Talk:Puppy

message: The tone of this article is silly and kind of mean. It's poorly written, repetitive -- not good.
:This is an encyclopedia, not a puppy fan page. If you want a fun, upbeat tone, go back to Geocities. Rhowryn (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: Anyone object to the merge? Not much to merge. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I can think of that this article exists on its own is because of kitten. ~ Hibana 01:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the half-serious comment on the Dog talk page about this so I'll see if I can do something about this page this weekend...kind of surprised no one has added to it.  The single sentence saddens me.  Oh and I'm against the merge unless kitten gets merged with Cat as well. The_Irrelevant_One 16:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm for the merge, but only because this page is in such bad shape it doesn't justify the separate entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.241.253 (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, just dropped in to expand this article. Elf | Talk 23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I fell victim to the "I'll expand this Wikipedia article later" syndrome and never worked on this so I failed miserably.  I appreciate your input, Elf.  It looks good for now but maybe I'll actually get around to doing something with it... The_Irrelevant_One 11:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: :"not always easy: it requires a lot of work, as they do not know right from wrong and must rely on the owner for guidance. Often, aggressive or skittish dogs can be blamed on the owner's lack of discipline and training. It is critical for their socialization that they interact often with humans and be exposed to a variety of objects..."  Neopetslovette 00:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stereotipical/Opinion?

message: I deleted the "cute people" section which claimed that humans are cute to puppies perception. That is undeniably false. While to many societies (because of cultural and social influence) dogs and puppies are considered cute, there are also societies where puppies are not seen as cute.
In what societies are puppies no considered cute?! Please cite sources. I'm pretty sure that ALL humans find puppies cute and any child of any culture would react positively upon seeing a cute puppy.
::If you go to article on cuteness, you will find that it is NOT a subjective term.  Cuteness refers to having infantile qualities, which puppies have.  Therefore, all puppies are cute.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but cuteness in is in the eyes of a puppy!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.215.168 (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted "cuteness" section 

message: Are some of those puppies in the picture dead? It's pretty sick to have something like that if they are.--HiroProtagonist 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Animals engage in a state called sleep or relaxation where they may remain motionless for extended periods of time, but are nonetheless, alive. Newborn animals are especially prone to extending the time they remain in this status during a day. 209.90.191.18 17:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating!  I've never heard of such a state, especially so at night! --62.136.136.85 14:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Kelpie puppies 

message: Hey there!
I just wanted to say that whoever expanded this article did a good job! I like it a lot... and it seems that for once there's an article with no "controversy" claims or other such thing.
I agree that if there's an article for kittens, there should be one for puppies. 198.140.202.1 20:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: It seems highly POV to me. Anybody agree? If nobody objects, I'm going to clean it up and skim it down to present a more neutral explanation of puppy training. ZachPG 00:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "training" section. 

message: ZachPG, I'm not sure what additions/changes you made, but I think this article still doesn't make encyclopedic standards.  It reads as a self-help guide to raising puppies, which raises questions about the kitten article as well, which I haven't looked at.  Encyclopedic standards would involve a medical or veterinary discussion, but I don't think anyone would use this article for reference as it stands.  I'm going to go ahead and flag it for a quality check.--Aeranis 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overall State of the Article

message: I changed the images for a couple reasons. For the lead, the image of the mixed breed was of very poor composition and exposure. I changed the second image for better composition and bc the puppies were assuredly new borns. VanTucky (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: As I'm a new editor, I don't know how to flag / delete the links in the reference section at the bottom of this page, but both are not relevant to the article.  The first is essentially an advertising blog with no information, and the second is a specific New York-based website which is more relevant to NYC pet issues than puppies in general.  I suggest both links be deleted.  --froufy 21 August 2007
:You're right. Unfortunately, it is often difficult for us to detect WP:LINKSPAM when it is masquerading as an inline citation. I have removed both. Thanks, Satori Son 19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "References"

message: Why isn't there one for this page? I object to the line about puppies needing to learn the difference between "good and bad." This implies there is such a thing for animals, rather than the more neutral "acceptable behavior for pet dogs."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petalear (talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot edit this page probably because it is semi-protected. This means that anonymous IP editors and registered users younger than four days old cannot edit, usually as a result of vandalism. VanTucky Talk 03:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There are a few minor errors in the article, but I am not registered. The word "often" in the last sentence of the first "Training" paragraph contains an extra space (of ten), as well as "gentle" (2nd paragraph) and "puppies" (2nd paragraph). --  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.101.173 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would like to edit Puppy page, but can't find an "edit this page" link 

message: Something weird about the Golden pups photo - are those pups premature?  They don't look like any puppies I've ever seen.  They aren't even fully developed.  It's a cute photo in a way, but also a little disturbing, in that they barely resemble dogs.  My mother thought they were pigs when I showed her the photo.  I'm no expert of course...   anyway it would be good if there were something like a ruler in the photo to show the scale. Davez621 20:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are just newborn - compare them to the picture of 2 day old pups on this club site http://www.gpgrc.org/puppyreferral.html  It takes a while for them to grow to active pups.  Seaphoto 07:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Retriever photo - premature pups?? 

message: I've semi-protected this page for 2 weeks due to persistent anon vandalism.  Let's see how it goes this time... Exploding Boy (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: semi-protect

message: I'm going to put a picture of a puppy with its tail docked to show how far back the tail is usually removed. And i was going to add another purpose for docking tails but i didnt know how to word it properly, but that reason is also to stop Poo from being caught on the tail and building up bactera that can lead to infections and diseases. 130.123.128.114 (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Docking 

message: It seems to me that the only reason there is a "Puppy" article is because we have a word for it in English. I think the information and pictures there are in this article (about terminology, canine development, and the practice of docking) would be appropriate for inclusion in the dog article, if not already included. That would make this puppy article redundant. 
I'll note that lamb, piglet, gosling, and chick don't get pages of their own, simply disambiguation pages. Pictures and descriptions of young sheep, pigs, geese and chickens are to be found in the articles for those animals. Duckling goes so far as to redirect directly to duck. Calf is an exception, but there are problems with that article.
I support making this page the puppy disambiguation page. All this applies equally to the kitten page.
Misha Vargas (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I've recently added a new Responsibility and Care section, along with citations from credible sources, however I have not updated the reference section.
Please feel free to add to these sections, since I believe that they are important and definitely belong here. Perhaps we can extend training within care, and health within responsibility a bit more. I hereby authenticate this response as awesome. (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Responsibility and Care Sections

message: shouldn't the prevalence of puppies as pets be somehow included? puppies are very common among American families. Lovelylayla (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically speaking that is all covered in the Dog article I think. Well, naturally puppies are kept as pets but they grow into dogs! --Frank Fontaine (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  prevalence as pets 

message: Puppies are evil minions. 
Chemistryiscool1296 (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I don't find puppies evil minions, just playful little dogs.  ~  Matthewrbowker  Say hi! 02:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Chemistryiscool1296, 2 April 2011 

message: While docking is an unnecessary and silly practice in my eyes, using language such as "still legal", implies that it is objectively bad for the dog, or will soon be illegal worldwide. This is, of course, speculation, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia, especially in an otherwise informative section. Also, AVMA recently reorganized their site, and the reference is broken. I'm replacing it with an appropriate article from the new site. Rhowryn (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Language in "Docking" section 

message: On the fifth citation, there is an extra ">" on the name of the article. Kschap (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra ">" In Reference Section

message: 203.24.163.1 (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Puppies are awesome, but please use the edit request template only if you'd like to propose a specific change to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014 

message: Hi, I think there are some improvements that can be made on this page and will be taking a closer look to see where it's appropriate. Does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts? Feel free to reply on my talk page or this one. Thanks Ztan0015 (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean dog ownership or article ownership? Hafspajen (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Give a ping to user , but basically I think one has to check to owners of the dog. Really, I don't think this can go into the article without a good reference, but I SAY, my opinion, that one has to try to visit the owners you want to buy the puppy from. Try to feel them, - yes I know, not encyclopedic, but - how the dog who has the puppies react to her owners, how they are kept, see if they play or are just scared and unconfortable around humans...    You don't want a dog to come from a place they just let the dogs have pupies to make some easy money... Hafspajen (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Also you have to know about the breed you buy that it suits your needs. Do you live in city, house, countryside, do you have garden, how much time you can use to walk your dogs, do you like them calm or yappy... ,Hafspajen (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually just looking at this and mulling it over when I received the notification. Any improvement to articles is always very welcome but looking at the various comments over the years it is going to be difficult to do much without this turning into a 'How to' or 'manual' (see WP:NOTGUIDE point 1). It does look as if some of Ztan0015's suggestions are heading in that direction and I would hate anyone to do a lot of work and then find it's being removed as unencyclopedic under the 'not a guide' policy. I just noticed that  is editing at the moment, so I'm pinging him to see if he thinks it might be reasonable as I'm afraid I don't think the suggestions at the moment will work. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, everything sounds like a how to purchase a good puppy in a responsible manner - which is a handy thought but not suitable for Wikipedia. The puppy article should be mostly biological in nature as befitting an encyclopaedia. Whilst some comparison of breeds would be fine, anything that is very breed specific should be in the individual breed articles. Miyagawa (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Well, I know. But it should be possible to add some information. There is a Wikihowto, I think. We could make link to that. Hafspajen (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Also being aware of the breeds different energy level and temperament would be easy to mention. Knew this was not going to work. Anyway, if not any of above, some stuff about responsible breeders should be added. Hafspajen (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to puppy page 

