Talk:Bark (sound): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:21, 5 October 2009

A summary of this article appears in Dog.

comment

I would like to see a section on the physiology of barking. I've heard that barking is different from how the human voice works, thus a dog's "voice" doesn't get tired after hours of barking, but there is nothing about the nature of it here. If anyone is qualified, please consider writing such a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.200.205 (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to take article to AfD to rid them of unencyclopedic material or to redirect them. Please explain why we need an article about a dicdef with a whole lot of translations of onomatopoeia in other languages?

Peter ^Isotalo 16:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been discussed (and decided upon) in VfD - see Talk:Oink. -- ChrisO 18:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Oink" is really more of an interjection than a noun to begin with, making it very questionable as a Wikipedia article. Also, AfDs are not precedents for anything other than the article being voted on, and I still say that oink is no less a dictionary definition than "help", "jolted" or "greet". An encyclopedic article has to contain something other than comments on how the term is used and its etymology; that's what dictionaries are for. There's no harm in mentioning usage of actual encyclopedic terms, but not to keep articles merely to duplicate content intended for Wiktionaries. "Why dogs bark" belongs in dog not here, and the rest is just a long list of foreign language onomatopoeia.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

barklessness

A number of dog species do not bark. I don't know much about it, but this is probably a good place to cover the phenom, if someone knows enough to do so... Tomer ^talk 06:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Am I the only one that finds it amusing how 13 of the 14 sources in the article are used to cover a tiny, supplementary paragraph? Legend Saber (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a how to

The "bark control" appears to be written in an instructional format. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual; it is not a how to. Shouldn't the section be rewritten or removed? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It ideally should go to Wikihow since there's no need to remove a perfectly good piece when it would fit on one of the other wikis.

Nuisance

There's a link to nuisance at the bottom of the page, which dosen't exactly have much to do with the article and isn't from a perspective of neutrality. I'm new, though; I'll leave it up to you. Kausill (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image of a dog barking?!

lol 85.65.84.165 (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 The "bark control" appears to be written in an instructional format. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual; it is not a how to. Shouldn't the section be rewritten or removed? [[User:GO-PCHS-NJROTC|<font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">GO-PCHS-NJROTC</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:GO-PCHS-NJROTC|<font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages)</font>]]</sup> 01:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
+It ideally should go to Wikihow since there's no need to remove a perfectly good piece when it would fit on one of the other wikis.
 ==Nuisance==
 There's a link to nuisance at the bottom of the page, which dosen't exactly have much to do with the article and isn't from a perspective of neutrality. I'm new, though; I'll leave it up to you. [[User:Kausill|Kausill]] ([[User talk:Kausill|talk]]) 00:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)