Jump to content

Talk:List of fictional dogs/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comments before 2004

Erm sorry to be difficult but how are the Blue Peter dogs fictional? I mean I know the first Petra was a ringer as the pup died soon after it was first shown but other than that I feel they are - how can I put this - not quite on the same level as Lassie, Snoopy etc! Nevilley 16:31 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

someone should mention that painting of the dogs playing poker

Isn't Anubis a jackal? -- Paul A, 20 Jan 2003 1:57pm (UTC)

No one knows for sure. See The Anubis Debate Ortolan88

I don't understand why "Bird Dog" by the Everly Brothers was removed, so I'm putting it back in the hope of being able to discuss it. Sure, it's an extended metaphor, but the metaphorical dog is addressed quite clearly as a dog, attention is drawn to its doggy characteristics etc - I think it's strong enough to stay. Discussion please? :) Nevilley 07:04 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

I take it that the fact that it was removed again without much discussion (one line in the summary) means that the said discusssion was not welcome. Oh well. I think the removal is a mistake but cannot be bothered to pursue it. Nevilley 20:17 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Nevilley,

I removed the bird dog twice because Johnny (the bird dog in the song) is not a dog. He is a teenage boy who tries to court girls who are in relationships with other boys. In the song, he is compared to a hound, a bird and a bird dog. If he were a dog, I would leave him in, but he is not. I don't think Johnny belongs on the list. --Two halves 20:25 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Someone else,

IMHO, the hound dog in "Hound Dog" does belong on this list. The singer of hound dog, could (albeit in a somewhat ironic way) be addressing a real dog. The singer of bird dog is not. --Two halves 20:30 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

The singer of hound dog is most decidedly not addressing a four-legged dog. -- Someone else 20:33 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)
Well, I must admit that a dog can't talk (First line, second verse). And yes, Big Momma Thornton is using a literary device to compare her lover to a dog. But, if you truly believe that, this hound dog doesn't belong on a list of fictional dogs either. Sorry. --Two halves 20:42 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)
'That painting of the dogs playing poker' is literally called 'Dogs playing poker' and I am not sure where it should be added.

Wikifan153 (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Any dogs based on classical?

Here's only one, a unknown dog is heard in "A Streetcar named desire", is a opera composed or written by Andre Previn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.160.183.54 (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2004 (UTC)

Which template?

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

The first is currently used; the second is the one I think is appropriate. Brianjd 09:36, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Dogs in Music

Shouldn't we mention the song "Who let the dogs out? (Ilikerad 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC))


Dogs in Advertising

Just realized that these are real dogs on the fictional dogs list. What was the intention, here? The characters? Split off into their own list?

Yeah, like the dog in the Target commericials (jack russel, right?) (Ilikerad 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC))

And on the subject, can someone in the US check that I've spelled Ubu Productions right? I need to fix the redirect.

Quill 04:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know. Inconsistency sucks, huh? :-) Maybe it's time to rethink some of the categorization--and in particular lately I've been contemplating whether in fact we ought to have categories and subcategories that mirror some of the organization here rather than having everything go into Category:Fictional dogs--because, as you point out, indeed the real-dog-actors stuff doesn't belong there--although it's not exactly clear what dogs in advertising really are. E.g., the taco bell dog is *portrayed* by a real dog but a real dog would never behave the way this one is shown as behaving. And now I'm off for a 10-day vacation. With my--ahem--real dogs. Elf | Talk 05:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
None of the advertising dogs seems to be fictional. I have removed the entire section and pasted it below should anyone have a case for reintroducing any of these critters to the list.

Most people say they heard popular music in the cartoons. for example: A song by Steam was truly used in a 1969 Scooby-Doo cartoon, before the show changed the music by it's networks.

Yes, but this page is for fictional dogs, not the music in one's cartoons. Please feel free to contribute any fictional dogs we may have overlooked. Lachatdelarue (talk) 03:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To clarify: This page is for names or descriptions of the dogs. The entry formerly named "*"Na, Na, Hey, Hey, Kiss Him Goodbye" by Steam, was used in a 1969 Scooby-Doo cartoon." could go into the article on Steam or Na, Na, Hey, Hey, Kiss Him Goodbye (if there were such an article) or Scooby-Doo, because it's about those things, but the song is not about a dog and neither is the fact that it appeared in a dog cartoon. Elf | Talk 05:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Songs

Some quality control is needed here. it's fictional dogs we're looking for, not the word dog in songs titles or lyrics. i'd say a song has to be narrative in order for there to be a dog character. clearly not led zeppelin's black dog. Youdontsmellbad 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC) No one's said anything, so i'm going to go ahead and delete the inappropriate songs. Youdontsmellbad 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

deleted "black dog" by led zeppelin, along with:

  • "Dogs" by Pink Floyd from the Animals album, referring to vicious people
  • "Dog Song" by Nellie McCay is about the comfort felt by dog owners
  • "Dog Years" by RUSH makes reference to Sirus the Dog Star

Anyone have a problem with this?

Youdontsmellbad 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This would be fun as a List of songs referring to dogs or ...using the word "dog(s)". Listophiles might enjoy it. Chrisrus (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

About "Legendary, mythical and fairytale dogs"

Vortex Dragon, about your previous revert and your edit comment.
Did I say they were real? No.
Did I say I believed they were real? No.
I said they weren't fiction.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about what "the majority" thinks. And neither does Wikipedia.
You said it yourself. It's still personal opinion, regardless of it being the opinion of one or the opinion of a million.
People popularly assume things which isn't correct. Just because some ignorant people assume myth means fictious, or that mythological beings and places are fictional, doesn't mean they decide how a proper encyclopedia is written. It'd be the same if someone edited "Tree of Life" or "Tree of Knowledge" into an article called "List of fictional trees". There is a logical reason for why Greek mythology isn't a redirect to "Greek fiction".
In popular usage, immaculate conception refers to "virgin birth" and evolution means " a change for the better". This isn't how the words are used in academia and neither are they the primary usage. Myth is the same. Whatever some ridiculous "majority" might think is completely irrelevant in any proper context.
Wikipedia, like any other proper encyclopedia, "cater" to scholarly opinions, which is what "my views" on this represent.
Now please stop with the erroneous reverting, I will remove them one last time. I have better things to do rather than spend my time on such. There have been substantial discussions on Talk:Mythology and Talk:Myth. See those if you disagree. Lemegeton 09:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Anyone else think that, if this list "also includes some real dogs due to the proliferation of reality television shows and advertising" that it should not be called "List of fictional dogs"? Perhaps it should either be renamed "List of dogs" or the real dogs should be split out to have their own list. 206.246.160.29 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There's already a List of dogs (used to be called "List of famous dogs") for dogs who actually exist and who were or are well-known for some reason. It's always been difficult to figure out to which list some of the dogs belong. Elf | Talk 06:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you know where the discussion that led to the move of "List of famous dogs" to simply "list of dogs" is archived? Many dogs which are not famous are being added, making the list less useful and interesting to read. It needs to be changed back so that there will be grounds to remove not famous dogs. Also to distinguish it from List of birds and such, which are totally different kinds of lists. Or it could be moved to "list of notable dogs", which would imply that each animal rise to the standards of our technical term WP:NOTABILITY, a concept which may not be always %100 synonomous with "famous". But I want to read the debate to understand the reasoning for moving it from "List of famous dogs" to "List of dogs". Chrisrus (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Some editors have recently been arguing that this is more properly regarded as a list of primarily non-notable dogs and that these kinds of lists are useful for people who write fiction based on the work or characters of previous authors. I happen to agree with you, though, that notability is a useful and necessary part of the definition if this article is to be kept usable. If you'd like to weight in on the discussion I've asked for the input of other editors below. -Thibbs (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing irrelevant Simpsons dogs - ah but what is relevant for this list?

The point isn't to have a list of every dog that ever had half a second on TV. Hence I'm removing the whole slew of Simpsons dogs that were recently added, leaving just Santa's Little Helper. If someone can make a convincing argument to readd one of them, please do so here before adding it to the article.

Elf | Talk 06:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this list?
At the moment the introduction to the list just says "This is a list of fictional dogs from literature, movies etc.". With these criteria, I think the Simpson dogs should be included.
For example, someone might inherit a dog named "Dogkid" and wonder where the name came from; here is the place to look it up.
If the problem is the list getting too big by some measure, then I suggest splitting off into sub-articles, e.g. List of dogs in The Simpsons, and referring to them from the main article.
Incidentally I thought this must have come up before on other lists of fictional animals, but there's no consistency. Not that one article should automatically copy another, but out of interest here's a few samples:
  • List of fictional cats A list of cats and other felines found in popular works of fiction. Cats are the new "it" pet. Kind of random definition there.
  • List of fictional horses This is a list of horses in fictional subjects. All such horses, presumably. This includes things like the Trojan Horse, unicorns, some Pokemon, brands of toy horse, etc.
  • List of fictional bears Bears are very common fictionalized and personified animals, and can be found in almost every single kind of fiction. The following is an attempt to list and categorize all the bears that appear in all forms of fiction. I think this could apply to dogs. This article just has one entry for "care" bears, and there is a separate article listing those.
  • List of fictional apes This is a list of fictional apes (Bonobos, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans, and Gibbons) and other non-human higher primates. Monkeys which are not apes have their own page. All such non-human higher primates.
  • List of fictional ducks No guidance is given here. It's just chaos.
At this point I gave up.
I checked out Wikipedia:Lists for some guidance but it doesn't say much. I guess this one comes under the category of "valuable information source". I suggest pinning the criteria down with a statement similar to the bears, perhaps extended to be more prescriptive if necessary. Surely any dog that has a name should be included. If people start to put in excessive numbers of references like "in chapter four of The Sinkiang Executive by Adam Hall, two war-trained dogs with handlers are guarding the hangar when Quiller arrives", they could be split off into a sub-article (List of unimportant fictional dogs?).
Do you or others have alternative suggestions for specifying what should be in the list?
Incidentally, if that list of Simpsons dogs goes back in, it could do with more precise references. Once I find out who Dogkid is, I'm going to want to watch that episode.
Lessthanideal (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I did enjoy very much reading this list of dog names from the Simpsons, though. It's funny, isn't it? "Always Comes in Second", "Chew My Shoe", "The Puppy Formerly Known as Prince", etc. I think these were just mentioned by the voice of the announcer of the grayhound races and never appeared on the show as distinct characters. You are right, but we should keep this in an appropriate place, so that it is not lost. Is there an appropriate place for this chart of all names of dogs mentioned in the show to be kept? It would be fun to read a list of all movies that we might remember Troy McClure appearing in. Maybe off Wikipedia, such as some Simpsons Wiki. Chrisrus (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Lack of WP:RS

