This article was nominated for deletion on 5 May 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
On 19 March 2015, it was proposed that this article be moved from Canis lupus dingo. The result of the discussion was Not Moved. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
It is rather confusing to have two articles called dingo and dingo (taxon) next to each other. Bever ( talk) 06:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello All. Over the past year I have developed much of the Taxonomy and Lineage sections for this article and that of Dingo. I am of the opinion that this article should be changed back to its original name of Canis lupus dingo. My reasons are as follows:
Does anybody have an opinion against a WP:MOVE back to the original name, please? William Harris • (talk) • 09:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
In the Canis papuensis section, you paraphrase Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay by saying:
"Instead of the bold independence of the Australian dingo, the coastal dogs behaved very subserviently toward humans, exhibiting begging and grovelling".
I don't know how close this is to the original text, so I didn't want to edit. But perhaps you could consider making it an actual quote, or remove some of the implied bias (no offense meant!) of the adjectives? If you replace "subservient" with "submissive" (a more typical behavioural term) and remove "bold" and "very" it would go a long way. Or, since the actual point, I think, is something about the degree/type of human/dog interactions, perhaps something like:
"Miklouho-Maclay described submissive social behaviour (including begging and grovelling) by the coastal dogs towards humans, unlike the Australian dingos he observed."
Kduckworth ( talk) 14:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Under the section Archaeological evidence: "Timor-Leste at 3,075–2,9213 YBP" and "Madura Caves were directly carbon dated between 3,348–3,081 YBP". Note that the upper timing for the Timor-Leste specimen matches the lower timing for the Madura Caves specimen. This might be a coincidence. The extremely short fragment of DNA that could be obtained from the Timor-Leste specimen tells us that its ancestors are from eastern Asia, as are the dingo's ancestors. The researchers will attempt to obtain a longer sequence to "determine whether the Timor dog has the point mutations found in dingoes and New Guinea singing dogs". We do not know yet if it is a dingo or not! William Harris • (talk) • 10:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, I note that this page (presently "Canis lupus dingo") has oscillated between that name and "Dingo (taxon)" in the past. I have recently tried to provide a definition/explanation for the present name by expanding the lead/introductory paragraph a little, but am getting bogged down by the fact that (1) it needs explanation at all, (2) the term is most likely unknown to the casual user, and (3) it comes from a work now 15 years old, and more recent sources likely use other terms anyway for the same concept. Thus, I would appreciate feedback as to whether the article title itself could be improved. Basically as I see it (and not necessarily across all the previous history), it deals with the clade that presently contains the dingo and the New Guinea singing dog (NGSD), that were grouped (along with some putative extinct taxa, which may have been the same anyway) under the Cld subspecies in Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, in 2005. Now (2020), alternatives to the MSW3 treatment are available for the same concept (or portions of it), not yet resolved or finalized, as e.g. Canis familiaris dingo (subspecies of domestic dog but the latter a full species, not a subspecies of wolf), Canis dingo, or just Canis familiaris (no subspecies recognised; possibly also Canis familiaris dingo as well. In the light of this ambivalence, keeping Canis lupus dingo as the article title seems a bit inaccurate/sub-optimal, especially since (as noted above) this latin scientific name is likely to be obscure to the majority of casual users.
So I am wondering about changing the article title to something more taxonomy neutral, as well as more comprehensive to the non-specialist reader in the first instance. Maybe along the lines of "Dingo-New Guinea singing dog Clade" or similar, which is really what the article is about, I believe. Thoughts, anyone, or better suggestions? Regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 ( talk) 06:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 5 May 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
On 19 March 2015, it was proposed that this article be moved from Canis lupus dingo. The result of the discussion was Not Moved. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
It is rather confusing to have two articles called dingo and dingo (taxon) next to each other. Bever ( talk) 06:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello All. Over the past year I have developed much of the Taxonomy and Lineage sections for this article and that of Dingo. I am of the opinion that this article should be changed back to its original name of Canis lupus dingo. My reasons are as follows:
Does anybody have an opinion against a WP:MOVE back to the original name, please? William Harris • (talk) • 09:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
In the Canis papuensis section, you paraphrase Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay by saying:
"Instead of the bold independence of the Australian dingo, the coastal dogs behaved very subserviently toward humans, exhibiting begging and grovelling".
I don't know how close this is to the original text, so I didn't want to edit. But perhaps you could consider making it an actual quote, or remove some of the implied bias (no offense meant!) of the adjectives? If you replace "subservient" with "submissive" (a more typical behavioural term) and remove "bold" and "very" it would go a long way. Or, since the actual point, I think, is something about the degree/type of human/dog interactions, perhaps something like:
"Miklouho-Maclay described submissive social behaviour (including begging and grovelling) by the coastal dogs towards humans, unlike the Australian dingos he observed."
Kduckworth ( talk) 14:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Under the section Archaeological evidence: "Timor-Leste at 3,075–2,9213 YBP" and "Madura Caves were directly carbon dated between 3,348–3,081 YBP". Note that the upper timing for the Timor-Leste specimen matches the lower timing for the Madura Caves specimen. This might be a coincidence. The extremely short fragment of DNA that could be obtained from the Timor-Leste specimen tells us that its ancestors are from eastern Asia, as are the dingo's ancestors. The researchers will attempt to obtain a longer sequence to "determine whether the Timor dog has the point mutations found in dingoes and New Guinea singing dogs". We do not know yet if it is a dingo or not! William Harris • (talk) • 10:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, I note that this page (presently "Canis lupus dingo") has oscillated between that name and "Dingo (taxon)" in the past. I have recently tried to provide a definition/explanation for the present name by expanding the lead/introductory paragraph a little, but am getting bogged down by the fact that (1) it needs explanation at all, (2) the term is most likely unknown to the casual user, and (3) it comes from a work now 15 years old, and more recent sources likely use other terms anyway for the same concept. Thus, I would appreciate feedback as to whether the article title itself could be improved. Basically as I see it (and not necessarily across all the previous history), it deals with the clade that presently contains the dingo and the New Guinea singing dog (NGSD), that were grouped (along with some putative extinct taxa, which may have been the same anyway) under the Cld subspecies in Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, in 2005. Now (2020), alternatives to the MSW3 treatment are available for the same concept (or portions of it), not yet resolved or finalized, as e.g. Canis familiaris dingo (subspecies of domestic dog but the latter a full species, not a subspecies of wolf), Canis dingo, or just Canis familiaris (no subspecies recognised; possibly also Canis familiaris dingo as well. In the light of this ambivalence, keeping Canis lupus dingo as the article title seems a bit inaccurate/sub-optimal, especially since (as noted above) this latin scientific name is likely to be obscure to the majority of casual users.
So I am wondering about changing the article title to something more taxonomy neutral, as well as more comprehensive to the non-specialist reader in the first instance. Maybe along the lines of "Dingo-New Guinea singing dog Clade" or similar, which is really what the article is about, I believe. Thoughts, anyone, or better suggestions? Regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 ( talk) 06:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)