User talk:Ucucha/Archive18

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Archives

Leave a new message

DYK for UA 8699

On April 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article UA 8699, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oryzomys antillarum

On April 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oryzomys antillarum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is now infested with rats....

		The Original Barnstar
		...and I mean that in the best way possible. :) I'm in awe of your truly incredible content work. Keep it up! –Juliancolton \| ^Talk 12:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Don't forget the lizards, broken teeth, and worms, though. :-) Or the tropical storms, for that matter. Ucucha 12:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... For this copyedit to the Rustock botnet. Did you know that editors such as Excirial always appreciate such assistance as they are non-native English speakers who can bumble up on the grammar parts sometimes? Excuse the Dyk joke, but thanks for that edit. Copyediting, Consistancy and WP:MOS were never my strongest area's, so i always appreciate a hand with them. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. But I am not a native speaker either, so don't make too much of that. :-) The "compromised of" part of the article was kind of funny in context. Ucucha 14:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Sparrow

Would you mind seeing if you can see these papers:

Fulgione, D., Esposito, A., Rusch, C. E., and Milone, M. 2000. Song clinal variability in Passer italiae Avocetta 24:107–112
Fulgione, D., Rusch, C. E., Esposito, A., and Milone, M. 1998. Dynamics of weight, fat, and moult in the Italian sparrow Acta Ornithologica 33.
Fulgione, G. and Milone, M. 1998. On the engimatic populations of the Italian Sparrow. Biologia e conservacione della fauna. 102.

They'd be rather useful for the article on the Italian Sparrow—you'll like this article, I expect, as the taxonomy is massively complicated. So complicated I'll rely mostly on reviews for the taxonomy bit. —innotata 18:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. No; no journal under that name in our library (please check whether you spelled it correctly—you also wrote "conservacione" instead of "conservazione").

2. Yes. ACT 0284a.

3. Yes. RIC 6412.

Looks interesting—a species of hybrid origin. I understand that that gives some taxonomic headaches. Ucucha 20:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "Conservacione" was used in the source that mentioned this. —innotata 21:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Avocetta abstract is at http://www.ciso-coi.org/avoxvol24.htm, as well as abstracts for some more interesting papers. One on conservation status, at http://www.ciso-coi.org/avoxvol32.htm, concerns the Italian Sparrow, but I don't need the full text so much. —innotata 21:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am afraid I can't help you there. Ucucha 22:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was confusing the Avocetta in your reply with Biologia e conservazione della fauna. —innotata 00:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending the papers. The hypothesis in the second paper is pretty close to what Töpfer's review argues. Mostly reading up on aspects of the Italian Sparrow besides taxonomy is pretty crazy, since one can find many interesting little details like breast patch wear or catching methods, but few reviews or broad discussions; for example the only measurement I can find in a really reliable source is male wing length. —innotata 20:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

LOL you not a bot, so applogies not realising your human...ism? early to day :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a bot? Don't tell my master, he'll be scared. Ucucha 16:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it. You must be a bot, of a native English speaker too. —innotata 00:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

I wanted to thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded at 134/4/0. I am truly amazed but equally elated by the result and I hope I am able to serve as a good administrator. It was a surreal experience to succeed, and I will strive to meet your expectations.

More specifically, thank you for your support. I am really thankful for it!

Thanks! ceranthor 13:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Edward Alphonso Goldman

On April 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Alphonso Goldman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hadropithecus

Hi! First of all thank you for all of your contributions! I am amazed! I am trying to translate a series of articles about lemurs in Greek for Greek Wikipedia (after that I ll try translating some mice of yours :)). I found here the date of death of Mr L.R. Lorenz von Liburnau and just wanted to inform you, since you uploaded File:Hadropithecus Lorenz pl 1.png & File:Hadropithecus, Megaladapis Lorenz pl II.png, unfortunately as I understand they won't be PD outside US until 2013. Kind regards! --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 10:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will add them. Yes, that means they won't be PD in Europe and elsewhere until 2013. Ucucha 11:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already done that, thanks. Ucucha 11:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, I think it would become PD in the EU on January 1, 2014. I'll set my alarm to transfer it to Commons at that day. :-) Ucucha 11:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis creation article

Hi Ucucha, could you say how you reached this decision, please? As I saw the posts, people were opposed to a move, though I may be looking in the wrong place. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although there was some opposition, a large majority was in favor. In addition, it appeared that there few people who really had a problem with the "creation narrative" title, and many who had one with the "creation myth" title; it seemed that opposition was based more on a desire to preserve the previous title rather than true opposition to the new title. The one potentially convincing argument against "narrative" was the presence of other articles with a "... creation myth"-form article, but it was noted that those are in fact different, since they all use the form "<civilization> creation myth"; "<text> creation myth", as we had for Genesis, is atypical. Ucucha 11:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say where you saw this? There were so many proposals I lost track. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the one I closed. Ucucha 14:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one was that? :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Ucucha 14:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am reading the wrong section, but I just very carefully tallied votes, tossing out three "supports" for supporting a change to "biblical cosmology", and came to 23 opposing a change and only 18 supporting it. Where, exactly, did the "support" crowd vastly outnumber the oppose crowd?Farsight001 (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Perhaps you're looking at Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Suggestion_2:_Biblical_Creation (10–8 by my count), not Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requesting_a_move_to_the_consensus_title_of_"Genesis_creation_narrative" (27–9), the one I closed. In any case, it's strength of argument, not number of votes that counts, and votes like "As a Creationist I find this title repulsive" won't get much weight. Ucucha 10:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some more explanation on how you reached this decision? Particularly with a formal request for mediation open, it seems prejudicial to me to have closed this in any way other than "wait for mediation". It looks very much as if you've simply counted the majority rather than actually weighed the arguments, since the vast majority of support comments appear to be empty. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis creation myth? That was rejected because "Genesis creation narrative" was the agreed-upon title. For my reasoning, see above. Ucucha 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RfM was not rejected because there was an "agreed-upon title". It was rejected because your close pre-empted it. Also, if I thought the above statements went any way towards explaining it, I wouldn't have asked in the first place. Again, how did you reach the decision to close in favour of a move? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the timeline there. I think my first post in this statement clearly explains my rationale. Ucucha 22:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It falls a long way short of that, because I can't reconcile it to both the facts on the ground and our policies. A majority was in favour, but that included nonsense such as "I'm offended" and "get it over with". Many people had a problem, but personal disagreement is irrelevant and appeasement of it flies in the face of WP:NOTCENSORED. "Current title is adequate, proposed title not better" is a perfectly valid reason to oppose a move, it seems utterly illogical to have discounted it. The point regarding the nature of the other "X creation myth" articles would appear to me to be a red herring, since those that brought it up were those that objected to the characterization of it as "creation myth". Can you maybe break down how you've interpreted each comment in the discussion? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot and will not, and if you are discounting arguments based on who made them rather than on their merits, that will not induce me to do so. Ucucha 23:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrite. I have not discounted an argument "based on who made it". I have discounted an argument based partly on the opinions of those who made it, because it's an essential element of a red herring - it's a distraction device, and one needs to consider what it's distracting from. Though, apparently I am not allowed to do that, but you are. All I want to know from you is what arguments you are seeing and how you have weighed them. Your "explanation" tells me that you think there was a majority and that some of the opposing arguments were weak. It tells me nothing of how you came to that conclusion, or how you weighed the supporting arguments. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you are seeing that. A red herring is an irrelevant point designed to draw attention away from the real point. Ignoratio elenchi gives some good examples. But in those cases, the argument is clearly fallacious, independent of who made it. In the case we're talking about, I do not see that.

