Talk:Segugio Italiano

Two breeds not one

This article conflates two separate breeds, the Segugio italiano a pelo forte and the Segugio italiano a pelo raso, FCI breeds #198 and #337 respectively. I propose to split it into two separate pages. Any objection or reason not to do that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I have just completed a rewrite then seen this message. It would be possible to split them, I have no objections the idea. The sources I have seen and used here treat them together, with a shared heritage and function, then state they are recognised separately based on coat type. I think split articles would be significantly shorter than this one and have a large amount of replicated text. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC).

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Short-Haired Segugio Italiano

• ... that the Segugio Italiano was highly prized during the Italian Renaissance, being used in elaborate hunts with a large number of hunt servants and hunt followers mounted on horseback? Source: David Alderton, Hounds of the world & Desmond Morris, Dogs: the ultimate guide to over 1,000 dog breeds
  • ALT1:... that the Segugio Italiano is believed to descend from Ancient Egyptian sighthounds introduced by Phoenician traders, crossed with European scent hounds, likely Celtish bloodhounds, at some point in the 1st millennium BC? Source: David Alderton, Hounds of the world & Desmond Morris, Dogs: the ultimate guide to over 1,000 dog breeds

• Reviewed: exempt as first ever nomination, wish to understand the process prior to attempting a review.

5x expanded by Cavalryman (talk). Self-nominated at 09:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC).

• Cute doggy. The image review is usually the last thing I do, but this time I started with it, because it's a cute doggy. The image has a free license that I have no doubts over. Now to the article. The first thing I do there is run DYK check, which in this case says its a fail. However, that's not final. DYK check gets tripped up by larger versions in the edit history that aren't relevant to the expansion at hand. In this case, looking at the diffs shows that the preexpansion version was 744 bytes of prose, and the current version has 4,566, which is more than a 6.1x expansion. The article is above the minimum length. The article appears to be written neutrally, and there is no likely copyvio. There are citations throughout the article, with at least one per paragraph (lead excepted). ALT0 is interesting enough and cited inline. ALT1 is cited inline and is interesting enough, but is over 200 characters, making it too long, and it's a bit of a runon sentence that makes it tough to follow. QPQ exempt as this is your first nomination. Good to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, many thanks, and thank you for talking me through your process, it will serve as a good template for any future reviews I conduct. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC).