Jump to content

Talk:Dog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.115.226.62 (talk) at 19:27, 10 March 2018 (→Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good articleDog was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 20, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 16, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
March 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 21, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 25, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 11, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 17, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
March 15, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fullerb (article contribs).

Vietnam as a consumer of dogs

Hello, it is said in the article that 'South Vietnam' is a consumer of dog meat. This is wrong since dog eating is a tradition of NORTHERN VIetnam. Obviously there are dog meat restaurants in the south, yet they are almost always associated with Northern tradition. As seen in the cited BBC article, the writer was in Hanoi, in the north of the country. Please make changes regarding this matter. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.185.15.80 (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Vietnam amended to Vietnam, thanks. If "Obviously there are dog meat restaurants in the south", then I would suggest the article is correct. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section

Lead section has excessive details and links for the opening paragraphs. It also makes it difficult to follow (13 ref in the first paragraph alone). However, it is fairly short for the length of the article and could be expanded. Cats lead is a good reference, no irony intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russty11 (talk • contribs)

User:Russty11, it is good practice to WP:SIGNATURE and date-stamp your posts on a talk page. There are 13 refs in the lead because the Dog page is one of the most contentious on Wikipedia and even fully cited material gets deleted from time to time, which is why the article is semi-protected. Regarding excessive links, WP:LEADLINK applies and in my view these should all be removed - the lead should be an overview of what can be found in the text, and that text should contain those links. Any ideas on improvement or flow would be well-received. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Russty11: What specific changes (changing X -> Y) would you like to see made? If you are autoconfirmed already, then be bold, and make the change (but don't be reckless). If you are not autoconfirmed, then submit an edit request and I, or another editor will be happy to take a look at it and/or make the change. Morphdogfire 02:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry that a few of my earlier edits to the opening paragraph were a bit reckless. My newest edit was just to clarify that dogs are "the most abundant and widely distributed terrestrial carnivore" as many aquatic carnivores are much more abundant than any terrestrial carnivore. Achat1234 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dog. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs in Australia

The study by UWA and ANU suggests people formed close bonds with dingoes soon after the dogs' arrival on the mainland roughly 4000 years ago, with the dogs enabling women to contribute more hunted food. 2015 study. I think this information should be added to the article. —  Ark25  (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you would be better directed to the Dingo article. Secondly and unfortunately for the study you provided, dingoes appear to have walked to Australia over 8,000 years ago, at least twice, when it was connected to New Guinea at a time when sea levels were lower. DOI: 10.1007/s10709-016-9924-z Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The cited article (doi:10.1007/s10709-016-9924-z "New insights on the history of canids in Oceania based on mitochondrial and nuclear data") suggests multiple immigrations of dingo varieties to Australia from New Guinea, but it does not say 8,000 years ago. It says they may have arrived by land, but perhaps by sea. Goustien (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reproduction section has an error.

The Reproduction section on the Dog page has an error in it. It states, "2–5 days after conception fertilization occurs." This did not make sense to me seeing as conception and fertilization are synonymous, so I looked into the source provided. What the page actually says, is that fertilization occurs 2-5 days after ovulation. Also, in the same sentence, the Wikipedia article mentions that implantation occurs 14-16 days after fertilization, when it is really happening 14-16 days after ovulation, as the numbers shown in the source are relative to a 0 of ovulation, not the previous stage. Therefore, I am requesting that that section be changed to showcase what is actually happening.

Fixthedogpageplz (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the error. I attempted to fix it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dog. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entymology and Terminology - Duplicative

I've noticed that the Terminology section seems largely duplicative of Entymology's final paragraph. I haven't kept close watch on this article but think that's a recent development. Do we still need Terminology? Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to delete Terminology. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a subtopic under 'Health'

Hi there, I just wanted to run by the idea of adding an additional subtopic under the title 'Health' regarding nutrients that help to promote healthy skin.(Paigeannison (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Error in scientific name authority

