Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs

New!

We are a new project, and need some help. If you would like you could be a volenteer and help us out!

I love animals - have 3 great dogs. Will be happy to help as time permits. DrL 04:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have two Keeshonden and my login here is one of my boy's nicknames. I also have a rescue girl. I'm happy to help, time permitting. Does that mean I should add my name to the participant list on the project page? --Keesiewonder 01:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laika

Laika is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 16:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Added assessment page, and will start assessments presently. I do have one question, though. Would the members of this project have any objections to having the project expand its scope a little to include all the Canines? The wolves and other members of the canine family are sometimes important to dog people too (I know one dog which is allegedly half-wolf) and doing so would ensure that those articles are actively being watched by a project, which right now is not true. Anyway, I'll start tagging the dog articles today, and we should have some idea what we've got already within the next day or so. Badbilltucker 17:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Project

Hi guys, looks like you are doing some great work, but Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dog_breeds already exists with a slightly different name. - Trysha ^(talk) 20:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - So what is the protocol for handling/merging/whatever this? Keesiewonder 15:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed-breed dog

Mixed-breed dog is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable articles

There seem to be a lot of questionable article/edits coming from Bigsteeve, such as Tamaskan Wolfdog and some others. Somebody who's a bit more knowledgeable might want to look into it. Fightindaman 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to post this but there is a Lhasa poo article that is in breeds.

I don't feel it merits stand alone status. It's a xbreed, obviously one of many. Trying to legitamize xbreeds as breeds doesn't deserve encylopedic attention. Tintina 03:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, this has been an ongoing battle the years I spent on wikipedia. We did our best to keep fanciful mixes like this as simply part of a list in Poodle hybrid and change any newly created articles like Lhasa poo to redirect to the poodle hybrid page, but it's a constant battle. Also, the group has to decide regularly whether there are in fact some crosses that are so common and well-established with a good history that they need their own articles--e.g., Cockapoo, which is the only mix that I know of that has actually made it into Webster's. I'm sure there's more discussion on this topic elsewhere, probably buried somewhere in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dog_breeds and/or the talk for the Poodle hybrids and so on. Elf | Talk 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible expansion of project

As it stands, there is no project which covers the Canidae family beyond dogs per se. Would the members of this project be interested in expanding the scope of the project a little to cover the wolves, foxes, and other canines? I'm thinking that the repeated talk of crossbreeding dogs and wolves makes it reasonable that at least wolves, which are not in the scope of any other projects other than Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life, both very broad projects, could legitimately be included in the scope of this project. I would welcome any and all responses. Badbilltucker 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife Barnstar

There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaskan Dog AfD

I have placed Tamaskan Dog on AfD as I believe it to be a hoax, or extremely non-notable breed. Any comments would be most welcome.--Nydas 10:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This breed is not a hoax, they have their own homepage. [1]. It might be an "extremly non-notable breed" as of yet, but I still think it's worth a mention as the breed represents something unique in the dog world as of now (breeding a dog to look like a wolf without using wolf genes in the process). --Tabris93 17:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

This user is a member of WikiProject Dogs

Do you like this template? If so tell me and I'll make it our template. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 06:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! Keesiewonder 12:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it our template. So use it. Dont abuse it! Culv e rin ? ^Talk 23:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to now size this down ... I don't know how to do that, yet. Someone please help! Keesiewonder 01:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Hmmmm - As soon as I posted this note, the problem corrected itself. What's up with that? Did anyone else experience this? Keesiewonder 01:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's also one for the related dog breeds project--for more info, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dog_breeds/Templates. Might consider whether we really need 2 separate ones, or just one that says "this user is a member of the dogs or the dog breeds projects." ?? Elf | Talk 03:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a contributor to the
dog breeds task force.

Spam?

Please beware edits by 85.92.183.119. It appears to me that they are working through the alphabet adding an entry to every dog breed page under External Links to www.thedogscene.co.uk. Personally, I do not find this necessary or useful and have reverted their change on the Keeshond page. Keesiewonder 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article of interest to your project.

I recently created the Dog Show Superintendents Association article, and am looking for some help editing it. If you can contribute in any way whatsoever, please feel free.

Also, if you feel that the article I made should not be included in Wikipedia, please feel free to propose it for deletion. I will not object if you do, unless substantial edits have taken place. Thank you! :3 Pumeleon 23:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia dog article

Hi,

Out of curiosity I visited the German dog page de:Haushund and it struck me how good it is. Among other things it has charts of the dog's teeth (which would be a nice addition to dog anatomy) and a chart of how dog and human vision differs.

There is also an excellent anatomical chart of the dog with the names of the different parts (in German of course), which I think is an essential thing that should be in the English dog article for sure - I would surely expect to find something like this in a paper encyclopaedia.

I would like to help with taking some of this and incorporating into the English articles, possibly over the Christmas season when I had some time, but I just wanted to mention it to inspire others who might want to look at it, and who are perhaps better at German than me ;)

TH 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We would be more than happy to welcome any additions you might be able to give to the article. We would only ask that you try to find some sourcing for the additions, as wikipedia policy is such that articles in foreign language wikipedias are not considered reliable sources. I know a little German (forgot most of it) and might be able to help a little. You might also want to notify the active Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds of this page in the German wikipedia. They may also have people who would be willing and/or able to assist you in this matter. Thanks again. Badbilltucker 18:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Veterinary medicine project

There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alopekis Dog

I have some suspicions about this 'rare' breed of dog; I suspect it might be another Tamaskan. It's not recognised by any major kennel club, and the external links don't fill me with confidence. There are some grand claims here, but a severe lack of sources. There are 10,000+ google hits, but most of these refer to 'Alopekis Street' - a search for Alopekis + Dog gets considerably fewer hits, and none of them seem convincing. There are no Alopekis clubs or societies. Any thoughts?--Nydas^(Talk) 09:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it and look around. We have the Molosser article and the Molossers category. I mention this because I'm surprised someone hasn't linked the Alopekis up with this category ... which includes several rare or "rare" breeds. Also, essentialy the same site is used on many, many of these articles, albeit pointing to the one breed mentioned in the article.Keesiewonder 12:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing in particular is the assertation that it was once considered to be the same breed as the Meliteo Kinidio. Since it's not recognised by any kennel club, who decided this was no longer the case?--Nydas^(Talk) 13:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article up deletion. Any opinions would be most welcome. --Nydas^(Talk) 12:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Work

Can somebody supply a list of dog related stubs that I could work on? Culv e rin ? ^Talk 01:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: Category:Stub-Class_Dogs_articles and/or Category:Dog_stubs. Keesiewonder 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 02:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Wire-haired Pointer is an extra ...

I think we need to delete German Wire-haired Pointer since we have the superior German Wirehaired Pointer. Ok? Shall I nominate it for an AfD? Keesiewonder 17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't think we would have to. Just add the {{db|''reason for deletion''}} tag to the top of the page. We really only nominate for AfD if we think that there'll be a disagreement, and I doubt if there will be one in this case. The only thing to make sure of is that all the links to the page to be deleted get changed to the one we're keeping. Badbilltucker 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! This is a fancy way of suggesting a speedy delete, I've now realized. Probably best for me to ask for my first time just the same. I've tagged the hyphenated article as you suggested ... Let's see what happens ... Keesiewonder 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akita zanyness

Could someone

1) take a look at this oldish discussion: Talk:Akita_Inu#Renaming_akita_articles

2) this Akita

3) and this Japanese Akita Inu

4) and then suggest, given The Kennel Club has two breed standards (at least with different pictures), what, if anything we should do to clean things up?

Keesiewonder 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most horrible answer is also probably the best one: trying to completely differentiate the two breeds on the article pages and elsewhere. However, as this really falls more under the direct scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds, there is the extremely polite and basically generally evasive option of informing them of the current situation, and, given their significantly greater expertise in the field of dog breeds, to let them try to figure out something to do with it. Personally, callous, thoughless, unfeeling cad that I am, I favor the second option, with this project only stepping in if they either do nothing or try to throw it back in our metaphorical laps. :) Badbilltucker 21:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts; I expect you're right. I will go over and look at the other project, possibly even join. I will also try to connect with the Akita people. At least I'm getting a vague sense of the difference, now, between the two dog projects. Thanks again ... but ... please don't think I believe this [p]ersonally, callous, thoughless, unfeeling cad ! Keesiewonder 23:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my impression that the dog breeds project members have mostly filtered away to other lives, myself included. I drop by only occasionally. If y'all are interested in dog breed articles as well as in general articles about dogs, I suggest focusing on breeds (that would be all articles with dogbreed infoboxes and related pages, such as list of dog breeds) over there and everything else here. IMHO that would be most useful. But just a heads up that we never did resolve the Akita thing. Elf | Talk 03:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolfs aren't dogs, are they ?