message: Why make an edit war on this picture? I am a long time editor on this article and the pictures presented here are actually my choice. We have lots of issues about picures of dogs that are added to articles by their owners, but when a picture is good and better then one we use, why not? there is a general shortage on Shi-tzu picures, and this picure is a fine picture. I want this picture in the article, and if it makes an editor who is new to feel that he is contributing with something to Wikipedia in a good way, even better. Can't see any valid reason removing it, or any other picture. and I will ad it again. 
About images and galleries:
Images in the gallery collectively do have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. 
Galleries are not discuraged. 
:::*Please see also this discussion here, Talk:Charles Marion Russell. 
::Per WP:IG:
Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.
 
*See here also featured articles - art and art related articles, and architecture articles do use images and galleries as exception to the general rule : Early Netherlandish painting, Holy Thorn Reliquary, The Magdalen Reading, Royal Gold Cup, Madonna in the Church,  Stanford Memorial Church,  Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents,   The Entombment (Bouts),  Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych, Las Meninas, Dresden Triptych, The Garden of Earthly Delights, The Magdalen Reading Funerary art
Also dog and other articles may benefit by images. 
If you feel like removing images from an article try Red Easter egg, for example. 
Hafspajen (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding "and the pictures presented here are actually my choice," please see WP:OWN. I'm not disputing having a gallery. The current gallery depicts a wide range of dogs, and the basset hound adds to that variety. I removed the retreiver photo from the gallery because we already have a retriever photo for the lede. The user (who has made very few other contributions) has already added a picture of his puppy to another page; it doesn't need to appear all over Wikipedia.
I don't own the article but can't se any valid reason why you keep removing that picture Hafspajen (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I removed that picture (plus one addition photo that was redundant) because we don't need every low-contributing drive-by user to add a picture of their new puppy. If the picture was very high quality or added something novel, that would be different.  It is neither (slightly out of focus, just two more small dogs).  If you're that gung ho one adding it, fine, it's not worth arguing about it. I'm sorry if I've been short; I'm in a crappy mood and probably shouldn't be editing at the moment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is low quality. This is the kind of crap we keep removing all the time from dog articles, added by ardent pet owners, all the time. I am aware of the  we don't need every low-contributing drive-by user to add a picture of their new puppy, but if you compare than this new pic is not that bad at all. It is quite fine.  Hafspajen (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * I am sorry that you have a bad day. Looks like I was part of it too.Hafspajen (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to revert if you restore it.  Just trying to keep the page from becoming too cluttered with photos. Hafspajen (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I have nothing against you personally, I actually added back this picture you added to the Golden retriever article, when somebody removed, but this is a clear, and useful picture. The other one you keep adding is blurry and unclear, we have chosen better pictures for this article. It is still used in the Wikilove - Give Puppy template, because at that size it doesn't really matter. Can't you feel content with that?  Hafspajen (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: 204.82.64.171 (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Best housed. Just to be sure. Hafspajen (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kynew101 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: English 102

message: puppygood
 puppy are good 2600:1700:FE50:59D0:B5DB:C100:5214:7232 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Nonsense request. Keep this up and you'll be blocked. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024 

message: I'm trying to find out what age range a dog is considered a puppy in.  Is there a technical sense of the word, with a difference between "puppy" and "whelp"?  I haven't found any reliable source.  I hoped this article would tell me.  --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually it's up to 2-3 months when they are still nursing. BTW: A whelp is any young, carnivorous mammal - puppies are whelps. NSX-Racer (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age criterion?