Talk:Canis variabilis

Requested move 13 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Canis variabilis. No such user (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Canis lupus variabilis → Canis variabilis – I originally created this page under the name Canis lupus variabilis as its discoverer originally called it. I later found through research that the discoverer - Pei Wenzhong - renamed it Canis variabilis, as stated in the article. I propose a move to its correct name. William Harris • talk • 06:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(Apostrophes removed from move request per WP:ITALICTITLE and the collapsed discussion below.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I see no possibility for controversy, the new name is authorotatively sourced, support the move. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I find this article confusing and, not being an expert in taxonomy, will take the nom's word for the need for the new page name. If all the instances of Canus lupus variabilis in the article content were changed to Canus variabilis, it might render it all less confusing?  What's in your palette? Paine  09:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That would be the plan. Paleontologists find a small part of something here and name it, and then a small part somewhere else and name it something else, then realize when more parts are found that it was the one species all along. Their field must be like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle with only a few pieces to begin with. Regards, William Harris • talk • 01:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, that makes good sense and thank you! May I suggest that in the future, when a page move like this would be uncontroversial, you just go ahead and move the page yourself. Or if you prefer, such a page rename can be listed at Wikipedia:Requested move#Requesting technical moves. Page movers must wait seven days when a page move is requested as you've done above. Technical moves can be handled immediately.  What's in your palette? Paine  10:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks that is good advice. (This page is rarely visited at present, and I need to prepare it for expansion, now that the variabilis genetic sequence has been found to be ancestral in some ancient dog remains.) Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding apostrophes in titles (Collapsed since it may interfere with building consensus for the move)

Strong oppose proposed move, suggest Canis variabilis instead (with no apostrophes). Using wiki markup in titles (specifically, using at least two consecutive apostrophes) is restricted by the title creation blacklist since using wiki markup in titles can break pages if the title is linked. After the move, the {{Taxobox}} infobox already on the page should italicize the title. Steel1943 (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Concern no longer applies to this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC) There's no need to be so pedantic, it's obvious common sense that a simple markup error is not part of the name itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Actually, if this move request were supported across the board, the closer may come to the conclusion that the blacklist bypass is supported as well. So no, sometimes on Wikipedia, common sense can be superseded by consensus to bypass it, and thus the need to specifically identify the wiki markup issue present in this move request as written ... especially considering my experience with 357 such problematic titles. Steel1943 (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC) It remains a mystery to me as to why the template does not reflect italics as that is what I had anticipated. I am just following WP:ITALICTITLE and its application to taxonomic names - in this case to Canis variabilis - and was not aware that this might cause a problem. Does the policy need to be changed? William Harris • talk • 21:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC) @William Harris: It's not a policy issue, it's a technical issue with the way the Wikipedia software works. If this page is moved to the title I mentioned above without the italics, when a reader views the article, the article title should appear as Canis variabilis since the {{Taxobox}} template forces the title of the article to look italicized, essentially creating the result you desire. (In fact, WP:ITALICTITLE actually states to use {{Italic title}} [which is actually built into {{Taxobox}}] to italicize the title, not to include the ''s as part of the actual title name [as your move request is currently formatted] per "...Italic formatting cannot be part of the actual (stored) title of a page...".) If you want and with your permission, I can adjust your move request to reflect this (or feel free to contact me with questions about this as I hope I wasn't being overly technical in my explanation, but may have been.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC) This is way too technical for me, folks - I just write about extinct wolves whose part-DNA sequence finds its way into some dogs (all that GATACA stuff). You have my permission to take whatever steps are necessary to action without showing apostrophes. Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Fair enough. I'll update your request. Sorry about the confusion I caused here, and thank you for your contributions. (My specialties here are video games and minor technical skills with Wikipedia code, so your area of expertise is a bit out of my skill set, so .., thank you again.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC) I was once a database programmer in another life, but this web-enablement and coding-set is all "wizards with wires" to me! Many thanks for your guidance here. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move

Hello All, thanks for your assistance with the move of Canis variabilis to this new home. For your information, there is currently a major project coordinated by G. Larson that is about to release a report on where the dog came from, which you will read about soon: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/science/the-big-search-to-find-out-where-dogs-come-from.html?_r=0 Of interest, the article refers to another project: "Other large collaborative efforts are brewing, as well. Dr. Wayne, at U.C.L.A., said that a group in China was forming with the goal of sequencing 10,000 dog genomes. He and Dr. Larson are part of that group." I understand that this team will be looking at the wide genetic diversity of dogs from across China and which wolves have added to it, including both living and long-extinct wolves. It may be that C. variabilis is in the mix for at least some of them. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Move to Zhoukoudian wolf

Why not we move this to Zhoukoudian wolf on WP:COMMONNAME grounds?

This article says that this referent is commonly known as the Zhoukoudian wolf.

WP:COMMONNAME says in such cases, the title should be the common name.

It says that, for example, the article should be Lion, not Felis leo.

So, unless there's some serious reason to break with that in this case,

Let's please move this article to Zhoukaudian wolf.

Chrisrus (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris, you do get around the Canis pages. When I first wrote this article back in January 2015, there was little info available apart from Pei and a couple of other sources that I had to track down. At that time, Zhoukoudian wolf sounded reasonable because it had only been found in the Zhoukoudian site in China. Since that time, it has been found across Central to Eastern Asia and up into North-East Russia, so Zhoukoudian wolf might now be a misnomer. There have been a number of articles that have included it as C. variabilis, to the point where I would suggest that this may be now its common name, and the article might need changing in relation to this. Let us see if others have a point of view. Regards,  William Harris |talk  08:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Okso let's edit this article so it says maybe "also known as" rather than "commonly known as".

Otherwise WP:COMMONNAME supports the move.

One or the other, as I see it.

Oh and also, if you would, if you think of it and would like to, please add any/all such "wolves" that you might meet or be aware of to this list housed here: Wolf_(disambiguation)#Canids.

That's where we keep all the "wolves". Chrisrus (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I shall change it so "sometimes known as" which should do it. I will look at the wolf list. Regards,  William Harris |talk  19:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Subspecies of Canis mosbachensis

Hello All. The recent work of Jiangzuo 2018 supports the earlier proposal of Tedford 2009 - that C. variabilis is the same species as C. mosbachensis. Further, Jiangzuo 2018 proposes that C. variabilis is an eastern Eurasian subspecies of C. mosbachensis - i.e. C. m. variabilis. In the light of this finding, I intend to create an article on C. mosbachensis that will include C. variabilis as its subspecies. The Canis variabilis article will become a simple redirect, with its material relocated into the new article. If anyone has concerns please let me know. William Harris • (talk) • 08:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Canis mosbachensis has been created, and this article changed into a redirect. William Harris • (talk) • 21:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)