to use an anglicized version of the Proto-Indo-European root. I wonder if Lehrman's paper "Anatolian Cognates of the PIE Word for 'Wolf'" (Die Sprache 33 (1987), 13–18) might be a better source for the original form? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't have access to Garry Marvin's book. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Largest canidae

In the wild? Aren't giant dog breed like St. Bernard (dog) larger canidae? Note: I'm no dog expert but have an interest in biology and this claim seemed strange... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wolves and dogs are the same species. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

in "wolf communication" at the bottom of the page, it should be "wolves" instead of "wolfs" 23.190.128.37 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Nowhere on the page does it contain anything related to the intention of the request. Deactivating SPER. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 23:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the subject matter of this article?

Is this article about Canis lupus including all of its subspecies, as the introduction states, or is it about all subspecies except C.l. familiaris? If the former, then almost every assertion in the lead (and therefore on the Main Page of Wikipedia yesterday) is blatantly wrong; if the latter, then the introduction needs to be qualified. Kevin McE (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No response, so I have edited the intro to acknowledge the clear exclusion that the article makes. Kevin McE (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The scope of the article is Canis lupus in its natural form. We don't need to split hairs over domesticated and captive wolves. LittleJerry (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the scope is needs to be presented and clarified at the outset. If we are not distinguishing (you want to call it splitting hairs) over domesticated and undomesticated wolves, then almost every statement about population, size, appearance, diet, relationship with humans, distribution and conservation status is clearly wrong. There is nothing on the definition of the subject in the introduction that refers to 'natural form'. Is the offspring of two members of the same species not natural? Kevin McE (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The average reader doesn't think of a dog when the subject is the wolf. LittleJerry (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

And yet the article invites them to do that, by suggesting an unqualified correlation of Canis lupus and 'wolf'. The article must be internally coherent and consistent, and at present it is not. There are more than 300,000 members of C.l. on the planet. Kevin McE (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Because it is. The dog and the dingo ARE wolves but we focus on the wildtype become that's what the average reader expects, just as the dinosaur article focuses on non-avian dinosaurs. Anyhow, we already have a header stating that the article does not focus on the domesticated forms and that dog and dingo are not thought of as wolves colloquially. Let it go now. LittleJerry (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The header is not an integral part of the article. You are already in breach of 3RR. I have compromised, and you have made useful proposals that I am happy to include, but the idea that we can say that there are world population of Canis lupus is 300,000 is indefensible. I can only assume that you have not read the article [dinosaur]], which does an excellent job of integrating information about avian dinosaurs and extinct groups. Kevin McE (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No you are the one proposing a change to the article and so YOU are the one who has to get a consensus before making the change. Therefore it is you who are being disruptive. As for the population of 300,000, that's for wild wolves. Dogs are in the same status as wolves in zoos, which are also not counted. LittleJerry (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, authorities label the wolf Canis lupus not "most subspecies of Canis lupus". They go on to discuss the wild populations. There's no reason we shouldn't. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I request the third opinion of William Harris since he wrote most of the article. LittleJerry (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Surely everybody's opinions should be invited, not just those who have a vested interest in the status quo. Kevin McE (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It is quite simple: we can either have an article that makes sense, or one that pretends that 2 susbspecies do not exist. There is no way I, or anyone who believes that an article should have simple conherence and consistency, can prefer the latter. Kevin McE (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is rather hair-splitting, but that is Kevin's speciality. One might add to (line 2) "which are not considered to be wolves as the term is normally used" something like "and to which most of this article does not apply". Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• It doesn't pretend two subspecies don't exist. It explicitly states that the article doesn't deal those two subspecies, because in common usage wolf usually excludes the dog and dingo. But wolf is used in different senses. It is also perfectly acceptable to refer to dogs and dingos as wolves. Even if they do make the species split mentioned below, wolf might still be used in a broad sense to include all wolves descended from Pleistocene wolves, including the grey wolf, domestic dog and dingo, or even more broadly to include Himalayan wolves. The common term wolf is not very precise, which is why the article needs to start in such a convoluted way under the current title. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't "explicitly state[s] that the article doesn't deal those two subspecies" at all - only implicitly, and in a way that readers who aren't already clear that "in common usage wolf usually excludes the dog and dingo" are very likely to miss. I'm suggesting it be made explicit; it isn't at present. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It explicitly says that the common name usually excludes dog and dingo, but not explicitly that the article is largely restricted to this usage of the common name. Argh, how do we say this accurately and concisely without confusing the reader with qualifications? A further complication is that the next sentence says it is the largest canid, which is true for wolf in the broader sense, but gives numbers for wild wolves and not the larger domestic dog breeds. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Jts's initial comment 'It doesn't pretend two subspecies don't exist' is on the article as it is after I changed it (against Little Jerry's apparent wishes, but I believe we have now reached a compromise on which he and I are agreed): my talk post about ignoring the subspecies precedes those changes. As to clarifying that the article is about 'wolf' as [Canis lupus - dog - dingo], I initially had an edit stating that explicitly, but Oknazevad reverted it as "going meta" (I share his/her dislike of it, but it seemed necessary/justified): I then had it as a REM note, which Little Jerry reverted. I have now added it to the footnote. Kevin McE (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is not titled Canis lupus. It's titled "wolf" (and used to be titled "grey wolf" until an ill-advised move a while back). Therefore it's about the subject understood by that term. Which does not include domestic dogs. The article is correctly scoped.

