Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Portal:Dogs

Links to Portal:Dogs in navboxes

Hello Northamerica1000, I have noticed you have been putting some work into Portal:Dogs, I am appreciative of your efforts. I am not sure it is an improvement adding  Dogs portal to all of the project’s navboxes and accordingly I have reverted most of the additions for now (it was a nasty shock to realise how many dog navboxes I have on my watchlist). I am happy to listen to arguments for their reintroduction. If we were to reintroduce them, the colours need to be aligned with the rest of the navbox ([1][2]) and I think the picture of the Doberman should be removed, it is a distraction in templates where the Doberman has no place.

I am keen to hear other project members thoughts, Justlettersandnumbers I see you too have reverted a couple of the navbox additions. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

Yes, I've reverted a few of those additions. I'm afraid I just remove portals wherever I see them – they serve no useful purpose, and disputes over them have been the cause of untold damage to the project. Northamerica1000, I understand that you are an advocate of portals, as is your right; may I suggest that before starting to deploy one you check with any interested WikiProject to see if there are objections?

I'm going to tentatively propose a motion here: that WikiProject Dogs sees no value in portals and no value in adding them to pages that fall under its purview; and that any portals on dog articles may be removed. I support that as proposer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I also support removal. Navbox is first quite ugly, Doberman has nothing to do with most of the articles related to the portal. It is also a super small and uninformative navbox, people usually use wikilinks to navigate through topic-related articles or search box. --LoraxJr 05:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I am going to wait on this one; I would first like to hear the other editor's argument(s) in favour of inclusion, if any. William Harris (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support proposal, there are now too many inconsistencies at Portal:Dogs with what we have been doing on main space. Cavalryman (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC).

• Oppose – The Dogs Wikiproject does not WP:OWN all dog-related articles and templates. Portals need links to them. While this project can certainly disavow the portal, it's grandly overstepping to outlaw the addition of portal links to relevant articles and templates. Portals have their own namespace on Wikipedia, and are worthy of having links to them in related articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

– Nb. I have placed a neutrally-worded, non-partisan notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals to provide fair notice of the proposal here to members of that project (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There's also the issue of articles related to both dogs and other topics. For example, Police dog couldn't be owned by both WikiProject Dogs and WikiProject Law Enforcement. Certes (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Here from Portals WP, can confirm the notice was neutral. I've read the above discussion, and if this is a formal proposal, then oppose. I do think there is no need to add the portal link to every dog-related navbox and template, but the portal exists and is about dogs, it would be more logical to delete it than to ban it from being placed on any page related to dogs (thus orphaning it). Some portals surely could be deleted, but "dogs" as a topic is quite high-level. If members of your WP don't like it, either improve it or (if the issue is distaste for portals in general/aesthetic of portal links) get over yourselves. You don't have to use it, but its existence and use is not solely your purview. Kingsif (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• The icon chosen for this portal isn't great. Would replacing the dog by something else at Module:Portal/images/d help? (Personally I think the icons are a distraction that makes portals less recognisable, and that all portals should use a "portals" icon, not a pretty picture, but that's a different discussion). —Kusma (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Kusma: In my view, readers are likely to skip over generic portal links that simply state "portal" with a generic, tiny portal icon image, and thus end up not visiting them. Perhaps rather than using a photograph for the portal link image, a generic graphic icon would fit in with your gist, such as those here at Commons. Lots to choose from. / ^Bark! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Northamerica1000: I think the images are ok in things like {{portalbar}}, where they distinguish between several portals. On an article about dogs, a picture of a dog isn't a particularly distinctive icon for the portal, and the classic puzzle piece might be better. But then, readers skip over most portal links no matter where we place them. From your Commons link, I like the paw print best, but most of them are preferable to a photograph. —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Kusma: I like the paw print too. Simple and obvious to what it pertains to. Since I added the image presently in place at the Module page (at the time replacing one in place that was blurry), in agreement with your suggestion to use an icon-style graphic, and per the statement from Cavalryman atop about using a Doberman image, I have now replaced it with File:Dog Paw Print.png (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm also here from Portals WP. I'll skip over WikiProject Dogs sees no value in portals and no value in adding them to pages that fall under its purview: whether they see value is a matter for members of this WP. As for any portals on dog articles may be removed, Dogs is one of the few portals that wasn't taken to MfD individually after a 2018 RfC decided to keep the namespace. It seems to have a broad enough scope and to be of similar quality to other portals which survived. The question then is whether we should hide portals from readers by making them orphans. I don't see any dog-specific arguments either way, but our general principle is that pages we choose to keep should be linked from appropriate sources. As from the icon, the best choice depends on where it appears. Amongst a bunch of other portals, a dog image works well to distinguish it from (say) Portal:Cats. Amongst a bunch of dog pages, the puzzle piece image would do a better job of distinguishing it from non-portal dog pages. Certes (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am a member of neither WikiProject and am not the most active (more of a watchlist monitor) on Wikipedia, but I would like to point out that as the group of active editors in the subject area, WP:Dogs does set the standard and preferred layout of their dog articles- including whether or not their portal is worthy of inclusion. WP:Portals does not own the portals, either. That said, portals can have a place and if WP:Dogs really does not want their portal, taking it to MfD is an option. Personally, I find the Dogs portal to be lacking. Happy editing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest that the combative attitude here be dropped; such comments as "get over yourselves" is not helpful and detracts from otherwise acceptable arguments. Nor should the disputed content be placed back in the article once it has been reverted and raised for discussion on a Talk page, per WP:BRD. A navbox is no place for a portal, per WP:PORTL. I also add that the article cat includes a link to the cat portal, for what that is worth. Should some form of compromise be negotiated regarding this matter, the choice of dog icon for the link may have already been decided; I refer you to the process which led to the montage of dogs which now appear in the infobox of the article Dog - the ubiquitous Labrador Retriever was chosen for centre-stage. William Harris (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment, we seem to have a dilemma here, those philosophically wedded to the idea of portals want links to this portal plastered everywhere, but have shown little interest in ensuring the content of the portal is accurate, supported by reliable sources and represents a worldwide whole of topic overview. On the other side of the coin, those who maintain the topic area on main space show little interest in this portal.

