Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs

Sources

I've just removed from German Shepherd some content cited to perfectdogbreeds.com, on the grounds that that is not a reliable source (it's registered to an anonymous entity in Cheshire, England). I've also recently removed from the same page content cited to yourpurebredpuppy.com and dogster.com, for the same reason – these are random internet websites with no reputation for accuracy or reliability, and not remotely suitable for use as sources for Wikipedia. I'd like to suggest that as a matter of urgency we should start a list of such unusable sites, with a view to removing them in short order from any article that cites them, and setting up filters that would prevent them from being added anywhere in Wikipedia; and also make a start on a more difficult task, that of identifying some sources for which there is consensus that that they are to be considered reliable by our standards.

As a very small start, I propose deprecation of:

• perfectdogbreeds.com
• yourpurebredpuppy.com
• dogster.com

and recognition as reliable of

• fci.be

Is this worthwhile? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion, general agreement

Agree, about the three sites you have mentioned above, all completely fail as RS: perfectdogbreeds.com terms of service states "Perfectdogbreeds does not promise that the site or any content, service or feature of the site will be error-free ... Perfectdogbreeds disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including any warranties of accuracy ..." yourpurebredpuppy.com terms of use states "We make no guaruntee or warranty that our information is accurate, legal, reliable or safe." dogster.com terms and conditions of use states "Belvoir Media Group LLC does not warant that the sites will operate error-free ..." NB Belvoir Media Group LLC is the website's owner On a number of pages I have had to remove similar content from a number of similar websites most of which make similar disclaimers, and it seems to be the same editors that continually reintroduce it. Just because it gets a Google hit doesn't make it reliable and/or notable. Re fci.be, personally I do not believe it should be treated any differently to any other national kennel club. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC). Just my opinion: the FCI evaluates the information submitted by individual kennel clubs, and this places it a a higher level of reliability; however, I added it here simply as an example of a website that we could, with due caution, regard as reliable. Some more that we cannot trust may be: mastiffdogssite.com – page content consists only of: "ok" completedogsguide.com – somebody's random website, "My name is Adam and it was my idea to create this dog web site" BSL Information, somebody's random website on Tripod I've removed all three from Kumaon Mastiff. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Also: scamperingpaws.com ("I'm not a vet. I have no medical background whatsoever. I'm just a regular pet owner who has cared for old pets through a variety of medical conditions."), removed from Rafeiro do Alentejo. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Some more: www.bulldoginformation.com dogappy.com www.pawculture.com www.petpremium.com thehappypuppysite.com www.thelabradorsite.com What are your thoughts on the best way to deal with these formally? Lump them together under an RfC at RSN? If passed we could add a list to the project page with a permalink. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC). Agreed. JLAN and Cavalryman, I regard a website as being only reliable as the sources its cites. Many of these websites (above) have no author taking responsibility for the content, do not cite sources, and are basically anonymous opinion pieces. I am in favour of removing anything they have to offer, and encourage Project members to grasp the nettle and commence their deletions from all dog-related articles. William Harristalk 00:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

First thoughts on how to start dealing with these: either just go ahead and remove them and see if there's any complaint, or (probably better in the long term):

• reach consensus here on those listed above – is a week long enough for all interested to comment?
• start a /Deprecated sources subpage and
• use Special:LinkSearch to find and remove any mainspace occurrence of those;
• rinse and repeat.

It seems to me that those listed so far are so obviously unusable, and so unlikely to be used outside this wikiproject, that local consensus should be sufficient; but if anyone suggests that these might be appropriate sources then yes, RfC is the next step.

Removing crap websites seems to be the easy part; identifying and agreeing on unusable books may be more of a challenge. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, William Harris, Cavalryman and other interested editors - please see User_talk:Atsme/sandbox#More about RS Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources ^{Updated the link Atsme 💬 📧 16:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)}. Perhaps we should also consider establishing a subpage such as Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

More bad sites

I wish to add to the list, some I have removed today: vetstreet.com dogbreedplus.com 101dogbreeds.com dogtime.com dogs.petbreeds.com designerdoginfo.wordpress.com puppiesndogs.com dogdisease.info petguide.com dogzone.com allthingsdogs.com teacupdogdaily.com thedogsjournal.com Cavalryman (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC). And more today: dogable.net topdogtips.com sittersforcritters.com pets4homes.co.uk retrieverbud.com canna-pet.com k9rl.com mixbreeddog.com iams.com leashesandlovers.com puppydogweb.com thegoodypet.com Cavalryman (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC). And a few more: dogpage.us puppiesclub.com puppy-basics.com Cavalryman (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Some more today: animalso.com europetnet.com russiandog.net Cavalryman (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC) I would like to add another that I assumed was already here: molosserdogs.com Cavalryman (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC). A couple more: dogipedia.ru dogsglobal.com Cavalryman (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC).

