Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on American Veterinary Medical Association on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of a American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) literature review on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § American Veterinary Medical Association. — Newslinger talk 01:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Dogsbite.org controversy

Is there anyone here willing to solve the Dogsbite.org controversy regarding the neutrality of the sources and what is and not acceptable. There has being a prolong debate at Talk:Dogsbite.org if anyone would like to contribute in helping resolve the issue it would be most welcome.193.164.114.35 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Dogbreed template

Hello. I don't know why I don't manage to formate the dog breed infobox in the article Pražský Krysařík. It does not show the section "classification and standards". I tried to check several other articles that use the same template, but they seem to be fine and I have a problem only with this article. In case if someone could help me, this is the section I am trying to add there: "|fcigroup = 9 |fcisection = 9 Continental Toy Spaniel, Russian Toy and Prague Ratter |fcinum = 363 (provisional) |fcistd = |akcgroup = |akcstd = |ankcgroup = |ankcstd = |ckcgroup = |ckcstd = |kcukgroup = |kcukstd = |nzkcgroup = |nzkcstd = |ukcgroup = |ukcstd = |notrecognized =" --Canarian (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Canarian, I hope you do not mind me moving the conversation here. From what I can tell, you require the URL link to the breed standard to make it work. I think I have fixed it. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC).

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No source for Drafting dog

There are no live sources for Drafting dog --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Should Dogsbite.org be retitled?

Does anyone think Dogsbite.org should be retitled to DogsBite.org as that is how the website is titled? What are other users opinions? Dwanyewest (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Nah...the website is www.dogsbite.org in lowercase. When you type either in the search bar, the correct page comes up. Our time would be better spent fixing the issues at that article. Just my 5¢ worth. Atsme Talk 📧 17:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Atsme Maybe DogsBite.org should be a redirect as a compromise a debate seems to have started on Talk:Dogsbite.org. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Change "Rescue Dog"

The proper term for a dog saved from a shelter or abuse is a RESCUED dog, not a rescue dog. Please use proper grammar. A rescue dog would do rescue work, not be rescued.

Actually, it's called a "rescue" as are horses and other rescued animals. For WP purposes, common name article titles would be Animal rescue (dog), and Animal rescue (equine) and so on. SPCA calls it animal rescue and they are commonly referred to as rescue dogs, rescue horses, rescue cats. Dogs that rescue people are called search and rescue dogs (SAR). Atsme Talk 📧 15:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Swinford Bandog

An article of interest to the project—Swinford Bandog—has been proposed for merging with Bandog. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Kaelin up for deletion

IMO, well sourced article about a geneticist. But you can help improve it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee Good Article nomination

FYI, I've nominated Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee, the 2009 Westminster Best in Show winner, for Good Article. However, I was at a bit of a loss for the category in which to nominate him. I ulimately went with "Culture, sociology and psychology", but if anyone has any thoughts for a different, better category, let me know. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Natural Sciences: Biology & Medicine is what you seek. William Harristalk 09:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Fixing of Paisley Terrier article

A small part of the last section of the Paisley Terrier article has been deleted. Can it be fixed?Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Malcolmlucascollins, please provide the WP:DIFF so we will know to what you are referring. Atsme Talk 📧 12:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Bulldogge Brasileiro

Hello, I nominated the article Bulldogge Brasileiro for an AFD as not notable due to only one minor breeder and a lack of citations. The article notes there are only fifty dogs of this rare breed. It is to soon for a Wikipedia article to me; however, others should provide input to buildup a consensus, one way or another. In addition, we could merge article to Bulldog breeds, to keep the information in Wikipedia without having its own article. Aquataste (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Aquataste, I agree with you and deleted the section for the reasons you mentioned. Please see my comment on the article TP. I am also going to research other articles that fail GNG, V, OR as it appears WP is being used to give credibility to non-established types of dogs. I am pinging William Harris and Montanabw for more input. I will be on my laptop in a bit and will ping more editors who have an interest in this topic area. Atsme Talk 📧 12:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Atsme hi you misunderstand the article deletion consensus was to merge the article stand alone page to Bulldog breeds. SEE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulldogge Brasileiro. Aquatastetalk 13:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I saw that, but that doesn't make it compliant with WP:PAG. The AfD said merge, but there was no discussion on the TP of the bulldog article as to what should be merged. It is not unusual for merge discussions on the TP of the recipient article to eliminate all or most of the material, especially that which is noncompliant. Atsme Talk 📧 13:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I recommend that any text taken from what was once the Bulldogge Brasileiro article should be able to WP:CITE expert WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY. There are no reliable sources offered in that article, in my opinion. You have now raised the issue of dubious "breed clubs" and their claims elsewhere; most commendable. William Harristalk 08:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Chinese TianYuan Dog

Anyone care to try to evaluate whether this dog is notable? All sources are in Chinese, so Chinese language skills would be a big help! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Re-opened an AfD

Attention Project Members - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catahoula bulldog - please review the cited sources, the article itself, and weigh-in at the AfD. Atsme Talk 📧 19:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

AfD:Olde Boston Bulldogge

Olde Boston Bulldogge has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited at the article's entry at AfD. Cavalryman (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Olde English Bulldogge

Coupla things:

  1. Read Breeding business which appears to be a clickbait site but the information in that particular article about the Olde English Bulldogge is consistent with other RS I've read. Would appreciate your input.
  2. Can we get a headcount of our active project members? Add your user name in the following subsection
  3. We need to sort through the sources cited in our dog articles and determine which ones truly are RS vs those that do not meet the criteria.

