Talk:O-Six

Additional resources

Information for the parents of this wolf :

• The Book "Charting Yellowstone Wolves : 25th Anniversary" by James Halfpenny, Leo Leckie and Shauna Baron. Published in 2020. See page p.155, 191 and 245 for each wolf (113M, 472F and 832F) stories.
• The Annual Reports of the Yellowstone Wolf Project (1995 - 2012), which are available on the wolf page of the Yellowstone National Park page on the NPS website. See the 1997 report for the birth of 113M in Chief Joseph, the 2000 report for 472F birth, 2002-2003 report for the formation of the Agate Creek Pack, 2010 report for the formation of the Lamar Canyon Pack, 2012 report for the death of 754M and 832F
• Yellowstone Wolf Family Tree (a facebook organisation that is unique. They are charting the lineages of the Yellowstone Wolf Populations with the helps of experts).
• The 06 Legacy" Page, a facebook organization that shares insightful and educative contents on both the lives of some yellowstone wolves and wolves from around the world.

Note that the birth of the wolf isn't mentioned in the annuals reports of course, because wolves are only ID'ed when collared or captured, exception made of the 1995 - 1998 wolves which were given an ID when first sighted. 113M was known as #113? from his birth year [1997] (when first sighted out of one of the Chief Joseph Pack dens ; they had 2 litters of pups that year) to his collaring, in February 1999 [as a 22 months old wolf].

472F was first thought to be born in 2001 to the new dominant breeding female, Wolf #42F but after the wolf team did the genetic analysis again (and also in a more precise manner), the mother turned out to be 40F, the sister of 42F. However, that wolf died in 2000 and therefore, the wolf team re-adjusted 472F's birth year, age at death, etc. This whole "bunch" of information comes from a facebook post of the Yellowstone Wolf Family Tree, which is always in contact with Yellowstone Wolf Project. The information posted by the facebook page of the organisation was of course, transmitted to them earlier by the wolf team, under circumstances and events that we do not know (we being Gimly24). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimly24 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I'll check the FB page. It is a rare thing for FB to be cited, though. You can identify yourself by signing with four tiles (~) after your comment - you r username and the timestamp will be added automatically. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide the url for the 1997 annual report? Just paste it in a new line below, including the https.

I've added the Charting Yellowstone's Wolves book. I note that it's self-published, which makes it marginal, but the bio on Amazon appears to support that the primary author is passably acquainted with the subject for the purposes of citing lineage. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

look here : https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolf-reports.htm

All the annuals reports of the Yellowstone Wolf Projects are there. There is 24 of them (1995-1996, 1997, 1998.... 2019).

There is some mistakes in that book. Some genetics are assumptions but most are verified, especially famous ones. And yes, Mr Halfpenny got a lot of background haha. Gimly24 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, i got the book at home. I bought it when it came out. For instance, 1109F genetics only came out in 2021. It turned out she was the offspring of two wolves that weren't suspected to have had surviving offsprings that year [2016]. She is assumed to be the daughter of 907F or 969F in the book. Information from the Yellowstone Wolf Team based on their genetic research on the prelevements of blood and other samples taken during 1109F collaring, showed that her parents were actually 911M aka "Puff" and 970F. The Yellowstone Wolf Family Tree [no wait]... The 06 Legacy Page shared the information that Leo Leckie [which also is part of the Yellowstone Wolf Family Tree] posted [which is this new lineage information].

I know the best information sources for 832F's parents, it's the inset of the 2012 report : Page 6-7. The Agate Creek Pack.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/upload/wolf_ar_2012_final.pdf

Now you talk about a reliable source. Gimly24 (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Forget the last point, i found better than both the book and the yellowstone report. Check this study : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/eva.13127 (figure 7)Gimly24 (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Notes on the legally killed wolves in 2012

see this file : https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/upload/2013_3_01wolf_harvest_summary.pdf (it listed all the legal wolf harvests of 2012 near Yellowstone)

There is 9 collared wolves, including 832F and 754M (the Lamar Canyon Pack Second Ranking Male and the brother of 755M [the mate of 832F]). Aswell, there is 7 uncollared wolves.

