Talk:Dingo/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Missing section "Dingo#Taxonomic_debate"
Hi all,
There is a section referenced above Dingo#Taxonomic_debate which appears to have been deleted at some point, but presumably amplified the sentence in the lead regarding the four possible scientific names - which now appears nowhere in the body (which is incorrect under Wikipedia guidelines). Would someone care to restore it, in a form that correctly reflects the current diversity of views? Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I see most/all applicable text is currently available at Canis_lupus_dingo#Taxonomic debate – dog, dingo, and New Guinea singing dog - can this section be incorporated seamlessly here (there is a WP method whose name I cannot recall which would do this, I think). Tony 1212 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- The process is called Transclusion, but I am not sure if you can use it for just one section of an article... Tony 1212 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- You can translude sections, as demonstrated in the collapsed section below. As you can see, transcluding this section is complicated by the fact that the references are not refined inline in the section (the preferred wikipedia approach) but instead are defined in the reference section. However, this is a large section and is probably at the best place for a detailed discussion. Perhaps this article needs a section summarising the taxonomic debate with a hatnote linking to the full discussion. Jts1882 | talk 08:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- The process is called Transclusion, but I am not sure if you can use it for just one section of an article... Tony 1212 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
| Transclusion of taxonomic debate |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Taxonomic debate – dog, dingo, and New Guinea singing dog
NomenclatureZoological nomenclature is a system of naming animals.[1] In 1758, the Swedish botanist and zoologist Carl Linnaeus published in his Systema Naturae the two-word naming of species (binomial nomenclature). Canis is the Latin word meaning "dog",[2] and under this genus he listed the domestic dog, grey wolf and the golden jackal. He classified the domestic dog as Canis familiaris, and on the next page he classified the grey wolf as Canis lupus.[3] Linnaeus considered the dog to be a separate species from the wolf because of its upturning tail (cauda recurvata), which is not found in any other canid.[4] The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) advises on the "correct use of the scientific names of animals". The ICZN has entered into its official list: Genus Canis in 1926,[5] Canis familiaris as the type species for genus Canis in 1955,[6] and Canis dingo in 1957.[7][8] These names (such as Canis familiaris and Canis dingo) are then available for use as the correct names for the taxa in question by taxonomists who treat the entities concerned as distinct taxonomic units at species level, rather than as (for example) subtaxa of other species. According to the Principle of Coordination, the same epithets can also be applied at subspecies level, i.e. as the third name in a trinomial name, should the taxonomic treatment being followed prefer such an arrangement. TaxonomyTaxonomy classifies organisms together which possess common characteristics. Nomenclature does not determine the rank to be accorded to any assemblage of animals but only whether or not a particular name is "available" for use, once a particular taxonomic decision has been made.[1] Therefore, zoologists are free to propose which group of animals with similar characteristics that a taxon might belong to. In 1978, a review to reduce the number species listed under genus Canis proposed that "Canis dingo is now generally regarded as a distinctive feral domestic dog. Canis familiaris is used for domestic dogs, although taxonomically it should probably be synonymous with Canis lupus."[9] In 1982, the first edition of Mammal Species of the World included a note under Canis lupus with the comment: "Probably ancestor of and conspecific with the domestic dog, familiaris. Canis familiaris has page priority over Canis lupus" [in fact this is irrelevant: page priority is not a concept that exists any more in zoological nomenclature] "but both were published simultaneously in Linnaeus (1758), and Canis lupus has been universally used for this species".[10] In 1999, a study of the maternal lineage through the use of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) as a genetic marker indicated that the domestic dog may have originated from the grey wolf, with the dingo and New Guinea singing dog breeds having developed at a time when human populations were more isolated from each other.