Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Heroic war dogs still articleless

There are a few remaining members of the category Dickin Medal that still do not have articles. This is the highest honor for war dogs, only given to the most notable war animals, including dogs, so there should be plenty of material. I post this here tonight to in the hopes that some members of WikiProject Dogs will be interested in rectifying this situation. You might want to start by having a look at the list at the bottom of the article Dickin Medal. Chrisrus (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand the purpose of WikiProjects? They are to facilitate cooperative work; such as making to-do lists and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look and add it to my to-do list; I'm presently working on Westminster best in show winners and I would love a bit of a break from that! --TKK ^{bark !} 20:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now we have the following articles started (thank you), but the corresponding talk pages still need to be tagged as purview of this project: None of them has much info yet, other than that they were awarded a Dickin Medal:

Chrisrus (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the talk pages for these. I can check around in EBSCOhost and see if I can find anything to add. --TKK ^{bark !} 17:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The one on Antis could probably make a GA there is so much out there. Truly inspiring [1]. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 02:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Old Time Farm Shepherd

Does anyone have access to either of the two Carol Davies books, or Stockdog Savvy? I'd like to see mentions of this breed by name (rather than simply 'farm collie' which is an actual type of dog) and I don't have access to any of those sources. If it is just passing mentions of a farm collie like i suspect then I'm going to AfD the article. --TKK ^{bark !} 04:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I contacted Dusty@farmshepherds.com I am sure she has adequate info. the problem is many of us old timers cant figure out how to get Wikipedia to converse with us and to get the information for you guys to put on Wikipedia.

What is true, is true... but how to get you guys to acknowledge and place it in Wikipedia is something you guys should want to do. Most of the public has no clue how to communicate with you guys, even if you write a book to explain it (which you have).

Fact is there is a farm shepherd. fact is there are Shepalutes. fact is there is an American Alsatian. if you don't have it in Wikipedia, you are the ones who are not up to date, the information is on the web and in the cyber world. many know this, many do the research, but Wikipedia doesn't have it. So does that make it invisible? nope. just makes Wikipedia not a thorough source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shepalutes (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it just means that they aren't notable enough or don't have enough verifiable sources to be included. It doesn't make us a less thorough source, it makes us a source with criteria that must be met for inclusion. The fact is that yes, these hybrids/breeds/crosses/what have you may exist, but they simply are not notable enough for inclusion. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 02:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Schnauzer GT

I'm working on bringing the Schanuzer articles (Schnauzer, Miniature Schnauzer, Standard Schnauzer and Giant Schnauzer) up to GA so I can nominate them as a WP:GT; if anyone wants to help out, especially with Schnauzer, it would be appreciated - that article is a swamp and I'm not even sure if it should be converted into a disambiguation page or left as is. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 21:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thuringian Shepherds

There is a dog called a Thuringian Shepherd or a Thuringian Shepherd Dog referred to in the development of several different breeds: German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Giant Schnauzers, Doberman Pinschers, and the Shiloh Shepherd Dog. Googling it pulls up some pictures but I'm having a difficult time finding any kind of reliable sourcing (although there are dozens of mentions, none of them are on sites that look reliable or if it is a reliable source, it's only a brief mention). All I've established is that it's an extinct breed that was developed in Germany. Does anyone know anything else about it? --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 04:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

I noticed that WP DOG doesn't have its own barnstar, so I made one - or rather, I made an image for one. I'd like to make this "a thing" but I'd like to do it in the traditional wikipedia find-a-consensus way. This is just something quick I threw together to give us a starting point - thoughts? --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 20:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Would that be a dog star, then? bobrayner (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought long and hard about using a picture of Sirius but I wasn't sure if the joke would be lost! --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 22:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I whipped these up on my break today:

		The Dogstar
		For your outstanding contributions to dog-related subject areas!

		The Dogstar
		For your outstanding contributions to dog-related subject areas!

Notability of designer breeds

Are designer breeds like Frenchton presumed notable? In any case, this newly created article needs an assessment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Like anything, some are and some are not. In this case, i'd say no; the only source is DBI and that's not reliable in the slightest. There's almost no coverage of the breed in third party sources; compare it to, say, the Labradoodle, which has substantial outside coverage.--TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 05:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've prodded it as I feel it doesn't meet WP:GNG. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Mini Australian Shepherd / Mini American Shepherd Merge

There is a discussion here and I'd like to generate some input from people whose entire rational is "FORK THIS BECAUSE THIS MINIATURE AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD IS DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER MINIATURE AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD". --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 06:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Usage of dogs in history

Hello, it would be good to write a topic about dog jobs in history. I mean like ratters (killed vermin), carriage dogs (Dalmatians protected carriages), war dogs (attacked enemy), dog fights and so on... (a part from well-known hunting dogs like setters, terriers..., or sheepdogs like livestock guardiang, herding dogs..., sled dogs and others). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.72.252.119 (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Boxer (dog)

Hi, could someone else please have a quick look at The Boxer article? I have twice reverted edits that appear to be copied from other websites; I have left messages on the editor's talk page but s/he has just reverted the second lot back in. Other eyes would be appreciated as maybe I'm just not seeing this correctly. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right; it is copyvio, so I removed it again. bobrayner (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Silver Labradors

Comments/opinions from other editors would be welcomed over at the Labrador talk page about Silver Labradors. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Templates - Countries of origin/development

Some dog breed articles, particularly Poodle and Great Dane, are being chopped and changed as the country of origin/development is either hazy or disputed. After a brief discussion on my talk page, TKK mocked up a couple of templates, example shown below. I feel these may help as, for instance Poodle could have two templates, one originated/developed in Germany and a second originated/developed in France; in the same way Great Dane could have one for Germany and one for Denmark. Any thoughts? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that nationality is being overemphasised, and that the origins of dog breeds often don't fit neatly within one country's borders; so it's best to avoid putting national labels on them.

Consider Great Dane: The article has various text (of widely varying quality) which, in order, suggests origins in Germany, Egypt, Norse Scandinavia, Denmark, England, Germany, Ulm, Schleswig-Holstein & Denmark, Broholm... and finishes with the American Kennel Club's normative description of what a Great Dane is. Which navbar would you add the Great Dane to? There are even more difficult (if less obvious) cases, where dog breeds were established hand-in-hand with a more general nation-building effort; over the course of a couple of decades the people of Dogopia would define themselves as a nation, churn out a couple of literary heroes and national totems, and designate one ancient-yet-newly-standardised breed as the True Dogopian Breed even though it has ancestors on either side of the newly-announced national border. bobrayner (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I would rather we didn't label the doubtful ones at all; I guess I was just trying to appease and save all the [nationalistic?] too-ing and fro-ing. I'll shelve the idea - thanks for responding, much appreciated! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add template dog breeds originated in USSR, or in Soviet Union vs "originated in Russia". Thanks! Afru (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll do this right now. --TKK public (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's now here, all I ask is you add breeds to it! --TKK public (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Molossus Dog Not Extinct !

Molossus (dog) is not extinct, I posted a note to that effect on the talk page of the article, what can be done please ? Fainomenon (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fainomenon (talk • contribs) 01:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating that these two breeds are the same? There are other cases of a breed sharing a name with another older breed, namely different kinds of Bulldog. If you have that source then I would honestly be WP:BOLD and change it. The Greek Kennel Club source doesn't state that breed is the same as the ancient one. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 03:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

-Yes I have many sources. The Kennel Club of Greece Breed Standard is brief, but it does state in that the breed is the Molossus of Epirus, the flock guardian that performs that role for thousands of years. I have numerous other sources too. Fainomenon (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the breed Leavitt Bulldog notable by Wikipedia standards?

The article is newly created and it seems at first glance like a novelty article about a novelty breed.