Northamerica1000, you may not have noticed that I did not remove the portal link at the bottom of Template:Domestic dog, accordingly I think it is unnecessary to be adding links to the portal to pages linked by that navbox. Further, I do not think there is yet consensus for the new icon, and I think it is far too big and obtrusive, at a minimum please reduce the size until consensus has been reached, I not convinced by the new icon, I am unsure it is representative of what a dog is. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC). I probably shouldn’t start writing a comment before doing the childcare dropoff then press publish upon return.

@Cavalryman:  Done. The icon image has been removed, and the portal link image has been reverted to the one that has been in place. For more information, see Portal talk:Dogs#Portal link image. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• those philosophically wedded to the idea of portals want links to this portal plastered everywhere - well that's entirely untrue. As long as portals exist, they should not be orphaned. As long as portals meet minimum guidance and cover a defined topic, they can exist. It is inappropriate for a group to request to orphan a viable portal, especially with only irrelevant reasoning: some give the argument that they don't like portals (the namespace was kept, don't try to enforce removal through backdoor means), some that the link is unattractive (so change it?), and some that the content no longer matches the WP (not that portals and projects have to align, but you are allowed to change that, too!) It doesn't have to be everywhere, but it is WP Portal's role to make sure it isn't orphaned. Kingsif (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif, I have move your comment so as not to split mine. No one here is trying to back door anything, the portal has until the last two days been effectively unloved for years. And no, I did not a say the content did not match the WikiProject, I said it did not match main space; it included OR or subject matter that fails GNG and that has long ago been removed from main space. Further, its focus was almost entirely on dogs and dog topics in North American or Europe, given dogs are found on every continent on earth less Antarctica that is hardly representative of the subject matter. Lastly a comment on your manner, your combative approach and assumptions of bad faith are not productive, perhaps instead casting aspersions you could work to improve this portal to demonstrate its value. Cavalryman (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC).

• Comment – Some work to improve and expand the Dogs portal commenced before this discussion began, and since then, many significant improvements have occured, many of them over the last few hours before this post. Below is a summary of overall improvements as of this post. More improvements will be performed after this post. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Overhauled portal with modernized wiki markup using transclusion from articles to display content, which provides readers with current, up-to-date information. A consensus approving the usage of transclusion templates in portals was formed at this Village Pump discussion.
• Many high relevance new article selections have been added, including Featured-class and Good-class articles.
• A new general images section is now present.
• A new image banner atop the page was added.
• A new topics section was added.
• Additional updates, cleanup and layout changes have been performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

SilverTiger12, on a related matter, the Dogs portal appears on the WP:DOGS page in its infobox - and has done so for some time. The Cat article shows the Cat portal, but I notice that the project page WP:CATP does not. Is this something you might address? William Harris (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CATP is WikiProject: Categories, so I don't know what you are trying to say here. Also, WP:Cats doesn't have an infobox, as the few active members decided against having one. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

My error - WP:WPCATS. Thanks for the explanation. William Harris (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Portal links in the See also sections of articles

• New comment – So, this discussion is about Links to Portal:Dogs in Navboxes. I understand that it may not be desirable to have a portal link in every navbox. Okay. However, Justlettersandnumbers has extrapolated this discussion about navboxes in their edit summaries to now erroneously, inappropriately and unilaterally "forbid" portal links in the See also sections of articles, but that is not the topic of this thread at all. This thread is about navboxes. For example, see the following diffs and their edit summaries:

• diff – "Undid revision 1026817759 by Northamerica1000 (talk) thanks, but not needed (please obtain consensus at WT:DOGS before adding this anywhere else"
• diff – "Undid revision 1026817628 by Northamerica1000 (talk) thanks, but not needed (please obtain consensus at WT:DOGS before adding this anywhere else"

Sorry, but I consider this extrapolation to essentially be a form of WP:OWNership of Dog related articles, and per the user's comments above, how they remove portal links on sight, goes strongly against the grain of building an encyclopedia in favor of one person's own subjective opinion about portals. It's just not right.

I was planning on at least adding portal links to the articles that are displayed in the portal, as this is absolutely normative (and correct) to do (see WP:SEEALSO for more information), but Justlettersandnumbers is trying to make up their own rules along the way, forbidding it and reverting on sight. Again, This is just not right.

I understand that in articles which have Template:Domestic dog in them that a portal link may not be necessary in the See also section. Okay, but often the template is collapsed, and unless WP:READERS uncollapse it, they don't see the link. Guess that's the way that goes.

Ultimately, portal links should be allowed in the See also sections Dog-related articles that are highly relevant to the portal's topical focus, domestic dogs. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support the status quo and very normative action of having portal links to Portal:Dogs in the See also sections of articles highly relevant to the portal's topical focus, that being domestic dogs, and particularly having links in articles that the portal presents within it. Also see WP:SEEALSO, where it states, "Other internal links: {{Portal}} links are usually placed in this section." This is the status quo and norm, and one user should not be removing portal links and further orphaning the portal because they personally do not like portals; it's wrong. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

NA1K, thank you for your efforts in whipping this portal back into a respectable state, but your comments above seem to be unnecessary needling. Re links, please direct me to the policy that mandates articles that present within a portal must have a link to said portal? Cavalryman (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC).

Needling is not the intention; stating the obvious is. I suppose it's difficult to describe censorship in a warm and fuzzy way, and Wikipedia is not censored. Subjective removal of links to content a user does not like is censorship, plain and simple. Regarding the second part of your post, see WP:PORTL, part of the main Wikipedia:Portal information page, which has been the status quo regarding portal links for a long time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that it would be wise if you were to discontinue the censorship/ownership descriptions now, it is not helpful and will most certainly drive away support for your position from those who watch this page. Let us debate the merits of the proposal - it will stand or fall on that, and on that alone.

