Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Jackal–dog hybrid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 20 December 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved with the en dash modification. History of the target page moved to Jackal-dog hybrid in order to preserve the attribution history. Jenks24 (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackal-wolf hybrid → Jackal–dog hybrid – This was the article's original name, but was erroneously moved to the current title a few years ago. Considering there is far more material pertaining to jackal-dog crossings than jackal-wolf crossings, the former title, logically, should take precedence. Mariomassone (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that it should be "Jackal–dog hybrid". See the endash (–) instead of the hyphen (-)? HandsomeFella (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. Mariomassone (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, because this is what the article says in the lede. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adapting to the accepted change. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing editor: the target for this proposed move is a redirect that was previously an article, but was apparently merged with this one. There may be history versions that need to be preserved. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I assure you there isn't. I was heavily involved in writing it years ago, and everything relevant is preserved here. The only thing removed was a pseudoscientific source promoting a certain dog breed. Mariomassone (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Illegally shot?

[edit]

You mean illegally shot, not legally. If an animal has domestic blood, shooting it is by law illegal. Don't say it is legal because it's not. I wouldn't be surprised five years later if a news report came on saying that those were actually somebody's pets. --69.178.52.50 (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Thunder808[reply]

That's not what the journal where the photos come from. Also, wild hybrids between dogs and coyotes are shot all the time, so you're wrong. Mariomassone (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Putting down" one's own animals is legal in many if not most jurisdictions, as long as it's done humanely. People may not like it, but it is what it is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 November 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackal–dog hybrid → Jackal-dog hybrid – Title currently has an EN-DASH and should be a HYPHEN, refer Wolf-dog hybrid as an example. I cannot move it because Jackal–dog hybrid exists as a redirect. William Harris • (talk) • 11:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@William Harris and SMcCandlish: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@William Harris and SMcCandlish: Re-ping since the last one probably didn't work. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'morning Mac. This request has come from a review of a Canis-related article by the Guild of Copy Editors. The advice I have been given is as follows:

  • MOS:HYPHEN, specifically In some cases, like diode–transistor logic, the independent status of the linked elements requires an en dash instead of a hyphen. See En dashes below., but see also MOS:DASH, specifically the examples in In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between. Perhaps the "jackal-wolf hybrid" is similar to the example "blue-green algae", in which, according to this example, since "blue-green" is a "blended, intermediate color", a hyphen is correct.

Therefore, I refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between where it states: "Wrong: blue–green algae; a blended, intermediate color, so use a hyphen: blue-green algae"

In my opinion, a jackal-dog hybrid is a mixture similar to a blue-green algae - it mixes elements of both. Which ever way you decide to go, it should be made consistent across all articles that use this device. William Harris • (talk) • 21:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue-green is a true compound adjective, as in strawberry-blonde hair. Jackal–dog is linkage to two discrete entities, as in US–Canadian border and Dunning–Kruger effect. Note how blue, green, strawberry (as a color) and blonde (as a color) are not discrete entities; you can't reach out and touch a "blue", but you can do so with a jackal, with Canada (in a way), with Prof. Dunning (in theory), etc. I'm in GOCE, too. We don't always all agree, but I'd bet money the MoS regulars will agree on this one. :-) I've looked again at the parts you're quoting, and they all seem correct to me after all (I'd initially thought there was an issue). The cases illustrated for dash, like the case here, are all of this form: "Here, the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements. The components may be nouns, adjectives, verbs, or any other independent part of speech. Often if the components are reversed there would be little change of meaning."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC); edited: 02:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The problem is actually in vague wording in MOS:HYPHEN and lack of a cross-reference from the applicable segment of it to MOS:DASH. Opened a "let's clarify this" thread at WT:MOS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can we get a better picture?

[edit]

Why is the only image here a graphic photo of three dead subjects of what this article is about? If I click on an article about John F. Kennedy, I don't want the top picture to be a still of his head exploding. If I click on an article about babies, I don't want to see a stillborn dead baby. This is a very offputting image and as somebody who just lost his dog this evening and was just browsing wikipedia on various dog-related subjects, I feel like it's put me in a very bad state of mind. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.150.101 (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you can find one. Mariomassone (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsurprising that this image provokes distaste and offense. Articles about animals are best illustrated with images (photographs and/or artists' impressions) showing the animal in a living state, even if just an approximated one (like in the article about the extinct Dodo Bird, which includes a photograph of a life-long model of the bird as it looked in life.) Whilst articles about taxidermy, hunting, or perhaps even topics such as animal cruelty, rigor mortis, and processes biological decomposition **might** benefit from including images like this one being discussed here ('slaughtered jackals hybrids in Croatia'), this unpleasant photograph fails to advance any useful knowledge about the current article's topic, viz. "Jackal-dog hybrid". Consequently, it is best to remove this photograph altogether. Elysium0820 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support its retention for lack of alternative image and absence of written policy against illustrating animal articles with carcasses. Still, let's hear from the rest of the "pack". @Jts1882: @LittleJerry: @William Harris: Mariomassone (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, my condolences to editor 174.27.150.101 - your loss is similar to the death of a close family member and deeply felt.
Secondly, this is the only pix that we have of the very rare golden jackal-dog hybrid because it was available in a scientific publication that could be freely published. It shows the diversity of colour in addition to the morphology. (Please be aware that if these hybrids are not "removed" and the golden jackal strain not kept pure, hybridisation with dogs will ultimately spell the doom of the jackal.)
I have been against this shot for years, but as Mario has rightly pointed out, unless we can get another pix that is free to publish then it should stay until that time. William Harristalk 23:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Sulimov Dog

[edit]

Merge with Sulimov Dog.

Reason: Sulimov Dog is a Jackal-Dog. The image while not unhelpful, evokes unnecessarily negative emotions in readers which could affect the neutral intentions we have in mind when creating Wikipedia articles. The image from the Sulimov Dog Article can be used here to evoke less negative feelings in readers (as the dogs are still caged). This new image could be a placeholder till a more neutral image can be found of Jackal-Dogs. Chantern15 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mario, the proposer is now retired from Wikipedia, but the proposal still remains formally open. The pix issue is irrelevant to the merge proposal. The Sulimov dog could be merged into this article under its own section that would be found by search engines outside of WP. What is your view, please? William Harris (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fan of the idea, but as there is little else to write on Sulimov dog, then sure. Mariomassone (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the way forward; there is not much else to write about the Sulimov dog, at least not at this stage. If more comes to hand it can be WP:SPLIT once again in the future. As it will have its own section title in this article it would be found by search engines outside of WP, which is the important thing. Regards, William Harris (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actioned. This now-upgraded article is still only 10 kilobytes in size. William Harris (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jackal–dog_hybrid&oldid=1203043320"