I figured that those already familiar with dogs as a topic would be a better judge of the breed's notability than I am. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be drawing to 'no' (but I'm also involved and somewhat biased). There's an ongoing discussion on my talk page about it. --TKK public _{(Bark at me \\ Block this account if it's acting funny!)} 01:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TKK public (talk • contribs)

As the AfC reviewer of this page, I've just made some comments at Talk:Leavitt_Bulldog#notability. I haven't finished the review, though the page has been installed in main space as the result of a technical hitch. Yes, I do think that the page passes wikipedia's notability criterion. The confusion surrounding the naming of this breed and Olde English Bulldogge is so great that it needs to be well explained, and I think wikipedia is well suited to that sort of explanation. There's more work to be done on both pages, however. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This should be redirected back to Olde English Bulldogge. The details can be explained there. The NYT and PDE mention aren't enough to count as "significant coverage". The OEB article can cover OEB as developed by Leavitt originally, OEB now, and Leavitt Bulldogs. --Dodo bird (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Olde English Bulldogge you will see that there is an edit war preventing any material being added other than the Leavitt Bulldog meaning of "Olde English Bulldogge", which, as I've stated there, I see as a serious disservice to anyone wanting to buy a dog. It looks very likely to me that someone would buy a puppy without realizing that it is one of the "alternative" dogs sold under the name Olde English Bulldogge. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Two new categories

Hi everyone. I felt there were enough "streets dogs in foo" articles plus the doc Street Dogs of South Central to create Category:Street dogs. Hope you agree. I've placed it as a subcat of Category:Feral dogs, since not all wild dogs are urban. Also, I've created Category:Documentary films about dogs, as well. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised both of those cats didn't already exist. Thank you. --TKK public _{(Bark at me \\ Block this account if it's acting funny!)} 21:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Dog handlers, trainers, etc notability

Should we have some guidelines for these? They would help inc ases such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felix Ho. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt you have the best of intentions, and that AfD is a dog's breakfast, but I believe that writing extra project-specific notability guidelines tends to create more problems than it solves. bobrayner (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Leavitt Bulldog

A discussion has begun at Leavitt Bulldog#Notability again which may be of interest to some readers here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Rear dew claws in dogs

Graphic description of dogfighting

My Central Asian Shepard has used his rear dew claws in a dog fight. He peeled the skin off the leg of his adversary. He pined the dog down with is jaws and forelegs and purposely dragged his left dew claw into the skin of his opponents shoulder and peeled the skin clean off to the elbow. This was the first time he has ever had to fight another dog. His instincts were there to do this. As my CAS is a primitive breed of dog I believe that the claw has a significant role in this dogs defense mechanism. I am yet to find any articles on the net that verifies what I have witnessed. My CAS has very strongly connect dew claws. This breed has been used for thousands of years to protect nomadic people's flocks and family against attack from wild animals. Please could you let me know what your experts think. Regards, David 11 Jan 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.225.166.179 (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're asking - it seems to me you just made this to go "ha ha my dog is badass". You probably didn't actually witness use of the dew claw in the way you described, it may have only appeared that way - but we aren't interested in your dogfights. You may have better luck at the WP:REFERENCEDESK. --TKK public _{(Bark at me \\ Block this account if it's acting funny!)} 23:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Tikuko, this seems to be a request to advertise a certain breeds fighting tactics/abilities. I also question the story you present on your dog using his dew claw in this way. There is no information provided on this because there is none to provide. Dew claws are not used by any breed of dog in the context you have described. --Ckarsiyaka (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ship's dogs

I hesitate to mention the c-word here, but there is an article on Ship's cats. Ships had dogs too, so maybe a member of this WP would like to create Ship's dog? Mjroots (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea. (also the c-word formula...) This one was a Ship's dog ...The dog in the painting is meant to be "Bob", a dog that was found in a shipwreck off the coast of England. The dog found his way to the London waterfront where he became known for saving people from drowning, a total of twenty–three times over the course of fourteen years. For this, he was made a distinguished member of the Royal Humane Society, granting him a medal and access to food.^[1]Hafspajen (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

^ "The Newfoundland in Art & Literature". Newfoundland Club of America. Retrieved 10 September 2011.

Canine parvovirus

Canine parvovirus is up for GAR at Talk:Canine parvovirus/GA2. James^x12345 16:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Dogs At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Metric or imperial?

An editor has been changing weights/heights in breed articles to cm/kg. Could I get some opinion from long standing Project members, please? Please see this talk page discussion as the impression I get is the editor feels we should use the FCI standard for references. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that editor has been a pain in the ass at the horse breed articles too. I favor using a convert template so both forms are shown, and the version that comes first should be the version of the majority of the source material, (i.e. imperial if US, metric if European) otherwise we have a potential SYNTH argument. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello,
Please note that Anubis, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

– Restore mass moves of articles done without consultation and in defiance of longstanding consensus of page editors. The breed is called Akita, not Akita dog, Billy and not Billy dog, Bolonese, not Bolonese dog, Akbash and not Akbash dog... those changes which besides lacking consensus are just inaccurate. Parenthetical disambiguation was used when natural disambiguation is not possible in ALL dog articles, ( add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name). This is an attempt to over-simplify. Real-world professional standards should trump false Wikipedia standards when it comes to things like this. WP:Natural disambiguation (cite): If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names. That last I think settles it very well. Hafspajen (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose "Laika" rename "Laika (dog)" and "Laika dog"; both are bad names for the topic currently occupying that name, and both should redirect to Laika, as the primary topic is the space dog. Instead Laika (dog type) should be used -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment May I suggest Laika (dog breed) for the breed article? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  - Yes Laika (dog breed) is also fine by me -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It was Laika (dog breed) before the move. Hafspajen (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please also add Dalmatian dog → Dalmatian (dog) to the list. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

OOps, forgot that one. Added. Hafspajen (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Support The only place I've ever seen the construction "Dalmatian dog" is in dog show programs to designate a male competitor, as opposed to a female who would be called "Dalmatian bitch". My understanding is that this nomenclature is common in most breeds. I found these moves very jarring. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Hafspajen for starting this. Overall, I support the moves proposed above; however, before I cast my vote I'd like to propose splitting this into two separate move requests, one for return of Foobar dog articles to Foobar (dog) when "dog" is not part of the natural name of the breed, and so needs to be in parentheses (a disambiguation issue), and the other for the return of Foobar dog articles to Foobar Dog when "Dog" is part of the breed name, and so needs to be capitalised (a capitalisation issue). I think it's unwise to mix the two problems in one request, and could lead to an inconclusive result. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. We take one problem at the time. Hafspajen (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Support as now proposed (including Laika dog → Laika (dog breed), per Elipongo). Constructions such as "Dalmatian dog" and "Billy dog" definitely count as "obscure or made-up names"; while they will inevitably be found to occur somewhere, they are not the usual names of these breeds, and natural disambiguation is thus not appropriate here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Of interest

Issue at ANI that may be of interest to project members: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed_page_moves_by_SMcCandlish. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

War dog urban legends

I've started a discussion at an editor's talk page that maybe should be moved here. See User talk:Drmies#Sergeant Stubby, a Boston Pit Bull in WWI. Although a number of sources say he was actually a sergeant and was promoted in WWI, this is clearly a recent urban legend. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Animals have been given official rank, see Sergeant Reckless, the USMC usually gives a mascot dog an officer. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There's official, and there's official. bobrayner (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

True that! Montanabw ^(talk) 23:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

German Shepherd Dog (official breed name)

Hey, dog project members. I am a five-year Wikipedia editor, but I have never edited Wikipedia dog articles. As part of my ongoing WP education, I was trying to understand the logic behind the recent moves and disambiguations for various dog breed articles, as discussed above and elsewhere. My question regards German Shepherds, or as the breed is officially known, the "German Shepherd Dog," with the "D" in dog capitalized. Is there a reason why the official breed name is not being used as the article title, WP:COMMONNAME, perhaps? Or was this another of the recent moves? That I could understand, but the "GSD" official name is not even recited in the lead, with other British and German recognized names for the breed. The use of "GSD" in the breed's American literature is prevalent, and even internet and magazine articles I have read recently always recite the "GSD" official breed name. I was originally tempted to change the lead based on personal knowledge, and then thought better of it. Does anyone have an answer? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hah! Welcome to the titling and capitalization wars on wiki, round 10,000! I believe the dogs project recently arrived at a new consensus on titling issues that I personally hesitate to upset, it is a delicate peace but one well worth preserving! ( ;-) ) For background, you may want to skim the "of interest" link I posted above. I don't really edit much in the dog breed area at all, so I don't, um, have a dog in this fight, but on the broader issue of animal articles in general, feel free to post at my talk page for the Cliff's Notes version of the whole cross-species sorry tale if the "of interest" link goes to a tl;dr wiki-drama ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 04:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"German Shepherd Dog,"? Not in my dog books. Hafspajen (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, here's the link to the AKC's webpage for the breed: German Shepherd Dog. And the German Shepherd Dog Club of America's website: gsdca.org. And the Westminster Kennel Club's webpage for the breed: German Shepherd Dog. As I understand it, the English language official breed name is a direct translation of the original breed name, which includes the German word hund. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, ask major dog project English expert. Sagaciousphil‎, see question above. Montanabw, you are funny. Hafspajen (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, you had me half convinced that GSD was an American name for the breed based on your reaction, but a quick Google search shows that the national governing bodies for the breed in Britain, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa all refer to the breed by a common name: "German Shepherd Dog," or "GSD" for short. Even if we're going with WP:COMMONNAME for the article title, I think the official breed name deserves a mention in the lead -- "Alsatian" used to be the more common British and Commonwealth breed name, but that usage seems to have fallen by the wayside in the last 40 to 50 years since I was a child. I also note that the existing Wikipedia article refers to the breed consistently as the "German Shepherd Dog" starting in the History section. You may also find the books listed in the Biblography and other references identified in the footnotes instructive as to the GSD usage in the literature.

