Talk:Dog/Archive 1

message: I'm goign to be going through and cleaning up and shortening certain areas. For example, Working Dogs has its own page, so it is redundant to include all of that information on this page. I am also going reorder some areas of the page just for better continuity. Information will only be omitted if it is redundant or if it is better summarized in another article and the link is directly established. I'll summarize major changes here when I'm finished. Thanks --Waterspyder 14:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone be horribly offended If I moved the majority of the terminology to the page on Dog Breeding? --Waterspyder 15:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size cleanup 

message: The article refers to dogs as omnivorous. It is true that they sometimes eat foods other than meat and that in some species those foods can form a substantial part of the diet. However, dogs are belong to the order Carnivora and are officially carnivorous. If dogs can cross-breed with wolves, they'd better be in the same order. Probably the canid with the least meat in its diet is the fox, if we're going to quibble. Bears are Carnivora although they eat quite a variety of foods. Remember that animals can secondarily develop different modes of life, but that doesn't change their evolutionary history: they have the teeth and inheritance of a carnivore. 
The cross-reference should go to Carnivore or, better yet, to Carnivora, both of which refer plainly to diet vs. taxonomy, unlike the entry for Omnivore. 
*P.S. A series of fossil discoveries in the 1990s showed that whales developed from a meat-eating hoofed animal (artiodactyl, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Even-toed_ungulate).
 Monado 10 April 2005
: Sometimes dietary habits change over tens of thousands of years. Yes, dogs are and always will be part of Order Carnivora. This does not necessarily make them carnivorous persay. This distinction actually requires that the animal must be able to survive on meat alone. An obligate carnivore means that the animal must absolutely have meat or it will die. Evidence suggests that dogs actually require a combination of meat and plant material in order to be healthy. --Waterspyder 19:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that cats are nearly exclusively carnivorous, but not quite entirely. I've known many cats that like the occasional bit of fruit, and some with rather odd tastes in vegetables, such as a great fondness for olives.--RLent 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: Isn't the scientific name now refered to as just Canis familiaris, without the lupus?  Canis lupus is the name for the gray wolf - so isn't "Canis lupus familiaris" saying that the domestic dog is a subspecie of the gray wolf?  I have learned in school that the scientific name is indeed just Canis familiaris.  Perhaps a note about the differing opinions on the scientific name should be included in the article?  Shadowlink1014 19:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific name

message: Consider: adding * "Did Animals Sense Tsunami Was Coming?"  Ieopo 23:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: The article implies that wolves are dogs.  Isn't this false in any sense?  They're both canines, but they aren't both dogs.  (Is there an older or specialized sense of "dog"?  If so, it shouldn't be the first one listed.)
In fact, it's the other way around: dogs are wolves. It's just that there are far more dogs than wolves. Dogs are unquestionably descended from wolves that adapted to the presence of early Man. However successful dogs are as a species, they are quite recent in origin. They are all a mere 10,000 years away from being wild wolves. Dogs and wolves interbreed easily so long as differences of size don't preclude mating.
Wasn't there a controversy a few decades ago about whether dogs were descended from wolves or from hyenas? Genetic evidence has settled it in favour of wolves, but it might be interesting to mention the hyena theory...?   --JamieHall 23:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading about dogs for many years (only a few decades) and don't remember ever seeing anything about this. If someone can find a solid reference for this, certainly would be worth citing.  Elf | Talk 00:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE Hyenas are NOT canids, therefore it is not possible. Hyenas are actually more akin to cats then to dogs, according to the systematic. I don't know who might have stated such a thing, but it most certainly is moot. --Arny 19:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hang on. The Australian Cattle Dog is descended from Dingos, but Dingos are descended from domestic dogs that have gone wild! Shurely shome mishtake. 57.66.51.165 15:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. Dogs have been domesticated for somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years.  There's a lot of room in there for some dogs to be domesticated, then left alone to become feral and then pretty much wild again, then selectively bred again for domestication, then left alone to become feral, then redomesticated....  It takes only a few generations of really careful selective breeding to end up with a pretty typical domestic dog, and since dogs can breed annually at least--.  Elf | Talk 23:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dogs vs wolves

