Talk:Bully Kutta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Long list of external photo links
Wikipedia isn't a link farm--that means that articles can have external links to sites that are particularly relevant and helpful to people to get more info on the subject, but not to *every* site that has the slightest info about the topic. Would be better to have one or two links to pages from which one can reach multiple photos, rather than to individual photos with no other info. I reduced the list to one of each of the 3 dogs; don't know whether those are the best shots of each, that's up to someone else to decide. Elf | Talk 22:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Note to WritersCramp
Please stop using revert to undo edits. Revert is to remove vandalism such as anonymous users coming in and writing crap in articles such as "my dog is a nice dog" or various profanities or inexplicable edits such as removing half a paragraph. It is not for working collaboratively with other wiki editors. I've already given reasons for the edits on the page. If you disagree, please discuss them. Do not use revert. Elf | Talk 00:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Note to Elf
Pictures and info on this breed are difficult to obtain, this is why they were added. There are not books or hardcopy literature published on this breed, this article is really the best reference point for someone doing research on the breed. I spent time sniffing everything available on the Internet. Please stop editing everything I do...if it wasn't for your sexuality I would begin to believe u have puppy luv for me :)
- If you would ever bother to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds to see how dog-breed articles are organized, or for that matter any of the hundreds of other dog breed pages, and if you would learn from the changes that other people (ok, mostly me) are making to your pages, I wouldn't have to spend my time editing so many of your additions. However, as you may also have noticed if you bothered to look, I'm active on all dog-related and dog-breed related pages, attempting to hold together a strategy and consistency that has been developed by a number of people active in the dog-breed project over the last couple of years, which you seem to have no interest in. May I remind you again that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not a place where an individual can go and do whatever he wants in any way he wants to do it. Elf | Talk 00:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- These new edits are acceptable and it is good that everyone is following the same format. There are a lot of rules at the Wiki not everyone will know them in depth, in fact, I suspect it is only the few that know them at all. Cordially WritersCramp 01:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- True. And true. But most people who do much work here do learn a lot of the basics fairly quickly. I do not want to discourage you from contributing, because there are so many many many dog breeds and you're filling in a lot of rare ones. Not that I think you'd be easily discouraged. Elf | Talk 04:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Long list of photo links again
WC, as you've now been told by two people, the long list of external links is definitely not what Wikipedia is about. It would be "acceptable" (to use your term) to have an external link to a single page from which one could then access the various photos. It would be "acceptable" to pick 2 or 3 photos to link to, since we know that this breed will be hard to find photos of. But there is no reason that I can think of to have links to that many photos. We certainly wouldn't include that many photos ON the page even if they were public domain. Please either find the external page that one can use to get to those photos and put a link to that here, or pick 2 or 3 photos to link to (and maybe also then link to a page where one can get to other photos. But having this many links is very clearly nonWikipedian. Them simply being "difficult to obtain" doesn't make something so important that it has to be in wikipedia. Especially since they're all of the same dogs over & over. Also, the dogs' names need to be removed from the article. It has been the Dog Breed Project standard not to identify dogs by name in the articles about the breed unless there is some exceptional reason to do so, which pretty much never happens. I certainly don't see it in this case. Elf | Talk 01:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- To clarify what I'm doing here: I'm reducing the links in this article to one image link per sub-breed. This is gives Wikipedia useful access to valuable information, but avoids making the page into an unreadable mass of links. We don't need a huge pile of links to inform the reader of this article, and Wikipedia is not a collection of links. -Harmil 03:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 42 inches?
Just a question on this: the maximum height for the Bully Kutta is given as 42 inches. Is there citation for this? The Irish Wolfhound is generally considered the tallest breed, and it is described as 32-34 inches tall. Is 42 inches the height at the withers, or top of the head? Is this possibly an error converting from metric to inches?
Well, as I'm the only one who's actually read my point, let me quote from the first link, Molosserworld, which states that the dogs are: "30 to 34 inches (76-85,5 cm.) for males and 29 to 32 inches (73,5-81,5 cm.) for females."
- Pic SirIsaacBrock 20:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Categories: Unassessed Dogs articles | Unknown-importance Dogs articles | WikiProject Pakistan history articles | Unassessed Pakistan history articles | Unknown-importance Pakistan history articles | Unassessed Pakistan articles | Unknown-importance Pakistan articles | Wikipedia requested breed photographs