Talk:Dog park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance 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.

Removed new "benefits" section as it was a direct copy of [[1]]. If we can get permission from that site to use the text under GFDL, it can go back in. Elf | Talk 21:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am actually the author of the benefits page on the FETCH web site (and its webmaster.) So I think it can be restored. But, not being that up onthese things, can you confirm that the footnotes crediting the two facts are adequate for this purpose?

Ron from Whidbey island

OK, I put it back. Thanks! I think the references are fine. Elf | Talk 17:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Article title

I just moved the page... why on Earth was this at "Dog park (dogs)"? Do you suppose there would be "Dog park (cats)"? "Dog park (orangutans)"? - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just found there's a Dog Park (movie) Great. Why'd the disambiguation have to be at Dog Park with nothing at Dog park? OK, so should we move the page back to Dog park (dogs), or have two articles, Dog park and Dog Park? - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, I like the idea of Dog park (orangutans). Should be entertaining. Let's start one (the park, I mean, not the article). I think that this should be the article on dog parks with a reference to Dog Park (movie). I don't know that we really need a dab page; doesn't seem likely that there'll be more than these 2 references, although I suppose you never can tell. Elf | Talk 05:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's what happened: I wrote the original dog park article, but found that an article for the movie already existed. Therefore, I created a dog park (dogs) article and then created a disambiguation page. This was back in June of 2004. At that time, I didn't really know what else to do.The Dogfather 20:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I edited benefits page

I took out this: "Off-leash dog areas are places of camaraderie and friendship. They are wonderful places used by caring and responsible people."

This was just too hoakey and opinionated. I personally love dog parks, but there are plenty of irresponsible people that use them. It just sounded too much like a plug- not very fitting for a dictionary.

I agree to the change. They're just dog parks, not a religion. And as much as I like visiting the dog park, it is from time to time visited by ignorant oafish people and their aggressive, dangerous mutts.

[edit] Neutrality Check Nomination

User talk:24.124.29.130 anonymously nominated this article for a neutrality check. I discovered this page after linking to it. Boy, this article really really really sucks! I was hoping for information about various parks around the country, world, etc., how they are managed, etc. Instead there are unsourced diatribes for and against dogs. Quite frankly this article would be best served by nuking everything except the lead graf and the links. Unless the sections are rewritten or you can give compelling reasons why they should stay I will probably do that. Americasroof 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In looking at the history the part that is most offensive is the anonymous unsourced rant added by User talk:69.47.228.118 in December 2005. If I nuke sections of the article it will be the unsourced data and that section will have to go. Unfortunately, I have a horrible feeling this will turn into flamebait. The only way to keep things cool is to put sources on everything.Americasroof 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think the original article that I wrote was sufficient. As usual a lot of other helpful "editors" came along and added a load of opinionated crap to an otherwise neutral, simple page. The Dogfather 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced Assertions

I've been an activist for off-leash hours and off-leash park area for dogs for several years. I was hoping that Wikipedia had some good material. I am very disappointed in what this article contains and especially what it lacks: cited sources for the claims made. DCDuring 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)