Talk:Dog/Archive 8

Carnivore vs Omnivore
A few comments about dogs being referred to as carnivores. They are references as being carnivores in the opening paragraph. One reference has many citations, but it's not even really clear what the statement means: "most widely abundant terrestrial carnivore". This is an extremely weird claim to make, especially since it's unclear whether dogs are carnivores at all. What other animals is it compared to? What does "most widely abundant" even mean? What a strange claim to have in the first paragraph of an (ideally) well-polished article like this. Are there really five different sources supporting such a weirdly specific claim? None of the sources even have easily accessible material. Secondly, are dogs even carnivores at all? In order to make sense as a descriptor that would go in the opening paragraph, especially when used in reference to another piece of information, their abundance, their status as carnivores should be well established. Yet their status as carnivores was mentioned twice in the opening paragraph. (I removed one mention by replacing it with the word "animal", but I don't want to simply remove a sentence like this one that seems to have five citations.) Anyways, it seems like their status as carnivores is contested at best. They are described in the diet section as being "part-way between carnivores and omnivores." This pretty clearly means it's incorrect to just describe them as carnivores. Additionally, if something is "part-way between carnivores and omnivores", doesn't that just make it an omnivore? According to wikipedia, "A carnivore is an animal whose food and energy requirements derive solely from animal tissue or meat, whether through hunting or scavenging." So if it's partway between omnivore and carnivore, that should just make it an omnivore, since it does not derive nutrients from solely meat. There's no grey area between omnivore and carnivore. The category "omnivore" IS the grey area. Wikipedia: An omnivore is an animal that has the ability to eat and survive on both plant and animal matter. Finnigami (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There are degrees of carnivory versus omnivory, i.e., Hypocarnivore and Mesocarnivore.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I can understand editor Finnigami's confusion over part of this matter. Perhaps editor LittleJerry might like to explain this edit here from August last year, when he purposely changed a taxonomic classification into a dietary choice, which is now causing confusion to our readers. William Harris (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Jerry, if you believe that "calling it "a member of Canidae" is too obvious and tells us nothing", then why did you include it with this edit here back in June 2020? I can see how someone might mistake Carnivoran for Carnivore, however not all Carnivores are Carnivorans, and not all Carnivorans are Carnivores. Given that the dog's taxonomic status is listed in the subspecies box to the right of the lede - which is the purpose of a subspecies box - the statement "a domesticated carnivoran mammal of the family Canidae" could be removed altogether. (Apart from it being blather that no casual reader wants to see in the opening paragraph - are we writing for readers or for Wikipedia editors?)
 * Finnigami, regarding the statement "the most widely abundant terrestrial carnivore", we are now down to only two sources. Young 2011 limits the statement to being in the human environment, and Daniels 1989 limits the statement with "probably". I suggest the statement be modified with "probably" and "in the human environment", and transferred to the section titled "Population" - it is not a key point and would be debated by the cat fanciers. William Harris (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I honestly think that sentence should just be totally removed. I seriously have no idea what it means. What is "most abundant"? And if dogs are really being counted as carnivores, then it seems like lots of other animals would also be. I don't even really believe that this claim is true, and even if it is, it's confusing and unnecessary. Finnigami (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * But technically, both hypocarnivores and mesocarnivores would not actually be considered carnivores, according to the definition given on Wikipedia. According to the definition of carnivore and omnivore, dogs are very clearly omnivores. They're even used as an example of an omnivore on the wikipedia page for omnivore. hypocarnivores and mesocarnivores would both be considered types of omnivores. Finnigami (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Finnigami, I assume the writers meant to use the term Carnivoran rather than carnivore - as they are not taxonomists and did not know the difference - and we have a "Diet" section which covers that topic. I think they meant that the dog is the carnivoran with the largest population (and given their 1 billion population that would be correct, but the cat owners may disagree). So we need something that talks about their distribution across the globe, as we have in the first sentence of Golden jackal and Wolf, which are both comparably-recent Featured Articles. I have found a source that states that dogs are dispersed around the world (Ostrander 2019). Any thoughts? William Harris (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Now actioned. William Harris (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but "wolf-like canid" is way too dry and ugly of a definition to introduce a well known and highly familiar animal. By contrast the cat is introduced as "...a domestic species of small carnivorous mammal". Domestication is a defining trait of the dog and should not be introduced in the third sentence. I also don't see the need to split hairs over "carnivore". Dogs are fed plant material but are mainly adapted for meat. LittleJerry (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The cat introduction, in my opinion, is nearly useless for applying to the dog. Firstly the cat is a species, the dog is debatable as a species. Secondly, you may not see the need to split hairs over "carnivore", but that is exactly the reason this section was created by a concerned editor on that subject in the first place (which was the result of your edits from last time). There are only two domesticated carnivores - one is large and one is small. What the cat intro is telling me in a round-about way is that a cat is not a dog.
 * So what is the dog? What is the first picture that should come into a reader's mind? It is wolf-like. It sits among its fellow wolf-like canids, with whom it has a phylogenetic relationship. But I am open to suggestion; let us here what other editors think, although this thread may be hard to find given its current location. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 07:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we can't call it a "domesticated carnivore" with carnivore linked to Carnivora. I also think "domesticated form of the wolf" would be better than the definition we have now. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That the dog is a member of the Order Carnivora is given in the Subspecies box to the right of the lede; that is why we have one. We are not going to place the word "carnivore" anywhere near the lede, it has led to ongoing arguments, edit wars, and changes by "drive by" editors over the last 7 years that I have been associated with this article. As I have stated, this is the reason why this section was created in the first place - people will dispute that the dog is a carnivore no matter what it links to.
 * "The domestic dog (Canis familiaris when considered a separate species, or Canis lupus familiaris when considered a subspecies of the wolf)[5]....." is a given, as a number of editors have contributed to that, which already mentions wolf. Perhaps we could do some reshuffling, and complete the lede sentence with ".....was the first species to be domesticated[11][10] by hunter–gatherers more than 15,000 years ago,[9] which predates agriculture.[1]" <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 07:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "That the dog is a member of the Order Carnivora is given in the Subspecies box to the right" So? There's nothing unusual about leads mentions things in the taxbox. Why not get rid of the mention of Canis lupus familiaris then since it's in the taxbox? Animal article leads mention things in the taxbox all the times including FAs.


 * Also just change "The domestic dog (Canis familiaris when considered a separate species, or Canis lupus familiaris when considered a subspecies of the wolf)[5]....." to "The domestic dog (Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated form of the wolf. Problem solved. The former is confusing anyway since why should the reader have to wade though all that text to get to the definition. LittleJerry (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I am happy with that. Do other editors have a different opinion? <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 21:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 22:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Your last deletion was outside what has been discussed here - you do not WP:OWN this article. Given that it was placed there after discussion by a professional taxonomist who has an interest in the dog and dingo articles, its longevity cannot be guaranteed. You also managed to delete its supporting reference; now reinstated. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 00:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Second sentence
While we are discussing changes to the lede, it is probably time to update the second sentence. I placed this here a number of years ago but now science has since confirmed this statement and the sentence now looks inelegant:


 * The dog and the extant gray wolf are sister taxa, as modern wolves are not closely related to the wolves that were first domesticated,[8][9][10] which implies that the direct ancestor of the dog is extinct.[11]

My thoughts are that it could be changed to the much simpler:


 * The dog descended from an ancient, now-extinct wolf[24][13] with the modern wolf being the dog's nearest living relative.[12]

Do editors have any thoughts about this (uncontroversial) amendment? <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Now actioned. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 21:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The only thought I would have is that the change is not "uncontroversial". AMOF, rather the opposite - this issue is far from settled. Prior to 2010, the mtDNA of both did not justify a separate species for dogs. The strongest evidence for such a separation has been found since then, e.g. Siberia's frozen "Doggo". However, I agree with the conclusion, so I'm not going to bother editing! MGBuell Canis lupis track.svgl72 00:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * At this stage, nobody knows what Dogor is - an ancestral dog, an ancestral modern wolf, or a Pleistocene wolf. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 06:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image
The infobox image contains nine pictures of western dogs, five of British breeds, two of German breeds (one of which has a heavy British influence), one Canadian and one attributed to the US but created by crossing a Franco-German breed with a British breed. I propose to introduce a more global representation of the global spread of dogs into the infobox.

I think a combination of nine pictures is good, my proposed combination is a sighthound (Europe/Asia/North Africa), a livestock guardian dog (same), husky (Siberia/North America), an African village dog (Sub-Saharan Africa), a pye-dog (East Asia), a non descript mongrel, a retriever (English speaking world, this is English Wikipedia), a toy dog (one of the Chinese ones popular in European courts) and roll the dice to determine between a scent hound, a terrier, a herding dog or a mastiff. What are other’s thoughts? Cavalryman (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC).


 * The collage of dogs in the infobox was created in 2010, at a time when WP:DOGS was focused on breeds and getting breed articles up and running. There are nearly one billion dogs on this planet, and that collage represents only a fraction of them. I fully endorse a change of pix that would be a better representation of dogs globally. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 21:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Speaking as someone who doesn't know much about dogs, a collage that shows the variety of forms they have sounds like a good idea.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You appear to be more active across the dog-related pages than many so-called members of WP:DOGS. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 21:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

What are other’s thoughts about this? Cavalryman (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC).


 * A much more diverse and representative collection, thanks. I fully approve of "Canis labradoris" taking centre stage because it is a known alpha-predator in many lands. We do not appear to have Africa represented. We could swap the southern Asian sighthound for a Sloughi but in my opinion our Sloughi collection on Commons is substandard. We could exchange one pix for Africanis, but beware that we only have one indisputable shot of Africanis on Commons, and that is used in the lede of that article. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 10:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, I specifically looked for both a Sloughi and an Africanis and thought the two I chose instead were better. Now for the fun part, is it possible to mix different licences? If not we can copy this template into the infobox. Cavalryman (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC).
 * I understand that the second pix was categorised on Commons as a basenji, however the file was uploaded by a Malay speaker/writer who called the pix "Dog"; I believe that it is a Malay "street dog" and by that tail belongs to the SE Asian group - she is basically a black and white Telomian. She might best be transposed with the sighthound pix, to give us 3 dogs in the left column all looking towards the left. I think if we take the lowest-level license among the pix and apply that to cover the whole collage then we should be fine. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 10:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the first, fifth and ninth images should be replace since it is harder to see the dogs, especially the first. LittleJerry (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur, the first picture especially is difficult to see. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We could also use another image of a short-faced breed. Maybe replace the Jack Russel with a French bulldog? LittleJerry (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Please cease making unilateral changes to the opening text and graphics in the article Dog as you do not WP:OWN it. As you say - "changing this should be discussed first" - appears to apply to others but not to yourself. This article has recently failed a GA attempt, and some of the material which, as you say - "has been around for a long time" - needs to go. So does some of the past thinking that has held sway here for far too long. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 20:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet it is okay for you to make changes without discussion. Is seems you're the one acting like you own the article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrect - I have not made any change to "the opening text and graphics" of the article without discussion on the Talk page, something which you would have noticed if you had enough interest in this article to at least have put a watch in place, rather than the odd "drive-by" change to the first paragraph as it suits you. As I stated above on 6 March "Your last deletion was outside what has been discussed here - you do not WP:OWN this article." You may have a short memory; I do not. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 23:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't just arbitrarily say the lead is off limits and I do not have to ask your permission to make an edit. You could have stopped at the edit revert and summary and maybe took it up at my talkpage instead of being a scold in the middle of a different discussion. LittleJerry (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say the lead is off limits, nor that you need my permission to make edits, we have a Talk page for controversial edits - for goodness sake Jerry read what is written rather than devise in your mind your own rhetorical version of events. And the behaviour is still very much in context, which is why I raised it here. You are completely free to make any edit you wish, and conversely I am free to then revert them. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 05:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Re the first picture, I wanted a couple in there showing dogs working, so what about one of the top two on the right?

Re the sixth, I think it is good but if consensus is for change I will find another, I would object to a picture from a confirmation show bench.

Re the ninth, how about the bottom picture on the right?

Re the Jack Russell, a French Bulldog really falls into the same category as the Japanese Chin (or a Pug/Pekingese), despite not being closely related, I am open to changing the picture, but disagree with another toy breed, one is enough. Cavalryman (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC).


 * We can include images of dogs working in the article body. The lead images should have dogs taking up a majority of the space. The images on the right still have that problem. I know the Japanese Chin is a short-faced breed. I said we should have another. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The current collection was based on global representation, not phenotypes. If we start going down the phenotype path, then we will need to include those dogs with longer snouts than the wolf, and a blue dog, and a red dog, and a dog with.......etc etc <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 23:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * By that logic, global representation should be a slippery slope to include every country. Differences in size and shape are just as important. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have never subscribed to the slippery slope fallacy and suggest that you do not as well. We do not need to include "every country", we should be including regional representation, with a dog from each continent or major region - that matter was discussed in this section over a week ago. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 23:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You did though when you said "If we start going down the phenotype path, then we will need to include those dogs with longer snouts than the wolf, and a blue dog, and a red dog, and a dog with.......etc etc". LittleJerry (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added a possible alternate livestock guardian picture, also I have just realised the third picture here is already in the article so I will look again there. Re French Bulldog, as the opening statement of this section states, the object of this exercise is to include a greater global representation of the almost globally known dog, another Western European dog breed of a Western European dog type (toy-type bulldog) is not something I would support. Cavalryman (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC).


 * I prefer the new pix, and although the subject is a little further away it shows it lean, fit, and comfortably at home in its natural but rugged environment. As for pix already in the article, we can remove those; there are far too many pix in the article not actually demonstrating anything encyclopedic, but monuments to peoples' long-passed dogs. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 05:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the current proposed lineup, as it is representative of several major groups of dogs. We have, from left to right, top to bottom: a kelpie working sheep (herding, and collie type), a Southeast Asian dog (village dog or aboriginal dog?), a Japanese Chin (a toy brachycephalic companion breed), a sight hound, a Labrador (modern breed originally for hunting, now more suited to pet/companion dog status), a Kurdish mastiff (livestock guardian and mastiff types), a Rat Terrier (possibly a Jack Russell, but an illustration of the terrier type), huskies (or malamutes, illustrating arctic sled dogs), and an Indian village dog. One could certainly argue for including more, or different representatives - but I really think that is a rabbithole that it would not be productive to go down. These are sufficient to show that there is a wide variety of phenotype and purpose.MGBuell Canis lupis track.svgl72 19:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Mbuell72, I suggest that instead of the 6th pix (of the overweight Kurdish Mastiff on the end of the piece of rope), we have the lean and fit Sarabi girl in her mountain environment (Iranian mastiff, see last pix directly above in this section). What is your view, please? <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 07:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Mbuell72, my intent with these proposed replacement pictures is to represent the same types of dogs with clearer pictures. I get the impression from you r comment that you don’t really object to the proposed amendments, is that correct? Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC).

It has been a while without response so I have swapped the three images under discussion, please let me know others thoughts. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC).


 * The current one looks wonderful guys, and it looks like the article has gotten trimmed a bit too. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Doggo image
Hi, I just think if this image should be included 😢 File:Smile (115758675).jpeg. 36.80.204.191 (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

"lupine"/"extant"
and Please do tell me what exactly is wrong with both these terms? At Harris' talk page, I've read that "The English word "lupine" derives from lupus, and it is not clear that the dog is from lupus", however, I beg to differ. First, "lupine" is not a Latin proper taxonomic name for the dog, it's just a category a "canine" animal could be considered for (e.g. "a canine is a domesticated lupine" sounds much more encyclopedic than "a dog is a domesticated wolf"). Second, the first sentence of the lede alone "The domestic dog (Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated wolf" makes it sound as if it were absolutely clear that dogs descended from wolves. I did not propose "lupus", I am proposing "lupine", which could roughly be assimilated to "members of the genus Lupus", but even then, this isn't how "lupine" is defined in WP. As for "extent", this is yet again a proper taxonomic way of saying "living" and seems much more encyclopedic in employ to me. Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * To my understanding, "the dog is a domesticated lupine" is incorrect because lupine is an adjective that refers more to appearance, not any taxonomic category. The dog is a canid (family Canidae), canine (subfamily Caninae), canin (tribe Canini), wolf (subtribe Canina). "Lupine" does not refer to any taxonomic group the dog into, and I have never seen the word used as a noun, only an adjective.
 * The problem with using extant is that while it is technically correct, it is inappropriate for the lede as being a bit too technical; it is not a word most readers will understand. There is a fine line that must be walked between being technically correct, and simplifying things so that readers will understand. Since, in this case, there is a simpler synonym for extant, it is preferred that living be used instead. Good day, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * W, you state "members of the genus Lupus". However, lupus is not a genus, it is a species with Canis being the genus. First, you amend a citation from two internationally noted paleontologists (who have there own articles on WP) so the lede reads your way. Then you mis-cite Perri 2021 to support you ridiculous assertion that the Dire wolf is the ancestor of the dog, and then on my Talk page you threatened to report me to an administrator for reverting it. Now we are discussing genus Lupus. Before you commenced editing here, perhaps you could have first started by knowing what you are talking about - based on the evidence to date, it is my assessment that either you do not, or that this is WP:DISRUPTive editing regardless of whether it is intentional or not. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 23:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Whydoesitfeelsogood, having reviewed your edits I must say I support them being reverted, the status quo is both correct and much easier to read for the casual reader, the lead is supposed to be a general introduction to the topic. Cavalryman (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC).
 * As explained in my edit summary, I reverted the addition of "species" to the statement that the dog is "a domesticated wolf species" on the grounds that this is only true when the dog is recognised as a species, which currently varies. It is unambiguously a domesticated wolf. The change from living to extant was collateral damage, although I agree that living is better for an introductory statement as it is more common English. On lupine, I also favour wolf. Lupine essentially means wolf-like, so why say wolf-like when you mean wolf? Wolf is clearer, more precise and less ambiguous. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If all of you may, I would essentially dissent on "extant" not being a suitable replacement for "living". A "living" species supposes that the Canis member the dog is asserted to have been descended from still exists as whole, including to a (whatnot) suitable degree, the modern grey wolf. However, and please, don't shut this obviousness up with last names of even the best taxonomists this world has ever known, an "extant" species defines survival in only those individuals who specifically managed to outlast their ancestors in the natural way. The modern grey wolf is not the dog's ancestor, I know this to be true 100%. Their genetics don't match. From there on, some dog species were interbred with modern grey wolf, but all this happened well after the documented domestication event. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "...with the modern grey wolf being the dog's nearest living relative..."
 * From the Cambridge Dictionary (basically, the Oxford English Dictionary but available online, as Cambridge University Press prints the OED): Extant - used to refer to something very old that is still existing. Living - alive now. I shall allow others to provide opinions as to which is the more appropriate. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 09:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, living is more appropriate. Cavalryman (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC).
 * C'mon you guys! "Extant" is bad, "Lupine" is bad. Am I a bad guy really? I just wanted WP to be more interesting for the read and all... --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Whydoesitfeelsogood, interactions like this are not those of a “good guy”, I suggest you drop the combative approach and respect others’ perspectives. Cavalryman (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC).

Dog classified as a "Good Article" - it never was
Hello All. I have been investigating the mystery of why the Dog article is currently classified as a failed GA article, yet I can find no history to show that it was ever assessed for GA - either in the Talk:Dog archives or the WP:GAC archives. It would appear that in the Talk page archives on 14 February 2006 someone queried why Dog was not a Featured Article and commented that "At least mark this as a good article". The logs are not complete, but I suggest that someone - not necessarily those involved in that conversation - marked the article on the header of the Talk page only as GA on 15 March 2006, just over one month later. Then on 26 July 2007 there was a GA Review which delisted it - I suggest that was also just done on the header of the Talk page. As I can find no evidence that dog was ever assessed as a GA article, nor an edit made to the article page to reflect a GA status on 15 March 2006, I am going to remove the failed GA from the template in the Talk page header. Happy to discuss, as always. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 08:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They seem to be drive-by nominations, but there are three reviews: Talk:Dog/GA1, Talk:Dog/GA2, and Talk:Dog/GA3. None were serious, though, so I don't see much value in noting them. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The processes appear to have been much more flexible in the early days, with little formalised. Let us see what others think about GAs 1-3. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 10:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, it was never properly assessed so it shouldn’t be marked as failed. Cavalryman (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC).
 * This comment from the "GA Reassessment" is very telling: "I have delisted this article. It was listed as GA in early 2006, before reviews were in place. Since then, criteria have been created to judge the quality of an article for GA. This article does not meet that criteria. The article can be nominated at WP:GAC once it has been brought up to standards." <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 11:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence
I think the opening sentence of this article is actually incorrect. A dog may be a descendent of domesticated wolves, but there is a huge difference between a domesticated wolf and a dog. They have very different bone structure, skull structure, and jaw size. Wolves are tall and very narrow, with huge paws and much longer snouts.