Consolidated list

Please see the main list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources for potential updates. We should probably make a more prominent link to that page. Atsme 💬 📧 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Can Doggysaurus be added? I see it cited quite a lot yet the site itself states "All of the advice and content on this website is written from our own personal perspective of owning and caring for dogs over the last few years.", it's a few people's personal experience without any verification or scrutinising. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• 101dogbreeds.com Y
• allthingsdogs.com Y
• animalso.com Y
• bulldoginformation.com Y
• canna-pet.com Y
• completedogsguide.com Y
• cosmosmith.com Y
• designerdoginfo.wordpress.com Y
• dogable.net Y
• dogappy.com Y
• dogbreedplus.com Y
• dogdisease.info Y
• dogipedia.ru Y
• dogpage.us Y
• dogs.petbreeds.com Y
• dogsglobal.com Y
• dogtime.com Y
• dogzone.com Y
• europetnet.com Y
• europetnet.org
• iams.com
• k9rl.com
• leashesandlovers.com
• mastiffdogssite.com Y
• mixbreeddog.com
• molosserdogs.com Y
• pawculture.com
• perfectdogbreeds.com
• petguide.com
• petpremium.com
• pets4homes.co.uk
• puppiesclub.com
• puppiesndogs.com
• puppy-basics.com
• puppydogweb.com
• retrieverbud.com
• russiandog.net
• scamperingpaws.com
• sittersforcritters.com
• teacupdogdaily.com
• thedogsjournal.com
• thegoodypet.com
• thehappypuppysite.com Y
• thelabradorsite.com Y
• topdogtips.com Y
• vetstreet.com Y (for dogs only)
• yourpurebredpuppy.com Y

Discussion

Have started to remove from articles, will tick as complete. This will likely require review again. Cavalryman (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC).

I've forgotten if or how we agreed to actually go about this, would some kind soul remind me (preferably in words of about one syllable or fewer). Anyway, here are three that I've just removed from Chihuahua:

• www.chihuahuawardrobe.com
• k9carts.com
• dogcare.dailypuppy.com ("Come to DailyPuppy.com for your fix of the cutest furbabies of every breed")

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

A couple of "good websites"

I would like to propose two websites containing a number of very informative articles as "good sources":

• Charwynne Dog Features (davidhancockondogs.com), and
• Ria Hörter (riahorter.com).

Both authors have been published widely in dog publications and Hancock in particular has a number of published books on dogs. Both websites contain a number of articles, most of which have previously been published in magazines but some may not have been. I think both meet the criteria under WP:RSSELF as "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Cavalryman (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC).

At davidhancockondogs.com, the pix to the right - a man out of my own heart! William Harris (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Formerly of The Light Infantry, I have most of his books although I would really like a copy of The mastiffs but it is well out of print and around £150 online, there is a transcript on his website though. Cavalryman (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC).

Now I am lost in sources, the websites you have listed mainly contain printed information and most of the popular web resources are listed in "bad sources", kennel club websites that seem to have reliable information cannot be used as primary sources... Could you please give examples of dog-related web resources that would be considered suitable?--LoraxJr 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:SPS and then WP:USINGSPS, basically if it has not been produced by an author who has previously demonstrated expertise in the field, or a publisher with a good reputation for robust editorial oversight and fact checking, then it's pretty safe to assume it's self-published. Most of the "popular web resources" are content farms, and when you scrutinise them closely you realise often Wikipedia is their starting point, we don't site ourselves.

The "good websites" above contain a series of articles written by two authors who are expert dog writers, both have previously been very widely published in a number of reputable publications from very good publishers and all of the articles on their websites are transcripts of articles that have been published in such publications, that's why they are suitable for use as sources. Cavalryman (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC).

Ok, that makes clearer on one side and much harder to find sources on the other. This rule is the equally applicable to sources in other languages too? LoraxJr 11:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is applicable to sources in all languages, and yes it can be difficult to find sources. This is why large tracts of text and even occasionally articles are deleted as they are not cited to reliable sources. Cavalryman (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC).

