From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
This is wikipedia, not yahoo. The "external links" should be used in rare cases when external sites contain useful, but copyrighted (and hence cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia) information; The "external links" should not become a huge list of every site that is about somehow relevant to dogs. The latest link added, supposedly to a very specific health problem (dry eyes) in dogs but actually on a cat site (!) - is a prime example of what should not be on the external links link. The link to the amstaf site is another good example - why link to this specific site and not to one of the other 100 breads? After all, there's a seperate dog breeds article, and perhaps even a separate amstaf page - so move that link there. I'm not bold enough to trim the link list myself because it appears that there are several frequent contributors to this article who are better knowledgable about the philosophy of this article. Nyh 14:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hasn't there been a change to calling the domestic dog canis lupis familiaris?
Daniel C. Boyer
Patrick0Moran 04:12, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
From a strict NPOV, couldn't both groups be described as "dog lovers"? (As in, "steak lovers" or "fish lovers".)
Seriously, this sentence might be better re-written, or deleted.
"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)
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)
Sorry. Paul Beardsell 03:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think the paragraph on chocolate is out of place. I appreciate the intent of the author to try to save dogs' lives, but find that paragraph disproportionately emphasizes one specific health issue, as well as being written in a style that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g. exclamation point, etc) If there was an article on dog health, then a section on chocolate would be fine, but otherwise it seems as random as putting something like "always have young children ride in the back seat" in the article on homo sapiens.
Also I think the section on dogs as food seems a little strange, given the size of the overall dogs article, I'd think one sentence would do it, rather than a whole section.
Just my suggestions....
-rob ( user:Robbrown )
The general organization is very similar to the Horse article and that seems to work fairly well. Not that the article couldn't use work, as it has definitely expanded in bits and pieces. Based on thoughts above, I was going to start an article on Dog health but I couldn't find a similar model to base it on (like Horse health, Feline medicine, or similar), so I didn't do it. Yet. Any opinions on the best title? (E.g., Canine health?) Elf | Talk 00:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
![]() Natural Nutrition for Dogs and Cats: The Ultimate Pet Diet |
![]() Real Food for Cats: 50 Vet-Approved Recipes to Please the Feline Gastronome |
![]() Veterinarians Guide to Natural Remedies for Dogs : Safe and Effective Alternative Treatments and Healing Techniques from the Nations Top Holistic Veterinarians |
![]() The Consumer's Guide to Cat Food; What's in Cat Food, Why It's There, and How to Choose the Best Food for Your Cat | ||||
![]() Fat Cat, Finicky Cat: A Pet Owner's Guide to Cat Food and Feline Nutrition |