Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 7

Tornjak

Hello. Could someone please take a look at the Tornjak article? There appears to be a small edit war regarding the breed's origin between advocates of Bosnia and Herzegovina and advocates of Croatia. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hawaiian Poi Dog

Hi. I tried fact-checking Hawaiian Poi Dog, but except for the most basic items, I really couldn't verify most of the information with good sources. Could anyone give it a try? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Cross breed merge propsals

I have proposed merging Morkie and Corgidor into List of dog hybrids. Please read the talk:List of dog hybrids and comment. Thank you,Coaster1983 (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Puggle also up for deletion...again...

The Puggle page is again, put up for deletion by someone. Not sure how to fix these. It seems more that the people putting these up for deletion have issues with "mutts" being classified and only want "purebreds" to be classified because mutts are not "notable" enough. The Puggle page actually is actually very reasonable, and I wish it could be allowed to continue growing. I don't think it's the page itself that people have issues with, but that the mix-breed dogs are at the middle of an opinion war on whether or not "crossbreeds" are "noteworthy."

Help!! 64.17.68.14 (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ShiChi up for deletion

Wiki is putting ShiChi up for deletion because it is not a "purebred" but is a "designer mix"--someone commented saying there were "nearly infinite" numbers of designer mixes and that it's not worth noting the different designer mixes. I would like help with fixing the article and making it better so that it is acceptable to wikipedia. I apologize that I am not very good with writing nor with websites, but I do love puppies and believe different types of puppies are worth noting even if they are not purebreds.

How do I make this article better? I do not know what else to do to make it right.  :( help?

ShiChi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ShiChi

Kelidimari (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Chihuahua Terriers

Resolved

Hey folks. This article was created recently by a new editor. It has some flaws that many new articles have but I'd appreciate it if an expert could come take a look at the article. I find references to show that the breed exists but it's apparently a mix. I'm not sure how Wikipedia handles articles for mix breed dogs so I'm leaving it alone besides some improvement tags I've added. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. OlYeller^Talktome 04:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to this request.Coaster1983 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: The article has been deleted. Coaster1983 (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Dogs to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sabueso Español

Just FYI a new editor, {{user|ClubSabuesoEspañol},} has made major changes to this article. Web based references are mostly replaced with off-line refs. Pics added.--220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Alsatian Shepalute

The name of the Alsatian Shepalute has been officially changed to American Alsatian. The article has been waiting to show WP:COMMONNAME. When one term is omitted from the other's search using Google—"Alsatian+Shepalute"+-"American+Alsatian", "American+Alsatian"+-"Alsatian+Shepalute"—it appears that American Alsatian now has more than 1000 independent use references over that of Alsatian Shepalute. Help would be appreciated in determining if this article now meets the requirements for WP:COMMONNAME.

Similarly, additional thoughts would be appreciated in the reliable third party tag discussion. Thanks. Shepaluteprez (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Carlin Pinscher

Carlin Pinscher is up for deletion on 2008-09-19.

"Carlin Pinscher" (Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: No reliable sources, possibly advertising.)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:05, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Added links to Companion dog title orphan article

This article was an orphan, so I added links to the AKC website outlining basic info on dog titles. --Momosgarage 23:20, 19 August 2009

Golden Mastiff

Hi guys,
Golden Mastiff is currently at AfD. Thought you might like to comment.Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hypothyroidism In Dogs: Food For Thought?

I regret I do not have a lot of time on my hands for research but given my personal experience with hypothyroidism in humans, it seems likely that hypothyroidism in dogs is partially caused or made worse by a diet high in goitrogenic foods like soy, millet, and corn.

Stonefruit, certain nuts, and carrots are also on the thyroid-weakening-list, as are many other staples of the modern American diet.

From initial reading, I believe these foods interfere with iodine uptake.

Iodine and/or selenium deficiency cause hypothyroid. I believe one theory is that mercury causes hypothyroid, among other problems, by replacing selenium and also by disabling the body's detoxification system, thus exposing the thyroid--and the rest of the body--to increased toxic assaults.

Not sure how I'm supposed to sign this?

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Meli3d (talk • contribs) 11:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Article for Assessment

Just to let more people know, I listed] an article for assessment (more like re-assessment, really). Silverseren^C 22:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Dogs articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Dogs articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolving Commonname: Alsatian Shepalute vs American Alsatian

I am readdressing this issue on the Alsatian Shepalute article to try and clearly resolve the question of WP:COMMONNAME now that some time has passed since the official name change by the National American Alsatian Club. I welcome any and all participation into this discussion that has been addressed on the discussion page before. The more people who chime in the better chance it will not be solely my decision, but the decision of wikipedians as a whole who collectively have more experience than I do on WIkipedia. However, if no one responds to this within 7 days then I will go ahead and transfer over the article to the new name. I suggest the name be changed to American Alsatian, but with a redirect page from Alsatian Shepalute. If anyone is still familiar with the old name it will still redirect them to the new name. My reasons are clearly stated on the Alsatian Shepalute discussion page. Thanks everyone. Shepaluteprez (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Under the history of the American Foxhound it states that the hounds George Washington received were Grand Bleu Gascogne's. I cannot find any historical reference to this being the case for this - what is the authors source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.131.221 (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Spaniel Origin

Guys,

I need a hand here. I came across a source which suggested that the origin of the Spaniel may not have been Spanish. The words in old french (and modern french) for Spanish and Spaniel are very similar, but this source suggested that it wasn't developed from that, but from the old french word for "to go down" which was the style of use in hunting. Anyone seen anything similar, as I can't find the source again.

Thanks,

Miyagawa (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Howling by Dog Packs

Why do dogs howl--especially as a pack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.132.66 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Werewolves

Quick query - should all things Werewolf related be tagged to this project? I'm just asking because we have a few articles tagged (Werewolf itself being one of them, plus some comic book articles) but just realised that the majority of Category:Werewolves in film and television aren't tagged. I've no opinion either way, but does anyone have any thoughts? Miyagawa (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Giant Schnauzer

Can anyone with expertise on this dog breed take a look at Talk:Giant_Schnauzer#Photograph_question? This follows a question over on the help desk. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The file for the photo on the right includes Riesenschnauzer in its name, as in "Riesenschnauzer.jpg". The photo is being used on the Giant Schnauzer article. Apparently, the photo is of a Black Russian Terrier, which apparently is different from both a Riesenschnauzer and Giant Schnauzer. When I look at it, I see dog, more partiucularly, big black dog. If the file is misnamed and the photo is being used in the wrong article, please fix. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the image and replaced with other images - there is plenty on Commons, so there's no need to use an image which is in doubt. Miyagawa (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Koolie Club of Australia

The article Koolie Club of Australia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found only a minor mention of the subject in published (gBooks) works. Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Old Family Red Nose

I have started an article about the Old Family Red Nose which an old and beautiful strain of the American Pit-bull Terriers. Please help me to improve it. Vlb50 (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking to coordinate and assist

Greetings WikiProject Dogs members:

My name is Steven James and I am the Chief Editor of K9ience Magazine, a free online publication dedicated to man's best friend soon to be launched. K9ience has long been interested in cataloging all dog breeds in Wiki style as a means to provide meaningful breed descriptions beyond the dry descriptions provided by the various breed associations. We are aware of wiki style software that can be used, and we did consider taking on this project independently. However, we just became aware of this effort and we are not looking to duplicate an existing effort (this one) and we are not looking to profit from the project in any manner. We think a catalog of all dog breeds is a service to the dog loving world. What we'd like to do, is somehow collaborate with this existing project and give it a push and focus to our targeted readership. Thru our readership and contacts, we can easily recruit qualified editors to make entries regarding various breeds. We are not interested in a broad "dog articles" type project, but only "dog breeds". We think a complete, dynamic and organic database of breed descriptions will be a gift to dog lovers everywhere - and of a particular service to potential new dogs owners. So, with the introduction out of the way, I'd like to generate a discussion as to how we might collaborate and coordinate future efforts for "dog breeds". Thoughts? Thank you in advance for your kind consideration and comments to our efforts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canine Science (talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Always pleased to have anyone come on-board that can make reliable edits to any articles (especially dog breed related articles!). I'll post a bunch of links onto your talk page you might want to have a look at - mostly regarding wiki formatting and referencing. Miyagawa (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Identification of species in File:DesertKitfox.JPG