[11] In 2003, the ICZN ruled in its Opinion 2027 that the "name of a wild species ... is not invalid by virtue of being predated by the name based on a domestic form". Additionally, the ICZN placed the taxon lupus as a conserved name on the official list under this opinion,[12] meaning that both this epithet and familiaris are available names (one does not override the other) in the event that a taxonomist wishes to differentiate between the two taxa at species level. In the third edition of Mammal Species of the World published in 2005, the mammalogist W. Christopher Wozencraft listed under the wolf Canis lupus its wild subspecies, and proposed two additional subspecies: "familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 [domestic dog]" and "dingo Meyer, 1793 [domestic dog]", with the comment "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate – artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding. Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms." Wozencraft included hallstromi – the New Guinea singing dog – as a taxonomic synonym for the dingo. Wozencraft referred to the mtDNA study as one of the guides in forming his decision.[13] Mammalogists have noted the inclusion of familiaris and dingo together under the "domestic dog" clade,[14] and they debate this classification.[15] Taxonomic debateThis classification by Wozencraft is debated among zoologists.[15] Mathew Crowther, Stephen Jackson, and Colin Groves disagree with Wozencraft and argue that based on ICZN Opinion 2027, a domestic animal cannot be a subspecies.[16][17] Crowther, Juliet Clutton-Brock and others argue that because the dingo differs from wolves by behaviour, morphology, and because the dingo and dog do not fall genetically within the extant wolf clade, that the dingo should be considered the distinct taxon Canis dingo Meyer 1793.[18][15][17][19] Janice Koler-Matznick and others believe that the New Guinea singing dog Canis hallstromi Troughton 1957 should not be classified under Canis lupus dingo on the grounds that it has behavioural, morphological and molecular characteristics that are distinct from the wolf.[20][21][22][23] Jackson and Groves do not regard the dog Canis familiaris as a taxonomic synonym for (or subspecies of) the wolf Canis lupus, but instead rank them both equally, as distinct species. They also disagree with Crowther, based on the overlap between dogs and dingoes in their morphology, in their ability to easily hybridise with each other, and that they show the signs of domestication by both having a cranium of smaller capacity than their progenitor, the wolf. Given that Canis familiaris Linnaeus 1758 has date priority over Canis dingo Meyer 1793, they regard the dingo as a junior taxonomic synonym for the dog Canis familiaris[16] (i.e. being included within the circumscription of the latter species). Further, the dingo is regarded as a feral dog because it descended from domesticated ancestors.[24][14] Gheorghe Benga and others[25][26][27] support the dingo as a subspecies of the dog as Canis familiaris dingo Meyer 1793,[28] with the domestic dog being the subspecies Canis familiaris familiaris.[29] In 2008, the palaeontologists Xiaoming Wang and Richard H. Tedford propose that the dog could be taxonomically classified as Canis lupus familiaris under the Biological Species Concept because the dog can interbreed with the grey wolf Canis lupus, and classified as Canis familiaris under the Evolutionary Species Concept because the dog has commenced down a separate evolutionary pathway to the grey wolf.[30] In 2015, the Taxonomy of Australian Mammals classed the dingo as Canis familiaris.[16] In 2017, a review of the latest scientific information proposes that the dingo and New Guinea singing dog are both types of the domestic dog Canis familiaris.[14] The Australian Government's Australian Faunal Directory lists the dingo under Canis familiaris.[31] In 2018, the taxonomic reference Walker's Mammals of the World recognised the dingo as Canis familiaris dingo.[32] The Australian National Kennel Council recognises a dingo breed standard within its Hounds group.[33] In 2019, a workshop hosted by the IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group considered the New Guinea singing dog and the dingo to be feral dogs Canis familiaris, and therefore should not be assessed for the IUCN Red List.[34] In 2020, the American Society of Mammalogists considered the dingo a synonym of the domestic dog.[35] Genomic evidenceThe sequencing of ancient dog genomes indicates that dogs share a common ancestry and descended from an ancient, now-extinct wolf population – or closely related wolf populations – which was distinct from the modern wolf lineage. By the close of the last ice age 11,700 years ago, five ancestral lineages had diversified from each other and were expressed in ancient dog samples found in Karelia (10,900 YBP), Lake Baikal (7,000 YBP), the Levant (7,000 YBP), ancient America (4,000 YBP), and in the New Guinea singing dog (present day).[36] The dingo is a basal member of the domestic dog clade.[37][38][39] "The term basal taxon refers to a lineage that diverges early in the history of the group and lies on a branch that originates near the common ancestor of the group."[40] Mitochondrial genome sequences indicates that the dingo falls within the domestic dog clade,[41] and that the New Guinea singing dog is genetically closer to those dingoes that live in southeastern Australia than to those that live in the northwest.[42] References
