This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles about breeds and other varieties of domesticated animal often show a lack of familiarity with basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They are often written off-the-cuff by fanciers or breeders new to Wikipedia, then not cleaned up by anyone for years. This is a summary of key points for how to write them properly. |
Below is a crash course in the basics of writing a breed-related article on Wikipedia, without getting into administrative trouble or having the article deleted. All of Wikipedia's rules apply to breed articles, just like everything else. However, many people who want to write about them are fairly new to Wikipedia and do not understand yet what those policies and guidelines are and how they may apply.
While written mainly with standardized breeds in mind, much of this advice also pertains to landraces and feral populations; hybrids, cross-breeds, and other varietals (often of tamed wild animals rather than true domesticates); and "fancy" varieties and laboratory strains of rodents, which are breeds in all but name. Some of it will also be applicable to writing about plant cultivars, the horticultural equivalent of animal breeds.
For how to provide reference citations, see WP:Citing sources.
Everything in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable, and sources for our material have to be reliable ones. Blogs, forums, wikis and other self-published or user-created material does not count – no matter how correct it may be. Same certainly goes for personal knowledge or opinion.
{{
citation needed}}
or {{
unreliable source}}
, or they may simply delete the questionable material.{{
Infobox cat breed}}
and {{
Infobox dog breed}}
, contain information on notable and reputable registries, and which ones are not. This feature may not be available for other-species breed infoboxes, in which case consider asking on the talk page of the relevant wikiproject .Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, only of material verifiable in reliable sources. We have stringent rules against original research – the advancement of your own ideas or investigation as if they're reliable facts.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is written like one. We have an important policy about what Wikipedia is not (and is not written like), including guidebooks, news, blogs and op-eds, advertising, attack pages, personal memoirs, webboards, and everything else that isn't an encyclopedia.
Writing for Wikipedia must express a neutral point of view. Avoid emotive language and personal opinion, including advocacy and criticism.
There is no magical exception for anyone's favorite topic. Our Wikipedia:Manual of Style is large, with various subpages. No one is expected to absorb it all, or read it from top to bottom; it is primarily a reference work for settling disputes. But it is a formal guideline and article content is expected to comply with it. You're free to just dive right in and write without looking at these rules, but we prefer you at least absorb the basics. Importantly, it is not permissible to edit-war against other editors when they make your material conform to the style guidelines (or any other Wikipedia:policies and guidelines).
Some key points for the breeds context:
WP:Article titles provides a checklist of criteria for a proper title of a Wikipedia article.
WP:Notability explains what Wikipedia specifically means by "notable" (it does not mean "important" or "been around a long time" or "newly announced in a press release"). The general notability criterion (GNG) is that there must be in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, or the article will likely be deleted.
In general, a standardized breed is almost presumptively notable, because it will appear in multiple breed standards, breed encyclopedias, news articles, and other sources.
For a population that is not a breed (such as a type, a landrace, a feral population, a cross-breed, or a coat variant), proving independent notability is often impossible, and we have few such articles. Some examples that are notable include Mustang, Van cat, Wolfdog, and Labradoodle – because a lot of reliable material has been written about them.
For nascent breeds, treatment may differ:
It's entirely common and everyday for two or more breeder or fancier organizations to:
We cover all this stuff by neutrally observing what is written in the breed standards and related documentation; and in less primary sources like breed encyclopedias (tertiary sources); and especially in any secondary sources like books, academic journals, mainstream newspapers, and other materials not published by any of the kennel clubs or breed associations themselves.
It is not permissible – in Wikipedia's articles or on its talk pages – to treat any particular one of these publications or publishers as the holy truth or go on some kind of righting the great wrongs campaign to push your version of what is "correct".
It's standard practice here to merge closely related short topics ( "stub" articles) that don't work well as stand-alone articles. A combined one will form a single, better sourced, more comprehensive article on the overarching topic.
Thus, someone's insistence that this version of a particular breed or breed group is distinct, and that other one isn't legitimate in their view or the view of some particular organization they're familiar with, is likely to be irrelevant.
Similarly, cultivars (plant breeds) may have numerous trademarked trade designations (selling names); these are not independently notable, and instead redirect to the cultivar's article and should be mentioned there.
In summary: If the sources treat them as essentially the same topic, and they cannot be cleanly separated, and we don't have enough material for multiple stand-alone articles, then they remain (or get) merged into one article.
