Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs

Active discussions
WikiProject Dogs (Rated Project-class)
This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Sections of this talk page older than 60 days are automatically archived by MiszaBot.

Time to establish guidelinesEdit

  Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Members: This is the correct page. Atsme Talk 📧 14:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

One of the conundrums brought about by the internet is an influx of dog registry associations in various flavors, many of which are registering breed-types that do not necessarily adhere to long established practices for developing breed standards. Long established purebred registries and their official kennel clubs are considered RS for dog descriptions, breed standards, breed history, etc. Such registries would include The Kennel Club, American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club, Canadian Kennel Club, Australian National Kennel Council, and comparable others across the globe. The issues that concern me are the new associations and registries that have sprung up on the internet such as the United Canine Association (UCA), American Rare Breed Association which is also a double registry because they "register dogs recognized by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale or by its own board of directors that are not yet recognized by the American Kennel Club." I find the latter somewhat disconcerting. We also have a List of kennel clubs, many of which are red-links. WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:V, and/or WP:RS are at issue, as is what actually constitutes a "breed" or "purebred dog". This morning I spent a bit of time checking citations for some of our dog articles and was overwhelmed by what I found, some of which are used as citations in our articles, and/or were used to establish notability. Examples: Sarah's dogs, Royal Canin, Dog Breed Info, Dog Time, Vet Street, etc. Let's discuss.

Pinging a few: Chrisrus, Montanabw, Cyclonebiskit, Elf, SMcCandlish, Doug Weller, White Arabian Filly, Cavalryman V31, Gareth Griffith-Jones, 7%266%3Dthirteen, Tikuko Atsme Talk 📧 19:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Fix & add: Cavalryman, William Harris Atsme Talk 📧 19:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Our colleague Chris has not been active for over a year, I have sent him emails twice and it saddens me to fear the worst.
The issue is compounded by commercial interests that cross-breed dogs and then claim that the product is a new "breed" recognised by a "breed club" or "breed registry" which they themselves have established. Additionally, the internationally recognised kennels provide dubious histories of their dogs which are based on myth, legend and heresay rather than historical research. You have seen this type of thing before where they state: "There are depictions of (insert name of any breed here) on cave walls dating back 9,000 years." Fortunately the FCI has begun to remove these types of claims; the others have much work to do. William Harris talk  08:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
This is going to be a real mess. The 'status' of being a "recognized breed" (or not) by various clubs is itself dubious. It has a lot to do with pirating breed registrations (and attendant fees). As an example (of which I am personally familiar) the Leonberger Club of America largely did not want to be part of the American Kennel Club. There were some members that wanted recognition. Recognition came nonetheless; some of this is based upon a breed's "popularity."
And of course, there are the ancillary decisions as to what is a "breed." One need only look at Akita, Akita Inu and American Akita to see how that plays out. Or look at German Longhaired Pointer, German Shorthaired Pointer and German Wirehaired Pointer.
Likewise the matter of groupings.
Individual clubs differ, and they have their own agendas and purposes. Some are in it for the betterment of the breed, and some less so. So we should tread carefully. 7&6=thirteen () 21:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
William Harris, 7%266%3Dthirteen, Montanabw, Gareth Griffith-Jones - let's try to model after Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Resources and establish a set of guidelines for RS in much the same way they established MEDRS. Breeds that are not officially recognized by notable breed registries do not belong in the pedia unless the article is compliant with NOR, V, NPOV, GNG and all material is RS. I'm of the mind that the first thing we need to do is create a DOGRS standard (like WP:MEDRS) which includes a list of recognized breed registries and websites that are acceptable. It is the only way we're going to get a handle on these OR & PROMO articles. Common sense and good judgement tells us that if the dog is not recognized by one of the non-profit breed registries it is not a "purebred" therefore it is just a "type" of dog - a Heinz 57 or mutt or backyard creation that happens to look like a purebred, or it is a crossbred that a person or group is attempting to get recognized as a breed and they're using WP as their platform. We are also experiencing issues with advocates of Breed-specific legislation which has introduced noncompliance with WP:NOT, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. Then we have the good-intentioned dog lovers who write blogs, or proclaim themselves as experts and simply don't know or try to understand our PAGs. These are issues our project can resolve.
I don't forsee any problems identifying notable breed registries once we establish guidelines per consensus. We have more than our share of backyard breeder websites, self-proclaimed experts (puppy mills & dog lovers) providing online "information" about dogs, and commercial dog registries which are not unlike unaccredited institutions of learning & higher ed. We simply handle those types of registries the same way we do the unaccredited others. Much of the information in our current dog articles is poorly sourced, and some of the articles about "breeds" are not breeds at all, and fail both OR and V. We can fix those issues but we need to do so with as a project using a consensus-building approach, not unlike the incredible accomplishments of Project Med with their informative project site and creation of MEDRS. Atsme Talk 📧 13:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Elf - active member. Atsme Talk 📧 13:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, I this is an excellent idea. To paraphrase William Harris, the current trend for backyard breeders is to trademark their creations as “breeds” so as to maximise profits. Sometimes they are little more than lines of established breeds (Llewellin Setter, Leavitt Bulldog) whilst other times they are simply crossbreads. Ironically these dogs are often healthier animals than many pure breeds due to hybrid vigour, but that does not make them notable.
I am in general sceptical of the major breed registries, they are typically dominated by the show world who like to exaggerate certain features of some breeds to the detriment of both that breed’s function and often the dog’s health, but it is a starting point. We must ensure we don’t delete articles about well established unrecognised types in the process.
Strict adherence to solid RS is the best policy, but the creation of a well written guideline would hopefully cut the endless debate that occurs from some quarters when we nominate some of these articles for deletion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC).
Wikipedia policy and purposes as regards this topic

Let me start with an analogy: some people would say that because a word isn't "yet" in any printed dictionary, it isn't a word. Remember "ain't"? These words were only recently recognized by the OED: co-parent, deglobalization, e-publishing, hangry, mansplain, and selfie. The subject of linguistics teaches that words crop up spontaneously in a population, become commonly used in speech, and then get put into a dictionary. It's a matter of which comes first. In this analogy, the common use of the word comes before the recognition of the word by dictionary companies. The same applies to the creation of dog breeds and their eventual recognition (or not) by kennel clubs and breed registries.

Breeds are created by people, not necessarily groups of people, and sometimes by just one person. That person, or the groups of people, may not care about "recognition" by a breed registry, may not be interested in paying others for registration of "their" dogs. Many believe that recognition by an organization with its breed standards and bent towards conformation shows will destroy the hard work put into the creation and establishment of a foundation stock and ongoing breeding programs (see Conformation show#Criticism), and may lead to health problems for an entire population of dogs. It's long been proven that focusing soley on conformation will ruin a breed's temperament, and that's why no one in Germany purchases a German Shepherd puppy unless both its sire and dam have also passed at least basic Schutzhund training (including passing the firearms test), proving their solid temperaments. The lack of buyer-pressure of behavioral and performance testing of breeding stock in the USA has produced a country full of almost useless gunshy and thunder-terrified GSDs, causing police departments to almost exclusively import their dogs from Europe and eastern European countries.

