Talk:Japanese wolf

message: I disagree.  It includes animals cited "outside their normal range."  This includes putatively extinct creatures being sighted.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Cryptid states in its lead: "In cryptozoology and sometimes in cryptobotany, both pseudoscience, a cryptid (from the Greek κρύπτω, krypto, meaning "hide") is an animal or plant whose existence has been suggested but has not been discovered or documented by the scientific community. The Honshu wolf existed, that is beyond dispute. Later in that article it states "Cryptid" has also been applied by cryptozoologists to animals whose existence is accepted by the scientific community," and cites Cognition and Belief in Paranormal Phenomena: Gestalt/Feature-Intensive Processing Theory and Tendencies Toward ADHD, Depression, and Dissociation which found that "Psychological tendencies toward attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dissociation, and depression, even at subclinical levels, may be associated systematically with particular paranormal or cryptozoological beliefs." The one primary source cited is not looking very supportive of cryptology and the credibility of those who claim to have seen cryptids, is it? There appears to be no secondary sources supporting this definition, nor the first one in the article. My position is that neither the Honshu nor Hokkaido wolves meet the definition of a cryptid. Regards, William Harris •  talk •   21:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that while we have been in discussion, the definition used by Wikiproject Cryptozoology for defining a Cryptid is now "an animal or plant whose existence has been suggested but has not been discovered or documented by the scientific community or by direct evidence" and this is supported by two primary and one secondary sources. I would suggest that this trumps one primary source and therefore neither the Honshu nor Hokkaido wolves meet the definition of a cryptid as used by Wikiproject Cryptozoology, and therefore should not be categorized as such under their banner. This will allow the supporters of that project to focus their noble search for Nessie, Bigfoot and our new best friends from Beta Centauri, but leaving the wolves alone. Regards, William Harris • Lake Monster Observation Society • talk •   03:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Cryptozoology

message: Can anyone advise me as to why this article is titled the Honshu wolf? Every reliable citation that I have found so far refers to Canis lupus hodophilax as the Japanese wolf. The background is that the Hokkaido wolf article commenced in 2004, it appears to have eventually covered both wolves, then on 15 FEB 2007 the Honshu wolf article was spun from it, and separately a Japanese wolf disimbag was put into place that points to both the Honshu and Hokkaido wolves. Why this article was called the Honshu wolf remains unclear, apart from administrative convenience at that time, and it is a misnomer as the wolf was found on more than just Honshu island. Unless there is a compelling reason not to, I propose that this article be relocated under the present redirect titled Japanese wolf, which is its common name, and the Honshu wolf page becomes a redirect to it. The Hokkaido wolf is a separate canid  altogether and can stand on its own.  Canis lupus lupus is still referred to as the Eurasian wolf, even though there are other subspecies found across Eurasia, and we have not given it a separate name; the Japanese wolf should be treated no differently. Regards, William Harris •  talk •   22:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems the problem is, as you said, that both wolves have been referred to by the same name. So in theory, someone could be looking for the other wolf, but end up here. FunkMonk (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: NCBI/GenBank uses the common name of Japanese wolf for the subspecies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=188536  The authoritative The Lost Wolves of Japan has referred to the Japanese wolf since its first edition back in 2005. It would appear that most of the referencing to the same name, or to the "Honshu wolf", has been done either here on Wikipedia or on a collection of low-quality, self-published websites of which a search on the term will reveal. Matsumura (2014) stated that: "Two lineages of wolves in Japan, namely, Japanese or Honshu (C. l. hodophilax) and Ezo or Hokkaido (C. l. hattai) wolves....." which confirms that the term "Honshu wolf" is not incorrect, but it does appear to be the least preferred term as Matsumura referred from then on in the study to the Japanese wolf. You are correct that "in theory, someone could be looking for the other wolf, but end up here", but if they did then they would quickly learn in the first few sentences that another wolf once existed in Japan (plus part of Russia). Regards, William Harris •  talk •   09:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a formal move request would be in order, then. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I was initially concerned that there were not enough visitors to this article to be representative of the community to make a formal proposal, however given that over the last few days the numbers have tripled(!), I shall make one. There appears to have been a misunderstanding here in the past and that the two were somehow "cousins" - I even removed the Hokkaido wolf from the taxabox of the Honshu wolf where it was listed as a subspecies! - however the Hokkaido wolf is related to the wolves of North America. Regards, William Harris •  talk •   20:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one have had this article watchlisted since 2010, so no development goes unnoticed. But you can attract more opinions with a formal move request, it will list the article at the WP:Requested moves page. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your advice, I just saw your message. Is there a template that I add to this for it to reflect on the Requested moves page? William Harris •  talk •   21:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks a bit dodgy at present, let us see what the bot does with it over the next half-hour. (I hope I got it right.) Something is impacting on the text markup, it appears OK in Show Preview but not onscreen. William Harris •  talk •   22:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a cache issue or something. FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I propose that the name of this article on Canis lupus hodophilax be WP:MOVED from Honshu wolf to Japanese wolf. The reason referred to in WP:MOVE is that "The subject of the article has changed its name and the new name has come into majority use." Rather than "Japanese wolf" being a term just used in Japan, NCBI/GenBank uses the "Japanese wolf" as the common name of for this subspecies:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=188536 and the authoritative The Lost Wolves of Japan has referred to the "Japanese wolf" since its first edition back in 2005. The  Taxonomy section of this article will show a number of modern sources referring to the "Japanese wolf", including scientists from Japan: Ishiguro (2009, 2010, 2016), Matsumura (2014) and elsewhere: Pang (2009), Deluba (2015) and Lee (2015). Regards, William Harris • WikiProject Mammals • talk •  21:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You should use this template to attract editors: FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal - change title 

message: Hello oknazevad, 7&6=thirteen, FunkMonk, RGloucester  and SMcCandlish. Thank you for your support in renaming the Honshu wolf to the Japanese wolf. The page once had less than 30 watchers and approximately 75 visits per day. Over the past week since the renaming, it now has 43 watchers and between 200-250 visits each day. I regard this as having been a successful move.
Regarding the other wolf of the Japanese archipelago, I have proposed moving the Hokkaido wolf to the Ezo wolf, refer Talk:Hokkaido wolf#Requested move 23 April 2016. This is a much more complex issue, was proposed 5 days ago but with no response at all. I am now promoting the move more widely, so if you have a position either way, please vote. I would like to bring the issue to a close either one way or the other. Regards, William Harris •  talk •   10:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would let that one run the full RM length, since it is not so cut-and-dry.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post move 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion