Talk:Dog sex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.


This expression seems likely to require disambiguation. Does anyone seriously disagree? -- (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor is insisting that a discussion about this article must only happen at another article, at Talk:Canine_reproduction#Dog_Sex. -- (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has violated WP:3RR, after which the same editor (apparently an admin) claimed "vandalism" by others and locked the page.[1] That's not right. -- (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it too hard ( This admin has decided that the fate of dog sex is in her hands. Don't worry though, we are on the right side, but please lay off the dog sex page for a bit or bad stuff could happen to you. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

These kinds of admin abuse and empty accusations have to end. Check this out: [2]. Making this article a disambiguation page is a foregone conclusion, yet one person can abuse her privileges to obstruct the obvious, make accusations and level threats (such as this: User_talk: re: harassment). Again, it's not right. -- (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand how you feel. It can get a bit much at times with these people. I don't know what her problem is and why she keeps reverting it, but I guess whatever small amount of power people can get, they will hold onto. Just try to be safe and play in the rules, it's good to ruffle feathers at times, but be careful not to pull out any feathers. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from Canine reproduction talk page[edit]

Hello editors. Currently Dog sex redirects here. I have made it instead into a disambig type page because dog sex can mean a number of things Dogging (sexual slang), Zoophilia, Marjorie Garber, and Doggy style. But recently an administrator thought it would be a good idea to have it continue linking to Canine reproduction. I disagree with her very much. I think the average person who searches for dog sex on wikipedia is just as likely looking for information on Doggy style or Zoophilia as the reproductive habits of actual dogs with each other. THat is why I made the page not a redirect but rather a good way to ask people which article they were interested in. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you would please comment on this important issue it would be very cool Thanks. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I see what you are getting at. You need to make sure that there is good reason. Per the editing guideline (WP:DISAMBIG): "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion." Is there significant risk of confusion? Cptnono (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note Cptnono, would you know if there is likely to be any consensus for changing the established redirect? I've had to restore the current version repeatedly now as there's been little traffic on this talk page. --Ckatzchatspy 16:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A person typing "dog sex" might be looking for literal canine reproduction, but more likely is looking for either dogging or doggy style, or maybe even bestiality. Dog sex should be a disambiguation page which includes all four terms. -- (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even think of dogging but that is another one that I would also imagine people would be looking for if people are trying to reach an article entitled "dog sex". A disambiguation page is not a search index and I am not sure how many people are trying to reach "dog sex".Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact remains that there are over 2 million google results for "dog sex", and over 200 million for "dog sex" on I think it is safe to say that there are a fair number of people looking for information on the various topics covered by the future disambig page and to get there they are using the phrase "dog sex". Also, it seems likely that "dog sex" might be a sort of shorthand for people, especially those non-native english speakers who use Wikipedia on a daily basis and may be unfamilar with the more technical terms which dog sex may be referring to. Any ways, I don't see what the hold up on this is, it can only help the project. It won't take up 'many resources, etc' to have the disambig page.

Waiting for more people to comment isn't the best course of action. Discussion on this subject has been going on for nearly a month now. Very few people have commented on this subject. I think waiting longer only serves the interest of the stubborn admin who seeks to hold up this addition to the project. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Chill out. You made a request for feedback and you are getting it. I could go either way, you and the IP are for, and the evil stubborn no good admin (not really, I'm sure he is fine) is against it. Disambiguation pages are not a search index. "monkey boobies" gets google hits but doesn't have a disambiguation page or redirect. If you think English speaking (this is the English wikipedia) users are typing "dog sex" in the address bar to get to an article titled "dog sex" then go for it. I assume they are typing in "animal sex" "dogging" "doggy style" "puppies" ect. I don't think we need a rediret or disambiguation page at all since I don't think people are searching for an article entitled dog sex. If we are going to have one or the other: disambiguation page is the way to go navigation wise.Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I suppose a DAB page might be somewhat appropriate if formed in this manner:
Dog sex may refer to:
  1. My preference is for less "juicy" and more encyclopedic descriptions.
  2. It might be a closer approximation to create and disambiguate "Dog love", which in a Wikisearch now goes to "Dog Love" (with a capital "L") and then REDIRECTs to the DMX album page, and then leave "Dog sex" as a REDIRECT to the Canine reproduction article? Either way, it is truly more like a search index than a DAB. There might be other creative possibilities, though. Perhaps moving "Dog sex" to "Dog love? or maybe putting appropriate cats on the REDIRECT page? OSLT?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  12:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow Paine, thanks for taking an interest in this topic. I like how you 're-wrote' most of the disambig descriptors and did a nicer job thann i could of. good work! I'm not sure how I feel about dog love, but maybe you are more correct than I am and it would be best to have dog love be the disambig page and have dog sex redirect there. However, with dog love, i think confusing with doggy stsyle might be harder, so maybe it would be best to include dog love as a see also of Dog sex. Also I don't understand the deal about cats, are you saying there should be an article for cat sex? There isn't an article for Feline reproduction like that which exists for dogs, so i don't agree that they should also have a similar article until Feline reproduction is made? Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Peter! By "cats" I just meant "categories". Sorry for the confusing lingo.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  03:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Dog Love should be removed from that list. Dog love (I assume an article is not needed) is different enough from having sex with a dog so I would assume a redirect is not needed.Cptnono (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, perhaps... however someone had added the entry by the Harvard professor (but without the title of her book), and it was something about sex with a puppy(?) Her book is titled Dog Love. And while I've never actually heard the DMX song, my guess is that the rapper is singing about "Dog (pal, bro, whatever) sex". I could be wrong.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  10:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I like Paine's proposed disambig page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, I agree. I'll go ahead and change it then since there seems to be consensus. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussing this article[edit]

