This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs 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.
I saw in the archives that someone suggested the creating of a "breeds in development" page, which I think is a very good idea. I find it very disconcerting that some of the breeds in the List of dog breeds such as the American Bullnese are only recognized by "sham" breed clubs, while other more "breeds in development" (like the Labradoodle and Carlin Pinschers ) are not included on this list, even though the page states that this list includes some breeds in development. I think it would be more productive to have a separate list for breeds in development. Opendestiny (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
That could possibly be an oversight; it could also be because they may be listed at the List of dog crossbreeds. I don't see why they shouldn't be here. --TKKbark ! 18:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Merging of Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd
The breed standard of Australian shepherd does not recognize a "mini" version of the breed; in 2011, those trying to create a "mini" Australian shepherd renamed their breed the Miniature American Shepherd and were subsequently recognized as Foundation stock by the AKC. Thus, I propose these two records be merged in this list with a note indicating that what were previously considered "Miniature Australian Shepherds" are now officially "Miniature American Shepherds". Opendestiny (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
This would probably be better served by a merge proposal on the Miniature American Shepherd page, or if that page does not exist, a move to that page. --TKKbark ! 22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, I'll head over there and suggest it now. Although the lines should still to be combined in this list as well. I'm still really new to this whole editing thing. Opendestiny (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
If the merge goes through there, I will combine the listings here myself if that's any reassurance haha. I'm going to watch both pages. I would support the merge wholeheartedly, especially if, as you say, it is the same breed with a name change. --TKKbark ! 18:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently came across a 'Lurcher' but which was not listed in any 'list of dog breeds'; it has its own entry in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurcher just suggest it can be added to this list Nigbenet (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Nigel Benetton
According to the article lurcher‘s are not a breed of dog but a cross between different breeds. This article only lists breeds of dogs. GBfan 10:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
If a breed article was deleted, but the breed is mentioned briefly in some sources (perhaps not enough to have its own article, but it is mentioned in several places) would it be acceptable to list it here without a linked name and cite the breed's entry in the list to those sources?--TKKbark ! 19:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Everyone has link. Won't need refs. Noteswork (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
How about Dividing the List into Alphabetical Sections?
I think it's a little "frustrating" to scroll down all the long list in the case when only one or two breeds need to be added/modified. Therefore I was wondering if it could be divided into alphabetical sections (currently it's divided so that a certain letter can be easily found when reading the list, but I mean also dividing to sections that can be modified separately from each others)? For example in the Finnish Wikipedia, the corresponding list is divided in the way that makes modifying a certain breed much easier. --Canarian (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not against a redesign. I did the original design on the current list. The reason I put the whole list in a single table was to make it easy for the reader. If someone is looking for the dog breeds in a certain group they can resort the table and they would then be all together. Just something to consider if the table is split into multiple tables. GBfan 15:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)