Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Dogs (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

Time to establish guidelines[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Members – 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)

Fix & add: Cavalryman, William Harris Atsme Talk 📧 19:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Our colleague Chris has not been active for over a year, I have sent him emails twice and it saddens me to fear the worst.
The issue is compounded by commercial interests that cross-breed dogs and then claim that the product is a new "breed" recognised by a "breed club" or "breed registry" which they themselves have established. Additionally, the internationally recognised kennels provide dubious histories of their dogs which are based on myth, legend and heresay rather than historical research. You have seen this type of thing before where they state: "There are depictions of (insert name of any breed here) on cave walls dating back 9,000 years." Fortunately the FCI has begun to remove these types of claims; the others have much work to do. William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 08:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
This is going to be a real mess. The 'status' of being a "recognized breed" (or not) by various clubs is itself dubious. It has a lot to do with pirating breed registrations (and attendant fees). As an example (of which I am personally familiar) the Leonberger Club of America largely did not want to be part of the American Kennel Club. There were some members that wanted recognition. Recognition came nonetheless; some of this is based upon a breed's "popularity."
And of course, there are the ancillary decisions as to what is a "breed." One need only look at Akita, Akita Inu and American Akita to see how that plays out. Or look at German Longhaired Pointer, German Shorthaired Pointer and German Wirehaired Pointer.
Likewise the matter of groupings.
Individual clubs differ, and they have their own agendas and purposes. Some are in it for the betterment of the breed, and some less so. So we should tread carefully. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
William Harris, 7%266%3Dthirteen, Montanabw, Gareth Griffith-Jones - let's try to model after Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Resources and establish a set of guidelines for RS in much the same way they established MEDRS. Breeds that are not officially recognized by notable breed registries do not belong in the pedia unless the article is compliant with NOR, V, NPOV, GNG and all material is RS. I'm of the mind that the first thing we need to do is create a DOGRS standard (like WP:MEDRS) which includes a list of recognized breed registries and websites that are acceptable. It is the only way we're going to get a handle on these OR & PROMO articles. Common sense and good judgement tells us that if the dog is not recognized by one of the non-profit breed registries it is not a "purebred" therefore it is just a "type" of dog - a Heinz 57 or mutt or backyard creation that happens to look like a purebred, or it is a crossbred that a person or group is attempting to get recognized as a breed and they're using WP as their platform. We are also experiencing issues with advocates of Breed-specific legislation which has introduced noncompliance with WP:NOT, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. Then we have the good-intentioned dog lovers who write blogs, or proclaim themselves as experts and simply don't know or try to understand our PAGs. These are issues our project can resolve.
I don't forsee any problems identifying notable breed registries once we establish guidelines per consensus. We have more than our share of backyard breeder websites, self-proclaimed experts (puppy mills & dog lovers) providing online "information" about dogs, and commercial dog registries which are not unlike unaccredited institutions of learning & higher ed. We simply handle those types of registries the same way we do the unaccredited others. Much of the information in our current dog articles is poorly sourced, and some of the articles about "breeds" are not breeds at all, and fail both OR and V. We can fix those issues but we need to do so with as a project using a consensus-building approach, not unlike the incredible accomplishments of Project Med with their informative project site and creation of MEDRS. Atsme Talk 📧 13:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Elf - active member. Atsme Talk 📧 13:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, I this is an excellent idea. To paraphrase William Harris, the current trend for backyard breeders is to trademark their creations as “breeds” so as to maximise profits. Sometimes they are little more than lines of established breeds (Llewellin Setter, Leavitt Bulldog) whilst other times they are simply crossbreads. Ironically these dogs are often healthier animals than many pure breeds due to hybrid vigour, but that does not make them notable.
I am in general sceptical of the major breed registries, they are typically dominated by the show world who like to exaggerate certain features of some breeds to the detriment of both that breed’s function and often the dog’s health, but it is a starting point. We must ensure we don’t delete articles about well established unrecognised types in the process.
Strict adherence to solid RS is the best policy, but the creation of a well written guideline would hopefully cut the endless debate that occurs from some quarters when we nominate some of these articles for deletion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC).
Wikipedia policy and purposes as regards this topic

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.

  • We already have a policy against standalone articles for non-notable topics: WP:GNG
  • We already have a policy against using unreliable sources: WP:RS
  • We already have a policy against writing original research: WP:OR
  • We already have a policy against advertising and advocacy: WP:NOTADVERTISING

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.

