Talk:Dog anatomy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] comment
This picture should be useful! 128.250.37.103 07:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
dog anatomy → dog topography – Rationale: because that it what the article is a discussion of, internal anatomy is barely mentioned - Jack (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Oppose I figured this article would have both the inside and outside of a dog explained. Looks like it is only half done. And, when I saw "dog topography" I just got this dumb look on my face, half cocked my head to the right and said "Hmmmm?" :) — MrDolomite | Talk 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose "dog topography" is a bad idea, besides, external bits are part of the anatomy too. Let's add more to the article instead. - Trysha (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- Add any additional comments
- Is "dog topography" the accepted professional term? The word "topography" is not in the article, and "dog topography" doesn't google much of interest. Seems like "dog breed characteristics" would be most descriptive. This also seems like a sub-page of dog breed yet isn't referenced there. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Not about anatomy
I don't think "dog topography" is a good alternative, but yes, this article should have a different title (my suggestion: "physical traits of dogs"). The opening statement--dog anatomy varies tremendously from breed to breed--is simply silly. Anatomy = parts, and all dogs have the same parts (unless they've been in an acident! What it calls "physical characteristics," are, in fact, anatomical characteristics, and the rest of the article deals with what would be more appropriately called different traits, not differences in anatomy. 208.59.171.104 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
