Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 8

King Charles Spaniel FAN

Letting the dog project know that King Charles Spaniel has been nominated as a Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King Charles Spaniel/archive1. (If you want to be notified of these sorts of things without relying on someone posting here, watch this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Article alerts) Anna ^talk 20:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ended with no consensus, but a lot of improvements to the article. I'll nominate it again in another week to see if we can finish it off. Miyagawa (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Image/dog breed help

File:DSCF3390.JPG

File:PICT2645.JPG

Could anyone help me out with the breed of these dos? there is no description on the images. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

At first glance I thought Kuvasz, but the body proportions are more Spitz. Maybe American Eskimo Dog? Samoyed..? bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

100% Definitely Samoyeds Keetanii (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The pictures have now been renamed. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Island fox

I have nominated Island fox for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hidden text

Hi! Someone seems to have been going round a lot of dog articles adding hidden text which reads <!--Editors: breed registry, club, rescue, and kennel information links are placed on DMOZ, not here--> in the External links section. DMOZ is a redirect to the Open Directory Project, which seems to be part of the mozilla project. Is there any consensus here, or anywhere else in Wikipedia, that links are to be placed there in preference to the putting them here in the ordinary way? If so, it's presumably found its way into the MOS somewhere. Could someone point me to that bit, as I can't find it? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Breeders links and rescue societies fail WP:ELNO, so the dmoz links is seen as an easy way to get around the issue. If you have a look at a few breed articles which don't have the links, you'll see the ten to twenty or so external links that crop up, with the majority of them being completly unsuitable and mostly for advertising purposes. Miyagawa (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please correct me if I have misunderstood: this is a way of adding unacceptable links to Wikipedia? Is there any consensus, here or elsewhere, that that is (a) desirable or (b) acceptable? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tail docking law of France

4th August 2003 but on this site;

http://www.cdb.org/euro.htm

It says unbanned?--14Adrian (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename?

Stale

 – Consensus was in favor, but nothing has happened in over 6 months.

It may be more accurate to call the project "WikiProject Canine" or "WikiProject Canines". Its scope extends beyond dog articles alone, and another project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine, already follows this convention. – anna 05:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support since wolves and foxes are currently classified under the scope of this project. If the name change goes ahead, I think WikiProject Cats should consider following suit.Keetanii (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support would make the inclusion of Wolves and Foxes better. Miyagawa (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support That makes much more sense in terms of the articles already considered in the scope of this project. Silverseren^C 20:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this has been up for several months with no objections, I'll be carrying out the rename to "WikiProject Canine" (as soon as I find out all of the project pages and templates that need to be moved/altered). If anyone wants to put a halt on this, please speak up over the weekend. Anna ^talk 15:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this would make a difference to anyone, but "canine" is properly only an adjective (i.e. "canine teeth", "canine unit", "canine nature"). While it has gained common usage as a noun, the actual noun is "canid". The suffix "-ine" means "related to", and the suffix "-id" means "offspring of", or specifically a single member of a taxon. The same is true of "feline" and "felid". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

More dog breed image help

File:Picturenancy5.jpgFile:Picturepup7.jpgFile:In Memory.JPGFile:Alveywater.jpgFile:MixedBreed.jpgHi there, I have some more images with unspecified breeds. These images were put up for deletion, but it's hard to be certain that they aren't useful without knowing what breeds they are. Any help would be appreciated. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the first one, second one and fourth one are Coolie (dog breed)s. I'd guess, Bulldog pup for the third one. I'm guessing red Border Collie cross for the fifth one. The sixth one is very young, maybe Labrador? Hope that helps. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

?Member of WikiProject Dogs?

May i be a member of WikiProject Dogs? I really love dogs and would spend all day writing about them if i could! Thank you and plz contact me if u have any questions Sorceress150 (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Consider yourself a member. (We don't have entrance exams!)

I've put some useful links on your talkpage. Wikipedia does have quite a few rules so, alas, you can't just write anything you feel like (but if you're a good writer it really helps). If you're uncertain about anything, just ask... bobrayner (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

re Yippee, Yappee and Yahooey

Does this article fall under the aegis of this project? It is so tagged. On the one hand, Yippee, Yappee and Yahooey are "dogs", sort of. They are animated dogs. On the other hand, that they are dogs is sort of peripheral. They could have been bears or marmots and no real difference. They wear clothes and speak English, which I suppose most real dogs don't do. They also don't engage in pack behavior or other typical canine behaviors. Essentially this article is about some sort of heathen "entertainment" pitched to particularly backward American children a half-century ago and isn't really about dogs at all. We don't include (say) Ishtar (film) in this category, so I don't know how broad you people want to go with this. Herostratus (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Of interest to WikiProject Dogs

Members of WikiProject Dogs should be informed about a blog post which is highly critical of some Wikipedia dog pages. The blog raises issues we may need to address: http://sruv-pitbulls.blogspot.com/2011/08/wikipedia.html This note is also posted to the Wikipedia Dog Portal. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.255.205 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not unfamiliar with the issues surrounding the Pit Bull article and the various related articles. Their points are well made, but they do say that at the moment the articles have become more stable then they were in the past. People feel very strongly about dog attacks and there are editors in both corners. Any changes to those articles need to be done in a sensitive and constructive manner which promotes a neutral point of view. Miyagawa (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

German Shepherd

I have nominated German Shepherd Dog for a Good Article review since I feel that it no longer meets GA criteria. See the review here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Project related articles

Does anyone know how to update the related articles page for this project without doing it manually, so that it updates the list from the automatic change list uses is updated? Just noticed it hasn't been updated since 2008, so I'm sure its missing a lot of articles. Miyagawa (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Breed Naming Conventions

A very important discussion is taking place at Talk:Welsh Corgi#Requested move that may affect the naming of dog breed articles. All interested parties should take a look and give their opinions. Miyagawa (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You should make a note in your wikiproject page saying how dog breed names should be capitalized, so it can be added to the others in Wikipedia:FAUNA#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm back! I wish I could have contributed to this debate, but everyone seemed to handle it well. I just wanted to applaud you all for your dedication! Everyone made great arguments and you all stuck to your guns. Job well done :) cReep talk 08:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Animal-assisted therapy

Anyone watching this page should be aware of some significant editing and discussion at Talk:Animal-assisted therapy. Essentially, there are about three POV-pushers there claiming that AAT is useless pseudoscience, (they also claim Acupuncture is pseudoscience) and on the other side, to be fair, the article itself is pretty weak, had some too-flowry POV in favor and it DOES need much improvement and citation to peer-reviewed works. But substituting one POV for another is not the solution I favor a fair and balanced treatment of AAT but don't have the time or energy to take this on, so am alerting those who might be interested to pop over and comment. Montanabw^(talk) 17:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

2010 Iditarod

Please reassess this article if necessary. I assessed it as a stub for WP:ALASKA, while this project assessed it as B-Class. What I saw were two not-necessarily-connected paragraphs with a pile of ill-formatted references, representing only a few of the sources which normally cover the Iditarod.RadioKAOS (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Should article on carting include scootering?

