Talk:Pyrenean Mountain Dog

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 15 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Akandrews (article contribs).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akandrews (talk • contribs) 06:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Name change

Who unilaterally changed the name of this page and deleted all the prior talk discussions on the subject? By who's authority was this change made? While the name Great Pyrenees is "Western Centric", by far (as in many, many times the number) the majority of the Great Pyrenees on the entire world live in the US and Canada. BigWhiteFireDog (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello BigWhiteFireDog, you can look at the page’s history to determine who moved the page and why, their authority to do so is in policy, this was noticed by WP:WikiProject Dogs and discussed here. I must say I support the move, it appears the term Great Pyrenees is restricted to the US & Canada whilst the rest of the English speaking world use the name Pyrenean Mountain Dog, but I am happy to listen evidence to the contrary. Also, no one has deleted anything from this talk page, it has been archived. Cavalryman (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Pyrenean Mountain Dog guarding sheep

• ... that in the 1990s Pyrenean Mountain Dogs were urgently introduced onto French farms to protect flocks from wolves that had arrived from Italy? Bobbé, Sophie (2000). "Un mode de garde écologiquement correct: le chien de protection" (PDF). Ethnologie française (in French). 30 (3): 459–472. Retrieved 18 June 2021.
  • ALT1:... that historically Pyrenean Mountain Dogs were used to smuggle contraband between France and Spain across the Pyrenees? Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1995). Atlas of dog breeds of the world. Neptune City, N.J.: TFH Publications. pp. 8 & 465–467.
  • ALT2:... that in the 17th century King Louis XIV named the Pyrenean Mountain Dog the Royal Dog of France? Morris, Desmond (2001). Dogs: the ultimate dictionary of over 1,000 dog breeds. North Pomfret, VT: Trafalgar Square Publishing. pp. 374, 423 & 616. ISBN 978-1-57076-219-2.

• Comment: Forth ever DYK nomination, still too green for a QPQ.

Improved to Good Article status by Cavalryman (talk). Self-nominated at 06:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC).

• Reviewing, will return soon with a full review. Yakikaki (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Promoted to GA on 22 June, so new enough in that sense. Long enough, and within policy. All hooks are good IMO and all are supported by inline citations, some referring to offline works AGF. QPQ not needed. Image properly licensed. This should be good to go. Well-written and interesting piece! Yakikaki (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The infobox photo should try to show as many characteristics of the breed as possible. The one I propose has been there for nine years now and is used on more than a dozen wikis (the lower quality .jpg is -- I have uploaded today a higher quality .png file). It is also under eval for POTD. So it should show the hind legs double dew claws, the hind legs "pantaloon" appearance, an example of badgering, and at least HAVE a tail if not show the "shepherd's crook" of the GP tail. The photo should also be well composed from a photographic standpoint (good composition, foreground/background/ bokeh, etc). Having the owner standing there holding the dog on a lease detracts from looking at the features of the breed. Everyone wants to have their precious dog be shown, but we should evaluate the photo on its merits and not our emotions. HeartSpoon (talk)

Hello HeartSpoon, I appreciate you took this photo, many editors like to turn Wikipedia articles into shrines to their pets, unfortunately Commons or your userpage is the place to do that. Further, the previous image was added on 10 May and has been stable since then, per WP:BRD you were perfectly within your rights to change the picture, and I to revert, but you are now trying to edit war the picture of your dog into the article, that is inappropriate. Cavalryman (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC).

