This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Hello Northamerica1000, I have noticed you have been putting some work into Portal:Dogs, I am appreciative of your efforts. I am not sure it is an improvement adding Dogs portal to all of the project’s navboxes and accordingly I have reverted most of the additions for now (it was a nasty shock to realise how many dog navboxes I have on my watchlist). I am happy to listen to arguments for their reintroduction. If we were to reintroduce them, the colours need to be aligned with the rest of the navbox ( [1] [2]) and I think the picture of the Doberman should be removed, it is a distraction in templates where the Doberman has no place.
I am keen to hear other project members thoughts, Justlettersandnumbers I see you too have reverted a couple of the navbox additions. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 22:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC).
WikiProject Dogs sees no value in portals and no value in adding them to pages that fall under its purview: whether they see value is a matter for members of this WP. As for
any portals on dog articles may be removed, Dogs is one of the few portals that wasn't taken to MfD individually after a 2018 RfC decided to keep the namespace. It seems to have a broad enough scope and to be of similar quality to other portals which survived. The question then is whether we should hide portals from readers by making them orphans. I don't see any dog-specific arguments either way, but our general principle is that pages we choose to keep should be linked from appropriate sources. As from the icon, the best choice depends on where it appears. Amongst a bunch of other portals, a dog image works well to distinguish it from (say) Portal:Cats. Amongst a bunch of dog pages, the puzzle piece image would do a better job of distinguishing it from non-portal dog pages. Certes ( talk) 16:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
those philosophically wedded to the idea of portals want links to this portal plastered everywhere- well that's entirely untrue. As long as portals exist, they should not be orphaned. As long as portals meet minimum guidance and cover a defined topic, they can exist. It is inappropriate for a group to request to orphan a viable portal, especially with only irrelevant reasoning: some give the argument that they don't like portals (the namespace was kept, don't try to enforce removal through backdoor means), some that the link is unattractive (so change it?), and some that the content no longer matches the WP (not that portals and projects have to align, but you are allowed to change that, too!) It doesn't have to be everywhere, but it is WP Portal's role to make sure it isn't orphaned. Kingsif ( talk) 04:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"I cannot see how this would be anything but helpful to visitors should they wish to follow the link. That choice should be their's, and not our's.Indeed, it should be the WP:READERS' choice, and removing the links removes the options for readers. North America 1000 08:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
portal-inline|Dogs}}
into the see also sections of dog articles, the inclusion of an icon in the see also section of any dog articles serves no encyclopedic purpose so should be removed per
WP:DECOR. Simple links are sufficient.
Cavalryman (
talk) 02:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC).I was going to present this earlier, but at this time, starting a fresh thread with this new topic seems best. I have performed several improvements to Portal:Dogs, and I would like to solicit any suggestions from members of this project on how to further improve the portal. Is anything vital missing that should be there? Are there any types of additional sections that could be added that would improve the portal for Wikipedia's WP:READERS? Suggestions and commentary are appreciated. North America 1000 09:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
|selected={{#time:n}}
so that the item matching the month number 1–12 appears. Fortnightly is also possible but a little more complicated: |selected={{#expr:1 + {{#time:U}} / 1209600 mod X}}
should work, if you replace X by the number of items to rotate.
Certes (
talk) 15:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)@ Northamerica1000: I do not believe that any editor will be removing the links to the portal. There are some who are not in favor of the icon; converting the link to just a hyperlink will be their task if they wish to pursue that. There may be a few cases where a majority of editors on an article might want the link removed; that will be up them. For my part, tonight I have commenced rolling the portal out across our 530 breed articles, 10 articles per night. It will take me 53 days to complete this task. At the end of that process, I will gauge the willingness to accept the "dogs portal" on the non-familiaris WP:DOG articles. (Any change involving the "Wikipedia Wolfpack" is always fraught with uncertainty.) William Harris (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
* {{portal-inline|Dogs}} creates
As noted above, the use of the inline template contradicts
WP:DECOR, the icons serve no encyclopedic purpose in see also sections (they are purely decorative) so they contradict our authorised style guide. If
WP:PORTL ever gets elevated to the position of guideline you may have an argument, but at the moment it is an unauthorised (and according to the top outdated) FYI page. Re {{
Portal|dogs}}
, I think its use on some of our shorter articles (stubs etc) looks pretty crowded, instead I think a possible standard we should approach consider for breed articles is:
==See also== * [[Portal:Dogs|Dogs portal]] * [[List of dog breeds]]
Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 02:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC).
I made a WP:AGF edit. It was reverted as per WP:BRD, unfortunately there was no explanation to Discuss offered on that article's Talk page, therefore other interested editors could not contribute their point of view for the revert to that article. It appears to have been a unilateral decision by one editor.
I did not breach of any WP:POL. The reason offered here for the revert was that "I did not, and do not, see any semblance of a consensus here to start adding it en masse to our articles". I highlight this use of the word "our". Wikiproject Dogs does not WP:OWN the dog-related articles - nobody does as per that policy - therefore there can never be a consensus to do that here. If there was, it would be non-binding because it is beyond its powers.
Any edits I make to WP:DOG-related articles from this point on will be as an individual editor. Other editors may change my edit also as individual editors for that article, or if they wish to be less polite they may revert it - that is not my concern. I no longer watch this page because I am no longer a member of WP:DOGS. William Harris (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I have always thought the vital article tag at the top of some article talk pages is pretty arbitrary and so have been looking at what dog articles are deemed "vital". I won't pretend to understand the system (and cannot really be bothered educating myself) but below is the list of project-related articles listed (as far as I can tell):
For now I would like to discuss level 4 listing. Looking at the format there is limited scope to add to the number of total articles, so any addition needs to be met with a subtraction.
I am keen to hear other member's thoughts. Cavalryman ( talk) 02:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC).
