Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd

Two breeds

These two breeds must be kept separate. They have different registering bodies and are two different breeds. They are no longer one in the same.

Untitled

This is not a real breed. It is merly the same breed scale down they should go in the same article. CHIMES

It has been considered a stand alone breed since the 1960s. Many breeds out there are simply smaller versions of larger dogs, for example the Schnauzer comes in 3 different sizes - all of which are considered Breeds. - Trysha ^(talk) 01:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll admit that it depends on who you talk to. Breeders who are specifically working towards a mini aussie and their many fans who own them (and often run them in agility) consider it to be different from a regular Aussie. Many regular Aussie breeders don't want regular aussies to be associated with the minis and so are quite happy to consider them distinct. Others don't believe that there is or should be a difference. However, there are so many Mini Aussies out there that we can't ignore it as a breed, even if it's not in regular kennel club registies. They might not want to be, as the regular Aussie & border collie, e.g., didn't want to be for a long time. Elf | Talk 03:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a seperate breed from the Australian Shepherd not a variety. Not one major registry, this includes the ARBA, UKC, AKC, ASCA, Canadian Kennel Club, and others, recognize a size variety of the Australian Shepherd. Please show me, besides MASCA and NAMASCA (or whatever their name is today) a registry that recognizes a size variety of the Australian Shepherd otherwise I will change this page every time I see the word variety December 26, 2005

Need links to prove AKC, UKC claims

Can someone provide links that show that AKC and/or UKC recognize the mini as a breed? I can't find it--ACK list of breeds, [UKC list of breeds. Thanks. Elf | Talk 18:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

UKC at one time would allow Miniature Australian Shepherds to be registered as Australian Shepherds. Recently (4-06) the UKC decided that they would no longer continue this policy. See UKC's list of accepted registries

it is not currently accepted by the major show registries, however the national stock dog registry serves as the registry of choice. There is significant pressure from many herding dog groups for herding breeds to NOT to be recognized by a major show registry (AKC, UKC), since it is thought that the working quality of the dogs will decline in favor of "conformationally correct" dogs (for instance, the third picture may be a sound working dog, but he is disqualified from show as a mismark, since he has no color around one eye) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.120.231.2 (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

What needs to be done to have some additional pictures added for this page? While the red tri is a cute dog a variety of miniature sized aussies would be better.

first person?

This article suffers from first person and clearly un-encyclopedic information, especially the Appearance section. If the author is watching, please clean this up asap. --Jmeden2000 20:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

edited

I removed the line that claims that these dog's have x-ray vision... haha 128.194.26.248 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization?

This might sound like a silly question, but why is Miniature in some of this article not capitalized? Shouldn't it be? Mokoniki (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Mokoniki

Name Change and AKC & UKC

USASA (United States Australian Shepherd Association) doesn't want to have Mini Aussies in existence, however they do have them in their stud books "by accident". The AKC has opened the door to the Mini Aussies as long as there is a name change. North American Shepherd is what the UKC calls them now, with their first step towards accepting the "breed". A rose is a rose, by any other name. Miniature Australian Shepherds are just that, no matter what the USASA says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.173.45 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

AKC is now accepting into its FSS program, the Miniature American Shepherd (MAmShep) (stock dog program is the first step to full recognition). This is a break-away minority of Miniature Australian Shepherds entering into AKC. From now on, the MAmShep is considered a different breed from the Aussies, miniature or not. No cross breeding may occur between MAmShep and Aussies, mini or standard. Also there's an AKC requirement of having to be three generations away from the standard Aussies, in other words, at least three generations of Miniature Australian Shepherds only in its lineage before a particular dog/bitch is accepted into FSS/AKC. No standard Aussies for three generations back. This is to appease the USASA.

Miniature Australian Shepherds continue to have a much larger stock to breed from, including standard Aussies, making this breed (not MAmShep) the healthier choice for consumers, overall, especially as time goes by.TwinkleeT (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Movement towards AKC acceptance

Several editors been removing mention of the new "Miniature American Shepherd" name and the AKC/USASA/NAMASCUSA proceedings, one of them saying that Miniature American Shepherds are not actually Miniature Australian Shepherds and have separate histories. The NAMASCUSA says otherwise:

Now with the recognition of the American Rare Breed Association (ARBA) the Miniature Australian Shepherds showed along side the Australian Shepherd until 1993, when the AKC officially recognized the Australian Shepherd. The American Rare Breed Association's policy at that time was not to allow any breed of dog to show with them (except in exhibition) that had the same name as an AKC affiliated breed and suggested that we change our name. Amid mixed reactions MASCUSA opted to change the name of our dogs from Miniature Australian Shepherd to North American Shepherd, for the sole purpose of keeping ARBA as one of our main show venues. At the same time, the club amended its name to North American Miniature Australian Club, USA, while also retaining the name Miniature Australian Club, USA as an a.k.a. The breed flourished over the next five years and grew under this name both in the US and Canada.

In the beginning of 1998, ARBA changed their breed name policy and through much consideration and discussion on the part of our club members and the Board of Directors of NASCUSA, formerly MASCUSA, Miniature Australian Shepherd was incorporated back into the name of our dogs, thus becoming the North American "Miniature Australian Shepherd".

The NAMASCUSA has stated, "The name of this new breed is the Miniature American Shepherd." I kindly request that anyone removing this information back up their decision with specific quotes. If no one refutes this within a few days, I'll add it back into the article along with a hidden comment. — anndelion ❋ 18:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

NAMASCUSA has chosen to take some miniature Australian Shepherds and create a new and separate breed. These dogs will become Miniature American Shepherds in AKC and once registered as such, will lose all registration rights with MASCA as miniature Australian Shepherds. Since MASCA members will continue to to breed small Australian Shepherds, those dogs will continue to be miniature variety Australian Shepherds, while the AKC Miniature American Shepherd, with a closed gene pool from the miniature Australian Shepherd, will truly be a separate breed. The NAMaSCUSA BOD needs to make a Wiki page to reflect this new and SEPARATE breed, and quit riding on the coattails of the dogs that will remain miniature Australian Shepherds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlaine (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC) ANNDELION....Do you really need any other quotes to back this up than the statement by NAMASCUSA themselves ...the name of this NEW BREED...? In other words, NO LONGER A MINIATURE AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD. No longer recognized as such. Seems pretty clear to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlaine (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about the "new breed" quote. However, further down the page, they say that the AKC has approved the USASA's "Proposal for Breed Division and New Breed", which I take to mean "breed division from Australian Shepherd" -- i.e. not a recognized variation, but a separate breed from the Australian Shepherd, not necessarily a separation from the Miniature Australian Shepherd. The name change was mandatory for AKC acceptance, and like the IP commenter above said, a rose is a rose by any other name.

Frankly, though, my interpretation doesn't matter: all that we need are reliable sources to back up what's in the article. Can you provide some? It sounds like you know a fair amount about the breed and I'm sure I'm missing things. — anndelion ❋ 18:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking into it further, it seems as though I was missing something: the MASCA wants to continue incorporating Australian Shepherds into the gene pool, while AKC registration won't allow this. I see where you're coming from, and I think the solution is as simple as adding a new section and outlining this: the AKC acceptance process spearheaded by NAMASCUSA and MASCA's mission to keep the Miniature Australian Shepherd a variation. MASCA states that the former North American Shepherd is separate; NAMASCUSA doesn't. I think it may be beneficial to gather outside opinions on this, since two reliable sources are contradicting each other. It's all rather political in nature.