Atsme Talk 📧 22:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I suspect most of the information (particularly about the breed’s history) on the breeding business page is correct, but I feel it would not pass muster at RSN. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC).
I agree. Hopefully we can find RS to corroborate what breedingbusiness.com has published. Atsme Talk 📧 12:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Active project members

AFD

wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennel Club Books (2nd_nomination) - of interest to this project. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumina Media Atsme Talk 📧 14:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

DRV

At the suggestion of the closer, I have requested a review of the "no consensus" close of Catahoula bulldog - see filing here - August 23, 2019. Atsme Talk 📧 17:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

If these guys are not going to delete it - and given that there was no consensus, that is probably the right call - I say cut it into ribbons by deleting all unsourced material. An article of only 4-5 sentences is the next best thing to a deletion. William Harristalk 12:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, William - I think as a project team we can set some standards (via local consensus, of course) and establish guidelines for WP:N the way other project teams have done, particularly sports. Project Equine collaborated well in establishing guidelines, and I see no reason why we can't do the same here. We just need some common sense, NPOV input with adherence to our core content policies. I will start something in my sandbox and invite all to contribute before we go live. Does that sound like a plan? Atsme Talk 📧 14:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
In addition to you William Harris, other excellent editors to help with this are: Montanabw and Cavalryman. Feel free to ping anyone else you believe can help. Hopefully, other team members are watching the page and will join us. Atsme Talk 📧 14:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, it may become a little easier pending what happens at RSN, but I agree with William, if the review is unsuccessful we should reduce the article to a one or two sentence stub. Cavalryman (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC).
It appears DRV will endorse the closer’s review. When editing the article, keep in mind the two AfDs regarding Kennel Club Books. An editor provided this link. The article speaks to the explosion of websites about dogs, few of which are reliable; therefore, it is all the more important to conduct proper research when an article is created, or material is added to an existing article. I’ve started building a list of links at User:Atsme/sandbox. As we establish our project guidelines for GNG, quality RS will be of the utmost importance. I cannot stress the latter enough, especially as it relates to avoiding anecdotal material that fails WP:V. Atsme Talk 📧 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixing Celtic Hounds

Can someone fix the last sentence of "In legends" in the article "Celtic Hounds"? I accidentally erased it and don't know what the rest of the sentence was, nor how to put back what I erased.2600:1700:7E31:5710:B869:B2CD:111B:366 (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for raising it here. Your grammatical improvements are also valuable. William Harris • (talk) • 12:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Dog page scheme

Were Can I find the scheme for a page about a dog species? Thanks. --Pierpao (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

What scheme are you referring to, Pierpao? I'm not quite understanding your question. Atsme Talk 📧 18:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
A dog breed template, perhaps? William Harristalk 12:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Atsme User:William Harris Thanks. A scheme of sections titles. A template in not wikipedian sense. A model, an example to uniform pages in it wikipedia. To use in each page the same sections in the same order. If you don't have one, a well written page of a dog breed would works fine too. Where can I find it?--Pierpao (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Pierpao, see Poodle, Spaniel, and Dachshund. And while you’re here, don’t hesitate to join our project! Happy editing!! Atsme Talk 📧 10:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple AfDs

Three articles on bully-types have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC).

AfD

Of interest to the project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Bulldog Registry Atsme Talk 📧 10:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus was delete. Atsme Talk 📧 05:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

AFD

Please weigh-in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olde Boston Bulldogge. Atsme Talk 📧 12:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Consensus was delete. Atsme Talk 📧 05:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

More AfDs

Three more dog articles have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC).

AfD:Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog

Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment a the article's entry at AfD. Cavalryman (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Stalled GAC

Project members - your participation is requested at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Request for local consensus - Atsme Talk 📧 19:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Registries

It would be helpful if people could create articles on any notable registries that do not yet have an article. For example, Mantiqueira Shepherd Dog mentions the registry SOBRACI (Sociedade Brasileira de Cinofilia). There's an article in the Portuguese Wikipedia at pt:Sociedade Brasileira de Cinofilia, but perhaps the group isn't notable enough to warrant an article. World Kennel Union doesn't have an article, but the Italian article it:World Kennel Union might be a good starting point for an article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Eastmain, would that be the same as Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI), aka the World Canine Organization? Atsme Talk 📧 00:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Atsme I think it is a rival organization that deals with breeds the FCI doesn't recognize. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
An analogy - perhaps not the best, but an analogy nonetheless - dog registries, dog breeds, individual dogs, dog types, dog shows - liken it to sports leagues, types of sports played, pro-players, high school sports, college sports, little league, little league players, and so on. The FCI and its 80+/- members worldwide, and the American Kennel Club (AKC), Canadian Kennel Club (CKC), United Kennel Club (UKC), and The Kennel Club (KC) are the pro-leagues or official registries, the owners are the recognized breeders/kennels, the coaches are the recognized dog show judges, and the players are the dogs (not literally but per the analogy 😊), the respective teams are the "breeds", the games we watch them play are the dog shows. They first must pass GNG to be in the pedia, but we also have WP:Notability (sports) which adds a few specifics for inclusion. What I believe we need to establish for WP:Project Dogs is a set of our own notability guidelines to accompany GNG similar to what has been done by various other projects. I'm of the mind that anything on the fringe of FCI, AKC, CKC, UKC, and KC are not automatically notable unless they meet certain qualifications per WP:PAG. From my perspective, we must exercise caution when the only sources we have to establish notability are anecdotal reports, non-independent sources and discreet marketing of a small non-notable group of individuals. We must avoid making WP a launching pad to help promote and give unrecognized/non-notable dog types publicity which only serves to feed potential scam sites, fly-by-night & "show me the money" kennels and breed registries, and puppy mills. See User:Atsme/sandbox. Atsme Talk 📧 14:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

My question is about Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States/Revision2 - what is the purpose of this list? My first concern is over the naming of dog breeds that are not actual breeds, and the incidents of mistaken identities which I've demonstrated above. Atsme Talk 📧 22:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like it was started with the intention of moving to article space. I personally don’t think any such an article merits inclusion and would support a deletion nomination. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC).
This list was put together by a valued Wikipedia collaborator of mine, the purpose unknown, he has not been active in over 18 months, my personal emails to him have gone unanswered, and I fear the worst for him. Delete. William Harristalk 10:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggested move for List of dog breeds

Of interest to project members - please consider weighing in on this suggestion at Talk:List of dog breeds#Not a list of dog "breeds". Atsme Talk 📧 18:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing "Category:Dog breeds" from dog pages?