Likewise, behaviorally, they are very different animals. From my own experience, when I was growing up in Alaska back in the day, these "98% pure" pet wolves became very common. A couple of my friends had some. They're great animals, that is, until they hit puberty, and then they become aggressive and uncontrollable. While in some ways they can be smarter animals than dogs, they listen only when it suits them, and can be very aggressive and be willing to fight for domination even against its human owners. Nobody could handle them, so they'd all eventually end up at another friend of mine's place, whose father ran a wolf rescue. At any given time they'd have 30 to 40 of these domesticated wolves on their ranch, and about once a week one would get a bug up its butt and decide to fight for control of the pack. Then my friend or his father would have to jump in and wrestle this 120 pound, snarling, snapping animal down, pin it to the ground, and bite its ear until it started peeing all over itself and submitted. Then everything would be cool, he'd be the alpha again, until a week later when it would happen all over again.

It may sound cruel to an outsider, but to the wolf pack, that is how dominance is achieved and maintained. Had he shown any fear or tried to back down they'd all have jumped in and torn him to shreds.

The point is, a dog is far more than just a domesticated wolf, so I think the opening sentence is misleading. I would probably start with something more along the lines of, "Dogs are the largest, most diverse species in the canid family, and are distant descendants of wolves." or something more like that. But a dog is a very different thing than a domesticated wolf. Zaereth (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Please refer to WP:LEADSENTENCE: "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." This implies that we need to define what the dog is, and not provide some other interesting facts about it. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 08:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Domestic wolf
I'm not sure about dog is descendant of wolf. There are also variety canids within Canis familiaris such as coyotes, fox and jackal. Let us discuss this. The Supermind (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There are some pretty good sources that indicate this. I've been studying dog psychology and neuropsychology for many, many years. It's fascinating to see how similar they are to us in some ways, yet in others so drastically different.


 * Dogs did not descend from grey wolves, but genetics does indeed show they both evolved from a common ancestor, in particular an Asian variant of Canis Nehringi, although there may have been interbreeding with another Neolithic wolf more common around the Caucuses. There is very good DNA evidence now to support the former, although the latter is more from a comparison of skull and muzzle shapes. By comparison, there is no relation to dire wolves or other branches of the canid family until going way back to a common ancestor back in the paleolithic. Zaereth (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of this becomes semantic. The recent evidence seems fairly clear that the modern grey wolf is sister to the dog, but what is their common ancestor? Is it a grey wolf in a broader sense, i.e. both the dog and modern grey wolf are subsets of this ancestral grey wolf species, or does grey wolf only apply to the modern form? The Pleistocene wolf is considered Canis lupus, which is often referred to as the grey wolf rather than plain wolf. The nomenclature, both scientific and vernacular, lags behind the science. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 06:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Supermind, Canis familiaris (the domestic dog) falls within genus Canis, its relatives. Of the three jackals, only the Golden jackal is within genus Canis, the other two are within genus Lupulella. The fox falls within genus Vulpes.
 * Zaereth, the species Canis nehringi never ventured outside of the Argentinian pampas, and I have seen no reliable source state that it was the ancestor of the dog. Given that studies indicate C. nehringi to be the southern extention of the Dire wolf Aenocyon dirus (Prevosti 2010, Zrzavy 2018), that would make it no longer a member of genus Canis. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 08:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Domestic dog
I recommend that in the lede sentence, the term "domestic dog" all be made bold, rather than just "dog" as bold. This is in keeping with WP:LEADSENTENCE, which advises that "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including plural forms (particularly if they are unusual or confusing) or synonyms." The topic of this article is the domestic dog. If it were not for WP:COMMONNAME, then the article would be named "Domestic dog".