How about we pare the breeds list down to seven:
Then add one to our entries in the mammals section:
@ Atsme, Canarian, Elf, Gareth Griffith-Jones, Justlettersandnumbers, LoraxJr, and SMcCandlish: pinging other project members to gauge opinions and see if they would support this. Cavalryman ( talk) 09:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC).
I agree that listing dog types a.k.a. breed groups is much more sensible than singling out ten or a dozen specific standardized breeds, which was a PoV-pushing exercise if there ever was one, and a hold-over from the original version of this wikiproject before it crashed and burned under the weight of its own collective bad decisions. I'm not concerned about the biological taxonomy disputes that would treat dog, wolf, and coyote all as the same species or each as its own species; for reader-facing purposes, these are different animals. That is, people are coming to WP to find out how they are classified, not coming here already certain of it, in most cases. I'm skeptical about dingoes and jackals; the first are only one group among several of wild-to-feral canine populations, just a well-known one compared to the others ( Indian pariah dogs, etc.). Jackal, as noted, is really more of a term, and while two species are closely related one is not (it's a bit like "monkey" – New World monkeys are one group and Old World monkeys another, and not as closely related cross-wise as laypersons tend to suppose, though closer than either group is related to apes, lemurs, and other primates).
I think we'd be better off editing
Free-ranging dog (to which
Wild dog and
Feral dog redirect) to better summarize dingoes, to summarize jackals at all, and to more clearly distinguish between wild canines, feral (domestic) dogs, and wild–domestic hybrids, with top-level sections for each (the present arrangement of a section call "types" with sub-sections for these classifications, is pointless). Then have that page be one of these articles, instead of jackal and dingo being in this list. That article would basically be a
WP:Set-index article (kind of a narrative version of a disambiguation page, in
WP:Summary style) but we seem to need one, and the present article isn't quite it. PS: Plural of genus is genera.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 05:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion about the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever article’s infobox image is occurring at Talk:Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever#Infobox photo, project members are invited to participate. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 23:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC).
Should Swimmer puppy syndrome have its own article? Dwanyewest ( talk) 03:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Bibliography
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Dog bites and attacks sidebar at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 19#Template:Dog bites and attacks sidebar, project members are invited to participate. Cavalryman ( talk) 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ Annwfwn: I can see you have created several new navboxes, including:
I appreciate what you have tried to do in creating these, it seems there is something missing from those articles compared to other dog breed articles. Per
WP:NAV-WITHIN, navboxes should not be too small. A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections, or relevant {{
main article}} and {{
see also}} links within the articles' sections.
These navboxes only contains two to three links. Are you happy that we look to get rid of this? Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 04:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC).
Following on from this discussion several months ago, I have proposed to swap a number of dog articles listed at WP:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences. Project members are invited to participate in the discussion at WT:Vital articles/Level/4#Swap: reorganisation of dogs. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 09:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC).
I’ve been putzing around with these three pages lately as they were driving me crazy. But before I add more content, I’d like to just check in and see where they are on everyone’s radar.
Part of my issue is that there is quite a bit of redundancy between the three. Conversely Laika, I’d say it would be sufficient to cluster husky entirely under the sled dog article and delete the husky page altogether.
I’ve also got a few other dog breeds which I have plenty of published material for, namely the Chukotka Sled Dog, the Nenets Herding Laika and the Kamchatka Sled dog. And the dreaded Alaskan Husky page.
However before I start adding info, I’d like to do it in a controlled fashion. Please offer some thoughts. Annwfwn ( talk)
This is really trivial, sorry! Wase134 has (twice) added at Irish Wolfhound that "it is the tallest dog in the world". The Guinness Book of Records is quite clear that the tallest dog was a Great Dane, as were many other very tall dogs. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I’ve made a proposal to substantially update the article about the multi-billion dollar publicly- traded fresh pet food company Freshpet. The proposal is here: Talk:Freshpet#Request Edit December 2021. It’s now only a stub and I think the extensive reliable sourcing merits a regular article. I thought members of this project might have a special interest in this topic! I have a declared COI as an employee of Freshpet, which is why I am not directly editing the page. Your independent analysis would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. NJ0220 ( talk) 19:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Following on from this level 4 proposal, I have proposed to swap a number of dog articles listed at WP:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals. Project members are invited to participate in the discussion at WT:Vital articles/Level/5#Swap: reorganisation of dogs. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 16:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC).
I have done some work on the page Sheep dog, which appears to be a list of breeds, nothing more, which I think is still necessary, but the name can be confusing the readers, so I think we should change it to "Sheep dog breeds" or even "Sheep dog breeds list". @ William Harris, @ Cavalryman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoraxJr ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
LoraxJr, when I get a chance I will try to find some sources. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 11:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC).
There is a merge discussion and a NPOV discussion at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Staffordshire Bull Terrier Atsme 💬 📧 06:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Anyone care to take a look at Talk:Lurcher? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Please see discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman ( talk) 02:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I've tried adding to and discussing removing certain unreliable sources from the general term pit bull article. Despite my best efforts, reasonable discourse does not seem feasible. There's constant edit warring and most of it is with personal intent, not to better the article or make it more accurate. It's far too political and what's on there now depends on who did the latest edit.
