Talk:Dingo

Domestic definition

Hello 208.98.222.113 and @Materialscientist:: Either could be correct because "domestic" can also mean pertaining to the house. This is the literal Latin meaning. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Ironic phrase

Hello @Oknazevad: Edit warring[1] like this is unnecessary. Additionally I don't understand your edit summary. What do you think WP:W2W has to do with the word ironic? Invasive Spices (talk) 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not edit warring if it's a separate person reverting the phrasing. I did not remove it previously, just noted your reversion and thought it incorrect. As for W2W, it falls under editorializing, coupled with MOS:INSTRUCT, too. In fact, the latter explicitly says don't call things ironic. oknazevad (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

W2W has nothing to do with that word. It does not contain that string anywhere. MOS:INSTRUCT does say that but I don't agree with that and I think that was added to INSTRUCT without consideration. It is not an instruction and so does not belong in that section. No one is being instructed to do anything. It is irony and that is interesting information. It's unnecessary to technically elide the word "ironically". It is odd that a companion of humans is not found in art while enemy wildlife is depicted. Should we substitute the word odd just because INSTRUCT doesn't forbid it? It's not an instruction either. Invasive Spices (talk) 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Wild dogs

Wouldn't it makes sense to add that they're a species of wild dogs? Since just "dogs" implies they are domestic dogs. However, dingoes are as much "wild dogs" as coyotes and foxes are. Hyenaboy (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, the word “dog” makes people think they are related to domesticated dogs, which they are not. 211.27.51.97 (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

They are related to domestic dogs. They are derived from the "dog" lineage. They are either domestic dogs that went feral or split from the dog before they became fully domesticated. The relationship with domestic dogs is not disputed. The debate is about whether they should be consider feral domestic dogs, species in their own right, or some special status. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Support Jts. The dog split from the wolf 22,500 years ago in northern Siberia. At the close of the Late Pleistocene 11,700 years ago the dog lineage had split into 5 dog sub-lineages spread across Eurasia, with the New Guinea singing dog/dingo being one of those five. Its ancestor was alive and well in China 7,000 years ago. Therefore, it is a domestic dog. After crossing into Australia from New Guinea (which may have been joined together at that time due to low sea levels) some of them "went feral" in the central and western desert regions and others remained semi-domesticated in the eastern forests. 14.2.198.12 (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"Weasel words"

Where do "weasel words" appear in this section? Jarble (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Citations in Lede

@Wolverine XI: You should get consensus to remove the citations from the lede section. According to MOS:LEADCITE whether to include inline citations or not should be determined on a case by case basis. Dingo has included citations, so consensus is required for a change.

I think the habit of removing lede citation is a bad idea that is spreading. The MOS also says that the "lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" and "must conform to verifiability". Forcing people to look elsewhere in the article is unnecessary.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't need consensus to improve an article. Look, when I prepare an article for GA, I remove the lead citations. This article is in horrendous shape and I've been putting it off for months, but I now want to work on it. Allow me to do my thing. Thank you, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You doing your thing is not consensus, which is required to change an established citation style. Removing citations is not improving the article. Perhaps if you lost the attitude you'd find it easier to achieve a consensus.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobody cares about your GA nominations, you put barely any effort into writing them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What is so controversial about this page that it needs citations in the lead? I'd also point out that you got the idea of citation style completely wrong. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I stumbled across this discussion after performing a cleanup edit to the page. About the lead citations: the article has had citations in the lead since at least December 2007, which seems to indicate long-standing WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Per MOS:LEADCITE, The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus (emphasis added). Further, for the lead to not require citations, its content must be cited in the article body, which seems to not be the case for the statement (either included in the species Canis familiaris, or considered one of the following independent taxa: Canis familiaris dingo, Canis dingo, or Canis lupus dingo). The former problem could be fixed by discussing consensus and the latter by adding that information to the body, but neither are the case at present. Sorry if I'm intruding! – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 19:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

An IP changed to a species of canid rather than dog, so I changed it back. This is something that people semi-regularly edit-war about so it's necessary to have citations for that at least. No opinion on the other lede citations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

References