Talk:New Guinea singing dog/Archive 6

Another reference regarding origin
This is an article taken from the Australian News. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/long-time-here-but-dingoes-were-another-china-export/story-e6frg6nf-1226131720982

This article although similar to others, also mentions the 2004 MTdna study. The two latest studies were built upon the 2004 study. This article also alludes to the idea that 5,000 years, the time previously considered, was not long enough for all the changes to take place in AUD and NGSD. I have a newspaper clipping from many years ago mentioning an age of origin of 10,000 years. 10,000 years is what many of us considered long before Wilton et al completed their genetic studies. Maybe we were correct after all. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Correcting the article
Writers, Since we have found that my writing skills and organizational skills are not adequate for marauding wiki corrections experts, I have asked that someone else write and edit in this article. As mentioned before, I will continue to serve as a resource person as I am certainly able to read as well as reason and will work in that capacity until such time as some wiki editor is able to get me bounced from wikipedia. I want it made perfectly clear that in my estimation, wikipedia's system is in dire need of repair and the only reason I'm staying on even in a consulting type capacity is because I care for the animals. I am not staying for my love of wikipedia. This article is in need of several corrections. Origin is being discussed at the moment. In the section under 'Origin and taxonomic etc" the first paragraph is incorrect. Material and information needed for correction is now located in the discussion section. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Another question that has come up has to do with an improper citation in terms of the mention of isolation as a factor in NGSD development. Said information is mentioned in several references that we have listed here. One of those research articles discussing isolation as a factor is in the abstract for reference #21. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In the section under "Build" the citations have been removed and need to be reinstated.

In regard to eye shine, it is quite interesting but not a unique Singer feature. The fact that Singer eyes reflect green rather than red or blue should be noted in the article. Also at some point, the existing eye shine photo should be replaced with the other one that was removed to the discussion section. Neither of the eye shine photos are of one of our dogs. Therefore, no one can accuse us of favoritism. Editors removed the most appealing photo. The photo they left in the article portrays a Singer as being aggressive which is simply not the case. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC).

A couple of changes are needed
United Kennel Club now considers Singing Dogs as a sub-species and has, therefore, dropped NGSD from their list of dog breeds. The number 3 reference and anything stated about UKC is now dead and out of date. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right. The old listing on the UKC site doesn't seem to be there anymore!  I wonder why that is. Did they comment on it? Maybe their recognition wasn't wanted.  Oh well, I suppose it's not for us to reason why, but just to make the necessary changes, as you say.  Go ahead.  Chrisrus (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2012
 * Yes, OSM, just go ahead and make the changes – it's certainly your prerogative to edit here, so I hope you return to it. If you need any help, let us know. And, hopefully the drama here has died down… Mojoworker (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reason given was that Singing Dogs are not considered a domestic breed of dog. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Was the reason given somewhere we could cite? Chrisrus (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything about UKC or showing Singers should be changed just yet. It now looks as though several Singer enthusiasts may petition UKC for readmittance. They have about a one in a thousand chance and there's no logic in it, but nonetheless, if you remove some of this, someone will probably come on and put it back in anyway. So I suggest to wait until the dust settles and then make the appropriate text changes and in the meantime there might come a source for citation as well. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox redux
Sorry I've let the infobox issue slide. I got busy with some other things, and still will be for the next week or so, but I should be able to get back to it now. In light of the preceding section, we need to reassess anyway. So, what should we do here? A "Dingobox" to be used both here and at Dingo? If so, what fields? Something else? Thoughts? Mojoworker (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Mojo, The information needed in a taxobox is going to vary a little depending on who you ask. It looks pretty darn good to me. The latest I've heard is that NGSD is considered a sub-species of Dingo. No one really knows or even has an educated guess at this time regarding whether they're threatened, vulnerable or extinct since no study or survey of any kind has ever been undertaken. I understand there will be some work completed on that stuff later this year. I'd say to just use whatever the references suggest. One Singer "expert" is now saying there are "plenty" of Singers in the wild. Many of us had our mouths gaping open after reading that statement. There is absolutely no proof, evidence, not even educated guesses as to numbers are in the wild population. We have no clue as to why she would make such a statement. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some needed revisions
