User talk:William Harris/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:William Harris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Is this of interest?

Kari A. Prassack et al. Dental microwear as a behavioral proxy for distinguishing between canids at the Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian) site of Předmostí, Czech Republic, Journal of Archaeological Science (2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2020.105092

Wolves and dogs from same general area have different dentition consistent with different diets. This fits nicely with the view that dogs have already diverged from wolves when domesticated. — Jts1882 | talk 12:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

How is everything over there?

Hello William Harris, I thought I would pop by and see how everything is going over there and have seen your announcement, are we still going to see you from time to time? How are things in SA going? People are gradually getting the message over here and maintaining some distance, but beaches were still quite frequented over the weekend. My wife is an anaesthetist here in Melbourne and they are already rationing face masks etc due to shortages. I hope you and family are well and have an adequate supply of toilet paper!!! Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC).

For how long?

I don't understand - why? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Notification of involvement in an incident

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 65.183.144.120 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I am notifying you that you are involved with an ongoing incident.

My apologies for getting you embroiled in this, the joys of expressing an opinion on crossbreed articles, it would be easier to edit Donald Trump. Cavalryman (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

- Cavalryman, you jest. AP2 is a landmine every 2nd sentence. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Haha, I clicked on the TP and the first thing I notice (after the dozen arbitration banners) is RFC:First sentence, I’d say landmine littered with barbed wire and covered by machine gun and artillery fire. Cavalryman (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC).

A perfect example of the word farce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#Puzzlement

Now I can get back to content creation, unencumbered by those who do not know what they are doing. William Harristalk 23:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Red links

Hi, William Harris! You've removed a couple of red links that I had previously added to some dog pages. I think that's a good idea only if the topic is patently never going to have or deserve an article here. A topic such as primary lens luxation, which is discussed in many academic WP:RS, may not get a page until the rest of the project is complete, but is surely both notable and encyclopaedic, so I believe keeping the red link is generally helpful, and also incidentally in line with the recommendations at WP:REDDEAL. Am I wrong? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello JLAN, thanks for the explanation in your last edit summary. I have now visited all of the WP:DOGS quality class=Stub articles, and raised them to class=Start where appropriate. Most have not been reviewed since their creation over a decade ago. Part of that process is the removal of redlinked items as we know that articles are created and deleted from Wikipedia from time to time - some recent dog articles are good examples - leaving redlinks in other articles that were linked to them. The articles would not pass WP:FAC with redlinks (and yes, I know that these are a long way from FAC-quality). However, given that you have been active in placing redlinks around the dog pages with faith that the linked topic will one day become notable, I shall desist in future. Regards, William Harristalk 23:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, WH! I was pleased to see the system working at Volpino Italiano – someone linked my red link for "primary lens luxation" to an article on the topic. Great work on the classification, by the way. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Staffordshire Bull Terrier

I am not sure why Wikipedia is in denial over the original longer legged SBT now known as ISBT a quick google would enlighten you. They are not American Pitbull Terriers albeit perhaps in some cases interbreeding has occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not revert your edit, and I am not concerned one way or the other. You removed text with a referenced source with an edit summary of "unpleasant bias". If you dispute the statement, then please find a reference to support your position or discuss your view on the Talk page. William Harristalk 08:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Doggos

Far be it from me to tell you, as someone who is not a part of the project, how to conduct the project. However, I'm not sure of any discussion that occurred regarding fictional dogs, nor am I aware of a guideline for inclusion. Can you link me to these if these do indeed exist? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 07:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to raise the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs and highlight to the pack how you believe that a fictional character on a computer game in an article named Missile (Ghost Trick) might be comparable with a Wolf, Coyote, Dog, Labrador Retriever, Greyhound etc. and of interest to those who maintain these articles. William Harristalk 07:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no one in the project with an interest in fictional dogs (as far as I can tell there never has been) let alone computer game characters. Many such articles have been arbitrarily badged with the project banner by editors with no interest in dog articles, the project has few enough active members maintaining core articles, there is little scope (and no interest) in fictional dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC).

(My Talk page is being watched by supernatural forces....) Bryn is simply exploring possibilities; I am sure that a visit to "the dog pound" (Talk page) will advise her accordingly. William Harristalk 10:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You're very silly. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

How so? Additionally out of my own interest, what benefits did you envisage an article would gain by being badged WPDOGS? William Harristalk 01:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I meant silly as a term of endearment, re: the WP:DOGS terminology. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 10:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for explaining. Enjoy your gaming! Regards, William Harristalk 10:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Scientific name - New Guinea singing dog

I wrote in my explanation for a change: "changed "scientific name: Canis hallstromi" to "original scientific name: Canis hallstromi" in lead - this is not a currently accepted species name"

To which you responded: "Oh yes it is - do not get nomenclature confused with taxonomy, and learn the difference between the two."

Aha - the sleeping giants stir!! (Hi William...) OK, when I see "scientific name" for a taxon, I expect the current scientific name according to common usage. The current scientific name depends on whether there is a consensus to treat this taxon as a full species, a subspecies of a different accepted species, or something below this (which has no formal status in nomenclature - at least in animals) such as variety, form or breed.

The reason I changed "scientific name: Canis hallstromi" to "original scientific name: Canis hallstromi" is that yes, it was originally erected as a species by Troughton in 1957, but few if any today accept that it deserves species status today. BTW in zoology, it is the "epithet" (hallstromi in this instance) that is considered the "name"; the combination in which is it is first published is useful as a reference, but it is not obligatory to keep it there. Also the name is re-usable at any rank in the "species group" - i.e. species or subspecies - according to the preference of subsequent users.

According to this logic, the scientific name of the taxon today depends on where it is classified and at which rank. If authors prefer to treat it as a species, then the scientific name is Canis hallstromi; if a subspecies of dog it can be Canis familiaris hallstromi; if a synonym of dingo (another taxonomic position) it would be Canis familiaris dingo or Canis dingo.

So forgive me for saying, yes I do know the difference between nomenclature and taxonomy (actually I have been involved with this stuff for many many years). The (current / accepted) nomenclature follows the taxonomy, as stated above, depending on the rank at which the taxon is placed, and the higher taxon to which it is assigned. The original nomenclature does not - hence my change - but then again, that followed the original taxonomy of the proposer.