I've been dryland mushing for about half a dozen years with my dogs, mostly using a scooter. The article on dryland mushing (carting) doesn't mention anything about it. I'd be happy to add to the article.

No flames please, I'm a complete Wikipedia newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooterjor (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

OR-7, Journey the Wolf

Informing project members that I have started an article for OR-7, the wolf also known as Journey, who has traveled throughout Oregon and California and captured the attention of many people in the process. No question about notability here, as far as I am concerned, given the amount of attention this wolf has received. This article would make a great collaboration for WikiProject California, WikiProject Dogs and WikiProject Oregon. May the adventure continue... --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture Problem for Fennec Fox

I think the main picture in the Fennec fox article is not a picture of a Fennec Fox.

Its ears don't look long enough. Its head looks wrong - muzzle point vs head width. The body seems a bit big, too.

I posted my concern on the Talk:Fennec fox page about a week ago and haven't recieved a response. I'm hoping someone here is able and willing to fix this. I'd do it myself but I don't understand inserting pictures, and image copyrights and licenses.

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If we're not sure about something, it has no place being in an encyclopædia. I have removed it. bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of White Wolf to White Wolf Publishing

As there is no WikiProject Canids (yet?), I'm leaving a note here to mention that I've requested that White Wolf be moved to White Wolf Publishing, so that White Wolf can redirect to arctic wolf. The discussion is here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Report on the use of self-published sources

The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.

Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new group on human-animal interaction

I have proposed a new group to work on the broad topic of human-animal interaction. It can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Human-animal interaction. Any input would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dog breeds task force

During this month, I intend on reviving the breeds task force. Any help will be greatly appreciated. I know I have inquired about the task force page before and it is still quite "dead." Any help, suggestions, or opposition? Feel free to message me on my talk page so I can cease or speed up the process! Thanks all! Keep on editing :) cReep talk 11:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Austrailian Cattle Dog

Hello All,

I have opened a request for comment at Australian Cattle Dog, here. The discussion is meant to decide whether the article should have a separate subsection on Aggression. Your input would be valuable. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

We are having some difficulty with a user on the mixed-breed dogs page. A user has made some edits that are not appropriate. He continues to revert other peoples edits and corrections and refuses to accept a proposed compromise. The issue is that the user insists on inserting a picture of a BKC recognized pure-bred dog (the Indian Pariah Dog.) Other users have explained the issue, and offered a compromise of removing any graphic from the section, but user has continued to revert the page to reflect his edits. (User's talk page indicates this behavior has been an issue in other forums as well.)

We've registered a dispute resolution notice, and need your comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#en.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FMixed-breed_dog

Thanks, 65.121.228.201 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment: Llewellin setter - merge into English setter?

I only mentioned this briefly in the above reliable sources question, so to try to get more thoughts and discussion on merging Llewellin Setter into English setter, I thought I would try to get it noticed by dedicating a new section to it!

Discussion is here - it would be great to get loads of opinion on this to get a strong consensus (either way).

--SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

FA Article

Abuwtiyuw was featured on Wikipedia today. Great job editors! cReep talk 05:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration for December 2012

Hello everyone! I would like to encourage everyone to nominate or support articles for collaboration. I just archived the old nominations and it's time to begin nominating new ones. Check out our collaboration page! cReep talk 08:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration for January 2013

Hey everyone! Take a look at our collaboration page and nominate or vote on articles we can all work on together to improve! Lets start January 2013 off with a bang! - cReep talk 08:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tamaskan Dog dispute

Hi,

Is there anyone who might assist in sorting out a long running dispute at Tamaskan Dog‎? The problems here, which have gone on for years, are;

• generally unrecognised breed
• scant sourcing to anything other than interested breeders
• multiple factions of different breeders each claiming to be protectors of the "true" breed
• one of these factions has recently split itself
• each faction regularly attempts to purge all reference, cites, links to the others from the article
• each faction regularly attempts to "warn off" readers of the others
• none of them are interested in discussion or compromising with the other
• now we have one editor lining up what looks very like a POV Fork

Does this project have any guidelines or expertise it can bring to the issue? Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Escape Orbit,

Coincidentally, User:Tikuko raised an Afd about Utonagan this morning here - looks to be a very similar situation. I notice the Northern Inuit dog, Utonagan, Tamaskan etc all seem to be off-shoots of the same group of five dogs. Utonagan had come to my attention when links were starting to be changed with no edit summary. The sources quoted in each of these articles also seem a trifle dubious (to me anyway)?

I've had a quick peek at the sandbox Am Tamaskan article and I would say, it's the same thing.

I wonder if Afd might be a solution for all of these but perhaps I'm being a tad heavy handed? I appreciate all breeds have to start somewhere except it does appear 'fashionable' to produce a cross breed, give it a fancy name, set up a website, tell people it's rare and sell pups for large amounts. The wording of the articles should at least be looked at, as the impression conveyed is that it/they are bonafide breeds.

It would be interesting to get some input from others as these are obviously just my thoughts! SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, these are not 'breeds' of dogs - they are unrecognized by every major governing organization except their own, don't have the same history as similar kinds of breeds (mostly working dogs, can't think of any off the top of my head but I remember an unrecgonized breed in the Philipenes or somewhere similar that fell under this), and mostly just seem like examples of backyard breeders trying to pass their mutts off as being super awesome. They don't even have the same notability as other kinds of similar mutts such as puggles (which are basically a household term).

I agree with Phil in that the articles should either be dramatically reworded because as it stands they present the image that they are bonafide breeds of dogs, which they are not; or the articles should simply be deleted. I'm willing to poke around and find more of these if someone would like me to - they're basically everywhere. --Tikuko 19:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm very fifty-fifty with this article. Part of me says keep and try to save it and the other part of me says we should put it up for AfD. Some of the reasons why I think we should salvage the article is because it is a relatively new "breed" of dog and because six other language Wikipedias have chose to create an article about this particular breed. It would be interesting to investigate further the references to "Dogs Monthly" and "Dogs Today." I do agree with the fact that it does need to be dramatically reworded and that it should be made very clear that this "breed" is not recognized by any major kennel club.