|
I suspect that the statement "The dingo's habitat covers most of Australia, but they are completely absent in the southwest, a strip on the eastern coast, and an area on the southwest coast (see map)" needs to be changed to "The dingo's habitat covers most of Australia, but they are completely absent in the southwest, a strip on the northeast coast, and an area across the southeastern states (see map)"
My reading of the map is that the "absent in the southeast" is meant to apply to that white area stretching across a large swath of SA, VIC and NSW, and that the "strip on the eastern coast" applies only to the northeastern coastal region of QLD. However I will defer to dingo habitat specalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotesTracker (talk • contribs) 02:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Inaccurate description of areas in habitat map
I suspect that the statement "The dingo's habitat covers most of Australia, but they are completely absent in the southwest, a strip on the eastern coast, and an area on the southwest coast (see map)" needs to be changed to "The dingo's habitat covers most of Australia, but they are completely absent in the southwest, a strip on the northeast coast, and an area across the southeastern states (see map)"
My reading of the map is that the "absent in the southeast" is meant to apply to that white area stretching across a large swath of SA, VIC and NSW, and that the "strip on the eastern coast" applies to the northeastern coastal region of QLD. However I will defer to dingo habitat specialists. NotesTracker (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the description doesn't match the map. I've changed it to
"The dingo's habitat covers most of Australia, except for the southeast and Tasmania, a strip on the northeastern coast, and an area in the southwest (see map)"
. Given the area they are absent from in the SE is quite large, perhaps it needs more accurate desciption. Jts1882 | talk 11:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
IUCN Redlist - dingo delisted
Last year, the IUCN delisted the dingo as a feral dog. Follow the link provided by Boitani 2018 in the Reference section of the article, and on the Red List website under Order Carnivora click on "Taxonomy in detail". The paragraph at the bottom of the Taxonomy section states:
Note that this assessment follows Jackson et al. (2017) in regarding the Dingo, sometimes considered a subspecies of Grey Wolf (C. l. dingo), as a feral dog population derived from a domesticate, and hence as C. familiaris, along with all other free-ranging dogs.
William Harris
talk 12:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Canis dingo
To help clarify:
Nomenclature - is its scientific name which is not up for debate. It will always be referred to as Canis dingo in scientific articles relating to it, that is what its identifier originally called it.
Taxonomy attempts to classify like with like. Some people believe the dingo is similar to a dog, others to a wolf, and others as a creature completely different from the other two. This is what is being debated. William Harristalk 03:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Breed box
I am replacing the current subspecies box with a breed box as per WP:BRD. My reasoning is:
- Dingo is not a subspecies - Canis lupus dingo is the subspecies (according to MSW3)
- Dingo is a dog breed recognized by the Australian National Kennel Council in their Category 4 Hounds group
- Refer Taxonomy section; in MSW3 Wozencraft classified both familiaris and dingo under a "domestic dog" clade in contrast with the wild wolf clade
- The breed box has been modified to show the trinomial name as Canis lupus dingo, which also includes the New Guinea singing dog
- The range map that is removed with the subspecies box appears further in the article under Economic
I understand that this is unusual, but we are dealing with an unusual case. Happy to discuss further. William Harristalk 06:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- According to MSW3 Canis lupus dingo is the subspecies. Dingo is the common name for the subspecies and is used for article title. This is how all subspecies with suitable common names on Wikipedia are handled.
- Such a major change that treats the Dingo uniquely needs consensus and shouldn't be made without discussion.
- So I will follow the spirit of WP:BRD and make the second step. Jts1882 | talk 08:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- "...Dingo is the common name for the subspecies..." - citation requested. William Harris
talk 08:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- "...Dingo is the common name for the subspecies..." - citation requested. William Harris
- Hello Jts, you appear to have missed my request above - which expert WP:RELIABLE source has stated that the name Dingo (a canine native to Australia) is the common name (WP:COMMONAME) for Canis lupus dingo (a taxonomic classification that includes the Australian dingo, New Guinea singing dog, some dogs from Borneo, and extinct specimens found in Java and southern India)? William Harristalk 08:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, MSW3 is the obvious one and places the dingo as a subspecies of wolf. The discussion uses the common name dingo for this subspecies. Jackson et al (2017,2019) also recognise the status quo of the dingo as a subspecies (either of dog or wolf). They have proposed a change and no separate taxonomic status for the dingo, but this doesn't seem to have been accepted. Various other proposals for taxnomic change exist, including extending the subspecies to include other free-ranging dogs or the same at species level, but there seems no consensus. Until there is, we should follow MSW3, something you have repeatedly advocated. Jts1882 | talk 09:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Jts, you appear to have missed my request above - which expert WP:RELIABLE source has stated that the name Dingo (a canine native to Australia) is the common name (WP:COMMONAME) for Canis lupus dingo (a taxonomic classification that includes the Australian dingo, New Guinea singing dog, some dogs from Borneo, and extinct specimens found in Java and southern India)? William Harris
- As interesting as this digression above is, you have not satisfied my request. That is because such a search would be futile. On page 576 of MSW3, Wozencraft gives a common name for Canis lupus dingo, as he does for Canis lupus familiaris - it is "domestic dog". William Harristalk 10:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have answered your question. You are proposing the change so you need to make the case. You are questioning whether the animal with the scientific name with epitaph dingo is the animal witht the common name dingo. Given that the former was named after the latter, the burden is on you to provide reliable secondary sources that this is no longer accepted in the scientific community at large. Jts1882 | talk
- We are not going to agree and this really needs further input to get consensus for or against the change you propose. Jts1882 | talk 11:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I am the one who opened this thread for discussion, not you. You chose to revert my edit, so you need to explain for what reason you did that. You appear to be disregarding what is before your own eyes on page 576 of MSW3, and this looks very much a case of I WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. William Harristalk 11:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- MSW3 also says "includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate" after listing the dingo subspecies separately form the familiaris subspecies. Thus he is explictly using C. l. dingo for the dingo even if it is a also a form of domestic dog. It is a dingo and a domestic dog, not a domestic dog instead of dingo.
- I suggest you read WP:BRD about the onus being on the editor making the change to gain consensus after the bold change is challenged and reverted. What is the secondary source for your revised definition of dingo being widely accepted? Also, given the tone of your last edit, you might want to check out WP:AGF. Jts1882 | talk 11:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Jts is correct in that it's the person making the original change that needs to prove their case. I also oppose the use of the breed box. These are not animals whose form and behavior has taken shape through selective breeding by humans, the purpose and intent of the breed box. It seems to me that the eternally unsettled taxonomy may always result in an imperfect fit, but these are not domestic animals, and should not use a domestic animal infobox. oknazevad (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- JTS you appear not to have noticed that the subspecies was still given as Canis lupus dingo in the box - it was never changed to familiaris.
- O, it is recognised as a breed by the Australian National Kennel Council, and this article is badged under WikiProject Dogs. This Project gives no purpose for its breedbox - as opposed to your opinion above - and states that "Each dog breed article should use Infobox dog breed/various arguments". The ANKC is included in that box, and this is a dog breed article - despite that it is not familiaris. Your comment that "these are not domestic animals" conflicts with the MSW 2005 classification of C.l. dingo and C.l. familiaris both under the "Domestic dog" clade - that is what Wozencraft actually wrote!