Can this article be locked for only dog experts to edit? What can be done to better the article and reduce vandalism? Tazdeviloo7 ( talk) 23:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to add and say not even just "dog experts" but people at least willing to engage in dialog to improve the wiki page. There are users there actively trying to not engage in dialog to improve the page and just throwing red herrings and false analogies around to stall any progress. I know we each have our interests, but if someone had time to come volunteer to help, it would be much appreciated. Right now the article is filled with either outdated or flawed data that can be improved, but no progress can be made thanks to a user acting in bad faith and not there to engage in dialog to better the page. Unbiased6969 ( talk) 08:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Staffordshire Bull Terrier 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 may be removed from the article. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
An article of interest to the project - Vapor wake canine — has been proposed for merging with Detection dog. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion
Annwfwn ( talk) 02:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Paul Terrier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
2601:647:5800:1A1F:D9D6:5287:205F:CEBC ( talk) 20:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A (proposed) | B (current) |
---|---|
|
|
- Kennel clubs are generally considered reliable sources for breed standards, number of registrations, member clubs, and information about themselves such as the conditions of accepting a breed into their registry.
- Kennel clubs and breed registries can be used to add specific details about the breed’s history to an article but the broad details should be verified in secondary sources.
- Sources should be reliable. If in doubt, seek consensus.
They also say,Breeding, marketing and selling “high-risk breeds” and the liability of breeders needs to be discussed in connection with fatal dog attacks....Breeds such as Pit Bull terrier [35] and Staffordshire Bull terrier [36] are described in Breed Standards as “excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children” or “Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children” despite their history as fighting dogs, their weight and strength. Their specific style of biting, “hold and tear”, can cause fatal injuries in minutes [7], and the biting combined with violent shaking exacerbates the injuries (Burns, Kusanale, & Brennan, 2011). Additionally, bull breeds are known to be aggressive to other dogs, which indirectly increases the risk of injuries to humans who may try to protect their own dogs from the attacking dog [37].
the marketing of dog breeds as “nanny dogs” should be prohibited because there is no evidence that such dogs exist.I believe this is consistent with prior !votes pointing out that kennel clubs exist primarily to serve to the commercial interests of breeders. Geogene ( talk) 16:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Disclaimer The author and publisher do not accept any responsiblity in any manner whatsoever for any error or omission, or any loss, damage, injury, adverse outcome, or liability of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any of the information contained in this book, or reliance upon it. The information contained herein is the author's opinion and is based on his experience. If in doubt about any aspect of veterinary treatment, readers are advised to seek professional advice.
{Moved discussion from|1=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Members |2=This is the correct page. Atsme Talk 📧 14:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)}} One of the conundrums brought about by the internet is an influx of dog registry associations in various flavors, many of which are registering breed-types that do not necessarily adhere to long established practices for developing breed standards. Long established purebred registries and their official kennel clubs are considered RS for dog descriptions, breed standards, breed history, etc. Such registries would include The Kennel Club, American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club, Canadian Kennel Club, Australian National Kennel Council, and comparable others across the globe. The issues that concern me are the new associations and registries that have sprung up on the internet such as the United Canine Association (UCA), American Rare Breed Association which is also a double registry because they "register dogs recognized by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale or by its own board of directors that are not yet recognized by the American Kennel Club." I find the latter somewhat disconcerting. We also have a List of kennel clubs, many of which are red-links. WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:V, and/or WP:RS are at issue, as is what actually constitutes a "breed" or "purebred dog". This morning I spent a bit of time checking citations for some of our dog articles and was overwhelmed by what I found, some of which are used as citations in our articles, and/or were used to establish notability. Examples: Sarah's dogs, Royal Canin, Dog Breed Info, Dog Time, Vet Street, etc. Let's discuss.
Pinging a few: Chrisrus, Montanabw, Cyclonebiskit, Elf, SMcCandlish, Doug Weller, White Arabian Filly, Cavalryman V31, Gareth Griffith-Jones, 7%266%3Dthirteen, Tikuko Atsme Talk 📧 19:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Let me start with an analogy: some people would say that because a word isn't "yet" in any printed dictionary, it isn't a word. Remember "ain't"? These words were only recently recognized by the OED: co-parent, deglobalization, e-publishing, hangry, mansplain, and selfie. The subject of linguistics teaches that words crop up spontaneously in a population, become commonly used in speech, and then get put into a dictionary. It's a matter of which comes first. In this analogy, the common use of the word comes before the recognition of the word by dictionary companies. The same applies to the creation of dog breeds and their eventual recognition (or not) by kennel clubs and breed registries. Breeds are created by people, not necessarily groups of people, and sometimes by just one person. That person, or the groups of people, may not care about "recognition" by a breed registry, may not be interested in paying others for registration of "their" dogs. Many believe that recognition by an organization with its breed standards and bent towards conformation shows will destroy the hard work put into the creation and establishment of a foundation stock and ongoing breeding programs (see Conformation show#Criticism), and may lead to health problems for an entire population of dogs. It's long been proven that focusing soley on conformation will ruin a breed's temperament, and that's why no one in Germany purchases a German Shepherd puppy unless both its sire and dam have also passed at least basic Schutzhund training (including passing the firearms test), proving their solid temperaments. The lack of buyer-pressure of behavioral and performance testing of breeding stock in the USA has produced a country full of almost useless gunshy and thunder-terrified GSDs, causing police departments to almost exclusively import their dogs from Europe and eastern European countries. To say that a dog breed isn't a real breed because it hasn't been sanctioned by, rubber stamped from, or incorporated into, a national organization is the same snobbery as saying "ain't" ain't a real word in today's English-speaking world. Do not allow the use of the Wikipedia platform to attempt to redefine the word "breed" to something it is not! Check any dictionary and you'll discover there are many definitions for each word, each slightly different from the others. You'll discover that all definitions are valid; some used more frequently than others in ordinary speech. To exclude all other meanings of a word in favor of one single meaning is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and specifically to the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There are several definitions of the word 'breed', only one of which means what we traditionally understand to be a purebred. To require Wikipedia editors to exclude all other uses of the word 'breed' in favor of one single specific meaning is Wikipedia:Advocacy. I understand the desire to want some form of standardisation, but you cannot cause the rest of world to conform to this idea, and as Wikipedia editors we report what is out there in real life; not what we want it to be. GNG policy: Note that the GNG policy Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not exclude the mention of non-notable subjects, it only describes which subjects shouldn't get their own standalone article. The section is followed immediately by Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Therefore, using the high standard of WP:GNG to exclude all mention of non-notable dog breeds from inclusion within any and all Wikipedia articles is a violation of Wikipedia policy. MEDRS: The idea that content about dog breeds need a strict policy such as WP:MEDRS ( Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)) is not defensible. The purpose of MEDRS is so that ideas about untested, controversial, or dangerous matters do not affect the health and well-being of a population through reading about it in Wikipedia. There's probably also a liability factor to Wikipedia if they allowed casual re-publication of fringe medical ideas. The risk of inclusion of minor, rare, or controversial dog breeds in an encyclopedia has no such risk factor. I don't believe there is a rampant uncontrollable "OR & PROMO problem" that needs further policymaking as a solution. Wikipedia already has plenty of policy to handle it; just edit and move on.