Also, Tikuko, I think it would be a great idea to put together a list of breeds that are not recognized by any major kennel club. Perhaps we should start a list by creating a subpage to the wikiproject? - cReep talk 06:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I would gladly take up that project - making a list of unrecognized breeds. I'd need a little direction as to where to get such a thing started because I'm not familiar with that protocol, but I would gladly help list the breeds and attempt to improve the articles etc.

My issue isn't so much that it's a 'new' breed of dog (I know they all have to start somewhere) but that it's unrecognized - There are dog breeds that were recognized by various governing bodies as reciently as the early 00's (I'd have to check the exact dates) so I know that there is at least a way for these breeds to be considered - But when I see things like "bred with no use besides being a companion animal" it makes me feel like the dog is just the result of a backyard breeder who is trying to make his mutts seem 'so cool wow' and therefore doesn't belong here. --Tikuko 20:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The Am Tamaskan article above has been pushed through to Articles for Creation regardless of the (unanswered) message left on their talk page expressing our concerns. I left a message on the AfC discussion/help page directing them here, and I thought you might like to be made aware of this as well. --Tikuko 09:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. I've been attempting to get somewhere with this article for a while now, but I'm accepting now that it rarely receives any input from anything other than an editor with a COI. But I don't know nearly enough on the topic to make a judgement call on whether it fails notability and should go through an AfD discussion. Breed "recognition" could take many forms I suppose, but you may already have guidelines to resolve that sticky problem. Happy for any of you on the project to decide that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I had another look at the Utonagan, Northern Inuit Dog and Tamaskan Dog articles this morning as I still have huge reservations about the notability of each. As we know Utonagan is currently at AfD here so the outcome of that is still being decided. From what I can see, these are all the same 'breed' and the variations have been created after arguments between splinter groups? All use the same dubious references predominantly back to themselves; Northern Inuit Dog in particular is a promotional piece for an unrecognised organisation - it has had a citations needed banner since March 2008, it has no references and the only external link is to it's own website. It looks as if previous attempts have been made to change the wording of the lead to reflect a cross breed status and it is then changed back to read '....an established breed...'

All three seem to go through the same arguments, political manoeuvring and changes on their respective Talk pages as well!

I also had a quick look at these articles on the other language Wiki - some are simply a translation of the articles here that have been ported across; some are no more than the photo used in the info box from the articles here.

The Dogs Today and Dogs Monthly listing doesn't actually cite anything and when I did a Google search (like Dogs Today, July 2009, Tamaskan) other than the Wiki, it was forums etc that were returned.

* So, my feeling is these other two articles, Tamaskan Dog and Northern Inuit Dog, should go to AfD as well on the grounds of non-notable; no reliable references; predominantly promotional.

As a further point, I agree a List of breeds not recognised by any National Authority (AKC, FCI, KC etc) would be a tremendous help. I looked at the List of dog breeds and I guess a basis could be taken from that? It would certainly help clarify things. And perhaps we could agree a standard worded sentence to be placed on these articles, maybe along the lines of 'This cross breed is not currently recognised by any major Kennel Club' in italics before going in to the lead? By using 'currently' we are not ruling out the possibility of future recognition?

An interesting piece that gives an explanation of the processes for establishing new breeds is [1] - AKC Foundation Service requirements are described as well.

Any further thoughts?

SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with an "unrecognised" list article would be that it is essentially a list about an absence of authoritative information/sources. Wikipedia doesn't generally include information about what things are not, because there's usually no way of constructing it without original research and opinion. For instance, what's to prevent a breeder making up a breed, and adding it to the list on the undeniable basis that no-one recognises it? Having your breed on the list is at least acknowledgement that it is a breed, isn't it? Where is the line draw between "fanciful marketing" and "a breed that's just not recognised... yet"? It inevitably comes down to opinion, which is never a good place to start. That is unless, of course, there is such a list maintained by a reliable source?? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very valid point, Escape Orbit. It emphasises (to me) these three particular articles are being given credence by having Wiki articles and strengthens my feeling they should go to AfD for consideration.........SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking less an article in the main space and more something within the wikiproject for matinence reasons or so we have something we can look at to try to figure out this issue - these aren't the only breeds that are otherwise unrecognized except for within their own organizations.

I actually signed up for the 'official tamaskan dog' forums to go check them out and see if they had perhaps linked to more established sources on their forums and all I managed to find as far as sources is that they have a vendetta against anyone that doesn't present Tamaskan dogs as the "greatest dawgs evar!!" which might explain the edit wars over at that article. --Tikuko 19:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my suggestion was a subpage on the wikiproject, not a main space article. More for matinence then anything. - cReep talk 07:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just a notice to say I have nominated Tamaskan Dog and Northern Inuit Dog for deletion this morning - I hope I've done them correctly! SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And I see the AfC for American Tamaskan has been rejected. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you have done a fine job Phil :) Also! In regards to our previous discussion about the unrecognized breeds matinence, I would like to point out the Breeds Task Force To Do page here. This might be a great page to keep track of the unrecognized breeds... And perhaps cleaning up this page could help us in the long run? Seems like a lot of work though... *Begins pulling out hair* [[File:|25px|link=]] Heh... - cReep talk 07:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

First time I've seen that page cReep - it looks as if it could be a good place to have as a springboard but would definitely need clearing out first - even that looks like a monumental task though! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

American Alsatian

I'm strongly tempted to AfD this article on the same grounds as the other three - there are no secondary sources on this breed and if you look all the references are to breeders, the breed club, or to pages that 'scrape' dog breeds out of the slime to make themselves higher on the search engine. Just wanted to know what you guys thought first. --TKK ^{bark !} 23:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, went ahead and did it. --TKK ^{bark !} 23:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Recently, several articles within the projects scope have been nominated for deletion. Here is a list of current articles. Feel free to join in on the discussions! Also this month the Utonagan article was deleted and the discussion was held here.

