Talk:Wolf

Why didn't we use the paraphyletic group template for canis lupus and why didn't we put canis familiaris under "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa"?

Canis lupus is a paraphyletic group, and canis familiaris is cladistically included in canis lupus as canis lupus familiaris but traditionally excluded from canis lupus Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Grey Wolves mentioned

At the start of the article it mentions canis lupis also known as the grey wolf, this could spread disinformation as they are many sub-species of wolves and despite the grey wolves being the dominant species it cannot be just assumed to be "also known as" ~2026-22795-28 (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Grey wolf = Canis lupus. There is no issue here. Mariomassone (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, the hatnote directing readers to wolf (disambiguation) handles what you are asking for. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Cladogram

The text below the cladogram needs to state that this cladogram was "based on 20 nuclear genes". That the wolf and coyote split 1.1 million years ago is laughable based on recent whole genome sequencing, but I note that the reference cited (Koepfli, 2015) is over a decade old. ~2026-42230-19 (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

further

Under Evolution, the article states that "The divergence time for wolves in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia is estimated to be fairly recent at around 1,600 years ago." The Fan 2016 reference said no such thing.

Fan said "The divergence of New and Old World wolves is the oldest of these events at 12,500 ya, followed by divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian wolves at 11,700 ya. The divergence times between sequences from Europe, the Middle East, and Asia fall within a relatively short period of time of ∼1600 yr." The divergences occurred within a period of 1,600 years, and not 1,600 years ago. ~2026-42230-19 (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Add "original range" map? .... would benefit readers

The article contains "current range" map:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canis_lupus_distribution_(IUCN).png

I think readers would really benefit from also seeing the "original range" map:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Original_distribution_of_gray_wolf_(canis_lupus)_subspecies-en.png

that latter map would show:

1. The original range
2. Where it was extirpated (by contrast with the "current range" map)
3. Would illustrate the subspecies graphically

Any way that original range map could be squeezed into the article? Noleander (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Except it doesn't cite a source for it. What is it based on? Skekzilla (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, rats. I didn't see the absence of the data source. Uploader of that map was blocked in 2023, so they can't help. I found a RS source for North America range map, but not for Asia. Classic Commons issue :-( Noleander (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect Wolf Ear Size

I noticed that the article says wolf ears are 90-110mm however the referenced text this information came from "Heptner, V. G.; Naumov, N. P. (1998). Mammals of the Soviet Union Vol. II Part 1a, Sirenia and Carnivora (Sea cows; Wolves and Bears). Science Publishers, Inc. USA. ISBN 978-1-886106-81-9" has the sizing at 110-190mm (page 174) ~2026-47382-67 (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Why mention minor political act from a single nation?

I've removed the new paragraph regarding recent US political action, for a few reasons:

1. Too US-centric. The wolf's range covers about 35 countries. No reason to single-out a single country for emphasis.
2. The material is better in Conservation in the United States or a similar article
3. No significant impact to wolves. The event was signature on a piece of paper. Not even a law. This article should only include significant changes related to wolves, such as major increases or decreases of population; or re-introduction events to new localities
4. The event is primary a political gesture, and is likely to be reversed in the US every 4 to 8 years for the next few decades.
5. This article is primarily a scientific article that should focus on population changes and range changes. Other articles like Conservation in the United States or Repopulation of wolves in Midwestern United States can focus on the politics and paperwork.
6. This article is nearly at the 9,000 prose word limit suggested by WP:SIZERULE. It may be time to follow WP:SPINOFF and create a new sub-article on Conservation of wolves to contain all global conservation efforts & failures.

Please discuss here in Talk page before restoring the material. Noleander (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2026 (UTC)