I think we need some more eyes on this. A user named CountessCobra (talk · contribs) is removing "Category:Dog breeds" from hundreds of dog breed pages. I asked them why and they responded

Read the instructions at the top of the Category: "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories."

Is this the right move? I thought categories were not lists, and lists not categories, both are equally welcome in Wikipedia and one shouldn't be removed in favor of the other. (I read that somewhere.) If someone adds an article and tags it as "Category:Dog breeds" but doesn't add it to some "list" somewhere, then the article is thankfully not lost/orphaned (until the day someone deletes its category). What remains after CountessCobra's removal is a series of "Dog breeds originating in country..." which is useless to find ALL the dog breeds. (Or maybe there's a way I can click on the subcategory and get a list of ALL the dog breeds, but I haven't figured any way of doing that. Is there a way?) I like the country lists, but they are were in addition to the main category of dog breeds. It would be one thing if there were just a dozen countries, but there are scores of them. I like the category system and don't think this is a right action. But what do others in the project think? 107.77.192.155 (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, 107.77.192.155 - if the thought hasn't already entered your mind, may I encourage you to register for a WP user account? Your id will remain anonymous under whatever psuedonym you choose. There are advantages to registering per Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration. Are you a former registered user or have you always edited as an IP? Regarding your question about categories, it appears a new user has tackled a complex task. Also, we need to make sure that the articles categorized as dog breeds actually are officially recognized as a breed rather than a type of dog. Atsme Talk 📧 17:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully, none of that answers my question. Your last sentence raises a different issue entirely, which does not appear to be the focus of CC's edits. Only interested in your opinion about the removal of the Category:Dog breeds. 107.77.192.155 (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
If someone wants a list of all the breeds then they can look at List_of_dog_breeds. The dog breeds Category didn't contain every dog breed even before I personally moved any to subcategories. The category instructions seem to have been implemented on a fairly random basis. I'm generally avoiding messing around with type/breed definitions and generally just removing the parent category from breed pages often in several subcategories. CountessCobra (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
You can use the command incategory:"dog breeds" in search box too--Pierpao (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Merritt Clifton or Animals 24/7

Should there be an article created based on Animals 24/7 have an article there is enough third person articles about Merritt Clifton and animal 24/7 to make an article. What are other peoples opinions? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dwayne. From my point of view, I would have to ask you if that website provides expert WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY? You may be able to answer your own question. William Harristalk 04:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I will add that having been involved as a reviewer at NPP and AfC, I'm of the mind that it will likely fail WP:GNG. Atsme Talk 📧 18:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Please see Talk:Louisiana_Catahoula_Leopard_dog#Discussion. I'm of the mind that considering the lack of activity and/or RS needed to improve the article, it would be/should be an uncontroversial merge. Atsme Talk 📧 16:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

American Dog Breeders Association

I listed this at WP:CP because of serious copyright violations. A rewrite has been proposed, but it seems so non-neutral and unencyclopaedic in tone that I am reluctant to use it. Would anyone care to work on it, or propose a completely different rewrite? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, JLAN. Atsme Talk 📧 01:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers - just an FYI - I've been working on it User:Atsme/ADBA. Will add a their Breed Standards and a legal section with info about the bans. Project members are welcome to contribute. Atsme Talk 📧 04:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Weren't you supposed to do the edits in the article space where the copyright overlay-banner directs you to do so? That way, each edit is correctly attributed to the editor who did each contribution, page histories can be reviewed, and so on. See Help:Page history. If you copy-and-paste the text of an article to another workspace that's not even a draft workspace, then have multiple editors work on it there, there is no way to merge that back together into any sort of decipherable page history. Justlettersandnumbers, can you give some direction here? 107.77.192.155 (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, 107.77.192.155. As long the sandbox is edited only by Atsme there's no problem if the content is then copy-pasted over the existing – all edits are attributed to the same editor. It gets more complicated, but not irredeemably so, if other editors also edit that sandbox. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't realize we could edit what's on the TP. I was following the suggestion "propose a completely different rewrite." Apologies if I misunderstood. If the article TP is clear of copyvio why not del revert the article to maintain all the credits and replace it with what's on the TP, and then we can edit directly? Atsme Talk 📧 13:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
That makes even more sense. Justlettersandnumbers? 107.77.192.155 (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) Does anyone what the status of American Dog Breeders Association is it gonna be rewritten? Dwanyewest (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like someone did a rewrite and it is sitting there. Rosebud0214 (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Evolution of dog breeds

Recently an article has been created titled Evolution of dog breeds, that looks very much like a WP:FORK from Dog breed or contains content that should be merged with Dog breed. We also have Purebred dog covering much the same material. Any views please? William Harristalk 03:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

William Harris, this is a clear content fork from dog breed and I would support a merger or a simple redirect. Looking at the history I imagine it was created as a university assignment with little regard for pre-existing content. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC).
I concur - the editor who created Evolution of dog breeds possibly did not know that the other articles even existed. I will propose a merge. William Harristalk 04:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This issue has now been addressed. William Harristalk 23:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A relevant RM

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog#Requested move 8 November 2019.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Bulldog type

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Bulldog type#Simplification of list. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC).