Now if you (or someone) wishes to argue that this taxon is a "good" species in its own right, then to say that the [current] scientific name is Canis hallstromi would be 100% correct, just like Canis dingo for the dingo in that circumstance (as some do indeed argue). However I do not believe you take this position (although I could be wrong...) - happy to debate further of course... your thoughts on the above? Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Also note, my opinion (based on my own understanding of the nuances of taxonomy and nomenclature acquired over a long period) stated above is reflected in the lead sentence of the domestic dog page on Wikipedia, thus: "The dog (Canis familiaris when considered a distinct species or Canis lupus familiaris when considered a subspecies of the wolf)..." Tony 1212 (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tony 1212, I did not realise that it was you until after I made the edit; my apologies. (I do the vandal patrolling for WPDOGS and come across all sorts of stuff each day, and have unfortunately developed a bit of an itchy trigger finger when moving across a vast number of edits that get made - it comes with the task I guess.) My understanding is that the scientific name under nomenclature is the binomial name that a specimen was given by the person who first "describes" it. This one was named Canis hallstomi. It will always have the scientific name "Canis hallstomi", in the same way that the domestic dog will always be Canis familiaris. Then along come the taxonomists, who like to classify "like with like". So the taxonomic classification - according to the much dated MSW3 - is Canis lupus dingo. My understanding is that this does not take away from the scientific name of Canis hallstomi. I will be guided by your response.

Given how the article has developed over the last couple of years and this being 2020, I think that it is time to do way with the taxonomic thing in the lede of the article. Everything points to it being a domestic dog, with the Mammals of New Guinea (1990) stating so, and that they can also be found in villages in the mountains. You may have noted that I have changed the species box for a domestic dog info box. I am prepared to take the next step and see what the repercussions from the purists are, if there are any of them still associated with this article. William Harris (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

No hard feelings and g'day from up here...

You wrote: "My understanding is that the scientific name under nomenclature is the binomial name that a specimen was given by the person who first "describes" it."

Well, again, that is the original scientific name - and officially (according to the ICZN), it is the epithet that is the "name", although popular usage considers it to be the binomen (genus+species combination). The "scientific name" as used in current literature for a taxon, also on Wikipedia, Wikispecies etc., according to my understanding is the current scientific name, not the original one - which is why the scientific name of the dog, dingo, also horse and some other domesticated things - is sometimes not settled, and in the eye of the beholder, depending on whose classification they follow. For example Catalogue of Life, ITIS, WoRMS, IUCN lists etc. would all treat the "scientific name" of a taxon as the current ones, any others would be synonyms or (in some cases) historical oddities... Just sayin'. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. We see in MSW3 under Canis lupus the taxonomic synonym Canis familiaris. In a scenario where a future MSW4 theoretically considers the dog to be a coyote, then I assume that under Canis latrans there would still appear the taxonomic synonym Canis familiaris? William Harris (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

OK - currently MSW 3 has Canis lupus as an accepted species, with familiaris in bold in the synonyms list. This means that at species level the author/s consider familiaris a synonym of lupus, but do accept it as an accepted (valid) subspecies (hence the bold) (pardoning the apparent tautonomy). In other words, they accept Canis lupus familiaris as an accepted (valid) trinomial (they use their patent shorthand/house style to convey this). So in the hypothetical scenario you suggest, indeed familiaris would appear under Canis latrans, either in bold (inferred: an accepted subspecies) or not bold (not accepted at subspecies level). Does this answer your question? Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I had inferred that is how it worked, but your explanation confirms what I thought, thanks. Comparably, we see in MSW3 under Canis lupus dingo the taxonomic synonym Canis hallstomi. In a scenario where a future MSW4 theoretically considers the NGSD to be a coyote, then I assume that under Canis latrans there would still appear the taxonomic synonym Canis hallstomi? My point is, they would use the "original" - as you put it - scientific name. William Harris (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, correct, they would include it in the list, but they would not be "using" it as the current scientific name for that taxon - which would be whatever bold name precedes it...Tony 1212 (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for your explanation! I have now moved the taxonomic debate out of the lede of NGSD; I hope that it stays that way. William Harris (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

OK... but I do not see why the lead could not contain some reference to its taxonomic history/current status - after all, the lead is meant to provide a concise summary of the remainder of the article :) Tony 1212 (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It simply states that it is a dog in the first sentence, with link to the domestic dog. That is what the genetic evidence is telling us, as does the recommendation of the Canid Specialist Group. There is much more in the article that warrants inclusion in the lede than taxonomic history, at least in my view. However, feel free to amend. William Harris (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, here is a suggested form of wording that might work (bare facts, not going too deep in the lead):

The New Guinea singing dog or New Guinea Highland dog"ref name=troughton1971 /" is a type of dog (Canis familiaris) native to the New Guinea Highlands of the island of New Guinea. Once considered to be a separate species in its own right, under the name Canis hallstomi, it is closely related to the Australian dingo.

Thoughts? Tony 1212 (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Now done... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

'morning Tony! I fully concur, regards William Harris (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

OK... sometimes choosing the most appropriate wording is a matter of some delicacy! Glad you approve. Best - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. Do you ever sleep, or are you a disembodied entity now living out on the internet? William Harris (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I sleep when I'm dead... no but seriously, I have a cat that wakes me up at 0430 every morning - I figure it is then a nice quiet hour or 2 to get some stuff done, before starting my day proper with wife, dogs, etc...

Also, not really regarding the scientifc name question/s, but some recent/possibly new info of interest regarding dingo and NGSDs: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14515-6 - in case you have not seen it. I just glanced at it and did not really try to comprehend, but thought it may be in your area of interest... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I can sympathise with you. Each morning at 4am I rise from the sleep state but remain in the hypnopompic state, as it is referred to. I am not asleep - I do maths questions in my head just to check - and can hear the sounds of night birds, koalas calling, I can plan my day ahead and review the day just passed, and remember and "play" my favourite music in my head. There are also "dreamy" sequences in which I am fully alert. So I get about 5 hours sleep, 2 hours in this state, but it does not have an impact as I am quite functional, although my wife has concerns about me not being asleep for the final 2 hours until 6am. I have done this for the past 4 years, and it is not detrimental. However, I am not as productive as you are from 4am.

Thanks for the dingo article. I have seen it; the researchers assume that the dingo has been a feral canine for the past 8,000 years or so, and this is the foundation of their study. When the first colonists arrived in Australia, the dingo was living with indigenous communities all down the eastern coast of the continent in a semi-feral/semi-domestic state. This is in the historical record. Once aboriginal society collapsed, the dingo became feral. In the remote outback, the sick ones will drift into remote indigenous communities and join the camp dogs until they recover, then they return to the wild once again. I do not believe that there was no 8,000 years of feralisation to study (that is my view for what it is worth). William Harris (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

OK... I noted they included some sampling of the NGSD as well, possibly shedding light on its origins and relatedness :) Tony 1212 (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct - there are some other contributions that I can add from the study. Indebted once again. William Harris (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, all good... Also I made a few changes to Canis lupus dingo just now as well, correcting a few errors of fact and style RE nomenclatural stuff ... hope you do not mind! Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

On taxonomy I am a beginner, Tony. I had to teach myself what little I know because there was so much nonsense floating around the Canis related articles; I guess I am telling you nothing new there. There were dog breeds listed as their own subspecies! With Wozencraft in hand, I did the best that I could. I am grateful for your professional-level edits.