message: I have a picture of a dog that can be used, but what is the size of the picture have to be? - fonzy
thumb|left|150px|This puppy is part German Sheperd part yellow Labrador retriever.
There is still a request for a dog pix on the main page. Would this one work?
(Copy "Image" designation and remove "_Thumb" to get a larger image. 
Patrick0Moran 04:12, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's hard to tell the breed of an adult dog, it's even harder to make guesses about puppies: They're all short-haired, fuzzy,  round-faced, and flop-eared.  I've left a note on the photographer's talk page asking to clarify, but I have no reason to doubt the statement.  Elf | Talk 02:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remember laughing my ass off at a commercial here in Canada for toilet paper, where they had a Golden Retriever Mommy, and then her puppies... which were all puppy Cocker Spaniels.
--Waterspyder 21:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: To put a pic on the left just put in a  left command, ie
, SqueakBox 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Left oriented pictures tend to break up the flow of text with sentences sometimes starting in the middle of the page. The right margin makes them neat, particularly when the photos are consistent width. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: "Adult Female Cockadoodle"? Perhaps I'm exhibiting ignorance, but I do have interest in dog breeds and this is the first time I run across this particular one. Google cross-referencing only turns up a Tom & Jerry episode named Cockadoodle Dog. And if not the breed, what does "Cockadoodle" exactly refer to? In case it is the name of that particular dog, my vote is for putting the breed instead of that... --AceMyth 05:36, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Cockadoodle?

message: The last edit by Elf is seemingly a good one.  but information has been lost.  What happened to Trophallaxis, e.g.?  Can I revert?  Paul Beardsell 03:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Never mind

message: Thinks to add: dog vision, I'm told they see in black and white, is this true, if so can somebody add it to the article?  
The article mentions the effect of feeding a dog chocolate, maybe we could add the effect of alcohol.
I did. --66.231.38.91 20:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Black & white is an old belief; recent info is that they see color but are red-green colorblind.  If I can find more info perhaps I'll add it to the article. I don't have details about alcohol; presumably it has the same effect as it does on people, but because dogs are smaller, it would take a much smaller amount to be toxic.  Something else to research. Elf | Talk 21:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions and removals

message: The page needs technical references to some parts (example: "Intelligence" -> Kaminski paper; "diseases" -> medical papers; "sense of direction"). The way it's currently written doesn't sound too serious.  (anon. user  200.161.219.103 8/1/04)
:This article is more of an overview. References to detailed info about diseases would be better on individual disease articles; if there were an article on canine intelligence (which would be nice to have), someone could add detailed references if desired, but probably not here--as it is, this does mention Kaminski. If you had more info to add to sense of direction and external links to references, that would be fine, too. Elf | Talk 23:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs references 

message: I'm loathe to revert since I believe the user was trying to do an important fix.  I've requested that user Ardonik put the caption back. Quill 00:00, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption deleted from Elkhound photo 

message: Someone just replaced mixed-breed dog with mongrel.  The latter is considered pejorative, a change for the worse with no particular technical advantage.  I had a mixed-breed "Italian husky", that is brown-eyed, and I never called her a mongrel, even though I frequently called her a mutt.  Ortolan88 20:31, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always preferred mutt to mongrel--the latter does seem to have acquired a pejorative inference, although technically I believe it's the most correct term for very-mixed breeds.  Mixed-breed dog is probably a much more recent coinage and preference, and I don't really know how widespread it is outside the U.S. or Britain.  HOWEVER, we did end up with the article about these dogs at mixed-breed dog, in part to avoid the negative connotation of the other words but also in part because mutt and mongrel are both disambig pages, so to have such pages for dogs, it would have to be mutt (dog) or mongrel (dog) which aren't the most optimum titles.  ANYWAY, mostly because that's the article name, I readjusted that paragraph in this article to emphasize the mixed-breed terminology.  Elf | Talk 21:31, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixed breed vs mongrel vs mutt

message: ...dogs are not human beings, and thus it isn't sexist to have this article at Dog based on what the second paragraph of this article says. 66.245.69.5 00:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a good thing that... 