• Antebellum Bulldog - discussion here
• American Alsatian - discussion here
• Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog - discussion here
• Northern Inuit Dog - discussion here
• Tamaskan Dog - discussion here

- cReep talk 12:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Expert requested

Are you a dog expert? If so, please look at Tillamook Cheddar (dog). I've tagged the article as needing an WP:EXPERT for some time, but the page has less than 30 watchers. My concern? I think TC's behavior is nothing unusual (or notable) in that dogs commonly engage in "nesting behavior". My wife's IG "digs up" pillows, towels, blankets all the time before settling down where she wants to settle down on. I could easily paint up her paws or attach brushes and have her create "art" when she's in a nesting mood. So I'm skeptical about this one dog (out of hundreds of millions) that is featured in Wikipedia. But I'm hardly qualified or knowledgeable enough to make appropriate edits. Thanks for your help. (Request made November 2010.) --S. Rich (talk)

Native American Indian Dog

Looking to pick up a bit of a discussion on this before I AfD it, as I seem to have been a bit AfD-happy over the last month. Comments before I go ahead? --TKK ^{bark !} 01:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Banter Bulldogge as well. I'm just going to continue listing these as I work on doing various mopping-up chores. --TKK ^{bark !} 01:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed link to personal breeder website on Banter Bulldogge and ref linking to commercial website on NAID (Majestic View Kennels). As far as NAID is concerned, I wonder why the delete AfD from Jan 2008 doesn't show? Personally, I don't think either of these articles meet WP:GNG, WP:RS or WP:V - but I guess most know my feelings so probably best to get more opinion on them SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Might as well put up at least Banter.. I can't find any mentions of Banter Bulldogge outside of breeder sites.--TKK ^{bark !} 15:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominated Banter. I spun around google real quick and found mentions of the NAID here and here but neither mention seems terribly notable nor reliable. --TKK ^{bark !} 16:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Found another. Australian Bulldog was suggested to me by suggestbot. I wonder why most of these non-notable breeds are bulldog types or wolf-lookalikes. --TKK ^{bark !} 15:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The book you found that mentions the NAID - your second link - looks as if it's written by the father of the baby injured and reported in the two local paper references already given? SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice those. You're right. --TKK ^{bark !} 16:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several breeds being formed on base of primitive breeds, and bulldogs. Rare breeds are developed and maintained by enthusiastic breeders from such a small population there is a very little information about them. Some are fiction, some are real, and commonly there are 2 or more competing breed clubs per every promising establishing breed claiming that they have the correct standard etc. Once the breed established to the point of recognition by major kennel clubs, the dogs become more or less uniform, and the breed becomes more or less known. But at the stage of forming the stable population the dogs often look pretty different, and the breeders who are involved are in the process of establishing the standards, are experimenting trying to pick the best ones, common grounds for uncertainty. I'd suggest to contact people who call themselves "breed club", explain that there is a situation, and ask them to get involved, and to provide factual information for Wiki article to prove that their dogs are true bred. And make final decision based on that. Great source for bulldog breeds http://www.ioeba.net/breed_info.htm Afru (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is notability. There aren't any secondary sources for most of these breeds, which means that they fail WP: GNG right off the bat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikuko (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Podeollie

Just a quick heads up to let you know I stumbled on an AfD for a very recently created article Podeollie. To be honest I'm amazed it got through AfC as it looks to be a basic cross breed with no attempt at references at all. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Labradoodle

Is it just me or do others agree the 'Notable owners' and 'in popular culture' sections are getting a touch out of hand? It seems as soon as there is even the most tenuous mention of Labradoodle, something is added to the article. Thoughts? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I would absolutely do away with the Notable owners section. A discussion about this was held here. Certain articles benefit from having sections similiar to the ones you are talking about, such as the Well-known Jack Russell Terriers section. But, the notable owners section is too tedious and not very encyclopedic. Especially if we were to add it to other breed articles. Just think about how ridiculous the Labrador Retriever article would be! - cReep talk 10:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Good policy to adhere to is "Notable dogs, not notable owners"; otherwise every celebrity that gets one of these dogs will be listed. Remember that notability is not inherited. For example, I would say that the golden retriever in Homeward Bound is notable enough to deserve a brief mention on the Golden retriever page, but is his owner? Probably not, unless he's an established golden trainer or something. I'd go ahead and remove the entire section unless there is a mention or two there that is actually notable; if there is, keep them but rephrase them to be primarily about the dog, not the owner and retitle the section appropriately.

As far as the In Popular Culture, i would say take a heavy hand to it and pare it down, and merge the above discussed section with it.

I'm quite the deletionist, though, so you probably want to take what I say with a grain of salt. --TKK ^{bark !} 13:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I've removed it. The only one I could see that was relevant in the list was Donald Campbell and it is already mentioned in the history section. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Project Front Page / WolterBot Alternative

I'm going to shift through the front page and clean it up a little bit, but before I do that I was wondering if anyone knew of an alternative to wolterbot? Since it's been down for nearly three years I figured its about time to replace it.--TKK ^{bark !} 14:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've found this but it doesn't port to that page automatically. The fact that 46% of our articles are tagged for cleanup in some fashion seems completely unacceptable to me. --TKK ^{bark !} 14:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Clean up mixed-breed dog redirect

So, as I'm sure most of us know, Mixed-breed dog was moved to Mongrel in September 2012. However, Talk:Mixed-breed dog is still fully intact and has the WikiProject Dogs header and former featured article header, whilst Talk:Mongrel is a cluttered mess that doesn't even mention that WikiProject Dogs falls into the article. I'm a little bit afraid to touch it for fear of messing something up, so would anyone like to help clean up the redirect of the talk page? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm adding the WP:DOGS header to the talk page now. I'll take a look at it more intensely afterwards and then I'll take a look at porting the old talk page over.--TKK ^{bark !} 23:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Going to let MiszaBot attack it before I do anything else.--TKK ^{bark !} 00:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Askal

Could some others have a quick peak at this Askal article please? In the description it actually states: "the askal is basically any stray dog in the Philippines". I can't find any references anywhere on the net to think otherwise.

I've diligently gone through the external links & references given in the article -

• The 'Askal' external link appears to go to a commercial dog training site that is just called 'Askal' and charges for it's courses;
• Fillipino Culture goes to a 'Pinoy Warrior' site; the page linked in ref #1 is entitled the Pinoy dog but yet again states it's the term for the Philippine Mongrel/usually a stray dog;

• ref #2 again seems to be askal street dogs (I'm relying on a not very good Google translation);

• ref #3 again askal equals stray dog in this article but it does correctly quote PAWS saying 'asPin or asong Pinoy' is a more correct term;

• ref #4 goes to the Phillipine Inquirer site, then I searched within it for askal arriving at various articles (I didn't go through them all) but the ones I looked at commonly said more or less the same as this quote: "The star of the show was undeniably the aspin, the asong Pinoy (formerly called askal, or asong kalye), the mixed-breed mutts of all shapes, configurations and sizes,";

• ref #7 & #8 are about dog meat;

• ref #9 is indeed about the individual dog 'Dagul' but again terms it as a street dog/mongrel.