So to clarify for me, there is really no taxanomic debate over the dingo being Canis familiaris or Canis familiaris dingo or Canis lupus dingo - it is up to the taxonomist at the time? William Harris (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

PS - know about all of the edits across the dog-related articles - I run the "recent changes" patrol list, and you are up there as the most recent changer! William Harris (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Well (if I understand you correctly) there is a debate still, in that there are several mutually incompatible positions set out by different authors, and none has yet retracted their position - first, is dingo a full species, a subspecies (of what?), or just something below subspecies (the latter not recognised in nomenclature), and second, is familiaris a full species, or a subspecies of lupus. - each has its proponents, and there is no consensus, it just depends upon who one wishes to follow, since different types of "species concept" are at play here, and choosing between them is to some degree a matter of philosophy rather than scientific proof. It is like, science can give you the cladogram, but where to draw lines across it saying this is the line between two species (etc.) is a matter of individuals' preferences, for their own reasons (and sometimes agendas)... Or was the question something different?Tony 1212 (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That was spot on, thanks! William Harris (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Just for information (though you probably already know this) I believe there are some some similar issues in the case of the domesticated horse (either Equus caballus, or Equus ferus caballus, depending upon who you ask...), although I have not followed that one too closely. Also at present, my own database presently follows MSW3/CoL/ITIS in the case of Canis familiaris as a subspecies of lupus, since "politically" I have some reasons to be aligned with those systems except where I consider them actually in error, although in other circumstances (such as Wikipedia edits) I prefer to support familiaris as a full species. The present version of my own database's entry for the genus Canis is here (includes only MSW3 "accepted names" at species level, plus a subset only of unaccepted ones). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Out of interest, I did some checks on recent Google Scholar usages (2016-current) and came up with the following:

"Equus caballus": 14,800 vs. "Equus ferus caballus": 1,170
"Canis familiaris": 12,900 vs. "Canis lupus familiaris": 15,800
"Canis familiaris dingo": 133 vs. "Canis lupus dingo": 838 vs. "Canis dingo": 474

However (reading MSW3 again) the horse situation is a bit more complex than the dog one, with many authors treating the wild species as caballus, not ferus, and MSW treating ferus as a subspecies of caballus, not the other way around! (Probably should give that one a wide berth, then...) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't even begin to understand the horse arrangement, and even more so how the domestic cat Felis catus got its own species - separate from Felis silvestris - but the dog did not. William Harris (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The short answer is that different groups of people decide. The IUCN specialist cat group, including all the main cat phylogeny and taxonomy names, made a formal taxonomic revision of Felidae in 2017, where the wild cat complex was split into European, African and domesticated wildcat species (they also decimated the subspecies of lions and tigers). No equivalent group of dog people have published a taxonomic revision, although the IUCN Dog Specialist group have started the process of doing something similar, but it will probably take a few years.

The long answer involves Opinion 2027 where the ICZN conserved the names of certain wild animals that had been domesticated. This included Canis lupus and meant the wolf could continue to use that name rather than be considered a subpecies of Canis familiaris that their rules would have dictated due to priority of the name. They left it open to others to decide whether the domesticated form should be considered a species or subspecies, but they clarified what the names would be. Since then there has been a trend towards recognising the domesticated form as a distinct species. This is partly political as many countries have conservation laws that apply to species.

It is odd that the dog hasn't been upgraded, as it has been extensive studied (more than any apart from possibly the horse) and it is the one domesticate where the split predated meddling by humans. In contrast the domestic cat lineage(s) are embedded in the African wildcat and have admixture with the Eurasian wildcat. My guess is that its only a matter of time that the dog becomes a species. What they will do with the dingo and singing dogs is less clear. Those recent papers mentioned above suggest they should be conspecific or consubspecific (within dogs). The other big question is how many wolf subspecies survive. — Jts1882 | talk 10:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Jts1882Thanks for chiming in... although I must correct you in one respect: Canis familiaris had no priority over Canis lupus, the 2 names were established in the same work with the same date (there is no such thing as page or line priority), however a "first reviser" could come along and select one name to be used over the other, whenever they are considered the same. However ICZN Opinion 2027 now removes this option - I am guessing acting as "first reviser" itself (with lupus now designated over familiaris for the wild species, also both where the two are considered conspecific), although this action (function as first reviser) is not stated explicitly. (I am presuming an "Opinion" trumps a "first reviser" anyway, e.g. if an earlier, overlooked "first reviser" turned up - as has happened in a few cases - it would now be automatically overruled; also this Opinion standardises the available/conserved names for a block of wild taxa with domesticated equivalents according to a stated principle, whereas a first reviser is not bound by any particular reasoning).

On the other aspect (stability/debate) - just a clarification (although maybe this is what you were saying anyway): any group such as The IUCN specialist cat group cited (for cats sensu lato) can come up with an agreed position, but nobody outside that group is bound by it and other groups or workers can continue to hold or publish alternative views, based on either the same or new information. That is because nobody "governs" taxonomy. The nearest you can get is some sort of consensus for now, where (as alluded to above), proponents of previously differing views agree to change their mind(s) and subscribe to a common view. So in the world of dogs (for example) that is a way off yet, and may indeed never happen! On the other hand, if/when a new edition of MSW ever emerges, various groups such as ITIS, CoL and national or international groups such as IUCN may decide to converge on whatever view is expressed there, or again, may not... we would have to see. Happy Tuesday - regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Indian pariah dog

Hi though i understand ur removal of content as per the policy WP:Spam.I think you removed the image inadvertently.So i added it again.Plz don't remove that tq.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello there. We need to be careful with websites that offer items for sale, plus it does not appear to be a WP:RELIABLE source. The article would benefit from more information gathered from reliable sources. The pix of the puppy, no matter how cute, does not appear to meet the breed standard for an INdog. William Harris (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Boerboel

Please make sure you do your research before undoing/editing this page. First you undid an edit with regards to the South African Encyclopaedia claiming it was not published in 1970 when it fact it was(You have rectified this and I've thanked you), then you removed an edit stating that the Boerboel is not a declared landrace under act 62 of 1998 AIA which it is(SABBS Registration Number 62/98/B-68). Lastly KUSA is not the legal authority when it comes to the Breed standard, only the SABBS under act 62 of 1998 AIA is that authority and thus the Breed standard should be based on that of the SABBS.