To say that a dog breed isn't a real breed because it hasn't been sanctioned by, rubber stamped from, or incorporated into, a national organization is the same snobbery as saying "ain't" ain't a real word in today's English-speaking world.

Do not allow the use of the Wikipedia platform to attempt to redefine the word "breed" to something it is not!

Check any dictionary and you'll discover there are many definitions for each word, each slightly different from the others. You'll discover that all definitions are valid; some used more frequently than others in ordinary speech. To exclude all other meanings of a word in favor of one single meaning is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and specifically to the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There are several definitions of the word 'breed', only one of which means what we traditionally understand to be a purebred. To require Wikipedia editors to exclude all other uses of the word 'breed' in favor of one single specific meaning is Wikipedia:Advocacy. I understand the desire to want some form of standardisation, but you cannot cause the rest of world to conform to this idea, and as Wikipedia editors we report what is out there in real life; not what we want it to be.

GNG policy: Note that the GNG policy Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not exclude the mention of non-notable subjects, it only describes which subjects shouldn't get their own standalone article. The section is followed immediately by Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Therefore, using the high standard of WP:GNG to exclude all mention of non-notable dog breeds from inclusion within any and all Wikipedia articles is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

MEDRS: The idea that content about dog breeds need a strict policy such as WP:MEDRS (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)) is not defensible. The purpose of MEDRS is so that ideas about untested, controversial, or dangerous matters do not affect the health and well-being of a population through reading about it in Wikipedia. There's probably also a liability factor to Wikipedia if they allowed casual re-publication of fringe medical ideas. The risk of inclusion of minor, rare, or controversial dog breeds in an encyclopedia has no such risk factor.

I don't believe there is a rampant uncontrollable "OR & PROMO problem" that needs further policymaking as a solution. Wikipedia already has plenty of policy to handle it; just edit and move on.

  • We already have a policy against standalone articles for non-notable topics: WP:GNG
  • We already have a policy against using unreliable sources: WP:RS
  • We already have a policy against writing original research: WP:OR
  • We already have a policy against advertising and advocacy: WP:NOTADVERTISING

In closing: the proposed idea (of codifying the word 'breed') is a wrong use of Wikipedia resources, is contrary to its key purposes, and violates Wikipedia policy.

Nomopbs (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Which underscores an issue not addressed - what to do about the landraces. For example, the Indian pariah dog. The Landrace#dogs came into being long before the Victorian-era clubs commenced their selective breeding. There are nearly 1 billion dogs on this planet, most of them do not fall under the category of a breed that is recognised by a Western kennel club. However, I also note that none of the landrace articles claim them to be a dog "breed". William Harris talk  11:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
WH, I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting: that we classify a dog as a breed OR a landrace (never both) and use such criteria as 'Is it recognized by a breed registry and has a breed standard,' to determine whether we use the word 'breed' or 'landrace' exclusive of each other?
To correct you, I must point out that Indian pariah dog and Scotch Collie (the first example used in the Landrace#Dogs article) calls both dogs a 'landrace' AND a 'breed' in their respective articles. In fact, it sounds like 'landrace' is considered a subset of 'breed'.
I don't know which part of the English-speaking world commonly uses the term 'landrace' or whether it is a new word or a very specific esoteric word, because I never heard the word in my many decades of life (except as the name of a breed of pig) until I started editing on Wikipedia. 'Landrace' does not exist in my 1994 print edition of a college-level dictionary. It appears that the new meaning "A local cultivar or animal breed that has been improved by traditional agricultural methods" was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2005. [1] The wiktionary says there is an overlap of 'landrace' and 'breed'. [2]
The Scotch Collie (landrace) goes on to describe how the Rough Collie (breed) diverged from the existing Scotch Collies because of breeding, hinting that 'landrace' is the old and 'breed' is the new and deliberately improved version. In the case of the Catahoula bulldog (recently under attack in wikiland as 'not a breed'), the Catahoula BD is a deliberately bred dog, not the earlier natural local version that the word 'landrace' is being used for in doggie-wikiland. So if you are suggesting an angle that we should reclassify such (Catahoula BD) as a 'landrace' because 'it doesn't have a registry or a standardised look' is flip-flopped on its head because which comes first -- the chicken or the egg, the landrace or the breed, the breed or the registry?
We already have guidelines in wikiland to whether or not a subject gets a standalone article and whether or not it even gets a mention in an article. So far, none of that has been in dispute. I assert that the wiki guidelines are alone sufficient to determine whether a breed or landrace gets its own page and/or whether it can be mentioned within another article. I assert there is no need to re-define words in the English language (*cough* breed *cough*) to create strict policy in wikiland in order to censure and censor things that exist in the real world. If the locals call it a breed, then it is a breed. Period. As wikieditors we report what is out there. We aren't a group of scientists on a project to taxonomically reclassify and subclassify all dogs everywhere across the planet in order to write encyclopedia content. We leave that to the scientists, who can then publish something we will use in the encyclopedia.
Nomopbs (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I recommend a refresher read of WP:NOTFORUM. Nomopbs, the content of your 1st and 2nd paragraphs directly below the section title confirm my position about OR and WP:NOT. See WP:GNG:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

When the cited source cannot verify origins, existence, consistency or the important factors that make a breed a breed, notability then falls to RS coverage with emphasis on reliable, DUE and WEIGHT. There is also the possibility we may or may not include it as a standalone article. We already have Dog types, and lists. Perhaps we need a new article that lists Unregistered dog types or something along that line. What is most important is that we clear-up the confusion, not add to it. Science/biology tells us a breed breeds true, and since WP is all about mainstream science and WP:V, it is our obligation to use discretion when considering WP:FRINGE views, the latter of which I'm of the mind that a questionable breed would fall under. A type of dog is not a breed - use the correct terminology which would be "breed type" or "breed standard" for a recognized breed, and "type of dog" for one that is not recognized. To do otherwise leaves us open to inclusion of every fictitious breed imaginable as what William Harris alluded to in his comment. Atsme Talk 📧 18:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
And WHO, pray tell, gets to decide which dogs/breeds/landraces/types belong in the proposed Unregistered dog types article or category? Even classifying a dog to go under such a title would require an outside reliable source, else it be original research. You are treading in the scientific field of Taxonomic ranking with this WP:DOGRS proposition, to a depth where WP:MEDRS never dared to trod. — Nomopbs (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, first we need to get the encyclopedia back on track following WP:GNG, N, V and NOR. Why is it important? Well...let's start with the following article that is quite disturbing: Winograd stated:

"Not only do shelters misidentify breeds as much as 75 percent of the time, but as used by shelters, law enforcement agencies and even courts, “Pit Bull” is not a breed of dog. It is, according to a leading advocacy organization, “a catch-all term used to describe a continually expanding incoherent group of dogs, including pure-bred dogs and mixed-breed dogs. A ‘Pit Bull’ is any dog an animal control officer, shelter worker, dog trainer, politician, dog owner, police officer, newspaper reporter or anyone else says is a ‘Pit Bull.’” When it comes to dogs we call “Pit Bulls,” PETA is not only killing them based on meaningless stereotypes, they are asking shelters to kill dogs they mistakenly think fit those stereotypes by the way they look."

Other articles of note: USC.edu, Plos, Smithsonian, and on and on. We do not want WP to be used as a source of misidentified breeds and breed types. We MUST get the article right, and our core content policies are quite clear about how we go about it. I'm thinking we need to include a paragraph about misindentified breeds in our Bulldog breeds article. Atsme Talk 📧 22:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Atsme wrote "Misidentified dogs are being euthanized" [3] (which is NOT true) and then goes on to quote Nathan Winograd. Winograd's most extreme views (such as the one quoted) are WP:FRINGE and do NOT represent mainstream attitudes in the shelter industry, not even in so-called "No Kill shelters". Just google it. (Be sure to find recent sources, because the industry has been evolving quickly, and just 10 years ago things were radically different than today.) Better yet, try phoning a few No Kill shelters and ask them if they are following Nathan Winograd's principles or ideas. They will tell you no. (That survey has been tried already.) Winograd's extreme views should not be promoted within Wikipedia, least of all honored with a "project" to align Wikipedia articles with such FRINGE views. — Nomopbs (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Google it...and start with National Geographic, then The Atlantic, and PlOs One - all considered quality RS - and there are others. WP should not be a party to misidentifying modern breeds as fighting dogs because of their name, or trying to equate unrecognized breed-types as being official breeds themselves. Worse yet is the use of unreliable sources thinking that's all we need to pass GNG and V. It doesn't surprise me that you would consider Winograd fringe, or deny that PETA supports euthanizing. There are plenty of RS and academic research to support my position. Atsme Talk 📧 18:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I am late to this discussion. And I don’t know that I can help much. When I started working on Wikipedia, there were only a handful of dog breed pages and they were all pretty sketchy. During the two years that I worked on this, with a stack of dog books at my side, it became clear that the question of what is a valid breed and what isn’t is extremely complex and extremely emotional for those involved. One need only to look at, for example, the border collie controversy, which wasn’t recognized as an official breed by the AKC until 1995. I started dog agility that year, and the controversy among so many border collie owners was huge: few of them wanted to be represented by AKC and thought that AKC would ruin the breed. Based on the number of dogs registered, the American border collie association, or whatever it’s called, would be the defining authority. But how does one go about finding these clubs and deciding what an appropriate number of registered dogs is to make it an official breed, even if it is not an official breed of one of the “big“ dog registries? In addition to the FCI, the AKC, etc., there are country registries in other countries (I think India has one, for example, and I think China might, but I don’t speak or read any form of Chinese, so I can’t verify that. We had so many arguments among various breed proponents on various pages about whether their breed was the real one or not, or whether it was even a breed, that I more or less gave up on deciding, and simply started listing whatever registry they claimed as being the one where the breed is registered. AKC is picky. I think it is much too picky in that it does nothing to discourage breed clubs from defining and allowing harmful breeding to an appearance standard, and sadly, yes, they are a major registry, so we have to recognize them, but I’d be much happier if other registries were more available. It might be nice to have some kind of guideline spelled out for dog breeds, even if it is simply to list the existing Wikipedia guidelines with examples or clarifications related to dog breeds. I’m not even sure whether that’s possible, and I’m not going to try. So, there you go. Elf | Talk 18:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)elf

Elf!!! So happy to see your comment here - it's always better to be late than never. I agree that distinguishing a dog breed from a dog type can be tricky but there is a workable formula we can use as a basis - we're working on it. The good news is that DNA testing has taken off - so it's actually an exciting time for us as it will serve as an aid in getting some of the dog breed vs dog type mess cleaned up. See the AP article if you haven't already. Oh, and feel free to weigh-in at User:Atsme/sandbox and User:Atsme/sandbox2 as well as in the discussions below and at the AfDs we list. We are about to wrap-up one GAC at Staffordshire Bull Terrier, so things are looking good. Also, if you know any techies/site developers who have any extra time on their hands, please send them our way - it would be great if we could get some help organizing our project pages to be even half as organized as Project Med's.   Atsme Talk 📧 00:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Some late and short comments: I've already been keeping track, in the documentation of Template:Infobox dog breed, of reliable versus "backyard breeder" and "puppy-mill" registries. And there's a clear difference between a breed, as recognized by multiple national-level and international kennel clubs and breeder associations, versus a mongrel crossbreed with no breed standards, like labradoodles. Stuff that's not really a breed can have an article if it passes WP:GNG, but it should not be described as a breed. And we should not capitalize them. We had a big RfC at WP:VPPOL that concluded to capitalize the formal names of standardized breeds, but otherwise MOS:LIFE applies (do not capitalize terms for groups of animals – and that includes both landraces and crossbreeds, as well as domestic ×wild hybrids like coydogs, except where one has developed into an established breed, like the Bengal cat on the feline side, or where one is a registered trademark, as is the case with a few domestic cattle × wild bovid hybrids). And don't write about non-breeds as if they are breeds. E.g., Labradoodle begins with "A Labradoodle is", not "The Labradoodle is", since there is not such thing as "the" Labradoodle. Whether to capitalize "Labradoodle" because it includes a fragment of the proper name Labrador is an open question, and I would lean lower-case for consistency with MOS:LIFE generally, for consistency with other articles on crossbreeds, and to better differentiate between breeds and non-breeds, as we do also with landraces.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Time to establish guidelines:breakEdit

Atsme, William Harris, Justlettersandnumbers, 7&6=thirteen, Elf & SMcCandlish, I thought I might breath a little life back into this discussion, whilst I agree reputable kennel club recognition is a good place to start, it is possible to be a breed without it. A recent example is the Perdigueiro Galego with multiple RS describing it as such.

Some initial thoughts I have, slightly amended from some I contributed to User:Atsme/sandbox on this subject:

Notability
Sources
  • Kennel clubs are generally only considered reliable sources for the physical traits within the breed standards and the number of animals registered with that kennel club.
  • Other information sourced from kennel clubs and breed registries should only be used to supplement information from independent, reliable, secondary sources and not be cited independently.[1][2]

I would appreciate any thoughts, suggestions, observations, criticisms or additions. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC).

  • Notability - support. Sources - support. However, within the Breed Standard is the "Historical summary" which describes the breed's origins, and is usually cobbled together by the relevant breed club based on the myths and superstitions prevalent to that club. We have seen this on a number of dog articles: "...this breed of dog was brought by Phoenician sailors..." - from which I conclude that there must have been much dog diversity in old Phoenicia! The origin of each breed also needs to be exposed to independent, reliable, sources - I am happy for primary sources just as long as these are independent and reliable. William Harris talk  04:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    I agree, I have made a minor amendment to the breed standards statement which should account for that. Cavalryman (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC).
  • These are some good points, though I (and a few others, mostly from horses, I think) have previously worked a lot on a broader approach to this at Wikipedia:Notability (breeds) (it hasn't quite reached the formal proposal phase because only a few of us were working on it, and kind of fizzled out on it). I would prefer to see that draft improved and moved forward, because we need to not have conflicting standards and would-be guidelines popping up for different species. A site-wide guideline that isn't under the thumb of a single, small wikiproject is more apt to be accepted as a {{Guideline}} rather than a {{WikiProject advice page}} essay. The days when every wikiproject could just whip up some bullet points and call it a guideline ended back in the 2000s. What Wikipedia:Notability (breeds) has lacked is species-specific stuff, like a list of organizations, but that's easily integrated for dogs, cats, etc. I just now built in all of the above into it, and improved it in various other ways, including clearer information on sourcing considerations.
An impressive piece of work, Mac - it will take a little time to read through and digest. William Harris talk  10:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree, very impressive Mac, and exactly what we’ve been needing. I too will need a little time to read through and digest it but from a preliminary glance it covers everything I have stated above and much more. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

References

  1. ^ "Terms and conditions". The Kennel Club. The Kennel Club Ltd. 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020. The Kennel Club makes no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the completeness and accuracy of the information contained on the Website.
  2. ^ "Terms of use". American Kennel Club. American Kennel Club, Inc. 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020. AKC does not warrant that ... the site or the service will be ... error-free, or that defects in the site or the service will be corrected. AKC does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the content, or that any errors in the content will be corrected.

Merger proposal:Mountain dogEdit

An article of interest to the project—Mountain dog—has been proposed for merging with Livestock guardian dog. Project members are invited to participate at Talk:Livestock guardian dog#Merger proposal. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC).

The merger discussion continues at Talk:Livestock guardian dog#Merger proposal, project members are invited to participate and give their opinions on the notability of sources. Cavalryman (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC).

WikiProject Dogs - article assessment - Importance ScaleEdit

Some time ago I placed a Project-semi-active template on this project. Recently, a group of people came together to remove that template and approach this project with great zeal, as can be demonstrated on this Talk page. As we make our way towards a New Year, we should now take a look at how we are rating articles on the Importance Scale, of which the not-well-exampled guide can found here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dogs/Assessment#Importance_scale.

A very long time ago it was decided that this project should not only include the domestic dog (woof!) but encompass all members of the family Canidae. That change was made, but the Importance Scale was not amended and it is still based on the domestic dog, which is given a supreme place in the table. I propose that this scale needs to be updated to reflect what the project now covers, with a draft provided for discussion/amendment below. Please mull over it during the holiday period, and we shall discuss it later in the New Year. William Harris talk  08:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


For further guidance please refer to Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic

Importance parameter values (Category:Dogs articles by importance)
Value Meaning Examples Category
Top "Key" articles, considered indispensable The family Canidae down to species level e.g. Grey wolf, Red fox. Also includes domestic Dog, which is arguably its own species (C. familiaris). Top-importance Dogs articles
High High-priority topics and needed subtopics of "key" articles, often with a broad scope; needed to complement any general understanding of the field All of the subspecies belonging to the species above. All of the "dog types" being one step above a breed e.g. Companion dog, Guide dog, Herding dog etc. High-importance Dogs articles
Mid Mid-priority articles on more specialised (sub-)topics; possibly more detailed coverage of topics summarised in "key" articles, and as such their omission would not significantly impair general understanding Individual dog breeds e.g. Labrador Retriever, landraces e.g. Scotch Collie. Mid-importance Dogs articles
Low While still notable, these are highly-specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles) Cross-breeds e.g. Beaglier. All forms of dog racing, judging and individual cups/events/awards e.g. Greyhound racing, Sheepdog trial, Dog-show judge, Fox hunting, Individual packs e.g. History of wolves in Yellowstone, Quorn Hunt. Individual dogs and books/stories/songs/poems/TV shows about dogs e.g. Bamse the St Bernard. Veterinary or dog biology related subjects e.g. Canine distemper. Dog food, Obedience school. Extinct canids/breeds e.g. Dire wolf. All lists. Low-importance Dogs articles
NA Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc not applicable not applicable
?? Subject importance has not yet been assessed not applicable not applicable
William Harris, I fully support what you have been doing and what you have done above, I really like the cascading species, subspecies/type, breed, individual animals. I think we also need to give some consideration to some other aspects of the topic area including specific dog uses (eg Guide dog), dog sports (eg Sheepdog trial, Fox hunting) and specific populations (eg History of wolves in Yellowstone, Quorn Hunt), and probably specify in the table. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC).
Agreed; we can make the table as specific as we like to help guide future assessors. Its size does not matter. William Harris talk  22:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I have dropped these in the above "live update" table; let me know if you disagree with the priorities. William Harris talk  08:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello All, by now the holiday-makers should have returned and it is now an appropriate time to discuss the above Importance Scale. There has been only one comment since I raised this issue, and if I hear no more over the next week then I intend to implement it. William Harris talk  08:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been having a little think about the above and have some ideas/thought bubbles.
Top – Good.
High – This is something I have been thinking about before this discussion, is there any value in trying to tease out dog types to distinguish between related types (eg sighthounds, terriers etc) and functions (eg companion dogs, attack dogs, anti-tank dogs detection dogs etc) the latter comprising not necessarily related types of similar ancestry but animals of various backgrounds trained to perform a task. This has the potential to be complicated when you get genetically related types of shared ancestry that perform (and are named for) a function (eg livestock guardian dogs, sled dogs). And then we have broad terms (often with few sources) that encompass a broad number of types and functions (eg hunting dogs & working dogs). If done I suspect some of the functions should be dropped a rung, how to do so consistently will take some consideration.
Mid – A few thoughts:
  • I am likely displaying prejudices here, but I feel (albeit not strongly) designer dog crossbreeds should be low importance.
  • Further I think articles like dog food and obedience school are low importance, humanity and dogs evolved together for millenia without either and in much of the world they continue to do without both.
  • I think all individual populations of canids should be low importance (eg both individual packs of wolves and packs of hounds)
Low – Personally I think all forms of dog sport should be elevated to mid importance.
I hope I have not just complicated this process. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
Without prejudicing further comments from other editors, I have moved Dog food and Obedience school down which were my thoughts as well (these were originally at Mid level). For the other items I would like to wait and see what other editors may be able to contribute. In my view, there would be no articles on cross-breeds other than the List of cross-breeds - it is not as if we do not know how they came into being - and Low is reasonable to me. Regarding the High items, I believe that such a split would be too complex for your average Wikipedia article assessor, but someone may have an idea. William Harris talk  08:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree the split of dog type will be a complex manoeuvre and any attempt would require very precise language. I have been going through a number of those "dog jobs" and most of the articles do not actually state they are a type, but something like "an X is a dog that is specifically trained to", further the few sources I have looked at do not classify them as a "type" either, I suspect this is an on-Wikipedia attempt at categorisation (both in terms of Category:Dog types and things like the list I removed from dog type). I am thinking about splitting Category:Dog types to reflect this, as the categorisation doesn’t reflect the pages or sources. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC).
I note that the category dog types includes the Chien Bateke but the link shows it to be a landrace, and the dingo is listed as a "dog type" - that category needs a thorough cleanup. Regarding dogs in sports and events, I will requote you with "...humanity and dogs evolved together for millenia without either and in much of the world they continue to do without both...." A counter-position might be that as it stands now, Mid-priority will include 430 articles on breeds, plus an unknown (but small?) number on landraces - there may be room for more?
Regarding the High-priority debate about distinguish between related types (eg sighthounds, terriers etc) and functions (eg companion dogs, attack dogs, anti-tank dogs detection dogs etc), each of these groupings will include more than one breed. Given that breeds are allocated at Mid-priority, and these groupings are one step above a single breed, I am happy for all of them to reside at Top-priority. There will not be a great number of these anyhow. William Harris talk  08:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Unless anyone else has some suggestions let’s not worry about the dog type/function just for now, I am thinking about how to tackle it and once done we can revisit, as you say it’s not hundreds of pages. My thinking is functions don’t necessarily relate to breeds (and even types), but it can wait.
I had a memory of there being some articles about certain wolf packs but I must be mistaken, I cannot find anything now so forget that one.
Re dog sports, I suppose I was thinking predominantly about dog related field sports, without which hounds, gundogs and terriers would not exist but there are not many pages in this category and a look at List of dog sports has made me rethink, they should remain low priority. Cavalryman (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC).
Many thanks. I concur that if some criteria for a dog type/function reclassification emerges in the future, we can implement it at that time. The importance scale is a "living" document, and reallocations can occur depending on the priorities of the project at a particular time. What we have now is a vast improvement on what was there before and it is subject to review in the future. William Harris talk  06:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The amendments to the Importance Scale have now been implemented, and this task is complete. William Harris talk  08:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Canine BarnstarEdit