In closing: the proposed idea (of codifying the word 'breed') is a wrong use of Wikipedia resources, is contrary to its key purposes, and violates Wikipedia policy. |
Side conversation
|
---|
Well, first we need to get the encyclopedia back on track following WP:GNG, N, V and NOR. Why is it important? Well...let's start with the following article that is quite disturbing: Winograd stated:
Other articles of note: USC.edu, Plos, Smithsonian, and on and on. We do not want WP to be used as a source of misidentified breeds and breed types. We MUST get the article right, and our core content policies are quite clear about how we go about it. I'm thinking we need to include a paragraph about misindentified breeds in our Bulldog breeds article. Atsme Talk 📧 22:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
|
I am late to this discussion. And I don’t know that I can help much. When I started working on Wikipedia, there were only a handful of dog breed pages and they were all pretty sketchy. During the two years that I worked on this, with a stack of dog books at my side, it became clear that the question of what is a valid breed and what isn’t is extremely complex and extremely emotional for those involved. One need only to look at, for example, the border collie controversy, which wasn’t recognized as an official breed by the AKC until 1995. I started dog agility that year, and the controversy among so many border collie owners was huge: few of them wanted to be represented by AKC and thought that AKC would ruin the breed. Based on the number of dogs registered, the American border collie association, or whatever it’s called, would be the defining authority. But how does one go about finding these clubs and deciding what an appropriate number of registered dogs is to make it an official breed, even if it is not an official breed of one of the “big“ dog registries? In addition to the FCI, the AKC, etc., there are country registries in other countries (I think India has one, for example, and I think China might, but I don’t speak or read any form of Chinese, so I can’t verify that. We had so many arguments among various breed proponents on various pages about whether their breed was the real one or not, or whether it was even a breed, that I more or less gave up on deciding, and simply started listing whatever registry they claimed as being the one where the breed is registered. AKC is picky. I think it is much too picky in that it does nothing to discourage breed clubs from defining and allowing harmful breeding to an appearance standard, and sadly, yes, they are a major registry, so we have to recognize them, but I’d be much happier if other registries were more available. It might be nice to have some kind of guideline spelled out for dog breeds, even if it is simply to list the existing Wikipedia guidelines with examples or clarifications related to dog breeds. I’m not even sure whether that’s possible, and I’m not going to try. So, there you go. Elf | Talk 18:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)elf
Some late and short comments: I've already been keeping track, in the documentation of Template:Infobox dog breed, of reliable versus "backyard breeder" and "puppy-mill" registries. And there's a clear difference between a breed, as recognized by multiple national-level and international kennel clubs and breeder associations, versus a mongrel crossbreed with no breed standards, like labradoodles. Stuff that's not really a breed can have an article if it passes WP:GNG, but it should not be described as a breed. And we should not capitalize them. We had a big RfC at WP:VPPOL that concluded to capitalize the formal names of standardized breeds, but otherwise MOS:LIFE applies (do not capitalize terms for groups of animals – and that includes both landraces and crossbreeds, as well as domestic ×wild hybrids like coydogs, except where one has developed into an established breed, like the Bengal cat on the feline side, or where one is a registered trademark, as is the case with a few domestic cattle × wild bovid hybrids). And don't write about non-breeds as if they are breeds. E.g., Labradoodle begins with "A Labradoodle is", not "The Labradoodle is", since there is not such thing as "the" Labradoodle. Whether to capitalize "Labradoodle" because it includes a fragment of the proper name Labrador is an open question, and I would lean lower-case for consistency with MOS:LIFE generally, for consistency with other articles on crossbreeds, and to better differentiate between breeds and non-breeds, as we do also with landraces. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, William Harris, Justlettersandnumbers, 7&6=thirteen, Elf & SMcCandlish, I thought I might breath a little life back into this discussion, whilst I agree reputable kennel club recognition is a good place to start, it is possible to be a breed without it. A recent example is the Perdigueiro Galego with multiple RS describing it as such.
Some initial thoughts I have, slightly amended from some I contributed to User:Atsme/sandbox on this subject:
I would appreciate any thoughts, suggestions, observations, criticisms or additions. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 04:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC).
{{
Guideline}}
rather than a {{
WikiProject advice page}}
essay. The days when every wikiproject could just whip up some bullet points and call it a guideline ended back in the 2000s. What
Wikipedia:Notability (breeds) has lacked is species-specific stuff, like a list of organizations, but that's easily integrated for dogs, cats, etc. I just now built in all of the above into it, and improved it in various other ways, including clearer information on sourcing considerations.
References
The Kennel Club makes no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the completeness and accuracy of the information contained on the Website.
AKC does not warrant that ... the site or the service will be ... error-free, or that defects in the site or the service will be corrected. AKC does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the content, or that any errors in the content will be corrected.