message: I don't know why anyone is using ; it looks like about a 4-point font on my screen, as if the default font in the display wasn't small enough.  I removed it and used a different format that I've seen in some other areas.  However, in the WikiProject:Dog breeds, we use all thumbnails; the goal was to make it clear that someone can click on the image and see a larger one, which information one loses w/out the thumbnail, plus the thumb allows captions which otherwise one has to go through contortions to get.  I've left off the <wiki>|thumb|</nowiki> again for the moment, but I'd really like to see it put back.  Elf | Talk 01:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The thumb gives a clear indication that the full size image is available to view (and, as the photographer, obviously I would like the full image viewed to show off my work ;).  I also think the image looks better with the border.  And the caption is easier to place and better formatted with "thumb" too -- sannse (talk) 10:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption

message: This has been added--I removed it because (a) the topic is covered elsewhere (mixed-breed dog) and (b) it's just not true--then it was readded:
"" Pure-bred dog shows notwithstanding, mixed breed dogs often combine the best qualities of the breeds mixed and are usually heathier than purebred dogs. Even prize winning purebred dogs are sometimes the victim of crippling genetic defects due to inbreeding."
To be true, it would have to read:
:" Pure-bred dog shows notwithstanding, mixed breed dogs sometimes combine the best qualities of the breeds mixed, although sometimes they combine the worst, and are sometimes healthier than purebred dogs, although sometimes they are not. Even prize winning purebred dogs are sometimes the victim of crippling genetic defects due to inbreeding, but then, so are mixed-breed dogs."
This ends up being a nonstatement.  There's no evidence except  anecdotal that I'm aware of that says that mixed-breed dogs are "usually" healthier than purebred.  This needs to come out for both reasons.  If there is empirical evidence somewhere contrary to what I've seen and experienced, I'd like to see it referenced and the info needs to go into the mixed-breed article, not here.  Elf | Talk 02:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear.  Moreover, inbreeding does not cause genetic defects; rather, it increases the likelihood of genetic pairings, good and bad.Quill 04:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I still disagree that mixed-breeds are *usually* healthier than purebreds. If that's a direct quote from your source, it seems irresponsible on his part. I've just been through a dozen books looking for any statistics or anything that definitive statements, and I found a couple who said something like "hybrid theory is a nice theory but it's still just a theory" and most who say essentially that inbreeding of purebreds has resulted in an increased incidence of genetic problems--some mention behavioral, some mention physical.  That still falls a long way short of mixed breeds "usually" being healthier than purebreds.  Of all the books I checked, one says that the easiest way to avoid genetic problems is to adopt a mixed breed.  That still doesn't say that they're usually healther--all that says to me is that, if you have  (pick a number out of a hat) 10 purebreds, 2 of which have genetic problems, and 10 mixes, 1 of which has genetic problems, your odds are better by picking a mixed breed. But that's not "usually" healthier.  Elf | Talk 16:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: addition of info about mixed breeds

message: :Thanks. I'm not upset about that. Just trying to make sure that the article is accurate.  In that light: Fred, please stop putting incorrect "usually" back into "'Mixed-breed dog are dogs that do not belong to specific breeds, **usually** being mixtures of two or more."  I've removed it for the 3rd time. Are you saying that mixed-breed dogs sometimes aren't mixed-breed dogs???  Elf | Talk 21:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm rereading the edit history and see your comment "Not all dogs are descended from a purebred dog of any breed" which I misinterpreted earlier, too. So I apologize.  But that's not what this sentence says. I think then you're saying that "mongrel or mutt also refers to dogs that are not descended from a purebred dog of any breed, which might be the case in some countries with a large feral dog population"?? Something like that.  But mixed-breed dogs are always mixed breeds! :-)  Elf | Talk 21:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: A pack of starving voracious feral Chihuahuas is a scary thought. You'd have to wear ankle protection every time you ventured into the wilderness.  BTW, mutt and mongrel do sometimes have a negative connotation mainly because of people's aforementioned fascination with purebreds.  I do prefer to call my dogs mixed breeds.   They are, however, perfectly valid words that can be used for mixed breeds or any dog of uncertain ancestry.  This is an encyclopedia, after all.   Per websters in regards to dogs, Mutt = mongrel dog; Mongrel=an individual resulting from the interbreding of diverse breeds or strains, esp one of unknown ancestry.  Per OED, Mongrel = a dog of no definable beed, resulting from various crossings; Mutt: Oddly enough, not in my copy? Is this In neither case does it define them as being insulting terms for the dogs; only for people.  Elf | Talk 18:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Usually