I'm really not making this up. I was raised by a German Shepherd, who followed me everywhere, slept next to my bed as a child, and actually killed another dog that bit me when I was 3. In fact, I think I may be an honorary member of the GSD breed by adoption. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I know, I checked myself. It is about naming conventions... on Wiki. (WP:Common name)? Must have been a great dog. It must have been a great consolation for you to have such an excellent companion. Hafspajen (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC).

The bitterest wars are fought over the most trivial details. Do we have any dog articles with diacritics in their name? If the Kennel Club comprises individuals and member bodies, do we say "The KC is" or "The KC are"? Is the Pomeranian (dog) from Poland or Germany, or Pomerania? Blood has been shed for less. Shabratha (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The official breed name is "German Shepherd Dog", hence the commonly used initials GSD (who'd have guessed? ) and the breed is frequently simply referred to as a "GSD" when being discussed; however, as Shabratha points out above, WP 'editors' would rather waste everyone's time nit picking over trivialities and no matter what you name an article, someone will come along just shortly and change everything anyway (as has happened several times with the GSD article and many other dog breed articles). SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Phil. I usually edit American college sports articles which, as you might imagine, attract more than their share of IP vandals and fanboy editorial comments, as well as some contentious page moves. I'm not interested in upsetting the dog project's COMMONNAME consensus for article titles; I think we can both agree, that in common parlance, most people refer to the breed as the "German Shepherd." That having been said, may I insert the internationally recognized official breed name in the lead and infobox, and impose some measure of consistent usage in the article (varying "German Shepherd" generally, with "German Shepherd Dog" where a discussion of the breed standards or history are relevant), with the project's blessing? It is not my intention to re-open old wounds, and if I am treading where smarter angels should fear to go, please just let me know. I'm also happy to add the article to my watch list to give your folks a little relief on the page patrol. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I see no problem adding all usual names to the lead and making sure the article is consistent throughout. As for the infobox, ooh! Another battlefield of "what goes in here?" I suggest making the addition to the lead, per WP:BRD, and maybe post on the talk page if anyone objects if you tweak the infobox title. If no objections, then decisions are made by those who show up. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I say infobox is OK. Infobox should show all names, so that shouldn't be a problem. But if the title is per WP:Commoname, we can hardly start spelling it German Shepherd Dog in the whole article. Or german shepherd - like some of the editors want. And I see no problem adding all usual names to the lead either. Hafspajen (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur that the article title should remain "German Shepherd" per WP:COMMONNAME. I would propose to rewrite the lead as follows:

The German Shepherd (German: Deutscher Schäferhund, German pronunciation: [ˈʃɛːfɐˌhʊnt]) is a breed of large-sized working dog that originated in Germany. The breed's officially recognized name is German Shepherd Dog in the English language, sometimes abbreviated as "GSD", and it also formerly was known as the Alsatian and Alsatian Wolf Dog in Britain.

I think the official breed name should be used at the top of the infobox, with "Alsatian, Alsatian Wolf Dog, Berger Allemand, Deutscher Schäferhund, German Shepherd, Schäferhund" listed as other names, with "GSD" shown as the nickname. If the consensus among project editors is to continue to use "German Shepherd" at the top of the infobox, then "German Shepherd Dog" should be included among the other names.

I would also propose to conform the usage throughout the article to "German Shepherd," except where the context specifically refers to the history or standards of the breed, where I would use "German Shepherd Dog" instead. Currently, the usage is inconsistent.

Reactions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with it. Hafspajen (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sagaciousphil and Shabratha: Does this work for you? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, Hafspajen, a "German shepherd" is a citizen of Germany who tends sheep. A "German Shepherd" is a dog. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries from me - to be honest it's just nice to see someone working on the GSD article; there was an IP who did a tremendous amount of work on it, sometimes a little bit too in depth perhaps, but s/he then got upset over something (maybe Hafs can recall what ...) and s/he then reverted all of his/her own work making it very clear it was not to be re-instated. Perhaps you might find some of it useful? I think the version to look through was here. Actually, was it about breed name changes that the problems arose, Hafs? SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I recall it - it was the pictures he used - S/he removed a lot of good pictures and got upset when I put them back and also questioned the a little bit too in depth perhaps. Just went ballistic and it was no way to dicuss anything anymore. Probably wasn't very used to be questioned, and Wiki is a collective project. Hafspajen (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Animal breed disambiguation

FYI

– Pointer to relevant thread elsewhere.

Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Toward a standard for disambiguating titles of articles on domestic animal breeds may be of interest to editors here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read this first. Issue at ANI that may be of interest to project members: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed_page_moves_by_SMcCandlish. Hafspajen (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

We have just reverted the addition of information about a fatal attack which has just taken place. I appreciate a reference is supplied but earlier a different news source stated the dogs were Bullmastiffs. I have no allegiance to either breed - I simply feel Wikipedia is not for 'rolling news' and it would be far better to wait until matters settle as news sources do not have a good track record in correctly identifying breeds concerned in initial reports in such tragic circumstances. The first news added stated that it was a Bullmastiff. The addition to the Bullmastiff article (which has now been removed) did have a ref stating Bullmastiff but news stations etc seldom identify a breed correctly in initial (and even later) reports. Second states that it is a Cane Corso. I don't think it should be added to neither articles because daily news have nothing to do with the breed, that is one reason, second - I don't think that they are reliable sources about what breed it is. And Cane Corso is not exactly an usual breed. Dogs generally don't kill people, just like that see here, a serious source. One fatality might not affect a whole breed but it cause a weird unbalance added in the article. Hafspajen (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just reverted the addition of information in connection to this from the Cane Corso article again [2], which is not included in the reference given. I have also checked the CCAA website Buyer beware section. I'd be grateful if others could also see what they think, please? SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, not again. The Buyer beware is a very good site. Actually it should be added to the article - as reference and additional information: responsible breeders think... this -.. that. But I still think this information has nothing to do with the breed article. It may be included on some other article maybe, if anyone has any suggestions? Hafspajen (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

Help with merge?

About 9 months ago Legobot tagged me to participate in an RFC about merging a potential POVFORK. The consensus was merge and the RFC closed. There was some question about what the new canonical name was for it, but it seems that there hasn't been much interest in it since we decided to merge. I don't really know anything about dogs or breeds, so I don't think I'm the right person to perform the merge. There's also some question as to what the new name should be (Miniature American Shepherd or Miniature Australian Shepherd - I weighed in on the talk page on that subject below the RFC, but again that could use some expert guidance). Is anyone here available to perform the merge, or at least get it started? Thanks! 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dalmatian (dog) ‎

There is a question raised about wich image should be used at Talk:Dalmatian (dog). Hafspajen (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC) ‎

Article: Fox - Educational Assignment for Cornell University: Online Communities - Request for Help

Hello Wikipedians, my name is Sarah and I am part of a group of students who are working to fix the article on foxes. This is for our class Online Communities at Cornell University. We aim to make the C-Class article a B-Class or even better! We are working to expand the fox's characteristic section (adding more anatomy and behavior); revamp the conservation section; and add an "urban foxes" section (foxes in urban settings and their impact on humans/pets). We are new to Wikipedia editing and would love some help, guidance, and/or support! Anything from suggestions on new sections or sections to edit to coding/grammar issues will be greatly appreciated!