Any suggestions? Do I just stub the article right back? Afd? or PROD? ^{PS: We all seem to be landing on this Project page at the same time, must be something in our water!} SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this article is beyond repair. Beyond the strange external links and references, "Description" seems to have a variety of subtopics placed in one large heading and completely unreferenced. Trying to untangle it and fix it would probably be futile. If anyone does manage to think up a better way to write it, they'd be welcome to try later. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"the askal is basically any stray dog in the Philippines". I would almost suggest a merge to stray dog or Mongrel.--TKK ^{bark !} 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Brambleberry and TKK. It's already mentioned in Mongrel. I've deleted a couple of bits from it (commercial link & a couple of non notable individual dogs). I think I'm possibly on the road to nowhere with it but will try paring back some more later. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dogster

Has there ever been a consensus on if Dogster constitutes a reliable source? The fact that it seems to list only 'breeds' on wikipedia, and the fact that it has some pretty random photo combos (chihuahua in the American Bullnese section) make me doubtful.--TKK ^{bark !} 01:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Breeder / Kennel Websites As Sources

I've noticed recently that numerous articles use exclusively or almost exclusively breeder websites or breed club websites for their references. Are there opinions on this? I feel like we should go through and strip them out and replace them with secondary sources, but that's just me. Thoughts?

The two articles that drew my attention to this issue are the Miniature American Shepherd and Tamaskan Dog articles but I'm sure there's plenty more. I also feel that stripping out links on the Tamaskan article would eliminate this weird back and forth edit war between the different organizations and clear up some of the verification problems we'be been having.--TKK ^{bark !} 22:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi TKK, this is more or less what I asked further up this page - see here. I remove any breeders personal websites as non reliable sources that I come across but do use breed clubs which are recognised by national kennel clubs (AKC, the Kennel Club etc). I see the Miniature American Shepherd and the breed club used as a reference are those listed/recognised by the AKC, so I would suggest that one is acceptable.

However, I expect you know/can guess my feelings about this one! When it was going through the most recent AfD process, many refs etc were added that I feel are unacceptable. I did not remove them as I'd nominated it for AfD. Under 'normal' circumstances I would remove all refs to forums, facebook etc but felt it would be inappropriate for me to remove them at that stage. I notice that after the AfD result was to 'keep' scans which again can only be accessed via a closed forum were added, at the same time the editor making the changes also removed - no doubt inadvertently as it wasn't mentioned in the edit summary - the wording about the second 'breed club' - see here [2]. In the final comment I made on the AfD, I did go through and list my thoughts on a lot of the references used here [3]. Dog-gonit is a self published source.

Hope this helps but it would be helpful and interesting to get the opinion of others as well. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a real shame that those 'protecting' the Tamaskan breed page don't understand how the wiki works. It's otherwise a pretty interesting dog. I've pulled the two links to dog-gonit, we'll see how long they stay removed. I'm hesitant to pull the links to their 'breed club' but as there are multiple breed clubs, I feel like using references to one (and almost exclusively one) shows a bias in the wiki towards that one source.

I'm going to run a search for dog-gonit and remove other references that point to that source as well.--TKK ^{bark !} 14:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Swinford Bandog

This article is in need of some major help. I also have issue with the fact that one of the primary references is written by the article's main editor, and it's also hosted on his private kennel page. Can someone take a look at it for me?--TKK ^{bark !} 18:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's please not misrepresent the number of or content of the referenced materials provided. I provided many sources of referenced materials that have nothing to do with me or my work...with verifiable statements about Swinford's program on the Swinford Bandog that describe his program. Nothing new was provided on the Wikipedia page. While, I have written ONE article about the Swinford Bandog program on my personal website, I did not refer my website as a source for any statement that isn't ALSO found in other sources on this subject. Since I have witnessed many erroneous comments being made about the man's program, given my extensive research about his program, I found the creation of the Swinford Bandog page to have merit and value. I didn't innclude any new information about his program that can not be verified elsewhere. Instead, I just the information together to provide a single united source, enabling others to more efficiently research this topic should they wish to do so, much for the same reason Wikipedia itself exists. While I do eventually plan on sharing some of the new information I have obtained about his program at some future date, that information will not be posted by me on Wikipedia as it would violate Wikipedia's "original research" clause. For this reason, everything included on the wikipedia Swinford Bandog page can be confirmed within the many other referenced materials provided on that page. Additionally, let's note...much of that information was reported back in January of 1972, when I was a mere 2 years of age.

I also saw a statement made by you that suggested I was "close" to Swinford or something along those lines. While I have conversed with many of his partners, and even met one of them personally when doing my own research on this matter...for the record, I have never received any compensation from any of them, never met Dr. Swinford himself, never obtained a dog from Swinford's original program and the breed no longer uses the Swinford name. In other words, I have no motive to become biased on this matter. I would however venture to say anyone that is offended by the content is likely the type of person that is threatened by the content, and therefore would suggest that anyone opposing the shared materials is most likely biased for personal reasons...such as possibly suggesting they are responsible for any modern interest or success of current bandog programs. Dr. Swinford is dead. His work was his work, not mine, not anyone elses...just his...but the work he did should be shared for others to view, and it should remain recognized as the Swinford Bandog as he referred to his dogs back then. That name distinguishes his extinguished program from the many current Bandog programs in existence today. Anyone that searches this material objectively can determine this rather quickly, as we do NOT try to hide the fact that our programs have nothing to do with Swinford's personal program. I have no personal interest in him. Instead, I was only interested in reviewing his work. My reason for doing so is because there is considerable interest and misconceptions about his program, as many simply do not know what information has been documented about the original Swinford Bandog program...so having a list of such statements and references serves a beneficial purpose to the Bandog community as a whole. The importance of Swinford's work is significant however because his work renewed interest in such types of breedings, and therefore his work influenced many bandog programs that have arisen since. This too can be confirmed from the additional/pre-existing references provided on the Swinford Bandog Wikipedia article. Finally, as stated early, while we have obtained many new photos, breed standard description, and personal materials about Swinford's program, we did not share that material on wikipedia since doing so would violate the "original research" clause stated in wikipedia. The ONLY CONTENT that was provided can all be found in other referenced materials.

Thank you,

H. Lee Robinson, Master's of Science from the Department of Animal Sciences, U. of Illinois

Breed clubs/reliable sources

I'm hoping someone may be able to help answer some general questions about dog breed articles, please?

I'm sure I read links to breed clubs should not appear as 'external links' on breed pages, yet I've seen quite a number that do - here for instance? I think it was here I came across the recommendation about it.

Are breed club web sites considered WP:RS? I know self published books should not be cited, yet many 'breed bibles' of long standing were self pub or published by national breed clubs; would any of these be acceptable as WP:RS as it's not always possible to find other decent references?

I'm hoping to spend sometime over the next few months attempting to particularly work on the individual setter breed articles; I feel the Gordon Setter one especially needs work. Someone obviously did a lot on it at one time but it hardly has any sources. The Irish Red and White could, I feel, also benefit greatly by some extra work.