Regards: User:Jln115

Hello JLN115. I undid a suite of edits as I was not inclined to deal with each. Further on Talk:Boerboel. William Harris (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

100% as long as we can agree that the current edits are satisfactory and factual regards Jln115 —Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please refer Talk:Boerboel. William Harris (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Canis lupus dingo - still an appropriate page name?

Hi William, just wondering if you still think that Canis lupus dingo is the best name for that page, bearing in mind that MSW3 taxonomy (from which the name/treatment originates) is now 15 years old and there are other views, as you know, and as are reflected in the article - e.g. I might favour renaming it "dingo-New Guinea singing dog clade" or something, which would then be taxonomy/nomenclature independent. However I realise that there is some history here, and potentially other views to be considered. Thoughts? Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Tony, thanks for your recent edits and sharing your thoughts. I am always open to suggestions that further the information contained here. It has been named Cld, Dingo (taxon), and back to Cld again. The problem that we have is that the editors over on Dingo will only accept material relating to the "Australian" dingo, plus that article is 145kb in size so it can take little more. What we have here is basically everything else, and so I avoid a WP:FORK dispute with them. I think the clade concept is a good approach, but I am not sure about the name. William Harris (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well I thought about raising this on the article's talk page, but thought here might be a better place in the first instance... what think you about raising it there? Tony 1212 (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtfulness, and I fully support raising the matter there. There is benefit in moving away from MSW3 as it is becoming dated and with no update in sight. I have been looking for a WP:COMMONNAME that we might use. The "Dingo clade" would be good, but not found! There is reference to the "Southeast Asian clade", but that is far wider and includes SE Asian village dogs. The benefit of raising it on the Cld talk page is that we can use what the majority of editors agree on; the WP:MOVE would be simple. However, we must meet WP:NOTABILITY, otherwise the entire article risks deletion. William Harris (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. matter now raised on the Talk:Canis_lupus_dingo#Revisiting_this_article's_name.... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Canids of the World, a cited source in a recent edit

Just wondering: how did you get access to the book Canids of the World (ISBN 978-0-691-17685-7)? Do you own it, or is there a subscription service that gives you access? ZFT (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello ZFT, I went into Google Books, found it, and went to the page number. It was that simple. William Harris (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Lost and Found

Greetings,

It isn't exactly the dog ancestor you are looking for, but a paper describing a new Canis species C. borjgali came out this year. No article on it yet, but the paper itself can be found on Google Scholar. Happy editing! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello SilverTiger, thanks for the latest Lucenti article. The Italians have spearheaded much research on this topic across ancient Europe. I do have an interest in the early wolves, which may shed light on the lineage of the modern Caninae. One intriguing example: it is commonly accepted that C. mosbachensis in Europe is the ancestor of C. lupus, and that C. variabilis is the east Asian variant. There is one internationally very noted paleontologist who believes that, based on morphology only, mosbachensis is the ancestor of the modern wolf, but variabilis is the ancestor of the dog! Regards, William Harris (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Now included at Evolution of the wolf#Canis lupus William Harris (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Boerboel. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jln115 (talk)

(talk page watcher) Jln115, William Harris, I'm sorry to butt in, but neither of you should be leaving vandalism warnings for the other – neither of you is engaged in vandalism or anything like it, it's just a content dispute. Vandalism is intentional damage to the project, not disagreement over how to improve it. Since I'm here: edit-warring really never resolves anything and is best avoided however hard it may seem at the time ("Edit-war? What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!"). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not so sure that is the case, JLAN.

WP:VANDALISM states that "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."

Among those 5 pillars listed as the purpose, we have the second pillar, WP:5P2, which is about maintaining a neutral point of view. We have here an editor who is disregarding WP:NPOV by deleting a WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY source because they disagree with it. The way I see it, this is a case of just another vandal who should be going down the same path other vandals have gone before. They have now received 3 escalating warnings, with a final Level-4 warning left to go, as is the due process.

Your respected opinion, please? William Harris (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If I was a vandal I wouldn't go through the trouble to engage on the talk page as I've done(you on the other hand have stopped engaging on the talk page and simply revert edits as you please), I also wouldn't go through the trouble of presenting several pages of South African legislation and statements from the Kennel union of South Africa to prove my statements. As I've stated before I find it hypocritical that you claim I'm deleting WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources yet you are guilty of doing the same.

As I've stated on the talk page I don't believe the source is a WP:NPOV as the author has stated himself that his research is informed by Marxist social history, however that debate is for another day, As I'm more concerned that you(William) think it is proper and relevant for political and racial statements to be included on a dog page.

Lastly I would like to thank Justlettersandnumbers (talk) for your input and look forward to your opinion on this matter, regards Jln115 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm leaving this arena now. For what little it's worth, my opinion is that this is an ordinary content dispute and can easily be resolved by well-mannered and collegial discussion. If that doesn't seem to be working, you could try getting a third opinion, though a request there might be rejected because there's a revert by a third editor, Cavalryman; other options are WP:RFC and WP:DR. I invite all involved to avoid any kind of escalation. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me

I didn't know that it was from a cited source and someone said that. I thought it was just basic knowledge. The same with the European Rabbit. I am not attempting to cause disruptive editing, I just genuinely did not know. I thought I was just adding information.

This is what I hate a bout my life. I do something which I believe to be harmless by accident, but then I basically step on a landmine and people give me death threats and I hate it. I didn't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is giving you death threats and hate here. People spend a lot of their own time on Wikipedia tracking down WP:RELIABLE sources and stating what the experts have written. Then someone comes along and adds other things under the source that was cited, based on what they think and not on what the expert has written - that is not fair. Here there is no "general knowledge", everything has to come from a reliable source. This is an online encyclopedia, not a personal blog. William Harris (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello again

I never said it was a personal blog, and what I did was done in innocent ignorance rather than willful trolling. I didn't notice the citations, honest. I apologize if I seemed like I was altering the respective articles. I assumed that the information put in there was from common knowledge observed by people, not from written sources. And technically, I get threats, which spells death to my editing time at wikipedia, so yeah. But anyway, please don't block or remove me. I keep making honest mistake after honest mistake, but people think I'm just a troll or a hacker. I promise that I will never edit and set foot on wikipedia again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

People come to Wikipedia and are confronted by the mass of policies contained in WP:POL. They start editing, they make mistakes - haven't we all? - and someone comes along and lets them know. As long as you comply with only 3 policies, and you are able to WP:CITE from WP:RELIABLE sources that other editors can WP:VERIFY, nobody could doubt what you are doing and you will be a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Please do not leave the project; this event is part of your development. By placing iron ore through a furnace, steel comes out the other side.

