This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Generally I think this is a separate topic from coyotes in general -- a growing issue for city and suburban dwellers, and distinct from their rural canine cousins.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
"rural canine cousins"? They are the same species. I don't see why this can't be a section on the page for "coyote". Anyone looking for information on "urban" coyotes is likely to hit that page first anyways.
Hey thanks. I saw one of these coyotes in my suburb a year or so ago; didn't know what to make of it. Then he was gone in a flash. Wish I'd had my camera. What I don't know is where they live during the day that makes them hard to find.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
That's interesting! Please continue to report. Google Scholar returned more than 200WP:RS papers mentioning the phrase "Urban Coyote" just now. We should use these to cite statements of fact for the article. I'm sure you'll find them interesting, so have a look at one or two. Chrisrus (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Cool source. I used to have these newspaper sweeps but the file got deleted accidentally. So I'll add some from your Google scholar. Please feel free to rewrite it as I really don't know much about coyotes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I added an AfD tag for the following reason: There really is no species as "urban coyote". It is the same species as "coyote" (See the infoboxes - both are listed as "C. latrans"). This information can and should be merged into coyote. I don't see this as a separate topic.
You are wrong and right. You are wrong because the referent of this article has also been that of many scholarly papers and such, all of which seem to agree that urban coyotes, regardless of their subspecies, behave and live and are different from their wild brethren. Therefore, this article should not be deleted.
On the other hand, you are right. There should be no taxobox with the article. It was added in good faith, but please, there is no taxon for the referent of this article so the taxobox must go. Sub-articles about particular types and kinds of taxa such as Skunks as pets do not get taxoboxes because that's not what taxoboxes are for. It doesn't mean that Skunks as pets or Carrier pigeon or war dog should be deleted if they mistakenly do have a taxobox. It just means the taxobox should be deleted. I will remove the taxobox right away and leave "See Talk re: AfD - Reasoning" as an edit summary. Chrisrus (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget War elephant. I think the point about the taxobox not being included here is good. I tend to think urban coyote needs a separate article because of its impact on humans. It lives among us; it interacts with people indirectly by eating our pets (cats, small dogs); it lowers populations of other animals such as squirrels, possum, groundhogs, etc. This is different from a wild coyote which has a different life. Scholars have identified a phenomenon known as urban coyotes and have studied them particularly. So I favor keeping a separate article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Note: the IP has proposed that the article be deleted - the correct procedure is therefore for the AfD creation procedure be completed by a registered contributor, giving the IP's rationale, and then any discussion to continue on the AfD page. I shall do this now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Aaaaaand, I just removed the link before seeing this. I've reverted myself and will comment at the debate, though I don't believe the rationale provided here is sufficient. UltraExactZZSaid ~ Did 12:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Any further discussions should continue at the AfD.AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
IP editors should not be allowed to AfD articles
AfD can generate considerable time and fuss, requires administrator involvement sometimes, can result in much battling. Wikipedia takes time to learn. There are numerous guidelines, procedures, such as learning to sign one's posts or include edit summaries when making changes. There is a learning curve to Wikipedia. It takes time. Further, during this time, other members of the community can begin to get a sense of how responsible a contributor is, whether he or she understands the guidelines, and so forth. This article was AfD-ed by an IP. Regardless of the merits of this particular case, I do not think it is wise for the community to permit IP editors to have the ability to cause major fuss like this. I urge others here to comment on this idea here if so inclined.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This is the wrong place fdor this discussion. As policy stands, it is perfectly legitimate for IP's to propose an AfD. If you wish to argue for the policy to be changed, do it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I proposed the policy change at the talk page for Articles for Deletion. Let's see what happens. I had not known that IPs could propose AfD. This is the first instance of it that I have come across. I hope the policy changes for the reasons I have outlined.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
To bring this back to improvement of this article, it is somewhat unlikely that the nominator for deletion will be making his case at the proper venue, this article's entry on the article's for deletion noticeboard. We often don't hear from such editors again. Furthermore, it doesn't seem likely that anyone else will support the case for deletion there. What's more, editors seemed to have already made their cases here on this page before the article's deletion entry was open to use, so they probably won't feel the need to repeat things there. We've already dealt with the issue given as the cause for the deletion request in the first place, the taxobox, which was a good point, so let's be happy with that: as a result of the IP editor's action, there has been article improvement, but there doesn't seem to be any more to discuss with regard to the deletion request.
Therefore, as a result of all this, under these circumstances, it's highly unlikely to cause any problem if we just went ahead right away and further improved the article by closing the request for deletion marring the top of the page. Chrisrus (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It is a violation of policy to remove an AfD template, if that is what you are suggesting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)