List of molosser breeds

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Molosser#Removal of list / merger proposal. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC).

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussions

Merger discussions of articles of interest to the project:

Project members are invited to participate in both discussions. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC). Added nomination. Cavalryman (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC).

Redundent categories

What are project member's thoughts on retaining Category:Molossers and Category:Mountain dogs? The grouping of breeds as "Molossers" and "Mountain dogs" are modern creations of breed registries, not a single source previously used on the now merged page Mountain dog actually used the term "Mountain dog", whilst Molosser is simply an FCI grouping for anything that's big. Cavalryman (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC).

A search on Mountain dog shows it to be a redirect to Livestock guardian dog. The article Dog type does not list Mountain dog, it lists Livestock guardian dog. Therefore, the category should be removed. A search on Molossers shows it to be a redirect to Molossus (dog). The article Dog type does list Molossers, but the link leads to the extinct breed. A breed is not a dog type, therefore the category should be removed, and the Molossers entry on Dog type also removed. William Harristalk 08:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Atsme Talk 📧 11:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Restoration activity at Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog with poor/no sources in an attempt to establish that dog type as a breed. I just reverted 2 edits, and suggested discussion on TP. Weren’t we supposed to trim that article down considerably? William Harris, Cavalryman?? Atsme Talk 📧 01:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Will add it to my watch list and assist. From memory FOARP has access to two full page articles about the breed in reliably sourced publications, perhaps they could assist. Currently only one of the sources appears to be reliable. Cavalryman (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC).

A couple more AfDs

Two articles of interest to the project have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC).

AfD:Husky beagle

Another of interest to the project:

Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC).

AfD:Fatal dog attacks in the United States

Fatal dog attacks in the United States has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment at the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC).

Some gundog AfDs

Three articles of interest to the project have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC).

Collie AfDs

Two articles of interest to the project have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC).

AfDs:Crossbreeds

Five articles of interest to the project have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment. Cavalryman (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC).

"Bulldogge Brasileiro" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bulldogge Brasileiro. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Cavalryman (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Pet store

This article was proposed for deletion by a newbie who notes its poor state. Can you all please help team up to add all reliable sources to fix this article? Bearian (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Unclear on "a newbie" relevance. William Harristalk 02:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

AfD:Kyi-Leo

Kyi-Leo has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment a the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC).

AfDs:Beaglier

Atsme just thinking about all the work Cavalryman has done, and he's still going strong! Atsme Talk 📧 21:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Fifteen Sixteen Seventeen articles of interest to the project have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment at their combined entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC).

Toy dog AfDs

Two articles of interest to the project have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC).

Proposal to create WP:N (canine) or (dogs)

William Harris, Cavalryman, Justlettersandnumbers, Dawnleelynn, Montanabw and other project team members - you are invited to review the proposed WP:N (canine) or WP:N (dogs) guideline at User:Atsme/sandbox and share your thoughts and concerns on the TP of that draft. Once the draft is finalized, approved and supported by consensus, we can simply move it using one of the proposed titles. Based on some of the comments at our AfDs, proposed merges, etc., it appears the timing couldn’t be better for this much needed guideline. We should probably also consider a list like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Atsme Talk 📧 12:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

AfD for sled dog type

- sled dog types, an area of interest to the project

Thank you. Atsme Talk 📧 13:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

AfD:List of dog breeds recognized by the FCI

List of dog breeds recognized by the FCI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment a the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC).

Template for discussion: Template:AKC groups

Template:AKC groups has been nominated for deletion. Project members are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC).

Merger proposal:Foundation Stock Service

An article of interest to the project—Foundation Stock Service—has been proposed for merging with American Kennel Club. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC).

Various AFC redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

Various redirects have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment at the group entry at RfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC).

Two AfDs

Two articles of interest to the project have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC).

Merger proposal:Mountain dog

An article of interest to the project—Mountain dog—has been proposed for merging with Livestock guardian dog. Project members are invited to participate at Talk:Livestock guardian dog#Merger proposal. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC).

The merger discussion continues at Talk:Livestock guardian dog#Merger proposal, project members are invited to participate and give their opinions on the notability of sources. Cavalryman (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC).

The Canine Barnstar

Here is Template:The Canine Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Templates. Jerm (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC:Use of sources to establish a "mountain dog" type

An RfC has been made at Talk:Livestock guardian dog#RfC:Use of sources to establish a "mountain dog" type on the use of sources to establish the notability of "mountain dogs". Cavalryman (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC).

Merger proposal:Obedience training

An article of interest to the project—obedience training—has been proposed for merging with dog training. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Pastoral dogs

I am beginning to wonder if pastoral dogs are a thing (and if the page meets GNG). Certainly herding dogs and livestock guardian dogs have plenty of sources, but the only source for pastoral dogs is one added by me, David Hancock's Dogs of the shepherds: a review of the pastoral breeds.[1] Despite using the phrase "pastoral dog" in the book several times, Hancock usually says "pastoral breeds" and very definitely keeps the two types separate, really the book is about dogs used by shepherds across the world. I suspect the page was created because The Kennel Club has a "pastoral group" which encompasses both herding dogs and livestock guardian dogs.

Before proceeding, do any project members have any sources supporting pastoral dogs are a recognised thing? If not I think we should look to either redirect (somewhere) or nominate the article at AfD, further Template:Pastoral dogs will need to be split. Cavalryman (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC).