WP:PORTL describes the location of the link; it does not state that the link is mandatory. William Harris (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I often ask of myself, and of others, the question "What are we trying to achieve here?" To my mind, we are trying to provide the English-speaking world's online encyclopedia. In particular for us members of WP:DOGS and our non-member associates on various dogs-related pages, we are trying to educate visitors on matters relating to dogs. I have always seen portals as an adjunct to what we are trying to do here. We even have one as the entry point to Wikipedia, and there exists a link to the Dog portal on display in the WP:DOGS main page - there always has been. So if this link can be included on the project page, then I have no issue with the portal link being included across all of the WP:DOGS related articles, in the "See also" section as per WP:PORTL. I cannot see how this would be anything but helpful to visitors should they wish to follow the link. That choice should be their's, and not our's. William Harris (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as written, I see no policy mandating articles appearing in a portal must have a link to said portal. I am happy to maintain links from keys articles and the domestic dog navbox. Further, the accusations of censorship and ownership are completely unwarranted. Cavalryman (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC).

To which WP:ADMINCOND applies. William Harris (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

At the very least, there should be portal links in articles that the portal presents, in my opinion anyway. Otherwise the portal is essentially half-orphaned. Also, I'm not stating that portal links are mandatory, but it is normative to have portal links in articles that portals present. I find myself in agreement with what User:William Harris states above about portal links in articles, specifically, "I cannot see how this would be anything but helpful to visitors should they wish to follow the link. That choice should be their's, and not our's. Indeed, it should be the WP:READERS' choice, and removing the links removes the options for readers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – I could certainly live with what Cavalryman stated above, to have portal "links from keys articles and the domestic dog navbox". This would prevent the portal from becoming orphaned. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Now that the portal has been updated I see no longer see any need to remove links to it. I do oppose placing {{portal-inline|Dogs}} into the see also sections of dog articles, the inclusion of an icon in the see also section of any dog articles serves no encyclopedic purpose so should be removed per WP:DECOR. Simple links are sufficient. Cavalryman (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC).

Request for suggestions to improve the Dogs portal

I was going to present this earlier, but at this time, starting a fresh thread with this new topic seems best. I have performed several improvements to Portal:Dogs, and I would like to solicit any suggestions from members of this project on how to further improve the portal. Is anything vital missing that should be there? Are there any types of additional sections that could be added that would improve the portal for Wikipedia's WP:READERS? Suggestions and commentary are appreciated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The Dogs portal has undergone a superb transformation in your hands. It is now looking similar to the best examples of its peer portals, and I thank you for your time, skill, and dedicated efforts.

I have only one suggestion regarding the Related Portals section: Cats portal is a must have. Portal:Horses would be my next choice, it being another domesticated mammal which has had a major impact on civilization. Followed by Portal:Mammals. I don't care much for neither the Biology nor the Science portals - what do others think? William Harris (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@William Harris: Thanks. I added the Horses and Mammals portals to Portal:Dogs/Related portals. I wouldn't mind seeing the Science link go, but I view the Biology link as warranted, being the study of life and all, and various dog studies have occurred (e.g. Dog anatomy, Dog communication, etc., and a Zoology portal does not exist at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s a big improvement, thanks. Cavalryman (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC).

I am very happy with that amendment, thank you. William Harris (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The portal looks awesome now! You have done a huge job. My suggestion would be a section on dog sports and working trials. Maybe a featured section with one sport or job description every couple of weeks? LoraxJr 13:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, well done Northamerica1000 and everyone else who's helped improve the portal. It already uses {{Transclude random excerpt}} to pick an item at random, but 12 items could be rotated monthly with {{Transclude selected excerpt}}, setting |selected={{#time:n}} so that the item matching the month number 1–12 appears. Fortnightly is also possible but a little more complicated: |selected={{#expr:1 + {{#time:U}} / 1209600 mod X}} should work, if you replace X by the number of items to rotate. Certes (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Waiting...

C Waiting for now. Thanks for the ideas. Sorry, but upon further consideration, I hesitate to perform more work on the portal while a potential exists for links to the portal to be removed from articles that the portal displays. Essentially, when Wikipedia content is orphaned or significantly underlinked, it is like being on a hamster wheel. The work is performed, but then nobody will ever see it, negating the purpose of performing the work in the first place, deforming it into pointless busy work. I have some time to improve the portal, but not for my time, energy and the work to be made pointless because readers are dissuaded from seeing it per the removal of links in articles that the portal presents. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: I do not believe that any editor will be removing the links to the portal. There are some who are not in favor of the icon; converting the link to just a hyperlink will be their task if they wish to pursue that. There may be a few cases where a majority of editors on an article might want the link removed; that will be up them. For my part, tonight I have commenced rolling the portal out across our 530 breed articles, 10 articles per night. It will take me 53 days to complete this task. At the end of that process, I will gauge the willingness to accept the "dogs portal" on the non-familiaris WP:DOG articles. (Any change involving the "Wikipedia Wolfpack" is always fraught with uncertainty.) William Harris (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

William Harris, I am not sure it is necessary to add ==See also== when adding {{Portal|Dogs}}, it renders on right, so unless there is something in the see also section it looks like it is empty [3]. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC).

Ok,thanks. William Harris (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cavalryman and William Harris: The inline version of the link is cleaner and has the added benefit of being viewable in mobile view. The square box design does not show up on mobile view. It also formats nicely in a new See also section with a bullet, and does not overextend when images are in place. See below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

* {{portal-inline|Dogs}} creates

•  Dogs portal

William Harris, mine may be the only dissenting voice here, but I see that as a seriously bad idea – it's a monumental expense of time to achieve an unwanted result. If we must have the damned portal (and I wish we didn't), then why not just add it unobtrusively to {{WikiProject Dogs}} – that'd take about ten seconds and would add it to every article in the project without adding any further unnecessary clutter to our articles. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thus, you reverted me at Barbado da Terceira as if you WP:OWN that article, and that a visitor will not be allowed to make up their own minds if they follow the link to the portal from there or not? I must say that I am disappointed in your behaviour, JLAN. William Harris (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No, really, William Harris, I reverted that addition as if I thought the damned thing was not needed (and also because I did not, and do not, see any semblance of a consensus here to start adding it en masse to our articles, nor any necessity (as mentioned above) to create a separate section for it). I'm sorry if that disappoints you, but it's not the first time I've removed one of those; I do apologise for not mentioning the apparent lack of consensus in my edit summary, as I surely should have done. You are of course free to act boldly and without consensus, but – if I may suggest – on a topic as incendiary as this it may not necessarily be the wisest course. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Dogs}}, being aimed at editors, appears on the talk page. Most readers would not see a portal link there. Certes (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Most WP:READERS do not read or even open talk pages; most read articles. While a portal link in the WikiProject banner is ideal, and is the status quo (see Template:WPBannerMeta, which even has a parameter specifically to display a portal link), it is also ideal to place links where people actually see them, in the articles themselves. Unfortunately, when a single user unilaterally removes these links in articles because they don't like the portal and thus feel that the links are "not needed", it breaks the entire process and system in favor of the single user's point of view. Imagine having a single user come along and unilaterally remove links to articles in Main namespace you created, stating that the links are "not needed", because they "don't like" the articles? What's the word for what this would be? Regardless, this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

