This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dog odor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The dog anatomy article and the dog odor article conflict in fact. One says that dogs do not sweat. The other says this is a common misconception. They both need to be updated with a citation.
It is written that dogs do not sweat at all. This is wrong; dogs sweat through their pawpads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.15.63 (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My dog sweats on her head, we can feel it & even smell it...Please explain.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.212.242 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am a newb, I would like to learn from the experience of posting my first article. Please tell my why it needs cleanup. Thanks. --caroldermoid 23:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed the clean-up tag as I responded to my requests for feedback answers and the tag was placed without comment. --caroldermoid 20:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This was a hard one to categorize as there are not enough categories under dog health or under animal physiology. Animal husbandry only contains categories for agricultural animals. Any advice is welcome. --Caroldermoid (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the association with 'skin care'...that category appears to be about human skin and cosmetics. 65.210.12.146 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dog pawpads should be likened unto fried cornmeal in general, if someone has a problem with 'cheese puff snacks.'
I'm confused by the debate on the difference between an article and an encyclopaedicv entry. I would also question some of the concepts in that debate: such as the need for an issue to be in the public mind in some way, or for it to be cited by someone with accreditation of some sort.
For me, the odour of animals/insects etc is something very real and as clearly definable a concept as any. The writer wishes to raise the standard of the article so besides the generalities I would suggest:
I like the idea of splitting the article into Natural and Un-natural smells. The concept of an encyclopedia is not as restrictive as some seem to imagine. It is really just a repository of knowledge arranged in alphabetical order. Nowadays (past 19th century) there is the concept of verifiable external sourced but a huge quantity of articles here simply cite articles on blogs or other websites with little or no academic or peer reviewed research. Thanks for your article and good luck with it.
LookingGlass (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may like to check this article out. It's about dogs' abilities to smell human scent. Perhaps it should be referenced somewhere else here. Scroll down the page to the FBI research on dogs ability to detect scent left by people after handling bombs on the remains of the bombs after they were detonated or burned for 2 minutes in petrol! http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2004/research/2004_03_research03.htm Minimum 78% success. Now THAT'S a sense of smell! LookingGlass (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any study on the differences in order between breeds? I have a JRT mix with practically no scent and some sort of Dalmation/Beagle mix(slightly shorter than the JRTx) with a heavy musk. I'd add wording to that effect, but I'm pretty sure that pets count as OR. BioTube (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
really? are they supernatural? i think the word choice here is a bit unrealistic. Odors caused by parasites, diseases or other non-endemic causes are genuine, but hardly unnatural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.18.211 (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We try not to have american versus English spelling wars here on wikipedia. Please see WP:COFAQ#ENGLISH for more information on the subject. Since the article began using the American spelling, and the title uses it, making a wholesale changeover to British spelling makes no sense and accomplishes nothing. I know there are some editors who make it their life's purpose to enforce their view on the matter but I don't think that's what's going on here. I think an editor was just trying to be helpful. I would ask that editor to help us here in other ways by seeking out some references for any statements of fact that look as if they could use the support with a citation from an authority and to add new material they feel is pertinent. Thanks!LiPollis (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]