But to return to the main subject—Those opposed to the move generally argued that the word "myth" is an appropriate one for this creation myth (Claritas is a good example of a well-argued oppose of this sort). The more articulate supporters (I don't mean those who found it morally offensive to label the narrative a creation myth) agreed that "myth" is applicable, but thought "narrative" more appropriate because it does not have the appearance of being non-neutral (AuthorityTam, for example). I could not see any good arguments against this. Some said that other stuff exists in that other, similar articles also use "myth" or terms derived from it, but that can as well be read as an argument in favor of renaming other articles (cf. the link I gave) and has no bearing on the specific arguments for moving this article (like that it is the common name; though Black Kite disagreed with that, and gave some good data). In general, the attitude of the supporters appeared to be that "narrative" is better than "myth", and they gave good arguments for that, while the opposers argued mostly (though not exclusively) that "myth" is a good title. They also gave good arguments, but rarely explained why "narrative" is not good too. I saw that as supporting a general consensus for "narrative".

I also closed the earlier RM that moved the article to "Genesis creation myth" from "creation according to Genesis". I read that discussion in a similar way: opposition seemed mostly based on disagreement whether "Biblical creation myth" or "Genesis creation myth" was correct, not on whether "creation myth" itself was appropriate—the opposers didn't really give much opposition to the proposed title, as I think happened again in this RM. If my closure now was incorrect, then so was that closure. Ucucha 23:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rice rats

Hey Ucucha, I am just reminded that I brought something for you from the motherland. If you email me your campus address (in the interest of privacy), I'll mail it to you. Groeten! Drmies (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. Are you back from the land van mest en mist, van vuile, koude regen already? I'll be flying there for the summer in three weeks or so. Ucucha 18:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was beautiful, and I'll be going back in a month or so. But my last visit was all business: ik moest mijn vader gedag zeggen, hij heeft nog een week of twee. So I went and returned with very mixed emotions--sometimes it sucks to be an expatriate. But no summer classes for you, apparently? I hope you have nice things planned. I'd love to go for a sail on the IJsselmeer (I'm from Hoorn). Drmies (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and sympathize. Ik hoop dat hij niet te veel lijdt en wens jou en je familie veel sterkte toe.

No, no summer classes for me. I'll be looking at some more Caribbean rice rats (as well as some cotton rats and perhaps a vesper mouse) in Naturalis. My first paper on those animals will probably come out this summer, but there's some more work to do, like figuring out whether that cotton rat is Sigmodon alstoni, Sigmodon hirsutus, both, or neither. Ucucha 20:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. He is of sound mind, and fortunately in the motherland one has a right to decide. Good luck with your rats, as always. Make sure you take a class with Helen Vendler in the fall, and I'll send you a book for her to sign. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good right indeed, but it's so recent that even I remember that it was introduced. As for the Helen Vendler class—I do not know yet. Ucucha 21:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G-Spot GA review links

Thanks for fixing them. I was wondering why it had repeated GA1; didn't even notice the capitalization issue. Anyway, thanks again. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 03:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; it bugged me for a while too. Ucucha 03:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC comments

Since the nomination got restarted, I was wondering if you'd have time to do a new review of Lemur evolutionary history when you get a chance. I may have time tonight and tomorrow morning to make fixes. At the very least, I would like to know if I've addressed all or most of your concerns. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have another look now. I've been busy with rice rat parasites. I found one study of parasites on islands in Georgia that actually included some lemurs. Ucucha 12:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. I think I know the islands you're talking about, but I'm in too much of a rush now to think of the name. Feel free to send the article to me. And if you ever see article on ecoparasites for lemurs (or any primate), please send it along. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On its way (along with something else). I posted some comments on the FAC. Ucucha 12:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALS

Thanks for the move, cheers. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Notocotylus fosteri

On May 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Notocotylus fosteri, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick assessment?

When you get a moment, would you please do a quick assessment of Lemurs of Madagascar? It's no longer a stub, but since I wrote it, it's only fair that someone else assign the status of "Start", "C", or "B". Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 05:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you said there could be more room for review information, were you referring to other reviews that I haven't found yet? Or did I miss a chance to talk about something from the review I asked you to send me? Anyway, thanks for the quick look and assessment. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think there are things from the 1996 review that could be included. I suspect also that there are other reviews. I actually found one "Eberhart, George M. College & Research Libraries News; Apr96, Vol. 57 Issue 4, p245, 1/9p", but it doesn't seem to be available online. Doesn't Lemur News do book reviews? Ucucha 12:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question—I'm not sure. I'll try to flip through the back issues soon. Can you name something specific from the first review? I thought I had covered it all. Take your time, though... I'm heading out to do some volunteer work and won't be back for a few hours. It can even wait a few days if you want. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even just the information that it was positively reviewed in the Int. J. Prim.—Gould says it's great for identifying species, Nash makes great drawings (he certainly does), the chapters on lemur research and subfossil lemurs are captivating. Ucucha 12:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... I was afraid that someone would say that material was "unencyclopedic." I've had it happen before. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it is what FAs on academic books also seem to do (Getting_It:_The_Psychology_of_est#Reception, for example): summarizing reviews. Ucucha 12:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added all the reviews I could find freely available. If you think it's worth a run at GAC and/or FAC at some point, just let me know. It was a fun little article to write. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I think it meets the GA criteria, but I continue to think there are likely to be more available reviews. I wouldn't know how to find them, though. Ucucha 01:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have time someday (not necessarily this week or month) to find that one review that wasn't available in digital format, I can ask around about others. Honestly, I'm not sure how many reviews could be out there for a specialized field manual. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll find time to get to this review (place: Widener, BP 1.22.4). You're probably right that there is nothing else. Ucucha 01:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR 2387311 Let me know if you need it emailed. Sasata (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I got it. Ucucha 02:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question mark