message: Excellent info, but too much for here.
I would much rather see the information added to the article on working dogs.  This particular article can't be all things to all people--er--dogs.
Quill 07:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogs as Working Partners 

message: This section has run amock as well.  It now reads as if everyone's pet pooch is a canine timebomb.  Much of the cautionary information applies to strange dogs (strange as in 'unknown', not 'peculiar').
For example, one should be able to take food from one's own dog--a dangerous item, for example, and one's own dog should be trained to allow it.
Quill 08:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I think a distinction should be made if this is being added to the article. Quill 23:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangers 

message: Article could benefit from some information on how dogs interact with other pets, especially cats, since it is fairly common to have dogs and cats (and possibly other pets) together in one household. —Lowellian (talk) 04:41, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
The manner in which dogs interact with cats varies considerable, from violence to playfulness. I do not think anything definitive could be placed here on that subject. --HighInBC 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dogs and cats

message: Since this article quickly becomes too long, I would like to see the new additions in this section moved to their own entries. We already have an article on setters e.g.; anything new should be merged.  Quill 22:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogs as Sporting Partners 

message: Fools rush in, but I am starting an article on dog training.  Plenty of opportunities for all to giv their favorite theories, etc.  Ortolan88
:You're a brave & unsung hero. Thanks for plunging in!  Elf | Talk 02:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting article on dog training

message: I added the link to the Poison Control Center to the section on Dangerous Foods rather than External Links because I felt that it should be easy for readers to find in the event of an emergency. Although Wikipedia is probably not the best source in cases of possible poisoning, I think it probable that at least a few people will end up at this section. The ASPCA site has a lot of good, authorative info, and although it is not free ($50.00 US), its telephone service can be a literal life saver. Dsurber 20:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center 

message: I've found one book (The Dog, David Alderton) that says that dogs & humans hear down to about 20 Hz  (and dogs up to 100 KHz); another book (The New Dog Handbook, Hans-J. Ullman), says dogs hear 70Hz to 100KHz.  Another book (The Complete Dog Owner's Manual', Amy Marder, VMD) says  only "dogs are able to hear sounds of much higher frequency than humans--50,000 to 60,000 cycles per second compared to 20,000 cps" in humans.  Not quite a rhetorical question: Why the variations in highs and lows? Does it depend on the breed? I'm adjusting the text for the futz factor until/unless we can answer this question. Elf | Talk 14:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dogs hearing range

message: Quote from 'Dogs as Pets': "Dogs are quite dependent on human companionship and may suffer poor health without it."
What evidence is there of this?  If there is evidence, is any of it conclusive enough to warrant speaking of it as a scientific fact?
:Um, compared to, say, an unscientific fact? ;-)   Good question.  If/when I have time, I'll go in search of supporting info.  It's certainly true in the case of many oddly modified breeds who wouldn't  be able to hunt or reproduce without human assistance--some can't even swim (and don't really know it) because of the way they're built.  But whether that's generally true for all dogs--hmm.  Elf | Talk 00:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It not that dogs as a species cannot live without humans, but rather that individual dogs can develop great emotional bonds with their companions, and when separated from them, they can emotionally suffer. I don't think this is a scienfic fact, I've always thought it was common knowledge. --Berkut 08:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know, they say that a pet rabbit lives for only a few days if its released into the wild by its owner.  My question is, how do you know, unless you release a bunch of pet bunnys into the woods and count the bodies?  I think a better way to say this would be "emperically, it appears that dogs are dependent on humans...."
JMHO... 166.20.114.10 19:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: What occurs is that dogs are pack animals and they require a pack. If dogs are isolated from humans, and from other dogs, they will literally pine away and die from lonliness for lack of a better term. Dogs need a pack (human or animal) for good psychological health. --Waterspyder 13:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogs are dependent on humans? 