I've listed File:DesertKitfox.JPG at Wikipedia:Files for deletion because there is a dispute about what species it shows. Please contribute to the discussion if you can provide any information. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Chihuahua#Requested_move_-_Chihuahua_.28state.29

All input welcome. Cheers ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cancer in dogs

WP:MCOTW has selected Cancer as January's article. There's currently nothing at all in the article about cancer in animals or veterinary oncology. I'm not sure how many relevant articles exist (I did find cancer in dogs and cancer in cats), but it would be wonderful if someone here would create at least a tiny new section titled something like ==In other animals== at the end of this article. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mastiff" disambiguation pages with links

Greetings! This month, we have a large number of links to disambiguation pages about dogs. The Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project would appreciate any help you could give in fixing ambiguous links to the following pages:

• Mastiff: 79 links

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also, the disambig page Chihuahua has over 600 links. Not on this month's list, but help is still needed with it! bd2412 T 05:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dog GA Nomination

Dog has been nominated for Good Article status. However, the reviewer would like more contributors to help with getting the article to Good Article status since the nominator does not have many contributions to the article. Dog is our "flagship" article, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Coaster1983 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Guide Dogs for the Blind

I noticed that in the article it is mentioned that chocolate labs are very disliked for guide-work. There is no reason given or citation. 96.50.67.189 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Belgian Shepherd (Tervuren)

Hi, there's a move discussion at Talk:Belgian Shepherd (Tervuren)#Requested move that could use some expert opinion. The request looks OK to me but I don't want to close and move without at least one outside opinion. Thanks, --JaGa^talk 02:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Outline of Dogs

Hey all! I'm starting the Outline of Dogs Article and I encourage all the help I can get! Thanks cReep (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on expanding a few sections this week. — anndelion (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Proof that a Mi-Ki is a breed and not a "designer" dog or a "brand".

The Wisdom Panel Insights & Professional Heritage tests (www.wisdompanel.com) were designed to reveal the ancestry of a mixed-breed dog. They've listed the pure breeds that their tests can detect. The Mi-Ki IS one of those breeds. The Mi-Ki breed's DNA is unique enough from ALL other breeds that it can be detected via a blood test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofinemikis (talk • contribs) 03:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Dog Breed Structure

I was interested in proposing a standard article structure for dog breed articles. I've based this standard off of many articles that I personally felt were well organized (I browsed through articles from the FA, Good, B Class, and Popular lists). If this is agreed to be a good structure, I have ideas for the substructures and details... I know that the breed taskforce has another structure - which hasn't been edited since March 2008 I believe it said... Anyone opposed to this or have other ideas or suggestions?

1. History
2. Description
3. Temperament
4. Health
5. Working Life (herding, police, etc) or Activities (agility, show, etc)
6. Famous *Breed name* (ie: Famous Poodles)
7. Gallery
8. See Also
9. References
10. Further Reading
11. External Links

• And add in special headings for different breeds – such as the Pit bull and other controversial dogs who may need a controversy or reception section...

I'd like the input of other editors, then I will create a draft page where everyone can post in the talk page what we should include on each section, subsection, etc... cReep (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say for certain that there should be no miscellaneous section. The "Famous" section just descends into lists of brief glimpses of dogs as seen in X movie or Y tv show. They add no benefit. If the dog itself is famous enough to be included in the article then they'll find their way into the History section. I'd also ditch the gallery in most instances - I'm yet to see an article where it's really of benefit and haven't included them in any of the breed articles I've worked up. Again, all the galleries do is have a place where people inevitably add photographs of thier pets which add nothing to the article. The one except I would say to show a range of breeds would be in the Dog article, but then again that's not a breed article. Regarding external links, in my opinion it should be specified to have the only acceptable links to be the DMOZ template and perhaps the English speaking breed clubs. Only where there is no DMOZ template that other language breed clubs could be added (because in those instances it's usually a lesser known breed with only one or two breed clubs and so won't turn into a massive list). The working life is a nice idea, and I'd like to see it as a suggested section if possible - after all, while it might be easy to insert a section for a type of Belgian Shepherd, it'd be hard to get a couple of lines for a White West Highland Terrier. Thanks for looking for this, it was mentioned during the failed bid to get Cocker Spaniel to FA that we didn't really have an up to date one and I was thinking about putting one together myself as well as a guide on working up dog breed articles. Happy to discuss any points and looking forward to where this is going. Miyagawa (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm so happy that someone responded, especially YOU (as I see your name appear frequently when I'm checking out dog breed articles)! I agree with not including a misc section... that gets really messy. I also agree the famous part could get a bit off subject, I was more thinking famous as in Rin Tin Tin to German Shepherd and Pal/Lassie to Rough Collie... But I could definitely see some editors adding in "a chihuaua was seen in the fourth episode of such-and-such show season three..." or "famous actor so-and-so has a beagle named daisy..." which could definitely create quite a list. So perhaps the famous section is something that can be talked about at a later time or discussed within the specific breed's talk page. I so very much agree with external links be the DMOZ template and breed clubs that are within the English speaking spectrum. As for working life, it could be an optional section, since there are many dog breeds only showing up as companion dogs. The gallery perhaps should be a throw away at this time, so I'll disclude it from the structure.

1. History
2. Description
3. Temperament
4. Health
5. (Optional) Working Life (herding, police, etc) or Activities (agility, show, etc)
6. See Also
7. References
8. Further Reading
9. External Links

cReep (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd given it some further thought and perhaps the famous dogs part could be viable, it would need to be specified that it has to be prose, with references to each rather than just a bullet point list. For instance, the section at the bottom of Jack Russell Terrier. I 100% agree with leading with the history section, when I started work on the GAs the description part came first but the feedback I've had over the various articles leads me to think that the history section should be the first section. Miyagawa (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should begin reviving the breed subpage and include the structure there? cReep (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Miyagawa (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Shiba inu

I opened RFC at here. Please post your comment. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed modifications to Template:Infobox Dogbreed

I'm dedicating some of my time to keeping dog breed infoboxes updated (long-term project), and I'm finding that the amount of sex-specific size info out there varies depending on breed (even within the same registry's standards). Thus, I'm suggesting adding general "height" and "weight" fields. If both "male height" and "female height" (or male/female weight) have values, they'll display in lieu of the general field.

For anyone curious, I'm gathering size information by consulting the standards of major registries or breed clubs and this book, compiling the ranges that each give, and then taking the highest and lowest values to produce a final range. It'll never be all-inclusive, since there will always be 120 lb Goldens out there, but should still be accurate for most dogs.

On a somewhat related note, does anyone think the classifications section should be visible on pageload, instead of hidden? Most people probably don't care about breed standards, but I'm sure it would help the technologically challenged and the unobservant (or impatient, or skimmers...). They do take up a lot of vertical space, though.

Would an "original purpose" field (with a better label) work out well? It'd apply to whatever the dog was originally bred or used for. All breeds had some job, even if it was only providing companionship, so I feel like this merits some sort of mention. — anndelion (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, color me embarrassed -- I guess the template does, in fact, have general height and weight fields, but the documentation was never updated. It should all be consistent now.