There are some statements in the article that are clearly inaccurate and/or out-of-date. The changes I'm making are simply needed corrections. These changes are needed in order to keep in step with current information and keep the article viable. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please delete #3 reference(UKC standards)? UKC no longer recognizes NGSD as a domestic breed. The link is dead and UKC no longer shows a human made breed standard for NGSD since NGSD are now considered a sub-species of dingo. The only breed standard rests with Mother Nature, natural selection, and survival of the fittest. Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. I also removed the sentence: "When entered in rare breed show competition, Singing Dogs are presented in their completely natural condition with no trimming or alterations of any kind."  Feel free to revert it if that's still relevant.  Mojoworker (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentence you removed was taken from the United Kennel Club breed standard which no longer exists so your removal is proper. Should a "breed" of Singer which conforms to a man made "breed standard" come into existence and starts showing up in rare breed shows then that breed of Singing Dog will need an article of its own apart from this one or this article would need a new section added in order to explain differences in breeding beliefs and technique. At the present time this article is about the canine known as the New Guinea Singing Dog which has its origin on the Island of New Guinea and may or may not still exist as a wild dog in remote areas of the Island. The existing captive population of these animals has been, to date, preserved in as pure a natural state as we know it using old records and bloodline history of early captive specimens and breeding for genetic diversity which is just the opposite of breeding to a "breed standard" which often embraces inbreeding in order to meet the standard. If a man made breed standard again comes into existence, and Singing Dogs are bred to that standard, then those "man made" Singing Dogs will be a breed apart from the originals and will have to be called by a different name such as "American Singing Dog" or some other name showing that they have been separated from "natural" Singing Dogs. We have reached a crossroads in Singer history where we may very well branch out in two totally unlike directions being on the one hand those dogs bred specifically to maintain divergent genes in order to maintain a healthy captive population akin to what we believe to be parallel to wild specimens and on the other hand those Singers bred specifically to satisfy a man made breed standard. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that someone is going to come up and say that even though they are inbred or altered by humans in order to satisfy a breed standard they still carry the same genes as the ones bred for genetic diversity and yes, they would. So I suppose that technically the domesticated ones would still be Singing Dogs so long as they weren't hybridized, but I wonder how much the highly inbred show Singers bred to a standard would even resemble a "natural" Singer. Maybe I'm wrong in this. Maybe a breed standard could be written that would be "Singer like". The other part of this is though that by breeding to a breed standard, the members of that strain would have to be considered a domestic dog because they are being manipulated in a specific way in order to bring out or enhance certain characteristics. Thus the Singers bred for show following a breed standard would be, without a doubt, have to be considered a domestic breed of dog. On the other hand, those kept "natural" and bred only for genetic diversity, would still retain "wild traits and/or characteristics" possibly suitable for eventual reintroduction into the wild. There would most likely be a wide gap between the Singers bred for show or even as family pets because people naturally would breed for "sweet social Singers" who were super people friendly. Breeders would naturally and mayhaps inadvertently, breed the dogs they liked the most, their favorites, whereas in conservation breeding, we pay no attention to differences in behavior or looks. We design our breeding based solely on the genetic makeup of the specimens involved. Genetic diversity is the one and only criteria for breeder selection. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization
Now we have idiots who live among us who think that the proper name of an animal should not be capitalized. The four words, "New Guinea Singing Dog" is the dogs' name. It is a sub-species name yet someone beleives their name should not be capitalized. Could someone straighten out these fools? I won't put my name on an article that does not give proper respect to the animal involved. osm20... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please re-read MOS:LIFE. This is just a species name. Like Siberian tiger, and many thousands of others. It is not a domesticated dog breed. Materialscientist (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From what the article says, it doesn't appear that this "is just a species name". I seem to recall that until recently there was something in the article about the breed being recognized by some kennel club – UKC if I recall. Mojoworker (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Many animals are kept as pets, yet, they exist(ed) in nature as animal species rather than were crossbred/cloned by humans, and thus are treated primarily as animals (at least in terms of naming). I believe this is the case here. Materialscientist (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever works for people who don't know any better. Let it stand. Wikipedia and people such as yourself attempt to change long term historical traditions. This manner of naming NGSD will be on wikipedia, but in very few other places. So those of us who know NGSD will read wikipedia and make fun of it. The most common way of referring to these canines is New Guinea Singing Dog. The second most common way of referring to them is Singing Dog. The third most common way of referring to them is NGSD. The fourth most common way of referring to them is simply calling them Singers. There are no other animals referred to as Singing Dogs. The species name is dingo. If we were to refer to them as singing dogs that would mean that they are dogs that sing. Singing Dogs do not sing. They howl but they are called Singing Dogs. People refer to them as NGSD, not NGsd. Your rule is misplaced and the wiki lack of inflexibility is becoming more and more apparent. It might be best to remove Singing Dogs completely from wikipedia if they cannot be named properly. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Metaphors are found in thousands of common names: armored shrews don't wield swords, flying foxes are not foxes, marbled newt contains no marble and doesn't even look like it, etc., etc., yet we decided not to capitalize them on wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:LIFE is complicated, sending the user to many different places for more details. For example, if the Siberian tiger were a bird, "Tiger" would be capitalized.  Each sub area seems to have its own conventions.  It's not clear which applies here because it's not clear what the NGSD is, (a subspecies? a landrace? a breed?), so let's just follow the convention of experts on this topic. Chrisrus (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article makes it clear that this is neither a bird nor a breed (two areas where wikipedia has not yet decided against capitalization). Materialscientist (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But the article is also fairly clear that, although there is some controversy, it's not a species either. Mojoworker (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what I'll do. I'll take this issue to the NGSD community and see what the real "experts" have to say. Then I'll proceed according to their wishes. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not just Google Scholar "new guinea singing dog" in quotes? Hopefully, they'll all follow the same convention. Chrisrus (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because wikipedia sets its own capitalization standards in WP:MOS. For example, most publishers do capitalize (nearly) all words in titles (in sections, books, articles, etc.). English wikipedia does not. Materialscientist (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you want to follow the convention for species? Few outside the NGSD booster community will agree that Canis halistromi is a valid taxon.
 * If you do a Google Scholar search for "new guinea singing dog" you find that New Guinea Singing Dog to be the most common, I think, but not the only way. When included in genetic studies into getting a better picture of the canine family tree, they follow one convention for all the dogs, therefore New Guinea Singing Dog, Dingo, Indian Pariah Dog.  Studies specifically about the NGSD seem to favor the "New Guinea singing dog".  Please do a Google Scholar search for "new guinea singing dog" and see if you agree with my admittedly cursory eyeballing of the few hundred papers that mention it. Chrisrus (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Common names of animal species are capitalized in many, if not most, web and literature sources, yet this is not a guide for wikipedia (and Britannica, and others). This is a matter of editorial choice, which has been made on English wikipedia by its community (only a few years ago, not earlier), not a matter of this particular article. No exceptions have been made for non-recognized species - distinguishing species by capitalization would violate WP:NPOV, e.g., because recognition of some species is yet disputed among scientists. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. The argument isn't about the capitalization of the common name of a species, it's whether the NGSD is a species at all. Your move is only correct if the NGSD is a species and not a breed of dog – but that determination is unclear. If the latter, then it's no different than Siberian Husky, Bernese Mountain Dog, Norwegian Elkhound, English Springer Spaniel, etc. Wikipedia norms on capitalization of species are quite different from those for breeds of domestic animals and cultivars of domesticated plants. I challenge your assertion that the "article makes it clear that this is neither a bird nor a breed". It's clearly not a bird, but my reading of the article certainly doesn't convince me it's not a dog breed. Half of the article's categories are dog breed related and "breed" is mentioned at least as many times as "species" in the article. I think the push–back you're getting