 

Here is Template:The Canine Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Templates. Jerm (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC:Use of sources to establish a "mountain dog" typeEdit

An RfC has been made at Talk:Livestock guardian dog#RfC:Use of sources to establish a "mountain dog" type on the use of sources to establish the notability of "mountain dogs". Cavalryman (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC).

Merger proposal:Obedience trainingEdit

An article of interest to the project—obedience training—has been proposed for merging with dog training. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Pastoral dogsEdit

I am beginning to wonder if pastoral dogs are a thing (and if the page meets GNG). Certainly herding dogs and livestock guardian dogs have plenty of sources, but the only source for pastoral dogs is one added by me, David Hancock's Dogs of the shepherds: a review of the pastoral breeds.[1] Despite using the phrase "pastoral dog" in the book several times, Hancock usually says "pastoral breeds" and very definitely keeps the two types separate, really the book is about dogs used by shepherds across the world. I suspect the page was created because The Kennel Club has a "pastoral group" which encompasses both herding dogs and livestock guardian dogs.

Before proceeding, do any project members have any sources supporting pastoral dogs are a recognised thing? If not I think we should look to either redirect (somewhere) or nominate the article at AfD, further Template:Pastoral dogs will need to be split. Cavalryman (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC).

One source fails GNG, and I believe that your assumption that the article was created because of the KC pastoral group is correct. The article has remained a stub since it was created in 2006, it is not going to be developed further as there are no other sources, and it receives on average 28 views per day - AfD it.
We are fortunate enough to have 2 template editors helping with the Dogs project, so a split of the template could be handled inhouse. William Harris talk  11:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ David Hancock, Dogs of the shepherds: a review of the pastoral breeds, Marlborough: Crowood Press, 2014, ISBN 978-1-84797-809-7.

AfD:Pastoral dogEdit

  Pastoral dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment a the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC).

RfD:List of dog breeds recognized by the Canadian Kennel ClubEdit

The redirect List of dog breeds recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment a the redirect's entry at RfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC).

Maltese dog breedEdit

Your input at Talk:Maltese (dog)#Italian translation of name would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

RfD:List of dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel ClubEdit

The redirect List of dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment a the redirect's entry at RfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC).

AfD:Working dogEdit

  Working dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment a the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC).

German Shepherd infobox imageEdit

A discussion is occurring about the infobox image in the German Shepherd article, project member’s are invited to participate at Talk:German Shepherd#Example Photo is pretty ugly. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC).

Infobox dog breed: Patronage parameterEdit

Project members are invited to participate in a discussion about the patronage parameter in Template:Infobox dog breed at Template talk:Infobox dog breed#Patronage parameter. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC).

RfD:BullbrasEdit

The redirect Bullbras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment at the redirect's entry at RfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC).

AfD:27 January 2020Edit

  Three dog articles have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC).

Merger proposal:Breed standardEdit

An article of interest to the project—Breed standard—has been proposed for merging with Breed type. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC).

Category:livestock guardians has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:livestock guardians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Currently proposing to containerize and split the Category:Livestock guardians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to make livestock guardians refer to all livestock guardian species (non-dog and dog alike), and to create the new containerized category for livestock guardian dogs within it. This will hopefully take guardian animals currently categorized in Category:Working animals out of there into this more specific, but still broad category. Wcconey (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal:FreightingEdit

An article of interest to the project—Freighting—has been proposed for merging with Sled dog. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC).

To Do List - back in operationEdit

Hello All. Several of us have been working behind the scenes to get a few things that fall under this project more functional.

  • The Importance Scale has been used to review a number of our articles, and we now have 41 assessed at Top and 74 at High. There is a further 706 at Mid and 2,248 at Low now being reviewed. There are 793 redirects etc., and there were also a number of articles badged under this project which should not have been as these did not relate to the canines. Total articles stand at 3,862.
  • Now that we know what our most important articles are, I am pleased to announce that the To Do List that appears on the project main page immediately under the Project Box (on the top right-hand side of that page) is back in operation and in need of a revamp. Does anyone have any views on how we proceed with this and what should be included as priorities? Data can be found in the box on the top of the Assessment page. William Harris talk  03:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
William Harris, apologies I missed this when you posted it, you have done a truely remarkable job. I will have a think about where to go from here but to start I think we should delete everything from Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Requested articles and remove the requests parameter from the template, there is nothing of value there and if someone wants to make a request they can bring it to this talk page. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC).
Thanks, and agreed - that parameter dates to a time that WikiProject Dogs was young and articles needed to be created, now we have over 3,000 of them. William Harris talk  17:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal:Service dogEdit

An article of interest to the project—Service dog—has been proposed for merging with Assistance dog. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC).

Old merger proposal: Abruzzese MastiffEdit

In 2011 I proposed merging Abruzzese Mastiff with Maremma Sheepdog. That proposal received one solitary support a couple of years later. I'm still not sure whether the merge is appropriate, for these conflicting reasons:

  • The Pastore Maremmano and Pastore Abruzzese have since 1958 been treated as a single breed – the Cane da Pastore Maremmano-Abruzzese – by the ENCI, the Italian national dog breed association
  • The Mastino Abruzzese has since 2003 been recognised by the regional government of Abruzzo, with subsidies for shepherds who use dogs conforming to a specific regional breed standard.

