Talk:Dingo attack
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small} | 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. |
Article is useless
[edit]What is this article good for? It's just a list of few dog attacks and all the topics are already entered in the dingo-article. It should be deleted.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Since that article was huge, have moved the content across from the main article and summarised the section James4750 (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fine and no offense but the summarry was bad so I undid it. When I have time I will summarize the section. But on this article: what you got from the article was about attacks on humans, but since you have attacks on livestock as well, shouldn't you seperate the article in two main chapters or leave the livestock out? After all the reports of livestock attacks can't really be could reliable, especially not from newspapers. You should have seen the kind of crap I had to examine to find something reliable for the dingo-article. :-/--Inugami-bargho (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll leave it with you since you seem to be the expert on dingos here. It might be worth including attacks on livestock since there aren't many attacks on humans. James4750 (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let's say, I was probably the one who put the most effort into it. But back to you: I think, individual cases aren't really helpful for a section about attacks on livestock, since it happens so frequently and I doubt the reliablilty of some reports, after all I had found one erticle where a farmer claimed to have lost 2000 sheep in one night (and that was a newspaper article too). I wonder how many dogs were there, a hundred?--91.66.224.79 (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- There's enough room to include the more significant ones here. James4750 (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let's say, I was probably the one who put the most effort into it. But back to you: I think, individual cases aren't really helpful for a section about attacks on livestock, since it happens so frequently and I doubt the reliablilty of some reports, after all I had found one erticle where a farmer claimed to have lost 2000 sheep in one night (and that was a newspaper article too). I wonder how many dogs were there, a hundred?--91.66.224.79 (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll leave it with you since you seem to be the expert on dingos here. It might be worth including attacks on livestock since there aren't many attacks on humans. James4750 (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fine and no offense but the summarry was bad so I undid it. When I have time I will summarize the section. But on this article: what you got from the article was about attacks on humans, but since you have attacks on livestock as well, shouldn't you seperate the article in two main chapters or leave the livestock out? After all the reports of livestock attacks can't really be could reliable, especially not from newspapers. You should have seen the kind of crap I had to examine to find something reliable for the dingo-article. :-/--Inugami-bargho (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dingo attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to https://www.epa.qld.gov.au/register/p01136aa.pdf - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715100554/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,27574,25771466-1248,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25771466-1248,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)