Also be aware that the messages you remove from your talk page are not deleted, they are archived and can all be reviewed by anyone looking at your talk page history. Your best approach might be to not delete them and make your thoughtful and well considered comments underneath, rather than giving way to initial anger as you did regarding Zebra, which fortunately you overcame and amended by yourself. That way you can show remorse, learning, and progress, and not be seen as trying to hide something. From the edit history, I saw one example of an editor giving you helpful advice, and another editor trying to keep you from being banned for edit warring. Then there are my two notices. I do not see exhibited there "I basically step on a landmine and people give me death threats". You are over-dramatising, please resist doing that to yourself. William Harris (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

Of course I feel remorse. I don't do them to tick people off, I did it because I thought the articles were missing some additions. And i am learning and changing. It's not like I'm doing this on purpose. I don't know who runs wikipedia now, but I assume I can go to them and ask what articles should be edited properly or not. Also, I wasn't trying to overdramatize. I was just paranoid. But yeah, my point still stands that I basically get into a lot of trouble by accident. And I admit that I made mistakes that I didn't know were wrong. For example, I added "African Cheetah" as a species, but I didn't know they were a species. But still, African Cheetahs are animals, and its easier to call them a species by their range name rather than multiple names. And I see Zebras as a whole as "Vulnerable", and they probably are, and the same is with African Cheetahs. And also, I have a lot more questions and statements, but wait until you're ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody "runs" Wikipedia, it runs itself. There are a set of policies, and there are some very experienced editors who have become Administrators and have been granted powers to enforce those policies. The rest is all done by editors similar to you and I. The people who have visited your talk page and left you messages - including me - are all simply more-experienced editors. There is a place on Wikipedia where editors specialise in helping new editors, it is called the "Teahouse" and you will find it by clicking on the WP:TEAHOUSE. This is the place for your questions. All the best with your future edits; I am here if you get stuck. William Harris (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey again

Hi. I hope I'm not in trouble. I do have an interest in mammals, especially megafauna, extinct and extant, but I'm interested in all animals and even life on earth as a whole. I especially have gained in interest in megafauna living today, such as african megafauna. I also am running a wiki of my own on fandom, and I have ambitious plans for it. Anyway, I wish to learn more about extant megafauna, so please let me know if there's anything relating to that. And if you have a personal place where we can talk easier, that would be fine.

Also, what happened to the conservation status on the zebra and chinese high-fin banded shark?

And should I edit something weird from this page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_sheep_predation (For context, it lists gophers as a predator of sheep, without citation), and besides, that makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You are not in trouble - an Administrator has not enquired on your Talk page! If they do, you will be given a fair chance to explain yourself - they are reasonable people. You may be interested in WP:ANIMALS and WP:TREEOFLIFE. You can raise issues about an article on its Talk page, and see if there are other editors who will respond and take action. Please do this with zebra and chinese high-fin banded shark - these are not within my scope. Articles like Wolf and Dingo have a big following - ask a question there and you should have a response within hours. Other articles do not - it would appear that "Domestic sheep predation" was one of these. There was an IP who visited it in July and wrote rubbish - nobody responded, so I have now dealt with it. If nobody responds within a week to your Talk page request, place ^{[citation needed]} into the article at the end of the offending text (in edit mode, copy this now and add it to your sandbox for later use). If nothing is done about it, after about a month remove the text and the citation required template with an edit summary, such as "Removed uncited text". Nobody should have an issue with that. Be aware that a citation at the end of a paragraph could be covering the whole paragraph, or just the last sentence; you will need to check the reference. William Harris (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I still have a few questions, but I'll list some of them later. Where and how do I ask questions to the projects? And I'm heavily interested in extant megafauna. Do you know if that community exists? Firekong1 (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

On the project's talk page; that is where you can follow some interesting discussions on that topic. I do not know of any community regarding extant megafauna. Perhaps once you have a little more editing experience, you might start up one under WP:MAMMALS! William Harris (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sup

There's this user that I'm having an issue with. They're called BhagyaMani. I have been making some incorrect edits which that person undoes, but I have been asking to talk to them, and I have received no answer. In fact, they just remove it. All I want to do is talke to that user and ask them a question, but they won't respond. And they even blame me for not talking to them. But they're the one who won't respond. Firekong1 (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, if you have a WP:RELIABLE source that the animal is known as the "European marten", then simply include it. If your edit is reverted again then raise the issue on the article's Talk page. BhagyaMani is well known for improving animal articles - you will need to have your facts correct. William Harris (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Why won't Bhagyamani respond to messages on his talk page that I leave him? He won't answer me, and I'm always waiting for a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You will need to ask that editor directly. I do not regard "You haven’t talked to me for a while. Am I in trouble?" as having asked much directly. If still no reply, then be guided by Marcus Aurelius: "How ridiculous and how strange to be surprised at anything which happens in life." William Harris (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

HELOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!82.10.53.151 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I wrote a more mature message on his page, but he hasn't responded. Can you tell me why he won't respond? And/or can you please ask him for me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani#Greetings,_and_a_sincere_apology

When you wrote "Another user by the name of User:William Harris told me that if I needed assistance on Wikipedia articles on extant megafauna, I could come here", that was not exactly correct, was it? If he won't answer then I recommend that you just live with it. William Harris (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Alopekis

external link to add on the Alopekis article: https://greatdanegnosis.wixsite.com/mysite subject to your approval. I had put a lot of effort into the article, with personal research, conservation efforts and on-the-ground knowledge, over many decades, shame to see it reduced to a stub but I suppose only third-party sources count as "reliable" here, while first-hand cynological study / experience / expertise / original research on a subject does not matter... Please remove my talk, apologies for formatting errors, this was the only way for me to contact you about this, best wishes, User:Fainomenon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fainomenon (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Christmas wolf mummy?