— Nomopbs (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Which underscores an issue not addressed - what to do about the landraces. For example, the Indian pariah dog. The Landrace#dogs came into being long before the Victorian-era clubs commenced their selective breeding. There are nearly 1 billion dogs on this planet, most of them do not fall under the category of a breed that is recognised by a Western kennel club. However, I also note that none of the landrace articles claim them to be a dog "breed". William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 11:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Side conversation
WH, I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting: that we classify a dog as a breed OR a landrace (never both) and use such criteria as 'Is it recognized by a breed registry and has a breed standard,' to determine whether we use the word 'breed' or 'landrace' exclusive of each other?
To correct you, I must point out that Indian pariah dog and Scotch Collie (the first example used in the Landrace#Dogs article) calls both dogs a 'landrace' AND a 'breed' in their respective articles. In fact, it sounds like 'landrace' is considered a subset of 'breed'.
I don't know which part of the English-speaking world commonly uses the term 'landrace' or whether it is a new word or a very specific esoteric word, because I never heard the word in my many decades of life (except as the name of a breed of pig) until I started editing on Wikipedia. 'Landrace' does not exist in my 1994 print edition of a college-level dictionary. It appears that the new meaning "A local cultivar or animal breed that has been improved by traditional agricultural methods" was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2005. [1] The wiktionary says there is an overlap of 'landrace' and 'breed'. [2]
The Scotch Collie (landrace) goes on to describe how the Rough Collie (breed) diverged from the existing Scotch Collies because of breeding, hinting that 'landrace' is the old and 'breed' is the new and deliberately improved version. In the case of the Catahoula bulldog (recently under attack in wikiland as 'not a breed'), the Catahoula BD is a deliberately bred dog, not the earlier natural local version that the word 'landrace' is being used for in doggie-wikiland. So if you are suggesting an angle that we should reclassify such (Catahoula BD) as a 'landrace' because 'it doesn't have a registry or a standardised look' is flip-flopped on its head because which comes first -- the chicken or the egg, the landrace or the breed, the breed or the registry?
We already have guidelines in wikiland to whether or not a subject gets a standalone article and whether or not it even gets a mention in an article. So far, none of that has been in dispute. I assert that the wiki guidelines are alone sufficient to determine whether a breed or landrace gets its own page and/or whether it can be mentioned within another article. I assert there is no need to re-define words in the English language (*cough* breed *cough*) to create strict policy in wikiland in order to censure and censor things that exist in the real world. If the locals call it a breed, then it is a breed. Period. As wikieditors we report what is out there. We aren't a group of scientists on a project to taxonomically reclassify and subclassify all dogs everywhere across the planet in order to write encyclopedia content. We leave that to the scientists, who can then publish something we will use in the encyclopedia.
— Nomopbs (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I recommend a refresher read of WP:NOTFORUM. Nomopbs, the content of your 1st and 2nd paragraphs directly below the section title confirm my position about OR and WP:NOT. See WP:GNG:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

When the cited source cannot verify origins, existence, consistency or the important factors that make a breed a breed, notability then falls to RS coverage with emphasis on reliable, DUE and WEIGHT. There is also the possibility we may or may not include it as a standalone article. We already have Dog types, and lists. Perhaps we need a new article that lists Unregistered dog types or something along that line. What is most important is that we clear-up the confusion, not add to it. Science/biology tells us a breed breeds true, and since WP is all about mainstream science and WP:V, it is our obligation to use discretion when considering WP:FRINGE views, the latter of which I'm of the mind that a questionable breed would fall under. A type of dog is not a breed - use the correct terminology which would be "breed type" or "breed standard" for a recognized breed, and "type of dog" for one that is not recognized. To do otherwise leaves us open to inclusion of every fictitious breed imaginable as what William Harris alluded to in his comment. Atsme Talk 📧 18:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
And WHO, pray tell, gets to decide which dogs/breeds/landraces/types belong in the proposed Unregistered dog types article or category? Even classifying a dog to go under such a title would require an outside reliable source, else it be original research. You are treading in the scientific field of Taxonomic ranking with this WP:DOGRS proposition, to a depth where WP:MEDRS never dared to trod. — Nomopbs (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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:

"Not only do shelters misidentify breeds as much as 75 percent of the time, but as used by shelters, law enforcement agencies and even courts, “Pit Bull” is not a breed of dog. It is, according to a leading advocacy organization, “a catch-all term used to describe a continually expanding incoherent group of dogs, including pure-bred dogs and mixed-breed dogs. A ‘Pit Bull’ is any dog an animal control officer, shelter worker, dog trainer, politician, dog owner, police officer, newspaper reporter or anyone else says is a ‘Pit Bull.’” When it comes to dogs we call “Pit Bulls,” PETA is not only killing them based on meaningless stereotypes, they are asking shelters to kill dogs they mistakenly think fit those stereotypes by the way they look."