Hello, I have read the ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus. Are there any rules for using question mark in scientific names? Other author uses Oryzomys? pliocaenicus. I would tentatively use the question mark without diacritics ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus. Maybe there are no rules and then I will follow using a question mark without diacritics in other articles. (I do not remember examples.) --Snek01 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think people just do what they like to do. Weksler (2006) uses Oryzomys? pliocaenicus; I used ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus because that's the original form and also the one most other authors use (Baskin 1978, 1986; Lindsay 2008).

As for the italicization of the question mark, I must confess I hadn't even considered that. Weksler doesn't italicize it, but Hibbard does. Baskin (1978) does not. Lindsay (2008) doesn't either. Based on usage in recent sources, I think you're right and that the question mark should not be italicized; I'll change the article. Ucucha 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canis issues

Domestic Dog

Could you review the short new article Domestic Dog, get someone else to do so, or recommend to me how I might?

Background: Articles refer to this referent, so I tried to act boldly by creating it and explaining it in a stub- or start-class kind of way, but I'm no expert and I'm not at all confident that it's more than approximately correct at this point, especially about the technical terms. For example, what is the term for a grouping formed by adding it in brackets in the comments section of two taxa at the same level?

An idea: Do you think it would be appropriate for me to add it to a "high importance" category? Which one, "Dog articles"?

Thank you!Chrisrus (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's at all a good idea to make such an article on the basis of the comments Wozencraft placed in MSW 3. I think the comment "domestic dog" under C. lupus familiaris and C. l. dingo merely indicates that they are both descended from domesticated wolves, not that they form some sort of taxon "domestic dog". Ucucha 17:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, note that the comments under Canis lupus actually contrast the dingo with the "domestic dog". Ucucha 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First thank you for teaching me that there seems to be some kind of questioning of the work of "Worzencraft" for one reason or another, but let's ignore that for now.

The matter at hand is instead what MSW3 means. With a term like domestic dog, articles such as dingo can be correct when they say that dingos are domestic dogs without seeming to say that c.l.dingo is exactly the same as c.l.familiaris.

You and I agree on one very good reason MSW3 so linked them. I assume they also thought the term might be helpful in cases such as that of the article dingo.

It seems are right that "domestic dog" is not a taxon, but rather whatever it is you call the terms created when one so links to taxa in this way. I hope that anyone knows would say will what, instead of a taxon, the term "domestic dog" is. It would greatly help this discussion.

With regard to the relevent comments on the MSW3 page "Canis Lupus"; yes, that is very interesting, isn't it. Chrisrus (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way questioning Wozencraft's work (Wozencraft is the author of the Carnivora section of MSW 3, if that was unclear)—rather, I am disagreeing on the significance we should give to a very brief and unexplained comment. I do not think we should write an article domestic dog just because Wozencraft wrote a comment "domestic dog" under both C. l. dingo and C. l. familiaris. Instead, you should try to find sources which discuss the nomenclature of the domesticated forms of Canis lupus in detail. Ucucha 19:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that you don't think the article should have been created, but we at wikipedia, (and humanity in general, I'll venture to say) are sometimes in need of a term which unites both C.l.familiaris and C.l.dingo, and MSW3 seems to be offering us one. This is useful. Wozencraft obviously seems to have found the term useful, and must have thought it helpful, and I think you can see where it would be at times. As no source is more definitive than this one, why go looking for trouble about what to call it? The way I look at it, it's a problem solved and we've got lots of problems so why go looking for more? Chrisrus (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it is my hope that you will either agree with or put aside your disagreement about the creation and instead help me make sure that everything in the article is correct. One of the New Guinea Singing Dog Wars partisans has made some substantial changes already. Chrisrus (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the additional piece from Wozencraft's comments I cited indicates that he actually did not include dingos in this "domestic dog" taxon. I agree that it's not easy to find the right way to organize the pages related to Canis lupus and its domesticated forms, but that's no excuse to try and squirt more out of the sources than they say. Domestic Dog currently says MSW 3 uses "domestic dog" as a "taxonomic grouping" combining C. l. familiaris and C. l. dingo, but I don't see any evidence that they do; rather, Wozencraft just commented that both familiaris and dingo are domesticated forms. Ucucha 05:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand we can't call the clade a "taxon", but I don't know what to call it, that's part of why I came to you. You now seem to think I wasn't aware of the existence of the comments on page http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738, but I had that in the citations and everything in the redirect, so I don't know where you got that idea. Maybe the NGSD soldier had edited it out before you saw it, and it was his claims about what Wozencraft meant that made you think I didn't understand it. While the first part about Canis lupus being valid, that might be somewhat tangentally relevent, the relevent passage is, as you know:

Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms. Corbet and Hill (1992) suggested treating the domestic dog as a separate species in SE Asia. Synonyms allocated according to Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951), Mech (1974), and Hall (1981).