Also, I just thought of something -- someone could argue that the way I'm compiling size information (and, to a lesser extent, lifespan) is WP:OR. In this case I'd argue there's no good alternative, and WP:IAR would come into play... the dog sphere is fraught with misinformation and there's certainly a lack of reliable and complete info out there. When I first became interested in dogs, years and years ago, I pored through the books I'd purchase or check out from the library, and noticed that many of them were very patchy in areas. I think that compiling ranges in the way I described above helps patch the holes in different sources... and if they all have holes in different areas (one aims at the high end, one aims at the low end), the end result should be info with no holes, right? Relying on a single registry for the trait values is giving it too much weight, and relying on another single print or web source is allowing for mistakes and oversights. We're talking about books and shady sites here, sources that aren't always copy-edited and fact-checked well, and I think citing multiple sources and combining the results is okay in this case (not that I've added citations for the trait info as of right now, but I can update the main body and cite it there, where it should be listed for consistency anyway).

Overall, to look at the big picture, I think Wikipedia is improved when infoboxes are updated with trait info merged from multiple sources, not harmed. The more sources, the fewer possibilities of one source being notably wrong and throwing everything off. Let me know what you think. — anndelion (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that's one of the few dog books I own (albeit a different edition). As you've said, multiple sources is the best way to go. Standards always show a much tighter range than normal - for instance I have a Cocker Spaniel that's too big and a Jack Russell that just creeps into the small possible range according to the JRTCA. I think what you've suggested regarding the infoboxes is good, tidying them up will generally get them completed by editors more often. Miyagawa (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have always gone by averages rather than standards as far as weight and height go - I look at tons of websites and usually they all have the same sort of consensus. As far as their original purpose goes, I think it'd be best to leave it out of the infobox. The original purposes are almost always mentioned in the lede and should for sure be in the history sections. But what I would like to see is having the breed type and group added to the infobox. As far as standards, I prefer having the standards hidden... just because they take up a lot of room. I am happy to see you are willing to take a big step and "be bold" with these articles! :) CReep-cReep (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad there's no issue with combining figures -- I generally think averages are best, too, so this should allow for a fairly accurate range. I do think that the type/group would be unnecessary in the infobox, since the groups it's accepted under in various clubs and registries should give a good general idea.

Thanks for the replies (it's good to be bold!). — anndelion (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Citations PLEASE!!

Hi! I'm a new Dogs portal Wikipedian. I've been looking through soom breed pages, and there seems to be alot of pages lacking in good citations. Is there anything that can be done to remind breed page Wikipedians that citing is a must! The argument seems to be that because there is a lack of peer reviewed research on many dog related topics, personal experience is believed to be okay. Keetanii (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, welcome to the dogs project! Nice to have you onboard. :) Regarding the citations, I totally agree. The problem is that most of the articles are basically a couple of years old now, and work has mostly been centered around reverting vandalism to make sure they don't get any worse. I've worked up a few articles to GA (although FA nominations always seem to defeat me!), and am quite happy to give any pointers or tips to anyone wishing to work up breed articles as sort of an in house peer review.Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, Keetanii -- it seems to me that many of the articles have big POV/general sections (e.g. "Breed X is a fantastic choice for families and single owners alike" or "Breed Y needs regular care and high quality food"). Perhaps the dog breed task force could pick an article every so often that anyone interested could work on, knowing that others would be there working on it as well. I'd love to collaborate with others in the project.

The longer I'm here, the more I realize just how neglected many of the articles seem to be; in fact, I was originally prompted to join after seeing some blatantly incorrect/irrelevant info in the merle article, although I still haven't gotten around to rewriting it yet.

Miyagawa, right now I'm trying to work the Potcake dog article up to something (it was longer before but contained lots of the aforementioned POV issues and "general dog info"), and I'd be interested in asking you a few questions. Not sure this is the place, though -- would your talk page be better? Thanks in advance. — anndelion (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, happy to help in anyway I can. Regards the collaborations, we did start up a collaboration page, although we only did Dog at the time. We can start it up again. Miyagawa (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it is very important that the dog breed articles have correct and referenced material in them. I always notice how a google search on any breed tends to have the wikipedia page as the first hit. I've also noticed other non-wikipedia websites taking the Wikipedia articles word for word. This places a rather large responsibility on the Wikipedia dog breed editors to make sure that the information is correct, but with so many hundreds of dog pages out there, that's ALOT of work!!! Anndelion's idea of collaborations sounds like a great idea :) Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Like you said, there are a lot of WP mirrors, which is why it pains me even more to see incorrect info on the pages. I'm glad people like the idea of starting up collaborations again; maybe we can do something with that. — anndelion (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding a request for article?

Me again :P, How do I submit a request for an article? We don't seem to have a Sebaceous Adenitis page, although I have seen at least one page linking to the non-existant page (was it poodle??hmm cant remember). I know the condition has been found in Akitas and Standard Poodles (and maybe a few others). Keetanii (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You can submit it at WP:Articles for creation, although I've never been through the process myself. There seems to be some info out there about it so maybe I'll take a whack at it once I locate one of my dog health books. (It's around here somewhere...) — anndelion ※ 08:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Anndelion. I gave it a shot, it is currently at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebaceous_Adenitis_in_Canines. Keetanii (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F

You may want to participate in the RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F --Philcha (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC for Shiba image

There's currently a big debate over which image(s?) should be used in the Shiba Inu article. This discussion is also up as a Request for Comment. It could use some more voices, and I'm sure those at the dog project would be happy to contribute, right? :) Talk:Shiba_Inu#Shiba_inu_images is where it's at. — anndelion ※ 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Several designer dog breeds have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagle hound. I discovered this nomination because I have the Zuchon article on my watchlist due to previous vandalism; I have no personal interest in the outcome of the debate. Graham87 05:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, anndelion, I noticed that you made the above-mentioned nomination *and* are the main participant in this project. I'll go ahead and notify the other article creators ... they seem to have interesting contribution histories. I'll probably !vote delete. Graham87 05:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What about Pekapoo, it appears to me to have only one semi-valid reference and two questionable ones (one would not open, the other is non-relevant). This is not as an attack on the designer dogs, just the pages that have been badly created and abandoned. Keetanii (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I left Pekapoo for now because it has a few pages in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Designer Dogs. Probably enough to establish minimum notability for inclusion, although the article could use some work -- designer dog articles seem to be in even worse shape than others. — anndelion ※ 07:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Others related to designer dogs I've put up, plus split off the Shinese per author request:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinese (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pugapoo (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ba-Shar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miniature Golden Retriever
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renascence Bulldogge

— anndelion ※ 23:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting more input from project members

To give you a quick briefing, there are two main Miniature Australian Shepherd clubs in the US: MASCA and NAMASCUSA. MASCA considers it a variety of the Australian Shepherd breed, while NAMASCUSA has reached an agreement with the AKC and ASCA (Australian Shepherd parent club) that will recognize it (by the AKC) as a separate breed. The ASCA mandated a name change (to Miniature American Shepherd), and does not want Minis breeding with regular Aussies anymore. Naturally, there's some slow-motion edit-warring, and someone would like to create a new page for the Miniature American Shepherd because they consider it a separate breed. You can weigh in here. – anna 04:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Lifespan

What do you think the lifespan column in the infobox should show? The dictionary definition states that it is

The average or maximum length of time an organism, material, or object can be expected to survive or last.

As representation of the health of a breed, the average(either single value or range) is more useful, but as a measure of how much of a commitment getting that breed can be, the maximum or something like the most likely age of death(as a range) is more useful.