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)

Atsme wrote "Misidentified dogs are being euthanized" [3] (which is NOT true) and then goes on to quote Nathan Winograd. Winograd's most extreme views (such as the one quoted) are WP:FRINGE and do NOT represent mainstream attitudes in the shelter industry, not even in so-called "No Kill shelters". Just google it. (Be sure to find recent sources, because the industry has been evolving quickly, and just 10 years ago things were radically different than today.) Better yet, try phoning a few No Kill shelters and ask them if they are following Nathan Winograd's principles or ideas. They will tell you no. (That survey has been tried already.) Winograd's extreme views should not be promoted within Wikipedia, least of all honored with a "project" to align Wikipedia articles with such FRINGE views. — Nomopbs (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Google it...and start with National Geographic, then The Atlantic, and PlOs One - all considered quality RS - and there are others. WP should not be a party to misidentifying modern breeds as fighting dogs because of their name, or trying to equate unrecognized breed-types as being official breeds themselves. Worse yet is the use of unreliable sources thinking that's all we need to pass GNG and V. It doesn't surprise me that you would consider Winograd fringe, or deny that PETA supports euthanizing. There are plenty of RS and academic research to support my position. Atsme Talk 📧 18:48, 14 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

Elf!!! So happy to see your comment here - it's always better to be late than never. I agree that distinguishing a dog breed from a dog type can be tricky but there is a workable formula we can use as a basis - we're working on it. The good news is that DNA testing has taken off - so it's actually an exciting time for us as it will serve as an aid in getting some of the dog breed vs dog type mess cleaned up. See the AP article if you haven't already. Oh, and feel free to weigh-in at User:Atsme/sandbox and User:Atsme/sandbox2 as well as in the discussions below and at the AfDs we list. We are about to wrap-up one GAC at Staffordshire Bull Terrier, so things are looking good. Also, if you know any techies/site developers who have any extra time on their hands, please send them our way - it would be great if we could get some help organizing our project pages to be even half as organized as Project Med's. :-D Atsme Talk 📧 00:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

Time to establish guidelines:break[edit]

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:

Notability
Sources
  • Kennel clubs are generally only considered reliable sources for the physical traits within the breed standards and the number of animals registered with that kennel club.
  • Other information sourced from kennel clubs and breed registries should only be used to supplement information from independent, reliable, secondary sources and not be cited independently.[1][2]

I would appreciate any thoughts, suggestions, observations, criticisms or additions. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC).

  • Notability - support. Sources - support. However, within the Breed Standard is the "Historical summary" which describes the breed's origins, and is usually cobbled together by the relevant breed club based on the myths and superstitions prevalent to that club. We have seen this on a number of dog articles: "...this breed of dog was brought by Phoenician sailors..." - from which I conclude that there must have been much dog diversity in old Phoenicia! The origin of each breed also needs to be exposed to independent, reliable, sources - I am happy for primary sources just as long as these are independent and reliable. William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 04:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    I agree, I have made a minor amendment to the breed standards statement which should account for that. Cavalryman (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC).
  • These are some good points, though I (and a few others, mostly from horses, I think) have previously worked a lot on a broader approach to this at Wikipedia:Notability (breeds) (it hasn't quite reached the formal proposal phase because only a few of us were working on it, and kind of fizzled out on it). I would prefer to see that draft improved and moved forward, because we need to not have conflicting standards and would-be guidelines popping up for different species. A site-wide guideline that isn't under the thumb of a single, small wikiproject is more apt to be accepted as a {{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.
An impressive piece of work, Mac - it will take a little time to read through and digest. William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 10:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree, very impressive Mac, and exactly what we’ve been needing. I too will need a little time to read through and digest it but from a preliminary glance it covers everything I have stated above and much more. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

References

  1. ^ "Terms and conditions". The Kennel Club. The Kennel Club Ltd. 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020. The Kennel Club makes no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the completeness and accuracy of the information contained on the Website.
  2. ^ "Terms of use". American Kennel Club. American Kennel Club, Inc. 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020. 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.

List of 100 dog "breeds" in need of review/reclassification/deletion[edit]

List of dog "breeds" in need of review/reclassification/deletion:

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Real Decreto 558/2001, de 25 de mayo, por el que se regula el reconocimiento oficial de las organizaciones o asociaciones de criadores de perros de raza pura. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación.
  2. ^ Barbado da Terceira. Clube Português de Canicultura.
  3. ^ Razze Italiane. Ente Nazionale della Cinofilia Italiana.