One source fails GNG, and I believe that your assumption that the article was created because of the KC pastoral group is correct. The article has remained a stub since it was created in 2006, it is not going to be developed further as there are no other sources, and it receives on average 28 views per day - AfD it.
We are fortunate enough to have 2 template editors helping with the Dogs project, so a split of the template could be handled inhouse. William Harristalk 11:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ David Hancock, Dogs of the shepherds: a review of the pastoral breeds, Marlborough: Crowood Press, 2014, ISBN 978-1-84797-809-7.

AfD:Pastoral dog

Pastoral dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment a the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC).

RfD:List of dog breeds recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club

The redirect List of dog breeds recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment a the redirect's entry at RfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC).

Maltese dog breed

Your input at Talk:Maltese (dog)#Italian translation of name would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

RfD:List of dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club

The redirect List of dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment a the redirect's entry at RfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC).

AfD:Working dog

Working dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment a the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC).

German Shepherd infobox image

A discussion is occurring about the infobox image in the German Shepherd article, project member’s are invited to participate at Talk:German Shepherd#Example Photo is pretty ugly. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC).

Infobox dog breed: Patronage parameter

Project members are invited to participate in a discussion about the patronage parameter in Template:Infobox dog breed at Template talk:Infobox dog breed#Patronage parameter. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC).

RfD:Bullbras

The redirect Bullbras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment at the redirect's entry at RfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC).

Merger proposal:Breed standard

An article of interest to the project—Breed standard—has been proposed for merging with Breed type. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC).

WikiProject Dogs - article assessment - Importance Scale

Some time ago I placed a Project-semi-active template on this project. Recently, a group of people came together to remove that template and approach this project with great zeal, as can be demonstrated on this Talk page. As we make our way towards a New Year, we should now take a look at how we are rating articles on the Importance Scale, of which the not-well-exampled guide can found here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dogs/Assessment#Importance_scale.

A very long time ago it was decided that this project should not only include the domestic dog (woof!) but encompass all members of the family Canidae. That change was made, but the Importance Scale was not amended and it is still based on the domestic dog, which is given a supreme place in the table. I propose that this scale needs to be updated to reflect what the project now covers, with a draft provided for discussion/amendment below. Please mull over it during the holiday period, and we shall discuss it later in the New Year. William Harristalk 08:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


For further guidance please refer to Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic

Importance parameter values (Category:Dogs articles by importance)
Value Meaning Examples Category
Top "Key" articles, considered indispensable The family Canidae down to species level e.g. Grey wolf, Red fox. Also includes domestic Dog, which is arguably its own species (C. familiaris). Top-importance Dogs articles
High High-priority topics and needed subtopics of "key" articles, often with a broad scope; needed to complement any general understanding of the field All of the subspecies belonging to the species above. All of the "dog types" being one step above a breed e.g. Companion dog, Guide dog, Herding dog etc. High-importance Dogs articles
Mid Mid-priority articles on more specialised (sub-)topics; possibly more detailed coverage of topics summarised in "key" articles, and as such their omission would not significantly impair general understanding Individual dog breeds e.g. Labrador Retriever, landraces e.g. Scotch Collie. Mid-importance Dogs articles
Low While still notable, these are highly-specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles) Cross-breeds e.g. Beaglier. All forms of dog racing, judging and individual cups/events/awards e.g. Greyhound racing, Sheepdog trial, Dog-show judge, Fox hunting, Individual packs e.g. History of wolves in Yellowstone, Quorn Hunt. Individual dogs and books/stories/songs/poems/TV shows about dogs e.g. Bamse the St Bernard. Veterinary or dog biology related subjects e.g. Canine distemper. Dog food, Obedience school. Extinct canids/breeds e.g. Dire wolf. All lists. Low-importance Dogs articles
NA Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc not applicable not applicable
?? Subject importance has not yet been assessed not applicable not applicable
William Harris, I fully support what you have been doing and what you have done above, I really like the cascading species, subspecies/type, breed, individual animals. I think we also need to give some consideration to some other aspects of the topic area including specific dog uses (eg Guide dog), dog sports (eg Sheepdog trial, Fox hunting) and specific populations (eg History of wolves in Yellowstone, Quorn Hunt), and probably specify in the table. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC).
Agreed; we can make the table as specific as we like to help guide future assessors. Its size does not matter. William Harristalk 22:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I have dropped these in the above "live update" table; let me know if you disagree with the priorities. William Harristalk 08:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello All, by now the holiday-makers should have returned and it is now an appropriate time to discuss the above Importance Scale. There has been only one comment since I raised this issue, and if I hear no more over the next week then I intend to implement it. William Harristalk 08:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been having a little think about the above and have some ideas/thought bubbles.
Top – Good.
High – This is something I have been thinking about before this discussion, is there any value in trying to tease out dog types to distinguish between related types (eg sighthounds, terriers etc) and functions (eg companion dogs, attack dogs, anti-tank dogs detection dogs etc) the latter comprising not necessarily related types of similar ancestry but animals of various backgrounds trained to perform a task. This has the potential to be complicated when you get genetically related types of shared ancestry that perform (and are named for) a function (eg livestock guardian dogs, sled dogs). And then we have broad terms (often with few sources) that encompass a broad number of types and functions (eg hunting dogs & working dogs). If done I suspect some of the functions should be dropped a rung, how to do so consistently will take some consideration.
Mid – A few thoughts:
  • I am likely displaying prejudices here, but I feel (albeit not strongly) designer dog crossbreeds should be low importance.
  • Further I think articles like dog food and obedience school are low importance, humanity and dogs evolved together for millenia without either and in much of the world they continue to do without both.
  • I think all individual populations of canids should be low importance (eg both individual packs of wolves and packs of hounds)
Low – Personally I think all forms of dog sport should be elevated to mid importance.
I hope I have not just complicated this process. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
Without prejudicing further comments from other editors, I have moved Dog food and Obedience school down which were my thoughts as well (these were originally at Mid level). For the other items I would like to wait and see what other editors may be able to contribute. In my view, there would be no articles on cross-breeds other than the List of cross-breeds - it is not as if we do not know how they came into being - and Low is reasonable to me. Regarding the High items, I believe that such a split would be too complex for your average Wikipedia article assessor, but someone may have an idea. William Harristalk 08:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree the split of dog type will be a complex manoeuvre and any attempt would require very precise language. I have been going through a number of those "dog jobs" and most of the articles do not actually state they are a type, but something like "an X is a dog that is specifically trained to", further the few sources I have looked at do not classify them as a "type" either, I suspect this is an on-Wikipedia attempt at categorisation (both in terms of Category:Dog types and things like the list I removed from dog type). I am thinking about splitting Category:Dog types to reflect this, as the categorisation doesn’t reflect the pages or sources. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC).
I note that the category dog types includes the Chien Bateke but the link shows it to be a landrace, and the dingo is listed as a "dog type" - that category needs a thorough cleanup. Regarding dogs in sports and events, I will requote you with "...humanity and dogs evolved together for millenia without either and in much of the world they continue to do without both...." A counter-position might be that as it stands now, Mid-priority will include 430 articles on breeds, plus an unknown (but small?) number on landraces - there may be room for more?
Regarding the High-priority debate about distinguish between related types (eg sighthounds, terriers etc) and functions (eg companion dogs, attack dogs, anti-tank dogs detection dogs etc), each of these groupings will include more than one breed. Given that breeds are allocated at Mid-priority, and these groupings are one step above a single breed, I am happy for all of them to reside at Top-priority. There will not be a great number of these anyhow. William Harristalk 08:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Unless anyone else has some suggestions let’s not worry about the dog type/function just for now, I am thinking about how to tackle it and once done we can revisit, as you say it’s not hundreds of pages. My thinking is functions don’t necessarily relate to breeds (and even types), but it can wait.
I had a memory of there being some articles about certain wolf packs but I must be mistaken, I cannot find anything now so forget that one.
Re dog sports, I suppose I was thinking predominantly about dog related field sports, without which hounds, gundogs and terriers would not exist but there are not many pages in this category and a look at List of dog sports has made me rethink, they should remain low priority. Cavalryman (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC).
Many thanks. I concur that if some criteria for a dog type/function reclassification emerges in the future, we can implement it at that time. The importance scale is a "living" document, and reallocations can occur depending on the priorities of the project at a particular time. What we have now is a vast improvement on what was there before and it is subject to review in the future. William Harristalk 06:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The amendments to the Importance Scale have now been implemented, and this task is complete. William Harristalk 08:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD:27 January 2020