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Hello Northamerica1000, I have noticed you have been putting some work into Portal:Dogs, I am appreciative of your efforts. I am not sure it is an improvement adding Dogs portal to all of the project’s navboxes and accordingly I have reverted most of the additions for now (it was a nasty shock to realise how many dog navboxes I have on my watchlist). I am happy to listen to arguments for their reintroduction. If we were to reintroduce them, the colours need to be aligned with the rest of the navbox ( [1] [2]) and I think the picture of the Doberman should be removed, it is a distraction in templates where the Doberman has no place.
I am keen to hear other project members thoughts, Justlettersandnumbers I see you too have reverted a couple of the navbox additions. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 22:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC).
WikiProject Dogs sees no value in portals and no value in adding them to pages that fall under its purview: whether they see value is a matter for members of this WP. As for
any portals on dog articles may be removed, Dogs is one of the few portals that wasn't taken to MfD individually after a 2018 RfC decided to keep the namespace. It seems to have a broad enough scope and to be of similar quality to other portals which survived. The question then is whether we should hide portals from readers by making them orphans. I don't see any dog-specific arguments either way, but our general principle is that pages we choose to keep should be linked from appropriate sources. As from the icon, the best choice depends on where it appears. Amongst a bunch of other portals, a dog image works well to distinguish it from (say) Portal:Cats. Amongst a bunch of dog pages, the puzzle piece image would do a better job of distinguishing it from non-portal dog pages. Certes ( talk) 16:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
those philosophically wedded to the idea of portals want links to this portal plastered everywhere- well that's entirely untrue. As long as portals exist, they should not be orphaned. As long as portals meet minimum guidance and cover a defined topic, they can exist. It is inappropriate for a group to request to orphan a viable portal, especially with only irrelevant reasoning: some give the argument that they don't like portals (the namespace was kept, don't try to enforce removal through backdoor means), some that the link is unattractive (so change it?), and some that the content no longer matches the WP (not that portals and projects have to align, but you are allowed to change that, too!) It doesn't have to be everywhere, but it is WP Portal's role to make sure it isn't orphaned. Kingsif ( talk) 04:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"I cannot see how this would be anything but helpful to visitors should they wish to follow the link. That choice should be their's, and not our's.Indeed, it should be the WP:READERS' choice, and removing the links removes the options for readers. North America 1000 08:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
portal-inline|Dogs}}
into the see also sections of dog articles, the inclusion of an icon in the see also section of any dog articles serves no encyclopedic purpose so should be removed per
WP:DECOR. Simple links are sufficient.
Cavalryman (
talk) 02:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC).I was going to present this earlier, but at this time, starting a fresh thread with this new topic seems best. I have performed several improvements to Portal:Dogs, and I would like to solicit any suggestions from members of this project on how to further improve the portal. Is anything vital missing that should be there? Are there any types of additional sections that could be added that would improve the portal for Wikipedia's WP:READERS? Suggestions and commentary are appreciated. North America 1000 09:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
|selected={{#time:n}}
so that the item matching the month number 1–12 appears. Fortnightly is also possible but a little more complicated: |selected={{#expr:1 + {{#time:U}} / 1209600 mod X}}
should work, if you replace X by the number of items to rotate.
Certes (
talk) 15:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)@ Northamerica1000: I do not believe that any editor will be removing the links to the portal. There are some who are not in favor of the icon; converting the link to just a hyperlink will be their task if they wish to pursue that. There may be a few cases where a majority of editors on an article might want the link removed; that will be up them. For my part, tonight I have commenced rolling the portal out across our 530 breed articles, 10 articles per night. It will take me 53 days to complete this task. At the end of that process, I will gauge the willingness to accept the "dogs portal" on the non-familiaris WP:DOG articles. (Any change involving the "Wikipedia Wolfpack" is always fraught with uncertainty.) William Harris (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
* {{portal-inline|Dogs}} creates
As noted above, the use of the inline template contradicts
WP:DECOR, the icons serve no encyclopedic purpose in see also sections (they are purely decorative) so they contradict our authorised style guide. If
WP:PORTL ever gets elevated to the position of guideline you may have an argument, but at the moment it is an unauthorised (and according to the top outdated) FYI page. Re {{
Portal|dogs}}
, I think its use on some of our shorter articles (stubs etc) looks pretty crowded, instead I think a possible standard we should approach consider for breed articles is:
==See also== * [[Portal:Dogs|Dogs portal]] * [[List of dog breeds]]
Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 02:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC).
I made a WP:AGF edit. It was reverted as per WP:BRD, unfortunately there was no explanation to Discuss offered on that article's Talk page, therefore other interested editors could not contribute their point of view for the revert to that article. It appears to have been a unilateral decision by one editor.
I did not breach of any WP:POL. The reason offered here for the revert was that "I did not, and do not, see any semblance of a consensus here to start adding it en masse to our articles". I highlight this use of the word "our". Wikiproject Dogs does not WP:OWN the dog-related articles - nobody does as per that policy - therefore there can never be a consensus to do that here. If there was, it would be non-binding because it is beyond its powers.
Any edits I make to WP:DOG-related articles from this point on will be as an individual editor. Other editors may change my edit also as individual editors for that article, or if they wish to be less polite they may revert it - that is not my concern. I no longer watch this page because I am no longer a member of WP:DOGS. William Harris (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I have always thought the vital article tag at the top of some article talk pages is pretty arbitrary and so have been looking at what dog articles are deemed "vital". I won't pretend to understand the system (and cannot really be bothered educating myself) but below is the list of project-related articles listed (as far as I can tell):
For now I would like to discuss level 4 listing. Looking at the format there is limited scope to add to the number of total articles, so any addition needs to be met with a subtraction.
I am keen to hear other member's thoughts. Cavalryman ( talk) 02:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC).