Also, when there is a significant difference between lifespan stated in breed books and websites and survey data(of varying reliability) how do we decide which to use? Survey data typically only give mean/median as single values. Would it constitute original research if we read from the tables and graphs and "estimate" a range? --Dodo bird (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been compiling lifespans by looking at reliable resources and merging their given ranges to create one that's more inclusive. When survey data contradicts other information, I'd probably note the average separately (e.g. "9-12 years; avg. 8.45 years"). – anna 09:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Are werewolves really under scope of this project?

Looking here Talk:Lycanthropy I see wiki project dogs - I'd suggest removing the tag - but I'm not anything to do with your project so I thought I'd leave it up to you EdwardLane (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say certainly not, since they aren't an actual recorded creature with a species name. Therefore, i've switched out the Wikiproject Dogs template for the Wikiproject Supernatural/Paranormal template, which I think applies a lot more. Lycanthropes are even less credible than cryptids are; they are generally just considered supernatural folklore. So I would say they certainly don't apply with this Wikiproject. Silverseren^C 04:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Silver seren. I don't think lycanthropy falls within the project's scope at all. – anna 04:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Also agreed. Astrology is not under the scope of the Space WikiProject, for instance - although the subject is superficially related, there's no knowledge that carries over. Zetawoof (ζ) 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hunting dog merge Catch dog?

I just wanted to bring this to the attention of a few more people. There is question as to whether the catch dog page should be merged with the Hunting dog page. Personally I'd never heard of a catch dog before, I'd always known them as pig-dogs. The reasons seem to currently be No merge since pig-dogs are not just used by hunters but also farmers. Yes merge since it is a form of hunting using dogs. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Merge per Keetanii. I've never heard the word, I am not a naive en speaker though. The word can be found only in one dictionary and the definition is different from the article. See [1]. Oda Mari (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have created the merger proposal on the hunting dog page. Interested parties are invited to add their opinion.Hunting dog Merger proposal. I've copied your opinion over to the discussion page Oda, I hope thats okay. Keetanii (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Is "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly" under the scope of WikiProject Dogs?

Tagged as being so on the discussion page for above mentioned article. I don't really see why it would be if werewolves aren't then either would this? yes? no? Keetanii (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say most certainly not. It's an aphorism that just so happens to use the term dog. We're not going to include every article that uses the term dog (even in the title) under the scope of this project. The aphorism physically has nothing to do with our scope of canine-based articles. Silverseren^C 06:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought not. I removed the WPDOG|class=c|importance=low tag from the discussion page. Keetanii (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wolfpack

The usage of wolfpack and wolf pack is under discussion, see Talk:Wolfpack. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Kangal/Anatolian Shepherd

Kangal Dog and Anatolian Shepherd Dog are using the same image in their infobox. Both articles claim the two breeds are separate (without citations) yet I have seen discussions that they are the same. The respective categories at Commons are also similarly jumbled and do not help. Which one should actually be using the image? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

They are recognised as two seperate breeds. Please see the ANKC websites for standards here and here. It turns out, the Kangal page has the wrong image. Thankyou for pointing that out. Keetanii (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Aha, the problem is that the breed is recognised as one and the same in some countries and as two seperate breeds in other countries. The picture is of a dog from the UK where they are considered the same breed. Keetanii (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If they are considered the same breed (especially in an English-speaking country such as the UK) should the separate articles be merged into one, with single or multiple sections dealing with how the breed is viewed? If not merged, should not alternate images be used in the separate articles to define the differences in how the breeds are viewed? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose The ANKC is the Australian Kennel Controlling body (Australia is a major english speaking country) and they are recognised as different breeds. The two articles clearly pass wikipedia's notability guidelines. While different images would be nice, there is a distinct lack of good photos of these breeds available with a free GNU licence. This is not to say that there is a distinct lack of good specimens in english speaking countries. At the moment that image is about the best available for both breeds. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Further seperate breed notability here Keetanii (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no law that says we must have one article per breed. If two breeds are similar, and some sources consider them them the same breed whilst others consider them separate, it could actually be easier to untangle & explain the situation to readers in a single article. bobrayner (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That would end up requiring 2 possibly 3 history sections, not to mention 2 possibly 3 description sections (I say possibly three because if we go down this path, the Akbash dog will probably get tangled up in this as well (see here)). Furthermore, if we start heading down this path there are many other breed articles which would need to have the same thing done to them. While there is no law stating that each breed requires it's own page, it seems bizzare to me that these two would just be lumped in together when they are notably different breeds in two major English speaking countries.Keetanii (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

...And yet in other parts of the world they are not separate breeds.

Having multiple copypasted description & history sections in one article would be silly. If there's an ambiguity between breeds, descriptions, standards &c we should resolve that in prose rather than blindly applying standard article types or copypasting sections which had not been conceived with this problem in mind. bobrayner (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I say that the article would need multiple copy-pasted description and history sections? No. So please don't mis-represent what I am saying, that was a simple strawman fallacy. Keetanii (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You appeared to oppose on the basis that the article would need multiple history sections and multiple description sections. If you are now conceding that we could actually describe the maybe-two-breeds-or-maybe-one with a single "history" section and a single "description" section &c in an article (or, heaven forbid, we could use whatever section headings best fit the prose, rather than copying the headings used in other articles) then I'm happy to go forward from there. bobrayner (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You have as much right to edit pages as I do and don't need my approval. I once suggested merging catch dog and hunting dog for similar reasons to you but was shot down, it seemed to me after that, that some overlap is not generally an acceptable reason to merge articles (perhaps I too readily concede my opinions). I certainly don't know everything, and have even been known to be proven wrong from time to time! I'll strike through my opposition, since noone else has weighed in and because you seem so enthusiastic to make something better out of the articles. In years to come, they may need to be seperated again, due to world wide recognition as seperate breeds and perhaps the breeds diverging further genetically (thus one breed being prone to one disease and the other not, etc.) and phenotypically, but that would be a long way down the track. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The bulldog article

reads like it was written by a bulldog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.102.14 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

perhaps you could have a shot at fixing it? Keetanii (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dog Breed Structure Part II

I put together a dog breed structure, finally! Please take a look and tell me what you think here! cReep talk 04:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Just a couple of points that came to mind

• Change metres to centimetres in the height ranges, otherwise we'll be dealing with sizes like 0.345m instead of 34.5cm
• In the hidden standards section, list in order the relevant clubs ie. AKC, ANKC, UKC, NZKC, CKC, FCI, KC (UK) and the wiki links to their individual pages.
• Not sure about the gallery section, it seems to me that most editors believe that there are enough pictures found throughout the text without having a potentially very large gallery section (which just invites people to put 100s of pictures of their pets) The gallery sections I have seen have required someone watching the page to cut down the number of pictures added (and make sure they are of that breed haha!).

Great work though!! Keetanii (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work! I would agree with the gallery section being dropped - only ones I've seen them on seem inevitably to collect pet photos. The Famous dogs part will be fine with a guidance not attached explaining that it should simply be a bullet pointed list. Miyagawa (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was a serious typo! The guidance should say that it should not be a simple bullet pointed list! Miyagawa (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What information exactly should be put in the working life/activities section of the breed pages? I'm noticing a few pages with "Can compete in confirmation dog shows, agility, obedience, "...Is this kind of information better of formatted in a different way perhaps? A thought came to mind of adding another hidden section to the dog info boxes with the list of general activities the breed is allowed to compete in. As far as I know there are zero breeds that are not allowed to compete in obedience, and even agility trials don't specify that certain size dogs aren't allowed to compete. Dog shows are obviously restricted to breeds registered with certain organisations (already listed in the breed info boxes). Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Keetanii (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it should include anything that the breed is known for being involved in. With conformation showing, I think its only relevant if the breed is particular successful or is ineligible to compete. For the agility and hunting work, there's usually only specific breeds used, and so those would be the ones that it should be included on. Miyagawa (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Rough Collie Issues?

