Talk:Dog

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Various types of dogs.

• ... that dogs (examples pictured) were domesticated from wolves over 14,000 years ago by hunter-gatherers, before the development of agriculture? Source: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2010083118 https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00432-7
  • ALT1: ... that humans have consumed dog (example pictured) meat for at least 14,000 years? Source: https://books.google.co.za/books?id=JwGZTQunH00C&pg=PA208&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Wolverine X-eye (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 09:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC).

• Comments: ALT1 is going to make a lot of people upset. I should know, as I'm from South Korea, where dog meat is still eaten. BorgQueen (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

All the better for views if you ask me, but technically that hook would be about dog meat and thus it would fail WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE, so with regret I've struck it. ALT0 is available for review; might have a rummage for hooks myself. (Also, that image of 'a female dog nursing' is adorable.)--Launchballer 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Article received a GA review seven days before DYK nom, so it's new enough. It's definitely long enough, and I'm going to trust that the GA process addressed any potential concerns about sourcing. The hook is interesting, and the image is freely-licensed. QPQ is not required. Personally I think it would be nice to have an image comparing a dog to a wolf since the hook makes mention of both, but that's just my personal opinion. Overall, it seems good to go! Di (they-them) (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Now that I mention it, might I suggest this alt image? commons:File:Comparison of a wolf and a pug.png. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  That image is low-quality IMO, so no, not that one. I would instead prefer a husky since it looks somewhat similar to a wolf. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm doing a tick to make clear that this comment is not an objection, but just excerpts from the two sources verifying the hook fact. The earlier article says, "The researchers determined that dogs were probably domesticated from now-extinct wolves between 11,000 and 16,000 years ago — before humans began farming around 10,000 years ago." and the more recent article pushes this timeline back further, "Dogs were the first domesticated species and the only animal known to enter into a domestic relationship with people during the Pleistocene [...] dogs were domesticated in Siberia by 23,000 years ago, possibly while both people and wolves were isolated during the harsh climate of the Last Glacial Maximum. Dogs then accompanied the first people into the Americas and traveled with them as humans rapidly dispersed into the continent beginning 15,000 years ago [...] The earliest generally accepted dog dates to 15 ka (from the site of Bonn-Oberkassel, discussed below). However, claims for the existence of domestic dogs as early as 40 ka (22–28) have been made on the basis of morphological (22, 24–27), isotopic (22, 29), genetic (22, 28, 30), and contextual assessments (24, 31) of ancient canid remains. Yet, none of these potential domestication markers is fail-safe, owing to the fact that wolves and early domesticated dogs can be difficult to distinguish from each other." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: A month has now passed and this nomination has seemingly been forgotten. Can you promote this anytime soon? I would like the hook to appear this year. Thanks, Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 21:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC on scientific name

Should we return to using Canis lupus familiaris first and foremost?

Neglecting to use Canis lupus familiaris in the infobox and overall mentioning Canis familiaris in the header section is problematic. The current scientific standing is that the domesticated dog is not a separate species from that of the wolf. There is a growing progressive group that advocates for the Canis familiaris name, but as of now major taxonomical sources such as the ITIS,NCBI and Mammal Species of the World still classify it as a subspecies. The sites list as follows;

On ITIS the Canis familiaris page says "Valid name: Canis lupus familiaris" and "Taxonomic standing:invalid original name/combination" with the Canis lupus familiaris page listing Canis familiaris as a synonym.

On NCBI it says Canis lupus familiaris is the current name and Canis familiaris a heterotypic synonym.

In addition to this I picked some other sources such as the Finnish Species Database (Laji.fi), maintained largely by the Finnish Museum of Natural History and connected to the University of Helsinki, and the NHS to reinforce this.

Canis familiaris is therefore accepted as a synonym even by distinguished sources, but it is not in scientific mainstream use. There simply isn't enough evidence to proof it is a new species. The domesticated dog still retains the ability to breed with it's wild counterparts and produce fertile offspring. Morphological variation is a block with some particular breeds, but even then genetic deviation is not noted as too extensive.

Therefore I believe it is not wise for Wikipedia to attempt to diverge from the scientific standing on this matter untill atleast one of these major publications stands with Canis familiaris as the primary name instead of synonym (as such for example ITIS and . Only at that point should the two enjoy equality. We cannot put in the infobox information that is against the scientific consensus, especially when it points to classifying something as a new species.