As noted above, the use of the inline template contradicts WP:DECOR, the icons serve no encyclopedic purpose in see also sections (they are purely decorative) so they contradict our authorised style guide. If WP:PORTL ever gets elevated to the position of guideline you may have an argument, but at the moment it is an unauthorised (and according to the top outdated) FYI page. Re {{Portal|dogs}}, I think its use on some of our shorter articles (stubs etc) looks pretty crowded, instead I think a possible standard we should approach consider for breed articles is:

==See also==
 * [[Portal:Dogs|Dogs portal]]
 * [[List of dog breeds]]

Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC).

• Regarding Cavalryman's proposal above, while I don't agree with WP:DECOR in this manner, because in my view, the image helps to discern the portal from main namespace content, I can accept use of a link without the image. This is certainly better than nothing, and then the portal wouldn't be semi-orphaned. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I made a WP:AGF edit. It was reverted as per WP:BRD, unfortunately there was no explanation to Discuss offered on that article's Talk page, therefore other interested editors could not contribute their point of view for the revert to that article. It appears to have been a unilateral decision by one editor.

I did not breach of any WP:POL. The reason offered here for the revert was that "I did not, and do not, see any semblance of a consensus here to start adding it en masse to our articles". I highlight this use of the word "our". Wikiproject Dogs does not WP:OWN the dog-related articles - nobody does as per that policy - therefore there can never be a consensus to do that here. If there was, it would be non-binding because it is beyond its powers.

Any edits I make to WP:DOG-related articles from this point on will be as an individual editor. Other editors may change my edit also as individual editors for that article, or if they wish to be less polite they may revert it - that is not my concern. I no longer watch this page because I am no longer a member of WP:DOGS. William Harris (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I've written a message about this topic at User talk:William Harris#Portal links. Graham87 07:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have completed this task. Visitors to the Dog portal has more than doubled from a past average of 75 visitors per day, with 270 visitors on one exceptional day. This to me is the proof that readers should have been given the choice to visit the portal if they choose to do so. William Harris (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Vital articles

I have always thought the vital article tag at the top of some article talk pages is pretty arbitrary and so have been looking at what dog articles are deemed "vital". I won't pretend to understand the system (and cannot really be bothered educating myself) but below is the list of project-related articles listed (as far as I can tell):

• Level 3
  • Dog

• Level 4
  • Mammals
    • Canidae
      • Dog (Level 3)
      • Fox
      • Coyote
      • Wolf
      • Jackal
  • Animal breeds and hybrids
    • Beagle
    • Dachshund
    • Great Dane
    • Greyhound
    • Retriever
    • German Shepherd
    • Shih Tzu
    • Terrier

For now I would like to discuss level 4 listing. Looking at the format there is limited scope to add to the number of total articles, so any addition needs to be met with a subtraction.

• Are members happy with the Canidae listing? Pinging William Harris as someone interested in this area.
• Are members happy with the Breeds section? I am not and propose amending the list to:
  • Gun dog
  • Herding dog
  • Livestock guardian dog
  • Mastiff
  • Scent hound
  • Sighthound
  • Spitz
  • Terrier

This more neatly aligns to our importance scale.

I am keen to hear other member's thoughts. Cavalryman (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC).

Thanks for the ping. I think the article Dog was lucky to make it as one of the five Level-3 articles listed under Mammals, and we should not interfere with that level nor try to add another from WP:DOGS (e.g. wolf).

This undertaking falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles. That project's original purpose was to identify and prioritise articles for development to Featured Article standard WP:FAC. It appears to have since lowered its focus to cleaning up the most visited articles (in other words, the wheels have fallen off that project). The vital level assigned to an article can be amended by consensus on that article's Talk page. I am not sure if there is any value in doing so.

If there were to be a change in the WP:DOGS inclusions, it should probably be based on either the importance scale, or this list of most-visited articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Popular pages. The issue with using the importance scale is that there are many Top importance articles which are rarely visited e.g. Lycaon (genus) - and because there is so little research on the genus in comparison to its species then such an article will never be developed into FA standard. One approach for the Canidae articles might be to take the Top importance articles and then rate them on visitor interest and a bit of gut feel (arbitrary, but together is probably a better job than the current offerings). For the breed articles, a similar approach could be applied to the High (dog types) and Mid (breeds) articles, and allocate these across Level 4 and Level 5. William Harris (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. I was thinking if we can develop a consensus here I on the relevant TP when requesting a review of what is listed. Thanks for the link to the most visited articles page, I hadn’t seen it before now. I think either most visited (within reason, the current interest in the Biden’s dogs will likely subside) or based on the importance scale is good solution, my proposed level 4 list above would dovetail nicely in level 5. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC).

For the importance=Top wild canidae articles, the number of visitors for the past 12 months is as follows: Wolf 143k; Dingo 102k; Coyote 98k; Fox 71k. This indicates that Dingo should replace Jackal 28k as a Level 4 article. (Dog of course trumps every other dogs article at a mighty 221k.)

However, to make these changes, there needs to be 5 votes of support on this Talk page: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4. As the project is almost dead, hardly anybody passes through there and most proposals fail because they only attract one or two votes, further leading to the decline of that project. You would need to find another 4 editors willing to go there and support the changes. William Harris (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

How about we pare the breeds list down to seven:

• Gun dog
• Herding dog
• Hound
• Livestock guardian dog
• Mastiff
• Spitz
• Terrier

Then add one to our entries in the mammals section:

• Canidae
  • Dog (Level 3)
  • Fox
  • Coyote
  • Wolf
  • Jackal
  • Dingo

@Atsme, Canarian, Elf, Gareth Griffith-Jones, Justlettersandnumbers, LoraxJr, and SMcCandlish: pinging other project members to gauge opinions and see if they would support this. Cavalryman (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC).