This article lacks any WP:RS. Until this is addressed the {{unreferenced}} tag should remain. Verbal chat

Well now there are references, so that's that.Nightspore (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Many assertions still lack sources, so I've replaced with the refimprove tag. Verbal chat 11:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain why this isn't subject specific common knowledge. You know, like the plots of novels and movies. Which don't require references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspore (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Because this is a list, and it is blatantly not common knowledge even to people familiar with the works. Plots are broad themes of works. Names and attitudes of dogs is specific. Requires references per WP:V, RS etc etc. Verbal chat 12:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you ought to reread the policy you cite. In particular: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged."
Are you denying that everything in the list of dogs is attributable? Do some specific challenging then.
Or to make the same point in another way: what is it you imagine is likely to be challenged? Because I've been following this list for a couple of years now, and I have never seen anything challenged. Or is it that you want to clutter up the entire list with references to specific editions of the books, dvd's, cd's etc. in which the dogs appear?
And on what grounds do you claim that someone who had read the novels (for example) wouldn't know notice that the dogs are in the novels? Sounds like you're just guessing about what people "familiar with the works" would know. Can you show that people familiar with the works would not remember the dogs the authors seemed to think mattered to what they were doing?
The policy you cite is meant to prevent assertions that people might find interestingly counter to some belief they had from being made without evidence. Hence the citation of Hume's great Essay on Miracles at the end of the policy article. Everything in this article is attributable, and unlikely to be challenged, and hence doesn't need attribution. If you want the attributions, put them in. But don't make demands which cheapen the policy and raise pointless flags about the article. Nightspore (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Verbal chat, man, now you've added a CN tag to Argos in the Odyssey? Really? Or actually to Odysseus? Because even that isn't, according to you, subject-specific general knowledge? Or what? Argos is probably the most famous dog in all of literature, and every person who has read the Odyssey (not you, it seems) knows who Argos is.
You keep reverting, without answering the comments here. So let me quote a wikipedia editor involved in a similar series of backs-and-forth earlier: "Please read my comments and try to appreciate my point." Oh, wait. That was you. So there you are, doing good work mediating and getting civility awards and all the rest, elsewhere. But just flying around with cn-tags and no rationale for why they're needed.
You say "Plots are broad themes of works. Names and attitudes of dogs is specific." Well, no, plots are not "broad themes." Some of the "broad themes" of the Odyssey are: the impossibility of home-coming, the inprevidibility of the future, the irreparability of the past. The plot is that Odysseus leaves Calypso's island when his son comes under attack from the suitors, goes to the island of the Phaikians, tells his story before reaching Calypso's island, sails westward and is blown of course, gets to Circe's island and the island of the oxen of the sun, finally gets to Ithaca where his dog Argos recognizes him and dies, and (still disguised from his wife Penelope) with his son Telemachus kills the suitors, after which he reveals himself to Penelope who is glad to see him. But then another war of vengeance seems brewing at the end. Since plot involves the anthropomorphic characters in a fiction and what they do (see Aristotle), whereas theme is often best described abstractly, it's really pretty wrong to say that "Plots are broad themes." Themes are general, plots are "specific." That's why plot can be regarded as "subject-based general knowledge" and themes can't. There's almost never serious disagreement about the plot of a work of fiction among those who have knowledge of the subject. Literary critics and professors are kept in business by the disagreement over theme. Now what you mean by "attitudes of dogs" is a little harder to understand, but again, everything here is easily and transparently attributable and therefore doesn't need attribution. Nightspore (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nearly every entry in this list needs a reference, and lets try to avoid WP:PRIMARY sources. This shouldn't be an indiscriminate list, per policy and guidelines, and should only include fictional dogs with a level of notability shown by WP:RS. Simple. Verbal chat 13:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You keep citing almost irrelevant policies and ignore my citations of relevant ones. There was an argument about whether to keep this list a year or so ago, and those who wanted to keep it won. The point of the list is it allows readers to come upon unexpected filiations through the interaction of subject-specific general knowledge. You have an irrelevant bee in your bonnet about this, and you're really finding it difficult to cite anything remotely relevant to your precisian demands. You don't answer any of the remarks or citations of policy that others make -- instead you irrelevantly ask that primary sources be avoided. But you're confusing the policy which eschews primary sources with the policy that allows subject specific general knowledge and explicitly refers to the plots of novels as an example of that. So it looks like you're just defending irrelevant nit-picking, but with no argument that you can actually quote to back up your arguments: just unquoted allusions to general wp policies that you haven't read carefully. Nightspore (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with deleting the article (though not being sourced would be a problem). It is simply about sourcing the article, which we should do per policy and as a service to our readers, and to weedout hoax/nonnotable/etc. Verbal chat 13:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Please note the ridiculous citation your demand for a citation for the plots of novels has introduced wrt to Inherent Vice. You keep repeating yourself without answering the points I'm making -- citations are only needed if something is likely to be challenged. Content needs to be attributable, not attributed. A [citation needed] tag for Odysseus in the Odyssey, which you think necessary, is beyond ridiculous.
By adding the cn requests I am challenging the material. The tag was for the sentence to that point, the whole statement, not the single word to which it was attached, but those preceding too.Verbal chat 19:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You're not challenging it on any reasonable definition of the word "challenge." There couldn't be any rules or guidelines saying that certain things really don't need references unless they're challenged or likely to be challenged if you could just ask for references and have that count as a challenge. Then any request for a reference would be self-ratifying. And that's circular.
Here's how a real challenge works: "I don't believe that Montmorency in "Three Men in a Boat" is never explicitly denominated a dog. So a reference would be needed to show that Jerome the author spoke of him as a dog elsewhere, or that there's critical unanimity that he's a dog." So if you want to challenge that claim, that's fine. But you can't seriously be challenging the claim that Argos is a dog who plays a major plot role in the Odyssey.
If you want to challenge, be serious about challenging. Say why everyone in the world who's read the Odyssey is wrong about the plot, and why this isn't subject specific general knowledge because you think Argos isn't Odysseus's dog.
I would also like to know whether you think secondary sources supporting the appearance of fictional dogs are necessary for every novel in the list? After all, the novels themselves are primary sources, so they don't count, right? It seems that you're committed to that position. Are you?
And when you say that "The tag was for the sentence to that point," I have no idea why you would challenge at that point. Why not challenge the whole noun phrase? Why challenge on "Odysseus" (who appears in plenty of other ancient fiction, sans dog) rather than Odyssey, which is the fiction in which the dog appears? You really don't have an argument here, which must be why you're being so evasive. Nightspore (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Verbal hasn't answered my points, after three weeks, I've removed the tags. I do so in accordance with this principle (see WP:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed:

If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information.

Let me repeat that last sentence: "It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information."

And indeed this is obvious in almost all cases in this list. Nightspore (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dozens of reverts

Ncboy2010 did wholesale deletion of years of editing without, apparently, reading the discussion on the talk page. I've tried to revert all his edits, which seem to me vandalism mistaking itself for purism. The whole point of a list of fictional dogs is to give a list of fictional dogs from sources that are verifiable. The relevant discussions and voting about this page took place a while ago, on this page, and anyone proposing the kind of massive changes made by this editor ought to have mooted them on the talk page first..Nightspore (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. I should have checked the talk page. =/ No hard feelings? Ncboy2010 (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think your edits were fine, Ncboy2010. You acted properly under WP:BOLD. I don't think the response (reversion under a claim of vandalism) was appropriate. -Thibbs (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
As I've been invited to the talk page by Nightspore, I have read through the comments above and I can see that this page has been a victim of prolonged bouts of editorial laziness and a steady accumulation of listcruft through the years. There are periodic removals of large numbers of fictional dogs such as the dogs in song (removed in 2006), dogs in advertising (removed in 2007), and many many dogs from The Simpsons (removed in 2008), however since 2008 it looks like such a cleanup has not occurred (apart from NCby2010's edits yesterday that have now been reverted by Nightspore). Starting in 2008 there was a brief discussion regarding what the point of the list should be and it seems that the inability to come to a clear policy-based purpose led to an RfD later that year.
Since then nobody has suggested deleting the page (despite the claims of some of the editors here) but there has been a large discussion over whether or not lists like this require sources. This latest discussion from 2010 went in circles and ultimately led to a consensus of 2 editors that references were not required in this list. I disagree strongly with that outcome and I notice that my recent challenge to the material presented herein has also met with an immediate and inappropriate reversion. As I explained in my edit summary "The majority of these fictional dogs have neither an article devoted to them nor are they reffed." The fact that we are using less than 10 references to cover an article that is over 80k in size indicates that something is deeply wrong here. That requests for more RS refs is met with immediate summary reversion is completely inappropriate.
I understand that editors like Nightspore care deeply about the content of the article and I think it only fair to warn those that do feel strongly about the subject that wild accusations of vandalism, backdoor deletion schemes, and other bad faith editing, and refusals to acknowledge wikipedia's policies will get us exactly nowhere. I am going to spend some time explaining the areas where the shortcomings of this list need to be addressed and I hope we can have a nice calm policy/guideline-based discussion about it below. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What are the inclusion criteria for this list?

According to WP:LIST and WP:LSC, a stand-alone list such as this should be properly defined to avoid it becoming an indiscriminate collection of information or becoming Listcruft. Although there was some discussion of a possible definition for the list back in 2008 (namely User:Lessthanideal suggested mirroring the definition from list of fictional bears), no satisfactory definition was in fact implemented.

WP:LIST states that the definition of the list (i.e. the explicit inclusion criteria) should come in the lede paragraphe and it offers three common selection criteria. The current lede defines inclusion on the list as follows: "This is a list of fictional dogs from literature, films etc. (It also includes some real dogs due to the proliferation of reality television shows and advertising)." In other words this list purports to be a list of all fictional dogs that have ever existed regardless of notability. Such a list would require members such as the dog that growled at Lola in Run Lola Run, the attack dogs from Wolfenstein 3D, and the doggie in the window. Clearly this is inappropriate for a list on Wikipedia.

Of the three common selection criteria listed at WP:LSC, the obvious choice is #1: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia". What this means is that non-notable dogs must be removed from this list and that if any question regarding notability arises we must use references to source the notability of the dog. The arguments from above regarding whether or not it is common knowledge that the members of the list are fictional dogs is a moot point. It is the notability of the dogs that needs to be sourced and notability is absolutely not common knowledge. Let's not go back to the suggestion that adding references would add unwanted clutter to the article.

So now that we can see the lede is inappropriately unbounded, I suggest a modification of the definition in the lede to the following:

  • "This is a list of fictional dogs. This list is restricted to notable dog characters from the world of fiction."