message: It needs a section on distemper for the medical piece, just something small, if somebody knows enough to write a quick summary. Gzuckier 03:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs section on distemper 

message: Not that I personally disagree, but my sense is that the section titled "Carnivore or omnivore" shows some political bias in terms of vegetarianism.  I probably wouldn't think twice about a little, subtle vegetarian advocacy in some paragraphs about a dog's diet, but imo bringing up vegan as a dietary option for dogs without getting into facts isn't thorough encyclopedia-ing.  Conventional wisdom and a lot of science support high meat-content diet for dogs.  While I don't doubt that with conscientious & knowledgeable management a person could safely put their dog on a vegan diet, it's not the norm.  The section doesn't discuss more specific and factual issues like ingredients and nutrition in different feed options, or how animals that are taxonomically carnivores naturally utilize plant foods in their diets.  The way the section reads now smacks vaguely of pamphleteering.
I don't mean to just complain and not do something about it, but I'm not familiar yet with the wikiConventions of editing and discussing issues like this.  Thanks.  --Erielhonan 08:50:34, 2005-07-30 (UTC)
:Yes, the section is obscenely biased and silly. I have lightly edited it to remove the most outrageous vegetarian advocacy. I tend to think the entire section should be removed, but I'm a little hesitant to do that without more input. Even if it stays I would really like someone to confirm the section's assertion that dogs "require a large proportion" of vegetables and grains in their diet. Sounds like vegan fantasy talk to me, but I could be wrong.
::The section can be improved by discussing the carnivorous and herbivorous nature of dogs without pushing propaganda. By discussing their diet and their nutritional requirements, this end could be achieved. I don't think there is a problem with this section per se; I think that by discussing their diet and nature more objectively, this section could be made more encylopedic and relevant.Rintrah 05:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly feel that dogs are omnivorous... page on omnivores lists domestic dogs as an omnivore. According to my understanding of the term, an animal that can subist exclusively on meat OR vegetables would surely qualify as an omnivore, not a carnivore. Comments? --Waterspyder 02:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carnivore or omnivore 

message: Yes there are dogs bred for fighting, but that is close to the least valuable thing dogs have been bred to do. It certainly doesn't need to be the first item in the list of "See Also"s. This article is already over twice the recommended length. Two links to to dog fighting is too many and given the length of the article, there isn't room for even one. If a reader cares about dog fighting he/she can type "dog fighting" into the search box and get all the information anyone should want. So I reverted the changes by WritersCramp. Dsurber 04:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fighting Dog Breeds

message: I see no relevence that these have to the article other than their names, would it be suitable to remove these? does anybody have any objections? Tekana 21:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about that.  - Trysha 06:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doggy style and Dogging  

message: Dogs do not require large amounts of grain or vegetables in the diet (as said in the article). A very small amount is benecficial though.  Many commercial dog food are grain based however, not because it is required or healthier, but because it makes the food cheaper to  produce.
*Most commercial dog foods have bone meal which has high levels of phosphorous. That is not good for a dog's kidneys. Having had one dog who had to have stones removed from commercial food I know that. Many vets will tell you to be careful what your dog is given to eat.202.139.41.202 23:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grains and Vegetables 

message: "Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole."  Roger Caras  Paul 05:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a quote

message: It says:
:"Although most dogs are not inherently aggressive (unless they are feral, trained to attack intruders, threatened, or provoked), it is important to remember that they are predatory by nature and instinct is something that never disappears."
This sentence is self-contradictory. If "they are predatory by nature and instinct is something that never disappears" then they are inherently aggressive. It may be suppressed some, most or even all of the time, but they're still inherently aggressive. --Q4 10:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've improved the wording a bit, at least now the sentence agrees with itself. --Q4 11:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Background for aggression

message: This page shows their conservation status as Domesticated, which is not listed on conservation status..
It should read Secure. I'll change it. --Waterspyder 04:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domesticated? 

message: I'm a Shih-Tzu owner who wants to know, are female Shih-Tzu's larger then male Shih-Tzu's?
: Most canine breeds exhibit various degrees of sexual dimorphism. In dogs this tends to be that on average, males are larger than females. This being said, there are always exceptions. I would say, as a rule, female Shih-Tzu's are probably not larger than the male, but you will find females who are indeed larger than the males. --Waterspyder 21:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Just wanna know

message: I just cleaned up the section on Reproduction to make it more readable since there is a ton of information in there, and I broke it up under fertility, menarche, etc... why was it reverted?
Most of the original information was still there...--Waterspyder 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the mistake, I've restored and merged the edits. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 19:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem about the mistake, but can we discuss changes in here. I think you've gone through and reverted most of my edits. I'm not saying my rationale was the correct one necessarily, but I think we should voice our actions here. It's getting a little messy on the page right now IMHO. --Waterspyder 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: LOL! I'd say not. Elf | Talk 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction 

