A fact from Boy (dog) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 January 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A basic page for Boye established. Around half the writers seem to call him 'Boye', the other half 'Boy' - I've gone for the former as the number of references just seemed to edge in that direction. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Just noticed that User:Tuckerresearch deleted one of the images from the article - there was no comment made in the edit summary as to why, however. Was there any particular reason for it to be removed? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to undo the deletion for now, but obviously if there's a good reason for removing it, let's do so.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I removed it because it superfluous. Why don't you add a picture of a dachshund and say "A 21st century representation of a non-contemporary dachshund"? TuckerResearch (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Mainly because modern poodles look rather different to 17th century ones; personally, I couldn't work out why the "lapland lady" simile worked for the 17th century audience until I saw this woodcut. There is a reference somewhere out there that suggests the original picture, on which this subsequent woodcut was based, was actually of Rupert's dog - but since I can't find what I did with the reference this doesn't help my case any! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yet we have two contemporary renderings of the poodle in question, I think the third, which is NOT Boye is excessive. However, I don't really care either. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
_part_2.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
.svg)