How does that sound for a starting point? -Thibbs (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |}

How do we verify whether the members of the list meet the inclusion criteria?

This article is a list of fictional dogs. To be included in this list an item must meet 3 criteria.

  1. Dog - The character must be a dog - "a domesticated form of the gray wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the order Carnivora."
  2. Fictional character - The character must come from the world of fiction - "any form of narrative which deals, in part or in whole, with events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and invented by its author(s)".
  3. Notable - The character must meet WP:N - The topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • A bluelink is usually enough to satisfy requirements #1 and #2, but for redlinks these must be verified through reliable sources.

I have used these criteria for several other similar lists and have found that they work very well to keep unwanted cruft from invading. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In practice I should also mention that I have actually relied on bluelinks as a shorthand for notability (requirement #3) in performing cleanups like this. My assumption has been that if there is an article on the character or if the character makes up a subsection of a larger article then it is more likely notable than not. This isn't a perfect assumption and it remains open to challenge at any time. -Thibbs (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


I do the same thing, if it's notable it will eventually be put in its own article/section. In any case I agree with your above assumptions and believe we should proceed with your inclusion criteria. Do you want to rewrite the introductory paragraph to be a little more inclusive? Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to broaden it really. The title indicates to me that the article should only be about fictional dogs. (and Wikipolicy suggests that notability should play a central role as well). What sort of broadening did you have in mind? -Thibbs (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, I didnt mean broaden it, I meant write something like "This is a list of fictional, well-referenced, notable dogs that excludes real dogs and dog-like characters. for a list of real dogs please see list of dogs."Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I see. That makes sense. My suggestion only covers the most basic definition (i.e. the basic inclusion criteria) but certainly the lede should be longer than that. And explicit words that real dogs are excluded and that non-dogs are excluded would be ideal. -Thibbs (talk)
No, I think the obvious choice is criterion #2: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names." That's the whole point of this list, as most of its editors have seemed to think (and there are many multiple-contributors). Therefore redlinks are not relevant criteria for deletion - quite the reverse. Nightspore (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
(I am cross posting this, slightly revised from Thibbs (talk)'s talk page as a way of indicating the importance of this list and why it survived and should continue to survive referral for deletion): I myself have little interest in the dogs as mascots, dogs in video games, dogs in comics part of the article. But the article is a useful resource for people interested in fictional animals in literature. Useful for writers, useful for critics, useful for genealogists of fiction. It matters, to take s deleted example which I've restored, that Virginia Woolf wrote a novel about a dog that belonged to Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett Browning. It matters that she had precedent for doing so, partly in James Joyce's Ulysses, where a major character -- the drunken know-nothing nationalist figure who represents the Cyclops there -- has a dog, Garryowen, named after "Garryowen" (air). Nightspore (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Making this list into a list of non-notable dogs spanning the entirety of fiction in all media is not a workable solution as it clearly violates WP:IINFO. This notion is undermined by the many notable dogs in this list (such as Argos who you pointed to earlier as a shining example of one so notable that it needed no source) and it is refuted by the 2008 discussion between User:Elf and User:Lessthanideal in which the uncontested consensus was explicitly described in the negative thus: "The point isn't to have a list of every dog that ever had half a second on TV." What you are asking for when you suggest that criterion #2 is preferable is in fact to list only those dogs that had half a second on TV. In my view that is neither useful for Wikipedia nor useful to the general readership. Having a list of all minor characters from 101 Dalmatians is one thing, but to have a list of all non-notable dogs in all of fiction is simply ridiculous. -Thibbs (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I certainly don't think the list has to cover all media. My own interest is mainly in keeping dogs in literature. One standard for literature might be: published work by notable author, notability determined by author's name being blue-linked. I sort of think film counts too and would actually lump film and published verbal narrative together for the purposes of defining what fiction means here, but lots of people are passionate (as I am not) about the idea that games count too. As I say though, as long as the literary dogs of notable authors are kept, I wouldn't object in advance to other deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspore (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Where would we draw the line though? It makes no sense to say that the list should contain all of the non-notable dogs of literature but that the non-notable dogs of song must go or that the non-notable video game dogs can be excluded. Wikipedia doesn't support the idea of ad hoc lists whose inclusion criteria are based entirely on arbitrary editorial preference and personal choice. The level of POV in such a list would be staggering. Much better in my view is to have a clear-cut set of inclusion criteria where the lede defines the contents of the list so that any editor in the future can add to this list without having to argue his point against the personal opinions about worthiness with the few editors who steward the article.

Even restricting the list to all non-notable dogs in literature would leave us with such a massive collection of trivia that the article would be useless to the average reader and it would violate WP:IINFO. Can anybody honestly support the idea of adding to the list dogs like Jane Gallagher's Doberman Pinscher from Catcher in the Rye? This character didn't have a name, it existed in exactly 2 sentences in the book, and even Salinger scholars might have difficulty remembering it. While it's certainly non-notable there are literally millions (perhaps tens of millions) of examples like this. How could a list composed of these trivial and often anonymous fictional creatures be of any use to anyone?

On the other hand I do recognize your valid point that certain dogs from literature ought not to be deleted simply because they don't have a source at this particular time. A much better solution would be to redlink such entries for the future creation of an article and to tag them with a {{cn}} tag (displaying the familiar [citation needed]) to allow editors some time to find sources for these characters. If sources could not be obtained after a good length of time (e.g. 1 month) then we could remove them then. I would be astonished if sources for the famous dogs of literature were not readily available in print and on the internet, though. Figures like Virginia Woolf and James Joyce are literary giants and commentary on their writings composes the very fabric of the liberal arts college education. I'm certain we can come up with some refs if we actually do some research. -Thibbs (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Also: Just to let you know

I've replaced everything in the "literature" section with a wikitable that only includes items that have a blue-link. If you believe there should be something else in that list, find a reputable source, click where it says "Main article:" and add it to the list there. Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that it should be obvious this list is using criterion number 2 for lists. Almost everyone who has contributed to it is implicitly imagining it as a list drawn up according to criterion 2: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names." Precisely so: "most...of the listed items do not warrant independent articles." Hence this list.
I am perfectly fine with your deleting mascots. But I am going to restore all the dogs from literature. Request mediation if you think this is wrong, but please notice that this list is the work of many years, and it fulfills criterion #2, whereas using bluelinks for notability is irrelevant to a list of this sort. Nightspore (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course to do that I now have to revert a bunch of your edits. So I would respectfully ask that you stop wholesale deletion of dogs for being non-notable, since notability is explicitly NOT a requirement for lists. Nightspore (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that we should let the article stand for now until we can form a workable solution to this unmanageable list. I strongly contest the notion that LSC criterion #2 is of any use to this article. For now let us work on defining the article's scope. We can then discuss how to repair it from the state it is currently in. And finally we can implement the changes together in full agreement. Talking about going to mediation is very premature. We are all reasonable people here. I see no reason that we can't work this out together through discussion. If it comes to mediation so be it, but going into this discussion with a "My way or we seek administrative mediation" is not a very collegial way to go about the business of consensus-building. -Thibbs (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. I think we three all agreed on getting rid of mascots. So maybe the Euro can be saved as well! Nightspore (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree more or less. I think we should focus on crafting a better lede that includes a definition for this list though. Without clear inclusion criteria it is hard to say what should stay and what should go. -Thibbs (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

List criteria

WP:LSC gives three different criteria for lists. It seems clear to me that a list like this should be using criterion #2, viz.:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names.

Obviously there's a slight inconsistency between the first and the second sentence of this criterion, but the second should be seen as giving a somewhat more nuanced version of the first. A list of fictional dogs, then, would be a list "created explicitly because most...of the listed items do not warrant independent articles." In this case the category isn't paracetamol, which is a kind of OTC drug, but fictional dogs, which are a kind of fictional animal.

As I have said before, researches would find this list helpful for a number of reasons. People working on fictional animals (a hot topic in literary theory) could use it not only as a resource but as a place for discovering and drawing connections. Writers contemplating putting fictional animals into their own work could find out whether they have been preempted, or on the other hand could seek to establish their own menagerie of fictional animals from other works (the sort of thing Gilbert Sorrentino does). That's why I proposed as a criterion for inclusion the notability of the fictional creator rather than the notability of the dog. This list is almost useless if it only includes notable dogs. As to where to draw the line - well, again, blue-linked writers seem to offer a fairly bright line.

