Talk:Working dog

Fighting dogs

There is no reason to include links to fighting dogs or the list of fighting dog breeds on this page. It is simply not relevant. Dsurber 04:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Therapy, Service, Detection, Guard Dogs

The edits made by User:Fastifex added several job descriptions that were already covered by existing job descriptions. There was a description of Service and Therapy dogs, already covered. A brief mention of war dogs which is subsumed by detection and guard dogs. And a mention of fighting dogs which is not a job. If anyone insists, we can use the same mechanism used in dog sports and add a link to dog fighting to the See Also section. Dsurber 13:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)hello im nick

Question:

Can we add information about the training and sale of working dogs. I'm not able to find much except that private breeders and private trainers do the work then sell the dog. Price unknown. Where do these working dogs come from and how do they get hired to a job? jkatian

Depends on the job. Very structured supply process for the US Military, etc. Less so for most everything else, much of build on relationships with areas of interest.--Woody Taylor 14:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Herding dogs:

Recently large breed sherperd dogs were given to some african tribes as a part of an experiment to conserve cheetah population. The dogs keep cheetahs away from the herd so natives have no longer need to kill them, in order to protect their food supply. If you agree this could be added as interesting info bit,( with sources of course.) Valdez from Hungary, 8 Oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.192.65 (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mascot

In what sense does a Mascot work? A mascot may even be an imaginary being.--Counsel (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing - I'm going to remove it from the list DeSelb (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading With Rover

In Seattle and a couple other cities dogs have been while teaching children to read in the classroom. It is a cute fuzzy story so there is some local press for the individual organizations. Reading With Rover doesn't look to meet the notability requirements per WP:ORG but the deletion discussion ended without consensus. The one line stub has been sitting again without any improvement so I was thinking about merging it to the working dogs list here. That will preserve the text and make mention of the trend. I would appreciate any thoughts and any ideas on additional articles to make mention of it.Cptnono (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Many citations have been provided in the discussions demonstrating that the topic meets the notability requirements. I think that claim is misplaced and that the tag should be removed from the article. That said, I do not see a problem with the merge. A redirect would be nice as well. Wakablogger2 (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to add inline citaitons or else it is not verifiable to the reader. Also, a result of "no consensus" to delete does not mean this should not be merged. If oyu want this article so bad oyu need to improve it. If it is not improved it willl be merged.Cptnono (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I have no problem with merging. But the tag is NOT appropriate. A tag that requests additional sources is appropriate, but the tag you added claims that the notability requirements have not been met. This HAS been discussed. Wakablogger2 (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No you are reading it wrong. The article needed sources to verify notability included in the article. There was also not consensus on it being notable. Regardsless, if you are OK with merging I'll just do it and the tag won't matter.23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It was DISCUSSED and the tag is not correct. In any case, it seems clear that you are determined to push your opinion and eliminate the article, so I think merging is the most stress-free way of dealing with the situation. Wakablogger2 (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you appear to be stressed but the options available to the administrator when closing a deletion discussion are keep, delete, or no consensus. The reasoning for not deleting the page was no consensus. Just because you want it really really bad and believe it doesn't make it so. I have redirected it and put in more information than was in the original article and actually used a source. There were several months where that could have been done in its own article and you didn't attempt it.Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, your theory about me not wanting the merger is pure imagination. An aggressive attitude is not helpful because it discourages others. In the future, I hope you will read the discussions more carefully and respond in a positive, collaborative manner because it is obvious you do a lot of work on Wikipedia. Wakablogger2 (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I never asserted that you didn't want the merger and have no idea where you came up with that. The only reason I pulled the trigger is because you gave the go ahead. I also have tagged and opened discussions in an effort to figure out if the subject matter met requirments along with seeing if improvment was possible. If you spent more time making an article (or even requesting it through alternative means) instead of screwing around in the discussion pages for several months (1 single line without a source is not OK for that much time) then it might have worked out differently. Sorry if you are discouraged but if you go into a discussion assuming the worst it is alot more likely for it to turn out that way in your head. Go reread what I have said on this talk page and the deletion discussion you might have a different view. Here are some tidbits to consider: "An alternative to deletion could be allowing a stub based on this Seattle based company and the couple other similar programs found elsewhere." "Personally, I do find it interesting and think it would be great if someone could find [sources], and "As I have stated, if someone reworks the scope fo the article (my rough drafts have all failed) I would be less inclined to be pushing for a deletion."Cptnono (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I find myself completely stunned by your conclusions and assumptions. (One example is that you said "Just because you want it really really bad" and yet claim that you didn't say that I didn't want the merger.) I will again say that your actions have been very aggressive and a more collaborative tone would have had a much better result. I hope you will do so in the future. Wakablogger2 (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You obviousley didn't even reread the discussions. Nothing I can do to help that. What I can do in the future is what I did here. If an article is no good seek to have it improved or removed.

I hope you understand at no time did I attack you or the organization but a single line with 0 sources with possible notability concerns is not good enough. Askign for verification of its notability is not aggressive. It is something that happens on Wikipedia for the betterment of the project.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Categorising jobs performed

The list of jobs performed could possibly be organised by the main abilities used for the job, rather than being a random order list. eg:strength pulling (sled/draught dogs, turnspit dogs), scent detection (hunting scent hounds, drug detection dogs) sight, prey drive, agility, general (several abilities).OnHawkspur (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Merging service dogs, guide dogs, and therapy dogs into one entry.

Due to the similarity of the jobs themselves, their overlapping boundaries in both breed employed and historical origins I feel that it would be best to merge them into one category of breeds established to assist disables individuals, similar to that of hunting dogs and war dogs. Aye-Caramba (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)