Some comments. That the proposed pix has been on this page for 9 years is irrelevant - everything is subject to change. That it has appeared on a dozen other wikis is similarly irrelevant, this is the English language Wikipedia and it is not constrained by what happens on other wikis. The pix has very recently been nominated for Featured Picture, and I note that there is already one Oppose vote based on poor composition. Additionally, for the purposes of breed articles we require a good representation of the breed first, and artistic and photographic merit second. Who owns the dog depicted should not enter the discussion - we are lucky for this article to have some good representations of the breed, unlike many other WP:DOGS articles. With these filters removed, it is my opinion that the discussion would now best focus on which of the two pix offers the best representation of the breed guided by the FCI Breed Standard. William Harris (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Please re-read and note that my original comments were at least half about the merits of the photo as it represents the breed and was in terms of composition. And it is not "my dog." I did upload the photo; and it has been the infobox photo continuously for 8-9 years prior to the change by Calvaryman. This is not irrelevant as it shows a majority of viewers agreed with the photo being in the infobox or they would have changed it for another. The alternate photo has many sub-par features: a man standing behind the dog holding it in place with a distracting checkered jacket avec Rolex, a distracting red and white building in the background, lack of good bokeh, distracting shadows that obscure the dog's features, a LACK of a TAIL and other representative features of the breed (poor "pantalooning" of the hind legs, poor depiction of double dew claws on hind legs, etc.). I'll leave it for others to decide. By the way, is my immediately asking to take this to the talk page starting an "edit war?" HeartSpoon (talk)

The photo as it was for nine years:

Or the photo proposed by Calvaryman:

For my part, I don't need to reread anything; I know exactly what you wrote. And your belief that "a majority of viewers agreed with the photo" is nonsense, and I would drop that line of reasoning if you hope to achieve anything here. William Harris (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I don't hope to "achieve" anything here. I'm just trying to help out in small ways. HeartSpoon (talk)

Fwiw I agree with HeartSpoon that the older photo illustrates characteristics of the breed (dew claws, tail, pantaloon) better than the new one, and it is of a higher quality and resolution. The one exception is that the human in the new photo gives scale to the dogs large size, but overall I’d vote to revert to the older photo but keep the newer body text. ddickison (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd meant to stay out of this, but ... well, "the best-laid schemes". Can't we find a better picture than both of these? HeartSpoon's point that we don't need a handler half-visible in the picture is well made; but his/her image is facing out of the page, and the dog seems unnaturally long in the body. What about a suitably-framed crop of this, for example? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

JLAN, as always your opinions are most welcomed. I had meant to comment again before now, but have instead been busying myself building an SPI case that seems to go back 16 years!!! I am not wedded to "my" picture, and agree neither are perfect, I couldn't quite put my finger on my objections to HeartSpoon's picture either, you have just highlighted them for me, that being said I will not oppose consensus if it is to return to the other. My preference would be to find a third option too, perhaps Atsme could be of assistance? She has an extraordinary knack of locating great pictures with appropriate licencing to upload. Cavalryman (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC).

For my part, I came here to help remove some of the filtered thinking - on both sides - so that resolution could then be negotiated. JLAN, please be aware regarding the earliest pix that the breed standard does note this breed's long body length in comparison to its withers height. I have no position on any of the pix on offer - in this regard the article is fortunate to have such an offering - and I will allow others to move towards a conclusion. William Harris (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

WH, many thanks for your intervention too. One of the reasons I like "my" picture is the dog seems to conform to the drawing in the standard, but breed standards are not the be all and end all. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC).

Replying to the ping - if I find anything that does a better job of representing the dog's purpose or conformation, I will post it here first. Atsme 💬 📧 03:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the first option is the better choice from what I know of this breed's features. And whoever called that photo a "poor composition" was an idiot. I teach photography at the college level and the first option is better composed than any of the other photos on the Pyrenean Mountain Dog page. -Edittorr (talk)

Edittorr (talk · contribs), please review WP:CIVIL, name calling is completely unnecessary. Cavalryman (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, I not wishing to cast any aspersions, but does anyone else find it strange several accounts with practically no editing history have found their way here to this obscure little discussion? Cavalryman (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

One has an edit history dating back to March. Why the other suddenly appeared here to comment on this specific matter is somewhat mystifying. William Harris (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Saw this picture at FPC and I believe HeartSpoon's image is much betetr for the infobox than the other picture currently there which looks 'snapshot'ty --Muhammad(talk) 09:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• On balance, the community agreement seems to be with the first photo above. I doubt that many other people will see this discussion at this juncture. I will revert to the first photo unless someone has some substantial explanation for not doing so. -- HeartSpoon (talk)