Plus there's the fact that the latest science, covered at domestication of the dog, casts doubt on the idea that dogs are the same species, instead of a sister species that no longer exists in the wild, except maybe as dingoes. oknazevad (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

But unless and until dogs and dingos are categorically removed from Canis lupus by the recognised authorities (rather than this merely having been placed in doubt), it cannot be accurate to identify the wolf with Canis lupus without qualification. Kevin McE (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

We already have a header which states the scope of the article and the lede mentions the informal exclusion of dogs and dingos, why do we need a note?

Johnbod and Kevin McE, the article itself shouldn't be meta in regards to its scope. That's what the header is for. LittleJerry (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The header, as stated above, is not an integral part of the article. There should be a note (if the exclusion of 2 ssp is not to be included in the brackets giving the binomial) because the fact that the two terms are not equivalent should be clear at first mention. It is not encyclopaedic to deliberately mis-state the facts and later correct them. Kevin McE (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"The header is not an integral part of the article". So? We have headers for a reason. Why have one at all? LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

To alert people who have alighted on the page by error (Norman Conquest is an Aussie goalkeeper, not an 11th century invasion of the south coast of England, being my favourite until it was moved), not as a disclaimer to those who did want that page. Kevin McE (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Kevin McE, why do you keep insisting that we repeat this twice. Either we have a note on the focus of the article or we mention it in the lede, this hair splitting have to stop. LittleJerry (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is repeated twice. I am very surprised that you believe that there should be no mention of the subspecies given that the variety within wolves is very significant. And if the subspecies are mentioned, then it seems wholly suitable that the fact that not all subspecies are considered to be wolves is mentioned. I cannot think of any encyclopaedic reason for not doing so, so let's find a suitable stylistic way of doing it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll explain again, it is NOT true that only 36 subspecies are considered wolves, they ALL ARE in science. I have not seen any scientific authority classify wolves as (Canis lupus minus some subspecies). However, colloquially wolves are only the widtype. Colloquial ≠ phylogenetic classification, get it? Also variety in wolves does not mean subspecies are significant. There's diversity within so called subspecies. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

So colloquially 36 of the 38 are wolves: let's state that then. Kevin McE (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We already do, in the note. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Kevin McE, why do we need a note and a sentence in the lede stating the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We are not saying the same thing twice: the note is stating that Canis lupus and wolves (as understood in this article: please stop muddying the water by contradicting the entire thrust of the article by stating that they are all wolves scientifically) are not coterminous; the other is that we cannot mention 38 subspecies within the restricted scope of this article without acknowledging that two of them are outside this description, but it is grossly incomplete to not mention the subspecies. The situation arises because the need has been felt to create an article about an animal type that is not the entirety of a species, but is not one identifed subspecies: if the scope if taxonomically irregular, the taxonomic irregularity needs to be clearly described. Now, if you had been willing to tolerate an explicit, unhidden exclusion of those two outliers at the very beginning of the article, then the slight element of repetition that is present might not arise (although given that some of it is in a footnote, I suspect that most readers won't find it remotely repetitive). Kevin McE (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you LittleJerry: your most recent edits are a very positive step forward. I would far prefer to see a more precise phrasing than "several" subspecies: you were apparently happy with the article having explicitly stated 38, per MSW3 until now, so I don't know why you are rejecting that authority at this stage. Regardless, the reader is not well informed by 'several': would 'more than 30' be acceptable, which gives an idea of the breadth of the species? The clarity of the sentence is not helped by the unfortunate linguistic fact that species & subspecies are defective nouns from the fifth declension: it looks almost as though the sentence is saying that there is one subspecies that is not domesticated/feral, and that one subspecies is what is being described as a wolf. How would you feel about 'Over 30 subspecies of Canis lupus have been recognized, and wolves, as colloquially understood, comprise all except the non-domestic/feral subspecies.'? Also, how would you feel about moving this nearer the front of the article, so that the definition of terms is clear before we make assertions about the characteristics of the animal that complies to that definition.