Do other editors have thoughts on the better of these two criteria? I.e.: just fictional dogs notable in their own right, of which there would be very few? or dogs in fictions created and published by notable fictionists? --Nightspore (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think that a list of all non-notable fictional dogs is an indiscriminate collection of information (a violation of Wikipolicy). Whereas there are a concrete and relatively small number of paracetamol brand names and a concrete and relatively minor number of minor Dilbert characters, the number of non-notable dogs in all works of fiction spanning literature, film, art, games, song, etc., etc. would be truly staggering if it is even finite. The vast majority of fictional dogs in the works of bluelinked authors have neither names nor any defining characteristics whatsoever. They are simply dogs that have been used to establish setting in a fictional world. Under criterion #2 we would have to list the puppies in the basket carried by the nameless "grey old man" that Mrs. Wilson coos over at the start of Chapter 2 in The Great Gatsby. We would have to list the anonymous dog that growled at Lola in Run Lola Run and the nameless attack dog enemies from Wolfenstein 3D. Dogs such as this are neither of interest nor useful to the general readership at Wikipedia nor at any other encyclopedia. If we use criterion #2 for this list, however, then we would have no discretion to omit them except by case-by-case consensus. I disagree that this is a workable approach to this article.
Naturally I concede that some fictional dogs are of interest. These are the notable fictional dogs. Although bluelinks are a good indicator of notability they are not the ultimate test. All redlinked fictional dogs can be included as well provided that sources can be found establishing their notability. In the case of non-nameless or otherwise noteworthy dogs from the works of great literature I think that there should be very little concern that sources will be impossible to locate. You yourself have suggested that "fictional animals" is actually a hot topic in literary theory. We shouldn't be afraid that reliable sourcing will remove necessary content from Wikipedia when the obvious benefits of sourcing are so abundantly clear.
The point of a dynamic list article on Wikipedia is not to provide a pool of ideas for authors seeking to populate their works with the non-notable fictional animals of the world. List articles, like indices and categories, and are navigational tools that help readers locate related articles. If no articles will ever be written on the individual members of the list (as is the case with definitionally non-notable list members) then the list must either be short and bounded (like the list of minor Dilbert characters or list of paracetamol brands) or it must surely violate WP:IINFO. -Thibbs (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Two things: 1) WP:IINFO doesn't seem especially relevant here, since it is far too general, discussing as it does any kind of information anywhere. Lists on the other hand are not indiscriminate collections of information. The subject of the list is the discriminant, as long as that subject is well-defined.
2) I suggest that dogs created by blue-linked fictionists provides a good definition. I am happy to accede to the idea that generally dogs on this list should be named (though there will naturally be exceptions to this rule, of a somewhat Russellian cast). It is difficult to see what objection there can be to accepting the judgment of a blue-linked fictionist that a dog is important enough to name in a fictional work, rather than substituting our own arbitrary judgment for his or hers.
I know that you believe I need a tutorial in Wikipedia's definitions and rules. But I've been editing here for several years now and know the policies and the different ways they've been interpreted and can be interpreted pretty well. We are probably on different sides of a philosophical divide about Wikipedia, and both sides have a great deal of legitimacy and presence here. Which is to say that neither of us has a knock-down argument for our differing views of this list. Given that the list survived an RfD and other discussion of these issues over the years, it seems that in this case agreeing to disagree, which I am happy to do, ought to allow this list to continue to be maintained in accordance with the legitimate if not definitive views of one widely accepted philosophy for editing Wikipedia, and which this list has exemplified for several year.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspore (talk • contribs) 23:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
If this is to be a list of all non-notable dogs in the entirety of fiction then it will indeed be an indiscriminate collection of information. It would essentially be an unlimited and unmaintainable article whose topic is unencyclopaedic. This assessment is of course based on the idea that the title and the lede agree in scope. One option that is available (although I believe it is distinctly worse than simply listing notable fictional dogs) is to retitle the article along the lines of "List of non-notable but named dogs in the fictional works of notable authors". "Notability" is rather a term of art here so perhaps a better title would be "List of named dogs appearing as minor characters in the fictional works of notable authors". Leaving the title as "List of fictional dogs" would be rather misleading if indeed the list was to be restricted to a list of non-notable fictional dogs. It would be largely inconsistent with the other "list of fictional Animal X" articles.
As for allowing the list to remain as-is, I'm afraid that would be as improper under criterion #2 as it would be under criterion #1. There can be no doubt that many of the characters on the list as it currently stands are in fact notable. This is understandable of course given the fact that the title currently purports to list fictional dogs and most reasonable editors would expect to find notable dogs like Argos on such a list. But if the list were restricted to non-notable fictional dogs then the notable ones would have to be removed in order for the article to be consistent with other "List of minor character" articles.
I also think it's worth noting that the "No consensus" outcome of the RfD cannot be taken as implicit approval of the contents of this article as they stand. The outcome of an RfD goes to the capacity for the topic to support a stand-alone article and it certainly doesn't mean that the article is perfect. I tell you that the article is not perfect. It is in severe need of cleanup. And I'd suggest that this has been true for many years. That non-notable list members were present when the article's proposed deletion failed to gain consensus at the RfD does not mean that the participants intended the article to become a list of only non-notable fictional dogs. Indeed it can't fairly be read to imply support for any non-notable fictional dogs. The topic that was deemed to lack consensus for deletion (or to have weak consensus to keep) was "List of fictional dogs" and I think that the clearer understanding of this phrase is a "list of notable fictional dogs" rather than "list of named dogs appearing as minor characters in the fictional works of notable authors". -Thibbs (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I still can't agree, for a couple of reasons. One: the three criteria listed are "Common Selection Criteria," and therefore are legitimate but not exhaustive. The policy is something different, namely this, that "detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead." So what's an example, according to WP:LISTNAME of such a list? Why, look what it says! "Fiction and real life: List of fictional dogs is a list of fictional creatures, whereas list of dogs is a list with real-life examples. Note that the lead section of both lists explain what their contents are." So there we are. This article illustrates the very policy you cite in an effort to try to change it radically.
And then the very same page, under WP:LSC, discusses "cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed," and gives as an example the list of unusual things, which is far more heterogeneous than the clear criteria for fictional dogs, even without the further restrictions I am willing to accept (named dogs in works by blue-linked fictionists). And what is one of those unusual things? It's the list of Fictional island nations! So here are two examples of the kinds of things this policy or these conventions cover. Another far more nebulous list is also cited that contains as one of its items a list far less well-defined than this one; but more decisively, this very list is cited.
You keep saying that it's clear that this article is in severe need of clean-up. I don't agree (though as I say, I don't have a dog in the fight [sorry!} about comics, mascots, and video games. But I am certain that you have no warrant for calling the article "improper" under any of the three criteria you cite. Those criteria can confer propriety, yes, but failure to meet them does not imply impropriety. As I say, they are examples of common selection criteria. If you don't think this meets #2 (and I don't see how you can simultaneously say the article needs severe clean-up and that it's not true that most items on the list don't warrant independent articles), then the criteria for inclusion are handled quite simply under WP:LISTNAME. But me, I think "most" means "most." Most dogs on this list don't warrant independent articles. A minority do. The list is well-defined. Its criteria are clear. It therefore conforms with WP:UCS. And then its existence has been treated as exemplary. There's no strong case for severe excision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspore (talk • contribs) 05:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's be clear about what you have argued so far. In July of 2010 to bolster your claim that the article needed no citations you wrote "Argos is probably the most famous dog in all of literature, and every person who has read the Odyssey (not you, it seems) knows who Argos is." At the early days of this discussion you suggested that we should chose LSC's criterion #2 for this article - a suggestion that you made the surprising move of bolstering with the claim that Virginia Woolf's fictional dog belonging to the Brownings was in fact notable. Since then you seem to have agreed that certain specific limits do indeed make sense (i.e. that the dogs should have names in most cases and that the artist-creator should be notable).

Given that the text of WP:LISTNAME quoted above was introduced in February 2009 I think it is apparent that even to editors such as you who have worked on this article semi-exclusively since this time, the inclusion criteria presented in the lede has been anything but clear. Why would you point to a notable dog to argue against sourcing in 2010 if indeed the actual and obvious selection criterion was non-notability? Why would you argue that WP:LISTNAME proves the old lede to be exemplary when in fact only recently you seem to have agreed that certain limits beyond the vast open-endedness expressed in the lede are needed? To an external editor like me, it appears that the bulk of the arguments you have presented have only two goals - namely that reliable sources should not be required and that all current content must be safeguarded from removal.