What you seem not to know, however, is that I've been staring at this for a very long time and looking for an expert to ask about it, but they don't agree. Here is what I've gathered so far,please correct me if I'm wrong:

He seems to be using the term "domestic dog" as a subspecies of canis lupus, even though the dingo is provisionally separate, he sees it as one. He seems to dismiss breeds which are artificial varients of domestic dog caused by selective breeding and as such below the level of his perview. If he calls it provisionally separate, he doesn't sound particularly happy with the separation and maybe might have unified the domestic dogs, but didn't because keeping them separate doesn't mess up the synonyms-terms that have been used for c.l.dingo weren't used for familiaris or vise-versa or something. "Provisional" means they might be taking up the issue again in the future, they might change that in upcoming edition but then they would have to live with the fact that while all dingos are dogs, not all dogs are dingos as far as the old discredited synonyms go as they will be synonyms only in one direction. He had reasons to believe that the southeast asian animals he refers to, there he's talking about those whose eye shine is green instead of red and so on and so forth, that's the dingos, the ones with the distinct teeth and other differences that made people like Corbet say that they should be separate rather than united, those things he is aware of and thought about when choosing against unifying them, thereby making "domestic dog" a taxon instead of whatever it is, a grouping of two subspecies into one so you'd have a name for the two of them, enabling people to talk about them better as a unit even though there's another legitimate way of looking at them, too. Chrisrus (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert and I don't know if you are really, but you are as far as I'm concerned, so please help me understand this passage better or let me know if I've got it right. Chrisrus (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if you need this much interpretation to extract what a source means, it's no good. Instead, try to find sources that address the problem directly. MSW 3 is neither unique, perfect, nor the Holy Grail; there are other places where you can go for good taxonomy. Ucucha 16:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's unclear, is there someone we should ask? If you just look at the listing of subsChrisrus (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources illustrating meaning and use of the term/referent "the domestic dog clade"

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2003/09/29/Dingoes-once-were-domestic-dogs/UPI-44901064855281/tab-listen/ ""We found that dingoes fall right into the main domestic dog clade," Wilton says."

Yes, so they're just dogs, as Inugami-bargho has said a few times. Ucucha 14:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice what just happened here. You said dingoes "...are just dogs", which would have been true, but unfortunately the internal link dog sent me to Canis lupus familiaris, so what you said was not what you meant and what you said was accidently false. "Dingos are dogs" is false because it says "Canis lupus dingo = Canis lupus familiaris," which as you know is equating valid taxa/an obvious contradiction in terms. Now, if you had said "Dingos are dogs" or some such, your statement would not only have been correct but would have been an unambiguous representation of what you actually meant. Chrisrus (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant what I said. Remember that MSW 3 kept C. l. dingo as a separate subspecies to allocate synonyms correctly, and that they were stretching the subspecies concept. Ucucha 14:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember very well. I've read it lots. So what are are you saying? Please clarify the point you are making by pointing out these facts at this time.Chrisrus (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic vs. Wild, Subspecies or Species?

Another thing: I think you wrote somewhere that only in the case of Canis lupus "the experts" placed the domestic and wild forms in a single species. I don't know about "the experts" (there is quite some disagreement over whether to recognize one or two species in such cases), but the treatment of Canis lupus appears to be in line with the general standard at least in MSW 3: see Mustela putorius (ferret as a subspecies), Equus caballus (both wild and domestic horses), Equus asinus (both wild and domestic donkeys), Sus scrofa (both wild and domestic pigs), Camelus bactrianus (both wild and domestic camels), Lama glama (both lamas and guanacos), Vicugna vicugna (both vicugnas and alpacas), Bos frontalis (both gayal and gaur), Bos grunniens (both wild and domestic yaks), Bos taurus (cattle, aurochses, and whatever they are called), Bubalus bubalis (both wild and domestic buffaloes), Capra hircus (both domestic goats and their wild relatives), Ovis aries (both domestic sheep and their wild relatives).

On the other hand, Cavia porcellus is separated from Cavia tschudii and Felis catus from Felis silvestris. Ucucha 20:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thank you. Yes, I shouldn't have said that; I was far overstating my case about the annoying fact that neither "wolf" nor "dog" corresponds nicely to any taxon, and was thinking about how much easier things would be if they had decided to do things differently in this case and I guess I was blowing off some steam and engaging in hyperbole; sorry, I do stand corrected on this. Of course, the simple fact of domestication wouldn't in an of itself a species make! Only in cases where the animal is changed in a big way should it be called a new species. Guinea pigs are clearly radically changed by untold centuries of domestication, so I say "Good call!" in that case. But llamas are not guanacos and wolves are not dogs in any language, so where's the consistency? Donkeys and wild asses do seem to be the same animal, but dogs and wolves? Oh well thanks for listening to me complain, but there's nothing to be done but make articles like Canis lupus properly appraise the reader of the situation and not seem to imply that the word Canis lupus means "wolf". Chrisrus (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't we want to imply that Canis lupus means "wolf"? Here at least, MSW 3 is unambiguous: Canis lupus is given the common name "Wolf", and includes the dog and the dingo. Dogs are wolves, just as birds are dinosaurs. At least, that's what "wolf" means to me—I wouldn't claim that this is the predominant meaning (and thus the one Wikipedia should use) before I've done more research.

We wouldn't want to imply that Canis lupus means "wolf" because, as you so clearly know, it means wolf plus dog, not just wolf alone.

What do I clearly know? What matters for Wikipedia is whether it's a good idea to treat Canis lupus and "wolf" in the same article; I think it is. I'd use "wolf" when I list Canis lupus under a list of Canis species, but use "wolf" and "dog" as separate terms when discussing the relations between wild and domesticated or feral C. lupus. That's not quite logical, perhaps, but it works. Ucucha 07:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "big way"? I think the reason that Cavia porcellus is separate is at least as much that we have long been uncertain about the wild ancestor of the guinea pig. It's an interesting question, though, whether or not those domestic forms are to be recognized as separate. They are phenotypically generally well-differentiated (though often as much from each other as from their wild ancestors), but only a few thousand years old, and genetically probably not too well-differentiated. The case is somewhat analogous to well-differentiated wild forms peripheral to widespread species, like the Beach Vole from Muskeget Island, Massachusetts (probably only a few thousand years old, and effectively a well-differentiated population of the Meadow Vole), or Artibeus incomitatus from an island in Panama, which is a lot smaller than its mainland relative Artibeus watsoni and probably not old either, or the silver rice rat, the population of the marsh rice rat on the Florida Keys. All of those have also gone back and forth between species status and synonymy. Ucucha 05:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was very interesting! Thank you for this information. I get better informed every day.

To answer your question directly, that would be a subjective matter for experts to decide. In the case of wolf vs. dog, it's clear enough for all major languages, but aparantly not enough to experts. Now in languages such as Dutch, as you know, the word wolf specifically excludes the dog referent when you see how they are used in context(not just commonly, but also by experts. Canis lupus, in contrast, specifically includes dogs. Chrisrus (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example of Dingo as illustration of the need for domestic dog redirect

Ok, now please direct your attention to the article Dingo. Chrisrus (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I'm afraid I'm better at identifying problems than at identifying solutions here, though. Ucucha 06:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to have your eyes on that, for many reasons, but I don't want to drag you into the whole tiresome New Guinea Singing Dog Wars thing, so you might not choose to make any edits.