Three dog articles have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC).

Category:livestock guardians has been nominated for discussion

Category:livestock guardians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Currently proposing to containerize and split the Category:Livestock guardians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to make livestock guardians refer to all livestock guardian species (non-dog and dog alike), and to create the new containerized category for livestock guardian dogs within it. This will hopefully take guardian animals currently categorized in Category:Working animals out of there into this more specific, but still broad category. Wcconey (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal:Freighting

An article of interest to the project—Freighting—has been proposed for merging with Sled dog. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC).

Merger proposal:Service dog

An article of interest to the project—Service dog—has been proposed for merging with Assistance dog. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC).

To Do List - back in operation

Hello All. Several of us have been working behind the scenes to get a few things that fall under this project more functional.

  • The Importance Scale has been used to review a number of our articles, and we now have 41 assessed at Top and 74 at High. There is a further 706 at Mid and 2,248 at Low now being reviewed. There are 793 redirects etc., and there were also a number of articles badged under this project which should not have been as these did not relate to the canines. Total articles stand at 3,862.
  • Now that we know what our most important articles are, I am pleased to announce that the To Do List that appears on the project main page immediately under the Project Box (on the top right-hand side of that page) is back in operation and in need of a revamp. Does anyone have any views on how we proceed with this and what should be included as priorities? Data can be found in the box on the top of the Assessment page. William Harristalk 03:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
William Harris, apologies I missed this when you posted it, you have done a truely remarkable job. I will have a think about where to go from here but to start I think we should delete everything from Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Requested articles and remove the requests parameter from the template, there is nothing of value there and if someone wants to make a request they can bring it to this talk page. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC).
Thanks, and agreed - that parameter dates to a time that WikiProject Dogs was young and articles needed to be created, now we have over 3,000 of them. William Harristalk 17:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Old merger proposal: Abruzzese Mastiff

In 2011 I proposed merging Abruzzese Mastiff with Maremma Sheepdog. That proposal received one solitary support a couple of years later. I'm still not sure whether the merge is appropriate, for these conflicting reasons:

  • The Pastore Maremmano and Pastore Abruzzese have since 1958 been treated as a single breed – the Cane da Pastore Maremmano-Abruzzese – by the ENCI, the Italian national dog breed association
  • The Mastino Abruzzese has since 2003 been recognised by the regional government of Abruzzo, with subsidies for shepherds who use dogs conforming to a specific regional breed standard.