I propose that;

1.Canis familiaris is removed from the header (or atleast a disclaimer of dispute added) and infobox.

2.Canis lupus familiaris is returned to the infobox

3.Canis familiaris is brought up in a taxonomy related subsection or a subsection of it's own.

Requesting comments on the proposal.

Finfixer (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I rebut the commentary above. The latest genetic research shows a) the grey wolf that we know today is NOT the ancestor of the dog - the dog emerged from a different genetic population of wolves during the Last Glacial Maximum but they do share a common ancestor - please refer to the article Domestication of the dog, and b) recent taxonomic authorities favour C. familiaris and nobody has rebutted those taxonomic authorities, regardless of what some dated texts and databases based on those texts have stated. ~2025-33586-84 (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Dogs are a subspecies of Wolves. And in the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia, C. l. familiaris is placed in the infobox as subspecies, while C. lupus is the species.

So I suggest we:

1. Do the same as Wikipedia in other languages.

2. Do not remove C. l. familiaris, because it is the correct scientific name. Charles Dong (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I have done a bold edit. Please let me know if you have any disagreement :) Charles Dong (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Chardon55 A couple of notes: First, the infobox is still citing the old paper by Carl Linnaeus who classified dogs as "Canis familiaris". That inline citation should be replaced by whichever of the sources you've checked that seems most reliable and up-to-date. Second, right now the alternative classification Canis familiaris is mentioned under Dog § Taxonomy (which is correct) but not in the lead. If there are scientific papers still using the alternative classification it should be in the lead somewhere even if it's not the name used in the infobox. And also, thanks for doing the research, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reminder. I just updated the source of the name. Charles Dong (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

We try to have a consistent taxonomy. For mammals, we do our best to align with what the American Society of Mammalogists list in their Mammal Diversity Database, found at this location. Their entry for the Domestic Dog has it as Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758. We should not care what other language Wikipedias do. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we can't choose one source to try and align with when multiple sources of equal status exist. One such source is the ITIS that relies on the newer Canis lupus familiaris. We must remember that Linnaeus is indeed as a source over 200 years old. If a modern challenge to it is being accepted by primary authorities like the ITIS and secondary authorities like the NBC, the strenght of Linnaeus as a source here is greatly weakened.

A new source overpowers an old source if the new source is of better quality. Considering what Linnaeus had in terms of available scientific research methods, we can propably say the new source has more quality.

That is why I think the header can retain both Canis lupus familiaris and Canis familiaris, but the infobox should have Canis lupus familiaris. It has as a classification more recent scientific backing which gives it an edge. Finfixer (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, we do try to align with one specific taxonomy, for how the articles are named (when using the scientific name), for how the taxoboxes are organized, etc. Discrepancies and disagreements between various taxonomies are then handled best in the article text. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Further, when there's a consensus to change that alignment, that can be done, and has been done in the past. Mammal taxonomy on Wikipedia originally aligned with MSW2, then MSW3. MSW4 was abandoned and replaced by ASM's MDD, which is what we follow now. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I see that. But if we were to retain Canis familiaris, we would conflict with the artile on the Grey Wolf that states the dog is one of it's subspecies. How do we reconcile that? Internal consistancy is also important. The article puts a link to this article when it talks about subspecies only for this article to say it is not a subspecies. We should hold a separate Rfc in that article if we are to use Canis familiaris here to resolve the conflict. Then we should go through any other articles that discuss canine taxonomy and may list the dog as a subspecies. If we go with Canis familiaris this article is the odd one out and contradicts other articles and their chosen reading of taxonomy. That shouldn't be happening on Wikipedia, should it? Finfixer (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I also support to use Canis lupus familiaris. We are not fully following that database right now, Prototheria are regarded as obsolete and not used. Australosphenida is also not used, Monotremata is only used here. We also use some suborders and infraorders in Artiodactyla that are not listed in that database. Finally, it seems like Canis lupus familiaris is the most consensual option. Jako96 (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

We're also using a bunch of marsupial taxa that are not listed in the database. There are probably a lot more examples on this. Now, I changed Canis familiaris to Canis lupus familiaris instead, since it's more consensual. Jako96 (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted. Not good form to update during discussion. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Support using Canis familiaris following MDD. The trend is to treat domesticates as species and the dog is an exception where this doesn't create a paraphyletic wild species. The dog is sister group to extant wolves with a divergence date far earlier than other domesticates. Using older sources to support treatment as a wolf subspecues makes no sense.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean, this is totally reasonable, but it does create a paraphyletic wild species. There are also extinct Canis lupus members too. Jako96 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

We should fix the other issues, not make things worse. C. familiaris should be our base, and from there, see what's not in alignment and align it. - - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If it remains 3 people to 2 for a while, I think it has to be changed. But relevant projects should be informed too. Jako96 (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vote. An RfC, which this is not due to me neglegting to use the template, might yet be required to resolve this question.