How about we pare the breeds list down to seven:
Then add one to our entries in the mammals section:
@ Atsme, Canarian, Elf, Gareth Griffith-Jones, Justlettersandnumbers, LoraxJr, and SMcCandlish: pinging other project members to gauge opinions and see if they would support this. Cavalryman ( talk) 09:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC).
I agree that listing dog types a.k.a. breed groups is much more sensible than singling out ten or a dozen specific standardized breeds, which was a PoV-pushing exercise if there ever was one, and a hold-over from the original version of this wikiproject before it crashed and burned under the weight of its own collective bad decisions. I'm not concerned about the biological taxonomy disputes that would treat dog, wolf, and coyote all as the same species or each as its own species; for reader-facing purposes, these are different animals. That is, people are coming to WP to find out how they are classified, not coming here already certain of it, in most cases. I'm skeptical about dingoes and jackals; the first are only one group among several of wild-to-feral canine populations, just a well-known one compared to the others ( Indian pariah dogs, etc.). Jackal, as noted, is really more of a term, and while two species are closely related one is not (it's a bit like "monkey" – New World monkeys are one group and Old World monkeys another, and not as closely related cross-wise as laypersons tend to suppose, though closer than either group is related to apes, lemurs, and other primates).
I think we'd be better off editing
Free-ranging dog (to which
Wild dog and
Feral dog redirect) to better summarize dingoes, to summarize jackals at all, and to more clearly distinguish between wild canines, feral (domestic) dogs, and wild–domestic hybrids, with top-level sections for each (the present arrangement of a section call "types" with sub-sections for these classifications, is pointless). Then have that page be one of these articles, instead of jackal and dingo being in this list. That article would basically be a
WP:Set-index article (kind of a narrative version of a disambiguation page, in
WP:Summary style) but we seem to need one, and the present article isn't quite it. PS: Plural of genus is genera.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 05:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion about the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever article’s infobox image is occurring at Talk:Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever#Infobox photo, project members are invited to participate. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 23:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC).
Should Swimmer puppy syndrome have its own article? Dwanyewest ( talk) 03:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Bibliography
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Dog bites and attacks sidebar at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 19#Template:Dog bites and attacks sidebar, project members are invited to participate. Cavalryman ( talk) 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ Annwfwn: I can see you have created several new navboxes, including:
I appreciate what you have tried to do in creating these, it seems there is something missing from those articles compared to other dog breed articles. Per
WP:NAV-WITHIN, navboxes should not be too small. A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections, or relevant {{
main article}} and {{
see also}} links within the articles' sections.
These navboxes only contains two to three links. Are you happy that we look to get rid of this? Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 04:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC).
Following on from this discussion several months ago, I have proposed to swap a number of dog articles listed at WP:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences. Project members are invited to participate in the discussion at WT:Vital articles/Level/4#Swap: reorganisation of dogs. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 09:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC).
I’ve been putzing around with these three pages lately as they were driving me crazy. But before I add more content, I’d like to just check in and see where they are on everyone’s radar.
Part of my issue is that there is quite a bit of redundancy between the three. Conversely Laika, I’d say it would be sufficient to cluster husky entirely under the sled dog article and delete the husky page altogether.
I’ve also got a few other dog breeds which I have plenty of published material for, namely the Chukotka Sled Dog, the Nenets Herding Laika and the Kamchatka Sled dog. And the dreaded Alaskan Husky page.
However before I start adding info, I’d like to do it in a controlled fashion. Please offer some thoughts. Annwfwn ( talk)
This is really trivial, sorry! Wase134 has (twice) added at Irish Wolfhound that "it is the tallest dog in the world". The Guinness Book of Records is quite clear that the tallest dog was a Great Dane, as were many other very tall dogs. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I’ve made a proposal to substantially update the article about the multi-billion dollar publicly- traded fresh pet food company Freshpet. The proposal is here: Talk:Freshpet#Request Edit December 2021. It’s now only a stub and I think the extensive reliable sourcing merits a regular article. I thought members of this project might have a special interest in this topic! I have a declared COI as an employee of Freshpet, which is why I am not directly editing the page. Your independent analysis would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. NJ0220 ( talk) 19:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Following on from this level 4 proposal, I have proposed to swap a number of dog articles listed at WP:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals. Project members are invited to participate in the discussion at WT:Vital articles/Level/5#Swap: reorganisation of dogs. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 16:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC).
I have done some work on the page Sheep dog, which appears to be a list of breeds, nothing more, which I think is still necessary, but the name can be confusing the readers, so I think we should change it to "Sheep dog breeds" or even "Sheep dog breeds list". @ William Harris, @ Cavalryman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoraxJr ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
LoraxJr, when I get a chance I will try to find some sources. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 11:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC).
There is a merge discussion and a NPOV discussion at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Staffordshire Bull Terrier Atsme 💬 📧 06:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Anyone care to take a look at Talk:Lurcher? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Please see discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman ( talk) 02:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I've tried adding to and discussing removing certain unreliable sources from the general term pit bull article. Despite my best efforts, reasonable discourse does not seem feasible. There's constant edit warring and most of it is with personal intent, not to better the article or make it more accurate. It's far too political and what's on there now depends on who did the latest edit.
