Talk:Dingo/Archive 3

Missing section "Dingo#Taxonomic_debate"
Hi all,

There is a section referenced above Dingo 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 - 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 &#124; talk 08:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that there is a "hatnote" in the taxonomy section but it has been place at the end of the section, contrary to WP:HAT. That is why we both missed it.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomic debate – dog, dingo, and New Guinea singing dog
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 &#124; 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 Harris talk  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:
 * 1) Dingo is not a subspecies - Canis lupus dingo is the subspecies (according to MSW3)
 * 2) Dingo is a dog breed recognized by the Australian National Kennel Council in their Category 4 Hounds group
 * 3) Refer Taxonomy section; in MSW3 Wozencraft classified both familiaris and dingo under a "domestic dog" clade in contrast with the wild wolf clade
 * 4) The breed box has been modified to show the trinomial name as Canis lupus dingo, which also includes the New Guinea singing dog
 * 5) 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 Harris talk  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 &#124; talk 08:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "...Dingo is the common name for the subspecies..." - citation requested.  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 08:09, 27 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 Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 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 &#124; talk 09:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 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 Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 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 &#124; talk
 * We are not going to agree and this really needs further input to get consensus for or against the change you propose.  Jts1882 &#124; 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 Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 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 &#124; 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 Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 03:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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.) <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 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. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 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)

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 section. The matter isn't entirely settled, which is why the infobox and lede has multiple synomyms/taxonomies; see Canis_lupus_dingo. OhNo itsJamie 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. Not everyone thinks that, which is clearly reflected in the very first sentence of the article. OhNo itsJamie 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)
 * 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. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We'll see what happens then. J0ngM0ng (talk) 15:37, 21 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! <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 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. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 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. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 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. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; 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. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 08:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now actioned. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 08:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)