# Talk:Dugong

Does anyone else think the paragraph on Feeding should be deleted or replaced with something sane?209.30.131.97 (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)cas4j
I tagged this article for cleanup (a lot of the writing is just broken up info and such), and deleted a bunch of the empty sections. I don't think any of those airplane photos are at all necessary--they really don't contribute to the article. Perhaps they can find a better home in a more article or space where they'll have some relevance, but I suggest removing them from this article. FireWorks 02:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

yes cleanup seems to be the name of the game. but why is the too hard basket the rubbish bin here? The page was obviously a framework to build on. If you pulled the framework of every partially complete house down every day, there would be no more houses completed! How about some concern for the planet, as in the images could be said to be important to bring about clarity of why human habitation and recreational use is threatening the existence of these mammals that we know so little about. maybe you need some images that look the other way; West, towards the millions of humans that live right up along the coastline of this area, but there are none presently, I intend to go and make some and gift them to this purpose.  In the mean time perhaps you could allow this subject page time and room to develop to its full potential, rather than just cut because the apparent importance isnt high. I know, how about the truly revolutionary idea of communicating  with the other contributors first?  Its all a bit wierd in the context of other editors completely rewriting and replacing subject pages with massive works, claiming the exact opposite policy, detail and content is important. Think positivity, proactivity, creativity, ie improve the page with some real editors input. Another possibility is that we just continue to hunt these mammals into oblivion, and then you would be right, the images would have no importance at all. I am placing my vote here for editors to be more additive than subtractive in their work. ~~ moza --Mozasaur 18:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I am really interested in giving some of my time and skills to helping the planet to understand the Dugong, and opefully contribute usefully to their continued existence. I fear for their future, and I believe that we need them as much as we need everything else on this earth, to maintain some balance. If you need any kind of mapping, database work, or photography / web work, as part of your Dugong research or publicity, then please feel free to communicate with me.  I would be happy to place the results of such activity here in the Dugong article. Paul Moss Mozasaur 06:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am curious about the history of this page, why is it targeted so much for silly little additions that signify a immature mind, or is it just experimentation? just musing as to the behaviour....  moza 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if we should have this as a registered user only edits page... There seems to be a lot of redundant comments and vandalism added. Leah 07:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We already had this arguement in Chutney; the Weebl flash animation is not worthy of a link. Thank you. 130.184.237.220 17:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree.  I'm removing this link since Weebl's animation isn't even a true tribute to the Dugong and also condensing the links as there's 5 links to one person's encounter with Dugongs.Leah 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already deleted this link a few times now.  I added a hidden editor comment inside the page to not add it again.  Hopefully that stops it. Leah 07:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is listed as being part of the "Fauna of Egypt" category even though nothing is mentioned in the text about a population anywhere near Egyptian waters. Any idea what's going on? Either the entry needs editing to include a reference to Egypt or it should be taken out of the list of Egyptian Fauna Esquimo 11:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There are dugongs in the Red Sea/Egypt; I'll add the reference.
Decafdyke 14:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

the picture in the section of where they're found needs to be repositioned and I don't know how to do that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IrishJew (talk • contribs) 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Is the "dugong" also referred to as the "dudong"?   Paul Beardsell 02:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we add Dewgong to see also, as Dewgong is a pokemon based on it? CrowstarVaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends! 18:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
No, because Pokemon is stupid-Whatinthewampa Thursday April 23, 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatinthewampa (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 
Pokemon is a relevant cltural phenomenon; indeed, the Pokemon connection may very well be the most important fact about the Dugong to everyone besides marine biologists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.33.94 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 

The pokemon got put back in again. Still completely unreferenced, as is the claim in the list of pokemons article that Dewgong is based on the dugong. I've moved it into the "importance to humans" section, as it fits there just as happily, if we're going to mention it at all. Maybe we should discuss whether to keep it, whether we can find a reference for it, or whether (if we prefer not to keep it) we should have it in a FAQ on this page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I just found a reliable somewhat reliable source and re-added it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The article switches between using dugong and dugongs as the plural form; it also throws in "the Dugong" and "the dugong" as well. What's the correct plural form of the animal's name? Dugong with a lower case d looks right to me. There's also a band called Dugong, who would presumably end up at Dugong.[1] -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing some copyediting on this at the moment, and I'm going with "dugongs" as per several of the reliable sources that are cited. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the claim in the article that the unidentified Biblical creature called "tahash" in the original Hebrew may actually be the dugong, but there was no reference or source whatsoever.  Any input on this? RavShimon (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217130549.htm I will post more later. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably isn't very relevant to the dugong specifically, rather to Sirenia in general. It's Eocene, which is way before the two families even split. Ucucha 13:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I can find no reference to dugongs requiring freshwater access. To my knowledge they are strictly marine.In particular, where is the evidence for this statement:
"Without these fresh water sources, many would not survive. The number of these fresh water sources is beginning to decline. The dugong population is predicted to enter a steep decline."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.241.124 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC) 

{{editsemiprotected}}
A small number of dugongs are also found in the Straits of Johor (which separates Johor in Malaysia and Singapore), in the Philippine provinces of Palawan, Romblon, Guimaras and Davao Oriental, in the Arabian Sea along Pakistan and in the Red Sea in Egypt provinces Marsa Alam. The Dugong reported to be at Marsa Abu Dabbab moved away from there.
Tirili147 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Was at Marsa Alam early April in the Marsa Shagra Eco-lodge (Red Sea Diving Safari), that's why I know this. You may verify with staff there.

I'm sorry, but that is not how references work on Wikipedia; we need a published reliable source, so that the readers of the article are able to verify it - see WP:V.   Chzz  ►  07:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 Not done

This article, and/or things linked from it, might be useful; BBC Nature, "Seagrasses face extinction threat", 23rd May 2011 --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a story behind why it's "Dugong dugon" and not "Dugong dugong"? That might make an interesting addition to the etymology section. Abyssal (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dugong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: LittleJerry (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  LittleJerry (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dugong has been named as the National Aquatic Marine Mammal of Bangladesh respectively.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.224.98 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

[...]
This has led the researchers to declare the dugong functionally extinct - meaning "it is no longer viable... to sustain itself", Heidi Ma, postdoctoral researcher at ZSL, told the BBC.
[...]
Abyssoft (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Link to source news article https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62638485

I think the section about the Mediterranean population should be removed, as there is as yet no evidence of the modern species having ever naturally occurred there. If you look at the sources currently used to support their presence, both merely state that their once was a population, with nothing in support of said statement. RhysLemoine (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Apparently there's also no mention of Metaxytherium in the article. The discussion should probably be rewritten to more clearly mention the genus and moved to the Etymology and taxonomy section. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)