Can this article be locked for only dog experts to edit? What can be done to better the article and reduce vandalism? Tazdeviloo7 ( talk) 23:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to add and say not even just "dog experts" but people at least willing to engage in dialog to improve the wiki page. There are users there actively trying to not engage in dialog to improve the page and just throwing red herrings and false analogies around to stall any progress. I know we each have our interests, but if someone had time to come volunteer to help, it would be much appreciated. Right now the article is filled with either outdated or flawed data that can be improved, but no progress can be made thanks to a user acting in bad faith and not there to engage in dialog to better the page. Unbiased6969 ( talk) 08:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Staffordshire Bull Terrier 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 may be removed from the article. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
An article of interest to the project - Vapor wake canine — has been proposed for merging with Detection dog. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion
Annwfwn ( talk) 02:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Paul Terrier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
2601:647:5800:1A1F:D9D6:5287:205F:CEBC ( talk) 20:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A (proposed) | B (current) |
---|---|
|
|
- Kennel clubs are generally considered reliable sources for breed standards, number of registrations, member clubs, and information about themselves such as the conditions of accepting a breed into their registry.
- Kennel clubs and breed registries can be used to add specific details about the breed’s history to an article but the broad details should be verified in secondary sources.
- Sources should be reliable. If in doubt, seek consensus.
They also say,Breeding, marketing and selling “high-risk breeds” and the liability of breeders needs to be discussed in connection with fatal dog attacks....Breeds such as Pit Bull terrier [35] and Staffordshire Bull terrier [36] are described in Breed Standards as “excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children” or “Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children” despite their history as fighting dogs, their weight and strength. Their specific style of biting, “hold and tear”, can cause fatal injuries in minutes [7], and the biting combined with violent shaking exacerbates the injuries (Burns, Kusanale, & Brennan, 2011). Additionally, bull breeds are known to be aggressive to other dogs, which indirectly increases the risk of injuries to humans who may try to protect their own dogs from the attacking dog [37].
the marketing of dog breeds as “nanny dogs” should be prohibited because there is no evidence that such dogs exist.I believe this is consistent with prior !votes pointing out that kennel clubs exist primarily to serve to the commercial interests of breeders. Geogene ( talk) 16:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Disclaimer The author and publisher do not accept any responsiblity in any manner whatsoever for any error or omission, or any loss, damage, injury, adverse outcome, or liability of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any of the information contained in this book, or reliance upon it. The information contained herein is the author's opinion and is based on his experience. If in doubt about any aspect of veterinary treatment, readers are advised to seek professional advice.
{Moved discussion from|1=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Members |2=This is the correct page. Atsme Talk 📧 14:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)}} One of the conundrums brought about by the internet is an influx of dog registry associations in various flavors, many of which are registering breed-types that do not necessarily adhere to long established practices for developing breed standards. Long established purebred registries and their official kennel clubs are considered RS for dog descriptions, breed standards, breed history, etc. Such registries would include The Kennel Club, American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club, Canadian Kennel Club, Australian National Kennel Council, and comparable others across the globe. The issues that concern me are the new associations and registries that have sprung up on the internet such as the United Canine Association (UCA), American Rare Breed Association which is also a double registry because they "register dogs recognized by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale or by its own board of directors that are not yet recognized by the American Kennel Club." I find the latter somewhat disconcerting. We also have a List of kennel clubs, many of which are red-links. WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:V, and/or WP:RS are at issue, as is what actually constitutes a "breed" or "purebred dog". This morning I spent a bit of time checking citations for some of our dog articles and was overwhelmed by what I found, some of which are used as citations in our articles, and/or were used to establish notability. Examples: Sarah's dogs, Royal Canin, Dog Breed Info, Dog Time, Vet Street, etc. Let's discuss.
Pinging a few: Chrisrus, Montanabw, Cyclonebiskit, Elf, SMcCandlish, Doug Weller, White Arabian Filly, Cavalryman V31, Gareth Griffith-Jones, 7%266%3Dthirteen, Tikuko Atsme Talk 📧 19:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Let me start with an analogy: some people would say that because a word isn't "yet" in any printed dictionary, it isn't a word. Remember "ain't"? These words were only recently recognized by the OED: co-parent, deglobalization, e-publishing, hangry, mansplain, and selfie. The subject of linguistics teaches that words crop up spontaneously in a population, become commonly used in speech, and then get put into a dictionary. It's a matter of which comes first. In this analogy, the common use of the word comes before the recognition of the word by dictionary companies. The same applies to the creation of dog breeds and their eventual recognition (or not) by kennel clubs and breed registries. Breeds are created by people, not necessarily groups of people, and sometimes by just one person. That person, or the groups of people, may not care about "recognition" by a breed registry, may not be interested in paying others for registration of "their" dogs. Many believe that recognition by an organization with its breed standards and bent towards conformation shows will destroy the hard work put into the creation and establishment of a foundation stock and ongoing breeding programs (see Conformation show#Criticism), and may lead to health problems for an entire population of dogs. It's long been proven that focusing soley on conformation will ruin a breed's temperament, and that's why no one in Germany purchases a German Shepherd puppy unless both its sire and dam have also passed at least basic Schutzhund training (including passing the firearms test), proving their solid temperaments. The lack of buyer-pressure of behavioral and performance testing of breeding stock in the USA has produced a country full of almost useless gunshy and thunder-terrified GSDs, causing police departments to almost exclusively import their dogs from Europe and eastern European countries. To say that a dog breed isn't a real breed because it hasn't been sanctioned by, rubber stamped from, or incorporated into, a national organization is the same snobbery as saying "ain't" ain't a real word in today's English-speaking world. Do not allow the use of the Wikipedia platform to attempt to redefine the word "breed" to something it is not! Check any dictionary and you'll discover there are many definitions for each word, each slightly different from the others. You'll discover that all definitions are valid; some used more frequently than others in ordinary speech. To exclude all other meanings of a word in favor of one single meaning is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and specifically to the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There are several definitions of the word 'breed', only one of which means what we traditionally understand to be a purebred. To require Wikipedia editors to exclude all other uses of the word 'breed' in favor of one single specific meaning is Wikipedia:Advocacy. I understand the desire to want some form of standardisation, but you cannot cause the rest of world to conform to this idea, and as Wikipedia editors we report what is out there in real life; not what we want it to be. GNG policy: Note that the GNG policy Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not exclude the mention of non-notable subjects, it only describes which subjects shouldn't get their own standalone article. The section is followed immediately by Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Therefore, using the high standard of WP:GNG to exclude all mention of non-notable dog breeds from inclusion within any and all Wikipedia articles is a violation of Wikipedia policy. MEDRS: The idea that content about dog breeds need a strict policy such as WP:MEDRS ( Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)) is not defensible. The purpose of MEDRS is so that ideas about untested, controversial, or dangerous matters do not affect the health and well-being of a population through reading about it in Wikipedia. There's probably also a liability factor to Wikipedia if they allowed casual re-publication of fringe medical ideas. The risk of inclusion of minor, rare, or controversial dog breeds in an encyclopedia has no such risk factor. I don't believe there is a rampant uncontrollable "OR & PROMO problem" that needs further policymaking as a solution. Wikipedia already has plenty of policy to handle it; just edit and move on.