Thanks: you were essentially correct. I apologize for not being as thorough as I could have been. — anndelion ❋ 19:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think a new page for the Miniature American Shepherd should be made. If I knew how to do it, I would have done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlaine (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm going to ask for input from the dog project -- it needs to be approached carefully, since two organizations are saying different things; the article's history confirms that. Neutrality is necessary. – anna 04:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we can learn from the Jack Russell Terrier/Parson Russell Terrier/Russell Terrier situation. The Parson Russell is the AKC registered version of the JRT under a different name, and has a different article. However, the Russell Terrier is a Foundation Stock recognised version of the smaller range of the JRT and in fact is known as the Jack Russell Terrier in New Zealand and Australia, but again has a seperate article from the JRT. If major national (AKC, KC etc) or the FCI recognise or are seeking to recognise a Miniature American Shepherd with reliable sourcing then it is appropriate to have a separate article. The breeding elements aren't really an issue as I'm sure at some point one of the breed clubs will ban cross registration with the other and external breeding from the "other" breed - this is exactly what happened with the Parsons/Jacks. If you look at the articles for the Parsons and Jacks, you'll notice that they refer to each other in the article text and I think this would be the appropriate course of action in this case. Miyagawa (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems logical to me. I don't think a new article should be created just yet -- there's no definitive information out there about the Miniature American Shepherd right now, aside from "it will be the new breed". Right now, I think a new section on this dichotomy would be sufficient. – anna 16:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, "miniature" Aussies are not an accepted breed standard of Australian shepherd, unlike other breeds that have multiple recognized sizes (specifically Poodles, Schnauzers, and American Eskimo Dogs). MASCUSA was originally known as the Miniature Australian Shepherd Club of the USA, and then the North American Miniature Australian Shepherd Club of the USA and in 2011 changed its name to Miniature American Shepherd Club of the USA, to reflect the acceptance of the Miniature Australian Shepherd as FSS by the AKC with the name Miniature American Shepherd. The existence of two separate pages for what is now the same breed is redundant, and therefore I propose the two articles be merged under the official AKC recognized breed name of Miniature American Shepherds, with a redirect from Miniature Australian Shepherd. My reasoning is that, unlike the Parson's Russel Terrier, the Jack Russel Terrier, and the Russel Terrier, all of which are recognized by a Kennel club (UKC, AKC, and FCI, respectively), the Miniature Austrlian Shepherd is not recognized by any kennel clubs anywhere. Opendestiny (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

These two breeds should never be merged. They are two separate breeds. Miniature Australian Shepherds are not recognized by AKC they are a Rare Breed having there own registries. MASCA, IMASC, ASDR and NSDR. Miniature American Shepherds are only registered with AKC as a separate breed! Please separate these pages again for these breeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianna Jaynes (talk • contribs) 16:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Miniature American Shepherd

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.

---

These are the same breed. The two articles should be merged, probably under the AKC-recognized name of Miniature American Shepherd, to prevent forking. TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 03:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Totally not acceptable. The Miniature American Shepherd has gone to AKC as a new specific breed with a different history. The Miniature Australian Shepherd enthusiasts have stayed true to their history and dogs and will not change name/history to suit AKC. Do not merge this. It would be like merging Poodles with Portugese Water dogs....different dogs, different names, different history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E64:8B90:74C6:AE28:9850:44A3 (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely NOT acceptable. Although Mini American Shepherds are (or used to be before they changed registries) Australian Shepherds, Mini Australian Shepherds are NOT Mini American Shepherds. Just because a group of people felt their dogs were not being adequately recognized as the mini variety, does not mean ALL people who have Mini Aussies feel that way. Mini Aussie owners/breeders want to ensure our dogs remain known and recognized for what they are-AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERDS of the Miniature Variety! Also, Mini American breeders do not realize that if their dogs end up being too tall for the breed standard, there is nothing they can do as far as showing them-they are too tall. Now an Australian Shepherd is an Australian Shepherd no matter what size, they are able to be registered as a Mini if they are within the size requirements and if they are too tall to be a Mini, then they are considered a Standard. These dogs are NOT a totally different breed but because someone decided they needed to be different, now they must be treated as such. You cannot breed a registered Mini Aussie to a registered Mini American and get papers on those dogs as pure breeds. So if that is true, you cannot merge the two breeds into one wiki page for the same reasons. They are TWO DIFFERENT BREEDS now and must remain labeled as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.19.48talk) 18:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The AKC literally describes these dogs as a dwarf Australian Shepherd, which, by definition, makes them the same thing. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 06:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

16, October 2013 - This is not acceptable. The Miniature American Shepherd is now and will remain a separate breed from the Australian Shepherd. I for one would want to confront the AKC and make them change their statement if their description says dwarf Australian Shepherd, because that is not what the Miniature American Shepherd is, it is however, a smaller herding breed dog that originated from the Australian Shepherd. Using the word dwarf does not mean smaller variety, it has a whole other meaning referring to bone deformity among other things. I can't believe the Mini American Shepherd people allowed the AKC to refer to their dogs as a dwarf Australian Shepherd. Per the AKC mandates the two dogs, (Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd), are two completely separate breeds.