over your article move and capitalization changes hinges upon the fact that there is much contention on the status of the NGSD and your unilaterally determining it to be a species may be incorrect when many sources consider it a breed of domestic dog. Mojoworker (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Negative. Editors should first decide whether this article should mostly focus on the original animal or on the current breed kept at homes. If the latter then I'm fine with caps. The current version (especially the lead) does not give this impression. To clarify, Siberian Husky is an article on the breed, not its ancestors, and is capped, contrary to the article on dingo, and this is not a matter of "recognized species". (The confusing thing is that even if we revert to New Guinea Singing Dog, we should most likely keep New Guinea dingo, bush dingo and New Guinea wild dog.) Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

edit conflict
 * It depends what you mean by "breed". It's complicated and there is more than one legitimate way of looking at the points of fact.  The NGSD's present form is generally agreed to be the product of natural, not artificial selection.  It's a true wild dog, like it's cousin, the Australian dingo.  Sometimes the forces of nature act pretty much like human dog breeding and create a distinctive landrace or "natural breed" that "breeds true" just like a Beagle or whatever except made by nature, not man.  In the papers about the dog family tree, it doesn't matter if it is a distinctive uniform closely genetically related group of dogs was created by nature or man, what's important is they form a branch on the tree for whatever reason, so they follow general dog breed capitalization conventions to be consistent with them all, it seems.  To complicate things, whenever such a "natural breed" is found it's sometimes quickly taken into captivity and artificially bred.  The Carolina Dog, for example, or the Canaan Dog, for example, were found looking like breeds in a wild or feral state, but are now largely live in captivity and are selectively bred.  This is the case with the NGSD, and so the breeders capitalize these landraces-come-breeds.  But if in your mind it has to be bred to be a breed, no, it existed long before it was being bred by humans.  And no, it's not a recognized breed by any Kennel club, so if that's what you mean by breed, then no it's not a breed, because although the UKC had been recognizing them for some time, they've revoked that, it seems.  If you need Kennel club recognition to be a breed, then they are not a breed. Chrisrus (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is quite interesting, but does not change my point. This dog is neither a legitimate animal species nor a legitimate breed, the question is whether we treat it in this article as predominantly an animal species or a breed. (Note, we often split an article on the same chemical compound in two articles: one on the related natural mineral and another on synthetic chemical, and we do that not because of capitalization, but because minerals and chemicals are described differently. Theoretically, the same can happen with dogs, say New Guinea dingo + New Guinea Singing Dog, though this might be unfeasible.) Materialscientist (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

When you said “the question is whether we treat it in this article as predominantly an animal species or a breed”, do you mean “as we find it today” or “ideally”? You’ll agree, I think, that the article should let all the ambiguities of this referent be as they may and not try to force it into “picking a side” if you will. Chrisrus (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * - as the article stands (I don't wish to rewrite an article to fit the title). History demonstrates that we should keep internal consistency to quench edit wars (like WP:ENGVAR, caps, common names, etc., etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an article about a true wild dog, or "subspecies" of dingo, or landrace of dingo or dog. I don't think the capitalization rules were written with such a referent in mind.  The general pattern of the capitalization guidelines, the spirit of them, is that we try to follow the conventions of experts in the area in question.  Chrisrus (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In truth, the name of this canine should be New Guinea dingo commonly referred to as New Guinea Singing Dog. So to start with, the article title is incorrect. In the Singing Dog community, we refer to them as a sub-species of dingo. We NEVER refer to them as a domestic breed especially in this article. In truth, some captive NGSD are quite domesticated, but materials is correct in thinking that the thrust of the wiki article is about wild Singers. NGSD boosters have been working for many years to get Singers recognized as a sub-species and have finally achieved that goal, so let's now go backwards on this issue. I really think the proper name should be New Guinea dingo and inquiries about New Guinea Singing Dog should roll over to New Guinea dingo since NGSD are, in fact, a dingo just as we have Australian dingoes, Thai dingoes, and many others. Some of these dingo types are referred to as breeds, but NGSD are normally thought of as a sub-species. You see, in truth, no one has ever been able to decide whether the Australian dingo came first or the New Guinea dingo came first. We generally believe Dr. Wilton's theory based on his genetic research which states that they both evolved