I do not see much consistency to such arguments, however, as you rest alternately on notability to reject sourcing requirements and on non-notability to protect content that you feel must be included. Just a few hours ago you made a pair of edits the first of which removed a character you deemed unnecessary with the summary "Undid non-notable addition" and then you tweaked the lede so that notability was once again removed from the selection criterion. The only consistency that can be found in such actions is that it is the same editor who is acting as arbiter. At this point I should emphasize that I'm in no way implying bad-faith on your part, Nightspore. I'm convinced that you have the best interests of the article in mind. But I think that what might appear commonsense and consistent to you does not appear that way to third parties. The article has languished since February 2009 from a lack of clear selection criteria. That LISTNAME uses this article as an example of an appropriate title for a list cannot be used to argue that the article has been properly defined. In fact it hasn't been. The twin goals of protecting current content while rejecting sourcing requirements are inconsistent with an aim for this list to attain FL-class. And I can see no reason why this article should follow an uncommon selection criterion. For what reason should the list of fictional dogs use different selection criteria than typical Wikipedia lists? Does the mismatch between such a broad title and such a specific and counter-intuitive selection criteria not risk confusing readers? Should we really define this list in such a manner that stereotypical notable examples of fictional dogs (like Argos) should be excluded from the list? Wouldn't a better solution at least be to create a List of non-notable dogs that could live independently from this list? -Thibbs (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Now you're complaining that I am trying to reach some sort of compromise with you. I think for myself that this list should include all dogs in published fiction. But I was willing to tighten those criteria to named dogs in blue-linked authors. The dog I removed (if you checked) seemed not to meet those criteria. But you see inconsistency in my attempt to reach compromise with you. Also it's tendentious for you to say that if this list doesn't fall under one of the three selection criteria listed that means it's following "uncommon selection criteria." Since you're appealing to logic, please note that the fact that three things are a member of a class does not preclude other things from being members of that class. There are other common selection criteria besides those three. The fact that you and NCBoy2010 don't like a massive number of the lists of fictional items spend a lot of time severely editing them is itself evidence that this article has followed common selection criteria. But even if you discount that evidence, the fact is that I have given very clear selection criteria for this list, far clearer than I think the list needs, in an effort to find some common ground with you. Those criteria are simple and easily verifiable: 1) dogs that are 2) named by 3) fictionists who are 4) notable as 4a) determined by blue-links.
You very courteously hint that I am somehow blind to the inconsistency of this list. I really doubt that most people would find it hard to understand that this is a list which contains dogs named in fictional works by notable fictionists. What part of that seems puzzling or inconsistent or contrary to common sense? And given that 64 people are watching this page, I am not sure that your invocation of what a third parties would tend to think bolsters your argument very much.
Not does the unappealing idea of a list of non-notable dogs. The idea of a list with a name like that may seem commensensical to you but would not, I daresay, appear that way to third parties.
But again I ask, what is inconsistent or contrary to common sense about the four easy criteria that I listed three paragraphs ago, and which would be the intuitive expectation that anyone searching for a list of fictional dogs would bring with them if they found this list? I would respectfully ask you not just to say I'm self-deluded, courteously as you have tended to make that point. Argue that the criteria are internally inconsistent and clearly violate common sense. --Nightspore (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to compromise, however a compromise that still falls afoul of Wikipolicy is not something that I think is appropriate for Wikipedia. If I'm not mistaken it appears that you have been arguing that LSC's criterion #2 ought to be followed. I.e. that this "list of fictional dogs" should be limited to non-notable fictional dogs. I believe that this suggestion would result in a more-or-less unbounded list with counter-intuitive selection criteria to boot. As I would hope we agree, notable characters like Argos belong on this list. What sort of "list of fictional dogs" would omit such a classic example? Using the same line of thought it seems obvious that further classic fictional dogs such as Lassie and Snoopy and Pluto also belong in a "list of fictional dogs". This is the common sense approach to an article with this title. Selecting LSC's inclusion criterion #2 for this list would mean that none of these dogs would belong on the list due to their notability. Recently it seems that in your enumerated selection points (1-4a above) you are sweeping under the rug the central issue that a list of all non-notable dogs precludes the inclusion of the notable ones if it is to remain consistent with other "list of non-notable X"/"list of minor X" articles.
To me this appears to indicate a tacit acknowledgment that "list of fictional dogs" logically requires the addition of notable dogs. An appeal to LSC criterion #2 taken together with a hope of expanding it to cover all notable dogs as well results in an unmanageably unbounded list. We're back where we started - a list of all fictional dogs in all forms of fiction throughout the history of time. The limitation of the list to creations of notable authors limits the list about as much as does limiting "List of named human beings" to "List of human beings named John". Although it is a step in the right direction, without the element of notability somehow included it is quite apparent that such a list is still a largely indiscriminate collection of information.
Taking the example I gave earlier of the anonymous puppies in the basket carried by the nameless "grey old man" that Mrs. Wilson coos over at the start of Chapter 2 in The Great Gatsby I think it is obvious that a non-notable group of dogs like this is of little value to an encyclopedia whereas the dog that Tom buys for Myrtle in the same book would arguably belong on this list as it is more of a meaningful part of the story. Whereas the puppies are stage-setting background information designed to provide color in the novel, the dog has been understood by critics to have symbolic meaning in the book. Whereas reliable references could potentially be recovered to support the notability of Myrtle's dog, they could probably not be recovered to support notability of the nameless man's nameless puppies. Again, whereas the lists given as examples for LSC's criterion#2 are finite and more-or-less closed lists with manageable memberships, a list of all dog characters in all of fiction (even limited to the work of notable author-creators) is basically unbounded, is quite unmanageable, and is essentially unencyclopedic. -Thibbs (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Instead of answering the question you're changing the subject. Still I think I can be efficient about our disagreement. You invoke what you call "the central issue that a list of all non-notable dogs precludes the inclusion of the notable ones if it is to remain consistent with other 'list of non-notable X'/'list of minor X' articles." But this is not a list of all non-notable dogs, though you seem to want it to be. Such a list might indeed be "essentially unencyclopedic." This is, or could be, a list of dogs notable enough to be named by blue-linked creators of fiction. So the first part of the extract I quoted is irrelevant. And so is the second part: this is not a "list of non-notable X"/"list of minor X" article. It is a "list of fictional X" article of the sorts that collectively comprise a clear genre on Wikipedia. You don't like those articles, and you think they're too indiscriminate. Fine - I've offered a very clear set of criteria for making this list more logical and discriminating in its membership. As for boundedness and closedness, this list, like many others, has a tag saying that by its very nature this is an "incomplete list" - see WikiProject_Lists#Incomplete_lists. As that page says, Wikipedia plays a "role as an almanac as well as an encyclopedia." Being encyclopedic isn't the only criterion for entries, contrary to the implication of your last post. What an almanacs contain, among other things, is "lists of all types" (emphasis supplied), as the entry on almanac says in its lead. This is a list of some type with well-formed, parsimonious, clear, relevant, and commonsensical criteria. --Nightspore (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
If you give my previous post a close reading I think you'll find that it actually goes directly to your question of why it is contrary to common sense to include the potentially infinite number of characters like the anonymous puppies from The Great Gatsby. Whereas bounded almanac-like lists may be appropriate under criterion #2, unbounded ones are not.
The fact that this list is a dynamic list doesn't undermine the idea that readers would expect a list like this to contain notable members of the list. Although you neglected to quote this portion, the line at the top explaining about dynamic lists goes on to say that "You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries." How does one reliably source a non-notable dog when notability is in fact defined by the presence of reliable sources? The disclaimer at the top of the page is actually a good demonstration of why a list such as this should not include non-notable entries. -Thibbs (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, now really. I offered a bounding compromise: named dogs, unless common sense suggests a reason to add unnamed ones. Common sense is the controlling policy here. You don't like that, since you think one editor's common sense is another's idiosyncrasy. So I am offering, in compromise, common sense plus the bright line you seem to value. "Reliably sourced entries" are entries whose sources are works by blue-linked authors. They fall under the category "subject specific common knowledge" (see Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed).
As for the idea that the list is unbounded: hardly. It is first of all bounded by the fact that all entries must be linked to notable fictionists. Only a small number of those fictionists have included dogs in their fictions. And I would wager that only a small number of those dogs have been named. Are you really worried that a pack of dogs from all over the notable fictional multiverse is going to invade this list?
Honestly, fictional dogs with names from fictions by people notable for their fictions: that's well-defined, clearly bounded, commonsensical and more or less what almost anyone searching for this list would expect. But perhaps you could show that your preferred alternative is widespread on wikipedia: lists entitled "List of non-notable X's". Lists of fictional X's are widespread.
At any rate, WP:NOTESAL#Stand-alone_lists is decisive on the question of permissibility of the list according to the criteria I have offered. Here is the relevant passage:
Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. [Emphases supplied]
Please note that contrary to your views, WP:NOTESAL#Stand-alone_lists does not require homogeneity of notability within a list that is itself verifiably notable, as this one is. Nor indeed does any other policy or criterion that you cite. --Nightspore (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
You are mischaracterizing my views. There are obviously some lists for which non-notability of its members is acceptable and for which NOTESAL is decisive. I have repeatedly referred to the two examples of lists under LSC#2 that include non-notable members and I have explained that in both cases the lists are relatively short and eminently bounded. In the case of the Dilbert example we see a 7.4k byte list comprising 9 members. In the case of paracetamol brands we see a 6k byte list comprising 89 members. Compare that to the state of this list less than a week ago - a sprawling 80.9k byte list sporting nearly 1000 members (Note: This is a rough estimate achieved by multiplying number of lines per screen, 27, by the number of screens this article's list portion fills, 37; 27x37=999.) Thankfully you seem to be allowing NCBoy2010 to carry on cutting non-notable characters from the portions that you have stated you have little interest in (i.e. the non-literature portions) but this inconsistent approach to cleanup distresses me. Why is it that the normal notability standards should apply to video games and to song and puppetry, etc., but not to literature? If you disagree that they do then is it your plan to again revert all of NCBoy2010's hard work when he leaves this article?

You have asked whether I fear that a pack of dogs from all over the notable fictional multiverse is going to invade this list. Not only do I fear that this is inevitable (after all the article has grown to a bloated 80+k bytes since its inception), I feel that according to the standards you are seeking to impose this is the explicit goal of the article. Far from being passively invaded, the article is actively inviting such an invasion with a first line that requests that editors add to the article and criteria set so widely open. The example of the puppies in The Great Gatsby was an example I thought of in under 2 minutes. (I have yet to hear your opinion of whether such characters belong in this article, by the way.) But this was literally the first work of literature that came to my mind. There are an awful lot of books out there, though, and the fact is that a vast number of them contain non-notable dogs. If we apply the same lax standard to all parts of the article including the non-literature portions then how many more fictional dogs of no consequence are we likely to encounter? How close to complete would you estimate that we are? 10%? 2%? 0.02%? This together with the constant outpouring of fiction each year is what I mean by saying that the list is unbounded. Even though technically there are bounds at the present moment (just like in my example of "List of humans named John") the bounds are so completely unreasonable that the list becomes a de facto indiscriminate collection of information. -Thibbs (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're mischaracterizing mine. It's not my article and I am not concerned to adjudicate the range of reference that "fiction" covers. My not defending the non-narrative parts of the list is studiously agnostic on my part. Others can decide whether such categories or subheads should count as fictional in a reasonable sense or not. What I am concerned to defend is the part of the list in which named dogs derived from primarily narrative fictions are listed.
I say again: named dogs. Which means that your repeatedly invoked example of the puppies in The Great Gatsby don't meet that criterion. (The very fact that a fictionist names a dog is prima facie evidence of the dog's importance to the fiction.)
It's simply not true that this is "a de facto indiscriminate collection of information." The criteria I suggest offer clear and simple guidelines for discriminating what should appear on this list and what shouldn't. Those criteria would make this a list of fictional dogs conceived of and named by blue-linked writers. Yes, the list will increase every year. No, that doesn't mean that it's unbounded. That makes it very easy to discriminate between dogs that should be on the list and dogs that shouldn't. Your example of a list of humans named John is so clearly not parallel that I haven't even thought to try to refute it. I will say, however, that nothing in WP:IINFO seems relevant to your objections: this list contains neither plot summary nor song lyrics nor yet statistics. --Nightspore (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
From WP:IINFO (and the policy intro):

In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful.
...
As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
See also: Wikipedia:Notability

Per the current lede, is a list of all "dog characters from notable fictional works" the sort of list that fits aside list of Dilbert characters and list of paracetamol brands as a good example of LSC's criterion #2? Is such a list capable of attaining FL-class without limiting it to notable characters? The intent of a dynamic list is to achieve or to approach completion. Is a list such as we have described in the lede reasonably capable of completion? I believe that the answer is no. Or at least not without an exponential increase in the size of the article commensurate with an exponential decrease in manageability. -Thibbs (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Compromise idea

Let me ask you this: Would you be willing to take the List of fictional dogs in literature and do whatever you want with it, provided you allow Thibbs and I to clean up the "Main Article"? Ncboy2010 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This may be the best idea in the end. The specific limits that Nightspore has (after some prompting) been willing to self-impose are more related to literature than to other media. The limitation of notable authors for instance has vague meaning at best when one speaks of a video game character in which a team of individually non-notable people create the plot, a separate team of typically non-notable individuals create the graphics, and a final often non-notable person provides a voice. Notable dog characters lacking notable authors are common in other collaborative media such as animated films as well. While I think that these limits would make the list of fictional dogs in literature much more of a niche topic out of phase with other similar topics, it would at least provide a good safe-haven for the unreferenced non-notable dog characters that Nightspore believes to be important. And it would also cut down on the unboundedness of "all (mostly named) non-notable dogs across all fiction" while simultaneously preventing the harm from such a broad inclusion criterion from negatively impacting the list as far as the other subtopics go. What say you, Nightspore? -Thibbs (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean - just move all the dogs I'm defending over to the other list? This here is the list that I've been involved in for several years now. So if that's what you mean, I don't find the idea attractive. Plus what happens to dogs in film. If you mean this list here would follow my proposed criteria for dogs in books and dogs in film, that's fine. --Nightspore (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The idea is that the narrower topic lists like list of fictional dogs in literature and possibly list of fictional dogs in film would operate under the loose LSC#2 that you favor and that this list - the "list of fictional dogs" - would operate under LSC#1 such that notability of the list members would be a defining characteristic used as one of the inclusion criteria. This would help to contain what I see as the problem that this list is unmanageably enormous. Applying these quasi-unbounded criteria that you prefer to sublists of specific media would remove the multiplier effect we see here where you wish to see a list of non-notable dogs in literature, non-notable dogs in film, non-notable dogs in video games, non-notable dogs in puppetry, etc., etc.. This would mean that if you indended to continue adding non-notable dogs that you would add them to the list of fictional dogs in literature article, but you would of course be encouraged to add notable dogs (bluelinked or supported by references) to this list - the "list of fictional dogs."-Thibbs (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. Perhaps it would help if I demonstrated the difference by spelling out the exact basic criteria at each list. Below are the proposed list criteria that would apply to either kind of article (listed in bold):