Thought you would appreciate this, a wolf pup mummy from Yukon has just been described, if you haven't already seen it: [1][2] I must say that music in the video abstract is somewhat distracting! FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello FunkMonk, I have seen it and a number of my work colleagues have also referred it to me, which is kind of them. However, thanks for keeping me in mind. The soundtrack is not exactly Scandinavian doom metal and it could have done without it. I am a bit disappointed with the Nat Geo article depiction of wolves hunting fish - a representation of the modern grey wolf appears in it and not a representation of a Beringian wolf - DNA shows that the pup falls within the Beringian clade. The researchers indicate that the pup's red fur is due to oxygenation, but I have my doubts, especially when a recent major genetic study found that the older the Siberian wolf specimen studied, the more COYOTE DNA could be found in it!! (Coyote remains have not been found in Eurasia, so far.) Julie Meachen was the researcher who found Beringian wolf remains in Wyoming i.e. on the southern side of the ice sheets and inside dire wolf territory! She has also found what she believes is the remains of Beringian/dire wolf hybrids - that one is probably in the pipeline. William Harris (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional interesting insights as always! Oh, and I see we already talked about Scandinavian rock, maybe I can send you another album I've recently made a cover of once it's released (this time it's psych rock, though, if that has any interest)... FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes please; I am currently following Monolord: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcRT_bFaz_0 William Harris (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice, I see we have a connoisseur! FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Our little friend now has an entry at Beringian wolf#Basal wolf. I am currently exploring "stoner-doom"; this is one of the best and latest examples (beware the possible apocalyptic mutation of SARS-COV2!). They also work along-side some interesting talent. William Harris (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha, funny you should mention it, when I saw they were Swedish I thought "damn Swedes just closed their border to Denmark", because we're one of the few countries that new coronavirus mutation has spread to from the UK (the Swedes have long felt slighted because DK shut them from entering here due to their lax restrictions, so this seems to be their comeback)... And by the way, are we any closer to the Beringian wolf perhaps getting a scientific name? Or is it unlikely to ever happen? FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It is a comeback, alright. No closer to a name for the Beringian wolf, nor the entire grouping of "Pleistocene wolves" which are separate populations to the modern Holarctic grey wolf. The entire Genus Canis is in need of a review, similar to what has happened with cats here. The IUCN Canid Specialist Group has begun moving in that direction, but it will take some time. They are starting with the genetic examination of some of the holotypes - what it actually was that the discoverers attributed a binomial name to. William Harris (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas William Harris
	Hi William Harris, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010^Talk 20:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Slow as Christmas!!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 04:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Canaan Dog

Don’t really care for the article, but in response to your edit summary, there’s no country called the Middle East either. Jerm (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You raise a fair point, however the Middle East is a region that exists in the modern world; most readers will know where that is. The "Origin" in the infobox is designed to reflect where this dog came from in the modern world. We can either say the cited Middle East (which still needs a page number to be a full reference), or we can list the cited "Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Sinai peninsula, and these or dogs very similar are found in Egypt, Iraq, and Syria." I suggest that the Middle East is the more elegant of the two. Despite the name given to it, the dog is found across the Middle East and Egypt (which is more appropriately referred to as the Fertile Crescent but I have not found a reference for a writer stating that), and I don't believe anyone knows exactly where this dog came from within this broad region.

Thank you for providing a solid reference stating that this is the national dog of Israel. It has been included and removed on rotation in the past by various editors without a cited source. The reference your provided is appropriate for this purpose, so you have added an important element to the article. All the best for the coming New Year. William Harris (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello William Harris: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Happy New Year, William Harris!

Happy New Year!

William Harris,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Aenocyon

Hi. You may not consider it a split, but you copied the 2nd paragraph in the Dire Wolf article directly into the genus article (except for its last two sentences). As per WP:COPYWITHIN, attribution is required for copyright, unless it falls under the exceptions listed in WP:NOATT, which I don't think apply in this instance. The fix is simple, simply revert my last edit, and when you do, provide attribution in the edit summary to see the history of Dire Wolf for attribution. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969, thanks for this advice - it is an area of WP that I am not familiar with, and will do. Shortly, there will be a discussion at Talk:Dire wolf on how much of the taxonomy should reside on the species article and how much on the genus article. Regards, William Harris (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

William Harris, no worries. You're an experienced editor, so I usually let experienced editors do the change, so they get used to the attribution thing. I didn't feel my edit summary explained it well enough. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You have me intrigued onel5969, how do you folks pick these types of copies up? William Harris (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

William Harris, by "types of copies", do you mean copyright violations, otherwise known as copyvios? There is a tool called "earwig" (you can find it here), which is what most folks use. As part of NPP (New Page Patrol), we have access to the page curation tool, which includes the earwig tool, which is how I spotted this. It gave an approximately 90% chance of copyvio. But when I looked at the source it says was a copyvio, that source was a "mirror" of the Dire Wolf article (meaning it had copied from WP), so I knew the info had been copied from another article. I hope that makes sense. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, a heads up on this article, we usually don't create articles for a genus or family if it is monotypic, such are usually dealt with at the species level, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). So while I'm not going to do it, I can imagine someone will nominate it for a merge down the line, in case you plan on expanding it much. There is of course a chance that Armbruster's wolf could be moved to that genus at some point (supposedly being ancestral), which would warrant resurrecting the article when that happens. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I note that the Armbruster's wolf article now uses "Canis" armbrusteri. Can this be justified using Perri et al (2021) as a source. I'd also question the statement that "Canis" armbrusteri was named by James W. Gidley in 1913. Unfortunately, I can't access the paper at the moment. Given the convergent evolution, there must be a big question over whether armbrusteri belongs with the wolf or dire wolf. — Jts1882 | talk 08:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we can do anything here until some authority formally proposes this new combination. FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk, I was not aware of that policy, and will put the redirect back in place. The material will be there in case of future activation. I will be raising some issues tomorrow when adequate time has been given for closing off the formal proposal for the name change. There is no control, and the change is spilling over into all sorts of articles where it has no business being there.

Jts1882, the paleo-database is rubbish - I have just provided a reference for Gidley 1913. Rest assured some palaeontologists will be doing a review of Canina evolution as a response to this study, and evolutionary biologists now need to try and sequence armbrusteri as a priority. William Harris (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you could also copy any new material from that article directly to the dire wolf article, but it's of course up to you if you have concerns about its length. FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No, nothing of value at this stage; the material came from dire wolf. William Harris (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No doubt, they are trying, but as an older species they might not be able to get any decent samples.

Is this new placement of the dire wolf a complete surprise? While convergence in carnivores is well recognised (e.g. with sabre-tooths, bone-crushers) it seems that the association of dire wolves with wolves deep within Canis was strongly supported. — Jts1882 | talk 10:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The new study does not accord with the internationally-recognised expertise of palaeontologist Richard H. Tedford and more recently the Phylogeny of the Caninae (Carnivora): Combining morphology, behaviour, genes and fossils Zrzavy 2018 which found, among other things, that dirus and armbrusteri sat as a sister to lupus, and with chihliensis (extinct, from China) at the head of the Canis clade being the oldest specimen (similar to Tedford). The oldest dirus fossil is only 125k years old, there is no DNA study to tell who the ancestor is, but morphology does. As for their statement of the coyote came out of Eurasia, show me a fossil from there. William Harris (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed there is no Canis chihliensis article. Worth creating? FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It could be done. There is plenty of info on it (Shotnikova does some brilliant work). It does have an entry on Wikipedia that search engines can find at Evolution of the wolf#Canis chihliensis, so I have set up Canis chihliensis as a redirect to there. William Harris (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If the morphological evidence is misleading for the wolf and dire wolf relationship, it may also be misleading for other relationships if relying on the same traits. I was surprised how much the close relationship between wolf and dire wolf was dependent on the size. Reading some of the reports on the study it is clear that the authors used to believe the close relationship, even to the extent of lumping them in the same species.