William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 12:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
I agree we need to go over this stuff and weed out the chaff. However, quite a few of these are not breeds/landraces, but general types, breed groups, or working roles, and we should keep articles on them (if anything, they may provide merge-to targets). Some that pop right out are bichon, a breed group, to which Bolognese (dog) could possibly merge; coonhound, which appears to be either a type or a working role, I'm not sure; dogo (dog type) says what it is, though I'm not sure that one is a keeper; domesticated red fox doesn't belong in this list, and is clearly notable since all sorts of a high-end sourcing has been written about it for decades; husky is a breed group, and obviously notable; mongrel is a general article; pointing dog is said in its lead to be a type but is probably a breed group, and should also be covering the genetics of the behavior (I saw an interesting article back-when on how pointing and setting appear to be a kind of neural short-circuit, a mild seizure, that turned out beneficial for humans and was bred-true on purpose); sighthound is a major dog type; tracking (dog) is canine behavior and working role article. I would remove at least those from this list.
  • I've moved the mal-named Small Greek Domestic Dog to Kokoni (it's one that I PRODed back in 2014, and it still likely is not notable, though I did also just do a cleanup pass on it).
  • Tracking (dog) should move along with some other such articles to have "(dogs)" disambiguation. The "(dog)" one implies a specific dog by the disambiguated name ("Togo (dog)", etc.); in something like "tracking (dogs)" we mean "tracking, in the context of dogs" just as "cell (biology)" means "cell, in the context of biology".
  • Another fix: We need to move List of extinct dog breeds and Template:Extinct dog breeds to use "varieties" instead of "breeds" since much of what is listed there are not breeds but landraces, crossbreeds, dog types, and other populations that are not breeds in any encyclopedic sense; trying to equate them in readers' minds with the modern conception of standardized breeds is a common and pretty dreadful form of WP:OR on this site, and we need to hunt it down. I honestly think that's a higher priority than deleting questionably notable dog articles, other than spammy ones that are trying to market neo-breeds.
  • See, for example, the cleanup I just did at Kokoni, which was preposterously claiming that a breed established only a few years ago by a small club is commonly found all over Greece and has been a favorite amongst Greeks for centuries! It verged on intentionally misleading (or willfully ignorant) writing. What it really meant was that vaguely comparable landrace dogs, of quite broad ancestry but a general medium-small size range, have been in the area for a long time, primarily as pets not as working animals, and were used as foundation stock for the recently established breed). There are probably at least 50 articles with problems like this, and I would start with the ones on the extinct list, since very few of them were breeds in anything like a formal sense.
  • I'm finding other and more serious OR problems, but will post about that separately.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
William Harris, how do you envisage that others should respond to this? Should we annotate your list, or offer responses here below? (not going to mess further with your post without your OK). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Truthfully, I really have no idea. I did much hack-work identifying them and regard that as my major contribution. I am now quickly reviewing them and: (a) badging them with breeds=yes if some reputable national kennel organisation has a standard for them (e.g. Germany) and this is placed as a Note in the breedbox with a link to the standard (in which case these are removed from this list); (b) badging the article with the Notability template if they look dubious, such as those articles based around a foreign name for a breed and then an article has been built around it (e.g. the Chinese name for Saluki!); and (c) some I am just unsure about. I assume all of those remaining on the list above should be targeted for AfD or merging into other articles. William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 02:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Then may I suggest striking through those that you've verified as OK, rather than removing them? Any that have been deleted will turn red, of course. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Polish Hunting Dog – I have taken the liberty of striking the Polish Hunting Dog, I found three (admittedly scant) mentions in three books I have. I have rewritten the article with the little I had and renamed it Gończy Polski as all three sources use the Polish name exclusively. If anyone has anything else I could use to expand upon it would be appreciated. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC).
I have now reinstated and striked through the deleted dogs, which is a much better idea. The technology I used to derive this list - a huge extract, sort, and match - was not 100% accurate and so a few breeds recognised by the major kennel clubs have slipped onto the list. William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 21:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Black and Tan Virginia Foxhound - I have found references to “Virginia foxhounds” in three books, all mention it as a progenitor of the Black and Tan Coonhound but state nothing else at all (none mention the “Black and Tan”).[1][2][3] What are thoughts on a merger with the Black and Tan Coonhound? Cavalryman (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC).

References

  1. ^ Alderton, David (2000). Hounds of the World. Shrewsbury: Swan Hill Press. p. 158. ISBN 1-85310-912-6.
  2. ^ Fogle, Bruce (2009). The Encyclopedia of the Dog. New York: DK Publishing. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-7566-6004-8.
  3. ^ Hancock, David (2014). Hounds: Hunting by scent. Ramsbury, Marlborough: The Crowood Press. pp. 137 & 143. ISBN 978-1-84797-601-7.