  • Proposed basic criteria for "List of fictional dogs"
    In order to be listed in this list members must meet the following inclusion criteria:
  1. Dog - The character must be a dog - "a domesticated form of the gray wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the order Carnivora."
  2. Fictional character - The character must come from the world of fiction - "any form of narrative which deals, in part or in whole, with events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and invented by its author(s)".
  3. Notable - The character must meet WP:N - The topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • A bluelink is usually enough to satisfy requirements #1 and #2, but for redlinks these must be verified through reliable sources.
  • Proposed basic criteria for "List of fictional dogs in literature" (and maybe modified to extend to "List of fictional dogs in film", etc.)
    In order to be listed in this list members must meet the following inclusion criteria:
  1. Dog - The character must be a dog - "a domesticated form of the gray wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the order Carnivora."
  2. Fictional literary character - The character must come from the world of fictional literature - "written works that deal, in part or in whole, with events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and invented by its author(s)".
  3. Creation of a notable author - The character must be the creation of an author meeting WP:N - The author must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • A bluelink is usually enough to satisfy requirement #3, but for redlinks these must be verified through reliable sources.
4. Mostly non-notable - The character should usually not meet WP:N - The character should generally lack significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Although some notable dogs are of interest, the list should generally emphasize non-notable dogs in accordance with LSC's Criterion #2. For a list of notable fictional dogs see List of fictional dogs.
  • Reliable sources are not required at this article.
5. Mostly named - The character should usually have a personal name - A name that singly identifies a unique dog character. Although some non-named dogs are of interest, the list should generally emphasize dogs with names.

The specific details of either kind of list can be modified of course, but the idea is that the broad non-notable fictional dog lists would be found in the specific subject list articles (like "list of fictional dogs in literature," etc.) while the stricter notability criterion would apply only to the "list of fictional dogs" - the combined list of all fictional dogs (from what Nightspore described as the "fictional multiverse"). Hopefully that's presented somewhat more understandably. -Thibbs (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Update - User:Nightspore has recently explained to me on his talk page that he will no longer be interacting with me so I have decided to file an RfC regarding the issues from above. Specifically, I am interested in hearing input regarding whether or not notability should be a requirement for the members of a broad list like this and whether sources should be used. I'm posting the RfC below for maximum exposure. -Thibbs (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this is a completable list?

WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists states that "there should at least come a point where most representative and widely agreed upon entries are present." How could this be accomplished with a list of fictional dogs including non-notable ones? Without the use of reliable sources wouldn't the determination of whether a certain non-notable dog was representative or widely agreed upon be entirely subjective?

"WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists" supports the notion that dynamic lists are those that are "not yet fully filled out or are difficult to keep current" (emphasis added). Currency has only minor relation to this list of fictional dogs compared to the issue of whether it can ever be "fully filled out." The WikiProject's guideline suggests that it is the hope that editors can "add more items to the list, bringing it closer, if not to completion, then at least to a mature state". Even dismissing completion as simply unattainable, how could we ever reach a mature state if all non-notable dog creations of notable creators in all of fiction was the goal? It's unreasonable to imagine that a list like that will ever reach even close to maturation/completion. It would remain a sprawling and unmanageable collection of what amounts to listcruft. There is a reason that no known almanac has ever attempted to list all fictional dogs. Such an almanac is impractical in the extreme because it is so close to if not actually boundless. -Thibbs (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Recapping the above

When Ncboy2010 and I first came up on this article the definition in the lede read as follows: "This is a list of fictional dogs from literature, films etc. (It also includes some real dogs due to the proliferation of reality television shows and advertising)."

This definition was identified by me (an editor who has been engaged in a number of cleanups of other "list of fictional animal X" articles) to be problematic due to its lack of clarity and the fact that it rendered the list effectively unbounded. In discussions with Nightspore (an editor who has been performing valuable stewardship and maintenance activities relating to the dogs in literature section here) the disagreement arose whether it made more sense to craft a definition for the lede restricting the list to notable fictional dogs or whether this list was actually a list of mostly non-notable dogs that did not require sources due to their status as items of common knowledge.

I believe the root of this problem falls on a fundamental conflict between WP:SAL which clearly states that "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; so are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as notability guidelines." and the implication in WP:LSC that "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria." is a common selection criterion.

At any rate, in the extended discussions above, Nightspore agreed that limiting the list to some degree could be acceptable and he offered the following limitations:

  • All fictional dogs must be the creations of a notable author/creator.
  • Most fictional dogs should have names.

With the discussion ongoing, the lede has been altered such that it now reads as follows: "This list of fictional dogs is subsidiary to the list of fictional animals. It is restricted to dog characters from notable fictional works." In addition, Ncboy2010 (an editor who has been engaged in cleanups of a number of "list of fictional X" articles and who has been mostly absent from the discussion at hand although he has been engaged in implementing some of the conclusions reached in talk) has made a number of clean-up edits removing especially non-notable list members from the non-literature portion of the article. Nightspore has agreed to this as he feels unqualified to comment on whether anything apart from literature qualifies as fiction.

I have continued to stress the fact that the list remains largely unbounded in definition and that as with other Wikipedia articles, this stand-alone list should use sources for verification purposes as well as to assert notability. Although I appreciate any compromise that limits the massive scope, I worry that in order to achieve the completion/maturity required by dynamic lists per the guidelines of WikiProject lists it will require superhuman effort and the end result will be am unmanageably large and thoroughly unhelpful article. Nightspore does not agree with this at all and instead contends that the list criteria are more than in accordance with WP:LSC (i.e. they limit membership even beyond mere non-notability which alone would be sufficient).

Ncboy2010 recently offered another possibility which I have agreed may be the best for us at present. Under this compromise, Nightspore's compromise definition would be applied to the list of fictional dogs in literature which would become a list of mostly non-notable dogs as under LSC criterion 2, and the "list of fictional dogs" would adopt notability of its members as the primary selection criterion as under LSC #1. I believe that this compromise would further limit the unboundedness of the kind of list favored by Nightspore by restricting it to literature and that this would ultimately safeguard both lists to an extent against future nominations for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thibbs (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

After reading over this for some time, I have a clear evaluation of the discussion here. It's quite clear that there is a consensus to include only notable dogs on this list, with dogs that are blue linked also being listed (as most likely references will be in the destination article).

In regards to dogs that are redlinked, if references can be added there seems to be a consensus to allow their inclusion. The rest should probably have redirects created to the appropriate article, for example, redirect Baleia to Vidas Secas. Red links without sources should be removed (with a period of time given after this RFC to allow for references to be added asserting notability) and text only entries without references should also be removed.

The only thing left to address is the Fictional dogs in literature section. If the list of dogs was cut down significantly (as per the consensus here) it would largely duplicate the List of fictional canines in literature article. There's a few things you could do here. You could always just replace the contents of the section in this article with a link to the List of fictional canines in literature article, or you could redirect that article back to the section here, and cut all the non-notable dogs out. But that one I'll leave for you all to decide, as what to do there isn't quite clear from this discussion. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

Until very recently the definition for this list present in the article's lead has been "This is a list of fictional dogs from literature, films etc." Since mid-December we have been deadlocked on the issue of whether notability-requirements should apply to this list. Below are presented the two major arguments and a suggested compromise:

  • Position 1 - This is an intuitive almanac-style list of fictional dogs, mostly non-notable in themselves though from notable sources, in line with WP:LSC's Criterion #2. On incomplete, almanac-style lists see WikiProject_Lists#Incomplete_lists, which notes that Wikipedia plays a "role as an almanac as well as an encyclopedia." Because the list is mostly non-notable dogs, with notable dogs in a minority (as is permissible according to Criterion #2), notability plays a minimal role in the determination of whether or not a fictional dog belongs on the list. Relatedly, sources are not stringently required for this article because elements of plots in notable works in all media are subject-specific common knowledge.
  • Position 2 - This is a list of notable fictional dogs in line with WP:LSC's Criterion #1 but it has become filled with cruft in the last several years and now it needs a clean-up. LSC#2 works for small-scale and finite lists like those offered in the example, but "list of fictional dogs" is a massive topic. Like all stand-alone lists, Verifiability and Notability requirements apply the same as they do in the rest of Wikipedia. This means that non-notable characters should be axed and that sources should be used to settle disagreements over whether a putative member should be included.
  • Compromise - Let's restrict the non-notable portion using LSC#2 to a medium-specific sub-article like "list of fictional dogs in literature". This would allow the retention of non-notable list members in a more limited manner and would allow the main article to be cleaned up to contain only notable fictional dogs as under LSC#1.

I've summarized a very long series of conversations above, and the original conversations may be examined as well by expanding the collapsed frames higher up in talk. All participants in this discussion have become exhausted and we are still deadlocked. The compromise has been neither rejected nor accepted, but one of the key participants has expressed frustration with the tone of the conversation and has declined to comment on it further or to engage in mediation so we find ourselves at a total impasse. Any outside opinions would be most appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Position 1 and penultimate sentence tweaked by Nightspore (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Only notable dogs. Non-notable dogs should find their places in redirect names and DABs. I'm pretty sure LSC#2 can't apply to list of fictional dogs, as it is supposed to list entries with a common parent topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • only referenced dogs notable or not Bouket (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: Proper references actually demonstrate notability, though. Do you mean that non-RS sourcing should be ok too? Or do you mean that the works in which the dogs appear must reference the dogs? Or just that trivial mention within a reliable source is sufficient? -Thibbs (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that Bouket's comment, and what I've been arguing throughout, is consistent with WP:SIGCOV#Stand-alone_lists. Relevant sentences: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." So it's a question of discretion, not of policy, as seems intuitive and obvious. -- Nightspore (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • At present there isn't even any indication that the list topic is itself notable although I imagine this issue could be cured fairly simply. I guess the clarification I'm seeking from Bouket, though, is what he meant by "only referenced". It's a curious limitation on list membership if notability isn't a factor considering that proper sources in fact demonstrate notability. Assuming Bouket intended his "only referenced" requirement in the traditional sense (i.e. "reliable sources on which the information in the article is based"), a list of primarily non-notable dogs would be difficult to come up with. I appreciate your participation in the RfD, Nightspore, but if possible I'd be interested in hearing Bouket explain what he meant. -Thibbs (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You don't need to cite an item if its link is blue, because they click on the link for the citations. The red links have to be cited, and will have to pass some kind of notablity standard if every self-published book or whatnot so crowds out the ones like "Charley" from Travels with Charlie are getting lost. Otherwise, it becomes a lame list that's not fun to read. Chrisrus (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with this, I think. Individuated dogs (usually individuated by being named), notable or not, in blue-linked fictions get a pass. This criterion filters out the self-published and non-notable fictions. -- Nightspore (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't think that's what Chrisrus was saying. Unless I'm mistaken he was saying that some kind of notability standard needs to be met. Non-notable list members would fail by definition to meet such a standard and in large numbers (e.g. the Simpsons dogs on which Chrisrus just commented above) they risk rendering the list lame. -Thibbs (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We could do it like this:

  1. Blue link? Pass, no citation.
  2. Uncited red link? Fail. Delete or tag "CITATION NEEDED"
  3. Cited red link? Maybe, some standard as suggested above.