In closing: the proposed idea (of codifying the word 'breed') is a wrong use of Wikipedia resources, is contrary to its key purposes, and violates Wikipedia policy. |
Side conversation
|
---|
Well, first we need to get the encyclopedia back on track following WP:GNG, N, V and NOR. Why is it important? Well...let's start with the following article that is quite disturbing: Winograd stated:
Other articles of note: USC.edu, Plos, Smithsonian, and on and on. We do not want WP to be used as a source of misidentified breeds and breed types. We MUST get the article right, and our core content policies are quite clear about how we go about it. I'm thinking we need to include a paragraph about misindentified breeds in our Bulldog breeds article. Atsme Talk 📧 22:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
|
I am late to this discussion. And I don’t know that I can help much. When I started working on Wikipedia, there were only a handful of dog breed pages and they were all pretty sketchy. During the two years that I worked on this, with a stack of dog books at my side, it became clear that the question of what is a valid breed and what isn’t is extremely complex and extremely emotional for those involved. One need only to look at, for example, the border collie controversy, which wasn’t recognized as an official breed by the AKC until 1995. I started dog agility that year, and the controversy among so many border collie owners was huge: few of them wanted to be represented by AKC and thought that AKC would ruin the breed. Based on the number of dogs registered, the American border collie association, or whatever it’s called, would be the defining authority. But how does one go about finding these clubs and deciding what an appropriate number of registered dogs is to make it an official breed, even if it is not an official breed of one of the “big“ dog registries? In addition to the FCI, the AKC, etc., there are country registries in other countries (I think India has one, for example, and I think China might, but I don’t speak or read any form of Chinese, so I can’t verify that. We had so many arguments among various breed proponents on various pages about whether their breed was the real one or not, or whether it was even a breed, that I more or less gave up on deciding, and simply started listing whatever registry they claimed as being the one where the breed is registered. AKC is picky. I think it is much too picky in that it does nothing to discourage breed clubs from defining and allowing harmful breeding to an appearance standard, and sadly, yes, they are a major registry, so we have to recognize them, but I’d be much happier if other registries were more available. It might be nice to have some kind of guideline spelled out for dog breeds, even if it is simply to list the existing Wikipedia guidelines with examples or clarifications related to dog breeds. I’m not even sure whether that’s possible, and I’m not going to try. So, there you go. Elf | Talk 18:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)elf
Some late and short comments: I've already been keeping track, in the documentation of Template:Infobox dog breed, of reliable versus "backyard breeder" and "puppy-mill" registries. And there's a clear difference between a breed, as recognized by multiple national-level and international kennel clubs and breeder associations, versus a mongrel crossbreed with no breed standards, like labradoodles. Stuff that's not really a breed can have an article if it passes WP:GNG, but it should not be described as a breed. And we should not capitalize them. We had a big RfC at WP:VPPOL that concluded to capitalize the formal names of standardized breeds, but otherwise MOS:LIFE applies (do not capitalize terms for groups of animals – and that includes both landraces and crossbreeds, as well as domestic ×wild hybrids like coydogs, except where one has developed into an established breed, like the Bengal cat on the feline side, or where one is a registered trademark, as is the case with a few domestic cattle × wild bovid hybrids). And don't write about non-breeds as if they are breeds. E.g., Labradoodle begins with "A Labradoodle is", not "The Labradoodle is", since there is not such thing as "the" Labradoodle. Whether to capitalize "Labradoodle" because it includes a fragment of the proper name Labrador is an open question, and I would lean lower-case for consistency with MOS:LIFE generally, for consistency with other articles on crossbreeds, and to better differentiate between breeds and non-breeds, as we do also with landraces. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, William Harris, Justlettersandnumbers, 7&6=thirteen, Elf & SMcCandlish, I thought I might breath a little life back into this discussion, whilst I agree reputable kennel club recognition is a good place to start, it is possible to be a breed without it. A recent example is the Perdigueiro Galego with multiple RS describing it as such.
Some initial thoughts I have, slightly amended from some I contributed to User:Atsme/sandbox on this subject:
I would appreciate any thoughts, suggestions, observations, criticisms or additions. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 04:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC).
{{
Guideline}}
rather than a {{
WikiProject advice page}}
essay. The days when every wikiproject could just whip up some bullet points and call it a guideline ended back in the 2000s. What
Wikipedia:Notability (breeds) has lacked is species-specific stuff, like a list of organizations, but that's easily integrated for dogs, cats, etc. I just now built in all of the above into it, and improved it in various other ways, including clearer information on sourcing considerations.
References
The Kennel Club makes no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the completeness and accuracy of the information contained on the Website.
AKC does not warrant that ... the site or the service will be ... error-free, or that defects in the site or the service will be corrected. AKC does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the content, or that any errors in the content will be corrected.