- Once again, the Australian dingo is not the subspecies Canis lupus dingo, it is only one of its members and therefore the subspecies box is not appropriate to be included in this article. However, I shall leave this fact to rest as it is going nowhere here, for now. William Harristalk 03:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Jts is correct in that it's the person making the original change that needs to prove their case. I also oppose the use of the breed box. These are not animals whose form and behavior has taken shape through selective breeding by humans, the purpose and intent of the breed box. It seems to me that the eternally unsettled taxonomy may always result in an imperfect fit, but these are not domestic animals, and should not use a domestic animal infobox. oknazevad (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I am the one who opened this thread for discussion, not you. You chose to revert my edit, so you need to explain for what reason you did that. You appear to be disregarding what is before your own eyes on page 576 of MSW3, and this looks very much a case of I WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. William Harris
- As interesting as this digression above is, you have not satisfied my request. That is because such a search would be futile. On page 576 of MSW3, Wozencraft gives a common name for Canis lupus dingo, as he does for Canis lupus familiaris - it is "domestic dog". William Harris
Merger proposal
I propose to merge Canis lupus dingo into Dingo. I think that the content in the Canis lupus dingo could be put into the Dingo article as its a synonym and we do not have seprate articles on other animals with synonyms 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- The result of the discussion was KEEP. William Harris (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Dingo vs dog
In a few places in the article the Dingo is compared with the dog. Yet the article states that the Dingo is a dog. Can some clarity be brought to this issue? Totorotroll (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Different reliable sources tell us different things. There is no right answer, and whether the dingo is its own species, a dog, or (more likely) an ancient lineage of dog that has survived from the close of the last Ice Age 11,700 years ago and is different to modern dogs, has yet to be agreed. William Harris (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- I like the phrasing "ancient lineage of dog" as per your comment above; could this maybe be inserted into the first sentence of the lede? I.e.
- (old:) The dingo (Canis familiaris,[2][5][6][7][8] Canis familiaris dingo,[4][9][10] Canis dingo,[11][12][13] or Canis lupus dingo[14][15]) is a dog found in Australia..."
- (suggested new:) The dingo (Canis familiaris,[2][5][6][7][8] Canis familiaris dingo,[4][9][10] Canis dingo,[11][12][13] or Canis lupus dingo[14][15]) is an ancient lineage of dog found in Australia"...
- subtle adjustment, but introduces the subject better to me, also covers both cases i.e. whether the dingo is a separate species or not. Tony 1212 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Tony, it is the direction the research is going. Do other editors have an opinion on this change, please?
- (It gets weirder. The dingo carries some Himalayan wolf DNA. However, Wang 2020 found that the Himalayan wolf has been contributed to by a ghost population of an unknown wolf-like canid. This ghost population is deeply-diverged from modern Holarctic wolves and dogs, and has contributed 39% to the Himalayan wolf's nuclear genome. So part of the dingo's ancientness comes from an unknown wolf-like canid that split from the wolf/dog lineage prior to their split from each other.) William Harris (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Done. In addition to Cairns 2021 and the massive Bergstrom 2020, it has Thalmann 2018 supporting this statement as well - it does not come much solider for a WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY source than Thalmann. William Harris (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- I added some further explanation to the lede to clarify the present taxonomic situation, which should also assist in improving the issue stated above by User:Totorotroll. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I like the phrasing "ancient lineage of dog" as per your comment above; could this maybe be inserted into the first sentence of the lede? I.e.
Subspecies/synonym of C. familiaris
Per the American Society of Mammalogists, the dingo is now considered a feral population of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). The link to this information: The IUCN also agreed with this classification and omitted the dingo from being evaluated on the Red List due to this. Link to info: Therefore, I think the taxobox should be changed to simply Canis familiaris. If anyone diasgrees and has a relaible source(s) to back their statement up, go ahead.J0ngM0ng (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's already mentioned in the Dingo#Taxonomy section. The matter isn't entirely settled, which is why the infobox and lede has multiple synomyms/taxonomies; see Canis_lupus_dingo#Taxonomic_debate_–_the_domestic_dog,_dingo,_and_New_Guinea_singing_dog. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then why not update it? Everyone now considers the domestic dog to be its own species, and the dingo to be a member of that species. Why retain the primary taxonomy as Canis lupus dingo when it's been shown to not be the current consensus? It makes no sense from my perspective; you could just put C. l. dingo into the synonyms section. J0ngM0ng (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- See Canis_lupus_dingo#Taxonomic_debate_–_the_domestic_dog,_dingo,_and_New_Guinea_singing_dog. Not everyone thinks that, which is clearly reflected in the very first sentence of the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- All the evidence pointing towards other synonyms are outdated at best. I know this is a controversial topic, but there is a 2019 and 2020 source that point to the same conclusion, and you're willfully ignoring it. It's just baffling. J0ngM0ng (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- @William Harris: Thoughts? I simply want to change the taxonomy in the taxobox. J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- There are 2019 and 2021 sources pointing to a different conclusion and favouring Canis dingo. So the matter is far from settled. I think it best to wait for the IUCN specialist dog group to make their report, even though its clear which way they are leaning. The important thing is that the alternatives are clearly given in the text. — Jts1882 | talk 08:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- See Canis_lupus_dingo#Taxonomic_debate_–_the_domestic_dog,_dingo,_and_New_Guinea_singing_dog. Not everyone thinks that, which is clearly reflected in the very first sentence of the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then why not update it? Everyone now considers the domestic dog to be its own species, and the dingo to be a member of that species. Why retain the primary taxonomy as Canis lupus dingo when it's been shown to not be the current consensus? It makes no sense from my perspective; you could just put C. l. dingo into the synonyms section. J0ngM0ng (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hello J0ngM0ng, sorry for my delayed reply. Although I like your attitude in wanting to keep Wikipedia up to date with the latest findings, taxonomic issues are not quite that simple. We have several points of view on what the dingo might be classified as made by highly competent taxonomists, and therefore Wikipedia is required to express each point of view per WP:NPOV, which states that: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
- In the world of taxonomy, my understanding is that there may be different points of view until one party (or more) withdraws its position based on mutually accepted evidence. Similar to the "red wolf" in North American, we are not quite at that stage yet. Thanks for your interest in dingo, and as you say, we shall see what happens! William Harris (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Dingo could be raised from a Level-5 vital article to a Level-4 vital article
Hello All, there is currently a proposal to raise the article Dingo from a Level-5 vital article to the higher Level-4 vital article - along with some other WP:DOGS related proposals - here. Interested dingo editors are encouraged to lend their support. William Harris (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
"The extinction of the thylacine on the continent"
The section called "Impact" begins with the phrase "The extinction of the thylacine on the continent around 2,000 years ago (...)". Now, is that phrase ok ? Because if Im correct, the Australian Continent would be Oceania, and Tasmania is part of it... so then the thylacine was still alive in the Continent much longer since it was still alive in Tasmania (? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaquin89uy (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- According to the Australian National University in conjunction with Geoscience Australia, Australia is the earth's smallest continent and its largest island, defined by its coastal outline. It forms part of the Australian plate.[1] William Harris (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- Australian continent is sometimes used more broadly for Australasia and it's the Australian plate rather than Australasian plate. Perhaps Australian mainland would remove any ambiguity. — Jts1882 | talk 11:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- I was not aware of that use nor of any RS to support it, but yes mainland would clarify. William Harris (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- Now actioned. William Harris (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- I was not aware of that use nor of any RS to support it, but yes mainland would clarify. William Harris (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
References
- Kennett, Brian; Blewett, Richard; Chopping, Richard (2018). The Australian Continent: A Geophysical Synthesis. Australian National University Press and Geoscience Australia. p. 4. ISBN 9781760462475.
Ironic phrase
Hello @Oknazevad: Edit warring 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)
- 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)
"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)
- @Hemiauchenia: I don't like people who disrespect me for no reason. So what do you gain from saying that? Does it make you think you are better than me?? Say whatever you want, but just know that you've made an unnecessary enemy. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 06:45, 20 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,[1] 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)
- 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,[1] which seems to indicate long-standing WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Per MOS:LEADCITE,
- 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)
- I concur, not only does it fall broadly among the Family Canidae, it is more specifically classified as a dog. 14.2.206.29 (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am a little late here, however I believe that citations are necessary in the lede of this particular article because, due to past beliefs, some lede content will be disputed by those relying on outdated theories or references and NOT having read the article body. I fully support the view of editor Jts1882, who has been around this article long enough to know its "landscape". 14.2.206.29 (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I concur, not only does it fall broadly among the Family Canidae, it is more specifically classified as a dog. 14.2.206.29 (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- Dingo (as edited by 66.177.224.35 at 11:44, December 1, 2007)