Italian breeds[edit]

This more or less follows on from William's post above: Sixteen Italian breeds are recognised in Italy by the Ente Nazionale della Cinofilia Italiana, the national dog club. Our template {{Italian dogs}} lists thirty-three. Since our article Segugio Italiano combines two distinct breeds (Segugio italiano a pelo forte, Segugio italiano a pelo raso) into one page, we appear to have sixteen articles on breeds that have no national recognition (two of the breeds in the template are not linked to any article). I propose merging all of them (if soundly sourced) into a brief List of Italian dog breeds without national recognition – unless anyone has any better title suggestion? Any objections or possible reasons not to do that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

My reticence is this may open Pandora’s box with a flood of similar articles for every country in the world. As said previously, I believe a lack of kennel club recognition does not preclude notability, if there are sources do you think List of dog breeds will suffice for the moment? I admit that list is becoming ungainly and it may be time to cull the recognition parameters and divide it into national sections, but that is discussion for that talk page. Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC).
A tricky one. Let's hear what Mac has to say.
Additionally, the Potsdam Greyhound appears to be the Italian greyhound under this name, with a quick merge available. William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 03:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't do "without national recognition"; it would be a non-WP:CONCISE title, and is a PoV issue (it's not WP's job to endorse a particular national breed registry; e.g., in the US there are dozens and most of them have terrible reputations). I do agree the non-notable but sourceable ones should merge to a list as short entries; any that can't even be verified should just get WP:AFD. And quite a few of these are probably either extinct landraces for which no breed standards were ever developed, or very modern attempts to establish breeds. There are several approaches to this that seem obvious:
  1. Have Stand-alone list inclusion criteria at List of dog breeds that permit non-notable but attestable entries, and things that are not strictly breeds but any variety with a name, and move the page to List of dog varieties. This could make the list quite long.
  2. Keep the current tighter, notable-entries-only criteria, but permit looser articles like a List of Italian dog varieties. If there are not multiple varieties, it won't be a list, so we would not have a problem of there being one list per country of the world, since not that many countries have produced multiple dog varieties that rise to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE level (i.e. should be covered with at least a list entry). But it would definitely result in a non-trivial number of new list articles.
  3. Keep List of dog varieties tight, but create some side articles, perhaps List of experimental dog breeds to go along with List of experimental cat breeds, and List of extinct dog varieties, and don't bother doing anything geographically (we already have navboxes doing that anyway). That would seem to cover every eventuality without a profusion of geographical list articles that duplicate the navboxes.
  4. Just AfD everything that isn't stand-alone notable, and effectively declare that non-notable varieties categorically also fail INDISCRIMINATE. I don't think that's actually a valid position under policy, or under operational consensus at AFD. I attempted to eliminate a cat experimental-breed article and an alleged dog variety article at AfD, and in both cases the result was "merge" (to List of experimental cat breeds in the first case, and ultimately to pachón navarro in the other).
I would most favor the third of these approaches, then probably the second, then the first, in descending order of practicality.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Mac. I believe our first step is to "Just AfD everything that isn't stand-alone notable" and see where we are after that. William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 20:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

I've just removed from German Shepherd some content cited to perfectdogbreeds.com, on the grounds that that is not a reliable source (it's registered to an anonymous entity in Cheshire, England). I've also recently removed from the same page content cited to yourpurebredpuppy.com and dogster.com, for the same reason – these are random internet websites with no reputation for accuracy or reliability, and not remotely suitable for use as sources for Wikipedia. I'd like to suggest that as a matter of urgency we should start a list of such unusable sites, with a view to removing them in short order from any article that cites them, and setting up filters that would prevent them from being added anywhere in Wikipedia; and also make a start on a more difficult task, that of identifying some sources for which there is consensus that that they are to be considered reliable by our standards.

As a very small start, I propose deprecation of:

  • perfectdogbreeds.com
  • yourpurebredpuppy.com
  • dogster.com

and recognition as reliable of

  • fci.be

Is this worthwhile? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion, general agreement
Agree, about the three sites you have mentioned above, all completely fail as RS:
  • perfectdogbreeds.com terms of service states "Perfectdogbreeds does not promise that the site or any content, service or feature of the site will be error-free ... Perfectdogbreeds disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including any warranties of accuracy ..."
  • yourpurebredpuppy.com terms of use states "We make no guaruntee or warranty that our information is accurate, legal, reliable or safe."
  • dogster.com terms and conditions of use states "Belvoir Media Group LLC does not warant that the sites will operate error-free ..." NB Belvoir Media Group LLC is the website's owner
On a number of pages I have had to remove similar content from a number of similar websites most of which make similar disclaimers, and it seems to be the same editors that continually reintroduce it. Just because it gets a Google hit doesn't make it reliable and/or notable.
Re fci.be, personally I do not believe it should be treated any differently to any other national kennel club. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC).
Just my opinion: the FCI evaluates the information submitted by individual kennel clubs, and this places it a a higher level of reliability; however, I added it here simply as an example of a website that we could, with due caution, regard as reliable.
Some more that we cannot trust may be:
I've removed all three from Kumaon Mastiff. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Also:
Some more:
  • www.bulldoginformation.com
  • dogappy.com
  • www.pawculture.com
  • www.petpremium.com
  • thehappypuppysite.com
  • www.thelabradorsite.com
What are your thoughts on the best way to deal with these formally? Lump them together under an RfC at RSN? If passed we could add a list to the project page with a permalink. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC).

Agreed. JLAN and Cavalryman, I regard a website as being only reliable as the sources its cites. Many of these websites (above) have no author taking responsibility for the content, do not cite sources, and are basically anonymous opinion pieces. I am in favour of removing anything they have to offer, and encourage Project members to grasp the nettle and commence their deletions from all dog-related articles. William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 00:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

First thoughts on how to start dealing with these: either just go ahead and remove them and see if there's any complaint, or (probably better in the long term):
  • reach consensus here on those listed above – is a week long enough for all interested to comment?
  • start a /Deprecated sources subpage and
  • use Special:LinkSearch to find and remove any mainspace occurrence of those;
  • rinse and repeat.
It seems to me that those listed so far are so obviously unusable, and so unlikely to be used outside this wikiproject, that local consensus should be sufficient; but if anyone suggests that these might be appropriate sources then yes, RfC is the next step.
Removing crap websites seems to be the easy part; identifying and agreeing on unusable books may be more of a challenge. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, William Harris, Cavalryman and other interested editors - please see User_talk:Atsme/sandbox#More about RS Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources Updated the link Atsme 💬 📧 16:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC). Perhaps we should also consider establishing a subpage such as Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Atsme Talk 📧 12:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
More bad sites
I wish to add to the list, some I have removed today:
  • vetstreet.com
  • dogbreedplus.com
  • 101dogbreeds.com
  • dogtime.com
  • dogs.petbreeds.com
  • designerdoginfo.wordpress.com
  • puppiesndogs.com
  • dogdisease.info
  • petguide.com
  • dogzone.com
  • allthingsdogs.com
  • teacupdogdaily.com
  • thedogsjournal.com

Cavalryman (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC).

And more today:

  • dogable.net
  • topdogtips.com
  • sittersforcritters.com
  • pets4homes.co.uk
  • retrieverbud.com
  • canna-pet.com
  • k9rl.com
  • mixbreeddog.com
  • iams.com
  • leashesandlovers.com
  • puppydogweb.com
  • thegoodypet.com

Cavalryman (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC).

And a few more:

  • dogpage.us
  • puppiesclub.com
  • puppy-basics.com

Cavalryman (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Some more today:

  • animalso.com
  • europetnet.com
  • russiandog.net

Cavalryman (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add another that I assumed was already here:

  • molosserdogs.com

Cavalryman (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC).

A couple more:

  • dogipedia.ru
  • dogsglobal.com

Cavalryman (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC).

Consolidated list[edit]

Please see the main list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources for potential updates. We should probably make a more prominent link to that page. Atsme 💬 📧 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • 101dogbreeds.com checkY
  • allthingsdogs.com checkY
  • animalso.com checkY
  • bulldoginformation.com checkY
  • canna-pet.com checkY
  • completedogsguide.com checkY
  • cosmosmith.com checkY
  • designerdoginfo.wordpress.com checkY
  • dogable.net checkY
  • dogappy.com checkY
  • dogbreedplus.com checkY
  • dogdisease.info checkY
  • dogipedia.ru checkY
  • dogpage.us checkY
  • dogs.petbreeds.com checkY
  • dogsglobal.com checkY
  • dogster.com
  • dogtime.com checkY
  • dogzone.com checkY
  • europetnet.com checkY
  • europetnet.org
  • iams.com
  • k9rl.com
  • leashesandlovers.com
  • mastiffdogssite.com checkY
  • mixbreeddog.com
  • molosserdogs.com checkY
  • pawculture.com
  • perfectdogbreeds.com
  • petguide.com
  • petpremium.com
  • pets4homes.co.uk
  • puppiesclub.com
  • puppiesndogs.com
  • puppy-basics.com
  • puppydogweb.com
  • retrieverbud.com
  • russiandog.net
  • scamperingpaws.com
  • sittersforcritters.com
  • teacupdogdaily.com
  • thedogsjournal.com
  • thegoodypet.com
  • thehappypuppysite.com checkY
  • thelabradorsite.com checkY
  • topdogtips.com checkY
  • vetstreet.com checkY (for dogs only)
  • yourpurebredpuppy.com checkY

Discussion[edit]

Have started to remove from articles, will tick as complete. This will likely require review again. Cavalryman (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC).