I also recommend that the section of the WP:HATNOTE above the article which states "For the related family of species also known as dogs, see Canidae" be removed. The appropriate place to redirect a reader is the mentioned Dog (disambiguation) page, on which Canidae is already listed, and there are also listed mammals whose WP:COMMONNAME includes the word "dog" e.g. African wild dog. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 03:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * With domestic, the first sentence is a tautology: "the domestic dog ... is a domesticated wolf". The next two sentences also cover the ancestry and domestication. For the opening statement we have to consider what is the most important thing about the dog and "is a domesticated wolf" seems to state that clearly and ambiguously, in which case the additional domestic doesn't read well. But the "domestic dog" is one of the names and needs stating. Alternatively, the first sentence could start "the dog or domestic dog is a member of the family Canidae", which is the style of most species/subpecies articles. Is there some other fundamental point about the dog that could be stated? — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My view is that the domestic dog is mandatory. The "domestic dog" is a name, whereas domestication is a process. What comes after that I am not too concerned about, as long as it defines what a dog is. Such statements as "member of the family Canidae" describes who its relatives are but does not define the dog - so too is the red fox a member of the family Canidae. The lede sentence in the article Wolf is of no guidance and is near useless: "...a large canine native to..." There are many canines in this world which are not wolves. If the wolf article had stated that it possesses a unique and very large first upper molar which distinguishes it from all other canines, then we would have a definition of it. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 08:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have never liked the "is a domesticated wolf" and would‘t miss it, I agree the "The domestic dog" is vital and am supportive of bolding "domestic". Perhaps "The domestic dog ... is a domesticated canid"? Cavalryman (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC).
 * I have now made the edits suggested above. The term "domesticated wolf" was made by Jerry on 6 March here in an attempt to link it to the wolf article. It has certainly caused some concerns (see section above). Yet it is descriptive to a degree - unfortunately the wolf article does not define a wolf, and nor is it about C. lupus proper but is about the modern grey wolf, which is why I delinked it. We also have the latest copy of the internationally recognised Serpell - The Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People - explicitly stating on page one that "the dog is not a domesticated wolf". Much more has happened since that time, including selective breeding for traits.
 * There are different perspectives on how the first sentence might end. Biologically, the dog is the only canine with an upturned tail, as pointed out by Linnaeus when he first separated the dog from the wolf, so in that respect it is not a wolf. Sociologically, the dog has lived beside humans for millennia (about 23,000 years to the last tally), but perhaps that describes what it does rather than what it is. (Or does this describe it enough to be a separator?) Further discussion necessary. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 22:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I modified it so it now says it is a "domesticated descendant of the wolf". LittleJerry (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Breeds section
I have started compiling sources for a rewrite of the breeds section, I propose to rewrite and retitle it to place greater emphasis on types and breeds. Further, I believe it should be placed below the domestication section as the logical flow; dogs were domesticated (through a process), then were adapted to perform a number of different tasks, then modern breeds emphasising certain often regional physical characteristics of certain subsets within those broader role based types were bred. As a side note, can anyone indicate what is wrong with Serpell’s ISBN? I have confirmed it is correct. Cavalryman (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC).


 * This addition will be well received, and can be added to the Dog breed article to help form its Main.
 * Serpell - fixed with a 13-digit ISBN. You may decide to place the latest 2017 version into the Bib. as it is more up to date, and much of it is available in Google Books. It may also encourage other editors to draw from it. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 00:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I have never had problems with 10-digit ISBNs before now. I have only have access to the 1995 edition, I will see it I can find the 2017 edition. The long term plan is to fix this, then have a go at dog type, then dog breed. I have linked to both enough over the years that I should probably fix them both up. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC).


 * Much has been discovered about dogs since 1995. Certainly from a lineage point of view. By 1999, DNA indicated that the dog was either the descendant of the modern wolf or that its ancestor had gone extinct. By 2005, it was classified as a grey wolf. By 2013, we found that its ancestor had gone extinct at the close of the last Ice Age. Also around 2013, MRI scans of the dog's brain showed that dogs love their owners (we all knew that, but now it is supported by science). <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 08:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ToriCheer18. Peer reviewers: JohnB19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Broken Link
I can't edit, but I noticed that the link here is broken (likely due to a removed section), so it should probably be removed:

In some cultures, however, dogs are also a source of meat.

Thanks for all of the good work y'all do!

Matt Rice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrice32 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Typo? (corrected)
Hi, I believe I noticed a typo in the first paragraph of this article. I'd like to request that it be fixed if necessary.

Here is the typo (emphasis mine): "Experts assert that the dog was the first species to be domesticated. It is believed that domestication took place over 15,000 years ago and was preformed by hunter–gatherers before the development of agriculture." From the context of this sentence, I believe that this is meant to be "performed by hunter–gatherers".

So here is my edit request: In the first paragraph, please change "preformed by hunter–gatherers" to "performed by hunter–gatherers".

Thanks! 76.125.192.226 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent Changes to the Lead
User:LittleJerry With all due respect, it is not me that is edit warring; you've reverted my changes twice now with no sources cited, and changes that were unwarranted based on, and unrelated to, what you noted in the edit summary. The version you continue reverting to is uncited and is of lower content quality. It gives no reference to the kind of wolf you're talking about, nor is it worded properly to denote in what way the modern dog is descended from a particular, now extinct kind of wolf, rather than "the wolf" which is not accurate either. You also removed the scientific classification that I added, with no justification given, and added back the statement about the upturned tail which I removed because it needs to go to another section (with a citation), and I noted this in my edit summary.

If you want the previous version of the lead to stand over my edits from yesterday, you need to both remove the scientifically inaccurate and unverified information from it, and reference alternate sources. Otherwise, I see no reason to leave factually incorrect information in the first three sentences of the article when you have not even provided sources attempting to support it. The source cited on the following sentence applies to the one we are having a disagreement about as well, and the two sentences are very related - I am happy to add it for two sentences in a row if it really needs to be that explicit. - Mcfuggins (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You were the one who changed the consensus wording and so the burden is on you to justify your edits. Reverting back to the consensus is not edit wording. We already had a consensus that the dog should be defined as a domesticated descent of the wolf (see discussion above). The sources state that the dog descended from an ancient extinct wolf population and they never state this wasn't Canis lupus. If the dog ancestor was not a wolf then neither are North American wolves since Old world wolves are more closely related to dogs than they are to NA wolves. see (here) LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * And I looked through your edits and you did not add any new scientific classification. LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * pinging and


 * Why then, does the linked page for "the wolf" referenced link to the Grey wolf page, which the Dog is not a descendant of? This is worded incredibly poorly, especially when the specific ancient wolf is then referenced in the next sentence. If the "wild ancestor of dogs is now extinct" as is stated in the source, it cannot possibly be the living Grey wolf that is in question - the absence of a statement that this wolf was not Canis lupus does not automatically mean it was - this is a non-sequitur and somewhat of a paradox. Given the regular debates about domesticated dogs and wolves, I feel it is absolutely essential to identify specifically either 1. That the dog is not descended from the living Grey wolf population, or 2. Simply reference the specific wolf ancestor they are descended from. I don't understand why this is such a problem, and the current wording is extremely ambiguous and unclear to this end. Treating the word "wolf" as a catch-all, as you seem to feel is appropriate in your edit summary, is extremely misleading, and in a scientific sense in this case, is simply not factual.


