Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[yhoyhoj]

I hope this is the right place to discuss the accuracy of wiki pages.

A bit of background :
I recently discovered the joy of capturing and training wild animals, heavily relying on the wiki to see which animals are useful.
I captured a lot of Naked Mole Dogs, and I was quite happy considering what the wiki says on them :

Naked mole dogs can make for a dog replacement, being generally bigger and tougher and not feeling pain, unlike dogs. However, they aren't as aggressive as dogs, which may make them less attractive.

However my pack of trained Naked mole dogs fled before 3 raccoons.
So it seems that this description is overly optimistic. They are not aggressive at all.
I have already added this example on the wiki to emphasize the lack of aggressiveness but shouldn't the whole sentence be changed, as they doesn't seems to be a good dog replacement at all ?

[CLA]

That was probably from before the changes to personality were made, which made any and all creatures a bit more cowardly. It would be interesting to see whether dogs maybe would have fled too.
In any case, that seems like a reasonable change to the article.
In the case of specific article content discussions, the talk page on the wiki would be a good place as well, by the way.

[yhoyhoj]

I hesitated to use the talk page but I would have never received an answer.
It's easier to debate a change explained on the Talk page if it happens to be inaccurate, though.

But well, now that I posted here thanks for the informations about the changes to personality, it may explain why the article is wrong.
I will edit the page with this hypothesis and document my change in the Discussion page, just in case.

And my war dogs did fight spontaneously. So they are way more useful.