If you're curious about our assignment here it is: Online Communities Assignment

Hope to hear from you soon! MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I think that foxes might be an other project, Montanabw who is our fox-expert? Hafspajen (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This is as close to the "right" project as they can get, as Foxes are Canidae. That said, WikiProject mammals might also help. Don't know who the fox guru is, but looking at the main contributors on the main articles might give some clues... Montanabw ^(talk) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I chose to ask for help here and in the Wikiproject Mammals because the fox page is under both. Currently, I have no response on the Mammal side! Thank you both for your help though. I will definitely scour the main articles for top contributors! MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What is WP:WikiProject X. Hafspajen (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

infobox cleanup

I have started to look at fixing information in an infobox and went to {{Infobox_dog_breed}} where discovered that the explanation of parameters was outdated. I have a left a comment on the talk page there but I figured it was a good idea to cross post here both to get it noticed and because there may be other issues people here could add.Jemmaca (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

[posting same response here as at INFOBOXFLAG template talk] - FCI re-vamped all of its website a few months ago - changing the links to all breed standards resulting in 404 errors. So far I have fixed all the Gundogs, all the terriers and several others breeds if I was editing them for something else. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

since I figure broken links are within my limited skill-set I decided to tackle the breed standards. I have gotten most of the way through the A dogs. It is not just the FCI ones that are broken so it is a bit slow going.(I was sure happy when I hit a terrier because SagaciousPhil had already fixed it) Would not mind if someone had a look to make sure they are happy with the result before I get too far along the alphabet.Jemmaca (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Dog articles would need more knowledgeable content editing and reliable references than this. Here's an other editor just fixing links. Suddenly there are like a bunch of them everywhere. Better do some real work, here are some dog articles that need attention: Šarplaninac, Schweizer Laufhund, Bone mouth, Romanian Raven Shepherd Dog, Cane di Oropa, Combai, Old Danish Pointer, Berger Blanc Suisse, Bosnian Coarse-haired Hound, These articles needs experts. Dumfriesshire Hound? Hafspajen (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I am certainly not a content expert but did figure proper breed standard links (to FCI and CKC for example) would be easy and not needing an expert. But as you disagree I will stop and leave it to you folks. Thanks for looking and the feedback.Jemmaca (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't be a fucking asshole. People do what they are willing and able to. This sort of cleanup work is common even among established editors. --Dodo bird (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, how about dial it way, way back. It's not clear at all what you are even mad about. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 02:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay so I am confused. My initial reaction to Hafspajen's response was that while I was being told to piss off I was not bothered because I simply assumed that they were not happy with my changed links and trying to remind me that really dog experts should be the ones editing dog pages. I stopped my little foray into fixing the links and deleted my draft of changes to Russian Black terrier (the whole reason I ended up here in the first place). But I did not remove the dog pages I had added to my watch list and today I ended back at Beagle and made a simple change and commented on someone's reference. And 3 things struck me. 1 - I get paid good money to post academic articles and ensure the referencing is appropriate as a small part of my job so that means I am qualified to fix breed standard links even if I am not a dog expert, 2 - those links are not fixed on the Beagle page and 3 - I did not know if I should change them because no one actually answered my question. I wanted to know if the manner I was changing them met the needs of the people here know how they want it to look. And if someone cares to let me know what the desired look is I will ensure that the many hundreds of broken breed standard links are fixed including the ones on Beagles.Jemmaca (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Jammaca: the links you've fixed look fine to me; it's a monotonous task! I think I've done the links on the Beagle article now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well it is a monstrous task but certainly doable. I am wishing it were all a bit more monotonous as I have spent time actually scanning the standards and the infoboxes and adding stuff where it is obvious. I have so far gotten to Berner Niederlaufhund. This article needs to be merged into Schweizerischer Niederlaufhund in my opinion. And it seems so obvious to me that part of me thinks I should simply find some time and do it. But I am a believer in getting a second opinion and gathering wider consensus if need be. Going through the whole process of adding it to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers seems overkill to me. Thoughts?Jemmaca (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

International Designer Canine Registry

Thoughts on the use of the International Designer Canine Registry as a source? --TKK! bark with me! 21:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it was suitable - looks as if providing someone stumps up some money they get a bit of laminated paper without any checking at all. Money seems to be the prime motivation - the registration form states: "All applications are destroyed within 48 hours if payment is not recieved." [They can't even spell received ...

]. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

AfC article

I found Draft:One Million Pibble March while working AfC and thought someone here might want to work on it. It looks like it's probably notable so I saved it from G13 but it needs a lot of tlc --TKK! bark with me! 00:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Akita

Akita (dog), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

I'm just commenting so that this has a date and the archival bot will catch this. --TKK! bark with me! 04:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

AfC

Draft:Guide Dogs NSW/ACT - thoughts? --TKK! bark with me! 01:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tikuko: Notable. I think that there is no problem in moving the draft. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't approve the draft because the only reference is to the organization itself. --TKK! bark with me! 03:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Check now? I have added 2 sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I'll clean it up a bit and then approve it. --TKK! bark with me! 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Think I let you know: at Talk:Pit bull somebody proposed merger of "Pit bull" - "American Staffordshire Terrier" and "American Pit Bull Terrier." ... Hafspajen (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sirius?

Sirius is a star system, and this project page links to said star system. I would remove it, but it is actually a featured article, so I'm just going to inquire if that article was in some way rewritten by dedicators of this project? Jacedc (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. A curious thing, this article does fall under WikiProject Dogs, as it's colloquially referred to as the "Dog Star". Hmm. Jacedc (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why dog project? Hafspajen (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Can't notice any disscusions even on latest page move

Moved back page move to Rhodesian ridgeback from Rhodesian Ridgeback. Rhodesian Ridgeback is the breed name. as the page per Kennel Club Standard - as per AKC, Dog Breeds, Rhodesian Ridgeback. We use the names as given in breed standard. Hafspajen (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It took me quite a bit of detective work to realize what happened, no discussion on WikiProject Dogs, or on article talk page either. Primergrey and Anthony Appleyard - we use titles as given in breed standard. Hafspajen (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have told the editor in question not to add controversial page move requests into uncontroversial technical requests. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks as if Phu Quoc ridgeback has been edited throughout and then also moved? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved back. Apart from the dog-related articles, he has also moved a number of articles where page move wasn't even necessary. He moved Be'er Sheva Fringe-fingered Lizard to Be'er sheva fringe-fingered lizard, it could be Be'er Sheva fringe-fingered, still not the title that he moved to. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Thank you. Hafspajen (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

TfD: Dog-related infoboxes proposed for merge

Template:Infobox dog crossbreed has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox dog breed. As these templates are of interest to WikiProject Dogs, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Regards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits on Dog and Origin of the domestic dog

Resolved

Sagaciousphil and anyone else, can you take a look at the recent edits in the last a few months on these both pages, and especially Origin of the domestic dog. Do we remove every earlier research because they slightly differs from the new one? One of the editor (William Harris) continues to do so. Discussion at Talk:Origin of the domestic dog#Western Europe and Eurasia. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that both pieces of research should be included. Perhaps a wording could be agreed between the two editors along the lines of: "research undertaken by blah blah blah in (year) indicated Eurasian origins but more recently in (year) studies by blah blah blah show a European (or whatever)" Hafspajen (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Asia and Europe", that's how we shall refer, but then both terms are properly covered under "Eurasia". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Use "Asia and Europe". Hafspajen (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that when I commenced the review of the Origin of the domestic dog page much of it was uncited, the research consisted of little more than links to questionable newspaper articles or studies dating back to 1991, and thought was being given to salvaging what was useful back onto the main Dog page and tagging the Origin page for deletion. It required serious culling - refer to my comment in October 2014 on Talk:Dog#Dog Page - History and Evolution - the culling came as a surprise to nobody. None of the monitoring Administrators stepped in and said "Stop, this is going too far". Additionally, the amendments came in phases that gave time for editors to offer their comments; they did not comment. That is because everything I published was supported by citations to recent, peer-reviewed scientific journals. As for the earlier studies that were removed because they were slightly different to the newer ones, if you compare their authors to the huge lists of co-authors who signed off on Thalmann 2013 or Freedman 2014, you will find them listed there - they no longer supported their earlier propositions. If they are no longer supporting them, then they no longer warranted inclusion on the page. The Origin page is not a historical recollection, it is a statement of what we know today, and that is all that readers are interested in. They go there to find out where the dog came from, not to read about who said what 20 years ago. Regards, William Harris • talk • 04:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

New wolf subspecies article

Please see Canis lupus variabilis that I have just accepted at AFC. It's a rather basic article with some rough edges - e.g. it's lacking a Taxobox - so it needs some TLC. Please also integrate it into the Subspecies of Canis lupus list article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Yes he had created the article after the discussion on my UTP and I had checked it a few minutes ago. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so are you going to fix up the article? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would also inform the creator. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there was a slight delay due to ascertaining the correct citation for the trinomial classification for the taxabox, refer Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals#Trinomial reference. Regards, William Harris • talk • 06:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Info box changes

An editor is changing several dog breed articles either replacing the dog breed info box template or adding a taxonomy template. In the case of Thai Ridgeback, the dog breed info box has been removed entirely with the edit summary "Hm, no, as they are dingoes". As far as I can tell, no discussion has taken place anywhere - certainly not on the dog project. I have just reverted the Thai Ridgeback article again as the dog breed info box supplies the links to the breed standards as recognised by the FCI etc. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like edit war too. Warned, also editor was previously warned for edit war, even before. Hafspajen (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me suggest that someone needs to amend the Dingo page, third line, where it states "The Australian name has therefore sometimes been applied to similar dogs in South-East Asia, believed to be close relations." to state that this usage does not extend to the taxonomic classification. Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

An idea for article?

