Would a stray be considered wild, since it's not tamed?

No, strays are technically tamed, since at one point their however-many-great grandparents were bred by people.

yeah i dont think they r wild either

I don't think strays would be considered wild since they live in uban areas and scavenge for food. Their best hunting instincts were bred out of dogs so they don't have the same characterisitics as wild canids do.

One that lived long enough (they are not designed to survive in the wild), the resulting offspring that might (by luck) survive would be feral dogs (domesticated dogs born wild without human help), not strays.
Dogs are canis lupus familiaris (a subspecies of the gray wolf), and true wild canids (such as coyote) area different species.

Even dingoes, which have been feral for thousands of years, are not truly "wild". Domestication - the control of a species' reproduction - runs counter to natural selection and once it's happened it's very difficult to undo.

Incidentally this is why many conservationists oppose captive breeding programmes except in extreme emergencies. In captivity, humans largely control which animal mates with which, and changes can happen worryingly fast. I remember learning about one species of grouse which, due to a captive diet, actually changed its gut length after a few captive generations and would have struggled to survive on its natural diet afterwards.

(This is also why the best national parks try to keep all disturbance to an absolute minimum, so as not to affect natural selection and damage the "wildness" of animals. If aggressive bears keep being shot, eventually the characteristics of the species will change - and that aggressive trait may be important for the species' survival.)