It would certainly help update [add to] the line "She was shot by a hunter on December 6, 2012, the eighth wolf to be legally killed in Wyoming in 2012"

or at least add up to the events of that year wolf hunting season near Yellowstone.Gimly24 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I know it might not be a fun update but in my opinion, adding it would be best. What do you think ?.

Any ways to change the page title ?

"The 06 Female" would be more appropriate in my opinion. Most Likely like this : "The 06 Female" (832F) Gimly24 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC) (I forgot to sign that comment a while ago and i'm not agreeing with what i said then)

Fixing text creep

Hi User:WolfInABox20, welcome to wikipedia ! I agree partially with you on your revision of the page, which can be seen here [1]

O-Six is an alpha female named after the year of her birth.(ref 1)She has light gray fur and is recognized by the faint black ovals around her eyes. She is a kind and loving mother and she is a very intelligent fighter, admired by many wolf watchers, but as she raises her pups and defends her pack, she is in danger from hunters, cattle ranchers, and other wolves who are willing to fight for control of Lamar Valley.

Indeed, i agree with you removing the above section and using the edit comment "Badly written/unprofessional". The first two sentences are keepable I think. Remark however that why she got that nickname was already covered in the following paragraph and that's it is redundant. Aswell, a "." or "," isn't of use in the first sentence. (Below is the actual first section of the subheader "Life" as last revised by you)

O-Six (named after the year of her birth).(ref 1) was for several years [2010 - 2012] the dominant breeding female of the Lamar Canyon pack in Yellowstone National Park. Born in 2006 in the Agate Creek pack to Agate Creek Wolves #113M (born a Chief Joseph Wolf in 1997) and Wolf #472F (born a Druid Peak wolf in 2000),(ref 2) (ref 3) (ref 4) she was principally known by the year of her birth.(ref 5)

For this talk, I used (ref X) instead of the full citation to lighten the content of the post.

Some informations could be added with the annual reports (2006 - 2012) and the book on her life (published in October 2022) by naturalist and former Wolf Project employee Rick McIntyre (now retired). That man hold the record for wolf sightings and knowledge of the park packs (especially those living in the Northern Range), and the individuals wolves stories, which he recorded each day he went out in the field and saw wolves (he had streaks of consecutive days with a wolf sighting going well over 1000). Gimly24 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is WIkipedia, where everybody can add tangential things in all good faith. The physical description and "good mother" text is bit over-sentimentalized, and is not the kind of thing that appears in an encyclopedia article, just apart from the issues with tense. Acroterion (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is why i acknowledged the new wikipedia user edit (who removed that section). I should have named the header of the talk page entry differently to not be confusing (as per your previous edit comments). I then simply noticed the user about redundancy because this user want to be noticed when it makes mistakes. Gimly24 (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Picture of 832F

Hi User:Acroterion, I had a few questions.

In the Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual Report of 2012, there is the following sentence :

"All photos not otherwise marked are NPS photos."

Which by the National Park Service Disclaimer, that these pictures are public domain (the section was in 3 paragraphs) :

Ownership
Copyright law does not protect “any work of the U.S. Government” where “a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person's official duties” (See, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 105). Thus, material created by the NPS and presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is generally considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by applicable law. 

When material produced by the NPS, including (but not limited to) information, documents, comments, photos, graphics and other images, films, music, and other audiovisual materials are used, reproduced, or copied, a citation or acknowledgement of the NPS as the source is appreciated. However, when such information is published or republished commercially, in part or in full, the copyright notice must include a reference to the original U.S. Government work, (see, 17 U.S.C.§ 403), such as: “No protection is claimed in original U.S. Government works” or “No claim to original U.S. Government works.”

However, not all materials appearing on this website, social media, and associated NPS material are in the public domain. Some NPS sites contain registered trademarks, such as, the NPS Arrowhead symbol and NPS Secondary Mark. The Arrowhead symbol is the official insignia and registered trademark of the NPS. As such, it is protected by trademark laws and by 18 U.S.C. § 701, which provides for criminal penalties against non-governmental use of Government marks and other insignia. The NPS Arrowhead symbol may not be used without prior written permission from the Director of the NPS. 