As a note, you can permanently prevent those mylittlepuppy.com not-sources from being added to articles at WP:BLACKLIST. It's a bit of an extreme measure though, so only use if if there's a problem with a site being persistently added. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Spitz article

I believe the Spitz article is in need of an overhaul, given the loose nature of the definition of Spitz it's hard to categorise dogs as spitz or not and most dogs included have no reliable source stating they are a spitz dog.

I propose the list should either be removed or consolidated to dogs that are obviously spitze such as the Pomeranian and German Spitz. If you wish to add your opinion please discuss it on the talk page, I've yet to make any changes so far. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Smoky (dog)#Requested move 28 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Smoky (dog)#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Akita (dog)#Requested move 5 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Akita (dog)#Requested move 5 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Australian Cattle Dog featured article review

I have nominated Australian Cattle Dog for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Requested move 21 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Requested move 21 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources for breed life expectancy

With suggestion from @Justlettersandnumbers I've decided to make a thread to gain consensus on what types of sources should be used for life expectancy.

I'm in favour of using studies without presenting them as imperative. The positive of using studies is that they aren't likely to be affected by bias when compared to other sources. Negatives are that studies are Eurocentric, and even more so Anglocentric.

Other editors may be in favour of using dog encyclopaedia type books and specific breed guide books. The positives of this is that they're easier to present and may not be Eurocentric (although it's still possible). Negatives are that they don't state where their life expectancy figures are from and are potentially mere anecdotes, especially in regards to rare and novels breeds. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Traumnovelle! For context, our earlier discussion is here. I don't believe this is important enough to merit a great deal of out time. How important is lifespan of dogs (NB lifespan, average age from birth to death, not life expectancy, expected time left to live, which of course varies with age)? We know of course that large dogs generally have a shorter life than small ones, and that dogs that have been intentionally bred to have serious physical deformity generally have a noticeably shorter life than healthy ones. But is there really a perceptible difference between breeds of roughly the same size and type? Anyway, my complaint about the source Traumnovelle has been adding is that it's one study from one country, so fundamentally skewed; it's very precise (lifespan calculated to a tenth of a year), but that does not mean that it is necessarily accurate. The sort of figure given in the average breed encyclopaedia (something like, say, '10–13 years') is intentionally fuzzy/imprecise, but is probably more accurate (a better representation of the actual facts). What about using a source such as this:

• Jerold S. Bell, Kathleen E. Cavanagh, Larry P. Tilley, Francis W.K. Smith (2012). Veterinary Medical Guide to Dog and Cat Breeds. Jackson, Wyoming: Teton NewMedia. ISBN 9781482241419

It's written by four vets, and published by a reputable academic publisher, Taylor & Francis. Unfortunately it's not very comprehensive in its coverage – I searched at random for Lagotto Romagnolo and then for Kromfohrländer, and found no entry on either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Life expectancy studies are based on the life expectancy at birth and average age of death which is ultimately the same as an average life span.

>We know of course that large dogs generally have a shorter life than small ones

Correct, unfortunately whilst studies do collect size information and sometimes even other data they rarely list which of the dozens if not hundreds of breeds included in the study fit into which group.

>But is there really a perceptible difference between breeds of roughly the same size and type

There can be, in a recent UK study the Labrador and Golden Retriever was found to have a life expectancy of more than 13 years, whilst the other retriever breeds had between 11-12 years.

>Anyway, my complaint about the source Traumnovelle has been adding is that it's one study from one country,

I do add other studies some times and I do mention it's from the UK, this study is quite large and captures breeds that normally have far too low of a sample size to get any meaningful data from.

>The sort of figure given in the average breed encyclopaedia (something like, say, '10–13 years') is intentionally fuzzy/imprecise, but is probably more accurate (a better representation of the actual facts)

If you cast a wide net you're sure to get the actual value, but I feel the breed encyclopaedias are based on anecdotes rather than hard evidence.

>It's written by four vets, and published by a reputable academic publisher, Taylor & Francis. Unfortunately it's not very comprehensive in its coverage

I used the Google Books preview and I believe it's referencing other studies for it's life span data, hence the lack of comprehensiveness. The study I saw it mention is a 2005 Danish kennel club survey. It does seem like a good book but it's also 12 years outdated now and larger studies have come out since publication. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Giant Schnauzer

Giant Schnauzer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)