This talk page is the correct place to be discussing the contents and disposition of this article page, not on the talk page of a related article, such as Canine reproduction. I have dabbed it again, and somebody better come up for a better reason for reversion besides "sophmoric" content.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  16:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambig links 3, 4 and 5 are entirely unnecessary. Frankly, until there's a book or something called 'Dog Sex', anyone who searches for it will be looking for canine copulation. The other listed examples are just not needed.
I use the term sophomoric because even the idea of expanding a page called 'Dog Sex' just SCREAMS "13-year-old boys trying to game a funny article into Wikipedia". --King Öomie 16:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your wanting to use the term. What I don't understand is how and why you must be inflammatory in your edit summaries. It was completely uncalled for. If you would try to be more objective that would be acceptable. I tend to think that dabbing this page is inappropriate because the entries do not all begin with the "same name" as noted below the entries in the dabnote. However, we disagree about the "necessity" of the items. There might be better solutions, and the involved editors appear to be listening for them as shown in the previous discussion. Can you discuss this kind of title without reducing yourself to sophmoric adjectives?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  17:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently that particular adjective cut to the quick. It was that summary or no summary. And if I recall, you followed up with an inflammatory statement about my inflammatory statement. If you can find a better adjective to use for this debate, I'd love to hear it. --King Öomie 17:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I probably could find a better way for this discussion to go, for example, we could stop this discussion about the inflammatory usages (you seem surprised that your usage prompted my usage - no reason to be surprised, since fire often begets more fire) and "good-faithfully" discuss appropriate subject(s) for this talk page, okay? (I have to pick up a relative at the airport, so I'll be gone for awhile.)
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I only meant to point out the irony of reciprocating and then scolding me.
In any case, I believe the point made below to be in error- that any native english speaker would type "dog sex" into a wikipedia search bar genuinely looking for anything BUT Canine reproduction. I also think that whatever state this article ends up in, it should be indefinitely semiprotected, because DAMN if this isn't a vandal target if I've ever seen one. --King Öomie 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving to bottom- pasted discussion concluded before this thread began --King Öomie 18:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Nice.

The thing is, not just native speakers of English use the English Wikipedia. English has (For Better or Worse) become the lingua franca in the world so many people who are not native English speakers use Wikipedia for various purposes, be it to practice reading English, looking at an American/British/Other English Speaking Places take on a particular issue, or, yes, even looking up Dog sex. That is why I think the argument stated above--that it shouldn't be an article because "any native english [sic] speaker would type 'dog sex' into wikipedia [sic] search bar genuinely..."-- is hollow.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Two separate [sic] disclaimers really aren't required for capitalization errors (especially considering that this is a discussion page, not a published work), but thanks. Do we really want to start down the road of adding dab pages for every iteration of BAD ENGLISH? --King Öomie 12:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Kingoomieiii: I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I was just trying to show that the typographical errors were not original to me, but merely reproduced in perfect transcription. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
It's pokey and passive-aggressive, is what it is. --King Öomie 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Dog Love still needs to go. This isn't a search engine and the purpose isn't to ask the reader "hey, did you really mean...?"Cptnono (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this should redirect to Dog Loving Physical Relationship. --King Öomie 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I still disagree that this is a viable dab page. Entries on a dab page start with the same, or the approximate same title as the dab page. None of these entries begin with "Dog sex" or anything approximately the same. Every entry here can be used on a true "Dog sex" dab page, but only in a "See also" section. For this to be a true dab page, entries have to be much more closely related in text to "Dog sex".
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  22:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, Kingoomie, I think the above comment is disingenuous on your part. Please take Dog sex more seriously.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, AGF is out the window on that one. You're just a troll. --King Öomie 12:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Paine_Ellsworth, do you think this information would be better placed at the top of the Canine reproduction page? "Dog sex redirects here. For the article on a group of sexual positions modelled after dogs see Doggy style. For the British slang for having sex in semi-public places see Dogging (sexual slang), etc. I would be okay with this change, but it might clutter up the canine reproduction article. That is why I originally thought this needed to be a dab. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
No, Peter NDP, I don't think that this info should be in a hatnote in the CR article. It would definitely get reverted as clutter. The strength of your argument is that, while this page only hard-redirected to one article, the CR article, it should soft-redirect to several other pages as well. And the only tool for this seems to be a dab page. What I'm looking for is another alternative that solves the problem without corrupting the nature of the dab page. If there were other articles with the same title, then this page could become a proper dab page like Bones (disambiguation) and Lion (disambiguation). The present entries on this page could then be used either in a subsection or a See also section on the dab page.
And there is a good reason why this page is not a proper candidate for REDIRECT... I can find no REDIRECT category that fits this page title as it relates to the other page titles. When an editor decides to make a REDIRECT page, he or she can and should be able to categorize the REDIRECT with an "RCAT".
So I don't really know what the ultimate solution should be. Placing cats on the page while it's a REDIRECT page probably isn't strong enough a solution to meet the needs of readers. Perhaps placing these items in the See also section of the Canine reproduction article would suffice? I truly don't know. I'm at a loss on this one. I really do see the strength of your argument. I just think there should be a better solution than a dab page.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  09:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)