Particularly in view of recent discussion here regarding the (regionally-recognised) Perdigueiro Galego, I'd like to hear what others think of the relative weight that should be given to each. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge. Actually there are very few mastiffs in Abruzzo and I'am not sure that this breed will have a future, but they are different from Maremma sheepdogs You can see the picture 1 to 5 in the link below. This page [4] well explains the matter but it is in Italian, sorry.--Pierpao (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The issue is complex - as it is with are a number of those dogs which possess a regional heritage. For example, I recently came across one dubious "breed" from Bulgaria that was only recognised within a few valleys. No international nor national body recognises it. However, a DNA study of the dogs of Bulgaria found that these dogs were of a different grouping to all of the the others, indicating it to be the original dog of the Bulgarian region a long time ago with the other lineages having migrated there. Therefore, I regard this particular one to be a "landrace". My view is that if there is any conflict or doubt, then it would be best to leave it be for now and see what unfolds in the future. William Harris talk  21:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
With the Perdigueiro Galego it was not until multiple sources emerged (found by you) that the page met GNG. I think with the current sources the Abruzzese Mastiff fails GNG and should be merged, presumably a local government source exists to include that information above on the Maremma Sheepdog page. If multiple sources are found, then it should be appropriately cited and retained.
As an aside, where does the translation Abruzzese "Mastiff" come from? Google translates "Pastore" as "Shepherd", and given the lack of English language sources it seems like OR. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC).

AfD:15 February 2020Edit

  Two dog articles have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC).

A third nomination:

Cavalryman (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC).

Article importance reviewEdit

In accordance with the amended Importance Scale (see discussion above), I have completed a review of the WikiProject Dogs articles, which have been reduced to 3,854.

  • A number of articles had nothing to do with the canines and made no mention of them, therefore I have removed the WikiProject Dogs banner from their Talk page - these are no longer of our concern.
  • A large number of redirects and lists were classified as articles; these have been reclassified.

IMPORTANCE=TOP

  • There are 47 articles as per the Importance Scale criteria. A list can be generated by clicking the hyperlinked number on the Total row at the bottom of the Importance Scale.

IMPORTANCE=HIGH

  • There are 104 articles as per the Importance Scale criteria. A list can be generated by clicking the hyperlinked number on the Total row at the bottom of the Importance Scale.
  • All "dog types", being one step above a breed, are now classified to this importance.
  • Volunteers are invited to review each dog type to ascertain if they meet WP:GNG. This group also includes all of the human service "assistance" dog types, which could possibly be integrated into just a few major articles rather than the collection of small articles on related topics that exists now.
  • Those dog types remaining after this refining process to be badged Category:Dog types at the bottom of each article page. The 22 that have already been badged appear under this category.

IMPORTANCE = MID

  • There are 542 articles as per the Importance Scale criteria. A list can be generated by clicking the hyperlinked number on the Total row at the bottom of the Importance Scale.
  • All breeds that are recognised by at least one of the major kennel organisations are now classified with the parameters importance=mid and breeds=yes under the WikiProject Dogs banner on their Talk page. These can be found listed under Category:Dog breeds task force articles (the breeds=yes adds them to this list).
  • All proposed "breeds" that are not recognised by at least one of the major kennel organisations are now classified with the parameter importance=mid, and the breeds= has been removed.
  • Volunteers are invited to review each of these proposed breeds to ascertain if they meet WP:GNG - some appear to be landraces, some genuine national or regional breeds, some appear to be advertorials for breeder associations, and some have no references at all and of these some are possibly made up articles (one Talk page claimed that the the references were fake, the "breed" was bogus and a joke on Wikipedia).
  • Those proposed dog breeds remaining after this refining process to be badged breeds=yes on their Talk page.

IMPORTANCE = LOW

  • There are 2,346 articles as per the Importance Scale criteria.
  • All extinct species and extinct "breeds" are now classified with the parameter importance=low.

IMPORTANCE = NA

  • There are 812 articles as per the Importance Scale criteria.

Your assistance would be appreciated. Now would be a good time to also help review how we assess our articles, refer above #Time to establish guidelines:break. William Harris talk  09:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the direction of this, but have been kind of tied up with OR and NPoV matters (detailed in part below). I guess these things go together in a sense; reviewing the article helps us ID such problems, and IDing such problems helps us assess article importance/notability.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

List of 100 dog "breeds" in need of review/reclassification/deletionEdit

List of dog "breeds" in need of review/reclassification/deletion:

William Harris talk  12:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree we need to go over this stuff and weed out the chaff. However, quite a few of these are not breeds/landraces, but general types, breed groups, or working roles, and we should keep articles on them (if anything, they may provide merge-to targets). Some that pop right out are bichon, a breed group, to which Bolognese (dog) could possibly merge; coonhound, which appears to be either a type or a working role, I'm not sure; dogo (dog type) says what it is, though I'm not sure that one is a keeper; domesticated red fox doesn't belong in this list, and is clearly notable since all sorts of a high-end sourcing has been written about it for decades; husky is a breed group, and obviously notable; mongrel is a general article; pointing dog is said in its lead to be a type but is probably a breed group, and should also be covering the genetics of the behavior (I saw an interesting article back-when on how pointing and setting appear to be a kind of neural short-circuit, a mild seizure, that turned out beneficial for humans and was bred-true on purpose); sighthound is a major dog type; tracking (dog) is canine behavior and working role article. I would remove at least those from this list.
  • I've moved the mal-named Small Greek Domestic Dog to Kokoni (it's one that I PRODed back in 2014, and it still likely is not notable, though I did also just do a cleanup pass on it).
  • Tracking (dog) should move along with some other such articles to have "(dogs)" disambiguation. The "(dog)" one implies a specific dog by the disambiguated name ("Togo (dog)", etc.); in something like "tracking (dogs)" we mean "tracking, in the context of dogs" just as "cell (biology)" means "cell, in the context of biology".
  • Another fix: We need to move List of extinct dog breeds and Template:Extinct dog breeds to use "varieties" instead of "breeds" since much of what is listed there are not breeds but landraces, crossbreeds, dog types, and other populations that are not breeds in any encyclopedic sense; trying to equate them in readers' minds with the modern conception of standardized breeds is a common and pretty dreadful form of WP:OR on this site, and we need to hunt it down. I honestly think that's a higher priority than deleting questionably notable dog articles, other than spammy ones that are trying to market neo-breeds.
  • See, for example, the cleanup I just did at Kokoni, which was preposterously claiming that a breed established only a few years ago by a small club is commonly found all over Greece and has been a favorite amongst Greeks for centuries! It verged on intentionally misleading (or willfully ignorant) writing. What it really meant was that vaguely comparable landrace dogs, of quite broad ancestry but a general medium-small size range, have been in the area for a long time, primarily as pets not as working animals, and were used as foundation stock for the recently established breed). There are probably at least 50 articles with problems like this, and I would start with the ones on the extinct list, since very few of them were breeds in anything like a formal sense.
  • I'm finding other and more serious OR problems, but will post about that separately.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
William Harris, how do you envisage that others should respond to this? Should we annotate your list, or offer responses here below? (not going to mess further with your post without your OK). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Truthfully, I really have no idea. I did much hack-work identifying them and regard that as my major contribution. I am now quickly reviewing them and: (a) badging them with breeds=yes if some reputable national kennel organisation has a standard for them (e.g. Germany) and this is placed as a Note in the breedbox with a link to the standard (in which case these are removed from this list); (b) badging the article with the Notability template if they look dubious, such as those articles based around a foreign name for a breed and then an article has been built around it (e.g. the Chinese name for Saluki!); and (c) some I am just unsure about. I assume all of those remaining on the list above should be targeted for AfD or merging into other articles. William Harris talk  02:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Then may I suggest striking through those that you've verified as OK, rather than removing them? Any that have been deleted will turn red, of course. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Polish Hunting Dog – I have taken the liberty of striking the Polish Hunting Dog, I found three (admittedly scant) mentions in three books I have. I have rewritten the article with the little I had and renamed it Gończy Polski as all three sources use the Polish name exclusively. If anyone has anything else I could use to expand upon it would be appreciated. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC).
I have now reinstated and striked through the deleted dogs, which is a much better idea. The technology I used to derive this list - a huge extract, sort, and match - was not 100% accurate and so a few breeds recognised by the major kennel clubs have slipped onto the list. William Harris talk  21:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Italian breedsEdit

