This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dingo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 360 days |
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. |
Dingo 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
On 19 March 2015, it was proposed that this article be moved from Dingo. The result of the discussion was Not Moved. |
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)
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)
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)
Where do "weasel words" appear in this section? Jarble ( talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
References