Or, we could choose to allow only blue links.

In any case, let's definately make these rules:

  1. Anyone may make uncited red link deletions.
  2. No adding "citation needed" tags to blue links

Chrisrus (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Chrisrus. I think that sounds reasonable. In as large a list as this, it makes sense that for bluelinked members we could simply rely on the reliable sources presented in the underlying article. If a bluelinked list member turns out to be non-notable then Wikipedia's policies should lead to its deletion at which point it would become a redlink. The allowance of citations to bolster redlinks also makes sense since we must assume that not all articles on notable fictional dogs have been written yet and it would be senseless to keep notable dogs off a "list of fictional dogs" simply because no Wikipedia article had yet been written. So yes, I fully agree to the rules you laid out. -Thibbs (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Only notable dogs - this list would simply become too unwieldy to do otherwise, and indeed it already looks like this has happened. Restricting the list to notable dogs draws a clear line for inclusion, and keeps the list interesting to read. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and we should consider the experience of our readers when creating articles. I'm sure that a big list of all fictional dogs would be useful to someone, but I think there may be more suitable places it could go than Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • There's a clear line or inclusion already; this list is an almanac-type list, as I noted above. And I draw attention again to WP:NOTESAL#Stand-alone_lists, which does not require homogeneity of notability within a list that is itself verifiably notable. Nightspore (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Of course WP:NOTESAL#Stand-alone_lists suggests that "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." Considering that this particular topic is an extremely large one with potentially thousands or tens of thousands of entries, I think that limiting membership by notability as Mr. Stradivarius suggests may be a good idea in this case. This would provide a much clearer line of inclusion than a system relying on sourceless "subject-specific common knowledge" since determining notability doesn't require familiarity with the underlying works. -Thibbs (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Here's my opinion on the matter. This list, in it's current form, is almost unusable by anyone seeking any information. Most people who are looking at these types of lists have some idea of what they're looking for, and I can almost guarantee that no one would come here specifically looking for the Dog that did nothing in the night-time, unnamed, this "curious incident" providing a clue in the Sherlock Holmes story. I also believe that if the article stays as it is, it will accrue more and more items like these, while simultaneously decreasing the usefulness of the article. By cleaning it up with the notability standards such as the above stated, and organizing it in a manner that provides an aesthetically pleasing and useful directory that is more likely to /not/ get deleted. If you take a look at List of fictional dogs in literature you can see that I have removed every unreferenced, unlinked and unreferenced red-linked items from Dogs in literature section in the main article. by doing this I've achieved a couple of things.
  1. The list is much shorter and easier to read
  2. Before, the list was weighted much more toward obscure entries
  3. The table is sortable by Author, Work and dog name which makes finding info much easier
  4. The table actually holds more information about each dog than the previous list does. Before, most items followed the format Dog from Book by Author if the entry even carried the author's information.

To conclude, The list is difficult to use, filled with obscure dog-references and would benefit from establishing notability criteria, cleaning up the list and wiki-tabling everything. It's likely to be deleted in the future if something isn't done.

Also, Nightspore is worried about keeping the information primarily under the literature section. Could it be possible that we just move the information to another article such as List of fictional dogs in literature. There, he could use whatever inclusion criteria he wishes and the main article can be cleaned up and (hopefully) be saved from potential AfDing.

Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Have to say I strongly agree with Ncboy2010, this list in its current form is unwieldy and pretty useless for actually finding information. The lists that have been created and reformatted are far more accessible. I would support a redirect of this page to List of fictional canines. Jack (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Only notable dogs - I suppose that I should weigh in for the record as well. It is clear that lists of non-notable things are appropriate in some limited cases (e.g. for small topics like minor paracetamol brands where completion of the list is easily attainable; or as supporting lists like "list of failed nominees to the supreme court" that together with a list of notable x comprise the entirety of topic x). A list of fictional dogs, however, is neither a small topic capable of completion nor a supporting article that backs up a list of notable items for the sake of completeness. The topic is one that without limitation of some sort would demand the inclusion of any dog in any fiction no matter how trivial. Nowhere is the fact that such a result is inevitable (without the imposition of notability standards) better illustrated than in the edits made to "List of fictional animals (other)" by the so-called Taxobox vandal. According to the basic notability-lacking definition of this list, additions like the numerous anonymous ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. ) and generic ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc.) animals from the world of fiction are welcome additions. It is clear that in this case had notability not been made a criterion the list would have soon reached a crisis point. The same editor also helps to illustrate why sources are required and why "subject-specific common knowledge" is not an appropriate basis to rely on for an article like this. In edits like this it is clear that without sources a reader who is unfamiliar with the underlying work will be left with as little information as if he had never seen the entry. Requiring sourcing to demonstrate notability in cases where listed characters are not bluelinked would safeguard against the addition of nonsense and crufty trivia while guaranteeing a place in the article for notable content beyond that covered by wikipedia's articles alone. I really think that a notability requirement and a reliable sourcing requirement represent the only way to maintain a list such as this. -Thibbs (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Note: Let me also say, though, that I have expressed my interest in the compromise listed at the start of the RfC as well, and I would still be open to exploring this possibility if it meant a smoother transition and an easing of the tensions that have built up here in the last 2 months. My RfC "vote" above is my ideal approach to a list like this, but I am willing to be pragmatic about it and I generally favor compromises. I have discussed with Ncboy2010 on my talk page the option of relisting this RfC when it expires to try to push for the above compromise and I would be interested in hearing some feedback on this idea if anybody wants to weigh in. -Thibbs (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Next Step

Now that the RfC has expired we can either find an admin to perform a closure or we can relist it. To date there have been 9 participants in the commentary and this may be enough to indicate a consensus, but relisting the RfC would potentially generate further comments and might allow for the development of a compromise that is being discussed behind the scenes. So what shall we do? Close or relist? Are there any opinions on the matter? -Thibbs (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Close And Opining On Issue !voting Only notable dogs There's clearly consensus to only include notable dogs. The list went thru deletion which I assume was because of the indiscriminate inclusion of dogs mentioned/dog allusions. There's no other way to trim the cruft. Only notable dogsCurb Chain (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The list went through deletion? What does that mean? Now if a list is even nominated for deletion, that's a black mark on it forever? And where do you get "there's no other way to trim the cruft." I have repeatedly suggested this intuitive and clear-cut way: named dogs in blue-linked authors. I'll add: the list should be restricted to dogs in (narrative) fiction, not all imaginary dogs, as in video games and songs, etc.

I'll also remark that The Times Literary Supplement, widely acknowledged as the most important literary review in the anglophone world, recently had a piece on - hey lookit that! - the interesting category that literary dogs, even obscure ones, constitute (NB: TLS, December 2, 2011). Accordingly they mention Robinson Crusoe's unnamed dog: "Crusoe's is the least known. 'As for the dog, he jumped out of the ship of himself, and swam on shore to me ... and was a trusty servant to me many years.' What was his name? Which breed was he closest to? Crusoe doesn't say; nor whether Friday made a fuss of him. Desert islanders generally don't." The point being that this article in the TLS establishes notability for a list of non-notable dogs in notable fictions. Nightspore (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not very convincing to point at an example of a notable unnamed dog to argue that all unnamed dogs are notable or that non-notable dogs are notable as a class. If TLS discussed this dog then this is a notable dog. If RSes don't cover him or if Wikipedia is the only non-primary-source that covers him then he is not. TLS is a good source for notable dogs, but it says nothing about non-notable dogs. At any rate, rather than re-arguing the issue that kicked off the RfC to begin with, please weigh in on whether the RfC should be relisted or closed. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for unnamed dogs, except in rare circumstances. I therefore don't see the relevance of editors' repeatedly asking, well what about all those unnamed dogs - surely they shouldn't be on the list. That's right, they shouldn't. But here I'm pointing out that TLS says that this dog is obscure, and they are interested in the category of the obscure dog in notable writers. This satisfies the policy which I will quote again: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." The TLS article documents the notability of the grouping or set. Nor is this is a paradoxical set, as in Russell's paradox, since there are extraneous limits on membership of this set: the dog must come from a notable fictionist. Just being non-notable isn't enough. As to whether Thibbs wants to reopen RfC I'm too disenchanted with the whole process to care, or indeed to keep this list on my watch-list. Nightspore (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, you've presented your views in depth and volume above. As far as I can see they have not changed a jot. Repeating them ad nauseam still fails to satisfy me that a list with as great a scope as this will be manageable without notability criteria and reliable sourcing. Your disenchantment with the process is clearly unjustifiable as you've been given ample opportunity to expound upon your opinions and to as large an audience as could readily be mustered. As to whether Thibbs wants to reopen RfC, the answer is no. Thibbs is tired of this pointless looping debate and would be happy to put it behind him. Thibbs was willing to extend the RfC as a courtesy to a fellow editor who had seemed to have been working on an 11th hour compromise of some sort, but this offer to relist appears to have been misguided. If now pressed for a !vote, Thibbs agrees with Curb Chain above: close. I'll probably put in the request some time tomorrow. -Thibbs (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK I've just requested an admin closure a few moments ago. In my experience it may take several weeks before an admin looks over the discussion, so in the interest of keeping the peace I propose that we do not start any sort of cleanup of non-notable or sourceless list members until we get an official closure. It's my sincere hope that when this is finished we can all put this ugly business behind ourselves. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Closure Above

I am not sure if this was consensual, as I thought that editors wanted an administrator to close the discussion. I just want to note that User:Steven Zhang is not an administator and unfortunately he did not note this.Curb Chain (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... Thanks for bringing this up, Curb Chain. I hadn't noticed that. I guess in the interest of moving on I'd be willing to run with Steven Zhang's assessment for now, but it may be an issue for some of the other editors. There are aspects of the conclusion that I'm not delighted with (e.g. redirecting redlinks to underlying works of fiction was not discussed in the RfC, it seems to conflict with WP:R and WP:REDLINK, and it will result in a "list of fictional dogs and works about dogs") but in my view the basic consensus requiring notability and verifiability is evident and acknowledging it is a step in the right direction. I've been too busy to get into a proper cleanup just recently but I intend to take a close look at the content in the next week or so unless there are objections. If other editors wish to push for an actual admin to take a second look at Steven Zhang's assessment I'd be fine with that too. Does anybody else have an opinion on this? -Thibbs (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Working toward a cleanup

I just started the cleanup for this article in a large edit today. In establishing preliminary notability for the list members I examined, I used the existence of a bluelink (i.e. a wikipedia article on the character) as proxy for notability under the assumption that Wikipedia articles cover notable topics. This is not a foolproof assumption but my hope is that as articles are flagged for lack of notability they will be deleted and become redlinks which should show up here indicating that a source needs to be located. For list items that had sources I didn't look any further to see if a bluelink was available because I am assuming that the reference already establishes notability. Ideally these refs should be checked if there's time at the end of the cleanup. I also assumed notability for characters with nothing more than a subsection link (by name or as part of an embedded list of characters) in a larger parent article. This is a more questionable assumption and could be examined more closely. For all non-sourced redlinks I applied a "verification needed" tag. The hope is that reliable sources verifying membership in the class (i.e. 1-fictional characters, 2-dog characters) and notability will soon be forthcoming. If after a reasonable time no more sources can be located then we can safely delete the non-notable entries.