How about toy dogs? For example, the Chihuahua or the Havanese cannot be classified to any of the seven categories listed - thus toy dogs should be also a category on their own. --Canarian (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Canarian:, I did consider them but figured many of them are encompassed by hounds (Italian Greyhound), gundogs (the toy spaniels/small Poodles), spitz and terriers, there is no capacity to increase our overall numbers so it is all about prioritising to maximise the value. Further, it should definitely be added to Level 5. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC).

Great job, CM! It looks good to me! Atsme 💬 📧 12:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I support those entries. You could probably propose them all in one tranche if you gain 5 votes of support here and willing to vote over there.

The rules state that "It is also possible to propose a swap of a new topic for a lower-priority topic already on the list." You might consider swapping Dingo in for Jackal out, with Jackal dropping down to Level 5. That way we do not increase our numbers at L4. William Harris (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy either way, a species found pretty widely throughout three continents is probably more vital than a distinction between hound types. Cavalryman (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC).

Only it is not a species, the article is a cobble-together of three different species (across two separate genii) that have some similarities. You might as well throw Coyote into that same article, as this too shares those same similarities. The article named "Jackal" is border-line WP:NOTDIC, because it is more about a word (a name) than it is about a mammal. William Harris (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that listing dog types a.k.a. breed groups is much more sensible than singling out ten or a dozen specific standardized breeds, which was a PoV-pushing exercise if there ever was one, and a hold-over from the original version of this wikiproject before it crashed and burned under the weight of its own collective bad decisions. I'm not concerned about the biological taxonomy disputes that would treat dog, wolf, and coyote all as the same species or each as its own species; for reader-facing purposes, these are different animals. That is, people are coming to WP to find out how they are classified, not coming here already certain of it, in most cases. I'm skeptical about dingoes and jackals; the first are only one group among several of wild-to-feral canine populations, just a well-known one compared to the others (Indian pariah dogs, etc.). Jackal, as noted, is really more of a term, and while two species are closely related one is not (it's a bit like "monkey" – New World monkeys are one group and Old World monkeys another, and not as closely related cross-wise as laypersons tend to suppose, though closer than either group is related to apes, lemurs, and other primates).

I think we'd be better off editing Free-ranging dog (to which Wild dog and Feral dog redirect) to better summarize dingoes, to summarize jackals at all, and to more clearly distinguish between wild canines, feral (domestic) dogs, and wild–domestic hybrids, with top-level sections for each (the present arrangement of a section call "types" with sub-sections for these classifications, is pointless). Then have that page be one of these articles, instead of jackal and dingo being in this list. That article would basically be a WP:Set-index article (kind of a narrative version of a disambiguation page, in WP:Summary style) but we seem to need one, and the present article isn't quite it. PS: Plural of genus is genera.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@William Harris: I suppose my point is their Old World cultural influence has been significant (despite they're actually being three species), and so the article serves a vital task of correcting some previously held misconceptions. But your page-view statistics are telling. As an aside, I think the African wolf should be given slighter greater prominence in the jackal article due to its former classification.

@SMcCandlish: something like free-ranging dog is one I forgot, and really probably should be included somewhere, pye-dog and African village dog should definitely be a level 5 articles.

Realistically the whole thing is likely a bit of time sink as I cannot see any of the articles being at risk of deletion, but there seems to be some community support for the concept so it may be worthwhile whipping our little part of it into shape. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC).

I'm suggesting, rather, that pye-dog, Af. village dog, dingo, etc., should not be that high a priority, but summarized in Free-ranging dog, and that should be a high-priority article. There are too many feral-bordering-on-wild dog populations on the planet, and singling out a couple of them as "special" is misleading to readers, rather like choosing a few standardized dog breeds that happen to be popular among English-speakers, rather than using the breed group/type articles. That is, I don't think something like Dingo should be a higher priority/imporance level in this scheme than a standardized-breed article like Labrador Retriever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Some very competent taxonomic authorities regard the Dingo as the species Canis dingo, as opposed to the Labrador Retriever which is just another breed of the domestic dog Canis familiaris. Whether Wikipedia editors agree with these authorities or not is irrelevant, it remains one of the valid taxonomic classifications of Dingo until these authorities withdraw their position, or the other authorities withdraw theirs. Neither will happen in the short term. William Harris (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that the dingo is distinct from the domestic dog, they are certainly completely untrainable unlike most free-ranging dogs. My preference would be to include both the Jackal and Dingo. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC).

Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever infobox image

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

A discussion about the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever article’s infobox image is occurring at Talk:Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever#Infobox photo, project members are invited to participate. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC).

Is Swimmers Puppy syndrome a thing?

Should Swimmer puppy syndrome have its own article? Dwanyewest (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then yes. If not, then no. Cavalryman (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC).

Cavalryman (talk) Since I respect your opinions are these sources good enough [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Bibliography

• Hosgood G, Hoskins JD. Swimmer puppy syndrome . In: Hosgood G, Hoskins JD, editors. Small Animal Paediatric Medicine and Surgery. Oxford, United Kingdom: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1998. pp 271.
• Hoskins JD Swimmer puppies and kittens , p.419-420. In: Hoskins JD (Ed.), Veterinary Pediatrics. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, 2001.
• Kongsawasdi S, Chuatrakoon B, Nganvongpanit K. Physical rehabilitation treated swimming puppy syndrome. Chiang Mai Veterinary Journal. 2011; 9 (2): 105-112.
• Lorenz MD. The "swimming puppy" syndrome . In: Kirk RW, editor. Current Veterinary Therapy VI: Small Animal Practice. 6th edition. Philadelphia, Pa, USA UU .: WB Saunders; 1977. pp. 905–906.
• Mello FPS, Neuwald EB and Alievi MM Syndrome do cão swimmer-story of 4 cases . Mostra Cientifica, 8. Educational Ed., Feira de Extensão, 32:61, 2008. Micheletti L. *Syndrome Swimming: Case report. Course completion document, University Center of United Metropolitan Faculties, 2009. 29p
• Nganvongpanit, K. and Yano, T. 2013. Prevalence of Swimming Puppy Syndrome in 2,443 Puppies during the Year 2006-2012 in Thailand. Vet Med Int. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes some of those are reliable, a couple not. I think you have enough there for an article. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC).

