Australian Kelpie was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: November 12, 2006
|This article is written in Australian English (colour, labour (but Labor Party), realise). Some terms that are used in it differ from or are not used in other dialects of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|WikiProject Dogs / Breeds||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Australia||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 AKC
- 2 Capitalisation
- 3 Colours
- 4 removing extra photos from article
- 5 Gallery
- 6 Name of article
- 7 Working vs Non-working
- 8 History
- 9 Appearance
- 10 Red Clouds
- 11 A mongrel is not a breed.
- 12 GA on hold
- 13 Copied from Gordon's Sandbox talk page
- 14 Temperment
- 15 /* Description */
- 16 History section
- 17 First Picture Not a Good Example?
A mention somwhere that the Australian Kelpie is NOT recognized by the AKC as a dog breed, but the majority of other world dog organizations recognize the breed should be added.
I just changed Dingo to dingo. Can somebody explain why Dingo is consistently written with a capital D in the dingo article and why Kelpie is written with a capital letter in the title of this article, but not in the text. D.D. 20:03 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- This is a very old question, but as I started answering before I noticed that - I'll leave a reply for future browsers...The problem is a long running dispute about capitalisation on Wikipedia. Generally we use lower case, except for proper nouns. The question has always been - are common names of species properly capitalised or not. This argument has extended to breed names in the dog section. In order to cool the dispute the compromise has been that both capitalised and non-capitalised are acceptable in these areas - but the redirects should always be set up from the alternative. In the dog breeds section, we decided that the convention should be that breed names are capitalised. But there are sometimes articles written with the opposite form, and we don't always catch all cases of this quickly. The Dingo is also a slightly different case in itself because it is usually regarded as a sub-species rather than a breed - and mammals usually are in the non-capitalised form. Last time I looked, the Dingo article was using "dingo" (IIRC) - looks like that's switched over again. I think all the "Kelpies" in this article are fixed now, and I've switched the "Dingo" back to the capitalised form -- sannse (talk) 11:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
They are supposed to be capitalized .
The kelpie genrally doesnt have white tips. Thes dogs are exported all over the world for their woking abillity and versitiity. They will work cattle, sheep, goats and ducks. The work in all weather climates rangeing from freezing to forty degrees c. The colours that kelpies come in are
black and tan red and tan blue and tan faun and faun and tan cream
removing extra photos from article
Kelpie with obedience dumbbell
Chocolate brown Kelpie
Name of article
I suggest that the whole article be renamed from "Australian Kelpie" to just "Kelpie". In brief, there are no other Kelpies -- so the name is unique. Most Australians who look for the article will first (as I did) look under "K", then wonder why such an important dog has no Wikipedia entry. Gordon | Talk, 17 April 2006 @05:37 UTC
- Perhaps because the breed is named Australian Kelpie? ;-) Kelpie is redirected here anyways. Chosig 18:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Working vs Non-working
The Kelpie breed is currently split into "Working" and "Show". The "Show" Kelpie is bred for a limited range of colours and other conformations and usually wouldn't know what to do with a sheep. The "Working" Kelpie is bred for working ability, working ability and working ability, with colours and conformation a very unimportant consideration.
- I've just done a major rewrite covering this and the two following headings -- there has been no discussion or objection in the last week, so I interpreted silence as assent.Gordon | Talk, 23 April 2006 @12:33 UTC
It is important to understand that the ancestors of the Kelpie were simply (black) dogs, called Colleys or Collies. The word "collie" has the same root as "coal" and "collier (ship)". Today's Collie breeds were not formed until about 10 or 15 years after the Kelpie was established as a breed. Some of these Colleys were imported to Australia for stock work in the early 1800's, and were bred to other types of dogs (including the odd Dingo), but always with an eye to working sheep without direct supervision.
I put a "citation needed" tag after this claim. I have always heard, and can document, that the name "collie" comes from an Anglo-Saxon word meaning "useful." If you know of another etymology, it would be the first time I've heard it. --Onemanutopia 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't have "Ranchers" in Australia, I've changed it to "stockmen" as this more accurately reflects the people who would use herding dogs generally, and Kelpies especially.
Ummm... No, Kelpies don't usually have double coats. They used to, but somehow they just changed.
The sizes and weights given here are a bit on the large side. 30Kg is very much in the German Shepherd class! Better numbers would be (Working Keplies!) 50cm at the withers for females, 55cm for males; weight would be between 14-21Kg. Gordon | Talk, 17 April 2006 @ 06:24 UTC
The information for the Red Clouds is taken from personal correspondence with the Noonbarra Working Kelpie Stud. Is there a citation in Wiki allowing for "pers. comm."? Gordon | Talk, 29 April 2006 @12:25 UTC
- The answer to that is "no". The closest you would get is if the proprietor submitted an article to the breeder's association magazine (not just wrote them a letter).
- see WP:RS.Garrie 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
A mongrel is not a breed.
The indecisiveness of the constituancy of this breed IMHO makes it not a breed. Cattle mongrels that have been bred from working dogs brought over hundreds of years ago are invalid unless we can say they come from a discernable heritage (see: breeding) and thus can label it's breed.
What's with all these 'Australian <insert real breed>' breeds of dogs around about anyway? Apparently, all these Australian <Breed> dogs are only known outside Australia? And oddly, none are recognised? Seriously, what's up with that? 18.104.22.168 16:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
An Australian Kelpie IS a breed.Don't say that they aren't.
Sorry, you are totally wrong on all fronts. 1. There is decisiveness about the constituency of the breed - simply look up any of the official kennel club websites. 2. "these Australian <Breed> dogs" ARE very well known in Australia, for instance the ACD (Australian Cattle Dog), the kelpie and the Australian Terrier. I know, I'm Australian, you're obviously not. 3. All the " Australian <Breed> dogs" that I know of are recognised. Simply take a look at the kennel club websites.
Would you then also contend that the border collie is not a breed, since it comes in a wide variety of coat colours/patterns and types?
Apauza 06:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- A "breed" is an animal with a documented descent from known ancestors. The Kelpies are well documented around the world. For dogs intended for show, the documentation has to be written and not show any crossbreeding; on the other hand, planned crossbreeding and open stud books are common in dogs that are actually used for work. This isn't the same as "mongrel" or "mixed-breed", which imply no planning, just random bred dogs from anywhere. That would be pretty uneconomical for a stockman to bring up vast numbers of random dogs on the offhand chance that one might work correctly! It's not even always a sure thing with dogs that are bred for it.--Hafwyn (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
GA on hold
I don't want to fail this, but this has three glaring issues that are jumping out at me.
- The prose needs to be cleaned up a bit. A quick third party review will solve this.
- The citations need to be consistent. I suggest a read of WP:CITE to fix this.
- Please note where you're referencing from. I'm pretty sure that a Geocities link isn't reliable enough, but perhaps you know where they're getting their information.
- The Geocities link is the "quick & easy" popular website of the Noonbarra Stud, duplicating much of the information found on their business website, and with some additional material. Geocities sites do indeed have a poor reputation -- but all sites must be visited and evaluated prior to the condemnation. In this case, the site is authoritative and detailed. Gordon | Talk, 12:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it doesn't matter what the medium used is - you are only using one breeder's view on Kelpie so it isn't particularly a reliable source. Can the same information be pulled from articles in a breed magazine / newsletter? (even if the same person is the contributing author - the fact it is in the breed association's publication rather than the breeder's commerial/ advertisement website lends credibility). Remember: nobody can really dispute, on their own website, their view of what a kelpie is but in an association magazine they'd be shot down if they went too far from the consensus of all (registered) kelpie breeders.Garrie 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Gordon's Sandbox talk page
I've been through and played with various parts, please check that I haven't lost information or the more likely misrepresented some in the edit process. Other than that it looks good, that personal communication is better laid out, but I still think that at FA and GA it could cause a problem, maybe let it sit for a while and see if others do any changes before going down those tracks. Gnangarra 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Gnangarra. "Lead": The Wiki article "considers livestock based on the middle view", which does not include poultry, which is specifically one area where Kelpies shine -- I would take your edit to "...and poultry". "Breed Standards": My personal opinion is that the final sentence ", but his options for competition in conformation shows might be limited depending on his ancestry and on the opinions of the various kennel clubs or breed clubs involved" should stand as it conveys information which may be needed by people intending to show their animals. Apart from those two, I'm happy. Gordon | Talk, 13:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- no arguement from me with these, Gnangarra 12:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Kelpies are loyal, friendly, intelligent, problem-solving dogs and make excellent pets
This is very broad generalisation! the text goes on to say that the dog will need plenty of exercise...
In my experience working dog breeds are often very bad pets as they get bored from insufficient activity / exercise. Dogs that make good pets need less exercise and stimulation.
If you have a dog that doesn't get very much exercise, then it gets fat and lazy. A working dog sounds much funner to me than a fat and lazy dog. Besides, working dogs, as you call them, aren't all that bad. I have two and they are very hard and faithful workers and friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by So.bored16 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The current section on Temperament is about agility and jumping, this leads me to believe that whomever wrote it does not understand the meaning of the word temperament. It should be entirely rewritten. 10/19/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
/* Description */
The article rightly states that there are differences between stud book working kelpies and show kelpies bred for confirmity to kennel club breed standards. But like the Australian Stock Horse, the breeders of working dogs breed to standards of some description - throwing a blue heeler over a kelpie results in a cross bred dog not a kelpie, not a blue heeler, no matter how well it works. So the description section is wrong. Maybe what it is trying to say is that stockmen wanting working dogs don't care about stud-book breeding - they care about performance! - and people after working dogs don't mind a bit of hybrid vigour anyway!Garrie 06:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In 1840, Thomas Hall bred a couple of Blue Smooth Highland Collies with dingoes and got the “Hall’s Heeler”.
from Australian Kelpie:
the first official Border Collie not brought to Australia until after Federation in 1901.
- Noting that we are only talking about Border Collies, I quote:
North American Border Collie Rescue Network
The keen herding instinct and great power over sheep that working collies possessed were such useful assets that it was worth trying to find a milder-natured type to cross with them. A Northumbrian farmer, Adam Telfer, succeeded in finding the right blend of types in 1894. The Border Collie of today is descended from Telfer's dog, "Hemp". Not only various temperaments, but a variety of working styles and skills, were combined in Hemp to produce the Border Collie.http://www.sandybeach.com/nabcrn/history.htm
Border Collie Club Of Great Britain
doesn't say anything about the breed history.http://www.bordercollieclub.com
The Border Collie - History
In the nineteenth century we can find several publications in which dogs with the description 'Collie' or 'Colley' are mentioned. Illustrations dating from this time show a varying exterior. Sometimes the dogs look more like the current Scottish shepherd, in other cases they look like the Border Collie, and sometimes it is impossible to recognise a current breed.