 * I did actually add the canid scientific classification to this sentence which was part of one of the edits you reverted, it was not there before. The domesticated dog is a canine, a member of the canid family. This should be included somewhere in the lead, and this sentence is a perfectly reasonable place for it. That addition should not change any consensus agreements.


 * Nowhere in any sources cited in this section does it denote that domesticated dog is specifically characterized by an upturning tail. Even if this is true, is not relevant to the general definition of the species, nor has it been cited anywhere. It belongs in the description section, with a properly cited source if it is to be included. - Mcfuggins (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Adding here that the article you linked and its opening statement seem to be in direct conflict with other sources on the subject. If this is what your reference is, it should be added there and allowed to stand on its own, as poor and ambiguous as I find the wording to be. In fact, I'm inclined to say this article should be the direct reference for the sentence in this case. - Mcfuggins (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The "grey wolf" IS the wolf (Canis lupus). Hence why the wolf article states "The wolf (Canis lupus[a]), also known as the gray wolf or grey wolf,...". You stated that the ancient wolf has a different classification then the grey wolf but cited no sources. The ancient wolf that is the ancestor to the dog is the same species as the grey wolf (Canis lupus). LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * We already had a debate over how to define the dog in the first sentence. I'm not going over it again. Just read above and here. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The Taxonomy section states "Linnaeus considered the dog to be a separate species from the wolf because of its upturning tail (cauda recurvata), which is not found in any other canid.[14]". LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The "wolf" in question is the Pleistocene wolf, which is referenced and linked in the very next sentence, which has been my point this entire time. There are links to two differing wolf variants when referencing only one, and the citation for the Pleistocene wolf stand for both. If we are defining the dog as a descendant of the wolf, we should not be linking the Grey wolf when a page for the specific wolf in question exists. It is misleading and contradicts sources and formatting in the very next sentence. - Mcfuggins (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It links to the wolf article. The article is about the "wolf" which is also called the "grey wolf". LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is getting exhausting, and frankly I'm kind of over it. I don't understand why the Grey Wolf and the Pleistocene Wolf are both linked when referencing the same animal, and I don't understand why the first mention of "wolf" in the article doesn't simply link to the Pleistocene Wolf page to remove this ambiguity altogether. I'm not interested in picking apart ridiculous semantics anymore, and I'm inclined to believe you'll revert whatever I do to make the article formatting more clear regardless at this point, on principle. I'm pinging as well because he knows far more about this than I do, and we clearly need an outside perspective to resolve it. - Mcfuggins (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You're the one bringing semantics. I don't understand why the first mention of "wolf" in the article doesn't simply link to the Pleistocene Wolf Maybe because it makes more sense being linked when the article goes on to mention "The dog derived from an ancient, extinct wolf". It mentions that the dog descended from the wolf as a species and then gets more specific with the extinct population. Nothing crazy. Seriously your whole objection doesn't make any sense. Its time to just move on. LittleJerry (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2021
Dogs are omnivores. Over years of selective breeding, humans were actually able to change the diet of dogs! Shamayel1 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The 'source' is a poorly written pop-sci mass audience tidbit. It is misleading on more than one count. The diet of dogs HAS changed - they got that much right. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11837 However, the statement is that humans were actively and directly responsible for the change, via 'selective breeding' and THAT is highly questionable, both for the use of 'selective breeding', and the statement that humans were the active, controlling agent in the process. Dogs are still carnivores - they are just on the omnivorous end of the scale of carnivores. Whether humans were actively responsible for either the domestication, or the early variations in dog morphology, are active topics of dissention in the scientific world. MGBuell Mbuell72 15:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * yes correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.179.122.213 (talk) 2022-02-28T02:42:11 (UTC)

Photos/illustrations
@William Harris, @Cavalryman The changes to the photo selection to illustrate the wide variety of canine morphology were fine with me! Obviously, I've not had this on my watchlist. MGBuell Mbuell72 15:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Akngwelye" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Akngwelye. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2021
2600:8800:1D83:3800:70B3:9E0A:282A:B31C (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC) The dog or domestic dog, (Canis familiaris[4][5] or Canis lupus familiaris[5]) is a domesticated descendant of the wolf which is characterized by an upturning tail. The dog derived from an ancient, extinct wolf,[6][7] and the modern grey wolf is the dog's nearest living relative.[8] The dog was the first species to be domesticated,[9][8] by hunter–gatherers over 15,000 years ago,[7] before the development of agriculture.[1]

Due to their long association with humans, dogs have expanded to a large number of domestic individuals[10] and gained the ability to thrive on a starch-rich diet that would be inadequate for other canids.[11] Over the millennia, dogs became uniquely adapted to human behavior, and the human-canine bond has been a topic of frequent study.[12]