The description of the disclaimer is here : [2]

As previously mentioned, the Annual Report states : "All photos not otherwise marked are NPS photos."

The image on page 1 is not marked and as follows :

Members of Lamar Canyon pack including three collared wolves: 754M, 755M, 832F (at top of photo), March 2012.

754M is the black wolf on the left, 755M is in the center and 832F is on the right. A gray yearling (approximately 1 year 11 months) is also present in the picture (bottom).

In the edition of Yellowstone Science (24-1) published by the National Park Service in 2016 here [3]

We find a better resolution of the picture and the photo credits of the image (NPS/Employee). Other examples of this include the long time Uncollared White Female of the Canyon Pack, pictured on page 12, for which the credits in the publication are as such :

NPS Photo - N. Herbert

This picture not cropped is present in many other locations and is also present in wikimedia commons [[4]]

The picture is the same as in the 2012 Annual Report is present on page 84 with the credits  :

NPS Photo - D. Stahler 

However, there is a box with text in the lower half of the image and I believe we could crop this picture to show three adult wolves. With all this said, what I wanted to know was simply if i could cropped this picture and use it here.

Also, on another question, wouldn't it be fair use anyways as with the file utilized in Slavc : [[5]]

But that's something else (that one is as said and explained : "Non-free media information and use rationale for Slavc")

Sorry for the huge wall of text, I just want to be sure that i could use the image of either the 2012 Annual Report or the 2016 YS One and not repeating the mistake you made noticed with the picture of the Colorado female pup of an Employee of the CPW (Colorado Park & Wildlife), where it wasn't a governemental work. Thanks a lot for your time :) - Gimly24 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

In general, works by federal employees in the course of their work are public domain. People sometimes get carried away and assume that everything published by the federal government is public domain, which ois not the case, but I think you're on the right track. Acroterion (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Since it isn't potentially in a gallery online but in online publications of the federal governement of the U.S. and is public domain after looking at the disclaimer and stuff, I will ask a question in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to see if screenshots of such of works and then proper crediting is correct to do or not correct to do. I didn't know (silly me) that that page existed. Thanks again for your answer. Complicated stuff haha. Gimly24 (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Rather than a screenshot, you may be able to extract the image from the pdf file. You may be able to get help doing this at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. If you do go the screenshot route, there is no licensing issue, and you could use it as PD, and can upload it to Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer @Whpq ! I think i will go with screenshot of the higher resolution image and cropping to get only the 3 adult wolves (those at the top of the picture) to avoid the rectangle with text and the yearling wolf. The Annual Report Pictures are of lesser quality.

If I upload it as a screenshot, the licensing should still have the following right ? (I'm pretty sure of it)

"This image or media file contains material based on a work of a National Park Service employee, created as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, such work is in the public domain in the United States. See the NPS website and NPS copyright policy for more information."

So if i understand correctly, the author is me because i took the screenshot ? However the source would be the National Park Service Publications it's in and credits should be attributed to the employee that captured the media under his work for the NPS (here Dan Stahler) ?

Or is the author still the NPS/Dan Stahler and in the description i remark that it is a screenshot of the publication "X" and describing "Y" and the source again linking to the publication ?

It's small details but i just to know this before doing it :) Thank you very much for the answer. Gimly24 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Taking a screenshot, or making a simple crop is not considered creative, and so would not give rise to a new copyright. I'd still credit NPS/Dan Stahler as the author and just note that this is a screenshot/crop in the file description. -- Whpq (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Awesome ! That's what i was thinking and doubted at the same time. Thank you very much for the answer. Last thing : do I need to remove my request from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or should i mark it as answered ? Cheers Gimly24 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just mark it as answered. -- Whpq (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

will do ! Thank you. Gimly24 (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I can extract the image from the PDF and will upload it shortly. (Edit: Done) The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Gimly24 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

References