At the end of the nineteenth century, you can find a type of 'Colley' that resembles the current Border Collie a lot. With the birth of the legendary Old Hemp in 1893 and Old Kep in 1901, the current Border Collie type has emerged. http://www.bordercollies.nl
- Given that Wiki does not permit original research, it should only be quoted as a secondary source, not primary. You will find that Thomas Hall did indeed breed a couple of colleys to dingos to produce the "Hall's Heeler" -- but note that they were Colleys, not Collies. Gordon | Talk, 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think the key point I missed yesterday was the distinction between a Border Collie and a Blue Smooth Highland Collie! But still, using these websites (and personal corrospondance!)as references does not really comply with WP:RS. So my point is really - can better sources be found? Garrie 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure they can. However, I am by nature lazy, and the Noonbarra Stud "THE KELPIE STORY" has it all together: I didn't have to wander far! Now, about Red Cloud Kelpies. I would lo-o-o-ve to find a better source than a "Personal Correspondence". BUT, sadly, I cannot find any reliable published sources either way, for or against. I have lots of opinion, gossip and anecdotes, but nothing that would stand up in court. In defence of the "pers. comm." citation, Wikipedia is one of the very few places which doesn't recognise it. Most authoritative journals recognise it, subject to a couple of important rules: one, it must be produceable, ie., the original must be available for perusal by reviewers (Yes, I have it); and two, the author(s) must be authorities in the field (Yes, they are). So, given your rather hostile tone in this criticism, I leave it to YOU to search diligently for authoritative references affirming or negating the existence of the Red Cloud Kelpie as a sub-type of the Kelpie breed. Gordon | Talk, 11:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you need to follow the verifiable link in blue below the edit box, if you think it is someone else's job to provide reliable sources for claims you have placed in an article. The policies of this site place the onus on the editor making the claims to provide relaiable sources.
- In this instance the hostile action would be to remove every statement which I feel is not cited to a reliable source. In doing so I would be in line with the policy and procedures but not in line with the actual practices.
- Please note, my comments were made in line with what appear to be efforts to get this article up to the level required to be classed as a good article.
- Whatever opinion or acceptance other journals (which aim to be a secondary rather than a tertiary source of information) hold regarding personal corrospondance, Wikipedia regards them as a primary source of information. In general, Wikipedia artciles should rely on reliable secondary sources - in this regard the use of personal correspondance as a citation for one fairly minor (overall) point of the article is acceptable, if unusual (on this site). However in combination with the extensive reliance on the website of an individual stud (which is a business directly involved in the subject matter, so has a potential conflict of interest in ensuring that their own product comes out smelling like roses), the result is this article seems to be relying too heavily on primary sources.
- Rather than relying on a website published by an individual stud, if similar information is available from either the WKC or ANKC then this is more likely to be information which has been agreed upon by the breeding community, rather than information which has the potential for bias in favour of a single breeder.
- I actually have real issues with quite a bit of this article which is heavily POV currently in favour of WKC-type dogs & breeders. (eg: lead section: "The Show Kelpie is the variety that is seen at conformation dog shows. They usually have little or no herding instinct" - no citation yet the [ANKC states "It has a natural instinct and aptitude in the working of sheep, both in open country and in the yard")Garrie 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
First Picture Not a Good Example?
Does anyone else agree with me that the first picture in this article is not a good example of an Australian Kelpie? Here are my reasons: 1. The ears are waaaaaaay too big. 2. The head is too big in proportion to the body. 3. The dog seems too tall - assuming it is wearing a 1" wide collar, this dog stands a whopping 60cm (+/- 2cm) at the withers. (I scaled it on the photo)
It seems pretty typical of an "American" Australian kelpie - i.e. the ones I have seen seem to be bigger and slightly different (taller, wider chest, bigger ears, weird looking heads) from the true Australian stock.
I am not saying that it is not a kelpie, but that perhaps not the best example of the breed... Perhaps an encyclopaedia should feature a more typical example. Apauza 06:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to suggest an alternative here, providing it is licensed properly. VanTucky 06:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if images of dogs working are suitable but here is one.
- Absolutely not. The image is not suitable as an infobox image. Compare the general composition. Your subjective, uncited assertions about the current images unsuitability do not override simple quality. VanTucky 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Isabel - Last Photo in the article
The last photo does not vaguely look like a Kelpie. It has too much white and is too long haired.
hi, new person/comment etc , im not from aus , but just think there could be formosan in the kelpie breed the two breeds seem quite similar , red coat gene , almond shaped eyes.. similar size build etc, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)