"Template:Dog bites and attacks sidebar" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Dog bites and attacks sidebar at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 19#Template:Dog bites and attacks sidebar, project members are invited to participate. Cavalryman (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Small navboxes

Hello @Annwfwn: I can see you have created several new navboxes, including:

I appreciate what you have tried to do in creating these, it seems there is something missing from those articles compared to other dog breed articles. Per WP:NAV-WITHIN, navboxes should not be too small. A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections, or relevant {{main article}} and {{see also}} links within the articles' sections.

These navboxes only contains two to three links. Are you happy that we look to get rid of this? Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC).

Level 4 dog vital articles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Following on from this discussion several months ago, I have proposed to swap a number of dog articles listed at WP:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences. Project members are invited to participate in the discussion at WT:Vital articles/Level/4#Swap: reorganisation of dogs. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC).

Laika, Sled dog, husky pages

I’ve been putzing around with these three pages lately as they were driving me crazy. But before I add more content, I’d like to just check in and see where they are on everyone’s radar.

Part of my issue is that there is quite a bit of redundancy between the three. Conversely Laika, I’d say it would be sufficient to cluster husky entirely under the sled dog article and delete the husky page altogether.

I’ve also got a few other dog breeds which I have plenty of published material for, namely the Chukotka Sled Dog, the Nenets Herding Laika and the Kamchatka Sled dog. And the dreaded Alaskan Husky page.

However before I start adding info, I’d like to do it in a controlled fashion. Please offer some thoughts. Annwfwn (talk)

• Hi, I came across these pages recently and saw the work you have done to move information from Husky page to Sled dogs, I agree that the Husky page can be deleted all together. I can continue to move well-sourced valuable information into other sections of related articles to then delete the whole Husky page. @Annwfwn LoraxJr 23:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Done with deleting Husky page, moved al the sourced information that was not previously moved into two pages: Sled dog and Siberian Husky --LoraxJr 00:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I reverted the merger of the Husky page to Siberian Husky, as they are by definition, not the same topic. I agree there is current redundancy, but think it is important that these be maintained and the Husky page improved, as it refers to a diverse variety of arctic sled dog (the same is tru for Laika), and is not synonymous with Sled Dog as defined in that article either. I think constant and consistent work needs to be done on these pages, and the Alaskan Husky pages, but I do not think combining them or deleting them is appropriate as they refer for different animals, by definition. This is a difficult area of work since many of these are defined only by limited genetic research, and are also cultural terms, but my hope is that others will commit to improving the quality of them with diverse sources, which are becoming more readily available. Good work has been done on the Alaskan Husky page by myself and especially others, but it should continue to be improved and distinguished, as should the Husky page. Mcfuggins (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"The tallest dog in the world"

This is really trivial, sorry! Wase134 has (twice) added at Irish Wolfhound that "it is the tallest dog in the world". The Guinness Book of Records is quite clear that the tallest dog was a Great Dane, as were many other very tall dogs. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I will have a look for some sources, my understanding is they are the tallest breed (by a fraction) and the tallest individual dog recorded was a Great Dane. I see they have amended their previously ambiguous and unsourced edit to state breed, and they have cited a marginal source. Cavalryman (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC).

I have found a better source for the claim. Cavalryman (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Freshpet Article Discussion

Hi, I’ve made a proposal to substantially update the article about the multi-billion dollar publicly- traded fresh pet food company Freshpet. The proposal is here: Talk:Freshpet#Request Edit December 2021. It’s now only a stub and I think the extensive reliable sourcing merits a regular article. I thought members of this project might have a special interest in this topic! I have a declared COI as an employee of Freshpet, which is why I am not directly editing the page. Your independent analysis would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. NJ0220 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: I've already answered this edit request, acting on some parts of it and declining others as promotional. NJ0220 is not happy, and has re-opened it in the hope that asking the other parent will get better results. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

JLAN, I did see this and saw you had responded, I will have a look when I get a moment. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC).

I do not understand why JLAN is attempting to shut down a conversation they themselves asked for: “...please obtain editor consensus here on the talk-page for any or all of these changes.” Talk:Freshpet#Request Edit December 2021. I thought JLAN wanted more editors to participate because JLAN disagreed with my Request Edit proposal which challenged cuts that JLAN made to the article. Consensus is how Wikipedia works, not ownership WP:OWN, JLAN’s response is there for everyone to see (including their taking exception to some Request Edit items and not doing a specific review of multiple others.) NJ0220 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Level 5 dog vital articles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Following on from this level 4 proposal, I have proposed to swap a number of dog articles listed at WP:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals. Project members are invited to participate in the discussion at WT:Vital articles/Level/5#Swap: reorganisation of dogs. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC).

Sheep dog article rename proposal

I have done some work on the page Sheep dog, which appears to be a list of breeds, nothing more, which I think is still necessary, but the name can be confusing the readers, so I think we should change it to "Sheep dog breeds" or even "Sheep dog breeds list". @William Harris, @Cavalryman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoraxJr (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello @LoraxJr: I can see you have made some additions to the article/list. This article is a funny one as sheep dog means different things in different parts of the world, and it is an English language term (I am sure other languages have similar terms). To many like in Britain and here in Australia it means exclusively sheep herding dogs (collies of some description) whilst in other parts of the world English language writers have used the term to mean livestock guardian dogs, but in many places livestock guardian dogs are not used to protect sheep exclusively (in many they are). I personally think we try to find some sources that include some definitions and scrap the list. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC).

In Russian they are called livestock dogs or farmers dogs, but I do not think this will be of any help to regular English-spealing users, as this would not be a term someone would google search. Do you think we might move the lists of breeds into their referring articles and just delete the page all together to avoid confusion?LoraxJr 19:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I will have to check, but I suspect sufficient sources exist to keep the sheep dog article, although it needs a rewrite. I have plans overhaul Livestock guardian dog but it currently includes a list, and Herding dogs covers all of the herding breeds (that have an article). Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC).

