Talk:Wolf (disambiguation)

message: Seems to me like vast numbers of links are missing here. The wolf has been the subject of numerous poems and stories throughout hundreds of years. Where are those links and that information?  Waelwulf
:We only know of one movie called wolf or wolves.  There's a video game and a sequential art series. But you are right.  There must books, poems, or stories.  What if we include the word "the"? Chrisrus (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, it surprises me that there is no noteworthy poem or story with the title The Wolves or Wolves or Wolf or The Wolf. Chrisrus (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Not enough?

message: If there are places called "Wolf, CA", they should be on the list.  But wouldn't a person looking for Wolf Rock or Wolf Creek also naturally type in the other word in the noun phrase as well?  Do we need places calld Wolf-something, or just places called "wolf"? Chrisrus (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Many?

message: As the domestic dog is quite an important sub-species of canis lupus, should it be added to the list?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.48.20 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst the domestic dog is a sub-species, I don't know anyone who refers to a domestic dog as a wolf.  This page is not intended to list all sub-species of wolves (as that is a purely biological aspect), only to list other topics that people might mean when they use the term "wolf", and to direct them to the article they're looking for.  That's the function of a disambiguation page.  :-)  leevclarke (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to address this, what do you think of it now?Chrisrus (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dogs

message: This page is rather long, and whilst things like the Gray Wolf can be in singular or plural form (i.e. gray wolves), there are a number of entries that are only applicable to one or the other.  For example, WOLF (AM) is a radio station, and would never been seen in the plural form.  Conversely, Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. is known as the Wolves, but you wouldn't refer to one of the players as "a wolf".  Given the length of this article, I think entries that are only known as "wolves" (i.e. not a genuine plural of something called a "wolf") should be moved to their own dab page.  leevclarke (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, makes sense.  Badgernet  ₪  15:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  Chrisrus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Whew! This is easier said than done. Chrisrus (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: In the case of Animals, we say "one wolf, two wolves", even when we are referring to marsupial wolves.
On the principal that you can say  “There are many Springfields”, you can say there are two "Wolfs" for any place name, so "wolves" does not apply.  Would you say "there are two Wolves in California" or "there are two Wolfs in California?
The rocks are called The Wolves.  Each rock must be called a wolf?  If one were to contrast the rocks, would we speak about this wolf and that one?  Of course, there is no other way.
Which is correct: “There aren’t two River Wolves” or “There aren’t two Rivers Wolf” or “There aren’t two River Wolfs”?  Not the first one.
To say "Two Mount Wolfs, Two Wolf Creeks, Two Wolf Lakes, etc.
You could say “Two Comets Wolf” or “Two Comet Wolfs”
"The Wolfs are coming over for dinner tonight."
"There can’t be two HMS Wolfs in the British Navy!"
If you could say “Michael Jordan was the most famous Chicago Bull”, what would you say about Kevin Garnett?  The most famous Minnesota Timberwolf”?  Yes, you would, no?  So Sports teams are exactly like animals in this way.
You would say “two wolf tones/intervals” or maybe “two wolfs”.
You can say “two Beatles“ (George and Ringo); “two Led Zeppelins” (thusly named bands),   so you would say “two Wolfs (bands named Wolf) ”, but not “two Wolves“.  If Ringo was a Beetle, a member of a band called "The Wolves" would be "a Wolf" .
If you had two albums called “Wolf”, you’d have two “Wolfs”, but you can’t make “Wolf” out of anything titled “Wolves”, neither album nor band nor book nor anything else titled “Wolves”.  
“There are several WOLFs (stations with those call letters).”
*“There are two “The Wolf"s (things thusly known as)
Imagine you saw two thusly named vehicles coming down the street.  Wolfs or wolves?  That's a good question....
Chrisrus (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sometimes, the plural isn't "wolves", it's "wolfs"

message: In summary:
1.  Only “wolves” but never “wolf”: 
*The Albums, the song, the game, and the children’s book.
2.  Only “wolf” but never “wolves”:  
*All but one of the places, All space objects, all people, ships, all but two of the music section, the stations, the games, the companies, the film and the manga series, the volcano, and the prize.
3.  Either “wolf” or “wolves”: The animals, and maybe the sports teams and some of the vehicles.  One player might be a “wolf,” and a pack of some of the vehicles might be called “wolves”.
Therefore, we could split the article as follows:
One disambiguation page for “wolf” would include all the entries except works titled “Wolves.”  This would shorten the page, but not by very much.
 
Another disambiguation for “wolves” would include the rocks, the sports teams, and works titled “wolves”, the animals, and maybe some of the vehicles.  
The animals would definitely have to be on both pages.  The sports teams may not have to go on the "wolf" page, and some of the vehicles may not have to go on the "wolves" page, but the case could be made that these should also go on both pages.  Also the rocks called the wolves might go on both, but not necessarily.
I am not sure if we should really do this.  Is it going to help the user as much as we thought it might when this was originally discussed?  Please respond with your opinion.  Chrisrus (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How/whether to split it

message: If an animal is called a wolf, even the marsupial wolf, it is appropriate for the page.  But why the wolf spider, etc?  Obviously, it's being called a spider, not a wolf, so an English-speaking person wouldn't be expected to enter "w-o-l-f" into the search engine and hit enter if the wolf spider were the target they wanted.  I mean, if there were such a thing as a "duck eagle", it might need disambiguation from the eagles, but not from the ducks, because of the same rules of English syntax that tell you that "chocolate milk" is a kind of milk, but that "milk chocolate" is a kind of chocolate.  Would anyone object if I removed the wolf spider, etc. from this page?Chrisrus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC
:I've done this for the animals, but what about the places?  We could include the municipalities called "Wolf", only, and not "wolf river", which needs disambiguation from the other wolf rivers, but not from the other wolves.  Chrisrus (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature and Scope

message: I would like to delete the 3.1.1. Places:Municipalities:See Also and 3.2.1 Places:Geographical Features:See Also.
I would like to do this for the same reason that I removed wolf spider: i.e.: it was unnecesary because anyone looking for the wolf spider or wolf river wouldn't just type in "w-o-l-f", they'd type in the second element of the binomial as well.  
On the other hand they might not remember if the one they are thinking of is called river wolf or wolf river or wolf creek or what.  So I'm torn.  What do you think?  Chrisrus (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: proposal

message: We are now up to almost forty teams, and we're not even including the teams called "Gray Wolves" or "Red Wolves".  If we have another page for Wolf (name) because there are far too many for this article to handle, at what point do we do the same with the sports teams? Chrisrus (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many Teams? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wolf (Exo song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: In response to a recent edit summary, the page currently includes two red links, Wolf (2008 film) and Wolf (2019 film). MOS:DABRED states that red links should only be included on a disambiguation page if the entry includes an article that uses the red link. Wolf (2008 film) is linked to in Daniel Alfredson. Wolf (2019 film) is an orphan red link so I have commented it out. Leschnei (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. -- 109.77.254.36 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Wolf (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Wolf (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wolf (upcoming film)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]