Could I ask someone to have a quick read through the Rough Collie article and tell me if they think all of those improvment tags are still relevant? Please. I wanted to have a go at fixing it up a bit, but I'm at a bit of a loss where to start. So I thought I'd ask for other, more experienced people to take a look and perhaps give some suggestions on what needs fixing. Thanks in advance, Keetanii (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Had a quick look and this is what my initial hit list would be: Expand history section, and remove that massive quote; remove the appearance sub header from description as theres no other sub headers; grooming: if it needs to be there at all, it should be in description and not in health; working section needs to be much bigger if there is a need for it separate to the temperament section; normally I would say to drop the notable dogs section, but in this case I think it needs to be renamed to something like "Lad and Lassie" as these two fictional dogs made the breed instantly recognizable - the rest of the notable dogs can simply be deleted unless they can be merged into the history section (which is what I would do with the presidential collies). Final thing would be to replace all the external links with the dmoz template as its a bit of a link farm down there. If you need any help or guidance on how to do certain things, feel free to hit me up on my talk page, I'm always eager to see editors work on dog breed articles! Miyagawa (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! BTW what is a dmoz template?Keetanii (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the template to go to the Open Directory Project. The tempalte is {{dmoz|insert directory structure here}}. Miyagawa (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Health Section Structures

While working on and reading through a few dog breed articles, I'm wondering if the health sections shouldn't be made to be somewhat bulleted lists, (eg. Samoyed (dog) health section) which was taken from the german wikipedia page which has GA status. Each disease/condition almost always has it's own wikipedia veterinary medicine page with usually much better information, properly sourced and cited. This would make breed pages easier to read in my opinion instead of sifting through paragraphs of prose for specific conditions that have been known to affect that breed. I am in no way advocating making all sections bulleted lists or anything, just the health sections. I don't think it is really necessary to have Canine Diabetes explained in basic and different terms on every single dog breed page (for example), a link and a short sentence should do, depending on if breed specific information has been found. I also believe in doing this, it would make it easier for people to add diseases/conditions (cited by relevant literature of course) to the breed pages and also make editing the individual disease/condition wiki page easier (using the what links here and then using the citations listed to provide further information on that page as well). What do people think of this thought? Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that it doesn't help to have the confusion of more than one "deep" explanation of the medical issue, especially when it can be a different one on each article. We have some vet/canine specific articles on some but are in need of many others, though. Am hoping to be able to create ones on canine hypothyroid (most common endocrine problem in dogs) and canine Cushing's in future. With the endocrine issues, having one puts the sufferer at risk for other endocrine-related diseases. AFAIK, there's nothing on acromegaly from a veterinary standpoint other than what's on the List of dog diseases. Am sort of surprised, as it's more common in cats than in dogs. When working on Addison's disease in canines, there was really no other place to discuss Pacific Rimism. It's certainly not large enough to warrant its own article, but a line and a ref or two might be helpful for inclusion on those breed pages because they can be in perfect health and still have higher than expected potassium values. We hope (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes we need to get a few more veterinary minded people at the Veterinary medicine wiki project (as well as the Dogs project! I started Sebaceous adenitis and Samoyed hereditary glomerulopathy on en.wikipedia but I am not knowledgable enough to expand them further (nor do I have the resources (other than google scholar of course)). Upon attempt to change the American Akita health section to prose, it was incredable difficult because of the inline citations, and also made it so that inclusion of other diseases or information in the future would have been difficult for at least novice wikipedia users (and just because someone is a novice at wikipedia editing doesn't mean they are not heavily knowledgable in the area in which thay may have wanted to expand a wikipedia article). I would very much like to get some further thoughts and consensus on this matter if possible. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I really would like to get a general consensus from the WikiProject Dogs members about this. If agreed I was going to get started on some of the health sections of different breed pages to update them to something more like what is on the American Akita page at the moment. Doing this might also help to get a firm grasp of what dog-veterinary aritcles are missing or need expanding (I've noticed alot of diseases that are only described in therms of humans and not other animals). I certainly wouldn't wantto go changing some more of the breed pages without this consensus, since I understand that WikiProject dogs likes to have similar layouts on each breed page to keep things uniform. Keetanii (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that the bullet points just don't look right - the types of health issues are much better in prose with similar issues grouped together. Any such health issues of course need to be cited, and preferably accompanied with information on the rate of affliction in the breed along with comparison with any similar breeds. Going into generic information about the issue isn't required unless there isn't an article for it (at the time of writing English Cocker Spaniel for instance, Rage Syndrome didn't exist). I wouldn't say that articles need the depth of health information as in Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, which was the result of a failed attempt to get it past FA. Miyagawa (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Western Veterinary Conference Proceedings

The proceedings for many years worth of the Western Veterinary Conference were online and free for all to view at omnibooks online, but for the past few days, all you get is the Apache server page there. When trying for a PDF link, you get "file not found" from the Apache server.

Have sent them an e-mail asking whether the papers will be back online at omnibooks or if they have moved them elsewhere. If they've moved them to a site where viewing isn't free to all, we probably will have a job replacing some of the links & refs for the dog and veterinary articles. The ones used in the diabetes and other endocrine articles are not affected because they are hosted elsewhere. Did some preliminary searching and found that at least some of the papers can be found at Google docs. Will post here after they give me a reply about what happened to them. We hope (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of American Akita and Akita Inu

It is proposed that American Akita and Akita Inu be merged into Akita (dog), which currently is a redirect to Akita Inu. Please comment at Talk:Akita_Inu#Merger_proposal:_July_2011. --Philcha (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Still need more comments until a concensus can be reached. Keetanii (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone going to comment? --Philcha (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Dog Breed Info -- reliable source or not?

A disagreement over whether, and if so, where, dogbreedinfo.com is permissible as a source on Wikipedia. Anna (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Background

The source Dog Breed Info has been called into question several times in the past: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_47#Dog_breed_sources Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#Nineteen_dog_breed_sources_in_question Additionally, it's been tossed out in GA reviews and AfDs. In the second RSN link, there was a tenuous consensus to allow me to go through and prune Dog Breed Info citations from articles (or at least no one objected). When I did that to King Shepherd, however, User:Shepaluteprez undid my change and posted on my talk page. You can see the ensuing discussion here (her message) and here (further exchange) I'm just now getting around to starting this as I've had a lot on my plate recently, but I wanted to put it up for wider feedback as no definitive decisions have been made yet.

Basically, my position on it is that Dog Breed Info, and similar sites, almost certainly fail the reliable source criteria: the author is not identified, there's no indication that he/she/they are "expert" in the Wiki-way, and seemingly no editorial oversight is exercised. Counterarguments to that could be that it has received attention in the media (it's very prominent in Google Searches) and rarer breeds have less sourcing options. I agree with that and can sympathize, but most of the information there could be pulled from primary sources (breed clubs, registries, etc.) just as easily, and it would probably be somewhat more accurate. Additionally, if this is considered acceptable, it may be used to prop up many of the "non-notable" designer dog articles during their AfDs, even though there's no indication that the information is coming from anyone worth citing -- for all we know they're making guesses themselves in many of those cases. And when dealing with even slightly common breeds, there is no need to cite this site -- plenty of other resources are out there, even if you have to trek to the library for them (see Greater Swiss Mountain Dog for an example that uses DBI as a source but doesn't need to). I don't know how their pages are put together -- Shepaluteprez said that the American Alsatian club contacted the site, but we don't know how other pages are written. She's free to expand upon her points below if I've missed something and it's not in the discussion links above.

Should this site be accepted for use in...

• All articles?
• No articles?
• Certain articles? (criteria can be suggested)

Please weigh in below -- I think this summarizes it adequately but anyone is free to elaborate if they think I've missed out on something. Cheers, Anna (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

As you all may know, I have an invested interest in the American Alsatian dog breed apart from Wikipedia and so I taught myself some basic Wikipedia policies and learned some of what is acceptable and what is not to help improve the American Alsatian article. With just a bit of knowledge in hand, I recently ventured out to help another dog breed article, the King Shepherd, since there were absolutely no sources at all in the article. I remember back when I first created the American Alsatian article and how quickly it was deleted due to lack of sourcing. See: Speedy Deletion Therefore, I sought to help the article by adding some sourcing, although I soon found that third party sourcing remains very obscure for this breed. The first source I added was dogbreedinfo.com as many other dog breeds use this source for their articles (Anna has graciously already referenced that for us), I wanted to adhere to Wikipedia's no original research policy and I was not aware of previous controversy to the dogbreedinfo.com site as a source.

So, back to dogbreedinfo.com... In my breed's case, although our club did contact dogbreedinfo.com initially (which consequently also happens with newspaper articles), the author of the site (I've contacted dogbreedinfo to see if I can get a name, but have no response yet) asked numerous questions regarding our breed before writing the article. Dogbreedinfo posted the article after interviewing us through email. A major fault I can see in this case is that the dogbreedinfo article on the American Alsatian may not have been peer reviewed and fact checked by someone else other than the author... that we know of. Also, is the author anyone of notability and is the information generally accurate? I don't know for sure about that, but dogbreedinfo.com is referenced by many other reliable sources as mentioned previously in the discussions with Anna above and in my breed's case, the information is accurate.

The dogbreedinfo (reliable source or not?) issue really comes into play when a rare breed has little third party reliable sourcing available. I, personally, have no issue with taking out dogbreedinfo sourcing on breeds that have better sources available to them. Consider the following guideline from Wikipedia: identifying reliable sources, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." (Which is exactly what we are doing here! Thank you, Anna.) In more prominent breeds, dogbreedinfo may not be the "best such source for that context." However, in a rare breed that has not received much media coverage, but nonetheless has legitimate breed status (as is the case with the King Shepherd through ARBA), but dogbreedinfo is arguably one of VERY few third party reliable sources (one of which only includes a standard and the other briefly mentions one fact). Rare breeds, with little PR relations, have less to go on as other more well-known breeds. That is when sites like dogbreedinfo can truly play a role in supporting the information in the article, in my opinion.

By the way, Rightpet is another website very much like dogbreedinfo, except you know the author's name, Brett Hodges. He interviewed us and wrote an article. I'm not certain he was fact checked or peer reviewed, either. Also, I've been told from another Wikipedia editor that Sarah's Dogs was reliable. You only know her first name and is she fact checked or peer reviewed? I can't say for sure. So, even though this particular discussion is about dogbreedinfo being reliable or not for dog articles on wikipedia, perhaps we ultimately need to look at exactly what we are going to allow as reliable third party sourcing on dog articles and what we are not. I believe Anna has wanted to create a list of good reliable third party sourcing, at least for the obscure dog breed website sources. The big ones like AKC probably would just be assumed, but we all know what assuming does, right?  :) Anyway, I'm good either way, but I do want to make the case for those rare breeds out there that may already have few reliable sources to go on. I'd hate to see them all deleted from Wikipedia until more reliable sources appear, but that's just my opinion. Greetings to all, Shepaluteprez (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know if this suggestion is feasable, but...What if we left in Dogbreedinfo (and for that matter Rightpet and Sarah's dogs), strictly only in circumstances where the breed is too rare, uncommon or has little english tranlated information available? If that idea were to be adopted, I would suggest that a notice be put on those pages to the effect that "this page requires better references in the future to meet wikipedia's quality standards." or something to that effect. Just a thought. Keetanii (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think Keetani's suggestion is an excellent compromise for the lesser-known breeds. While I'm not a member of this WikiProject, we have a similar situation at the Equine WikiProject; without sources which would otherwise not meet the reliable-source guidelines, many articles on small or obscure breeds would be unsourced (I know this, because I've written a couple :-)).--Miniapolis (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I like Keetanii's suggestion too, but I'd like to note that Sarah's Dogs was already tossed out in one of the discussions above, and as I've found lots of errors there and there's zero author info, less than DBI, I -- personally -- am not really comfortable with its use in such a prevalent resource as Wikipedia. That was hashed out on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and Miyagawa seemed to agree. Another concern: if this is acceptable, do we allow the random designer breeds that have pages on these commercial sites, even if there are no truly suitable resources that cover them? How important is WP:V in relation to these articles? I know there's WP:IAR, but I'm not sure it makes sense here -- others disagree, it seems. Personally I'd prefer unsourced to poorly-sourced (in reference to many articles, not the ones discussed), but I may be in the minority! Tossing these out here for discussion.
• Shepaluteprez: do you know how the King Shepherd page was put together? You've made strong arguments for its use in American Alsatian. Cheers, Anna (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think we will need to have a seperate debate about designer dog articles. I do think a guidline needs to be put in place for what is acceptable as far as designer dog articles go. The problem is that there are over 400 different pure breeds of dog, with a cross for each of those the number of possible designer dog breed articles is phenominal! Keetanii (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would argue that the GNG sets a reasonable bar. Out of all those thousands of possible combinations, only a small subset will actually have been bred, and discussed sufficiently by third parties. bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• True true, although this is going off topic, so I'll stop commenting until a specific thread is made. Keetanii (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with that, but I'm concerned because what's under discussion is Dog Breed Info as a reliable source. Since notability mandates coverage in reliable, secondary sources, DBI will be used as justification in AfDs if dubbed "reliable". It covers many different crosses and it can be difficult to separate the two in some cases -- when does a cross turn into a breed? There can be ambiguity, although that's rare. That's part of the reason I'm so uneasy about making exceptions for it -- it just doesn't fit any of the reliable source criteria and I don't see why we should make *blanket* exceptions. On an article-by-article basis is reasonable; justification like what Shepaluteprez has offered for the American Alsatian article is great (she's certainly made good points and I wouldn't try to remove it there!). Am I missing something obvious in WP:RS, WP:SELFPUBLISH or WP:SOURCES? This site just doesn't fit, which in turn goes against the verifiability policy. I can't prove a negative; I've spent some time looking myself and turned up blank. Cheers, Anna (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source - The WP:Reliable source guideline requires that sources be accurate and trustworthy. The Dog Breed Info web site appears to be a very informal web site. There is no clear indication who the author is, or if the information was reviewed for accuracy by any peer, editor, or quality assurance group. Advertising appears to be a primary goal, and the layout is rather random and disorganized. If the topic of dog breeds were a rare topic, with very few other sources, then perhaps informal web sites could be used as a last resort. However, there are scores of highly regarded books on the topic of dog breeds, therefore there is no reason to resort to informal web sites. The fact that it is a web site is not fatal: indeed, web sites run by reputable organizations known for accuracy and quality may be acceptable. For example, web sites of large, well-organized dog organizations such as www.akc.org would meet the WP:RS requirements. But not dogbreedinfo.com. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I posted a notice at the Reliable sources noticeboard so other editors with RS experience could provide input. --Noleander (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not Reliable - (posting as a result of Noleander's request at WP:RSN) - I don't see any indication that this website meets our standards of reliability. To call this website reliable we would have to know who is behind the website, and we don't. We don't know who the author is... we have no indication that they know what they are talking about... we don't even have an address to tell us where this "center" is. Without such information, we must assume that it is nothing more than one (anonymous) person's dog oriented fan-site. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not Reliable, also here from RSN. I concur with Blueboar. I am also concerned that editors with a "vested interest" in any of the more obscure breeds would suggest that we relax standards because of a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Vested interest suggests a COI, and those with a potential COI should try to be very careful to not even appear to be promoting a particular view. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well that seems to be having a go at me, so I'll reply. I have no vested interest. I do own 2 dogs, neither of them are rare breeds by any strech of the imagination. I suggested a relax in standards for the rare breeds as a compromise. I also suggested that a notice be put on all pages that use any of those unreliable sources. Sheesh, you have zero evidence against any of the editors who were just looking for a compromise to suggest that they have a COI. It was only a suggestion, not a vote one way or the other. Keetanii (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keetanii, I don't think Nuujiin was referring to you. Anna (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Nuujinns point about how he is "concerned that editors with a "vested interest" in any of the more obscure breeds would suggest that we relax standards because of a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources." That concerns me as well. The impression I got from the discussion above the RfC was: "for well-documented breeds, we'll stick to reliable sources, but for some new/obscure breeds, we'll make an exception and use this informal web site as a source." If that was the thrust of the discussion, that is not really consistent with WP reliable sources policy. Reliable sources are required for all breeds: well-known and obscure. --Noleander (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