The dog has been selectively bred over millennia for various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and physical attributes.[13] Dog breeds vary widely in shape, size, and color. They perform many roles for humans, such as hunting, herding, pulling loads, protection, assisting police and the military, companionship, therapy, and aiding disabled people. This influence on human society has given them the sobriquet of "man's best friend."
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This just looks like a copy/paste of our current introduction Cannolis (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Binomial nomenclature of dog
It seems as though the binomial nomenclature of dog had been changed to Canis lupus familiaris instead of Canis familiaris in 1993. It does seem that there is still an ongoing discussion about the name, but could somebody please look into it? References: Illinois University- Taxonomy of Dog VetInfo- Scientific name of dogs Brittanica- Dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perceptionless Noumenon (talk • contribs) 07:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Dogs as our pets" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dogs as our pets and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2022
Plasmastars (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Hi guys


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tommy has a great username (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Subsection about cruelty toward dogs is incomplete and overlaps with subsection about dogs as food
I have two overlapping concerns about this article.

First, the subsection on cruelty toward dogs is incomplete. It talks about use of dogs as food and some instances of mass killing of dogs. However the examples used seem cherry picked and speak to a specific definition of cruelty that is being left unsaid. For example there is no discussion of neglect or maltreatment. As well the discussion of mass poisoning of dogs would be better off in a subsection about dogs as pests. I'm not saying this as a dog hater - I like dogs - but this subsection shows a lot of cultural specificity that needs to be reined in.

For example in the UK where I'm from, forcing dogs to fight badgers is a relatively common form of animal cruelty and I think it's strange that a discussion of animal cruelty doesn't talk about this but does talk about a Chinese cultural practice and some specific instances of mass killings of dogs in Pakistan. Pakistan isn't even the only place that mass killings of dogs have taken place in. However the section singles it out as one of only a few instances of this kind of activity, which is misleading.

As well, the section about dogs as food covers the topic in more detail and with less bias. I think that the discussion of the topic in the cruelty section should be limited and link to the specific food section.

Thanks for considering. 217.155.94.217 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty bad section. While human interaction with dogs has been cordial as faithful friends, there have been several occasions of cruelty towards dogs in contemporary times. Pfft. I've removed the whole thing. A section on dogs as food might be appropriate; a section on dog population control might be appropriate; a section on fighting with and by dogs might be appropriate; a section on differing cultural attitudes towards dogs might be appropriate; but putting all these things in one basket makes little sense. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 23:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Error
However, neutering increases the risk of urinary incontinence in female dogs[49] Should be changed to spayed rather than neuter, as this concerns female dogs. 67.216.51.147 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The male equivalent of spaying is castrating, not neutering. Neutering encompasses both.  The statement is correct.  (I also corrected the error in your spelling of "error" while I was replying.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal that "Pooch" be a disambiguation page rather than redirect to "Dog"
Discussion here: Talk:Pooch. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Rheaxx666 (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing Seminar I
— Assignment last updated by Pthomas4 (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Turn reference blue
I added a comment to help turn a reference blue. I could not find the ISBN of the original book, so I added a link to a later version I found, but I did not check that it is valid as a reference for the statement in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dog&oldid=prev&diff=1122582421&markasread=263790634&markasreadwiki=enwiki So9q (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Dog breeds" not descending from wolves?
The Fuegian dog (and possibly the Hare Indian Dog) did not come from domestication of wolves, yet are generally called dogs, is this something that might be good to mention in the article? ★Trekker (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising
— Assignment last updated by KayMyrs (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Dog as a subspecies of Canis lupus - wolf (Canis lupus familiaris)
While the pages Dog and Canis agree that dog is a separate species - Canis familaris, dogs can be considered the same species as Canis lupus due to the ability for “any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring”. The pages Species agrees this is the main way to classify species. The page Wolf also agrees that dog is one of over 30 subspecies of Canis lupus, thus these 3 page (Canis, Dog, Wolf) are in contradiction Lê Duy Hưng 256 (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2023
I wanted to highlight the top dogs people get as pets. 1. Labrador Retriever · 2. Bulldog · 3. Golden Retriever · 4. Beagle · 5. Pug · 6. Irish Setter · 7. Brussels Griffon · 8. Newfoundland · 9. French Bulldog. AMH824 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/lifestyle/best-family-dogs/
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume they wish to add a section explaining which types of dogs are most commonly owned.
 * Should that be deemed necessary, the statistics can be found at List of most popular dog breeds Lê Duy Hưng 256 (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023
Remove photo of the man which is there with the photos of the dog. 103.179.104.104 (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Cannolis (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

"A dog" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_dog&redirect=no A dog] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Skynxnex (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Ang tmad mo nmn gumalw 120.28.229.245 (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023
This edit may be helpful for the citation needed between 181 and 182 at the bottom of the page. Jewish culture and dogs is a topic discussed on the Barkmind site. https://barkmind.com/30-interesting-and-fun-facts-about-dogs/ the specific reference is under their Bonus section where they talk about dogs and cultures. Dtr11 (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I appreciate your desire to help improve the article. Unfortunately, the contents of the source provided do not support the 2 sentences which the Citation needed template is referring to. — Sirdog (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The contents needed may be in the two books to which the Barkmind article points.
 * However, I wonder if Barkmind is a RS. Dgndenver (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)