I am currently working on the Livestock guardian dogs article, I am keen to delete the list, but it includes a fair amount of extra information in the table, I am not exactly sure what to do with...--LoraxJr 23:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I support deleting it, but I would do a couple of things first:

• make a note on the article TP of all of the entries without blue links, if might serve as a prompt for someone to find some sources (if and when available) and write the article, copying the table but only their rows would be even better
• quickly cross reference every blue linked article to ensure they are included in {{Livestock guardians}}, that way they’re all collectively linked
• check to see if they’re linked at list of dog breeds.

I hope I haven’t created too much work for you. Cavalryman (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC).

No, not at all, you actually gave me a plan to follow. Thank you! Will proceed with that. LoraxJr 18:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so I have done as you advised, please let me know if everything is cOrrect. I have fixed the missing cross links both in LGD template and in the List of breeds, created a section in talk page with the template rows of not linked breeds. Any suggestions? @Cavalryman. LoraxJr 19:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you’ve done a good job, thanks. Cavalryman (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC).

Do you have any suggestions on how to modify the Sheep dog article from being a list of breeds to something more adequate? LoraxJr 20:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

LoraxJr, when I get a chance I will try to find some sources. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC).

The changes I have done in Livestock guardian dogs article have been reversed and the damn table is back, although I have followed your advice and you said the job was done well. Is there a reason in the rules why it got turned back Cavalryman?LoraxJr 09:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

LoraxJr, no I do not. I suggest asking the question of the editor who reverted you on the article’s talk page and if there is no response (since 2010 they have made only two edits) reinstate your edit. Cavalryman (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC).

Ok, I will. Is there a technical possibility to reinstate edits automatically or will need to do it all over again?LoraxJr 13:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Just saw, that my edits are back, so no need for redoing it. Thank you for your help!LoraxJr 13:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of discussions

There is a merge discussion and a NPOV discussion at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Staffordshire Bull Terrier Atsme 💬 📧 06:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Lurcher

Anyone care to take a look at Talk:Lurcher? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

PitBull Article in Constant Turmoil Over Heated PitBull Debate

I've tried adding to and discussing removing certain unreliable sources from the general term pit bull article. Despite my best efforts, reasonable discourse does not seem feasible. There's constant edit warring and most of it is with personal intent, not to better the article or make it more accurate. It's far too political and what's on there now depends on who did the latest edit.

Can this article be locked for only dog experts to edit? What can be done to better the article and reduce vandalism?Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Basically no, see WP:EXPERTS. Dog experts are probably busy with other things, mostly. WP:DR and WP:AGF is what we got. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add and say not even just "dog experts" but people at least willing to engage in dialog to improve the wiki page. There are users there actively trying to not engage in dialog to improve the page and just throwing red herrings and false analogies around to stall any progress. I know we each have our interests, but if someone had time to come volunteer to help, it would be much appreciated. Right now the article is filled with either outdated or flawed data that can be improved, but no progress can be made thanks to a user acting in bad faith and not there to engage in dialog to better the page. Unbiased6969 (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Tazdeviloo7, I'm no expert, but I looked at that page. Yes, there's been a lot of back-and-forth in the article, but there's also been a good amount of talk-page discussion. There are a number of experienced and capable editors already involved there; my advice would be to listen carefully to what they have to say, and try to reach agreement with them on the various sticking-points. When there's disagreement over content, a good plan is often to find the best sources available – papers in peer-reviewed academic journals, books from major or university presses and the like – and ignore questionable ones (specifically, just about any random website on the internet). Hope this helps, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been nominated for a community 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Merger Proposal: Vapor Wake Canine

An article of interest to the project - Vapor wake canine — has been proposed for merging with Detection dog. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion

Annwfwn (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Blue Paul Terrier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blue Paul Terrier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Paul Terrier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

2601:647:5800:1A1F:D9D6:5287:205F:CEBC (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Update - Consensus said to Redirect to Bull and terrier

Proposal to update the project's RS guideline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Identifying sources for dog article contents after notability is established

A (proposed)

B (current)

Kennel clubs are generally considered reliable sources for breed standards, number of registrations, member clubs, and information about themselves such as the conditions of accepting a breed into their registry. Kennel clubs and breed registries can be used to add specific details about the breed’s history to an article but corroboration by secondary sources is encouraged. Sources should be considered reliable. If in doubt, seek consensus.

Kennel clubs are generally only considered reliable sources for breed standards, number of registrations. Kennel clubs and breed registries can be used to add specific details about the breed’s history to an article but the broad details should be verified in secondary sources. Sources should be reputable.

!Vote

• A - a research article Genetic selection of athletic success in sport-hunting dogs in PNAS states: In the United States, the American Kennel Club (AKC) is the foremost authority for purebred dog classification and registration. There are also other scientific journals that cite The Kennel Club and AKC, such as Canine Genetics and Epidemiology which states: With the rise in interest in purebred dogs, Kennel Clubs were founded in the United Kingdom and USA in the late 1800s to govern dog showing and breeding, register dogs and establish the first stud books. The AKC has built the world's largest DNA database of canine profiles, they operate the AKC Museum of the Dog (founded 1982, NYC), and offer an expansive library and archives, as does TKC in the UK. They are certainly a RS for the history of the breeds they recognize and breed names they approve, and for approving the kennel clubs that create new purebreds, and provide documented histories of lineage, etc. Atsme 💬 📧 03:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Adding: I'm of the mind that there may be a lack of understanding as to the precise role of a long-established, highly reputable breed registry, particularly with regard to its reliability as an archival source for dog breed history. Perhaps the following links will provide more insight by demonstrating the scope and actual goals of TKC and AKC, the two oldest, largest, and most reputable non-profit breed registries in the world:
• AKC Guide–Archival Collections,
• Digital collections,
• an example of specific historic documentation,
• an example of parent kennel club documentation, including meeting minutes, documented parentage related to how a particular breed & breed standard was developed, etc.
• The Kennel Club library also maintains an archival collection that dates back even further in history than the AKC collection.
• [13], [14], and [15] - practically anything an editor wants to know about a breed, and how it was developed. AKC also has the largest DNA database in the world. To suggest they are not a reliable source for historic documentation is a ^[stretch] Atsme 💬 📧 16:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Maintain status quo, kennel clubs lack independence from the breeds they register, being incentivised by registration fees to promote people buying their dogs and registering them with their clubs. Further, they are actively involved in protecting the business interests of their primary customers, the breeders and breed clubs, by restricting the breeding potential of offspring through limited registrations etc [16][17]. As such they are prone to embellishment and exaggeration of breed histories to promote their products. They should be treated with caution, with in text attribution for claims they make.

