Talk:Dingo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleDingo was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 15, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Dingo could be raised from a Level-5 vital article to a Level-4 vital article[edit]

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)[reply]

"The extinction of the thylacine on the continent"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 22:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Now actioned. William Harris (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kennett, Brian; Blewett, Richard; Chopping, Richard (2018). The Australian Continent: A Geophysical Synthesis. Australian National University Press and Geoscience Australia. p. 4. ISBN 9781760462475.

Domestic definition[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]
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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]