This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles about breeds and other varieties of domesticated animal often show a lack of familiarity with basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They are often written off-the-cuff by fanciers or breeders new to Wikipedia, then not cleaned up by anyone for years. This is a summary of key points for how to write them properly. |
Below is a crash course in the basics of writing a breed-related article on Wikipedia, without getting into administrative trouble or having the article deleted. All of Wikipedia's rules apply to breed articles, just like everything else. However, many people who want to write about them are fairly new to Wikipedia and do not understand yet what those policies and guidelines are and how they may apply.
While written mainly with standardized breeds in mind, much of this advice also pertains to landraces and feral populations; hybrids, cross-breeds, and other varietals (often of tamed wild animals rather than true domesticates); and "fancy" varieties and laboratory strains of rodents, which are breeds in all but name. Some of it will also be applicable to writing about plant cultivars, the horticultural equivalent of animal breeds.
For how to provide reference citations, see WP:Citing sources.
Everything in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable, and sources for our material have to be reliable ones. Blogs, forums, wikis and other self-published or user-created material does not count – no matter how correct it may be. Same certainly goes for personal knowledge or opinion.
{{
citation needed}}
or {{
unreliable source}}
, or they may simply delete the questionable material.{{
Infobox cat breed}}
and {{
Infobox dog breed}}
, contain information on notable and reputable registries, and which ones are not. This feature may not be available for other-species breed infoboxes, in which case consider asking on the talk page of the relevant wikiproject .Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, only of material verifiable in reliable sources. We have stringent rules against original research – the advancement of your own ideas or investigation as if they're reliable facts.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is written like one. We have an important policy about what Wikipedia is not (and is not written like), including guidebooks, news, blogs and op-eds, advertising, attack pages, personal memoirs, webboards, and everything else that isn't an encyclopedia.
Writing for Wikipedia must express a neutral point of view. Avoid emotive language and personal opinion, including advocacy and criticism.
There is no magical exception for anyone's favorite topic. Our Wikipedia:Manual of Style is large, with various subpages. No one is expected to absorb it all, or read it from top to bottom; it is primarily a reference work for settling disputes. But it is a formal guideline and article content is expected to comply with it. You're free to just dive right in and write without looking at these rules, but we prefer you at least absorb the basics. Importantly, it is not permissible to edit-war against other editors when they make your material conform to the style guidelines (or any other Wikipedia:policies and guidelines).
Some key points for the breeds context:
WP:Article titles provides a checklist of criteria for a proper title of a Wikipedia article.
WP:Notability explains what Wikipedia specifically means by "notable" (it does not mean "important" or "been around a long time" or "newly announced in a press release"). The general notability criterion (GNG) is that there must be in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, or the article will likely be deleted.
In general, a standardized breed is almost presumptively notable, because it will appear in multiple breed standards, breed encyclopedias, news articles, and other sources.
For a population that is not a breed (such as a type, a landrace, a feral population, a cross-breed, or a coat variant), proving independent notability is often impossible, and we have few such articles. Some examples that are notable include Mustang, Van cat, Wolfdog, and Labradoodle – because a lot of reliable material has been written about them.
For nascent breeds, treatment may differ:
It's entirely common and everyday for two or more breeder or fancier organizations to:
We cover all this stuff by neutrally observing what is written in the breed standards and related documentation; and in less primary sources like breed encyclopedias (tertiary sources); and especially in any secondary sources like books, academic journals, mainstream newspapers, and other materials not published by any of the kennel clubs or breed associations themselves.
It is not permissible – in Wikipedia's articles or on its talk pages – to treat any particular one of these publications or publishers as the holy truth or go on some kind of righting the great wrongs campaign to push your version of what is "correct".
It's standard practice here to merge closely related short topics ( "stub" articles) that don't work well as stand-alone articles. A combined one will form a single, better sourced, more comprehensive article on the overarching topic.
Thus, someone's insistence that this version of a particular breed or breed group is distinct, and that other one isn't legitimate in their view or the view of some particular organization they're familiar with, is likely to be irrelevant.
Similarly, cultivars (plant breeds) may have numerous trademarked trade designations (selling names); these are not independently notable, and instead redirect to the cultivar's article and should be mentioned there.
In summary: If the sources treat them as essentially the same topic, and they cannot be cleanly separated, and we don't have enough material for multiple stand-alone articles, then they remain (or get) merged into one article.