Particularly in view of recent discussion here regarding the (regionally-recognised) Perdigueiro Galego, I'd like to hear what others think of the relative weight that should be given to each. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge. Actually there are very few mastiffs in Abruzzo and I'am not sure that this breed will have a future, but they are different from Maremma sheepdogs You can see the picture 1 to 5 in the link below. This page [1] well explains the matter but it is in Italian, sorry.--Pierpao (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The issue is complex - as it is with are a number of those dogs which possess a regional heritage. For example, I recently came across one dubious "breed" from Bulgaria that was only recognised within a few valleys. No international nor national body recognises it. However, a DNA study of the dogs of Bulgaria found that these dogs were of a different grouping to all of the the others, indicating it to be the original dog of the Bulgarian region a long time ago with the other lineages having migrated there. Therefore, I regard this particular one to be a "landrace". My view is that if there is any conflict or doubt, then it would be best to leave it be for now and see what unfolds in the future. William Harristalk 21:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
With the Perdigueiro Galego it was not until multiple sources emerged (found by you) that the page met GNG. I think with the current sources the Abruzzese Mastiff fails GNG and should be merged, presumably a local government source exists to include that information above on the Maremma Sheepdog page. If multiple sources are found, then it should be appropriately cited and retained.
As an aside, where does the translation Abruzzese "Mastiff" come from? Google translates "Pastore" as "Shepherd", and given the lack of English language sources it seems like OR. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC).

AfD:15 February 2020

Two dog articles have been nominated for deletion:

Project members are invited to comment. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC).

A third nomination:

Cavalryman (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC).

Questionable changes at Poodle

This article (in agreement with decades of my own understanding) used to state that poodles are a breed group of dogs comprising three standardized breeds. Someone has changed it to say that "The Poodle" is a standardized dog breed that comes in three variants or sub-breeds. I think this is WP:OR and simply factually wrong. At best, it might be the minority opinion of one kennel club and should not be what the article says in the lead sentence per WP:UNDUE; it could be covered in a sentence or a footnote about divergence between different registries' definitions. However, it's not impossible that I've missed some sea change in dog classification, so I have not rushed in to undo these changes. I thought it better to bring the matter up here for discussion. I think the wikiproject might have broader input that the article's own talk page which has some entrenched factionalism going at it (though not necessarily over this exact question). I will notify the article talk page of this discussion, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Quick response, the AKC and the UK KC see poodles as one breed. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Doug and Mac. I think this should be stated in the lead paragraph, were we define what it is that we are about to write about. William Harristalk 21:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I was going to attempt to summarise all the major kennel clubs position here but it’s a bit of a dogs breakfast. Some state they’re one breed with three size varieties, others say four size varieties, some state they’re three separate breeds, and one (the UKC) says two breeds with one breed coming in two sizes. Many seem to sit on the fence with mixed language about breeds and varieties. I think something in the lead about a lack of consensus between breed group or single breed could be worked out. Cavalryman (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC).
Well, the lead should just cover all this, in brief (not much longer than how it's been spelled out above), then get into the details in sectional material later. Given the conflict, I think the lead should use "Poodles are" not "The Poodle is", since there is no real-world consensus among experts that there is such as thing as "the" Poodle. Regardless, the present lead is impermissible PoV pushing (WP:UNDUE) to represent only the viewpoint of a particular organization or organizations. (If it were a worldwide one like FCI versus a bunch of non-notable sub-national chaff, then DUE/FRINGE might actually favor that position, but this is a dispute between major, notable, reputable organizations.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Yep, we have to make that clear. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

RM notice

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Cão Fila de São Miguel#Requested move 20 February 2020 – a move of three Portuguese dog breeds to FCI English-language names per WP:USEENGLISH.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also: Talk:Rafeiro do Alentejo#Requested move 21 February 2020 – a more difficult case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"Ancientness" NOR problem

In doing some cleanup at various articles on Portuguese breeds, I've run across a bunch of highly curious original research (specifically WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK), in which various actually reliable sources (mostly) are being used to provide paragraphs of detail about dog evolution through the transhumance history of human occupation of the Iberian peninsula. This looks like good material for an article on dog evolution and the history of domestication and human use of dogs, but it has nothing at all to do with these breeds in particular, and is being used to falsely lend a "ye olde ancien dogges" air to these breeds, which were quite recently established from mutable landrace populations.

I don't like to single out particular editors ("focus on content not contributor"), but in this case it's all the work of one, 7&6=thirteen, who is still an active and productive editor, so should have the opportunity to respond. So far, I've run across this at Cão de Gado Transmontano (which also has – via the same editor – a bunch of editorializing footnotes, over-quotation of questionably encyclopedic material, and an over-abundance of material about wolf-reintroduction in Oregon which only tenuously relates to the dog breed in any way), as well as at Cão de Castro Laboreiro in shorter form; I don't know which other articles might be affected. There's also a vestige of this stuff in Rafeiro do Alentejo (though markedly trimmed, it still implies connections to human migrations out of Central Asia in prehistory, and yadda yadda). While Cão da Serra de Aires#History and Cão Fila de São Miguel#History aren't exactly Featured Article quality (have some poor sources and a lack of focus), compare them to Cão de Gado Transmontano#History and you can quickly get a sense of the issues.