Of course, Canis anthus, Canis simensis, Canis latrans and others, including non-canids and extinct species, are also colloquially referred to as wolves. It would of course be better to say that what we have arrived at is what is known colloquially as the grey wolf (is the Canadian form 'grey' or 'gray'?), but maybe that imprecision is what we have inherited from an earlier page move. Kevin McE (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel that we now have an article that acknowledges that "Colloquial ≠ phylogenetic classification", which was not the case a few days ago. Thank you. Kevin McE (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention of the wolf being eaten by early hunter gatherers. Archeologists studying hunter gatherers in Africa have found kill/butchering sites with the bones of hundreds of wolves. This is before early humans realised the wolf could both show them how to hunt and assist them on the hunt, and is likely how wolves became companions and, with selective breeding, dogs. PetePassword (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Carnivora

A question for my learned friends of the wild canid editing community, is there any reason why the {{Carnivora}} navbox is no longer on this page? I am certain it used to be. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC).

It, and two other very relevant navbox Ed, were removed by an IP on February 17. Seems like it was just plain I caught vandalism. I'm restoring them now. oknazevad (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, I thought it must have been an omission. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word "harvesting" for the hunting of wolves.

From the article:

"As many as 4,000 wolves may be harvested in Canada each year." "around 1,200 wolves are harvested annually."

Wikipedia's own definition of "harvesting" primarily applies to the gathering of grain that one has grown. Farmers "harvest" what they plant. You "harvest" food in the fall.

The word is being used more and more as a weasel word to try to justify controversial destruction of wildlife. Pro logging groups refer to the "harvesting the forests". And most egregiously to me, for the sport hunting of wild animals for trophies, definitely not for food. To make the activity seem more acceptable? "Harvesting" implies values that certainly do not belong to the killing for sport of wild wolves. Many people legitimately hunt deer for food. I have never heard this referred to as "harvesting deer". In this article, can we replace "harvesting" with the correct word - "hunting"? 50.98.167.166 (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the definition should be restricted to grain or even to plants, but I agree it does too often get used as a synonym for wholesale slaughter (e.g. seal harvests). It's definitely a weasel world, which should be avoided, and I can't see how it is appropriate for hunting wild wolves, although the Alaska government uses it in the cited source. I would used "hunted" and "killed", respectively, instead of the two uses of harvested.

One other issue. In the first instance it's written as if there is a quota ("may be harvested"). It says there are no restrictions for Inuit people and others can get licences (which could have a quota). I can't check the source so can't tell if the 4000 is the total number of wolves hunted each year or just those under licence. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

References

map

I will make a map with english lettering soon. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you translate the key in the caption until you make the new map? It's counter-inutitive that the green and green-yellow areas are those without wolves (in or out of EU) while the areas with wolves are in grey. I would do it but I'm unsure what the EU label says. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Background information on protection status in Europe:

The EU member states must comply with the specifications of the EU Commission, in this case the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive (Natura 2000). The Habitats Directive implements the requirements of the Bern Convention. The EU member states have the option of modifying the wolf's conservation status by listing in Annex 4 or Annex 5 of the Habitats Directive depending on its conservation status. Any change will require the approval of the European Commission, which depends on the opinion of members of the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, who have the crucial consultative role there. The EU member states can apply the derogations in the Habitats Direktive article 16 .

Countries which are not in the EU but are nevertheless signatories to the Bern Convention (e.g. Switzerland and Norway) must comply directly with the requirements of the Bern Convention. They directly implement the requirements of the Bern Convention for general protection an can apply the exeptions in article 9..

Sciencia58 (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this should be Updated more regularly. like every time somebody finds something new about the wolf that should be updated in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomandbonbon (talk • contribs) 16:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Should Cosmosmith.com be blacklisted?

Occasionally, editors will modify pages on specific wolf subspecies using this site here. It doesn't strike me as anything approaching a credible source. It doesn't cite any references, frequently mixes up images of wolf subspecies and there is no information on the author's credentials. Mariomassone (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason why it should be blacklisted, but also no reason to use it. It would be best to replace it with a better reference. There are only two uses on wolf articles, and only one as a citation where the information seems to be correct. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Wolves being killed by preys (focusing on North American Wolves)

Amongst natural mortalities in wolves, the leading cause is intraspecific strifes ("packs fights"). Death by preys comes next. Diseases, meteorological events like floods and avalanches and finally other predators complete the typical protrait.