I happen believe that the whole premise of Wikipedia relying on a single dominant source for anything contradicts it's purpose by allowing a small group of individuals not connected to it to make determination as to facts and falsehoods. Taxonomy boxes and articles should be standartised but that should not arise from one source. It should arise from the most recent consensus of sources. But that is a discussion for another time.

I will consider kicking off a proper RfC on this matter due to it's significance and conflicting views on it. Finfixer (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

UtherSRG has started a discussion for changing the WP:MAMMAL guidelines to have MDD as the primary 'source of truth' for mammal taxonomy at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Guideline update. --PresN 13:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Canis familiaris. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mammals#Guidelines, which I know are not always followed but are still the general guidelines for mammals on Wikipedia, says "The Third edition of Wilson & Reeder's Mammal Species of the World (2005) is the basis for the taxonomic framework used by WikiProject Mammals. [...] It is accepted practice to override the MSW3 taxonomy if both the Mammal Diversity Database and IUCN agree on the change.". MSW3 had C. l. familiaris, but MDD has C. familiaris, and while the IUCN does not directly describe "domestic" species, the page for C. lupus refers to domestic dogs (and the dingo) as C. familiaris.

Whichever way is decided, we need to make sure the dog/wolf/canid pages all align. --PresN 16:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology of the word dog is a curiosity and may warrant its own section. It came out of nowhere in late Old English to replace the original term "hund" (hound). It appears to be an original creation of English with no known prior cognates in any other language. Etymonline describes it as "one of the great mysteries of English etymology". Somarain (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Somarain, belatedly following up: do you have any sources to suggest for this? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Check out the wiktionary entry. It has plenty of them:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dog#English Somarain (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to access the sources soon. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect information

The dog is not a descendant of the grey wolf. Rather, they are both descendants of the a common ancestor. ~2025-33474-98 (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a WP:SOURCE that says domestic dogs are not descendants of the grey wolf despite the fact that it's been documented that domestic dogs are descended from populations of grey wolves? I mean, your claim is void if you can be bothered to understand that the latest common ancestor of domestic dogs and modern grey wolves are Early to Middle Holocene grey wolves, of which there are no appreciable differences between them and modern grey wolves. Mr Fink (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The Bonn–Oberkassel dog is Pleistocene. Also, "Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs"(Freedman et al., 2014) suggests that dogs may have evolved from an extinct Late Pleistocene wolf. This statement along with this particular citation is part of the Wikipedia article for the Wolf.

In the future please refrain from personal attacks. "If you can be bothered" is not professional language. ~2025-33474-98 (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

In the future, perhaps you could provide the necessary sources to begin with so I or others won't automatically make mistaken assumptions. Mr Fink (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

so are we going to update this? it is contradicted by first paragraph of Domestication of the dog Nondualduelist (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nondualduelist, thoughts? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay I've been doing some more reading, and despite the tone of Mr Fink I think the thrust of what they are saying is correct. Late Pleistocene wolf is a kind of gray wolf. In the same way a Beringian Wolf is a kind of gray wolf.

I think the most accurate language would be something like "Dogs were domesticated from an extinct Late Pleistocene population of gray wolves, not from modern gray wolves." Though to be honest I am not sure how meaningful a distinction this even is. Nondualduelist (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the current lead as even contradicting this idea. Context can be given in the body section on this aspect if it's not already clear. To decide on the binomial nomenclature in the infobox, we should just check what is most common in scientific literature from this past decade where more evidence is available to determine taxonomy. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Lead image