[3] An article? Suggestion? Hafspajen (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

This one should either go in the external links or be used as an additional reference for the foundation: http://www.teampeakperformance.se/arthur/

Dog behavior page - redevelopment

A proposal was made 9 months ago to merge the Dog behavior and the Dog communication pages, but there has been no further action. The matter has been raised again at Talk:Dog behavior#Merger discussion - dog behavior & dog communication. At present, the direction appears to be:

Not to merge the two pages
Redevelop the Dog Behavior page from its current state, which is rather poor (see discussion).

We offer interested parties an opportunity to comment at Talk:Dog behavior#Merger discussion - dog behavior & dog communication and call for assistance from those who have an interest and are willing to help. Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Dalmatian_(dog)

Can someone from this project please have a look at recent edits to Dalmatian_(dog)? There has been some back and forth at that page related to the origin of the breed. In particular, the anonymous editor 65.41.53.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been aggressively edit warring. This editor has been reverted on other articles on the basis of adding false information, so it is probably good to have a knowledgeable editor review his edits to Dalmatian_(dog). Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (breeds)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (breeds) for a draft of a future proposal for a notability guideline on domestic animal breeds. As your wiki-project is involved in this area, I am dropping off an invite to the discussion. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability (breeds). Thanks! JT_dale^Talk~ 16:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Gull Dong listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gull Dong. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

Thanks in advance for taking a look at this. There is confusion about whether this breed is the same breed as the Bully Kutta, and/or whether or not that breed or any of these breeds are actually recognized breeds at all. There are some other breeds involved in the discussion as well. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Dog Meat Festival

Comments welcome at Talk:Dog Meat Festival#The name of this article.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge Proposal - Ancient dog breeds

Hello All. Ancient dog breeds are thought to be so based on the historical belief that these breeds date back over 500 years. The Wikipage has been based on one research paper by Parker in 2004 who simply showed that 9 breeds thought to be 'ancient breeds' had some sort of phylogenetic relationship, and this has already been pointed out on the Talk page by User:Mangojuice|Mango back in 2009 who proposed merging elsewhere. (We humans and dogs have a phylogenetic relationship if we look back far enough.) The research by Larson in 2012 shows that due to their remote geographic location, these breeds have simply been less mixed with other breeds during the Victorian period and that does not make them ancient. I propose that the Ancient dog breeds article be merged under Dog breeds in a short section simply stating this using both the Parker and Larson citations, and with the Ancient dog breeds page set up as a redirect to that section. See Talk:Ancient dog breeds#Merge Proposal. Regards, William Harris • talk • 23:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This matter has now been actioned. William Harris • talk • 12:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

List of most popular dog breeds

Is totally wrong. Because the sources are not representative of normal dogs in the US. I don't have a great source that is representative. But I found this. huff post article. I just mention this because in Oregon pit bulls are hugely popular, and the article doesn't even mention them. Not that I like PBs, I'm more of a chug person. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the Spay and Neuter portion of Canine Reproduction

The Canine Reproduction page, specifically the section on spaying and neutering, frequently mentions dominance and dominance theory which has since been denounced in dogs and can further perpetuate the ideas that dogs function off of this model. If there is to be a portion on spaying and neutering and its affects, it should be done with sources that accurately talk about behavior and health changes that no longer use a rejected behavior model.

The reasons why this language and anything supporting it be removed is because David Mech, the person who wrote the studies on wolf hierarchies, which have since been applied to dogs, has revoked his views and written papers on why he was wrong and done interviews also stating such.

If anything, it should be noted that intact male dogs are actually more at risk for getting into fights and being bullied by neutered males, and the language of female dogs spayed vs intact should reflect on how intact females will develop aggression for resource guarding which to them is guarding things like birthing areas and food. Dogs will guard and aggress in the following categories but in no particular order: Food, Space, Breeding Rights, and anything the dog covets as important. In the case of intact dogs, they are guarding for breeding rights and also for space and, potentially, food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C500:E6DE:18B3:6D96:C841:2C42 (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

German Shepherd

A published author on dogs, specifically German Shepherds, has suggested some changes to the article. He's clearly not experienced regardning Wikipedia, so it would be appreciated if someone from this WikiProject could take the time to help him and get his concerns addressed (as far as our guidelines on content, which he of course isn't familiar with, allow). Huon (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Service dog: Somnambulism Alert Dog

Your comments on Draft:Service dog: Somnambulism Alert Dog are welcomed. Use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the domestic dog - split

Hello All, a proposal has been made to split the Origin of the domestic dog page into two sections. One section would be relocated under what is currently the redirect that is titled Dog domestication, and this would include the current Sections 7-Domestication and 8-Convergent evolution. The first 6 Sections would remain under the Origin page. There would be links between the two. As this would mean a major undertaking relevant to dogs and their interested readers, I will be posting this proposal on the Talk:Dog page and the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs page. I seek editor's feedback on this proposal under Talk:Origin of the domestic dog#Origin of the domestic dog - split over the next fortnight. Please vote YES or NO under under Talk:Origin of the domestic dog#Origin of the domestic dog - split. Regards, William Harris • talk • 22:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello All, the decision was not to split the article. However, the article is now divided into two chapters - Dog Evolution and Dog Domestication. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Update needed to "Oldest dogs" page

 The list of oldest dogs on the "oldest dogs" page needs to be updated....but every time I try to do it something goes wrong or someone removes the information, etc...so I am sending this to you.

 My Rat Terrier...Jake"...lived to be 21 years 6 days old...which would make him the 12th oldest dog on the list.  He was born July 21, 1994 and passed on July 27, 2015.

 Guinness World Records has all of Jake's vet and boarding records, photos, witness statements, etc on file.  My contact person at Guinness is Victoria Tweedy.  They have all of this as I was attempting to set a new dog record at the time of Jake's passing.  You can confirm all of this by contacting Victoria Tweedy if need be.

 Please update the page so my dear Rat Terrier can get the recognition he deserves.

Ron "Toto" Johnson Davenport, Iowa, USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.244.211 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Watchers, I don't know if anybody paid attention to the above post, and I have no interest in whether Spot or Fido is included in the top 20 oldest dogs, but there are some very strange things happening on the List of oldest dogs page. These are as follows:

For the list of oldest dogs, the citation given is the home page to Guinness World Records - no link to a sub-page, nor any page number to the book itself, so it fails WP:CITE. There is criticism on the Talk page, with someone claiming that there is a list of the Oldest Dogs, yet we have no citation for them.
Despite the fact that GWR lists Bluey as the oldest dog, this page maintains that it is Max, which is not supported by the citation.
A credible reference was deleted because someone disagreed with the finding and because among the list of sources was Wikipedia:Oldest Dogs page, which cite Guiness as the age of Bluey as factual evidence. I regard this as a misuse of MOS:SELFREF and have undone the deletion, and I now await the storm.....

I would be pleased if someone else from here took a look at the situation. Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

List of oldest dogs

Hello All, the article List of oldest dogs falls under the WikiProject Dogs banner.

Someone posted a complaint under '"Update needed to "Oldest dogs" page above regarding the list on the List page and that "someone removes the information". I went to that page.
I looked through this Talk page and found some strange things have happened here in the posts above and confirm that this is not an isolated event.
I looked at the List page and found some strange things happening there as well.
The List page says that "The following canines' ages were authenticated via Guinness World Records."
The first dog on the list is "Max". The first citation is the web homepage of GWR. A search on that page for the term oldest dog returns the page http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/oldest-dog and the name Bluey. The citation does not support Max as the oldest dog. The second citation for Max is an ABC media interview with an owner who purports that she owns the world's oldest dog, claims to have sent papers to GWR, but as yet "hasn't got a reply". Nothing the owner says is verifiable, and no documents were shown on the TV interview even though the owner had the opportunity.
In summary, there is nothing supporting Max being listed in the GWR and therefore on the List of oldest dogs.
I have removed Max from the list.
The only dog among the 17 listed that can be confirmed on the GWR website is Bluey. The other 16 have a link to the GWR home page as a "citation".
"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" - WP:VERIFY.
It would appear from the Talk page that certain individuals across the years have been putting up certain dogs as the oldest with no citations other than the GWR homepage, and causing conflict with others who want their own dog up.
An editor in 2011 asked other editors to find more appropriate citations. There appears to have been no further progress.

My view is that the article should be deleted under Wikipedia Deletion Policy WP:DELETE

Reason 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources WP:RELIABLE

Reason 7: Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed WP:VERIFY

I suggest that there will be no way to get consensus on the article's talk page to do this because vested interests appear to be at play.