In the infobox the scientific name synonym is presently given as Canis familiaris (Linnaeus, 1758). This is incorrect, the parentheses around the authority imply that the species has been reclassified (moved to a different genus) since Linnaeus described it, which is not the case. The correct citation is Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758. If no-one has any objection I will change it to the correct form after a few days for comment. Tony 1212 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The brackets need to stay; that is the convention here on Wikipedia. Please refer
By the way the current trinomial name as presented (Canis lupus familiaris) should also have the authority cited as Linnaeus, 1758 - the author of the name "familiaris" is the same whether treated as a species or subspecies (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, principle of coordination). Tony 1212 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your second point based on the difference between nomenclature and taxonomy. Canis familiaris is the dog's name given in nomenclature in 1758 and cannot be changed, apart from a ruling by the ICZN. However, Wozencraft is the authority who in 2005 classified the dog's taxonomy (i.e. its "description" or "placed with") as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of a wolf - a taxonomic classification that remains disputed. Linnaeus had no say in that. William Harris • (talk) • 08:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The brackets need to stay; that is the convention here on Wikipedia" Absolutely not; the brackets need to go. This is a nomenclatural convention, not a Wikipedia convention. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Organisms#Sources_and_authorities (second to last paragraph of that section). The authority used in the taxobox is the nomenclatural authority that originally described the taxon, not the taxonomic authority responsible for the latest treatment. When a species is not placed in its original genus, the nomenclatural authority is bracketed. When the species is included in the original genus, brackets are omitted. Wikipedia does get the brackets wrong sometimes because editors don't realize their significance, or because they are following sources that present data in a way where the bracket convention need not be followed (Mammal Species of the World is one such source). But there is no reason for Wikipedia to intentionally override this convention. Plantdrew (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree and that partial sentence should have been removed when I posted the comment further below. I went looking for where I thought a reference was but could not find one, then got side-tracked. That is why it is a partial sentence referring to nothing. William Harris • (talk) • 08:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

±== "The dog is the first species to be domesticated" should be "The dog was the..." ==

"The dog is the first species to be domesticated and has been selectively bred over millennia for various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and physical attributes." This is the third sentence of the page. I feel it should be "The dog was the first species to be domesticated [...]" as this tense is more correct when describing what a first of something was. 27.131.42.126 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC) (public organization IP).[reply]

 Done GMGtalk 10:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not only the dog WAS the first domesticate, but it still IS the first domesticate, unless you can provide the name of its replacement. William Harris • (talk) • 07:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@William Harris. Why are you using the verb "domesticate" as a noun? The proper noun is "domestication". If something "was the first to be domesticated", then it still is and will always be, unless someone changes history, which isn't implied in any way. We are not talking about the "first lady" here or some annual ranking. The difference between "is" and "was" is that "is" reads like from a newspaper article discussing a novel invention. "Was" should be used as the domestication of canis lupus occurred a very long time ago. 104.234.248.55 (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A domesticate is an organism that has gone through the process of domestication. Plantdrew (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User 104.234.248.55 - look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary. William Harris • (talk) • 11:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we arguing over this? The passage says "was...domesticated" which is grammatically correct. I'm not sure it should use "is a domesticate" at all, which is comparatively archaic wording and fairly obvious how it would be easily confusing for readers, even if it's technically correct. GMGtalk 12:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no argument. An editor asked why I used the correct term "domesticate" and told us that in his view its usage is incorrect, and I replied. At no stage did I propose the use of the term domesticate, that is your assumption. The word is often used in the domestication literature. William Harris • (talk) • 20:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

207.28.100.93 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


it's a dog

 Done No request was made. GMGtalk 19:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specific point and general request

Diet - the section on diet says that all-meat diet is not recommended because it's low in iron. Animal flesh being low in iron is ludicrous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron#Food_sources This should be looked into and changed. The reference is to a wayback machine storage of a site that is not a scientific reference in the first place, very shady stuff. It's a heavily used reference in the article, and I think that looks odd given the fact that it appears to be a special interest site rather than a scientific one. 98.184.198.24 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

Dogs Are The worst Pet 71.115.226.62 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not done because dogs rule No, that'd be cats, Because Dogs rule. In all seriousness, though: Please state your request in a "please change X to Y because Z" format or "please add X in Y location because Z" format, giving a reason that is based on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources or on site policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dog&oldid=829777729"