message: I just copied that out as it was. I think it's a rural thing (Canada and US). --Waterspyder 19:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen it eaither, but I live in urban Canada. I hear about cruel things like this happening, people get upset when the media reports it, but for the most part, it's happening in places where no one is around to notice or it's simply considered practical by the community. I as a city-dweller can't fathom the day to day issues faced by a rural farmer plagued by dogs trying to kill my livelihood. --Waterspyder 19:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abandoned Dogs 

message: Is there, anywhere in Wikipedia, a list of the known or official dog breeds? It'd be insane to add such a thing to this already-prodigous article, but purhaps there should be a "Dog Breeds" article. We could also shift some of the sections about canine physical appearance from here to there, allowing us to shorten this one.
Just a thought.
--Zech, Nov 1, 4:17pm
: There is an article on Dog breeding in existence with like nothing on it. A listing of dog breeds and all that terminology would be so much better over there. I proposed a move, but no one answered --Waterspyder 20:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breeds of Dogs 

message: I'm having a hard time with this sentence under the section heading 'Reproduction': "The act of reproduction between dogs rarely occurs without human intervention."  Dogs make puppies quite well without people and need only a little in-attention to preform this feat. Perhaps this section refers entirely to the purebreed focused dog loving community? TomCerul 14:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there's no stopping them! -Bonalaw 10:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes, but it could still use some work. TomCerul 16:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction needs humans? 

message: This article is getting more and more pictures every day. People are keen to show off their pets, it seems. Kid Apathy 19:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's maybe only one additional photo since I last looked at it back in October. Pretty much the photos that were there seemed to illustrate the ideas in the adjacent paragraphs. Elf | Talk 20:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Have you noticed...?

message: There are far too many images in this article; I'd advise at least five to be removed. The fair use code is also being violated. --DrippingInk 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: See where it says; 
"domesticated for at least 24,800 years and perhaps for as long as 150,000 years based on recent evidence."
What evidence is there on that? I thought dogs were domesticated at least 10,000 BCE just a few thousand years before modern civilization. Earlier than thought nomadic tribes had eaten any substance found (including dogs, horses, ect..) I don't thing cave dwellers (cave men) would have pets in prehistoric times.
See human evolution--King of the Dancehall 01:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in one of the references listed--dang, it was listed here somewhere. Made lots of news reports maybe a year ago that genetic evidence showed that domestic dog had split off from wolf tremendously longer ago than previously thought. "Pet" wouldn't be the word for it. Hunting companion or guard dog or both more likely.  Elf | Talk 04:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The beginning Article

message: How are grapes dangerous to dogs?  I've seen dogs eat grapes on a few occasions without ill effects.  What's the danger?  Citizen Premier 18:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always let my dogs have some, too, but not no more. See Dog_health#Dangerous_foods; there's info on the web, too, if you go looking. Apparently it's only been recently determined.  Elf | Talk 20:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I suppose it's mostly a threat to smaller dogs, but it's still good to be careful.  Citizen Premier 18:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grapes? 

message: this article should maybe mention about how the hadith says about they are unclean. i dont know the specifics.
:It's currently mentioned at the end of the introductory section. Clicking the link to unclean brings up a bit more info. I don't believe that anything more is required. Elf | Talk 20:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam and dogs

message: This article has no information on this.  I'd like to know why.  DyslexicEditor 23:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dogs eat poop because they like poop.  Too bad I don't have any references on it... --Dschor 23:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: See coprophagia.  Theories abound. Can get there from here through  dog health link; not sure it's really worth a mention in this article. Elf | Talk 03:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I asked my dog; he said "doesn't everybody?" Gzuckier 03:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My puppy did for a while until it kept making her throw up. Now she rolls in it daily. I am *tired* of hosing off a struggling 11-month-old daily in the sub-freezing morning in my bathrobe in the yard...   Elf | Talk 03:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha!  Just be glad you don't live in the country, where opportunities for rolling in cow dung and horse manure abound.  Quill 23:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Dogs eat poop to remind us they are disgusting. ;-) Seriously though, the dogs can extract nutrition from feces, because many animals many animal's digestive systems are inefficient, and their feces contain partially digested nutrients.--RLent 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do dogs eat poop? 

