Talk:Side-striped jackal

The name of this article
In the English language, the names of species/types of animals are NOT capitalized. Exceptions include the Douglas fir, Tasmanian devil, Siberian tiger, and Norway rat. Otherwise, they are written like this: grizzly bear, bottlenosed dolphin, blue whale, potato, carrot, white-tailed deer.

Hence, the title of this article needs to be Side-striped jackal, with the capital "S" capitalized only because it is the first word of the title of this Wipipedia article. 98.67.110.23 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Genus change - Canis to Lupulella
Given the growing number of papers supporting a rename of this species from genus Canis to genus Lupulella including the Canid Specialist Group, and that the Mammal Diversity Database of the American Society of Mammalogists also supports Lupulella with WP:MAMMALS supporting the use of this database as a more up-to-date source than MSW3 in its WP:WikiProject Mammals, I have renamed the genus of this species from Canis to Lupulella as a WP:BOLD edit. Happy to discuss. William Harris (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Genus change from Lupulella to Schaeffia
Please hold off on this. We generally wait on mammal taxonomic changes for the IUCN or the ASM's MDD to catch the update and th MDD v1.12 is coming out this week or very soon. There is no need to rush the change in while our preferred sources do not have the update; and if ASM's MDD doesn't include this change, we should have a discussion before accepting it. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * In fact, I just downloaded the 1.12 'cos I wasn't sure if what I was seeing in the website was 1.11 or 1.12. This species is retained in Lupulella in th 1.12 version of the MDD. So, let's look at the sources you say support the move:
 * Ref 3: Primary source
 * Ref 4: Still uses Lupulella but discusses the possible move
 * Ref 5: Says the same: "If not monophyletic, then switch to Schaeffia, but doesn't say this has been proven.
 * Ref 6: Still uses Lupulella but discusses the possible move
 * Ref 7: Still uses Canis!
 * Ref 8: From 1860... can't be used to say a thing about modern thoughts on taxonomy
 * Ref 9: From 1915... ditto.
 * - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That all said.... if you want to add to the discussion in the Taxonomy section with the primary source suggesting Schaeffia should be used, please go ahead. But please leave the rest of the article alone. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * (0) Ad "ref. 8" - The year is not 1860 but 1906. And "can't be used to say a thing about modern thoughts on taxonomy" is not true, because the source is the original author of the genus name and that is the reason it is cited here. Since when is citing the first author of a scientific name irrelevant rather than the exact opposiite, i.e. absolutely fundamental ??
 * (1) The move is necessary because of what you call "ref. 3", where a fossil genus was added to the analysis, which completely changes the hitherto interpretation of the whole tree. The other references have the "move" as an alternative, i.e. the authors would not mind if it was moved. Most importantly the authors of the move to genus Lupulella (2017) themselves say that the move to genus Schaeffia is equally valid depending om the tree you use, you just have to read the Additional Notes there. In other words, in 2017, at the latest, Lupullela adusta and Schaeffia adusta, should have been at least mentioned as equally valid placements in the article.
 * (2) 1 years or so after the publication of "ref. 3" is no short waiting time, rather the opposite. I did not come immediately after the study was published, as you seem to wrongly suggest here.
 * (3) Your statement (even if it is backed by whatever potential internal, and therefore objectively irrelevant, agreement of you and your friends here) that 2 websites randomly selected by you (or whomwever) decide what is the current state of knowledge, and what is worthy of (not) publishing, is not only contrary to any science, but contradicts the very purpose of wikipedia, i. e. to depict true and up-to-date information. And it is, frankly, an absurd statement. There are thousands of sources on mammalian taxonomy.
 * (4) Databases have no precedence over actual studies and books.
 * (5) IUCN is not updated often and there is no reason to considered it relevant for taxonomy, its true purpose being environmental protection, not taxonomy. MDD is just one website of many with the opinion of a small group of particular authors, nothing more or less. Any other scientific source is equally (if not more) relevant.
 * (6) The fact that a website was updated on Jan 5 2024 does not imply that the authors have read and incorporated all changes available in the literature valid as at the date of the update. Updates can involve many kinds of, even just small or technical or partial, changes. The only thing that can be seen on the MDD page is that their last source is the 2017 study, i.e. the text is outdated.
 * (7) If you need an authoritative website with up-to-date information - see e.g. here https://paleobiodb.org/classic/checkTaxonInfo?taxon_no=475234&is_real_user=1 (including the taxon history section). But the books and study cited by me in the text are of course much more relevant.
 * (8) The current state of knowledge, based on the last published study on this topis, is that the species has been moved to Schaeffia, because Lupulella [sensu English wikipedia] is no monophyletic group. This might change tomorrow, in 1 year or whenwever, but it is the current state of knowledge, which wikipedia or any other serious must depict. If the current stateo of knowledge changes, the text will be changed accordingly. There is nothing complicated about this.
 * (9) Your deletion of the very well sourced information that the species' alternative (i.e. not definitive, but alternative) classification is in the genus Schaeffia, is basically vandalism. This is all the more striking if we consider the fact (which cannot be repeated often enough) that the authors of the study who have moved this species to Lupulella in 2017 themselves (!) point out that it could be equally well classified in Schaeffia. The same statement, i.e. that the alternative placement is in Schaeffia, has been also contained in many other sources for years (you have repeated them yourself above), therefore it was contrary to science and to all principles of wikipedia to completely withhold this information from the readers even before I came and corrected the information. In other words, the article has been misinforming the readers even during the 2017-2023 period (and well before, i.e. at the time of Canis adustus, because the situation was basically the same even at that time).
 * (10) The initial reason you gave for the revert of my well sourced edit was "reference bombing". This is also vandalism and this edit alone unfortunately diqualifies you from any serious edits, because this is by no means a normal reaction. What you have done is that you have turned the basis of any scientific work (i.e. citing the sources and citing the authors) and all the fundamental principles of wikipedia (which are basically the same) into "reference bombing" (!!???), which can be removed at will, i.e. at your personal discretion.
 * (11) That all said, there is absolute no reason (not a single one) to keep the species in its old genus. Have a nice day. 2A02:AB04:3140:7400:919B:6CC:A12C:3329 (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia has very particular rules as to what data comes in and when that data comes in. For mammal taxonomy, we wait for the IUCN or the ASM MDD. This was decided by consensus, which is how the whole project operates. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide science, which is what you would have us do. It is up to us to report on what reliable independent sources have decided. The WP:WikiProject Mammals has decided that that means for taxonomy, IUCN and ASM MDD, or a significant number of other third-party sources using that taxonomy. In addition, making this change at this point would constitute synthesis, which is also contrary to Wikipedia policy. Finally, please read all the links in this reply - they are all policy statements (plus the one internal project). - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)