from the same litter of pups carried inside a pregnant bitch who arrived in some manner from southern China many thousands of years ago. Whatever the circumstances, the AUD and NGSD evolved separately for thousands of years in environments isolated from outside influence. These isolation factors is why thinking of NGSD of a breed of domestic dog is really quite silly. The truth is that NGSD and AUD are on the same level taxonomically but NGSD has taken a back seat to AUD simply because historically AUD have been commonly referred to as Dingoes. Evolutionarily, AUD and NGSD are on the same level. According to Wilton, neither evolved from the other. They evolved simultaneously when some members went to AU and some went to NG using the then existing land bridge. I'm going to lift these threads from wiki and post it to the NGSD community in order that NGSD boosters will see what goes on here. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So then materials, if you are puristically imposing wiki views, then titles would be: Golden eagle, Great Horned owl, Burmese python, Siberian tiger, Bottlenose dolphin, Fantail goldfish, Whitetail deer, Spotted skunk, African elephant, and so forth? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and they are, except for Golden Eagle, etc., because the wikipedia project on birds is (yet) adamant on keeping capitalization. Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A person can't help but wonder at the wisdom of wikipedia that hands out editing rights like candy. The same thing happened once before to this article when one editor waltzed in together with several cohorts and completely rewrote and edited the article under the gize of "following wikipedia guidelines".. It was a farce that wrecked the article as evidenced by its currently lousy "c" rating. Now we have even a change of name being imposed by a "clerk" level wiki expert. These are the flaws inherent in wikipedia. Any person can go on to wiki and study up on wiki rules and then go out and impose their will on dozens of well meaning and expert in their field editors without so much as a "by your leave".. This simple handing over of power to anyone is the biggest wiki fault. It makes "experts" out of know nothings almost at the drop of a hat. In order to do major edits, a person should have to be an expert on any subject he/she edits not just having lessons in "management." It's rather like a school principal who has never taught in a classroom or an assembly line supervisor who never worked in the line. Only thing is that wiki is worse yet because there is no one interviewing for qualifications at all. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing personal materials. Clerks are needed. Sometimes a clerk such as yourself can be the catalyst of change. The fault in thinking with people such as yourself is that you have no conscience, restraint, or courtesy. You have only the intense desire to impose your will on others. The wiki world is full of discourtesy and lack of human decency and you just happen to be good at what you do, basically imposing wiki guidelines without even a speck of respect for fellow editors who have spent countless hours perfecting an article. This indecency in "traveling clerks" is why I swore off wiki when the last massacre occurred and why wiki keeps losing people such as myself who tire of idiots with power. Someone in admin really needs to put some restrictions on you people. The last and final thing that really irks me is that now you will come back saying that I shouldn't get personal. It's OK for "traveling clerks" to waltz in and make changes with no thought or courtesy extended to editors and those actions although they can cause severe pain and mental and emotional anguish, are not considered "personal". In other words, "traveling clerks" seem to have more power than article editors, which then translates to wiki priorities which obviously give no respect to article writers. I have never understood why "traveling clerks" cannot address article editors in a decent manner saying that changes were likely needed in an article and then proceeding to discuss it with editors rather than waltzing in and imposing their will. Is it really sooo hard to approach others in a diplomatic and common decency manner? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rants aside, renaming this article to New Guinea dingo or New Guinea wild dog might be reasonable. You can start a subsection below as shown in . Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Material, You started this mess. Now you fix it. If wikipedia looks stupid and insensitve due to people such as yourself, then that's wikipedia's problem, not mine. I for one am getting off wikipedia for good. I'm fed up with you people. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When referring to distinctive unbred landraces and breeds in order to fill in the dog family tree, experts use breed capitalization throughout, even with Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog, Indian Pariah Dog, even Gray Wolf, but when referring to them as separate species, domestic dog, New Guinea singing dog, dingo, gray wolf, they don't so much. This is on the line between one and the other, so we should maybe go with the preference of those who talk about them the most often. Chrisrus (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Outside wikipedia, expert use capitalization even for species - a weak argument. Materialscientist (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not extinct?