I see that werwolfs in some myths might be canines, but why does your project page banner show up in the dicussion pages of fictional werewolf tribes from a role playing game ? Heinrich k 11:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess i'll just remove it, don't you think ? Heinrich k 11:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, an example is Talk:Garou_Tribes_(Werewolf:The_Apocalypse), right? I tend to agree with you but will ask the user who placed the banner to confirm. Keesiewonder 11:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't dogs, they're mystically altered human-canines. However, as defined by the current categorization structure of wikipedia, Category: Fictional werewolves is a subcategory of Category: Canines. If you read the banner, you would note that the project has now taken on the subject of Canines in general, particularly considering that the other canids have not been under the scope or attention of any other project, except possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals. The quickest and most effective way to do this would be to take on the entire Category:Canines. This was done partially in an attempt to ensure that as many articles as possible get assessed, thus making it easier for people to concentrate activity on those articles they see being most deserving of such attention. If you check, the Category:Fictional werewolves has been a subcategory of the Category:Canines since before this change in the scope of the project took place. Personally, I would have no objections to seeing that category taken out of the Category:Canines, particularly as so many people seem to take umbrage at seeing the dogs banners (which actually displays a wolf, if you check the photo credits) on the articles of their favorite werewolves. If you were to contact the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror, and request of them that the category fictional werewolves be moved into some other category and out of the Category:Canines, citing this as your reason, they might be very possibly be amenable. Again, I personally can understand and appreciate your distaste at the Project's name, and, if you choose to remove it, I will not intentionally restore it at any time in the future. However, I do think that you might be well advised to try to change the categorization, as by doing so you would clearly and officially remove them from the scope of this project. Badbilltucker 16:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a more direct question is what the Dog Project is proposing to bring to the fictional werewolf articles. You've got Link (The Legend of Zelda) listed as one of your featured articles. Has any member of your project ever edited that page except to add the WP:DOGS banner? Are there any plans for WP:DOGS to add any improvements to that page, and if so, what?

I don't doubt your good faith, but saying that you plan to tag everything in the canines subcategories, and if people don't like it, they should change the categorization system, doesn't seem like the way to go. Using Link as an example, he's a member of 12 categories. Those 12 categories are members of countless parent categories. He's already a member of Wikiproject:Computer Games and Wikiproject: Nintendo. Do you really think that it would be helpful to tag the talk page with a dozen more projects, none of which have any specific plans to contribute anything to the page?