My point main point in having you look at it now is the first sentence. Do you see why my redirect was needed? I just made an edit to clarify the contradiction as my roundabout way of responding to your redirect of the referent of "domestic dog" You can't say "The dingo is a dog...." without saying C.l.dingo is a c.l.familiaris. Dog how? Familiaris or dingo? Canis lupus dingo is only a "dog" if we don't put the word "dog" in brackets at all, and just trust the reader's mind to understand that it refers to the same thing that MSW3 referred to when they tied the two together in the way that they did. If you link the word "dog" it will send you to familaris, which albeit provisionally, is a separate thing from a dingo. People using the word "dog" in contexts such as discussing the interbreading of dingos with domestic dogs, they won't need the redirect. In such contexts where dingo exculudes dog, when you say "a dingo is a dog," these contexts need the redirect. Chrisrus (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording I put in the lead works, doesn't it?

No, because it stated something that is not supported by data. It is true that the dingo is classified as c.l. dingo in MSOW3, but most people still use Canis familiaris dingo and others even Canis lupus familiaris dingo. Furthermore molecular, behavioural and morphological data clearly assign it to c.l. familiaris. What you wrote indicated that it is a separate line, but so far there is no evidence for that, quite the contrary, the dingoes DNA-types fall right into the main clade of domestic dog types.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you say might be true, but how are we to know? As a Wikipedian, you go with the sources, and in such cases, we must go with MSW. This is because Dr. Wz is part of a whole system run by whatever it's called, the international society of mammalogists or some such, and if anyone goes and checks into them, it all checks out clear, whereas you are not you as far as Wikipedia knows, but the user name "Inugami-bargho" maybe your teenage son logging on while you're out shopping, or some such. So who can we trust when sources disagree? We have no way of knowing which amoung the experts is correct when they disagree in peer reviewed journals, which is often, way to often to be switching taxoboxes anytime someone suggests something in a published paper. We can and do report such in their place, but not in the lead or the taxobox. Please try to see this in this way and I'm sure you will agree that it must be thus, otherwise the whole system would bog down. Chrisrus (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote somewhere around here that MSW 3 is not infallible or the only source; I think that's a point you should note. I don't agree with Inugami-bargho everywhere, but as far as I can see he does have a command of the subject matter and relevant sources. Ucucha 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So he and his sources should trump MSW for the purposes of taxobox and lead? Chrisrus (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one source trumps another. We should use multiple sources. Ucucha 22:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is very crude. Of course one source can trump another in some context. As you know, sources trump others all the time for all kinds of valid reasons. And of course we should use multiple sources for any article, but if reliable sources disagree with MSW3 about a taxon, do we not talk about that in its proper place but go at least provisionally with MSW3 in terms of the titles of articles, taxoboxes, leads, and such? I have not responded to your suggestion that we get an interpretation of the relevent MSW3 Canis lupus commentary from a reliable source because we disagree as to what it means. I agree with this suggestion, but am not in the best position of all participants to do so and so I await it's being provided. Which I doubt it will, because I believe it surely will agree with me that this is what MSW is saying and therefore you won't want me to see it. Until that day, however, if I have anything to say about it, which maybe I won't, there will be no putting of "Canis himalayensis" or "Canis rufus" or "Canis indicus" or "Canis dingo" in taxoboxes or as apositives in the defining leads because I know that I am just a Wikipedian in this context and that even when I think I know better who among the experts is right, taxoboxes and such are not the place to have it out or to permit the hovering combatative experts to fight over. Let the sides in the New Guinea Singing Dog War have it out in the "taxonomy" section below, I will concede that as their arena, but not concede to them the taxobox and such until they convince the World Society of Mammalogy or whatever the heck it's called that runs the MSW to get MSW4 to agree with them. Chrisrus (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the consensus of recent reliable sources, not MSW 3 which is five years out of date—see Neofelis diardi, Mindomys, lemur, Orcaella heinsohni, and undoubtedly others for examples. In most cases, the two will give the same result; in the case we're discussing, they may not. Ucucha 00:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's no general or perminent solution as both the familiaris + C.l.dingo defition and the familiaris only definition are needed in different contexts, and without the redirect, we are forced to explain it all in such detail over and over each time. That is why, as I see it, although I'm told I am wrong, for MSW3's calling the union of the two subspecies into one group called "domestic dog" by putting that term into brackets in the comments section for both familaris and dingo and then saying on the comments page for Canis lupus that it includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo only provisionally separate, thereby using the term "domestic dog" as a union of the two subspecies.Chrisrus (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in Australia, "dingo" is actually usually contrasted with "domestic dog". I see the need for the term; but appropriating this one will likely be confusing far more people than it will enlighten.

About "I think that...dog"; yes, but that was taken care of in the redirect because it was basically a disambiguation page that said the number one definition for "domestic dog" is just familaris, but there is also this one from MSW that refers to the clade. Now that my mind's on it, I can see many cases where it's used to refer to the "clade" and when it is used to hold "familaris" separate. Both are legitimate and needed, as is a disambiguation for the two meanings for the term.