"In 1993 the original MASCUSA club was asked by the AKC to change its name. Additionally, Miniature Australian Shepherds could no longer participate under their chosen name as it was too similar to that of an AKC affiliated breed, so the Miniature Australian Shepherd became the North American Shepherd.

In 1993, MASCUSA (the original organization) became the North American Shepherd Club of America. For the next 15 years there were numerous clubs that were formed, reorganized, and defunct trying to come to a consensus concerning the emerging breed. Enough members were eventually interested in obtaining separate recognition, thus prompting members of NAMASCUSA to approach the AKC. Working as a team with AKC and USASA, the name and breed of Miniature American Shepherd was born. The Miniature Australian Shepherd community is still divided over this compromise." --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 23:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This proposal is wrong, wrong, wrong. The Miniature Australian Shepherd is not a Miniature American Shepherd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregNC1 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

RFC: POV fork issue between Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd

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.

---

The articles Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd are about the same dog breed. What occurred was that members of the organization promoting/breeding the Australian dogs pushed for AKC recognition, which they received, under the Mini American moniker, while part of the same group refused to recognize the AKC recognition themselves and kept the Mini Aussie name. This, to me, is a fairly obvious WP:POV fork and one of these articles needs to be merged somewhere. I proposed they both get merged to the Mini American page with discussion of the controversy, since that's the recognized name, and you can see what resulted above. I'm bringing this to RFC to open the issue up to a wider audience, so editors unaffiliated with either breed can comment on the issue. So my RFC boils down to this:

Do the Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd articles constitute a POV fork, should they be merged, and if they should be merged, under what breed name should they be merged - the original name (Mini Aussie) or the American Kennel Club-recognized name (Mini American)? --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 23:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know who has authority in deciding such things as merges when there is persistent disagreement in WP, so good luck on that point. IMO the best and most constructive compromise would be to include an overview history in an introductory section (following the lede and separate from it). That section would contain explanations of both the information concerning both breeds and background to the split. The title should include both breed names and there should be redirs from both individual breed names. The middle part of the article would deal with generalities concerning both breeds. The latter part of the article should include two sections, one for each breed, that deal only with the aspects peculiar to the respective breeds.

However, the two articles as they stand are about as unencyclopaedic as any I have seen; they need radical editing and rewriting anyway. That effort could form the basis for the merge. What I have written reads like a prescription, but that was unintentional; it is just a line of thinking that could work if there is sufficient goodwill on both sides (which, knowing breeder groups, I would find astonishing, but no harm hoping. Partisan dog breeder groups have included some of the most murderously catty people I have known, and that comes from someone with experience of a few other lines of breeding as well. I suspect that for any long-term sanity you will have to rely on WP authority rather than breeder solidarity.) Good luck!!! JonRichfield (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Merge If it is true that these are literally the same breed of dog (which they seem to be, given that both articles use [same picture with different titles), and given that neither article has a whole lot of encyclopedic content, they should absolutely be merged (and heavily revamped). I have no opinion about the name, it's a tough split, but I would lean towards Miniature Australian Shepherd if only the American Kennel Club recognizes the Miniature American name. As it is now, the content is pointlessly duplicated and so someone with new information and citations has to update two pages instead of one. 0x0077BE (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

There is no consensus for this other than by the Miniature Australian Shepherds. Please ask the registering bodies of Miniature Australian Shepherds. This breed has not entirely moved over and many breeders will not move to AKC recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianna Jaynes (talk • contribs) 16:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge title

Stale

 – See RfC below.

Per the merge discussion above, there is consensus that we need to merge these but to what name? I still prefer the AKC recognized name, and I like the idea of an inclusive name but I don't know how we'd go about that without constantly flipping back and forth between 'The Miniature Australian Shepherd, or Miniature American Shepherd' and the inverse and I have no ideas about what would constitute an inclusive name. Ping: @0x0077BE: and @JonRichfield: --TKK public _{(Bark at me \\ Block this account if it's acting funny!)} 23:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not a dog person and I don't really have a concept of how important the AKC is in dog breed naming. I'm in favor of the Miniature Australian Shepherd for two reasons. 1.) Australian article predates American article by 8 years, which sort of conceptually fits in with the idea of keeping the regionalisms of the original author. 2.) American Shepherd dogs are an offshoot of the Australian dogs, and so it makes sense to have a section in the Australian Shepherd article called "Miniature American Shepherd" which details the 'split' in the breeds, whereas doing the reverse doesn't really make sense. To the extent that they are different, I get the impression that Mini Americans are a subset of Mini Australians (presumably the ones now being bred in America), whereas there is no plausible conception in which Mini Australians are a subset of Mini Americans. 0x0077BE (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A Case Against Merging Titles

While the discussion above has been closed, there still remains no single title to unify the entries under owing to the fact that the Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherds represent different breeds and breeding interests. This is a kind of discussion that takes place throughout dog breed history as you can see with the Norfolk and the Norwich terrier (up ears or down) and the Beagle (the 13 inch and 15 inch varieties, which both show separately). Keep in mind, both breeding parties are breeding dogs with solely Australian Shepherd genetics. They are simply favoring small dogs over larger ones. It is only how they want to be viewed by the breeding community that is different.

Now, the American Shepherd is represented by the MASCUSA breed club http://www.mascusa.org. Members of this breed club accepted the stock dog status under the AKC. They have been in this status for the past few years and will be accepted formally into the AKC as American Shepherds in July of this year. After this point, the pool of potential dogs is locked and American Shepherds can only be bred to other American Shepherds. The american shepherd standard is sized at 13-18 inches, with most being bred towards the smaller end

Now, the Minature Australian Shepherd is represented by the MASCA breed club at http://mascaonline.com. The MASCA did not accept the AKC stock dog status for two reasons: 1.) They wanted to continue to have a large pool of dogs to pull genetic material from and 2.) they wish to be accepted into the AKC under different terms. They do not want the miniature australian shepherd to be a different breed, but rather a size variation. This would be like the 13' and 15" beagles. Both fall under the Beagle breed and can be bred interchangeably, but there is such a strong preference in size variation that 13' and 15' beagles are evaluated separately. This is an important distinction, because if you invest in a miniature, they tend to be only slightly smaller (14-18 inches leaning towards the larger) (than their full-sized cousins (18 -23 inches)

It is also worth noting that the Australian Shepherd bred club is not interested in a smaller size variety. In their mind, a medium working dog fits within the current standard. Miniature breeders are still working towards a working dog, but prefer smaller dogs. In conclusion, the miniature Australian should either have its own page, or be added as a sub-category onto the full-sized Australian shepherd page. It should never, however, be merged with the American Shepherd page, especially following July 1, 2015 when the breed is officially severed from the Australian Shepherd breeding pool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:9100:1C50:A41F:4D1F:50BC:D52C (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Renewed merge discussion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Merge - Which has been the repeated result for several years, as has been noted. In closing, I'm giving weight to the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dogs/Dog_breeds_task_force#Recommended_article_structure (as there doesn't appear to be consensus here to overturn its applicability here). Therefore, as stated there: The article for each breed shall be titled based on the apparently most-common official breed name from the major registries. - Which, per comments below, would appear to be Miniature American Shepherd. So merge to Miniature American Shepherd. - jc37 02:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Consensus was in late 2013 to merge the articles Miniature American Shepherd and Miniature Australian Shepherd (see above). This stalled due to arguing about the name in 2014, followed by johnny-come-lately objections in 2015 on the basis that some people out there are still trying to produce a separate breed or subbreed under the "Australian" name. (Note that Australia itself is not implicated in any way; all three breeds or would-be breeds under discussion actually originated in the US).

Should the consensus to merge be upheld, and if so in what direction?

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• My take, as RfC opener, is yes, and of Miniature Australian Shepherd to Miniature American Shepherd in the #History section, and with a mention of the old name in the lead. The "American" name is the more reliably sourced, current, common name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge to Miniature American Shepherd as it seems to be the most reliably used name, and most likely to be accepted if this gets recognized as a formal breed. On the other hand, I'm wary of recentism and the junk that can go on when different registries accept the same breed is incredible. (Like how the UKC registered the English Coonhound for 100 years, then it got accepted by the AKC with the oxymoronic name "American English Coonhound" and now that's what all the books insist on using.) In this case, if that kind of thing gets to be a problem, we can solve it whenever it happens, which could be 15 years from now. Or never. For now, I support a merge. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge seems clear, as no-one has offered convincing evidence that these are two distinct breeds. As for the name: Wikipedia policy for article titles is to use the name that is usually used for the subject, rather than the "official" name: see e.g. Newt Gingrich, United Kingdom. Counting Google hits, I see "miniature American shepherd" 910,000, "miniature Australian shepherd" 1,920,000, "North American shepherd" 754,000. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge to Miniature American Shepherd. There seems to be no evidence that these are different breeds, and I do tend to lend weight to the AKC's naming conventions as notable. If in the future "miniature australian shepherd" does become a distinct breed, then we can always create a new article, and in the meantime have a redirect. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge to Miniature Australian Shepherd Google.co.uk search results are m.Aus.shep 484,000(212 unique) results, m.Am.Shep 185,000(216 unique) results, N.Am.Shep 12,700(239 unique) results. Local Library search shows 6 5 and 4 respectively. Looking at results for Aus that don't contain American and vice versa gives 219,000(184) and 18,900(199). Australian appears to be WP:Comonname SPACKlick (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge to Miniature Australian Shepherd We can count ghits, but I'd also note there is no thing commonly known as American shepherd. There is a thing known as Australian Shepherd, and this mini-dog is based on that, and it is commonly called a "miniature Australian Shepherd", so that's what our article should be called. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Correction: @White Arabian Filly, Maproom, Mmyers1976, SPACKlick, and SemanticMantis: I had a serious typo (missing text) in my comment above, suggesting that the Australian name is the current and better sourced one. This has been corrected, but it may have mislead several of you as to what was proposed and why.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It didn't mislead me, From the searching I did Australian appeared more common. I'm happy for more evidence to sway me either way, it was a close call. SPACKlick (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I automatically registered what you meant to say without thinking about it, so wasn't misled, no worries. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to Miniature Australian Shepherd per the Google statistics above. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge leaning towards Miniature Australian Shepherd, appears to be the common name. But if Min. Amer. Shep surpasses it, the name should quickly be changed. (Summoned by Bot) Masebrock (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge to Mini Aus Shep. Its a small Australian Shepherd. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended discussion on merge

Some detailed rationale on why to merge, and in this particular direction:

• It really is of no encyclopedic consequence, at the whole-article level, whether one particular group of breeders wants to continue trying to get their dogs accepted as a smaller subbreed within the Australian Shepherd standard. Now that two major breed registries have accepted essentially indistinguishable dogs, ultimately from the same breeding program, but under the name Miniature American Shepherd and as a breed in its own right, this subbreed-of-Australian-Shepherd goal is extremely unlikely to happen, and we do not preserve articles on a what-if basis.
• What remains of the old Mini. Aus. Shep. breeding program, as distinct from the Mini. Am. Shep. breed, is not a notable and distinct topic in it's own right, it's simply a historical stage and name of the actually notable topic, the Mini. Am. Shep.
• This situation is not at all unusual, and we routinely merge such articles into the ones on the standardized breed that actually has recognition. E.g. Highland Lynx is a subtopic of Highlander cat and follows the same story as the competing minature shepherds idea, with Highland Lynx being the original plan, later becoming the Highlander Cat after initial approaches to recognition where rejected pending further development, but some people still prefer the old name, including one minor breed registry. It simply isn't sufficient grounds for a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that verges on a WP:POVFORK (somewhat less PoV now that I've removed emotive wording from the lead of both articles). Another example is the Cheetoh cat, a redirect to a section at Bengal cat (in this case the reverse situation, with Bengal being the older, established breed, and Cheetoh being one that people have been trying to establish for about a dozen years with very little traction). See also Kiger Mustang, the article on a population of feral mustangs from which two different breeding programs are trying to develop standardized breeds under different names, neither of which have their own articles, nor will any time soon). Another example is Manx cat, which includes information in several nascent sub-breeds or split-off breeds from it, only one of which has its own article, Cymric cat, because it has become widely and fully accepted in most major breed registries.
• The name "Miniature Australian Shepherd" has been obsolete since 1993 anyway. See Miniature American Shepherd#History for details. Short version: 1) Miniature Australian Shepherd, failed to gain recognition. 2) North American Shepherd, failed to gain recognition, and a some breeders didn't like the name. 3) Miniature American Shepherd, finally gained recognition, some breeders still like one or the other of the old names.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: It already has been fully recognized as a formal breed, under the name "Miniature American Shepherd", its third name (Mini. Aus. Shep., then North Am. Shep., then Mini. Am. Shep.). Much of the point of this merge is that the POVFORKing of these articles is confusing to readers and implies that there are two, even three, entirely separate breeds under discussion, none of them accepted as such. In reality, there's (as always) multiple bloodlines from multiple breeders, and the dogs are recognized by one and only one major kennel club, under one name, classified as a separate breed in the herding category, not as a sub-breed variant of the Aus. Shep., the original goal of some of the breeders back in the '80s. This isn't an "American English Coonhound" case; there's no international conflict, or inter-registry conflict, it's all-American, and all-AKC. The conflict is entirely between various small breeder clubs, zero of which are notable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, for some reason I was under the impression that it still hadn't been recognized by any of the major Kennel Clubs. I support the merge, anyway. We can redirect Mini Australian Shepherd here, and then if somebody ever does get anything recognized under that name, we can just deal with it when it happens, as Maproom said. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Wouldn't necessarily split even then, especially if [not-really-]outcrossing between the two were still permitted. Various breed registries use different names for the same breed, in dogs (e.g. German Shepherd, German Shepherd Dog, Alsatian), and in other animals. Different ones classify particular bloodlines as their own breed, e.g. the Cymric cat, or as as sub-breed (Manx Longhair, for the same cats), or don't recognize it all, but we don't need separate articles. If the bloodlines totally forked, then maybe do a separate article (as happened with the Ragdoll cat and Ragamuffin cat, and similar story with many dog and horse and other breeds, though I still think they can often be adequately treated at the same article). The presumption that every single "recognized" breed of everything is independently notable is very iffy, since the obscure ones often get no source coverage outside non-WP:INDY fancier and breeder publications that are funded by breeders (i.e., promoters of what is being written about), and entries in breed references (tertiary sources, some of which also accept paid entries), so WP:GNG isn't satisfied. For dogs, that probably won't be the case for any AKC or [UK] KC breed unless it is comparatively new and does not have in-depth coverage in mainstream, secondary sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I personally still lean toward keeping the article at Miniature Australian Shepherd, with redirects for 'miniature American shepherd'. From my perspective, this is like Newt Gingrich. That is not his official name and all references will support that. But it is the name of our article nonetheless, because that's what people call him. Australian shepherd is a widely known name, and American Shepherd does not exist. My belief is that if I could poll 1000 people from the anglosphere, the number who would understand Mini Aus. Shep. would be far higher than the number who would understand Mini Am. Shep, regardless of what AKC or anyone else says.

The fact that various clubs recognize the breed under the mini American shepherd name doesn't mean we can't have our article named miniature Australian Shepherd. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Merging resolution

As far as I can tell, consensus of both merge discussions was to merge this page into Miniature American Shepherd. Is there a reason that's not apparent for why this breed still has two articles? Thanks! Wasechun tashunka (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've now carried out the merge, as per consensus. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)