I have suggested the article Llewellin Setter be merge to English setter, so if anyone has any comments or thoughts, please have a look. Thank you to User:Timtrent who sorted out the merge banners etc for me.

Another question, if an illustration appears in an old book (late 1800, early 1900s) can it be scanned/uploaded to articles, especially if the book is out of copyright?

I really am pretty inexperienced with Wiki stuff and Wiki etiquette, so I'll apologise in advance if I've got things wrong!

SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Reliable source" isn't black and white; some sources are more reliable than others, and it depends on what you're using them for. I think a breed club would be reliable enough for content such as breed standards, but if there are stronger sources out there... bobrayner (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly! But wouldn't references for breed standards come from Kennel Clubs? I don't know about other countries but in the UK, I believe The Kennel Club 'owns' the breed standards, so I would imagine all references to that would be from national KCs or the FCI? It was more references for (say) temperament, breed history, etc that I wondered if breed club websites might be considered acceptable? Sorry, I expect I'm being a bit dim! SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No; I made a silly mistake; you're right. I still think that breed clubs are a strong enough source for most content about the breed. There's unlikely to be anything controversial - this isn't about international relations (although articles about dog breeds from former soviet satellite states, and even parts of the Balkans, get some very problematic editing about their "true" origins and recent history &c). Of course, if two sources disagree then we can go back to the drawing board. :-) bobrayner (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Great - thank you! I feel being able to cite breed clubs (which are registered with recognised Kennel Clubs) as references will make expanding breed articles easier as there are many fairly comprehensive club sites these days. I guess that if a breed club is cited as a reference, it will also mean they can be removed from an article's 'External Links' section, which will then comply with the recommended article structure for dog breeds. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that most of the following are not appropriate references:

• Social networking sites (Facebook, Dogster, Yahoo Groups, Google Groups, Forums, Youtube) via WP:USERG and sites requiring registration
• Obvious SEO scraping sites - EasyPetMD, DogBreedInfo, etc
• Blogs, although for some reason Sarah's Dogs seems to be an acceptable source
• Breed Clubs should be avoided, although I don't think they should be ignored altogether - someone once said to try to only use them if they're accepted by a larger kennel club, and I agree with that. I personally try to find other sources to support the things they say or to use as alternatives.

But that's just my personal opinion for the most part and what I abide by. --TKK ^{bark !} 13:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Bedlington Terrier

Can someone look over this article for me? I recently more than doubled it in size and I'd like some feedback before I continue working on it; specifically some copyediting and the appearance section. Overall feedback would be appreciated as well; the health section feels like it might be too technical and could use expanding. I figured I'd ask here before I opened up a peer review request, since this is where the experts are! --TKK ^{bark !} 01:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration for February 2013

The current WikiProject Dog collaboration article is The Kennel Club! - cReep talk 06:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ceasar Milan

i want to ask ceasar milan the dog whisperer a question re my toy poodle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.81.174 (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, Wikipedia isn't really the place for that. Have you tried emailing him, or calling a local dog trainer/vet? --TKK ^{bark !} 13:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Dog breed article structure

I have proposed in the past coming up with a standard article structure for dog breed articles. I've based this standard off of many articles that I personally felt were well organized (I browsed through articles from the FA, Good, B Class, and Popular lists). I know that the breed taskforce has another structure that has not been edited for quite some time. Anyone opposed to this or have other ideas or suggestions?

1. History
2. Description
3. Temperament
4. Health
5. Working Life (herding, police, etc) or Activities (agility, show, racing, etc)
6. Famous *Breed name* (ie: Famous Beagles)
7. See Also
8. References
9. Further Reading
10. External Links

Thanks all! - cReep talk 08:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I generally use a similar structure, except I have temperament as a subsection of description (it is, after all, describing the dog) and I place history below my combined description section and health. I think it's closer to the task force's structure, but having the history first doesn't really sit well with me for some reason. --TKK ^{bark !} 08:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I like to use a similar structure, although under "famous breedname" I tried to include a "famous owners" for Bernese Mountain Dog, and that got shut down after a few months. The breed taskforce lists that as perfectly fine. I am pro keeping temperament separate from description, and I always separate them when I find them on an article. I usually put history below, though. I know that when I'm looking up a breed I'm usually looking for their appearance, so I like that to be as topmost as possible. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Although the headings seem reasonable at first glance, I'm worried that they could reinforce some problematic trends in our dog breed articles. For instance, many breed articles have a "temperament" section which gushes about how the dog is intelligent, great with kids, blah blah blah, and if it's sourced at all it's sourced to the website of somebody who loves that breed. Where descriptions of breeds rely on a slightly more independent source, it often reads like a kennel-club page which describes the checklist to earn top marks at a dog show, sometimes using jargon; not really aimed at a general readership, or most dogs for that matter. And so on. I think it would be better to have a smaller number of slightly more general headings to make it easier to break out of this rut. Many of the sections above might overlap; for instance, breed-specific health problems are often closely related to the breed's distinctive characteristics (ie. brachycephalic breeds), and temperament is often closely tied to a breed's working life. bobrayner (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I do tend to refer to the 'old' dog breed structure cReep mentions. It would be a tremendous help to have an up to date structure/guideline that is easily found/accessible - once a guideline format is agreed would it be possible for it to be reached via a tab on the main project page the way 'Members', 'Assessments' and 'templates' is at the moment? Besides the suggested structure I would also like it to include a summary of links not to be used (private websites, forums etc etc); dubious sites often used as references - maybe listing for instance: dogbreedinfo, dog-gonit etc? Continental Kennel Club? As we have all no doubt seen on a number of occasions, it is now easy for people to set up websites and then use Wikipedia to give the latest 'I just founded this new breed' credence. Sorry, I guess I'm just becoming old and cynical

Instead of having the heading 'Famous whatever', perhaps if the classification is 'Notable dogs (or the breed name)'. This might help prevent lists of every minor celebrity or passing mention of the breed in TV etc being listed ad infinitum - as is sometimes the case, especially with designer type breeds! As these would just be the projects 'guidelines' then of course if there is something exceptional, it could be considered?

I have to agree with Bobrayner's comment above, there are heaps of dog breed articles that seem to have just listed points from breed standards, for instance Cesky Terrier immediately springs to mind. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just something I noticed on a couple articles; If we're including a "Famous/notable x" section then it needs to be watched to make sure it's about dogs, not their owners. I've seen a couple where dogs get listed because an actor or something happens to have a dog of that breed, and I'm fairly sure that's a case of WP:INHERIT. It's the difference between, say, Rin Tin Tin and George Washington's hounds.