A couple of "good websites"[edit]

I would like to propose two websites containing a number of very informative articles as "good sources":

Both authors have been published widely in dog publications and Hancock in particular has a number of published books on dogs. Both websites contain a number of articles, most of which have previously been published in magazines but some may not have been. I think both meet the criteria under WP:RSSELF as "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Cavalryman (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC).

At davidhancockondogs.com, the pix to the right - a man out of my own heart! William Harris (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Formerly of The Light Infantry, I have most of his books although I would really like a copy of The mastiffs but it is well out of print and around £150 online, there is a transcript on his website though. Cavalryman (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
Now I am lost in sources, the websites you have listed mainly contain printed information and most of the popular web resources are listed in "bad sources", kennel club websites that seem to have reliable information cannot be used as primary sources... Could you please give examples of dog-related web resources that would be considered suitable?--LoraxJr 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:SPS and then WP:USINGSPS, basically if it has not been produced by an author who has previously demonstrated expertise in the field, or a publisher with a good reputation for robust editorial oversight and fact checking, then it's pretty safe to assume it's self-published. Most of the "popular web resources" are content farms, and when you scrutinise them closely you realise often Wikipedia is their starting point, we don't site ourselves.
The "good websites" above contain a series of articles written by two authors who are expert dog writers, both have previously been very widely published in a number of reputable publications from very good publishers and all of the articles on their websites are transcripts of articles that have been published in such publications, that's why they are suitable for use as sources. Cavalryman (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC).
Ok, that makes clearer on one side and much harder to find sources on the other. This rule is the equally applicable to sources in other languages too? LoraxJr 11:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is applicable to sources in all languages, and yes it can be difficult to find sources. This is why large tracts of text and even occasionally articles are deleted as they are not cited to reliable sources. Cavalryman (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC).

Good Articles recommended for review[edit]

There are some Good Article-level topics which were promoted over a decade ago and would benefit from a review. Therefore, I have added these to the WP:DOGS "To Do" box, and these include the following : Swift fox (2008); Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (2009); Clumber Spaniel (2009); Russian Spaniel (2009); Sussex Spaniel (2009)

The Swift fox is rated at High Importance to the project, the others are at mid-importance and all just happen to be spaniels. If anyone would like to review any of these then feel free to guide them through the WP:GAR process. It is also an opportunity to cleanse the articles by removing that text which is uncited or draws on unreliable sources. William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 10:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We also have only one Featured article that would benefit from a review: Beagle (2007) William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 12:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm game. I've been a little too lazy with my reviewing so this will help get me back on track. Atsme Talk 📧 14:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of these articles are in reasonable shape but they have picked up some "barnacles" over the years that need to be removed:

  • some unreferenced sentences that should be simply deleted
  • text from "mylittlepuppy.com" type websites without author or references that should be simply deleted
  • some paragraphs that are either grammatically incorrect or logically disconnected - they have been added on post-GA by well-meaning editors but these have disrupted the flow of the article

Did you have any article in mind? William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 23:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to do basic copy editing for all but if you're wanting formal peer review, it requires a different approach. Sundays are quiet time and when I can just sit back, read and do a bit of CE. If you have a particular article in mind, let me know. Atsme Talk 📧 23:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Akita (dog) article.[edit]

There is a need to split this article into the American Akita and the Japanese Akita, as per the 2 FCI Breed Standards. There has been much effort, and confusion, in maintaining the one article to cover the two separate breeds. William Harris (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If it is a cause of tension in the article then perhaps a split is required, I imagine there are enough sources to support both articles. That being said most of my usual sources treat them as one, we have a number of breed articles that discuss breeds with different kennel club recognition. Cavalryman (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC).
The FCI offers two breed standards. One for the Akita (the Japanese original), and one for the American Akita which would be the spinoff article. William Harris (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Just an FYI[edit]

I added a tab on our project's main page for our dog-related source guide, and also added a wikilink to it at the NPP source guide for Animals. I haven't updated any of it in a while, so please feel free to make any updates or changes that will provide improved criteria. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 17:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Utility of Template:Extinct dog varieties[edit]

There have been a number of edits to navboxes over the last year or so adding lists of extinct dog breeds/types/varieties to both out national and type navboxes (recent example). If we have these dogs covered in two navboxes, do we really need another to navbox to aid navigating between breeds/types/varieties whose only relationship to each other is their lack of continued existence?

