Talk:Dog anatomy

message: Are three paragraphs regarding dewclaws really necessary? I'm sure if we eliminate trivial (read: most) information in that part, we could cut it down a great deal. 98.110.109.132 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dewclaw

message: The dog anatomy article and the dog odor article conflict in fact. One says that dogs do not sweat. The other says this is a common misconception. They both need to be updated with a citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.129.29 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sweating

message: This picture should be useful! 128.250.37.103 07:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose I figured this article would have both the inside and outside of a dog explained.  Looks like it is only half done. And, when I saw "dog topography" I just got this dumb look on my face, half cocked my head to the right and said "Hmmmm?" :)  — MrDolomite | Talk 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I don't think "dog topography" is a good alternative, but yes, this article should have a different title (my suggestion: "physical traits of dogs"). The opening statement--dog anatomy varies tremendously from breed to breed--is simply silly. Anatomy = parts, and all dogs have the same parts (unless they've been in an acident! What it calls "physical characteristics," are, in fact, anatomical characteristics, and the rest of the article deals with what would be more appropriately called different traits, not differences in anatomy.  208.59.171.104 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not about anatomy

message: I think we should merge this page to the main dog page. Also Point 7 on this diagram links to the disease 'Croup' in a child. This is a malaprop that is nothing to do with the anatomy of a dogs.From User:4444hhhh
Canine terminology moved to Canine terminology, leaving this page for anatomy.--Hafwyn (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergin 

message: What percent of dogs have missing front legs?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.71.141 (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogs 

message: It might be necessary to merge this article into the main dog anatomy article order to prevent it from being speedily deleted. This article nominated for speedy deletion only a couple of minutes after I created it, and I'm afraid that it will be permanently lost if we don't act soon enough. :( Jarble (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately, the page was moved, so no information has been lost. :) Jarble (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we salvage the ''[[dog skeleton]]'' article before it is deleted?

message: I discovered yesterday that this article exists and have nominated it for deletion. It seems overly specialized; any relevant content should be moved either to Dog anatomy or Canine reproduction. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only a short stub article, so it could be merged into this section. Jarble (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Canine penis]] article 

message: The last paragraph of the Vision section includes the sentence 'Dogs also show attraction to static visual images such as the silhouette of a dog on a screen, their own reflections, or videos of dogs', which has ambiguity in it (Are they attracted to static images of their own reflections? And static images of videos of dogs?). Obviously this needs rewording but I can't see a tidy way of doing so. 131.111.184.81 (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of vision section 

message: I removed this from the article:  
:Dogs have a temporal resolution of between 60 and 70 Hz.  This means that domestic dogs are unlikely to perceive modern TV screens in the same way as humans because these are optimized for humans at 50–60 Hz. 
By a miracle I was able to find this source on Google Books, [].  The above statements are not on page 140 or anywhere near, as far as I can tell.  Nowhere in the book is the text "70 hz" or "70hz" according to search.  This statement would further need support that vision can be measured in Hz in animals, and that animals with a higher "temporal resolution" can't view television.  HDTVs run at 60Hz or higher, currently; the 50 Hz reference (wherever it was sourced) may be a reference to the old PAL standard, which is no longer relevant.  I'm removing this.  Tarcil (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed two sentences about vision