I've been careful to try to use sources that aren't the breed standard for things like temperment; it's kind of unavoidable for sections like appearance. They're an excellent source as long as you're careful to not let things get too technical. I've also noticed the "good with children" problem and I've been tagging that claim as 'citation needed' and 'original research' every time I see it.

Phil, if you want to make such a list I'd be more than willing to help you. It would be nice to have a solid list of sites-not-allowed to refer to when trying to improve articles.--TKK ^{bark !} 13:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to try to kick start this discussion again - and bring in the discussion above about breed clubs as sources! My feeling is that if a breed club is of sufficient standing to be recognised by the main kennel clubs (I would emphatically restrict these to: the Kennel Club for the UK; FCI for Europe; American KC, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian KCs plus possibly UKC, to prevent the 'I recently made up a breed and a registry that I run as well' kind of thing). The UK doesn't seem to have the problem of opposing registries to such an extent as for instance the US and many recognised breed clubs have websites which provide an abundance of excellent information - at the tail end of last year a competition was run to identify/reward some of the most informative of these - see here [4].

I know cReep is excellent at finding stuff for us in archived discussions (big thank you, cReep ) but if it was possible to reach broad consensus on a structure and include it as part of the main project page, it would make it more accessible. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Description" should be "Appearance"; "health", "temperament", etc. are also forms of "description" – the term is too vague. "Famous [whatever]" is just a subset of "In popular culture" and should not be a sub-subsection at all unless the PopCult section needs to differentiate between famous real specimens and fictional ones because it's gotten over-long. Temperment/Behavior/Personality stuff should be last of all trait info, after appearance and health, when present at all, because 90%+ of it is total crap made up by breeders to sell more puppies. No "Further reading" or "See also" section is needed except in odd cases. There is almost never a "Further reading" item that isn't either a) something that can and should be cited as a source to improve the article or b) is just an external link. Almost all "See also" items are things that can be worked into the main prose of the article, unless we're talking about an extremely skeletal stub. A "Gallery" section should be added at the end of the main content (i.e. before "See also" if present, otherwise before "References") with clear, encyclopedic-quality photos illustrating coat variations, etc. PS: This project has to start properly distinguishing between landraces (e.g. St. John's water dog) and formal breeds. About the only project that is properly doing this so far is WP:FELIDS (WikiProject Cats). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 01:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion really, really badly needs to happen at WT:ANIMALS with regard to all domestic animal breeds generally, and people from all the relevant projects invited, so that we get a consistent result for dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, cattle, goats, sheep, guinea pigs, whatever. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 01:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources - Dog groomer sites for dog grooming terms?

Would it be acceptable to use dog groomer's websites with lists of terms as a reference for Dog grooming? I personally don't see the problem, as it's not referencing the history etc of the activity so much as it is the actual supplies used. Just thought I'd ask. --TKK ^{bark !} 01:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can't find any less commercial source, I don't see the point. Triggers WP:SPAM/WP:EL concerns. In a pinch, and provided that the glossary material isn't blatantly promotional, it could be better than nothing. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLLOCKS and "Behavior" sections in breed articles

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WIkiProject Animals#WP:BOLLOCKS and "Behavior" sections in breed articles

Here's a great example of what's wrong with almost all "Behavior", "Behaviour", "Temperament", "Personality" or "Disposition" sections in articles on domestic animal breeds; this is the full text of that section from British Longhair (a cat, but that's not relevant - the dog articles are just as bad):

According to breeders, British Longhairs are quite calm and easy going. They are fun-loving and playful, particularly as kittens. These cats attach quickly to their owners, with great affection. British Longhairs are good for owners who have to work, because they will enjoy just laying around all day. They are not destructive, and do not need any other animals for company. However, some individuals do enjoy living with another British Longhair that is similar in personality.[1]

This is sourced to a single, tertiary, categorically unreliable blog that doesn't cite its sources. There is no evidence anywhere that this breed is unusually "calm and easy going"; it's an absurd overgeneralization. All cat breeds are "fun-loving and playful, particularly as kittens". All cat breeds "attach quickly to their owners, with great affection". All cat breeds "enjoy just laying around all day" (cats of all breeds spend more than 80% of their lives asleep). There is no breed that does not engage in scratching, territory marking and other behaviors that some would classify as "destructive". Like all of this blather, whether a particular animal desires the company of other animals is an individual trait, and a generalization about this across the entire breed is unsupportable. There is no evidence anywhere of a particular domestic breed of anything able to distinguish much less prefer members of the same breed; this would be quite a revelation if true – front-page news in major science journals – since it would be proof of near-human intelligence. Virtually every single section of this sort, in all domestic animal breed articles, has severe WP:RS / WP:NPOV / WP:NOR / WP:COMMONSENSE / WP:BOLLOCKS problems of this sort. Fancier magazines and websites are not reliable or independent sources for this sort of "information" either, almost invariably, because they uncritically parrot promotional materials of breeders, and their content is at least partially under the thumb of their advertisers. They also pander to the lowest-common denominator reader, which tends to be children and little old ladies who want story-book material about how special and precious their pets are. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 01:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding that there are a handful of sources that tend to be a little more... indirect? with their temperaments. I am frankly of the opinion that if something can't be cited - sometimes to multiple sources, especially in the temperament sections - that it isn't worth including. For example, I pushed the Bedlington Terrier article through to GA, and its temperament section mentions that it is "good with kids", but also makes it clear that of the numerous sources cited in that section, only two recommended it as being good with children.

The problem seems to be that a lot of breeders are adding information like that to articles in order to help 'push' their breeds, and if you dig a little you can find lots of information that contradicts what they add.

I'll come back to this in the morning, I'm so tired my eyes are watering and I just want to read about sled dogs haha.--TKK ^{bark !} 01:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No hurry; this is a site-wide problem, and not limited to dogs. I've opened the matter at WT:ANIMALS more broadly. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish on the temperament sections of articles. It's not just breeders, or even sources, though - it's much simpler; people who like a particular dog breed will tweak the article to emphasise how nice the dog is. Hence it appears that all dog breeds are loving, intelligent, good with kids, &c &c. Of course, if pushed to provide a source, somebody will find a magazine or a breeder's website which supports such claims, but that's just an extension of the more general problem. Next challenge: Out of our hundreds of thousands of articles on music, try to find one which says "Actually, this album's not very good". bobrayner (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

At least for films we have RottenTomatoes.com. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion's taken off in a little more detail at WT:ANIMALS, so I've copied these threads over there; it will be more helpful to have centralized discussion. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 01:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Importance of Crufts?

The result of Crufts yesterday has been nominated for the In The News feature on the Main Page. It would be good to have input on the pre-eminence of this event in the canine calendar. Obviously it has a profile infinitely greater than any other UK show, but is it today considered more important than the top domestic event in other countries? Input at ITN/C or here. Thanks.