I don't think they are saying the coyote evolved in Eurasia (although the first draft may have; see reviews). They conclude that the dire wolf evolved in NA in isolation and suggest that the contemporaneous ancestor of the coyote and wolf evolved in Eurasian.

It's also unfortunate that La Brea was a poor source of DNA, unlike for the skeletons. The La Brea Museum is a wonderful place and stacked full of dire wolves. — Jts1882 | talk 12:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I was a firm believer in Canis lupus dirus - dirus was no larger than the current large arctic wolves, but more solider - a similar comparison would be comparing a rottweiler with a greyhound. I have had an email exchange with some of the researchers who did some work in La Brea; there are wolf fossils found in there which they describe as "very strange". A recent Russian paper on Late Pleistocene wolf DNA found that the older the specimen, going back from 20k to 50k years ago, the more coyote DNA it contained. William Harris (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Heavy metal sourcing

Hello William, you seem to be new on the project so I advise you to get used to this kind of ambiguous and volatile sourcing on the matter, because that's what you'll most find about on the subject. The journalists here aren't direct on their ideas and they like to put some "flair" on their wording, so be careful on interpreting their word's true meaning (and pay extra attention to identify it a term is being used as a noun or an adjective, many times it's not clear when it's the earlier or the latter). The scholars are a little bit more direct, but they are more scarce and less abrangent on their researching. Lastly, if you're unsure about some sources, try consulting with people from the project. They are experienced wikipedians who are used to this more difficult sourcing, and they might help you on getting better at identifying terms and ideas. With all that said, good luck on your projects. Regards, ABC paulista (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello ABC paulista, yes my introduction to the metal section of WP has been frustrating to say the least, largely due to our journalist friends contradicting each other, not defining their terms - one person's stoner is another person's doom - and the lack of secondary sourcing. Nor do they provide much detail, stating "...was an influence on..." without articulating how - these are music journalists, that is their job, and it may indicate that they may not know what they are talking about! (Or they did, but the journal editor removed it before publishing for the sake of brevity).

I did drop in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal/Members but what I found there was disheartening - the last two listed members did not respond to my comment. My intention is to upgrade the sludge metal article History section with secondary sources only (books). I am currently searching for references about the NOLA sludge scene to conclude the unfinished history section, it is very scant but could be pulled together, if only briefly. Then their is the question of whether this was a sludge scene or a broader doom/sludge/stoner development area. I then hope to "validate" the references used in the rest of the article - i.e. did the writer actually say that, because currently I have found text where the writer did not - and then leave the article to settle for a while and see what other editors might bring to it. Later, I may return for redeveloping the characteristics section. Thanks for your guidance and your visit here. Regards, William Harris (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I would advise you to not discount sources from media outlets (magazines, news websites, newspapers, etc) because, even though they don't have the same quality and explicitlty found on books, they have by far the most amount of content on the subject, and by only relying on books (and journals, maybe) it's possible that the amount of content you find will be shallow.

About the project, it's true that the project itself has been inactive, but the members itself have been active on some pages, so I would advise you to check them personally if you feel the need of some help, or open a discussion on the article's talk page pinging them. Wikipedians like Binksternet, Sixty Minute Limit, Issan Sumisu, Blackmetalbaz, Second Skin, 3family6 and Mashaunix are among the most active on metal pages and they are experienced, knowledgeable on the subject. ABC paulista (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the contacts ABC paulista. I am sure that when it comes time to develop the "characteristics" section, I will need more depth of explanation and will need to use the outlets, but will be giving more weight to multiple sources reinforcing the same point. Differing views will need to be included, compared and contrasted - let the reader make up their own mind! William Harris (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Great. If you need something, feel free to contact me too. ABC paulista (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello ABC paulista, you most likely have a watch on "Sludge metal" and have noticed that it has gone quiet at present. I am awaiting the arrival of several books through my state library system. I am trying to get secondary sourcing for those attributes that are common to the original sludge before evolution - I need to clarify what is common to sludge and what is Melvin-esque weirdness, which is something that band was well-noted for. Regards, William Harris (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

Hi William Harris. Thanks for reminding me of WP:NOTNEWS. I was going to do exactly what you did but could already 'hear' clamourings of "but it has a good source!". I doesn't always occur to me to take NOTNEWS into account when weighing the merit of bits of content. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia, we do not want the English-speaking world's online encyclopedia to be choked-up with day-to-day world events. Keep up the good work! William Harris (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Dog domestication

Your page and edits are usually my source for such papers, but I saw this reported in a newspaper yesterday and it is now on the PNAS site.

Perri et al (2021) Dog domestication and the dual dispersal of people and dogs into the Americas Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2021, 118 (6) e2010083118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2010083118

So an ice age refuge might have been a factor in getting together in time for man and dog to explore the Americas together. — Jts1882 | talk 12:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks; I do my article search only once each week, and even then I don't always get across everything. I am also dependent on tips from editors such as yourself, edits that appear in articles that I follow (such as this PNAS article just appearing in the Origin of the domestic dog), or emails from contacts. Before I read it, I must say the timing matches the more recent DNA studies for dog domestication, and I have always believed that the dog was first domesticated in NE Siberia/Beringia, which is why the "Origin of the domestic dog" article has a section on "Arctic Northeastern Siberia" and a huge section on the "Arctic breeds". It is the reason nobody can find the skull of the wolf-like dog ancestor - they have been looking in the wrong place. I appreciate you alerting me to this. William Harris (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

With a genetic inference of who (ancient North Siberians) when (23,000 years ago) and where (Mal’ta site near Lake Baikal), the attention now focuses on their relatively nearby Afontova Gora site and its mysterious 17,000 years-old "dog" specimen which will now be the centre of great attention. Note that this study infers the domestication of mDNA haplogroup A only - what happened with mDNA haplogroups B, C, and D is still anybody's guess. William Harris (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Origin of the domestic dog you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, I always appreciate the work that you do regarding text and images copyright; an aspect of Wikipedia that I am not fully conversant with. William Harris (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