Do any editors have any ideas about what to do with this page, please?
(Don't be shy, the page counter tells me that this page has 105 watchers, yet there is seldom any feedback to posts.) Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Navbox templates

Please see discussion of "Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus?" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Any other results from empathy studies?

The 2012 Custace & Mayer article "Empathic-like responding by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) to distress in humans: an exploratory study" cited (^{[anyother 1]}) noted that dogs respond to stangers "pretending to cry" more readily than their humans, while the majority of the research surrounding it discussed how dogs are attuned to humans and the signals they send. Is there more research, or more information in the research cited, that might suggest the degree to which dogs can discern genuine emotion from feigned? My first reaction was to the fake crying - anecdotally, I find many dogs at the very least learn the difference...but then there's also anger and a whole ran0ge of human emotions that can be portrayed without the emotion being genuine. (Sarcasm is one example, or trying to lure out a scared puppy who's in trouble, or even just hearing these expressions being portrayed on TV.) In my experience, some dogs get it, some dogs don't, some get it quicker than others, but I've always wondered what the research might say. 107.72.96.53 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Julie Hughes

Hi Julie, thanks for your post and you might like to look further at the Dog behavior article and possibly the related Dog intelligence article. You might also use your search engine to have a look at the work of Brian Hare (Dognition) and Gregory Berns (MRI scanning). Regards, William Harris • talk • 01:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.academia.edu/1632457/Empathic-like_responding_by_domestic_dogs_Canis_familiaris_to_distress_in_humans_an_exploratory_studyhere

Is Molossus of Epirus a real dog breed?

I came across Molossus of Epirus, and I am unable to determine whether it merits an article. I do not see it listed in FCI Pinscher and Schnauzer, Molossoid and Swiss Mountain Dog Group or in Molosser. Molossus (dog) says that this breed is not a modern breed. And this page claims that it is listed in FCI subgroup 2.2, but the FCI page does not mention it.

The only in-line reference on the page, http://www.bulldoginformation.com/molossers-mastiff-breeds-history.html, does not mention this breed.

Also, the majority of the page is copy-pasted from a machine translation (use Google or Chrome) of this page.

Is anyone here interested in straightening out this situation? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonesey95, my view is that we cannot progress this issue until a Greek-speaking Wikipedian has a look and determines its legitimacy. If the website is that of the kennel club of Greece, and that body recognizes the breed, then it is legitimate. Regards, William Harris • talk • 05:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is actually a fork of Molosser. Especially considering the origin. --TKK! bark with me! 06:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that the Molosser article is only 12,000 bytes in length, I can see no reason why the info from the Molossus of Epirus article could not be merged there. Regards, William Harris • talk • 04:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the talk page there. It has a national breed standard. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

If it is a recognized breed, then perhaps it might be listed on Molosser#List of Molossoid breeds. On that page, under the Reference section, Reference 2 refers to them as a proto-molosser. Regards, William Harris • talk • 19:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This matter has been raised before, in Archive 9, under the title "Molossus Dog Not Extinct !" back in 2013. William Harris • talk • 10:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

German Shorthaired Pointer

The opening section of the article on German Shorthaired Pointers (GSP) should be expanded to include the German Registry and its name and qualifications for the Deutsch Kurzhaar (DK) breed. A citation that would simplify the expansion could be the North American Deutsch Kurzhaar Club, http://www.nadkc.org/index.html Basically, GSPs originated with DKs that were imported into the United States and eventually recognized by the American Kennel Club as 'pointers.' In fact, DKs are not truly pointers, but instead and unlike English Pointers, are 'versatile hunting dogs,' that retrieve on land and water, track scent and blood trails and pursue vermin, in addition to their naturally tendency to point at any game. The difference between GSP and DK lies with the registration programs - AKC in the US and Canada and the German hunting federation (FCI) and its DKV (DK breed club) which controls the registration of DKs. All true DKs are registered in the German program, which has strict breeding qualifications for brood bitches as well as for stud dogs. For example, to qualify for breeding, a dog must pass at least one advanced hunting test, be adjudged "good" coat and conformation (cannot have faults such as bad bite, gun shyness, incorrect size, poor conformation) and must have hip X-rays submitted to the German registry and been approved "Hip Dysplasia Free" as evaluated by the DKV (x-ray sent to Germany). Another odd difference between AKC GSPs and DKs is that, although DKs were recognized in Germany 100+ years before the AKC recognized the breed and DKs can be black and white, as well as liver and white, the AKC does not recognize black and white GSPs for shows and trials.

I have copied your comment onto the Talk Page of GSP, which is the appropriate place for it. Regards, William Harris • talk • 19:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Famous Maltipoos

There's some dispute about adding a Maltipoo#Famous And Other Notable Maltipoos section and which Maltipoos should be in it. It might help if someone familiar with normal practice for such articles could join the discussion at Talk:Maltipoo#Notable dogs. NebY (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This matter now appears to have been actioned, details on Talk:Maltipoo William Harris • talk • 10:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

health section on mongrels should be altered

altered to remove the line on hybrid vigor.

i have tried to edit it and was told i was wrong and sent to a part of wiki that was incorrect so now i believe i am in the right place but who really knows anymore.

i gave the links to the studies and the results TWICE

This has been shown in a recent study in June 1, 2013 by the Journal of american veterinary medical association[14] Where with a large study of mutts and purebreds it was shown that mutts have no less risk than a purebred does of genetic related disorders. It was found that mutts had a higher risk of cranial cruciate ligament tears than did their purebred counterparts and that while both are equally susceptible to genetic disorders Purebreds with genetic disorders were limited to certain bloodlines with the particular disorder.[15]

Populations are particularly vulnerable when the dogs bred are closely related. Inbreeding among purebreds has exposed various genetic health problems not always readily apparent in less uniform populations. Mixed-breed dogs are more genetically diverse due to the more haphazard nature of their parents' mating. However, "haphazard" is not the same as "random" to a geneticist. The offspring of such matings might be less likely to express certain genetic disorders because there might be a decreased chance that both parents carry the same detrimental recessive alleles, but some deleterious recessives occur across many seemingly unrelated breeds, and therefore merely mixing breeds is no guarantee of genetic health. Also, when two poor specimens are bred, the offspring could inherit the worst traits of both parents. This is commonly seen in dogs from puppy mills.[16]

http://avmajournals.avma.org/toc/javma/242/11

"June 1 Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) researchers studied the medical records of 62,750 dogs diagnosed with genetic disorders during a 15 year period.

The study, titled, Prevalence of inherited disorders among mixed-breed and purebred dogs: 27,254 cases (1995–2010), Studied prevalence of 24 genetic disorders in the population.

Ten disorders were found to be more common in purebred dogs, purebred dogs had no higher incidence than did mixed breed dogs of health concerns. Mixed breed dogs had a higher prevalence of cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) tears than did purebred dogs.

According to the researchers, the study illustrates that for most heritable diseases mixed breeds confer no greater over all health. Heritable diseases clearly run in some pure bred lines, however according to the researchers, thirteen of the 24 diseases studied were present across the entire canine population prior to breeding for specific traits, and are therefore just as likely to show up in a mixed breed dog as a purebred.

Heritable diseases can be devastating for pet owners; knowing the history of a dog's lineage may provide a buffer against some of these issues. In-breeding has certainly led some breeds to have a high incidence for some diseases, and mixes derived from that breed can suffer from the same set of issues."