Thanks, TheronJ 19:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, your project should see that the banner pop up only, if the article is really going to be improved by the project members or is at least related. You should check this. Obviosly there is a connection between dogs and fictional werewolfs but it doesn't make sense the way it is now. Heinrich k 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What we were planning to do was to bring assessment, peer review, collaboration, and oversight for such articles. And iI strongly suggest TheronJ refrain from any other attacks based on ignorance, as were stated above. In direct response to him, this is a comparatively new project which has just recently gotten off the ground, so it is at best presumptuous and at worst flatly ridiculous for him to make such blanket accusations without any evidence to back them up. How he can feel justified in saying that we do not have "any specific plans to contribute anything to the page" is on that basis ill-informed and frankly very likely a violation of wikipedia policy. And, as I have already said more than once, if you wish to remove the articles from the scope of this project, then I suggest that you change the location of the Category:Fictional werewolves, which would be a positive act on your part, rather than continue in these pointless and ultimately useless insults and knowledgeless attacks, particularly as the tag has already been removed from the Link article in question. Badbilltucker 20:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you had no plans to improve the Link (The Legend of Zelda) page. I asked "Has any member of your project ever edited that page except to add the WP:DOGS banner? Are there any plans for WP:DOGS to add any improvements to that page, and if so, what?" What is the answer? Thanks, TheronJ 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you have my sincerest apologies. I mistakenly thought you were the same person I had already had a conversation on this article about. As I said at that time, and my apologies for thinking that you were that person, our intentions were to keep it on the article list, so that it could be monitored for recent changes, and, possibly as a result, help undue any damage or other unwanted changes to the article as might develop, or perhaps provide additional peer review and collaboration should the article be found to be deficient in some way in the future. As I have personally been checking the recent changes list rather regularly, even while trying to set up other projects for assessments as I am now doing, I can say that that activity had already started. However, as the banner has been removed from the page, personally, I think our intentions regarding that page, as a project, are basically nothing at all, unless as individuals apart from the project we monitor recent changes on all articles. Should the banner be replaced with our knowledge (as I doubt it would be any member of this project who would replace it), that might change things. I hope that answers your question, and my apologies for my earlier mistake and testiness. Regretably, the earlier conversation stuck me as being one in which the party just didn't like the name of the project, not the intentions, and I find myself, as a result of a truly pointless number of ill-informed, I think willfully thoughtless comments yesterday to be rather more on edge today than I generally like. Again, my profoundest apologies. Badbilltucker 20:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the moving of the category: Starting from "wolves" (in which this project obviously has an intrest) the chain goes to "fictional wolves" (a category in which this project might also have an intrest), from there it goes to "Werwolves" category, "werwolves in fiction" category and then "Fictional Werewolfes" category. So the articles marked are in the right category and the category is liked in a proper way. I guess more than four steps away form actual canines category is a little large scope for your project. Isn't it ? Honestly. The articles weren't even read by one of your project, before the banner was added, were they ? Heinrich k 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, those subcategories are really only extant because either the number of pages within them is sufficient to merit a separate category, or the number of pages in the parent category is too large. I'm not sure if you've ever looked at any of the People from Foo categories, but you'll see an example of what I'm talking about there. Thank you for the correction, by the way. However, I can honestly say that if the Category:Werewolves were removed to one of the subcategories of the Horror project, as I proposed above, we would be more than happy to remove our hands and our banners from those pages, particularly given the amount of controversy created. Personally, I myself can't see any real justification for the Category:Werewolves to be included in the Category:Canines at all, as they clearly do not really belong there, but that's just my own opinion. Otherwise, as opposed to being guided by my own personal opinions, which I know in general I have no reasons to believe are shared by others, I believe that it is generally the best case to error on the side of caution now, and only later make changes if they are necessary. Regarding the fictional wolves category, as I recently said elsewhere regarding fictional religions, it is often a very good idea to have ready access to these pages because they may often be the only place that reasonable, if perhaps less than completely objectively founded, conclusions can be included in what are intended to be encyclopedic entries. The example I used previously was the religious theories expounded in the book Lavondyss as being possibly quite useful for the discussion of religion in general, as they are theories I have unofficially heard elsewhere but which are, as a result of the age of the subject, ones about which no truly objective data is available. However, as stated above, I personally don't see a lot of benefit from having any of the werewolves articles included in the canines category. Should the category be moved, like I said, I would personally have no objections whatsoever. It should be noted that I cannot necessarily in this regard speak for the other members of the project, however, as I personally haven't even checked who placed the Werewolves category in the canines category in the first place. Badbilltucker 21:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i don't see, that changing categories is going to help the situation. Werwolves arn't listed directly under canines, they are listed under fictional wolves. This listing is right. Just as the listing of Sam&Max (from the computer game) under fictional dogs is right or the listing of "Santas little Helper" from Simpsons. Sub-categories are derived from there main categories because their topic is related but not similar to the parent category directly previous to them. So i personally think, that after three or four such steps, the new categories are and should be diffrent from the original category (in this case canines). It is up to you project's members to realise, that at some point following the category tree brings you away from your targeted area. It's as if you would make a project about an knob and would inculde every leaf on it. Im sure you wouldn't be happy if a project Nature would come up and mark all your articles because it followed the categories Nature->Life->Tree of Life->Eukaryotes->Animals->Chordates->Vertebrates->Mammals->Canines. And to show the that this would be rediculous, such an action would bring the project life to fictional dogs, that aren't alive at all. Your project's members really should focus more unless you plan on a Sisyphus project. Heinrich k 11:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Category:Fictional werewolves has been moved at someone else's act. Also, please note that it is a standard procedure in the cases of all projects to list all the categories that fall within their parent category as being within the scope of that project. Again, the matter was able to be decided on the basis of the more empirically justifiable basis that the fictional creatures are in fact in no way related to the true canids, and that such laudable, bold, action, is often the best way to resolve such matters. And, actually, despite your "certainty" above, I would have no objections to the Mammals project tagging and assessing all articles related to canines, and would actively support it if there were no more direct existing project. The primary purpose, as I once again point out, was to ensure that the articles were assessed, as is now requested by some of the more senior editors of wikipedia, and unless they are one of the 2000 core articles, that can only be done with the addition of a banner which performs assessment. As it is often too much of an effort to go through the entire project directory to find a project which does engage in assessments, the easiest and safest answer is to assess all the articles which fall within the scope of a project by going project by project. As I am currently in the process of creating assessments for several of the religion projects, my time is rather filled right now, but clearly we would have no objections to having the dogs tags removed from all the fictional werewolves pages. Badbilltucker 20:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the there is still a way through categories to the werewolf pages. And, this pages still are so much not on the projects focus, that someone will have a lot of fun assessing them. Still the banner in the dicussion page might suggest that this project had some responsibility of the article, which i doubt the project can't fullfil (unless there are roleplayers among this project participants). Heinrich k 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldogges?