Note, by the way, that the IUCN says that dingoes have (or had) a worldwide distribution. Ucucha 16:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intersting. Is this the place to be discussing this or should we take it to dingo? Chrisrus (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I definitely know what over authors meant you Chrisrus when they talked about you. Your work is not about facts it is about defending your own opinion. Not only classifies MSOW3 both as domestic dogs (and calls the separation provisionally), the majority of researchers still classifies the dingo as Canis familiaris dingo, DNA-analyzes found that their mtDNA types fall right into the main clade of domestic dog types, their males are usually fertile throughout the year, they tend more towards a phonetic communication, in comparison to European wolves their relative brain size is about 30 % lower, according to current research, they can even recognize human hand signals. All this points towards domestic dog, but you don't want to see it. And that you interpret sources in your own screwed way was once again proven when you named the dingo-picture in the taxobox as "Australian Lupus dingo" or when you wrote all this stuff in the dog direct and claimed that this was in accordance with MSOW3 allthough the sources didn't state this. Und was Ucucha angeht: Glaub ihm kein Wort, der Typ ist als Störenfried bereits bekannt und bei allem was er bisher bei diesen Dingen getan hat arbeitete er meistens auch noch schlampig und merkte es nicht mal. Ich kenne jemanden, der mit ihm schon früher zu tun hatte und werd ihn herholen. Was den Dimgo-Artikel angeht, komm bitte auf meine deutsche Seite, da können wir uns besser unterhalten. Und genaugenommen nennen auch viele Australier die Dingos schlicht Hunde, steht alles bereits im Artikel aber Chrisrus ignoriert es schlichtweg.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you agree with me that MSW classifies both as domestic dogs albiet with dingo provisionally separate. Thank you very much for your support on that matter, as others seem to disagree about that, but they do have a point: ....classifies both as domestic dogs abeit provisionally separate as what taxon? As you know, there is no taxon between subspecies and species, if there were, we wouldn't be here right now talking about this, as he would have given it a Latin or Greek synonym, but as such he couldn't, so he just called it "domestic dog" and wrote a note explaining the sitiuation in the comments section for the species. So I didn't know what to write in the redirect and left it until I could get some help as, oh, I can't remember, something like "taxonomic grouping" that I knew couldn't be right I came here looking for help as to what to it's called when taxonomists come up with a name for a grouping between levels. I not only came here looking for that help but I did so elsewhere, I think to you, too, but if not and you know the answer please don't keep me in suspense any longer. Surely this is not the only case of this in all of the mammals, what do they do in other such cases when they find a need to point to a clade between taxa, some kind of word as "inter-taxonomic clade" or some such, what is the term "domestic dog" an example of when used in this way? Chrisrus (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the rest of this was off-topic, I've been addressed here so I'll answer here. I am happy to learn once again from you about arguments for a clade between these two subspecies. I can tell you know that it's completely untrue that I don't want to see that clade, in fact, the fact that I can see that clade is the reason I am here.

As to my simple typo, thank you for fixing it. You may see it as evidence that I was actually trying to have it say "Australian lupus dingo" but I assure you it was a typo and as such an example of sloppy work on my part and could use it to clobber me that way, point in your corner. Nevertheless, please notice that I am the one who changed the taxobox from "Canis dingo", that very day, as a look at the history of that article will prove. Just prior to making that mistake, it was me, chrisrus, who changed from Canis dingo to Canis lupus dingo, why had you not done that? Why had none of you who know so much more than me, why had none of you done that? Why was it left to me to fix the taxobox which until that day had been reading for a very, very long time "Canis dingo"? So please, do not mention my slip on the other part where I accidently left it as "Australian lupus dingo" without also mentioning the fact that at almost the same time I changed it from Canis dingo to Canis lupus dingo as there is no reason to remember one easily fixed slip in a series which included fixing the "Canis dingo" problem which you are responsible for.

Finally, please refrain from such things as "Chrisrus ignoriert es schlichtweg". Please refrain from this sort of rule-breaking. Chrisrus (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the IUCN, they simply copied Corbett's work, the text is practically identical to what he wrote in "The Dingo in Australia and Asia".--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich weiss nicht, warum Sie auf deutsch anfangen. Ich weiss so gut wie Sie dass Dingos genetisch nur Hunden sein und habe das auch auf Dingo geschrieben, aber es ist doch auch so, dass MSW 3 sie als separate Unterarten hat. Ucucha 17:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich sehe, dass ich Sie falsch verstehen habe—Sie sagen dass Chrisrus ein "Stoerenfried" ist, nicht ich. Ich kenne Chrisrus auch, und wir sind uns oft nicht einig, aber ich glaube, wir koennen gut hier reden. Ucucha 17:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Es stimmt zwar was sie über MSOW3 sagen aber es ist nunmal auch so, dass Dingos Haushunde sind und die meisten der Quellen ordnen ihn auch da ein und da kann man im Anfang nicht etwas anderes sagen nur weil MSOW3 zwei Namen hat(die Problematik der Klassifikation ist im letzten Abschnitt des Artikels ausführlich beschrieben). Und warum ich in Deutsch schreibe? Um Chrisrus erst mal rauszuhalten. Kann ja sein, dass sie ihn anders kennengelernt haben aber ich habe ihn nur als jemanden kennengelernt, der stur ist und sich als Opfer darstellt. Seine Änderungen waren meistens nicht nur schlampig ausgeführt, sie betrafen seine eigenen Interpretationen und die Quellen haben was er geschrieben hat nicht hergegeben. Er verhält sich als wäre er ständig mit allem im Recht und ist auch woanders als jemand bekannt der nur Ärger macht. Er hat seine eigenen Fehler nicht gesehen obwohl sie offensichtlich waren (Tippfehler macht jeder mal aber das war zuviel) und behauptet seine Änderungen wären in Übereinstimmungen mit Quellen und anderen Wiki-Artikeln ohne zu prüfen ob diese Artikel selber korrekt waren.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich glaube, dass wir uns weitgehend einig sind. Dass der Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) Teil ist der Hund (Canis lupus familiaris) ist nicht ideal, aber man sollte damit leben koennen. Es gibt aber weitere Problemen: die Karten in Dingo#Present-day distribution sind ganz verschieden, und es sagt "there is no consensus on whether it is a feral or native animal", was ich kaum glauben kann, da sie ja einfach Haushunde sind. Ucucha 22:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Der Artikel sagt ja auch, dass sie sich widersprechen können, wenn sie auf die Bilder klicken steht wo sie herkommen. Das Problem dabei ist, dass nicht sicher ist, welche australischen Hunde Dingos sind und welche nicht, deswegen gibt es unterschiedliche Karten je nach Autor. Steht doch alles im Artikel und ist sogar bei der Referenz zu den Namen mit bei (oder hat das wieder einer gelöscht ohne dass ich es gemerkt habe?). Sicher sind es Haushunde und historisch gesehen verwildert, aber manche Autoren nennen sie einheimisch, weil sie schon vor der europäischen Besiedlung da waren und andere eben nicht weil sie von Menschen dorthin gebracht wurden. Glauben sie mir wenn sie das schon verwirrend finden... Seien sie froh dass sie nicht den ganzen Müll lesen mussten wo z.B. Leute wieder behauptet haben Dingos würden nicht bellen oder könnten sich angeblich nur von Eidechsen und Heuschrecken ernähren, was natürlich klar widerlegt ist. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't quite understand this revert—didn't the text I wrote say that dingoes are part of the domestic dog clade? Ucucha 17:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in this response you found it necessary to discuss "the domestic dog clade". Inugami agrees, you could be forgiven for sometimes maybe thinking that maybe he didn't, but he does, he agrees that there is such a thing as the domestic dog clade. Many others talk about the domestic dog clade all the time. In fact, everyone knows adomestic dog clade exists, and I can see here that you clearly also believe that there is a clade that unites c.l.dingo and c.l.familiaris and separates the two of them as a unit from the wolves. If you see the conversation these people are having (you can't say I didn't warn you that you might not want to get involved!) you will see that many such conversations refer to the domestic dog clade. In order to be coherent, these conversations refer to the domestic dog clade. As far as I know, no one sincerely doubts the existence of the domestic dog clade. The domestic dog clade is real. The domestic dog clade has no article. The domestic dog clade is not a taxon, but might become one in MSW4. Discussion of the domestic dog clade is important for conversations at NGSD to be coherent, and therefore, at least potentially help to end the NGSD war before the heat death of the universe. You here seem to believe in "the domestic dog clade". Dr. Wz and his editors at MSW3 specifically name and point to the domestic dog clade. Finally, I will leave you alone and stop repeating the words "domestic dog clade" here on your talk page if you either allow the domestic dog redirect to point to not only familiaris but also the domestic dog clade or help find the correct place on wikipedia where you can point to the domestic dog clade. Chrisrus (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You only said clade, but this is not specific enough and only a geneticist would understand that word. Furthermore such things have nothing to do in an entry. It is better to let that stay in the appropriate section. An entry should be short and capture interest. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uchucha, That revert was done so it wouldn't say "The dingo "Canis lupus dingo" is a domestic dog "Canis lupus familaris". Without the redirect of the term "domestic dog" from familiaris to the "clade" or whatever it's called then it read "this subspecies is this other subspecies", which, of course, makes no sense, you can't say one valid taxon = another valid taxon, as you know. It is my hope that you now clearly understand that revert. Chrisrus (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about "Furthermore...interest", but without the revert we have no other proposed solution to the problem that it equates valid taxa to say "C.l.dingo is a domestic dog is a C.l.familiaris" . Unless,...I was thinking about your idea about the page dog (disambiguation)....what did you have in mind? Chrisrus (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Inugami-bargho: I agree it's a bit specialist for the lead. Ucucha 22:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to Chris, keep that short dog page, but nothing more on that one. On the familiaris page it is also mentioned that the term domestic dog is also used for dingoes. And as for this: "The dingo "Canis lupus dingo" is a domestic dog "Canis lupus familaris". That specific wording was of your own making, the original text did not include the term canis lupus familiaris.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with that: Chrisrus, I think you're overstating the need for an article on "the domestic dog clade". There are ways to write the dingo and singer pages without creating this need, as Inugami-bargho implied.

