Talk:Dog

Sections of this talk page older than 360 days are automatically archived by MiszaBot.

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).

Lead

Is it a good thing if "dog" is mentioned first, same as the article cat? There is no explanation in the lead why "domestic dog" is mentioned first. Hddty. (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONAME for the domestic dog is simply "dog". However, unlike the cat which is distinctly the household species Felis catus, the term dog can also refer to other canid species - please read the hatnote above the article. Therefore, the lead clarifies that the article is about the domestic dog, as opposed to the other types of dogs. William Harris • (talk) • 11:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

... as the lead in the Cat article clarifies that that article is about the domestic cat as opposed to the other types of cats, but with somewhat different ordering of the wording re domestic vs. non-domestic varieties. Is that difference a good thing? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The cat article states: "It is the only domesticated species in the family Felidae." That is not the case with the dog. The dog is not a species, and it is not the only domesticated subspecies of lupus - the other is the dingo/New Guinea singing dog. William Harristalk 11:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2019

In the Diet section, "argenine" should be changed to the correct spelling of "arginine" Angolyad (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Already done by Nomopbs. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Shedog listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shedog. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Religion and mythology

Are there any reasons to have discussions of dog in certain religions get headlined under Religion and those of certain others under Mythology? My suggestion would be to have all religions (dead and alive) under a single heading, either mythology or religion.

Urapvr (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC) urapvr, August 10, 2019.

I entirely agree. It would appear that if text relates to the desert god - Christianity, Islam, Judaism - then it is classified here as "religion", and all other religions are classified as "mythology". Perhaps they might all appear under a title of "Mythology and religion"? William Harristalk 12:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Now actioned. William Harristalk 11:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Dog meat map

Pinging User:William Harris

Respectfully, you're misunderstanding how maps of laws are cited in the wikipedia community. To put a table of sources in the tiny file description would be way too cumbersome. Such tables are so cumbersome that they require their own wikipedia articles.

This map cites its sources exactly like any other map of laws on this site does; it refers to the article of reference, which contains the sources for each country. For examples, see these maps on LGBT rights, slavery, and age of consent. They are all the same as this map; none of them cite any source for any specific country/territory (except when there may have been a controversial change to the map).

If you have an issue with how a specific country is represented, bring it up on the respective talk page of the file or the article it references, and I'll be happy to fix the issue, but the map has no issue of original research, as you can find sources for each country in the respective article. Now please stop edit warring and disrupting this page by removing valuable educational content. RockingGeo (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

RockingGeo I am not concerned with what is done in other maps provided in other articles, nor how they were derived. This is Dog, a very high-profile article in the English-speaking world's online encyclopedia. You have approximately 20 countries listed on the map, so providing references would not be too onerous a task - you placed this map here and therefore you take on that responsibility as nobody else placed it here. For example, let us take Canada. If I were to kill a dog in Montreal and ate it, then my neighbour reports this to the police, and when they arrive I can point to which law that states that killing a dog and eating it is legal? Please cite the statue on which I might rely? William Harristalk 20:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@William Harris: Here are links to a few maps on featured articles that do the same thing: European Union member states by form of government, Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and Map of countries without armed forces. This is wikipedia practice, as citing the sources (in this case it's actually around 50 countries, and expanding) in the tiny file description would be redundant, cumbersome, and a waste of time.

As for killing your dog, please don't do that. But if you do something that is legal in your jurisdiction (ie NSW), you can't be arrested by law enforcement outside of that jurisdiction (ie South Australian police). This map is only for national laws though, so it only notes that they vary locally, not where. For country-specific knowledge, you'd need a different map. Anything on wikipedia is also not legal advice. If you are arrested for eating your dog, you'd need to contact a lawyer. RockingGeo (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You have no right to change my edit (above) to suit yourself. Reverting back to Canada, what is the law that states that it is legal to kill and consume a dog in Canada, because that is what your map purports.William Harristalk 00:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that was unintentional. I replied while you were changing your comment, and we had an editing conflict, so I didn't catch that. I had no reason to change it. Whether you kill a dog in Canada or Australia, the sources are still found in the article.

And that isn't how laws work. Except when overriding another law, laws don't say if an action is legal. If there isn't a law defining an action to be illegal, then it's legal. Just look at the recent case in New Zealand [1]. There's no law against dog eating or killing dogs for consumption (there are only laws against killing animals for consumption in certain ways) in New Zealand, so the dog eater walked free. RockingGeo (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If something is enacted by legislature into statute, then it becomes legal. If something is not written in statute, then it is NOT ILLEGAL. Your maps are stating that the killing of dogs and cats for consumption is LEGAL, which it is not. Instead of being "educational" as you claim above, your map is misconstruing the facts - you have no original source that states that the killing and eating of cats and dogs in Canada, nor other jurisdictions, is legal - and that is why your edit was reverted. William Harristalk 04:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the legend. Now can we end this discussion? We both have better things to do. RockingGeo (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I am quite happy to spend all the time in the world to ensure that what is reflected in the Wikipedia Canis—related articles is accurate. When I make maps on Commons, I always cite my sources. The map's meaning is hard to fathom, but yes, this will suffice. William Harristalk 09:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

195.251.99.2 (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

yorkshire terriers are the best dog breads

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 12:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Dog saliva amylase

Hellow, I'm writing a research divulgation book about dog nutrition and I've found out the diet part is wrong in the salival amylase.

Dogs do NOT have amylase in their salive, (source: Animal Health Diagnostic Center, Cornell University School of Veterinary Medicine) but a lot later in the digestive process. No carnivore does that. Although dogs do produce amylase, the enzyme is added further down the digestive tract… in the pancreas and small intestine. That's what make them adaptative carnivores, but anyway, having amylase on saliva would instantly make dogs able to digest vegetal nutrients a lot better, making them instantly ommnivorous. Which is not even logical looking at their physiological metabolism and behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garzant (talk • contribs) 17:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for raising this. Did you check the cited reference that was provided (copy here)? I did, and was surprised:

Amylase is released by the pancreas, and in certain species such as humans, it is also created by the glands that produce saliva, allowing the enzyme to be present in the mouth. There, amylase can start to break down starch, releasing a sweet taste that helps the animal to detect starchy foods......Our results showed that amylase activity in saliva is more widespread among mammals than previously thought. In addition to species that were already known to express amylase in their saliva, we observed salivary amylase activity in some New World monkeys, boars, dogs, deer mice, woodrats, and giant African pouched rats. It is important to note here that our findings also suggest that amylase activity in dog saliva varies from breed to breed.

Either the study has got it wrong, or you have something extra for your book. William Harristalk 23:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Other names

Hello, I am wondering if we can add the word, 'Doggy' to the lead as another name for Dog, since it is a well accepted international term for Dog. I have seen other Wikipedia articles use common terms for other words. I did not want to add it without a consensus. If others can leave their opinions here, I'd appreciate it. I will add it if people agree. Thanks. Battykin (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)