In line with this, claims like maintaining the world's largest DNA database of canine profiles needs to be independently sourced. Further, the two kennel clubs used as examples are not indicative of all kennel clubs, many of which are of very limited means. I see no need to amend the status quo. Cavalryman (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC).

• Maintain status quo, though I'm not sure how much my vote counts for. But I can say this, kennel clubs do not seem like reliable sources where breed history is involved (there seems to be a frequent claim of antiquity to breeds that is rarely true). And, as has been pointed out, they are not independent of the breeds that they take money to register and whatnot. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• A Kennel clubs were created in the mid 19th century. Their purview is identifying breed types, monitoring blood types, and creating organized management; all this governing legitimate dog breeding. These clubs prompted breeding expansion. The clubs created breeding standards and registration rules. Due to stringent rules, only dogs who had proof of pure bloodlines who met breed standards being registered, breed standards were high. Any dog who was given registration in 1935, like this dog, would have had proof of a pure bloodline, for example. Generally, the kennel clubs started out being reliable sources as they are the ones who started the breed registries. I would say that their historical information is reliable due to this.dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• A, but .... The original guideline is too restrictive, as we do routinely use KCs as sources for the acceptance status of various breeds in said KC. That said, I agree with SilverTiger12 that they're not reliable for claims about breed history (e.g. they have a tendency to promote particular individuals [members of the KC] as breed founders when others also lay such claims, they over-state antiquity of breed origins, and they most especially make untenable behavioral claims that are not backed up but ethological study). Also, I don't think the "considered" change to the last line item helpful. So, I would like to see a hybrid version of the guideline, something like:

• Kennel clubs are generally considered reliable sources for breed standards, number of registrations, member clubs, and information about themselves such as the conditions of accepting a breed into their registry.
• Kennel clubs and breed registries can be used to add specific details about the breed’s history to an article but the broad details should be verified in secondary sources.
• Sources should be reliable. If in doubt, seek consensus.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• A - Agree with Dawnleelyne.
  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• B - Kennel clubs are not generally reliable for breed traits or history, see Sarenbo and Svensson 2021, Bitten or struck by dog: A rising number of fatalities in Europe, 1995–2016 [18] for an example of kennel clubs spreading doubtful information in their marketing.

  Breeding, marketing and selling “high-risk breeds” and the liability of breeders needs to be discussed in connection with fatal dog attacks....Breeds such as Pit Bull terrier [35] and Staffordshire Bull terrier [36] are described in Breed Standards as “excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children” or “Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children” despite their history as fighting dogs, their weight and strength. Their specific style of biting, “hold and tear”, can cause fatal injuries in minutes [7], and the biting combined with violent shaking exacerbates the injuries (Burns, Kusanale, & Brennan, 2011). Additionally, bull breeds are known to be aggressive to other dogs, which indirectly increases the risk of injuries to humans who may try to protect their own dogs from the attacking dog [37].

  They also say, the marketing of dog breeds as “nanny dogs” should be prohibited because there is no evidence that such dogs exist. I believe this is consistent with prior !votes pointing out that kennel clubs exist primarily to serve to the commercial interests of breeders. Geogene (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Appears to me the Proposal passes. Atsme 💬 📧 06:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  It does not appear that way to me, as most of the votes are not simple ones. Additionally, as you are the proposer, it is not appropriate for you to close this discussion. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree - this is a local consensus. The fact that science considers the AKC and TKC the foremost authorities is sufficient, and all we really need to go on. I already provided the diffs from science articles/reviews. Atsme 💬 📧 20:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Any rationale claiming the leading kennel clubs (AKC-TKC) are not reliable because they lack independence or are incentivized by fees, etc. is like saying Science Direct and Elselvier lack independence and are unreliable because they are incentivized by the fees they accept and the science articles they promote. Neither the AKC nor the TKC have been accused of being or formally declared "predatory breed registries". They are the foremost go-to sources for accuracy and statements of fact. We can waste more time arguing that dog books are more reliable as secondary sources, which is true when it involves interpretations but not when it's based on a logical fallacy - most authors of these books are involved relative to earning personal profits than are the non-profit breed registries. I'll end with the following disclaimer on the first few pages of James Beaufoy's book ''Staffordshire Bull Terriers: A Practical Guide for Owners and Breeders which should shed enough light to derail the potential of fallacious arguments:

  Disclaimer The author and publisher do not accept any responsiblity in any manner whatsoever for any error or omission, or any loss, damage, injury, adverse outcome, or liability of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any of the information contained in this book, or reliance upon it. The information contained herein is the author's opinion and is based on his experience. If in doubt about any aspect of veterinary treatment, readers are advised to seek professional advice.

• I'll trust science before I trust fringe views. Atsme 💬 📧 21:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time to establish guidelines

{Moved discussion from|1=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Members |2=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 Harristalk 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).

WP:TEXTWALL

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 Harristalk 11:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Side conversation

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. [19] The wiktionary says there is an overlap of 'landrace' and 'breed'. [20] 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" [21] (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:break

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

• A dog breed, dog type or dog crossbreed is notable if it meets the requirements of Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, specifically significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• A dog breed is presumed to be notable if it is recognised by the FCI, any national kennel club affiliated with the FCI or one of the following kennel clubs not affiliated with the FCI:
  • The American Kennel Club
  • The Canadian Kennel Club
  • The Kennel Club
  • The United Kennel Club
• Kennel club breed groupings and categorisations are not independently notable nor indicative of dog types.

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.

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 Harristalk 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 Harristalk 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