This more or less follows on from William's post above: Sixteen Italian breeds are recognised in Italy by the Ente Nazionale della Cinofilia Italiana, the national dog club. Our template {{Italian dogs}} lists thirty-three. Since our article Segugio Italiano combines two distinct breeds (Segugio italiano a pelo forte, Segugio italiano a pelo raso) into one page, we appear to have sixteen articles on breeds that have no national recognition (two of the breeds in the template are not linked to any article). I propose merging all of them (if soundly sourced) into a brief List of Italian dog breeds without national recognition – unless anyone has any better title suggestion? Any objections or possible reasons not to do that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

My reticence is this may open Pandora’s box with a flood of similar articles for every country in the world. As said previously, I believe a lack of kennel club recognition does not preclude notability, if there are sources do you think List of dog breeds will suffice for the moment? I admit that list is becoming ungainly and it may be time to cull the recognition parameters and divide it into national sections, but that is discussion for that talk page. Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC).
A tricky one. Let's hear what Mac has to say.
Additionally, the Potsdam Greyhound appears to be the Italian greyhound under this name, with a quick merge available. William Harris talk  03:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Questionable changes at PoodleEdit

This article (in agreement with decades of my own understanding) used to state that poodles are a breed group of dogs comprising three standardized breeds. Someone has changed it to say that "The Poodle" is a standardized dog breed that comes in three variants or sub-breeds. I think this is WP:OR and simply factually wrong. At best, it might be the minority opinion of one kennel club and should not be what the article says in the lead sentence per WP:UNDUE; it could be covered in a sentence or a footnote about divergence between different registries' definitions. However, it's not impossible that I've missed some sea change in dog classification, so I have not rushed in to undo these changes. I thought it better to bring the matter up here for discussion. I think the wikiproject might have broader input that the article's own talk page which has some entrenched factionalism going at it (though not necessarily over this exact question). I will notify the article talk page of this discussion, though.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Quick response, the AKC and the UK KC see poodles as one breed. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Doug and Mac. I think this should be stated in the lead paragraph, were we define what it is that we are about to write about. William Harris talk  21:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I was going to attempt to summarise all the major kennel clubs position here but it’s a bit of a dogs breakfast. Some state they’re one breed with three size varieties, others say four size varieties, some state they’re three separate breeds, and one (the UKC) says two breeds with one breed coming in two sizes. Many seem to sit on the fence with mixed language about breeds and varieties. I think something in the lead about a lack of consensus between breed group or single breed could be worked out. Cavalryman (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC).
Well, the lead should just cover all this, in brief (not much longer than how it's been spelled out above), then get into the details in sectional material later. Given the conflict, I think the lead should use "Poodles are" not "The Poodle is", since there is no real-world consensus among experts that there is such as thing as "the" Poodle. Regardless, the present lead is impermissible PoV pushing (WP:UNDUE) to represent only the viewpoint of a particular organization or organizations. (If it were a worldwide one like FCI versus a bunch of non-notable sub-national chaff, then DUE/FRINGE might actually favor that position, but this is a dispute between major, notable, reputable organizations.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Yep, we have to make that clear. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

RM noticeEdit

  FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Cão Fila de São Miguel#Requested move 20 February 2020 – a move of three Portuguese dog breeds to FCI English-language names per WP:USEENGLISH.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also: Talk:Rafeiro do Alentejo#Requested move 21 February 2020 – a more difficult case.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"Ancientness" NOR problemEdit

In doing some cleanup at various articles on Portuguese breeds, I've run across a bunch of highly curious original research (specifically WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK), in which various actually reliable sources (mostly) are being used to provide paragraphs of detail about dog evolution through the transhumance history of human occupation of the Iberian peninsula. This looks like good material for an article on dog evolution and the history of domestication and human use of dogs, but it has nothing at all to do with these breeds in particular, and is being used to falsely lend a "ye olde ancien dogges" air to these breeds, which were quite recently established from mutable landrace populations.

I don't like to single out particular editors ("focus on content not contributor"), but in this case it's all the work of one, 7&6=thirteen, who is still an active and productive editor, so should have the opportunity to respond. So far, I've run across this at Cão de Gado Transmontano (which also has – via the same editor – a bunch of editorializing footnotes, over-quotation of questionably encyclopedic material, and an over-abundance of material about wolf-reintroduction in Oregon which only tenuously relates to the dog breed in any way), as well as at Cão de Castro Laboreiro in shorter form; I don't know which other articles might be affected. There's also a vestige of this stuff in Rafeiro do Alentejo (though markedly trimmed, it still implies connections to human migrations out of Central Asia in prehistory, and yadda yadda). While Cão da Serra de Aires#History and Cão Fila de São Miguel#History aren't exactly Featured Article quality (have some poor sources and a lack of focus), compare them to Cão de Gado Transmontano#History and you can quickly get a sense of the issues.

I don't want to pick on 7&6=thirteen in particular; we have a lot of breed articles (not just about dogs) that are falsely implying ancientness for modern breeds (I call this "the myth of the perpetual breed": a failure to realize, even an outright denialism about accepting, the fact that breeds are a moving target and are evolving quite rapidly over time – there is no breed alive today that is much like its ancestors more than a few centuries ago, often much less due to extreme artificial selection for form preferences instead of for fitness to environment and purpose). However, 7&6=thirteen's additions of such material are in fairly big chunks and "of a sort", so are probably easy to do something with. As I said, I think some of the material is salvageable, it just doesn't belong coat-racked into particular breed articles. I know William Harris has done cleanup of this kind of stuff before (e.g. here, and I've also been doing it, but I started with cat breed articles (and am still not done with them).
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I put in sources that said what they said. WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth. So you don't like the sources, and we are to accept your opinion. Ipse dixit. This is a first line of attack on stripping out articles and then saying that they aren't WP:Notable. The breeds will still exist whether you like it or not, and whether they are in this encyclopedia. Makes no difference to me. I have no stock in this, and no vested interest in the breed. You can nitpick this.
I am well aware of the history of dogs, and there is no WP:OR. Certainly a lot of breeds are modern creations; but their purpose, use, character, and genetics did not miraculously arise in vacuo. The breed developed where it did, and it came from somewhere.
To answer your broad assertion, particularly your blaming of me (you called me out, while saying that was not your intent – I will WP:AGF, which you should too – you and I both share the personhood noted on your WP:User page), I note that the article appeared as this before, and this after is what it became from my edits. There are other sources added after the fact, but I didn't do it, and don't WP:Own the article.
SMcCandlish go fix it. You and User:Cavalryman will do what you want to do. I wish you well in your quest, but don't mess it up. 7&6=thirteen () 13:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen, does your second last sentence mean you no longer object to the Mountain dog merger?
SMcCandlish, I agree there are currently some extraordinary claims in a number of breed and type articles, as well as some extraordinary articles themselves for which no sources exist. We need to continue to scrutinise the sources and remove when found lacking. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC).
And it has nothing to do with whether anyone "likes" the particular sources chosen. They simply do not indicate that any of this ancient dog-history stuff has anything to do with these particular modern breeds. I was quite clear about that. Whether any/all of these breeds are notable or not has nothing to do with this matter. Sources that do not cover a specific breed in detail cannot count for or against notability of that breed at all; it's just extraneous to the question. Next, no one here needs a lecture on AGF. The very fact that I pinged you to this discussion instead of just removing the OR material, and even suggested relocating it to a dog-history article where it will actually be pertinent, is clear demonstration that good faith on your part has been assumed, 7&6=thirteen.