In Bo Bengston's book 'Best in Show' he states: "Indisputably, the two most famous and most historic dog events in the world are Crufts and Westminster". He also describes Crufts as "by far the biggest dog show in the world". So, yes, I would say it is certainly considered more important than events in other countries. Since the advent of the pet passport scheme, exhibitors come from all over the world to compete. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge Guard dog article into Attack dog article

I've had this article highlighted to me recently as a possible merge candidate into this similar article. If you could possibly have a look at it and make a decision regarding the necessity for it to have it's own article, that would be really helpful. If you do decide it should be left as it is, please feel free to remove the merge tag. Many thanks

Samuel Tarling (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but aren't those two different types of dogs? Attack dogs are trained to stay put and attack on command, while guard dogs are instructed to stay in one place and bark at any stranger that enter a certain are? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The article contains a plethora of unverified and uncited statements, which must be provided before any merging; to merge the two would be unwise due to the present articles condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eppspartans (talk • contribs) 23:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Eppspartans and at least tentatively with Enric Naval (I'm not certain they're totally different rather than attack dog being a variant of guard dog, which would militate for a merge in the opposite direction). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Guard dog is a dog that protects her territory and launch at an unfriendly trespasser if needed, without a command. An attack dog is the dog that is trained to launch at whoever she is told upon a command. Totally different! Needs clarification, not a merge Afru (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this, but i also agree that both articles need quite a bit of work. --TKK ^{bark !} 18:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Poodle

I wonder if someone else could have a look at the Poodle article, please? I've given myself a headache this morning trying to work out what has been going on with it. The article looked to be in fairly reasonable shape in this version on 7 March [5]; however, there then appeared to be a lot of too-ing and fro-ing with vandalism and the page was protected when it looked like this [6]. A series of edits were made on 20 March - these are what gave me the headache! - as information and pics were moved around, played with, text added/deleted and then moved around and played with some more! It was phrases like "Although some idiots believe that hypoallergenic means non-shedding, people that suffer from alergies know that hypoallergenic means that the referrer, be it bedding, materials, etc, is less likely to trigger allergies, but doesn not mean that the referrer triggers no allergies at all. Each individuals allergies are different, thus nothing can be claimed to be non-allergenic." that were put in and taken out. I'm rather tempted just to restore the version from 7 March (or even 15 March), especially as the current version has removed what was (I think) a far better worded lead together with well sourced information about the Crufts best in show winners and other information about the use of Poodles in WWII, which again was referenced. What do others think? It wouldn't have prevented the changes made but I had the impression the protection was supposed to be in place until 15 April but it seems to have been removed on 20 March as well? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

World Show, Hungary - Komondor

We are looking for good photographs to use on the Komondor article - is there any one heading over to the World Show in Hungary this month who might be able to take some pics and upload them? If you can, please post a note on Hafspajen's page (or mine). Thanks in anticipation! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Poodle article

A request for comment has been raised on the Poodle talk page; further detail can also be found under the heading of Poodle above. Please add your thoughts. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor Review

Since this is the project I contribute the most to and the place I have come to view as my 'home' on Wikipedia, I thought I would let you know that I am currently asking for editing reviews. If one (or several) of you wish to comment on my contributions to this wikiproject or in general I would appreciate it! --TKK ^{bark !} 13:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

August 2010 Dog World / K9 Issue #22

Does anyone have access to the August 2010 issue of Dog World magazine? There's an article in it on the Cordoba Fighting Dog that I'd like to utilize, but my library doesn't carry Dog World. I'm also looking for issue number 22 of K9 magazine, specifically the article "Ancient Breeds – Where Are They Now?", for the same reason. If anyone can email me scans of these I'd appreciate it! --TKK ^{bark !} 23:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Lede on German Shepherd

Could someone help me by expanding the lede in the German Shepherd article? Ledes arent exactly my strong suit and mine are usually fairly lacking. I'd like to push the article back to good article status and that's the only thing I can't really do on my own.--TKK ^{bark !} 13:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Brian Whitlock and Jordan Dale Lucas

The articles Brian Whitlock and Jordan Dale Lucas have been nominated for deletion. You might want to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

WP Dogs in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Dogs for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

List of fatal dog attacks in the United States

I have just moved this work page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States/Revision2. I moved it here because we need a neutral place to work on it that is not associated with anyone's user page. Chrisrus (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, this started out as a list of people killed by dogs in the United States, but it was agreed to change it into a list of events. This means that there have to be substantial changes to it so that it will be a List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. What I have done here is to consolidate the list into one long list instead of a separate list for every year. First, this will make for less work. Second, it allows people to sort the list by the different columns. The columns should be ordered to make it a list of events: place, moment, person, dog, details. We don't know how to do this easily, and will need technical help. Chrisrus (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Tables are kind of what I do; i spent months working on List of dog breeds until someone suggested to me an easier way to do what I was doing. I've made a minor fix to one entry to get the idea across if someone else wants to work on it; otherwise I'll take a more thorough look at it when i get back from work in ~7 or 8 hours and get back to you then. --TKK ^{bark !} 11:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on images in Cockapoo

I am opening discussion on a group of images used in the Cockapoo article here. You are free to check out the situation yourself and comment; I didn't take it to RFC as it didn't seem to be a major enough issue to require it but if we cannot come to consensus then I will do so. --TKK ^{bark !} 22:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on converting Welsh Corgi to a disambiguation

I sure seem to post here a lot. I'm trying to spark some conversation here on if Welsh Corgi should be converting into a disambiguation page that links to Cardigan Welsh Corgi and Pembroke Welsh Corgi. Any input is welcome! --TKK ^{bark !} 20:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Maremma Sheepdog

There is a nearly-two-years-old merge discussion [[Talk:Maremma_Sheepdog#Merge_discussion:_Abruzzese_mastiff]|here]] that could use some input! --TKK ^{bark !} 01:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Strange Case of the Glen of Imaal Terrier

Heads up all about this thread opened at the Wikipedia Biology Project but should do so here as well: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#The_Strange_Case_of_the_Glenn_of_Imaal_Terrier Chrisrus (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

PDE YouTube link

An editor has been adding an external link to a YouTube copy of the BBC documentary "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" to several dog breed articles; I have reverted Rhodesian Ridgeback and Pug - another editor has reverted German Shepherd. I feel this may be a possible copy vio but as I don't know anything much about YouTube I thought I'd try to get comment/thoughts from other editors who may know more about it? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is definitely a copyvio (YouTube would take it down if they knew about it), but you may need to explain to them that they can cite the documentary without linking to it on youtube. --TKK ^{bark !} 11:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)