For clarification, I reacting to the first line of this section, but not addressing my comment to any particular editor, and I apologize if my comment was offensive to anyone. But we should not relax our standards because we want to have an article on a given subject, even if we note it, when there are insufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with all of this, thanks for putting it so well. I'd like to say that I think its use is okay in American Alsatian, and American Alsatian only, because the president of the breed club has personally vouched for its accuracy. That's an unusual situation and I think it merits special consideration and common sense. Other breeds, no. Anna (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Even if he did, that would not provide evidence of notability. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• not reliable I came via RfC, not RSN. THis seems to be both user generated and self-published, generally considered the lowest quality sources, and the most unreliable, only a tad above a personal blog. However, I could see it being used in WP:EL external links if an alternative is not existing (similar to the use of the IMDB in articles on films and actors). In general, it would seem to me that in this topic area such "better" external links can be found trivially, for example, breed registrars and non-commercial/non-profit associations usually have websites for breeds, with relevant information that cannot be used for sourcing, but is perfect for external linking, so I would advice to refrain from linking to this website unless absolutely no alternative can be found. --Cerejota (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not reliable Here from RSN where I replied to one of the previous threads on dog related sources. This site does not fulfill the WP:RS criteria, as explained by others above. And as Noleander already touched on above, there seems to be a strong focus on finding online sources on dog breeds. Surely there must be offline dead-tree books and magazines about dogs and dog breeds? Sources absolutely do NOT need to be accessible over the internet to be reliable and usable (WP:SOURCEACCESS.) Often the highest quality, most reliable sources are books that are only accessible offline. Siawase (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. Wikipedia articles often have a kind of FUTON bias, but there are lots of other good sources out there. bobrayner (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I still think a list of good online resources, however short, would be valuable to some here. Many editors do gravitate toward the easiest source of information, aka whatever comes up on the first page of Google, and that would at least be a way of minimizing damage, though we obviously don't need to cite an all-breed website in most articles. Agreed that there is a frustrating bias, though. Anna (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree, identifying and using reliable online sources would be an improvement, absolutely. But this topic area seems to have quite a few dedicated editors spending a lot of time and effort. But if editors who are already putting in a lot of time and work were using high quality offline sources, many articles could probably reach FA standards with just a little bit more effort, rather than struggle with GA due to being hampered by weak sources. Maybe in addition to a list with reliable online sources, it would also be possible to make a list of recommended high quality books, like those that would be accessible through most libraries for example. Siawase (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
      • This isn't the kind of field that uses a lot of peer-reviewed papers &c., but if anybody needs access to a source which is behind a paywall, I'm happy to help with that - just ask. I have subscription-based access to digitised newspaper archives and some old reference books. bobrayner (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Here via RSN. I have my doubts that its even a good source for verifying notability, as Shepaluteprez says that his club contacted the site to get their dog listed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow, miss a few days and boy! HAHA. Great thoughts and this is such a great discussion that could ultimately lead to a revamping of so many dog articles, which in turn will up the standards overall. I would love to see many more dog articles make FA status, Siawase! I completely agree with the analysis that dog breed books are plentiful and the information could be argued as accurate, or at least, edited and fact checked. (I just can't bring myself to believe that all published material is 100% accurate, but that's for another discussion.)  :) Anyway, it seems no one is questioning the issue when discussing about dog breeds that have AKC status or other all-breed recognition. I, also, believe that we should rid those articles of dogbreedinfo and other similar website resources as many other more reliable sources exist. I guess what it comes down to is what to do with sourcing for rarer breeds. If, as was the case with the King Shepherd article, there is absolutely no sourcing on the article and third party reliable sourcing is very limited when searched, what should be done? Because, if we ultimately decide that dogbreedinfo (and other sites like it) should not be allowable as a source, then what becomes of the article? I guess I'm not in favor of dropping the article if that is the alternative, although I'm very aware of the wording, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." At least the King Shepherd has its standard listed on the American Rare Breed Association website, which would eliminate the article from potential deletion status, right? Are there any dog breed articles that would be potentially deleted without dogbreedinfo (or other sites like this?) If so, then how many are we talking about? If there are 5 or more, I'd question deleting them, but instead gather the troops and work very hard on those particular articles to find at least one third-party reliable source. Wikipedia states, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found...", therefore, it sounds to me that at least some reasonable effort to find third-party reliable sourcing should be conducted before posting the article for speedy deletion.
  • Most large companies and organizations have their own Public Relations representative(s) whose job it is to solicit newspaper, magazines, etc. to publish information on their product or service. When our club went to dogbreedinfo of our own accord it was to ask if they would be interested in writing an article on our dog breed, just as if I were to put out a press release to notify the press on our dog breed. It's the same, except for we are now debating dogbreedinfo's third party reliability whereas we would not debate Newsweek's third party reliability. This fact does not, in itself, invalidate the article written there. What does, however, invalidate it is that I have not heard back from Dogbreedinfo regarding an author's name. No clear name and no understanding of the author's capability to write on all the dog breeds is definitely a problem for me. Unfortunately, I do not know how the King Shepherd article from dogbreedinfo was put together; where dogbreedinfo got the information and if the information is accurate in this particular article. We can always ask, though, if we need to. This is the kind of digging for third party reliable sources we, editors, just might have to do with some of these rare breeds that have few, if any, third-party reliable sources to reference. At least, I'm willing to go digging if it will ultimately keep a dog article from deletion. Best regards, Shepaluteprez (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Re: "I just can't bring myself to believe that all published material is 100% accurate", this is why Wikipedia policy is Verifiability, not truth. There are ways to handle it when reliable sources are believed to be wrong, like excluding the information/specious details, or presenting conflicting sourcing in the article.
    • Re: rare breeds, subjects don't necessarily need to have standalone articles for the information to be preserved and remain accessible. For example, for breeds that aren't up to the General notability guideline it could be possible to create a List of rare dog breeds and merge the information that can be reliably sourced into that list to preserve it. Siawase (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Haha! I knew that I wasn't going to get away with that statement.  :) Thanks for the reference to Verifiability, not truth, Siawase, as I actually hadn't seen that page. Good to know. I finally received information back from Dogbreedinfo. I'm going to quote the email exactly here as she was very open about everything and is looking to clear up the debate. Direct quote from Sharon Maguire, author and owner of Dogbreedinfo:

"Hi Jennifer,

All of the pages of the Dog Breed Info website are written by me (Sharon Maguire) unless otherwise stated. All of the behavior articles are credited to Sharon Maguire or the author who has written them. The information pages do not state this, however all of that information was gathered and overseen by myself. The pages are updated daily as information is gathered from the breeders and owners of the different breeds and various clubs. The site is one of the most accurate websites one will find on dog behavior, types of dogs and other pets.