Hey. I'm not a member of this WikiProject or an expert on dogs, so I thought that you folks might know a bit more about what I'm going to ask. I do some recent changes patrolling, and just now I noticed this new article: Bulldogges. Following the links from this article as well as it's creator's contrib list, I also found these suspect articles:

The creator has also made significant edits to both Old English Bulldog and Olde English Bulldogge to insert links to some of these articles. A quick Google search of "british bulldogge kennel club" gets zero Google hits, and "british bulldogge" gets 140 hits, with nothing from reliable sources to confirm that such a breed exists. I'm thinking that a good amount of the information in these articles are hoaxes, but I want to double check with some folks who know about dogs better than I do to tell me if this is nonsense, or if this information is factual. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NeoChaosX, I've tried asking the same thing myself on this page, and not gotten very far. Maybe you and I should work on this together. I have had considerable frustration trying to sort out all the various bulldog breeds on Wikipedia coupled with one of the main contributor's to the article having a tendency to argue with and disagree with anything I say. If I ask a question, rather than provide the information, he tells me to go to the library and read the book he says he has in his hands. Etc. Interesting how when I ask for page number citations, he doesn't provide them either, at least not in the articles I'm asking about. Please leave me a note here or on my talk page if you'd like to try to work through the bulldog articles together along side their proponents. Keesiewonder ^talk 10:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be nice to help out a fellow member, here. Please.

I just posted the following in the AfD for the Wilkinson Bulldog. I would really appreciate feeling like I am part of a project here, and not just some doggie person. There are accusations and generalizations that are being spread left and right ... Please take a look. (Just realized it appears I didn't sign this originally ... sorry ... Keesiewonder 09:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My most recent post copied from the AfD discussion: I am a member of the dog projects on WP, but am not the originator of them. Headphonos (and Cowbonsai), I have not ever said anything anywhere resembling this: "if it doesn't belong to a major kennel or the FCI, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia." I did suggest that Headphonos, and now anyone who is reading this, that if you have concerns about the dog projects, you should contact the projects directly. The response I received from Headphonos on this was that s/he was not interested in all the dog breeds, just certain ones ... and, I guess, with that reasoning, has chosen to not contact the dog projects. If you need me to provide links to my dialogs with Headphonos, I will. I do not feel that the dog projects are being portrayed accurately in this AfD. And, if there are concerns, if you do not raise them with the users who may be able to help, they cannot be addressed. Keesiewonder 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please join our discussion on this here. Keesiewonder 09:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Rare Breed Association up for deletion

The article on the American Rare Breed Association is currently being considered for deletion. If you would care to comment on this proposal, please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Rare Breed Association. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Docking (animals) -> Docking (dog)

As proposed on the talk page... I moved Docking (animals) to Docking (dog). Docking of dogs is a lot more controvertial than docking of sheep (and mildly more controversial than docking pigs....) - so this article was masking a fairly undisputed agricultural practice.