message: This sentence:  In February 2004, the Canine Studies Institute in Aurora, Ohio, arranged recognized breeds of dogs into ten categories. 
is not useful unless someone actually goes on to explain what the categories are.  Quill 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. I know nothing.  Elf | Talk 02:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  breed types? 

message: Why on earth is Kennel Club Books, a borderline (commercial advert?) stub, listed at the top of reference material here?  Many more established and better known groups have breed series, one might as well list the RSPCA or the breed clubs' own books for the ...for Dummies series.  I'm removing it; if someone can add a comprehensive dog reference book for Kennel Club Books, then that's fine.  Quill 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. I don't know.  Elf | Talk 02:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I nominated Kennel Club Books for deletion,  it looks like quasi-spam to me.   Maybe not though, it really is borderline. - Trysha (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup, they do, and if someone uses that book as a reference, it shd be listed. The issue here was more that an entire publisher is listed as a reference, rather than a specific book in their product line.  Elf | Talk 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  book references 

message: "It has been argued the dog has been domesticated for 12,000 years, but perhaps for as long as 150,000 years based on recent genetic evidence."
This is just plain wrong. Both the fossil evidence and the DNA evidence give the age at 15,000 years ago. Please cite sources . "Weasel phrases" such as "It has been argued", or "some say", are always a red flag for me that I am about to read utter nonsense. What do you think?
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that when I wrote the original form of that and added appropriate references in the References and external links sections, it still wasn't common in wikipedia to add footnotes to references. I don't remember whether I wrote the text as it is now, but I have now added a footnote to the appropriate reference (and there might be more, but that's the one I remember noting).  Elf | Talk 07:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestication 

message: Somebody better find an Administrator to Protect the article, there is to much vandalism !~ SirIsaacBrock 03:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection works only if there's a short-term spate of vandalism occurring; this page for some reason has always been a popular target of every new kid who comes along. Maybe "dog" is easy for them to spell. ;-)  So we can't really protect it, because then no one would ever be able to edit it.  It would also be worthwhile if it were, say, the main page (which it isn't), or the day's featured article (but again, just for  a day or so).  It is on the Most vandalized pages list, so lots of people are watching the page all the time and most vandalism is caught within minutes. It's just something we need to live with.  Elf | Talk 18:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it requires to be semi-protected  SirIsaacBrock 18:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As much as it would be nice to protect pages that lots of people edit badly, the problem is also that...lots of people edit them, and sometimes the edits are useful, and page protection is generally considered to be harmful because it discourages new users. I checked the page histories of a few articles in Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages and this isn't any worse than most of them.  Elf | Talk 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check War of 1812 it stopped the chronic vandalism cold !  Remember semi-protect still allows edits, just stops the compulisive obsessive spammer. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy#Clarifying about long-term random vandalism. Elf | Talk 04:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Protection

message: What do we have to say about Konrad Lorenz's belief that the dog originates from the golden jackal? --Smack (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all my years of reading about dogs, and particularly about all the recent DNA research, there's never been any indication that I've seen that jackals have anything to do with dogs or wolves.  Elf | Talk 17:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: Why isn't this a featured article? It is not even nominated! At least mark this as a good article, this article is great. It just needs a little improvement to be good enough to be featured. Pseudoanonymous 01:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was nominated at one time but there was a huge to-do list and/or list of objections--see the link in the box at the top of this page going to the peer review discussion.  I haven't looked at the list lately to see whether we've gotten a lot closer; there's still a lot of stuff here that needs to be reorg'd & tied better with other related articles (e.g., huge section on dog breeds--I suspect that it needs to be summarized & most info put into dog breed article but I haven't done so yet).  Elf | Talk 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Good article? 

message: IMHO some statistical information about the average number of dogs per human should be in the article. 213.132.254.2 01:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Can you find a reliable source for such a number?  Elf | Talk 02:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog Population 

message: It seems to me that the lab was selected because it's a very common dog breed and therefore one most commonly seen by people in many parts of the world. The point here isn't to be "unusual"; it's to illustrate the concept. Please discuss change here before doing it again. It's possible that it needs to be changed to some other illustration, perhaps one that's a superb example of a dog photo, but I'd like to see arguments why.  Elf | Talk 23:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that was my bias speaking; I believe it's the most common in the US and very close to the top in the UK and I'm sorry I didn't do my research better beyond that. :-/  Elf | Talk 00:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main photo for article