Talk:Australian Bulldog
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. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-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. |
|||
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Preferred photos show the complete animal, head to tail. Additional photos should add information, such as a face-only shot or distinct coat color or texture variants. Please do not include restricted copyright or "fair use" images. |
the australian bulldogs is not a great house pet as it is very pushy.
Contents |
[edit] Australian Bulldogs as house pets
We own Four Australian Bulldogs and they all live inside. If they are taught manners they are easy to get on with.
[edit] Books
References refer to articles, magazines and books that were used to write the article. In this case, the books were not used to write the article, they are good books that I am recommending on the history of the Bulldog breed. WritersCramp 12:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that Wikipedia's style is to distinguish these items. The list at Wikipedia:Cite sources seems to imply that all such items go under the References heading. However, to clarify, I have left a question at Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources#Clarifying "further_reading" vs "references". Elf | Talk 22:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] See also/crossbreeds & hybrids
Ah, how nice, an edit war. Just what one needs to brighten one's day. Here are my thoughts on the see also: Dog hybrids and crossbreeds.
- First, that article specifically mentions the Australian Bulldog as being a currently popular type of crossbreed, and has done so for more than a year(in other words, in case anyone wondered, it wasn't added just to justify this particular link).
- Second, just from this stub it's pretty clear that the breed isn't yet a breed, it's stil in development, which tells me that there's some crossbreeding going on or has recently gone on. I don't know anything about the breed's history, so I have no idea whether the hybridization has stopped and they're only inbreeding; someone might want to find that out and update the article.
- Third, if no one is crossbreeding any more and they ARE only inbreeding, still it seems that a sentence or more in the article about how the breed was developed--even if only very generally--is appropriate; in this case, I might think that the link to the other article would go in a sentence in the article along the lines of "...this breed began as a crossbreed among the X, Y, and Z breeds and has only recently begun inbreeding...". But, until such an informed statement can be made, I think a see also link is appropriate.
- Fourth, it seems to me that the hybrids/crossbreeds article could really make a clearer point that most breeds, and pretty much all modern breeds, started out this way--at the moment it seems to make the point in a roundabout way.
Elf | Talk 22:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Not a breed?
What's with all these 'Australian <insert real breed>' breeds of dogs around about? Apparently, all these Australian <Breed> dogs are only known outside Australia? And oddly, none are recognised? Seriously, what's up with that? 211.30.71.59 16:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