Yesterday, I wrote an article on a great rice rat, Transandinomys bolivaris, and did some reviewing for a turtle. I must say I liked it much better than reading more long posts on the same issues (there is one such in the subsection below this one). Therefore, I'll leave the issue now, mostly, though I'll periodically have a look to see what shape the articles are in. Inugami-bargho, ich glaube, die Artikel ueber diese Hunden werden viel besser sein wenn Sie sie weiter bearbeiten – viel Erfolg! Chrisrus, your latest edit summary said that I should allow you to have some page. That is nonsense, of course. I don't own Wikipedia and you don't need my permission for anything. When I make an edit, there is nothing preventing you from reverting (see WP:BRD). Ucucha 12:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Guinea Singing Dog as an example of the need for domestic dog redirect

As for the NGSD, I looked at the talk page a few times—rather intimidating in its length alone! I'd think there are more interesting parts of the New Guinean mammal fauna to fight over than some odd canids our ancestors brought there a few thousand years ago. Ucucha 07:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't suggest you get involved any more than you already have as it can be very boring. I hope you will not get distracted from my point: What matters to me is that, in contexts such as discussion of the dingo and the NGSD, we sometimes need an internal link for dog that does not define it as familiaris, because sometimes the word "dog" means "domestic dog" as MSW3 uses it, and sometimes it just means "familaris", and you can't assume that it's never going to be important to say what you mean by "dog" in this way. Part of the problem at the NGSD article is when you say things like "the NGSD is a kind of dog, it's not correct, because it's not familaris, because MSW3 has included "halistromi" in with the "synonyms" for "Canis lupus dingo" and not among those for C.l.familaris. However, if you said that the NGSD was a Domestic Dog with the redirect to the referent of the term in MSW3, why, then, the problem is solved, because as MSW3 used the term in those three places, the problem is solved. I say all this because I believe that when you see the problem in context and are aware of it you will understand why the redirect was a good idea, because the only reason I can think of for your redirect of the term domestic dog was that at the time you did it, you didn't see why it was necessary, you just thought that I was redirecting it for some other reason that wasn't important. While I won't blame the whole NGSD wars on the lack of the redirect, it is definately part of the problem there as well as other cases. Chrisrus (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a short article once who did just that? You know saying that dog can mean a membeer of the Canids, a domestic dog and so on? What happened to that one?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean dog (disambiguation)?Chrisrus (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem you're trying to solve (dingos and NGSDs are genetically dogs, but it's useful to contrast them with "real", presumably European domestic dogs), Chrisrus, but I think your solution was not supported by the sources you cited. I think something similar to the lead I wrote at dingo should work. Ucucha 16:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine, thank you very much for your contribution to the article dingo. But my point still stands: who wants to have to say all that each time they say dog? It was a heck of a lot simpler when it just said "A dingo is a domestic dog" and the redirect was in place, first of all, but more importantly, it makes some common usages of the word dog just simply incorrect to direct them to familiaris alone; specifically those that refer to both familaris and dingo. I can bring you more examples, but please don't make me because I'm not asking you to personally fix every case I can find; what I want is not a carpenter but a hammer; I know you want to get back to your rodents. Either the redirect is needed or some other solution could be found to allow a person access to a term MSW3 uses to cover two subspecies at the same time in a way that fulfills a need that comes up. Chrisrus (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dingo currently says it is a dog, and on review I don't think too much is wrong with that version. But you run into problems when, in an Australian context, you need to contrast dingoes with actual domestic dogs, the ones the Europeans brought (I think—did Indigenous Australians also keep dogs as domestic animals?).