K. Cairns paper Feb 2021 (Australian Zoologist)

Hi William, in case of interest and you have not already seen it: https://doi.org/10.7882/AZ.2021.004 Not sure if it has anything new to report, just thought I would pass it on :) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, much appreciated. Kylie is one of the major players in dingo research now. William Harris (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I will leave it to you to assess whether it changes anything with respect to the WP article content (my head is not in that space just now - grappling with red algal systematics for an upcoming IRMNG release!). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather be wrangling dingoes....... William Harris (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

An interesting read. The case for species status is almost there, except for the tricky bit of where to put the SE Asian village dogs. They seem to be part of the same lineage, although she seems to want this to be due to admixture with domestic dogs. I thought it a novel use of ICZN Opinion 2027 to consider them recognisable entities worthy of species recognition. There also seems to be an unnecessary degree of antagonism towards Jackson, who seems to use domestication broadly for the whole multistep process rather than just for the final stage. But I guess this is due to the politics of the conservation efforts. — Jts1882 | talk 10:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Her summary of the background and the current state of play is superb. There has always been a split in Australian academia as to what the dingo is (as you can tell from the article, by which refs take one side and which take the other). The next generation continues this on. What makes her formidable is that - unlike the others - she understands "this DNA stuff that the young people are playing with". There is a parallel with the Red wolf in the US, with one side arguing that it is a "recent" wolf/coyote cross, the other side arguing that it is either a separate wolf or an ancient wolf/coyote cross now its own species - but BOTH sides arguing that it must be preserved. I am leaning towards Bergström 2020 - an ancient lineage of dog that has survived from the close of the last Ice Age 11,700 years ago and is different to modern dogs today. Should that be considered a species due to its genetic isolation? Let the debate continue! William Harris (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sardinian dhole

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.26.432714v1.full Mariomassone (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There are some heavy-weight evolutionary biologists in this lineup, Mario, including 2 professors of international standing. William Harris (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hey William, you left me a message on my talk page. I wanted to thank you for reaching out to me, and I was hoping you would lend some advice to me. Could you let me know why my edit didn't seem constructive? I want to make sure that I don't repeat this in the future, thank you.Jmorales96 (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jmorales96:, I watch this page and think that William reverted that omission from the infobox for reasons detailed in the article: some authorities have excluded that variation. ~ cygnis insignis 15:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cygnis, thank you for that information, I really appreciate the help!Jmorales96 (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. We should not be amending correctly cited text without first looking at the cited reference says. William Harris (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Dire wolf

Please use reliable sources. "Canis" is not the same genus as "Aenocyon", and obviously neither means "wolf", so your 'translation' is obviously nonsense. "Aenocyon" is not even a single language, but an invented Latin-Greek blend. — kwami (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. He misspelled it. The Greek is αἰνός. — kwami (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not know what you are attempting to articulate to me with your comments above, but it is clear that you did not bother to read the cited reference before you reverted me - the reference was not all about genus Canis.

As for your comment of "...your 'translation' is obviously nonsense...", and your edit summary of "...no evidence for obviously false translation..." (a) I refer you to WP:CIVIL, and (b) it was never my 'translation' because it was from the cited reference which you did not check.

As for your edit summary of "...It's not Canis! Did you notice the genus is different? Aenocyon does not mean "wolf"!...", please see my user page and then you can form your own opinion as to whether I know the difference.

Nor do I understand why an article on a Late Pleistocene North American canid on the English version of Wikipedia benefits from a lesson in ancient Greek. William Harris (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Your translation was wrong. It should therefore be corrected. If WP does not benefit from it, then it should not be included in the first place. But factual error should be corrected, whatever they are. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It was never "my" translation to be wrong - that was the name given to it by its namer, Aenocyon dirus Merriam 1918, per the bottom of the page here. If Merriam wants to name the genus as "terrible wolf" that is his prerogative. William Harris (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The text follows the cited source, as required by Wikipedia policy. It provides a simple explanation for why the name was given to that animal. The convention that scientific names don't mix Greek and Latin parts was abandoned long ago and ignores the development of scientific Latin (e.g. as formalised in Botanical Latin). If you want a more rigorous discussion of the name you need to provide a source critiquing the original name and then something could be added to an etymology section. It has to be based on sources, not your own opinion. — Jts1882 | talk 08:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Dire wolf hatnote

Hi William, I'm not totally sure what happened here. I don't see anything in my diff that reverted another editor, but I know things can get tricky with pending changes. The issue is that after some cleanup, Direwolf (fictional creature) now redirects to Dire wolf (disambiguation), so the hatnote has two links to the same page in a misleading manner. I thought it would be a simple matter to sort out, but perhaps not. Should I take another shot at it? Could you handle it? --BDD (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello BDD, thanks for dropping by. I see that you have pointed the redirect "Direwolf (fictional creature)" away from List of Game of Thrones characters#Direwolves to "Dire wolf (disambiguation)". It is fairly clear what the searcher was looking for when they click on Direwolf (fictional creature), so I do not know what was being achieved by you making that change to the redirect.

Your edit removed the hatnote ""For2|the fictional creature in the A Song of Ice and Fire series|Direwolf (fictional creature)|other uses|Dire wolf (disambiguation)" to just the disambig link, which was put into place to direct the movie fans away from the Dire wolf article - it was once an ongoing problem, please see here. Just after your change, we had an edit from Tensa Ulquiorra, which related to fandom, and was reverted by Cavalryman. My revert of you edit put the full hatnote back in place to direct "lost" visitors such as this one. However your change to the redirect does not help them.

I would be pleased if you had another shot - feel free to address this matter as you like but we need something in place to direct the fans of "direwolf" (please note the books' different spelling) away from "Dire wolf", so we probably need some wording around "fictional creature in the A Song of Ice and Fire series" in there somehow. Regards, William Harris (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I've given it another shot. It sounds like you have an eye on this page, and if you say we've had a lot of readers looking for this specific fictional direwolf, I don't mind keeping it in the hatnote. I've updated the link so there is still direct access to that usage as well as the disambiguation page.

Regarding the other editor's edits, I'm guessing there was a hiccup since I bypass pending changes, and that may have caused a problem because there were some pending? I think we're probably in good shape now. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I keep an eye on the article because I donate my time here as a WP:DOGS recent edits patroller who focuses on the wild or extinct canids, and also because I brought the article up to GA then FA status several years ago with the assistance of a group of people who frequent that page. I can see that you were trying to make WP run smoother, but it creates problems for the diligent few who would like the article to remain at FA status and not be brought down by GOT fandom. (I did attempt to have a paragraph installed in the article as an opportunity to explain the difference between a Dire wolf and a direwolf several years ago, but the other editors were not in favour of anything to do with GOT, which then led to my proposal on the Talk page to formalise their wishes.) Your tweaks have solved the problem - many thanks BDD. William Harris (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)