This unsigned and undated section was created in February 2015 and has not been archived. The editor deleted a large section of material then presented the opposing argument, rather than leaving the original material then presenting the opposing argument. Those edits were rolled back twice. No further action on this matter. Date and time stamp for archive now provided. William Harris • talk • 11:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Coyote for GA

I've nominated Coyote for GAN. Anyone is welcome to start the review and comment. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolve stalled merge

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#Renewed merge discussion, for resolution of something that had consensus in 2013 and then nothing happened to implement it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Of importance

Important discussion of interest to participants on this project: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Merge WP:VET to WP:MED as a taskforce/workgroup?. Montanabw^(talk) 04:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Fictional dogs

Hi, amongst other things, i add wikiprojects to article talkpages, would like a clarification please, do fictional dogs and fiction books where the protaginist is a dog come under the purview of this project? a project i have added to some talkpages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats clearly states in its Scope "This project deals with the creation and editing of articles related to cats, including both real and fictional cats.", while this project's Scope - "The scope of this project is those articles contained in the Category:Canines, and any other articles which directly pertain to dogs." could be open to interpretation? thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Coolabahapple, I see two arguments here. On the one hand, "the goals of this project are to create, expand, and maintain articles related to Canidae and Dogs in general", and therefore fictional dogs falls under this goal as being general. On the other hand, a fictional dog is not a real dog and therefore does not fall under this project. My opinion is to WP:BEBOLD and WP:JUSTDOIT until someone has an issue with it. You might like to wait until 9 Novemeber, having left a full month for the receipt of comment, before progressing. Regards, William Harris |talk 20:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi William Harris, thanks for your reasoned response, i will wait as suggested. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested Articles

I want to request an article that falls within WikiProject Dogs, but I'm not sure which category to use on WP:RA. I hoped that I would find more information on this page, but your section on RA shows only articles that are already listed for creation I believe? Could someone advise me where I should make my request? Many thanks MarpoHarks (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Dogs/Archive 9 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.^[1]^[2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

See submissions through external academic peer review
Format accepted articles
Promote the journal

Authors

Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Cão de Gado Transmontano

Hi, I could use help improving this article, Cão de Gado Transmontano. thank you IQ125 (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Could somebody do the IPA on the name of this dog? Please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article would benefit from an addition of a section that deals with life span and health problems. I have not yet found sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We are in a vibrant and important discussion at the talk page of this article about what it should be called. I think the arguments, pro and con, are laid out neatly. That being said, we would genuinely appreciate input as to what this article should be called. Portugese name or English translations. This is wikipedia collegial, not hostile. No reports will be filed. No prisoners taken. And it is of little particular consequences to the article, as we will no doubt have (and already have) redirects either way. So please give us your input. {:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There are actually three cães (plural of cão) who currently have article titles in Portuguese on this English language version of Wikipedia. In addition to the Transmontano Mastiff there's the Azorean Cattle Dog and the Portuguese Watch Dog. In Portugal, the Azores, or Brazil, I'd call these cães or cachorros as they are on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but in an English language encyclopedia, I'd call them mastiffs, hounds, and dogs. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Kurī

Is there anybody interested in expanding the article Kurī? I have compiled a list of sources on the subject on the further reading section that can be used to expand the article but don't think I am up to working on it myself. I feel like it can get a DYK nomination with a fivefold expansion which given the current size won't be much. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sirius?

Can anyone explain why the star Alpha Canis Majoris (also known as Sirius, sometimes referred to as the "dog star") should be included under WikiProject Dogs? It is hardly a member of the Canidae. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 9/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Dogs.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Dogs, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Addison's disease in canines

An article tagged by this WikiProject—Addison's disease in canines—has been proposed for merging with another article. If anyone is interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. DferDaisy (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Dog breed article moves

Please see Talk:Dalmatian (dog breed) re: recent changes to the article title of several dog breeds. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Domestic animal breed page names

Following recent discussions at Talk:Campine chicken and Talk:Dalmatian dog, I think a generalised discussion is needed to clarify naming conventions for domestic animal breeds and types. From what I can see there are several issues that complicate this issue the primary of which is probably global a lack consistency about animal breed names and naming conventions. The second is likely animal breed names are often derived from a place and so can be used across multiple species and also non-animal related objects, place names, peoples, cultures and even languages.

It is my opinion that currently we do not have the balance quite right and I suspect it stems from a desire to apply a uniform approach to an inherently inconsistent problem.

Whilst I will outline my opinions and a proposal below I feel common sense and clarity should prevail here over blind adherence to an ill fitting policy.

In my opinion simply including the species in the page name for a breed of animal whose name does not by convention include that species is misrepresentative. To use Dalmatian dog as an example, no one refers to their "Dalmatian dog" but instead to their "Dalmatian" and (without having actually confirmed) I suspect very few reliable sources refer to "Dalmatian dogs". I also found the old Dalmatian (dog) quite (albeit slightly less) jarring and again it could conceivably be misinterpreted as "a dog named Dalmatian". Dalmatian is quite rightly a disambiguation page and so we are left with a quandary which I feel was briefly solved with the move to the page name Dalmatian (dog breed), as it is clear and there is little chance of ambiguity. On the other hand some breeds of domestic animals by convention include their species in their name, for example St John's water dog, in these cases the species rightly belongs in the page name.

What I propose is:
1. Convention should rule. Informed up by reliable sourcing.
2. Where disambiguation is required, a clear, common sense disambiguator be added. Like (dog breed), or (horse type) for pages like Cob (horse).
3. Where no disambiguation is required, nothing be needlessly added. For instance Border Leicester sheep which are by convention called Border Leicesters and there are no disambiguation issues.
4. Allowances be made for exemptions, particularly differences between species. Discussions on a goat breed's talk page may not work for a dog breed and so if contentious, the individual talk page should be used to reach consensus.

I have will add messages on the talk pages of WP:WikiProject Agriculture/Livestock task force, WP:WikiProject Cats, WP:WikiProject Equine and WP:WikiProject Poultry in the hope of capturing the target audiences. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC).

WP:ATDAB policy exists for a reason, and years of RMs have consistently applied it to breed articles (I've catalogued most of them at WP:BREEDDAB, though some recent ones are missing, like Campine Chicken). What's going on here, among those who keep losing it over things like "Campine chicken" or "Shetland pony" and demanding "Campine (chicken)" and "Shetland (pony)", is a specialized style fallacy. If two cat fanciers (for example) are talking to each other, they say something like "I have a Manx" and "I prefer Persians." If they are not talking to cat people, they often have to disambiguate. "A Manx what?" "Why do you narrow your dating pool so much?" We universally do this by adding the species name (or a synonym or subset of it) after the breed name: cat, dog (or hound, etc.), pig (or swine), pigeon, horse, pony, etc., etc. Thus "Manx cat". This is a natural feature of English, and it is not species-specific. It does not matter that when dog breeders/fanciers are talking to or writing for each other they just say "My Dalmatian is a vigorous runner"; the answer to "Dalmatian what?" is "Dalmatian dog."
That preamble out of the way:
1. Yes, convention should and does rule, per WP:CONSISTENCY. No that does not mean dog breeder or chicken breeder convention, it means Wikipedia article title policy convention. We don't depend on unreliable sourcing, so of course it's informed by reliable sourcing. But do not fall for the specialized-style fallacy: "reliable sources" does not mean "just specialist sources". When it comes to how to write English for a general audience, specialized sources [on anything other than writing English for a general audience] verge on the least reliable, because they are written in varying levels of insider jargon that is cloudy at best and often opaque to the non-initiated. This is important here because the vast majority of domestic animal breed names, by themselves, are ambiguous, mostly being place, culture, or nationality names, and thus usually confusable in one context or another with a human population (even with two-part names, e.g. Argentine Criollo, Anglo-Nubian, Welsh Black, Algerian Arab, etc.).
2. Nope, because:
  1. A. Per WP:ATDAB policy, we use natural disambiguation when available, while parenthetic is the choice of last result other than making up a descriptive title (like 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team – we only do that when there is no WP:COMMONNAME). For breeds, natural disambiguation is virtually always available., even if it grates on the ears of breeders who don't use it when talking with other pig or turkey or whatever specialists. The only conceivable case natural disambiguation is unavailable is when a) the common name in English is a foreign term that includes the species name or a synonym of it (e.g. Dachshund, in which -hund = hound) such that a "breed + species" name would be redundant (Dachshund hound or Dachshund dog); and b) the name is ambiguous and must be disambiguated; $\wedge$ the breed is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name; and d) there is no other nearly-as-common alternative name to use instead – all four at once. Only then would we resort to parenthetic disambiguation (I think we'd agree that the intervening disambiguation case – comma-based – isn't appropriate here.) This virtually never happens. The only case I can think of is a breed and a crossbreed (both cattle) that share the same name, such that one's disambiguated with "(breed)" and the other with "(crossbreed)" because even "Black Hereford cattle" was ambiguous.
  2. B. Multi-word disambiguations like "(dog breed)" are overdisambiguation; in the ultra-rare cases that we need a parenthetic disambiguator for a breed, ever, it's simply "(breed)", per WP:DAB and WP:CONCISE. One of the most common speedy renaming patterns at WP:RM/TR is removal of extraneous words from disambiguations, so even if some ginned up attempt at "local consensus" went around renaming things again like you tried the other day, others will object to it again and again and it won't stick.
3. Yes, though "by convention called" (i.e., how breeders of Border Leicesters talk about them) is irrelevant. It should be at Border Leicester not Border Leicester sheep because there is no other Border Leicester from which to disambiguate the breed. I.e., there isn't anything breeds-specific going on here, it's just routine application of the don't-unnecessarily-disambiguate rule. We disambiguate when there's an article title clash, and even when there's not if the resulting name is intolerably ambiguous, as it was with "Algerian Arab" now at Algerian Arab sheep, etc.
4. No, per WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:CONLEVEL, and WP:OWN policies. This is just another "let different wikiprojects make up their own conflicting rules" proposal, and we just don't go there.
- An additional and serious problem with this parenthetic nonsense is that it presupposes that everything claimed to be a breed actually is one. This often turns out to not be the case. Many are crossbreeds with no breed recognition by any notable organization, others are names for feral or mongrelized populations, some for domestic–wild hybrids, others for sub-breeds or appearance variations, for types or classes or breed groups, for landraces, for local populations not distinct except by geography, and so on. It can sometimes take a lot of additional sourcing to determine whether something is a breed (and according to whom). WP labeling them all breeds without concrete proof of this on a per-case basis is a WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:V problem all at once. Anything that fails all the core content policies simultaneously cannot proceed.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 09:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, an older discussion on this exact topic is here. One problem I see with dog names is that some of these are arguably the most common uses of that particular adjective in English. Thanks to Disney, every kid knows that a Dalmatian is a type of dog. Most people will never even learn that "Dalmatian" refers to anything else. The phrase "Dalmatian dog" just isn't common or natural in everyday English.