I also merged as many cases as I could find where all dogs from a single work of fiction had been scattered into the list or where the same character was depicted in both film and literature as these add unnecessary bulk to the list. And I removed all aliens, robots, and other non-dogs as well as non-fictional dogs such as the various real-life dog actors who were linked. Obviously I only went as far as literature and film today and I may been a bit of a break before moving on to the next step. Any help with the other sections would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I also added a homemade "ongoing cleanup" tag to the top of the page to explain to editors why the article is all marked up right now. We should be able to remove this when the tagged entries are sourced or deleted. I'm not sure how much time is a reasonable period to wait for entries to be sourced, but I would say that we shouldn't wait any more than 1 month at a maximum. -Thibbs (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
A quick update: the remainder of "dogs in animation and puppetry" are next in line for a cleanup and I will get to it when I have some time. Then we can proceed to the remainder of the subsections below this one. I also wanted to note that I think a minor reorganization would improve the problem we see here of duplication. Some characters could arguably be placed under "dogs in film" and "dogs in television" as well as several other categories (comics, video games, etc.) for large/popular franchises. I am hoping that the following layout will reduce these problems.
  • Dogs in Literature
    • Dogs in Comics
  • Dogs in Film and Television
    • Dogs in Animation and Puppetry
  • Dogs in Song and Radio
  • Dogs in Video Games
  • Dogs in Advertising and Sporting Mascots
  • Other fictional dogs
I thought we could shift to this layout after the notability issues have all been cleared up. Please speak up if there are any objections to the idea. -Thibbs (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's what I think:
Firstly, remove comics as a subsection to literature and let comics stand on their own.
Secondly, Split film and Television sections into separate sections.
Thirdly, move the animation section up one level (since it should include both film and television animated dogs).
Fourthly, allow puppet dogs to be placed within film or television depending on the source (I know it kind of makes sense to include puppetry with animation being a predominantly kid-specific genre but that's not always the case and should follow the format of production: Literature is written, Comics are drawn, Television shows and films are recorded but vary in length, Animation is drawn or computer generated, video games are separated by the method of consumption and advertising is all about brand-awareness).
Fifthly, The section on song and music should be removed in my opinion because there are very few notable dogs in songs and the section leads to cruft and lists of songs that include mentions of dogs either in the lyrics or title itself.
Sixthly, The "other" section should be removed, and all the dogs be moved to the appropriate sections.
Finally, I think that all the sections should have "Dogs in" removed.
Just my thoughts, Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's my thought: I like it! Exactly what it needs, please do be WP:BOLD and go ahead, it'd definately be "article improvement" as we say. Also, while you're at it, please dump any blue link that doesn't check out when you click it, and delete any uncited red link or uncited non-link that you'd like to dump if you feel like it. Have at it! Chrisrus (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources

No, I'm reminding you that those are Wikipedia's rules. Quoting WP:SAL, "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability ... as well as notability guidelines." (emphasis added). It doesn't matter that other articles are poorly sourced. They should have more sources added. Stripping the few sources from the list of fictional dogs is a problem as far as I can see. Can you tell me how your removal of them has improved the article at all? -Thibbs (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources we can see that stand-alone lists must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations, but there is no requirement to provide citations of the notability of list items. For that matter, Wikipedia:Notability guidelines are to decide whether a topic can have its own article; Wikipedia does not even have "notability guidelines" for whether a thing is worthy to listed in a stand-alone list. Only the topic of the stand-alone lists as a whole must be tested for notability.
None of the removed citations, IMO, were for any of the kinds of material needing to have citations, and the page is better without them because their "purpose" is so opaque and so they mearly provide a distraction. For example, someone might think the source identifies the breed of dog for a fiction dog, but upon looking up the source, find no such infomation. tahc chat 14:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
See above for the consensus leading to the decision to use list-member notability as a baseline inclusion criterion for this article. The sources you've removed show the characters to be notable. A redlinked Garryowen from Joyce's Ulysses isn't immediately obviously notable and risks deletion from this article. With the source it becomes clear that the character is notable and that it belongs on the list per the notability criterion adopted by consensus in the above discussion.
Although under your interpretation sources aren't required (Note: I dispute this because I would challenge any redlinked and sourceless character's notability and challenged list items fall under WP:MINREF), there is obviously no prohibition against sources and I think it's generally accepted that they improve articles. The topic of an article with 19 references (as before your edits) certainly appears to have more of a claim to notability than a topic with 1 incongruous ref (as after your edits) which fails to meet the minimum sourcing requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Subsequent to your edits this article as a whole appears to lack notability because there would seem to be only a single source that covers the topic. I don't think you have to worry about sources distracting the reader at this article any more than you have to worry about this potential problem at any other article. -Thibbs (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
If there is any sort of clear WP:Consensus for this list that is that is above and beyond ordinary Wikipedia policy, then that is fine. I gather that you want the baseline inclusion criterion to be the standard of notability that is used for a fictional character having its own article. If that is the case please point out where you feel that consensus was reached and expressed.
I would also agree that citations generally improve articles, so long as the citations is used in a suitable way. Most citations are used to establish facts. If you want to use citations to establish notability of an item (dispite a link being red) that can be fine also, but it is confusing if it doesn't somehow say that it is only a citation to that purpose. Maybe that can say something like "Scooby-Doo discussed by name in..." 05:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, please see above for the consensus leading to the decision to use list-member notability as a baseline inclusion criterion for this article. Specifically I can direct your attention to the comment of the RfC's closing editor (Steven Zhang) who summarized the consensus in the box at the upper right of the RfC. While not strictly a policy-based decision, it is very much within the realm of ordinary Wikipedia practice as in fact "most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment."
I don't think that there is much cause for concern regarding the use of citations directly after the character's name as they used to appear before your edits. It's possible that they could be interpreted as references for the mere existence of the character instead of for the character's notability, but certainly it's a stretch to imagine that the ref would be interpreted as covering the breed of dog if it appeared only after the character's name and not next to a description of the breed. Anyway if you've come up with a citation style that you believe is less confusing then please implement it boldly and we can always restore the original style if the new style seems worse. At this point any re-addition of sources would be a good move seeing as the whole 36k+ byte article is currently supported by only a single source. -Thibbs (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(For someone else to add)

I spent some time trying to get the codes right.... In the Television section ..... Neil, St. Bernard, Topper. He's a ghost dog and an alcoholic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topper_(TV_series) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danchall (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Balto

Though the details of his life may be fictionalized, Balto is certainly not a fictional dog. I suggest he be removed from the list. - kosboot (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Animal Farm

Do I recall correctly that there are dogs in Animal Farm?  If so, methinks it ought to be added to the list.  allixpeeke (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The notable dog characters should be, yes.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Separate into different pages.

The List of Fictional Dogs page would be better if ALL categories were made separate pages, and just list the various links to the component pages, like the one for "Dogs in Comics". This would require: (1) new pages for Dogs in Songs and Sports and Advertising Dogs and Other Fictional Dogs--the only three categories with actual lists on the page; (2) moving Radio Dogs (which has only one entry) to Other Fictional Dogs; (3) remove the table of Contents which would no longer be needed.

Also I think the Sports Mascots should be separated from Advertising mascots... because there hundreds of canine college mascots if I were to fill the category out, and they really just dilute commercial mascots listing.

I don't want to do it because I probably would mess it up. Jwegryn (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

==

I don't know how to do this, but...

Each of the lists under "Media" should be a separate page leaving only the Contents showing on this page. I have a list of dogs in comics that will only make this page even longer.

Also the link "Animation" would no longer be needed if separate pages were established for each of these: 2.1 Film (live-action) 2.2 Television (live-action) 2.3 Film (animation) 2.4 Television (animation)

Thus, this page would simply be this a redirecting list:

1 Literature

1.1 Prose and poetry

1.2 Comics

2 Media

2.1 Film (live-action)

2.2 Television (live-action)

2.3 Film (animation)

2.4 Television (animation)

2.5 Radio

3 Song

4 Video games

5 Sporting and advertising mascots

6 Other fictional dogs


Jwegryn (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


This sounds like a pretty good idea. I don't see why we couldn't start splitting off the larger sections immediately. If the sub-lists are very short (eg. 'Radio'), they perhaps don't need their own pages yet. --David Edgar (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done I've boldly split the four sections under the "Media" to List of fictional dogs in live-action film, List of fictional dogs in live-action television, List of fictional dogs in animated film, and List of fictional dogs in animated television, respectively, per WP:SIZESPLIT. I now think the list is infinitely easier to navigate and digest. The next step, Jwegryn, should be to start finding reliable sources to add as references to the article. Mz7 (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I've went ahead and split the literature sections into their own articles too. This allows us to more easily navigate the list and focus on making improvements. Mz7 (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


For the most part, I have no reliable sources other than links... almost exclusively to Wikipedia. You would need to point out where you think source notes are needed. Jwegryn (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


I added a 'split portions' tag to list of fictional dogs in animation since the entries on it now need to be moved onto either the new film or television lists. It doesn't make sense to maintain this overlapping list. --David Edgar (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_fictional_dogs/Archive_1&oldid=1159088209"