Sharon Maguire"

Shepaluteprez (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• On the topic of the reliability and accuracy of Dog Breed Info, I would like to draw your attention to the following, many of which are clearly reliable sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines, that have quoted and/or referenced Dog Breed Info. These include:

Houston Chronical (Texas Newspaper)

Sydney Morning Herald (Australian Newspaper)

London Times (England, Newspaper)

Access Magazine (Sunday Newspaper)

Orlando Sentinel (Orlando Florida Nov. 2001)

Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK May 18th 2004)

Time Digital (Nov. 2000), (Nov. 1999)

(Guide to Pets in July 2000 issue)

Humo Magazine (Dutch Belgian Magazine)

Czech Dog Magazine

Dogs Life Magazine (Australia)

CNN

Channel 8 News

TechTV's Internet Tonight TV Show

ZDnet TV's Internet Tonight TV Show YTV (Canada)

Animal Planet

A & E Channel 10 Top Dogs Show

KTLA TV Morning News Channel 5 (Kurt the cyber guy)

Fox 26 News (Houston Texas)

Channel 27 Evening News (Pennsylvania)

PetTalk America (Nationally Syndicated Radio Show Devoted To Pets)

94.1 Radio (Little Rock Arkansas)

Mark & Mercedes MIX94.1 (Nevada)

Y107 DotComentary

MOJO 640 (Talk Radio for guys, Toronto Ontario)

WCTK (Providence RI)

300 Incredible Things for Pet Lovers on the Internet (Book by Bob Vella)

The User Friendly Guide to Internet & Computer Terms (Book by Charles Steed)

Free Stuff for Pet Lovers on the Internet (Book by Gloria Hansen)

Springwood District (NSW Australia Dog Training)

Green Bridge Station Newsletter

MPI Newsletter (Editors Pick)

Liberal Townsend Weekly

Cheers, Shepaluteprez (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the above I think this is a good effort, and something that should be done, but it does betray a misunderstanding on what is meant by "reliable source". Being mentioned by other media is not enough, it is being mentioned in an authoritative way, or being mentioned not as a source of information, but as a thing in itself. For example, Huffington Post is incredibly cited by other media, for many reasons including controversial ones, but this doesn't mean Huffington Post is a reliable source - it actually isn't under most circumstances. In addition, I point to my comment above - I have no objection for dogbreedinfo.com to be used as a WP:EL, if no other alternative exists. It is highly unlikely no other alternative exists for an item worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. For example, it is generally agreed that IMDB is not a reliable source, in part because it content is user generated, but we include an EL to IMDB in almost all the articles that relate to the movie and tv business, because there is an acknowledgement that IMDB is a well known, well used, and generally good quality source for information for which no other alternative exists. Another clarification on RS is that RS category is not a pass/fail criteria like notability. A source can be reliable in a topic area and not be reliable on the other, and this is extremely granular. For example WP:SELFPUBLISH considers self-published material, generally not RS, to be RS (Subject to WP:V verification) when it talks about itself. So a self-published material could be RS in an article on the self-publisher, and perhaps other articles that mention the self-publisher, but nowhere else.

That applies in this case, because as far as I can see, in any use that we could have for this website, there is always a better, more reliable, source. And we should use them instead of this.

Having said that, lets look at the list.

These are tertiary sources, that is compendiums/encyclopedias, and hence not independently reliable sources. Their standard is the subjective opinion of the editors with no ethical rules - such as those of journalists - nor peer reviewed as those of academic papers:

• 300 Incredible Things for Pet Lovers on the Internet (Book by Bob Vella)
• The User Friendly Guide to Internet & Computer Terms (Book by Charles Steed)
• Free Stuff for Pet Lovers on the Internet (Book by Gloria Hansen)

As such the description of them as "reliable sources" to establish the reliability of "dogbreedinfo.com" is pretty thin from a RS perspective. However, I do not have access to these sources, so I cannot establish what they actually say, which could indeed point to RS status, specially if, as some tertiary sources are prone to do, they cite actual RS for their information.

Radio shows are generally not reliable sources, in the same way that TV appearances are not reliable sources. They could be on an article Dogbreedinfo.com, if such article were to exist surviving AfD.

Looking at the other sources in the web, there could be a claim for notability for "dogbreedinfo.com" (ie for an article on it), but they do not establish reliability - an entirely different thing. You find a few mentions as a source in semi-reliable sources, in articles obviously written as filler. In evaluating RS, filler articles need to be identified. Filler include slight modification of press releases, short articles on topics of general interest by non-specialist writers, and other generally low-quality sources. There is no evidence that any of the reliable sources mentioned, mention "dogbreedinfo.com" as an authoritative source on matters of dog breeding, only as an information resource. Being a notable information resource, even being a widely seen one, doesn't make you a reliable source. If this were the case, IMDB would be a reliable source, something we have consistently said it isn't. We however do have an article on IMDB, in recognition of its widespread use, citation, and otherwise notable existence.

I hope this overview clarifies the question a little more, and am pretty sure the others from RSN agree on this perspective.--Cerejota (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have read and reread your clarification three times and I'm lost and frankly frustrated. (Which I don't get easily.) Although, I realize you meant well, the technicalities you present on reliable sources are overwhelming to me, an admitted small time wikipedia editor with a big heart. I don't mind learning something new and admitting when I should just step down, as I can clearly see is the case now, but does it have to be so darn complicated? It seems to me that unless a source is already considered reliable by some unknown RS God (the media, publishers, authors?), how would any new source ever establish RS status based on the above? I get what you are saying and clearly understand that dogbreedinfo.com is not reliable because it is not peer reviewed in the sense that each individual article was not reviewed and determined to be accurate and reliable by the majority of those most intimate with each article's subject. Then, how did AKC get to become "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject?" (or any other all breed dog registry for that matter) Every article they write on each dog breed is never questioned. Why? Is it truly because everyone in the media believes that they an authority, so they are? The more people to write that they are an authority, the more they are? So, Reliable Sourcing is really all just a popularity contest? Who cares if the information is accurate (or at least can be proven to be accurate) because even if it is, if others (media, publishers, authors) don't acknowledge that it is, then it's not reliable anyway. But, we can have a reliable source not be reliable if the information is contradictory with other reliable sources. The information presented by the majority of reliable sources out there must be the most reliable, even if they are ultimately inaccurate. Surely, the world must be flat. You are right. I really don't know. But, since the others from RSN would agree with you and I have already admitted that my only interest is trying to help a rare breed's start status article with no sources (we're not even talking about GA or FA) and have no ambitions of understanding this thing further, do whatever it is you all want with dogbreedinfo. Stay well, everyone. Shepaluteprez (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding accuracy, and finding accurate sources, the Identifying reliable sources guideline says: "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." The problem with dogbreedinfo.com is that it's just one person acting as author, fact checker, editor, legal checker etc. Whereas say a book or a magazine from an established publisher, the text would be checked for accuracy by the author, maybe a separate fact checker, the editor, the publisher's legal department, etc, all of which have an interest in making sure it's accurate. So to find the most reliable sources is the same as finding the most accurate sources. Siawase (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's some things that would help establish the site as reliable. *The breed associations endorse it it as an accurate source of info. *The show organisations refer people to it ditto. *A journal does an article on it, describing it as an accurate source of information. *The Kennel Club endorses it. If it gets that kind of attention, then it would be reasonable to describe it as a reliable source. The problem with it at the moment is that it's not clear what kind of comeback there would be if the owner decided to create a buzz about a new breed that turned out not to exist. Also, I think the problem Shepaluteprez is having is that he is laudibly attempting to write articles about subjects which - like the band that your neighbour's boy started - aren't quite notable yet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)