This template is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs articles
Is there some recognized registry that defines four groups of terriers in five groups like this? (Hunting / Fighting / Companion-Toy / Working)
Typically, terrier people only talk about long legged and short legged terriers.
Also, how were the groupings decided upon? Why is a Black and Tan a "hunting" and not a "working" terrier? How did miniature fox arrive in the companion/toy grouping? Why isn't the Amstaff ("the nursemaid dog" of WWI) in the Companion group? What disallows a Hunting terrier from being a Working terrier, when hunting is its "work"?
I don't want to say the groupings are completely random nonsense until I see how it is documented, but it does look like completely random nonsense.
OK, I looked, I cannot find any reputable, major multi-breed kennel clubs that subdivide terriers in this manner (Hunting / Fighting / Companion-Toy / Working) although I have not looked at negligibly small registries or the puppy mill and for-pay 'registries' where you can pretty much 'register' anything anyway you want.
I also do not find any recognized authority on terriers that divides them up this way.
Here are relevant links:
Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI): has a Terrier Group; sections "Large and medium-sized Terriers", "Small-sized Terriers", "Bull type Terriers", "Toy Terriers". (http://www.fci.be/nomenclatures.asp?lang=en&sel=0)
The Kennel Club (Kennel Club UK): has a Terrier Group, does not subdivide terriers into categories. "The Kennel Club was founded in 1873 and is the governing body of dogs in the United Kingdom."(http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1199)
I would suggest eliminating the sections altogether as they are not generally used. Alternately, the FCI sections would be more in keeping with Wikipedia's use of no original research and striving for verifiable accuracy.
Hafwyn (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the grouping of terrier breeds by FCI section is too restrictive, I can see the intent which is an obvious improvement upon the previous groupings, but it is too focused on the European breeds and the show dog fanciers groupings to the detriment of the working and general pet owning communities.
_part_2.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}