If we're going to throw around links to fallacies, see straw man in particular; no one actually suggested any dog breeds popped up out of a vacuum, so arguing against that idea is like arguing with a scarecrow. However, for most of them we have somewhere between zero and nearly zero information on their foundation-stock history before the mid-19th century or even the 20th century. When we do have more (either from period sources or from modern genetics), it often turns out that they were imported from somewhere else entirely. Supposing by default that they must be primarily or entirely descended from dogs local to that specific area since ancient times is the very definition of original research, and frequently turns out to be factually wrong. Our material can make or lead the reader to make that assumption. "It came from somewhere" is certainly true, but WP usually does not have the answer to the question "Where"?. Our article going on and on about stuff that happened with dogs in general in the Stone Age to the Medieval period doesn't elucidate the question, and just serves to confuse it for the average reader.

PS: I lean toward the position that at least standardized breeds (at the national to international level) are presumptively notable. I wouldn't've spent any time working on them even for so much as typo fixing and citation link repair if I sought their deletion. (Much of the stuff in the "Are these notable?" list in the other thread above don't seem to qualify; a lot of them are about alleged "breeds" (probably very localized landraces, many of them extinct. Back in the 2000s, we seem to have had a few editors going through over-inclusive "breed encyclopedias" and creating perma-stubs here for every single dog population of any kind that anyone ever stuck a name on, then adding more useless pages on every classification term every used by any kennel club. And then forking generic articles on things like "breed standard" and "conformation" and "pet show" and so on into dog-specific WP:POVFORKs for no reason. And etc. It's a mess.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

More OR: bogus behavioral claimsEdit

The above reminds me of another and more massive OR problem that we have across hundreds of articles: nonsense behavioral claims. Almost every dog and cat breed article, and quite a few on livestock breeds (mostly horses, but sometimes more broadly) make claims pertaining to behavior that are obviously just copy-pasted from either promotional breeder material, or are descriptions of ideal candidates for animal-show awards. The claims range from outlandish statements about intelligence, to "please buy from us" assurances about child-friendliness, to completely vapid statements that apply to all members of the species.

I don't think we should include behavioral claims at all other than non-dubious generalizations that are found consistently across multiple sources (attributed to those sources in our text); and, in the few cases where it applies, information on well-researched behavioral oddities that breed true (examples are pointing/setting behavior in various dogs bred for it, and the Ragdoll cat and Ragamuffin cat breeds tending to go limp when picked up; and various pigeon breeds being "high" or "low fliers"). Some of the latter kinds of things have been subjected to peer-reviewed ethological and neurological research. I think there has also been some actual research done on particular aspects of dog breeds' intelligence, like trainability, memory, ability to learn and distinguish numerous human verbal and other commands, etc.).

All of the other material making weird behavioral claims should just be nuked as promotional garbage (or once in a while, hate garbage, like claims that all bull/terrier breeds are predisposed to violence and are dangerous around children; that kind of bias doesn't seem to survive in our articles long, though). It doesn't matter how many breeder club websites and breed profiles written by breeders in pet magazines and breed "encyclopedias" are cited, it's still primary- or tertiary-source material making non-credible claims that have no scientific research behind them, but which have a fiduciary and aggrandizing intent.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I agree, these traits are rarely (actually none come to mind) restricted to a breed and usually associated with a broader type. Unless they are attributed to reliable secondary sources and are general in nature I see little utility in including such information. A number of articles currently read like a breed promotion and these sections seem to endorse certain breeds. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC).
A related issue: I've run across several times now some copy-pasted "boilerplate" added to dog articles in these sections stressing (in terms that raise WP:NOT#GUIDEBOOK concerns) that dogs are quite individual and that these breed-wide claims about temperament shouldn't be taken as gospel. I.e., we are including promotional breeder exaggerations and nonsense then inserting a WP:DISCLAIMer to make sure the reader knows it's b.s., when the proper approach is simply to not have the b.s. in there at all.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

What about the ADBA?Edit

I am curious what is to be done about the American Dog Breeders Association article. Nothing has been done about it since its copyright violation. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dwanye. JLAN, is there some sort of investigation or can someone just axe the offending text and reinstate the article? William Harris talk  10:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Don't know why that ping failed, but I'm watching this page so saw this anyway. I'll stub the page (it's essentially all copyvio), but am very doubtful that it meets WP:NCORP – any thoughts on that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it’s a strong candidate for AfD. Further the last source is likely redundant, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 meant any APBTs in the UK that were given an exemption from a court (not destroyed) had to be neutered, I doubt many 29 year old dogs remain. Cavalryman (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC).
I was thinking more along the lines of a redirect to American Pit Bull Terrier as the simplest and most direct method of dealing with it. Any consensus for that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I would support that. Cavalryman (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC).
I support that. William Harris talk  07:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers (talk), William Harris talk  , Cavalryman (talk) I think this revised version or the ADBA see here User:Atsme/ADBA created by User:Atsme should replaced the current version of American Dog Breeders Association. What are other users thoughts? Dwanyewest (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Aargh, my mistake! I had completely forgotten about that page, which is also at Talk:American Dog Breeders Association/Temp. I knew there was a reason I wanted someone else to deal with this one: with all my respect and admiration for Atsme, I'm not sure that that page is our best option – it seems to be quite heavily based on the publicity materials of the association itself. But if consensus here is to do so, I'll move it into place over the existing page, deal with the history-merging and so on. Please let me know. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, JLAN - but oh my - I just requested a CSD for that page, and Fastily just fastily deleted it. If you want it back, it can be restored. I'm willing to do whatever is needed. Atsme Talk 📧 19:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Just adding, the article at Talk:American Dog Breeders Association/Temp is not the same article as what was at User:Atsme/ADBA. I'm pinging Wbm1058 since he works on WikiProject History Merge (so as not to disturb Fastily again), and ask him to restore it until we can make a decision. Atsme Talk 📧 19:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal:BandogEdit

An article of interest to the project—bandog—has been proposed for merging with mastiff. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC).

Return to the project page "WikiProject Dogs".