I don't want to pick on 7&6=thirteen in particular; we have a lot of breed articles (not just about dogs) that are falsely implying ancientness for modern breeds (I call this "the myth of the perpetual breed": a failure to realize, even an outright denialism about accepting, the fact that breeds are a moving target and are evolving quite rapidly over time – there is no breed alive today that is much like its ancestors more than a few centuries ago, often much less due to extreme artificial selection for form preferences instead of for fitness to environment and purpose). However, 7&6=thirteen's additions of such material are in fairly big chunks and "of a sort", so are probably easy to do something with. As I said, I think some of the material is salvageable, it just doesn't belong coat-racked into particular breed articles. I know William Harris has done cleanup of this kind of stuff before (e.g. here, and I've also been doing it, but I started with cat breed articles (and am still not done with them).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I put in sources that said what they said. WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth. So you don't like the sources, and we are to accept your opinion. Ipse dixit. This is a first line of attack on stripping out articles and then saying that they aren't WP:Notable. The breeds will still exist whether you like it or not, and whether they are in this encyclopedia. Makes no difference to me. I have no stock in this, and no vested interest in the breed. You can nitpick this.
I am well aware of the history of dogs, and there is no WP:OR. Certainly a lot of breeds are modern creations; but their purpose, use, character, and genetics did not miraculously arise in vacuo. The breed developed where it did, and it came from somewhere.
To answer your broad assertion, particularly your blaming of me (you called me out, while saying that was not your intent – I will WP:AGF, which you should too – you and I both share the personhood noted on your WP:User page), I note that the article appeared as this before, and this after is what it became from my edits. There are other sources added after the fact, but I didn't do it, and don't WP:Own the article.
SMcCandlish go fix it. You and User:Cavalryman will do what you want to do. I wish you well in your quest, but don't mess it up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen, does your second last sentence mean you no longer object to the Mountain dog merger?
SMcCandlish, I agree there are currently some extraordinary claims in a number of breed and type articles, as well as some extraordinary articles themselves for which no sources exist. We need to continue to scrutinise the sources and remove when found lacking. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC).
And it has nothing to do with whether anyone "likes" the particular sources chosen. They simply do not indicate that any of this ancient dog-history stuff has anything to do with these particular modern breeds. I was quite clear about that. Whether any/all of these breeds are notable or not has nothing to do with this matter. Sources that do not cover a specific breed in detail cannot count for or against notability of that breed at all; it's just extraneous to the question. Next, no one here needs a lecture on AGF. The very fact that I pinged you to this discussion instead of just removing the OR material, and even suggested relocating it to a dog-history article where it will actually be pertinent, is clear demonstration that good faith on your part has been assumed, 7&6=thirteen.

If we're going to throw around links to fallacies, see straw man in particular; no one actually suggested any dog breeds popped up out of a vacuum, so arguing against that idea is like arguing with a scarecrow. However, for most of them we have somewhere between zero and nearly zero information on their foundation-stock history before the mid-19th century or even the 20th century. When we do have more (either from period sources or from modern genetics), it often turns out that they were imported from somewhere else entirely. Supposing by default that they must be primarily or entirely descended from dogs local to that specific area since ancient times is the very definition of original research, and frequently turns out to be factually wrong. Our material can make or lead the reader to make that assumption. "It came from somewhere" is certainly true, but WP usually does not have the answer to the question "Where"?. Our article going on and on about stuff that happened with dogs in general in the Stone Age to the Medieval period doesn't elucidate the question, and just serves to confuse it for the average reader.

PS: I lean toward the position that at least standardized breeds (at the national to international level) are presumptively notable. I wouldn't've spent any time working on them even for so much as typo fixing and citation link repair if I sought their deletion. (Much of the stuff in the "Are these notable?" list in the other thread above don't seem to qualify; a lot of them are about alleged "breeds" (probably very localized landraces, many of them extinct. Back in the 2000s, we seem to have had a few editors going through over-inclusive "breed encyclopedias" and creating perma-stubs here for every single dog population of any kind that anyone ever stuck a name on, then adding more useless pages on every classification term every used by any kennel club. And then forking generic articles on things like "breed standard" and "conformation" and "pet show" and so on into dog-specific WP:POVFORKs for no reason. And etc. It's a mess.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

More OR: bogus behavioral claims

The above reminds me of another and more massive OR problem that we have across hundreds of articles: nonsense behavioral claims. Almost every dog and cat breed article, and quite a few on livestock breeds (mostly horses, but sometimes more broadly) make claims pertaining to behavior that are obviously just copy-pasted from either promotional breeder material, or are descriptions of ideal candidates for animal-show awards. The claims range from outlandish statements about intelligence, to "please buy from us" assurances about child-friendliness, to completely vapid statements that apply to all members of the species.

I don't think we should include behavioral claims at all other than non-dubious generalizations that are found consistently across multiple sources (attributed to those sources in our text); and, in the few cases where it applies, information on well-researched behavioral oddities that breed true (examples are pointing/setting behavior in various dogs bred for it, and the Ragdoll cat and Ragamuffin cat breeds tending to go limp when picked up; and various pigeon breeds being "high" or "low fliers"). Some of the latter kinds of things have been subjected to peer-reviewed ethological and neurological research. I think there has also been some actual research done on particular aspects of dog breeds' intelligence, like trainability, memory, ability to learn and distinguish numerous human verbal and other commands, etc.).

All of the other material making weird behavioral claims should just be nuked as promotional garbage (or once in a while, hate garbage, like claims that all bull/terrier breeds are predisposed to violence and are dangerous around children; that kind of bias doesn't seem to survive in our articles long, though). It doesn't matter how many breeder club websites and breed profiles written by breeders in pet magazines and breed "encyclopedias" are cited, it's still primary- or tertiary-source material making non-credible claims that have no scientific research behind them, but which have a fiduciary and aggrandizing intent.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I agree, these traits are rarely (actually none come to mind) restricted to a breed and usually associated with a broader type. Unless they are attributed to reliable secondary sources and are general in nature I see little utility in including such information. A number of articles currently read like a breed promotion and these sections seem to endorse certain breeds. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC).
A related issue: I've run across several times now some copy-pasted "boilerplate" added to dog articles in these sections stressing (in terms that raise WP:NOT#GUIDEBOOK concerns) that dogs are quite individual and that these breed-wide claims about temperament shouldn't be taken as gospel. I.e., we are including promotional breeder exaggerations and nonsense then inserting a WP:DISCLAIMer to make sure the reader knows it's b.s., when the proper approach is simply to not have the b.s. in there at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs/Archive_11&oldid=952791106"