Jump to content

Talk:Aging in dogs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeAging in dogs was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 24, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

The two terminologies again

[edit]

It seems a lot of people here are confused by the two ways the terms "dog year" and "human year" are used. And the references were lost in a simplification of the terminology section a while back.

FWIW I've just done a Google search. On looking at the top 20 hits, I've found that

these use terminology 1:
these use terminology 2:
these contradict themselves, or seem to, by mixing the two systems:
and a few others don't clearly use one or the other

OK, so the maxiebeagle one uses terminology 1 only in acknowledgement of the popular myth, so it isn't clear whether it has made the error or is trying to claim the use of terminology 1 as being part of the myth. But anyway, it seems to me that, although system 1 may be the popularly used one, system 2 is actually supported by more sources. — Smjg (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, it seems obvious to me that, in terminology 1 at least, "dog year" and "human year" are informal terms. A year is the time it takes a planet to orbit its star; to claim that from a dog's point of view the earth orbits the sun in a seventh of this time is nonsense. Neither do I suppose it's the way the dogs themselves measure age. "Dog year" is just a phrase coined to represent the idea that, since dogs get through their lives much faster than we humans do, their units of age must be smaller than ours.
On the other hand, terminology 2 makes logical sense (non-linearity and breed dependence aside) and has a parallel in such terms as "light year", and so might sanely be used in popular science literature. — Smjg (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tempest in a teapot, and outmoded. Seriously, are we going to count NUMBER of web sites that echo each other? We're talking about colloquial usage among humans, which changes, so a survey of "top" hits should be sifted to cull older ones. Maybe use only those in the most recent 5 years, and update to omit dead links. But a better system is to use WP:RS such as AKC. So I cut this entire extraneous section. Martindo (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aging in dogs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aging in dogs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how many 20 year old dogs around?

[edit]
I have got a Bichon that's over 20 years old. He has always gone to the same animal hospital so we have his records.

If the chihuahua dies does he have a shot at being the oldest dog or are there a lot of other old timers around. 24.181.176.27 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current record is over 30 years by a purebred Rafeiro do Alentejo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A183:8600:A051:C9AA:632E:3CB6 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad math

[edit]

I cut some old and casual sources which said things like 1 year=10.5 years, with reproduction starting at 13-15 months (which would be age 11-13 for a human). If we really want to beef up this page with some research, we should find studies that show active dogs live longer -- that might be why the Aussie ones which run free are some of the oldest dogs on record. Martindo (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should update the graph from a WP:RS, too. Martindo (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aging_in_dogs&oldid=1233760202"