And you're quite right that I'd rather be involved with rodents (or with worms, for that matter), than with dogs. I don't think I've brought the people working on these articles closer to a solution, unfortunately. Ucucha 18:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you "haven't...solution", you could do not only that but also get rid of me if you would just see why we needed that redirect and why it's a well cited and valid "inter-taxonomic clade" or whatever it is that refers to that important realworld referent not otherwise covered by any taxon or Germanic word and undo your revert of the redirect I made. Chrisrus (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it was not accurate. The notion that "domestic dog" somehow has an additional meaning that "dog" does not have is unwarranted. Ucucha 22:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to at least at MSW3. If you refuse the redirect on the grounds that it is not perfectly clear that MSW3 uses precisely this term in precisely the way I describe, I have to concede based on the fact that you know more than me. Just tell me this, how do "intertaxonomic clades" or whatever such things are called, would someone please have mercy and tell me, how do they get marked on MSW? Put another way, what does it mean when MSW puts a term in brackets in the comments section of two subspecies and then comments on the species page that the term in brackets is included as a subspecies, with one of them only provisionally separate? If your answer is "I don't know/I'm not sure/We need to find out by checking with some other expert", then please say so rather than saying you are so sure my interpretation that they are drawing an intertaxonomic clade is wrong or unjustified given the evidence at hand. Believe it or not, I will listen and hear you out and stand corrected as I would have no shame at all for any such misunderstanding on my part for not being able to read it any other way. I would have no shame to concede because the blame would lie not necessarily with me but also with a very poorly and deceptively written commentary section on the part of Dr. W., (a possibility I doubt) but it looks for all the world that this is precisely what he was saying. Chrisrus (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is such an "intertaxonomic clade" ("subspecies group" would be a more appropriate term) that Wozencraft is intending to use, he would hardly have said "the domestic dog as a subspecies" (p. 576). What did he mean, then? He wanted to label the domestic forms of the wolf, so that the difference between wild subspecies and domestic "subspecies" was clear, and he wanted to justify his taxonomic actions and give background information in the "Comments" section. He didn't want to write a guide on what nomenclature to use on Wikipedia for domesticated and feral forms of Canis lupus.

One of several problems I had with your "article" at Domestic Dog was that it somehow made the term "dog" different from "domestic dog"—the article implied that "dog" can only mean C. l. familiaris, while "domestic dog" can have two meanings: C. l. familiaris only and C. l. familiaris plus C. l. dingo. That that is false should be apparent: dingoes are commonly called dogs, and the New Guinea Singing Dog is also called a dog. Ucucha 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone else had been at it before you saw it. Here, is this what you were referring to?

Revision as of 04:33, 2 May 2010 The term "Domestic Dog" refers to:

Commonly, to Canis lupus familiaris, the familiar common dog.
As a technical term, a taxonomic grouping used by the editors of Mammal Species of the World to unite Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo, the two subspecies of Canis lupus not commonly known not as "wolves" in English, but "dogs."^[1]

By including the words "Domestic Dog" in single brackets under the comments section for these two subspecies, the editors of Mammal Species of the World indicate that these two subspecies are significantly more closely related to each other than they are to the other subspecies of Canis lupus, closely mirroring the alignment of separation between "dog" and "wolf" in languages such as English.

The authors had revisited but not endorsed the arguement that it is invalid to group both the domestic and wild forms as "Canis lupus"^[2], though separating them would allow Domestic Dog to become a species and familaris and dingo to become sub-species.

The authors call the separation between Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo "provisional", indicating that they intend to revisit it in the future.^[3] Uniting them would allow Domestic Dog to become a subspecies of Canis lupus.

Looking over this I notice things already that I would like to change. Surely you could help me make it better; more accurate, at least accurate enough to be the tool we need. But when dingoes are called "domestic dogs", one definition is being used. The other is being used when one of us wants to contrast dingoes with dogs. By classifying them as separate subspecies, albeit provisionally, MSW confirms that, in their view, separation is one way of looking at it that is legitimate. By tying them together as domestic dogs, they are saying that they can see it that way as well. No, they weren't doing this with us in mind, but it does parallel very well two different ways of using the word "dog" perceptible in various contexts on Wikipedia and in the world. I didn't work from the source thinking "how can I get this into Wikipedia", like most people do. I saw a need and went to the source looking to see if it could help and lo and behold there it was. I stared at it and read it over and over and checked with experts to see what they said, but in the end I understood it better than those who just saw their enemy, Chrisrus acting again and didn’t really read it so carefully and so didn’t understand it as well as I even though as experts they should have. I see it as an answer to a problem. Sentences like "The NGSD is a dog for example, are not correct without this redirect of dog from a specific Canis lupus familiaris meaning to another meaning which includes C.l.familaris. and C.l.dingo at the same time. So what here contradicts the usage of domestic dog to be inaccurate either context? Both meanings of dog are covered, so if it's inaccurate, I'm not surprised, but it's not inaccurate in that way.Chrisrus (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to my calling it an "article"; excuse me. It's basically a disambiguation page for the term "Domestic Dog", but it does have some more to it, so I don't know if "disambiguation page" is the right thing to call it, but I really don't care. Stub? All it is supposed to do is hold a set of information so that it can be used to do things such as write "The NGSD is a domestic dog without telling people it's a familiaris, or getting all up in there technical where we shouldn't, but you can't equate valid taxa and make no sense on the grounds that most people probably won't care or that it will never matter; you can't know that. So there is also stuff about the possible significance of its being provisional in this way; what the possible changes are if they were to change it in the future - I'm not wedded to the extra stuff, if it's a deal breaker. Like everything I do, you might be surprised to learn, I was just trying to be helpful with that stuff, but we could have it just be a disambiguation page. Neither am I wedded to the use of this redirect or the term (not mine) "domestic dog". If the problem of making such clauses as "the NGSD is a domestic dog not equate valid taxa, or just be accurate, can be solved in another way, I'm all ears. What about Herr What's-his-name’s idea about dog (disambiguation)? I can see some problems going that route, but it does have the virtue of not having been my idea and therefore not immediately unworthy consideration. Chrisrus (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to "domestic dog clade" directed to Canis lupus familiaris

So Canis lupus dingo isn't in the domestic dog clade? Just the one subspecies is in this clade? Chrisrus (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ According to Mammal Species of the World; [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] Note the "comments" sections on each page, especially on the first two.
^ http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738
^ http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738

[1] According to Mammal Species of the World; [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] Note the "comments" sections on each page, especially on the first two.

[2] ttp://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738

[3] ttp://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738

[1]

[2]

[3]