Another problem is that alternative two-word names do exist for some of these breeds, eg "Brittany spaniel" as a synonym for "Brittany". In that case, "Brittany dog" just looks bizarre. The title was essentially made-up on the spot.

These concerns don't apply to every dog breed, and honestly, I haven't even heard of all of the breeds whose pages were recently moved. I just wanted to throw in some ideas. Zagalejo^^^ 17:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It emphatically is common in everyday English, just not among "dog people". Incontrovertible proof: news, books, web. The exact phrase "Dalmatian dog" is even overwhelmingly more common in book sources than the phrase Dalmatian breed. Dog breeders and fanciers are living in a magical alternative reality tunnel in which they're very incorrectly certain that the way they talk with other dog people is universally the way English is used in every context by everyone, and that everyone understands their jargon automatically. (And your assumption that everyone who uses en.Wikipedia is familiar with 1961 Disney content is faulty, if it were even relevant – Disney didn't do a movie named after every dog breed.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 01:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: The fact that Brittany spaniel is another name of the Brittany dog breed is not a "problem" it's an alternative name we should consider using. I'd bet good money it's actually the WP:COMMONNAME, too, just not among dog-specific publications. If it's not it's very, very close. This can be demonstrated by doing a Google News search an excluding surnames from "Brittany Surname here" results (up to the max Google will allow), then looking at the actually dog-related result. "Brittany spaniel" is very common [18]. It's also really common in books; most of those that do not include "spaniel" are dog-focused publications, not general-audience works [19]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 02:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Raw Google search numbers can be misleading. This doesn't even use the phrase "Dalmatian dog", as best as I can tell. Neither does this. And lots of the results are just incidental pairings of the two words (eg, "the Dalmatian dog breed"). I'm not going to analyze all of the links. But one thing I did infer from the book results is that the Library of Congress subject heading is indeed "Dalmatian dog". If it's good enough for them, then I'm not going to spend any more time on this.

Given a choice between "Brittany dog" and "Brittany spaniel", I'd definitely pick the latter. Although, as an aside, I don't like the way your argument dismisses "dog fanciers". We want people who are passionate about dogs to be editing these articles. Their enthusiasm and expertise should count for something, and this condescending attitude turns people away. Zagalejo^^^ 05:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Dog fanciers are very welcome to edit the articles, complete with their passion about dogs, but they must realise that Wikipedia is not primarily for reading by enthusiasts and experts and other people with a passion for dogs. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Aye, and Zagalejo is imagining a "tone" that isn't present. I'm a cat fancier – like off-the-chart "crazy cat gentleman", cat fancier. I apply the exact same criteria I'm applying here to cat articles, and I started the cleanup in that category, then livestock and poultry, and moved to dogs dead last. So, any suggestion that I'm scornful of dog fanciers and their concerns is mistargeted. I'm entirely aware that the dog fancy has "it's ways". The very point, though, is that they are not Wikipedia's ways, and not the ways of English usage in a general-audience register, for people with no experience of pure-bred dogs, and often limited experience with English itself. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 16:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I remain unconvinced by your arguments and your Google searches are frankly underwhelming. A quick glance at my parent's (early 90s edition) World Book Encyclopedia this afternoon revealed "Dalmatian is a popular breed of ..." (only Dalmatian entry) and "Brittany is a popular ... also known as the Brittany spaniel ..." (followed Brittany entry). An online search of Encyclopædia Britannica revealed "Dalmatian, dog breed named after ..." whilst the search function displays "Dalmatian (breed of dog)". My knowledge of Flemish chooks is a little scratchy, but Shetland ponies are by convention called "Shetland ponies" and so that is not in any way controversial, I'd imagine to the people of the Shetland Islands they are just "ponies", and a look at Britannica reveals "Shetland pony, breed of horse ...". As to your labelling me and others with similar concerns "dog fanciers", I assume you are attempting bluster as a diversion. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC).
Already addressed this [20]. PS: things like Shetland ponies are called just Shetlands among horse fanciers. Every usage about dogs that seems strange to dog people is normal to horse people and don't-care-about-animals-just-dubstep-or-chemistry people, just as usage that seems inept to horse people about horses seems regular to you. Let me quote one of the most active horse-focused editors (who also initially opposed natural DAB in favor of parenthetic but switched) summing up the issue pretty well in January 2015, on distinguishing between Mustang horses and other things named "Mustang": "We have a[n article about the] Shetland pony, which within the pony world is commonly called a "Shetland", likewise, within the horse world, we have "Mustangs" "Arabians" "Hanoverians" and so on. Outside of the horse world, any rational person will clarify an "Arabian horse" or a "Hanoverian horse" so as to be clear where we are talking about a horse or not." [21] This is not different in any way for dogs, sheep, rabbits, turkeys, cats, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 16:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No change. There's an awful lot of words here, but no convincing case for either changing WP:ATDAB, or carving out exceptions from it (nor is this the right venue for that, per WP:CONLEVEL). IMO, ATDAB already strikes the right balance: natural disambiguation is favored where there is an alternative title in common use, with the threshold of what's "common" left to common sense and case-by-case determination. WikiProjects have some freedom on how to decide what's "common" for the articles in their purview, but WP:CONLEVEL is firm: WikiProject guidance must be consistent with ATDAB. That means that a title that is common in non-specialist writing (and it doesn't need to be the most common) is to be favored over a parenthetical, even if it's not common in specialist writing. If anyone has an issue with that, they need to take it up on Wikipedia talk:Article titles; a WikiProject does not have the authority to ignore project-wide guidance. —swpb^{T go beyond} 15:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
No change Wikipedia is written for a general audience, as SMcCandlish has amply argued. The naming preference of groups that take a special interest in various subjects is routinely ignored in favor of WP:COMMONNAME and that should be the case here. This change serves no-one well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be on a case-by-case basis. The regional names like Pomeranian or Newfoundland I would favor adding dog instead of (dog). Pomeranian has several animal breeds including a duck, a goose, and a sheep. Also Brittany dog would be preferable to Brittany (dog) as the latter would most likely refer to a dog named Brittany. As for Dalmatian, there's the debate whether the dog is the primary topic, and then afterwards (which I suppose is this thread) whether Dalmatian dog or Dalmatian (dog) is more commonly used in general. I'll side with Shetland pony over Shetland (pony) though. I don't see much use for specifying dog breed vs. dog unless there are multiple articles. I also agree that it's redundant to add dog to a name like American Bulldog dog or to ones that have already established primary topic like Poodle or Bloodhound. But then you have purposely redundant dabs like Hound dog. Within the article it can stick with the specific name without dog afterwards. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's more that "hound dog" is a genuine Southern American colloquialism, and lots of things have been named this after Elvis popularized the song by that name. Actual dogs wouldn't be at titles like "Foo Hound dog"; if "Foo Hound" were actually ambiguous and not the primary topic, then "Foo Hound (breed)", since "dog" is already automatically implicit in hound, and would be redundant. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 06:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll add that WP:ATDAB seems to have a suitable flow: primary, then natural phrasing, then parentheses, while avoiding awkward phrases like Bulldog dog AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No change per SMcCandlish and others. It is less important that you approve of his style of discussion than that his arguments are sound. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

[newfoundlandart-1] "The Newfoundland in Art & Literature". Newfoundland Club of America. Retrieved 10 September 2011.

[2] ttp://www.academia.edu/1632457/Empathic-like_responding_by_domestic_dogs_Canis_familiaris_to_distress_in_humans_an_exploratory_studyhere

[3] Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.

[4] "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

[1]

[anyother 1]

[1]

[2]