Preys that were documented to have killed wolves (in that there is papers works available to verify) are Moose, Bison, Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni), [[White-Tailed Deer] and Muskox.

One female moose even killed two adult males wolves in a single event. See Weaver et al (1992) : Two wolves, Canis lupus, killed by a moose, Alces alces, in Jasper National Park, Alberta. Canadian field-naturalist. Ottawa ON, 1992. Gimly24 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There's Hunting behavior of gray wolves, that you can add this to. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Great, i'le read the page and i will add it soon. Thanks for the suggestion Gimly24 (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Lone wolves

• Mech, L. David; et al. (1998). The wolves of Denali. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-2959-6.
• Rothman, Russell J.; Mech, L. David (1979). "Scent-marking in lone wolves and newly formed pairs". Animal Behaviour. 27 (3): 750–760. doi:10.1016/0003-3472(79)90010-1. ISSN 0003-3472.

Lone wolf (trait) looks like it's headed for deletion. Copying these references from there in case they turn out to be useful. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, I am requesting a permission to edit section 7 of this Wikipedia page as an assignment hand-in requirement. I am planning to create additional information regarding conservation programs for Red wolf (Canis rufus) and Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyii) using two scientific journals: Captive breeding and the reintroduction of Mexican and red wolves and The Bureaucratically Imperiled Mexican Wolf.--GreWar29 (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. In a couple days you'll be autoconfirmed and be able to edit the article, you can request confirmation earlier, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021

96.68.52.149 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(The scienfic name for wolves are Canis lupus.

 Not done: Already mentioned in article. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 13:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done? of most certainty it is done, sir: 'tonly so happened that it was already done :P Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It was already mentioned in the article. So it was not done because it was? Or it's done because it's not? I'm not sure what you're even saying. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Rub' al Khali

Do wolves really frequent this place? There is very little there and almost no water. Jokem (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Well. There are rodents and scorpions there. And there is some water below ground level. And based on the IUCN's 2018 assessment in the article, I can see that wolves can live in the Rub' al Khali. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wolves characters.

When their ears elongates and also shows it's fangs it means that they are trying to scare any thing away or attack.

When their tails are bent towards their Belle's it shows that they are being submissive of frightened.

These are one of the attitude of wolves.

Aubrey Angelo (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

{{Not done}} I think you need some proof that they do this like other articles or other websites so it's facts and not fake. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2022

Please add a section titled "Summary" or "Conclusion" at the end of the article that summarizes the article. 64.130.95.32 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The WP:LEAD already summarizes the article. Cannolis (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Photo of hybrids

One on the left is not spaniel, but Gończy Polski (known also as Polish Hound) mix, just like it says in article about the wolfdogs. 91.231.118.246 (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The source material calls it a "Polish spaniel" (see fig. 8 here) Mariomassone (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggested Range Image Updates

If someone is able to update the wolf range map in North America, it should include the following (as of February 2023):

- Expanded range in Wyoming (southward)

- Expanded range in Oregon and Washington State (eastward)

- Presence in northern California and northern Colorado

- Expanded Mexican wolf range in Arizona (westward and southward) and New Mexico (eastward and southward)

-Presence in Chihuahua, Mexico

Bbreslau (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources:

The updated Mexican Wolf population distribution can be viewed here: https://www.fws.gov/species/mexican-wolf-canis-lupus-baileyi/map

The updated Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area and Blue Range Recovery Area in the US can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/program/conserving-mexican-wolf/species

Here is an example of the US Fish and Wildlife Service limiting dispersal north of Highway I-40: https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2023-01/mexican-wolf-captured-north-interstate-40-new-mexico

This US Federal Government delisting of Gray wolves from 2020 includes up-to-date maps of all wolf distributions and future range to expand in the US, including the (still listed) Mexican wolf: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097-107831

Bbreslau (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion changes in the map

Hey can someone please address these issues I found on the map?

• Honduras and Guantomala are merged and need to separeted.
• Luxembourg and Belgium are merged with France they need to separeted.
• To be neutral partially and not recognised countries should be added on the map like Kosovo currently is. This includes South Ossetia and Abkhazia (currently recognised by 5 UN members) and unrecognised countries like Somaliland (recognised by Taiwan), Transnistria (recognised by Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Artsakh and vice versa for Artsakh. And as last add Palestine.
• And add the Nakhchivan region of Azerbaijan.
• And add the disputed areas of Russia/Ukraine, dispute areas of India/Pakistan and China with full stops.

I'd be grateful if someone can address these issues on the map. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no wolves (Canis lupus) in Honduras, Guatemala, Somaliland and Taiwan.... Gimly24 (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)