I'm not sure the montage is working. Dogs are man's best friend and readers expect an image of a familiar face when they first click on this article, not a cluttered spectacle. Imagine if our own species article had a montage of a bunch of different people from different geographic areas. We have a whole article to show that. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Let us look at the montage's history. It evolved as a compromise, with different editors pushing for their favourite pix, and certain individuals pushing for what was obviously a pix of their own dog. The montage is the agreed result. ~2026-32920-02 (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Thoughts on the most appropriate image if using a single image? File:Brooks Chase Ranger of Jolly Dogs Jack Russell.jpg was the one from the montage that ran on the main page. It's also facing left, into the text. Commons has several evaluated images of domestic dogs as well, like File:Labrador Retriever - Yellow.JPG. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Rjjiii, I would actually prefer File:Fireworks Whippets.jpg, but the Laborador one looks good too. LittleJerry (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: I'm fine with the whippets and don't have an issue if you want to change it. 00:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Laika

Laika was not one of the first animals to be launched into orbit. She was one of the first animals to be launched into space, or she as the first animals to be launched into orbit. ~2025-36388-15 (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Diet

on the one hand, they have evolved to thrive on a starch-rich diet, on the other hand, they have evolved for the consumption of meat. Seems to me to be slightly contradictory ~2025-36388-15 (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's see, it says the teeth have evolved for the consumption of flesh; on the other hand, they've adapted to a starch-rich diet. I don't see any contradiction; domestic dogs are omnivores (as opposed to, say, cats, that are obligate carnivores.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2026

The line below re: "Aroused dogs" has no connection to the sentence preceding or following it or the subject of communication in general.

Dogs mark their territories by urinating on them, which is more likely when entering a new environment.[141][142] Both sexes of dogs may also urinate to communicate anxiety or frustration, submissiveness, or when in exciting or relaxing situations.[143] Aroused dogs can be a result of the dogs' higher cortisol levels.[144] Dogs begin socializing with other dogs by the time they reach the ages of 3 to 8 weeks, and at about 5 to 12 weeks of age, they alter their focus from dogs to humans TddPlz (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• I've made the language clearer. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

References

one image of the male besenji please

~2026-35517-73 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your request for a new image to be uploaded at Files for upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. meamemg (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

on image

can you please just use an image of one dog ~2026-35517-73 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Dogs come in many shapes and sizes. An image of just one dog would not be an accurate representation of the diversity of the species. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

see discussion above. LittleJerry (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

An actual discussion, with consensus for a specific replacement image, needs to occur before changing the image. I have no opinion other than this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's fine to narrow it down to fewer images, but I don't think one singular dog breed can accurately represent an encyclopedic article. • Quinn (talk • it/its) 22:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:LEADIMAGE, "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image ... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." Dog breeds are already represented throughout the article, including in the "Breeds" subsection. The lead image is about clarity and an average reader can barely make out one image. This is unacceptable for an article on a common and familiar animal. Particularly man's best friend. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Jtrevor99 I did have a discussion with Rjjiii on a replacement image and we agreed. So why did you revert? LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not see that discussion. Discussing the same topic in multiple locations at the same time as you did inevitably leads to problems. Having the discussion exclusively in the current topic next time, would be more helpful to busy editors. Meanwhile: multiple editors disagreed with changing the image to just one dog in this discussion. Having one editor say “I don’t have a problem with it” in a topic I doubt anyone else saw you two update, does not establish consensus. That’s why I said a discussion still needs to happen. See WP:CONSENSUS. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I dunno, that seems a bit complicated. Was there much discussion when the collage was chosen? If an RfC is needed, I think the candidates mentioned so far are:

• 
  Whippets that were reverted
• 
  Jack Russel terrier that appeared on the main page
• 
  Labrador retriever

And of course an option to retain the multiple images. Also, pinging Wolverine X-eye for input as they've returned. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to stick with one image, it has to depict a breed most people would instantly recognize...a quintessential breed embodying everything dog...something like a Labrador retriever. If there's consensus on that then a single lead image wouldn't be so bad. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

A Labrador Retriever is a popular breed in the West, but in poorer countries mongrels are the most common. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the specific breed matters as much as having the typical dog silhouette. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I can definately agree to File:Labrador Retriever - Yellow.JPG which is what Rjj proposed. Anybody else's thoughts? LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The background is too similar in colour to the dog and a sitting pose is not ideal for the lead image. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps these images would work better? I personally prefer the 2nd image.

• 
  Labrador
• 
  Male Labrador
• 
  Black Labrador
• 
  Yellow adult

Wolverine X-eye (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't have a collar due to cultural baggage. Most are free-ranging. LittleJerry (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's important because dogs are domesticated animals and as such, they are often marked in one way or another; so in essence, the collar confirms that dogs are not wild animals. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)