Is this sufficient evidence to suggest this species/breed is still around: http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/conservation/news-singing-dogs-papua

If so, the opening paragraph needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterParslow (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox switch-out
I removed the taxobox and replaced it with a special dogbox, a "dingobox" if you will, because doesn't say Canis lupus familiaris, but Canis lupus dingo. The taxobox has to go because because "hallstromi" is an no longer a valid taxon; because its conservation status has not been assessed by IUCN; because Mayer 1783 was simply the first to use dingo as a canid taxon and he had nothing to do with the NGSD per se; and because Canis lupus dingo var. isn't a trinomial name. So the taxobox is all wrong. When removing the taxobox, I replaced it with a dogbox that says C.l.dingo instead of C.l.familiaris. Please feel to improve the information in the taxobox. Chrisrus Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess we never finished up the discussion on what it should be... But your change is probably an improvement. However, you're using the sandbox version of the dogbox – was that a mistake or is that the one I mocked up a long time ago? Anyone is free to come along and modify/delete the sandbox template, so we likely don't want to use it long–term. Mojoworker (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just used that because it was there and an improvement. Please go ahead and improve the infobox with a better version and any other improvements you would add.  Chrisrus (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll see if I can get to it sometime later this week. Mojoworker (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomy and Lineage
When I first visited this page, I was surprised to learn in the first sentence that the NGSD “is genetically a dingo”. I then searched the article for the new research that indicates that the base pairs of the entire mitochondrial control region sequence of the NGSD was exactly the same as that of the Australian Dingo, but as I suspected, there was none. No, the NGSD is not a dingo, it is a NGSD and it differs on a range of variables from the Australian dingo as can be found within the text of the article or its citations. Its taxonomic status is designated as ‘’Canis lupus dingo’’ because the NGSD and the Australian dingo share a common ancestor – the NGSD is not a dingo and neither was their common ancestor. The taxonomic classification is simply a box for placing them both in and could have been named ’’Canis lupus 123”, however ‘’dingo’’ retains a historical link to the more numerous sister. (In exactly the same way that the grey wolf and the dog are classified under ‘’Canis lupus’’ – they share a common ancestor and the dog is not a grey wolf.) Entire sections of this article are either stuck in the mid-2000s with what we knew then, or the cited works have been misinterpreted due to either a lack of understanding or a focus on what an individual editor wanted to portray, or simply incorrect. As there is strong evidence that the NGSD and the Australian dingo are sisters with a shared taxonomic status and lineage, I have created 2 links to the ‘’Canis lupus dingo’’ article (Taxonomy, Lineage) which reflects what we know in 2015, and I have removed much of the associated contentious or uncited material from this article. The key issues can be found in the ‘’Canis lupus dingo’’ page and we should aim for “one single source of truth” on these matters. I am happy to discuss editors’ concerns on this page, and in my view there is no such thing as a foolish question. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   09:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I for one would be really grateful if you could update and improve this article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Title
A search within Wikipedia on "New Guinea Singing Dog" redirects me to this article titled "New Guinea singing dog". Given that there is a Labrador Retriever article, and a German Shepherd article, perhaps someone could explain to me why we are we using common nouns for singing dog when it is part of a name and these are proper nouns? This article should be called "New Guinea Singing Dog". William Harris •   talk •   10:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion in this but here are some sources that use lowercase letters for the name:


 * "First photo of rare, wild New Guinea singing dog in 23 years"


 * "fiercely predatory wild canine called the New Guinea singing dog"


 * Editor abcdef (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Not that I agree with it, but see Capitalization up the page. Mojoworker (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * abcdef: Don't get me started on what passes for "journalism" these days, these people are near-illiterate in my view.
 * Mojo: I had earlier started to read it but gave up after the first 2 paragraphs as it went off-track and it appears to have ended nowhere. We are not talking about dog's that can sing in New Guinea, we are talking about something called the Singing Dog that lives in New Guinea - therefore the NGSD. There is even a redirect titled Singing Dog, which is probably a more accurate name. My view is the article should be copy-pasted under the redirect title of New Guinea Singing Dog. William Harris  •   talk •   09:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)