There was no dissenting opinion on the talk page. So please - no biting me (even if I'm not a newbie any more!)

I won't be changing any links - if your breed may be effected there is still a link from Docking (animals) to Docking (dog), at the top of the article.

Could somebody interested contribute to the very minor summart section, Docking (animals)#Dogs? ps. I'm mentioning it here as a courtesy.Ga rr ie 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old English Bulldog - should it be an AFD?

I am thinking of listing the above article as an AFD.

The primary proponent of the article refuses to implement changes suggested on the talk page, using materials s/he allegedly has. Please read the talk page from here down.
The article is a confusing mess, mentioning several variations of bulldog with very similar names. I've tried to get clarification from the proponents of the bulldog articles to no avail. What, clearly, is the distinction among Old English Bulldog, the Olde English Bulldogge, and the English Bulldog?

For a list of (just some of?) the bulldog articles on WP, please see my talk page: Various Bulldogs on WP.

If the Old English Bulldog is important and extinct, why do we link to a site by a/the breeder to information primarily about the Olde English Bulldogge - i.e. there's no link even from this breeder about the Old English Bulldog.
I see some things that would be easy to very clean up, but, clearly, the proponent does not care about his/her "own" article enough to do this. Another user has placed tags on the article indicating that it is disputed, too short and unreferenced. The proponent just removes the tags, does not change the article and argues with anyone who suggests a change. Olde English Bulldogge also has unaddressed tags on it and recently survived an AFD.

I would like to see a journal article about bulldogs as one of the references, rather than several books all from the same publisher.
I would like to see in text citations with page numbers for the facts within the article that deserve citing. Readers should not have to go and get the references in order to make sense of the WP article ... and if they do choose to get the references, it is customary to provide citations with page numbers to substantiate one's writing.

I am not convinced that the various web sites (clubs plus a breeder) and books (mostly from one publisher) really are enough to substantiate notability for this topic.

Thoughts about whether the Old English Bulldog should go up for AFD?
Keesiewonder ^talk 01:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you well enough to know that you, who have been working specifically on bulldogs, wouldn't even propose this if you had any substantive evidence to indicate it notable. I personally would have no objections, if you think it's the best way to go. However, if you do think that there is any good reason to keep the article, and just keep a certain editor from doing any more editing to it, I believe that that could be done as well. I have seen it done on other pages. Personally, you are much better informed on these issues than I am, and I would not oppose its deletion if you thought it the best way to proceed. Badbilltucker 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; I'll sleep on it a day or two, do some more research and see where I'm at then. Keesiewonder ^talk 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct Dog Breeds

The Old English Bulldog discussion above brings up and interesting problem. What is an extinct dog breed? Does it require that all members of the "breed" fail to produce offspring? What if the dog is bred for a different purpose as the Fox Terrier was. Is the Old Fox Terrier extinct as there are no longer working registered Fox Terriers as a result of selctive breeding for a larger dog? Or are they just called Jack Russells now? What about claims of extinct breeds from times before there were breed registries? At that time there was no requirement that dogs be of the same "breed" for breeding, you just put together the dogs that you had that did the work. If the dogs that make up the "old english bulldog" were used to make today's pit bull did that dog go extinct or just change? Or just become an unpopular breed name? What defines a breed? appearance? work? Temperment?

When breed registries came to be in the late 1800's there was a strong incentive to create noble and ancient histories for the dog breed to be recognized. These claims were possible because they were unverifiable. Are these sources now to be considered reliable for encyclopedic purposes? Is old and unverifiable better than new and unverifiable when it comes to sources?

I suggest that we need to maintain a skeptical eye when it comes to breeds that went "extinct" before the advent of written pedigree records (largely in the 20th century).--Counsel 17:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Tamaskan Dog is back; please see Talk:Tamaskan Dog. So is this the 3rd time? Keesiewonder ^talk 10:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movies, Cartoons, TV Programmes,Comics

I Looked Through 80% Of The First Page Of Stubs, And Noticed That A LOT Of Them Are Movies, TV Programmes, Movies Or Comics e.t.c.