What are project member's thoughts about:

  • completing the task of including all of our extinct breed/type/variety articles into the appropriate national and type navboxes; then
  • nominating Template:Extinct dog varieties for deletion?

Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC).

It appears to me that this template is only being deployed under the extinct breeds? William Harris (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

TfD: Template:Colombian dogs[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Colombian dogs has been nominated for deletion. Project members are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC).

TfD: Template:AKC standard[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:AKC standard has been nominated for deletion. Project members are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC).

Dog article[edit]

Our "flagship" article Dog has just failed GA again. (Of course it failed, its a mess, what was the nominator thinking). The comments are on the Talk page. For those who are interested, now is the time to start removing some of the fleas from the Dog article, using Talk:GA Review as a good reason in your edit summary. William Harris (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Always happy to remove fleas, ticks and other parasites, but I suppose the first question I have do we think the foundations are there or should we consider a rewrite? Then, is the structure fit for purpose? Perhaps cat or horse are good templates. I must admit that I roll my eyes just at the infobox image that shows nine very western pet dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC).
I have tried to overhaul - and chase away drive-by editors who want to have it their way - for years with this article. It is fairly much a loosing battle. What we have is a mixture of good science plus a trash-pile of editors' findings from various (and dubious) news sites, websites and even blogs. If an improvement were to be made, we should begin with a firm foundation. Base it on either cat or horse, or even wolf to some degree. Else, take an internationally renowned text, such as Serpell, and use that as a comprehensive structure.
The first step is to cull the rubbish, and reduce the USA-focus - Dog is an international article. Which brings us back to the infobox image - these are all popular dogs in the US. It needs to go; our grouping down at the bottom of the WPDOGS main page is more representative. We could simply go for a new montage of 4: one European, one African (Basenji, Africanis?), one East Asian, and one form of sled dog for the Americas (Malamute?). William Harris (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree we need to reduce the US focus, I can think of no need to mention any nation state, continents yes. As a featured article it would be good to base this on the wolf article but obviously as a domestic species it will need a slightly different bent.
Re infobox image, it needs to be a square number, so four or nine, it can be a separate topic of conversation but I thinking a sighthound (Europe/Asia/North Africa), livestock guardian (same), husky (Siberia/North America), African village dog (Sub-Saharan Africa), pye-dog (East Asia), non descript mongrel, retriever (English speaking world, this is English Wikipedia), toy dog (one of the Chinese ones popular in European courts) and roll the dice to determine between a scent hound, terrier, herding dog or mastiff. Cavalryman (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC).
OK, I see we can move away from recognised breeds as well. I think it is time for you to drop the concept on Talk:Dog to see if anyone is interested in discussion. (Dog tends to be the opposite to Wolf, there is a keen pack at Wolf who cooperate to get things done quickly - no such luck at Dog.) It might signal a change coming to that article.
Regarding Serpell (who is the editor for a multi-author book, all being recognised experts in their respective fields), the structure used is 4 main Parts: (a) Origins and Evolution (b) Behaviour, Cognition, and Training (c) Dog-Human Interactions (d) Life on the margins (feral, village, etc). It then has chapters under each. William Harris (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Will do. I have just had a look at the Serpell book, it’s certainly a great start, some of my usual sources could supplement it in places. I will defer to you on evolution and classification etc. Cavalryman (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC).
Hi, sorry to interrupt, but in case you need a non-drive-by editor to help, let me know, what I could do to. I can fulfil smaller tasks that need to be done. LoraxJr 14:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have completed the sections on Evolution/Domestication which match Part 1 (of 4 parts) in Serpell. William Harris (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons categories for discussion[edit]

FYI – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

A number of Commons categories of possible interest to the project have been nominated for discussion, project members are invited to comment at c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Dog hybrids. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have not been out on Wikimedia Commons before folks, don't be shy - just follow the link and have your say, similar to Wikipedia. All of these Wiki projects have the same look and feel, by design. William Harris (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cocker Spaniel GAR[edit]

Cocker Spaniel, an article of interest to the project, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. Project members are invited to participate at the reassessment page. Cavalryman (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC).

Merger proposal: Purebred dog[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article of interest to the project—Purebred dog—has been proposed for merging with Dog breed. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs&oldid=1017683421"