Please Can We Delete Them, Or Do Something Different With Them, As They Arent DOG Articles.

Thanks, Damon! ACBestMy Contributions 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We always used to count articles about fictional dogs as being *also* in the dog project scope--that is, in addition to movies or cartoons or whatever other scope they belonged in. They all are--or should be--members of Category:Fictional dogs which, incidentally, is a list that looks like it needs more subcategorizing if possible. Look also under Category:Dogs in popular culture, which has subcategory Category:Films about dogs (because not all films about dogs are about fictional dogs... this alwasy was complicated trying to sort them out). Anyway, I could see a different flag for those, maybe category fictional dog stubs? Elf | Talk 05:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, But can we give them a rating of NA or Movie Stub or something like that? ACBestMy Contributions 08:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not helpful to tag articles on fictional dogs or something loosely related to dogs, especially when there is another project covering that article. Tagging shouldn't be about categorizing. It defeats the purpose of having a specific scope of articles by deleting the focus. -- Ned Scott 20:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you. That's what i said, when someone from your project tagged all Werewolf articles, possibly using a bot so so. I'd be very glad if you could manage to change your scope without reorganising the category system. :-) Heinrich k 21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am on as a contributer to this, real dogs, animation, movie, etc. As a former dog owner and dog lover I like all kinds. Currently have been adding some into the correct heading-next I need to add links and pages as needed to my additions and whatever I can find on the others. As the dedication of Lady and the Tramp states the movie "is dedicated to all who own a dog, ever did, would like to, etc." (something like that) There could be whole additions within the category, there are so many, Disney alone could be one.Kidsheaven 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous dogs

I've been doing my best little by little to add to this list, alphabetize the sections and then link up with existing articles. It's turning into fairly good list. It would be nice if others would take a peek. I'd be happy to add some articles on dogs who aren't yet represented by who are notable. I added an entry to the list on Lava, the dog rescued from Iraq and subject of a besteller From Iraq, With Love but haven't had time to create an article on him. Anyone wishing to do so, feel free. Speaking of dogs who are the subjects of bestellers, Marley, the subject of Marley & Me doesn't have his own entry which is fine, but the article on the book is godawful mess. Anyone who's read the book could help wikify it. Thanks.Lisapollison 08:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Hound's pictures

On Polish Hound discussion page I found that you are in need of pictures of those breed.

First, there is pl:Ogar polski entry with some pictures. There are also pictures on commons:Ogar Polski. Pictures are licensed as GFDL or CC.

If it is not sufficient for you I have some photos of Polish Hound puppy (2-4 months). But you should know I am a poor photographer. Although those pictures quality is sufficient for family album it could be not good enough for Wikipedia. If you have some spare time please look at this page. I am owner of all those pictures. If you find some of them worth placing here feel free to do it or let me know and I will upload them.

Arturcz 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

questionable article; not sure how to proceed

I’m very concerned about the article “Dog hybrids and crossbreeds” which says that crossbreeds are hybrids. Technically, the only animals that should be called dog hybrids are wolfdogs and coydogs. This article entry, by calling puggles, labradoodles and the like “hybrids” feeds into the advertising of so many backyard-breeders and puppy mills who produce these dogs solely for profit.

I noticed that the only reference for this article is a dictionary. I’ve never edited an article before, but I could certainly find much more reputable sources to create an article explaining why these dogs are not hybrids and also explaining the politics surrounding the “designer” dogs. I’ve never edited an article on here before, I’m really not sure if basically removing the existing article and putting other article in its place is an acceptable practice. Rossiebug 05:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)rossiebug[reply]

I would try modifying the existing text first. The article is inaccurate in calling dog "hybrids" intraspecific hybrids, as technically a breed of dog isn't a subspecies (the domestic dog is a subspecies of the wolf to begin with, and I've never heard of a sub-subspecies), so technically they could even be called mutts if you used the term in a broad sort of way. I might even move the article to simply "dog crossbreeds". If the article is too bad to be readily fixable, go ahead and change it. If the changes you're attempting are fairly major (changing the explaination of the term, for example), you might want to discuss the changes on that article's talk page. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 12:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]