Talk:Dalmatian dog

Revision needed

This page is looking really bad. The formatting is appauling! The use of titles, separaters and bold font is completely irregular. Also the section on Dalmatian training is extremely biased towards the author's own personal opinian of dog training. It is unprofessional and does not belong in an encyclopedic entry. There is no specific kind of "Dalamtian" training. Also, what happened to the old "Talk" page? There were several discussions that were valuable and should not have been deleted. This page a mess! Mllefantine 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatian Training

I have been editing the pages with great care (i.e. only the 'Training' and 'Other Issues section'. My statements are primarily from the Dalmatians welfare point of view than a seller's point of view. In case you are deleting statements or modifying them, please indicate here, by way of discussion, clearly why you choose to do so. In particular, I would appreciate it if the first sentence in the training section is not deleted. Please sign up to one of the Dalamation rescues and see the plight of these lives brought upon by ignorance of the facts in the training section.

- Some of the spellings in there might seem a tad strange; they are not incorrect.

192.100.124.218 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's dalmatiAn, not dalmatiOn. ;-)--Pointeprincess 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

While Dalmatian welfare is important, considering this is an encyclopedia, th most important thing is to provide unbiased, accurate, and professional information. Although I personal may agree with some of the views sighted on the training page, they belong on a personal web site, NOT in an encyclopedia. Mllefantine 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on this statement in the "Training": "Dalmatians have extremely sensitive personalities and will not forget ill-treatment and ill-treatment can and certainly will break a dog's spirit and a Dalmatian's - certainly so." I feel it's not really specific to Dalmatians. I don't think they are any more sesitive then any other breed--in fact, from owning three and working with numerous others, I would have to say they are extremely stubborn and strong willed and much LESS sensitive then any other breed that I have owned or trained. They are not a particularily willing-to-please breed. Obviously I am NOT condoning ill treatment of any breed, I just don't believe this information is specific to Dalmatians--at all! I feel it is leading people astray as to the typical personality of the breed. Would anyone object if I altered this?Mllefantine 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Link

Looking at reference number 10, it actually states that Dominicans (the order of Catholic priests) are the "Watchdogs of the Lord", not Dalmatians. And the link between dalmatians and dominicans is weak at best.

Blue eyes linked to deafness

"Blue eyes are regarded as a fault by many organisations because Dalmatians with blue eyes are entirely deaf in the ear(s) on the same side(s) as the blue eyes." Any sources/evidence of this??? Back it up or it should be removed ... 67.161.186.85 06:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. From personal experience (and numerous searches), blue eyes are not a definitive trait of deafness. However occurrences of deafness are significantly higher in dogs with blue eyes (and the Dalmatian has a significantly higher number of occurrences of deafness than many other breeds). Kameron 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Research by the Dalmatian Club of America suggests that there may be a link between blue eyes and deafness. I added the citation on the main page where the citation was needed. Mllefantine 19:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

Just a few minutes ago one editor placed two images into the article in good faith, and another editor immediately removed them, citing as the reason that they had been removed before. I see no discussion here or in the archive relating to a discussion that there are too many images in this article. I don't think that good faith edits that don't damage the content of the article should be reverted without a bit of discussion. I do think that it would be nice to have photos relevant to the sections they are in, e.g. a Dal in the obedience ring for the training section and one with a firefighter in the association with firefighters section. Perhaps we could even get a picture of a dog actually coaching? —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

File:Black spotted female dalmatian.jpg

These are the two images I posted that were immediately removed with no discussion. The user informed me that this is an encyclopedia, not a pet gallery. Can I get some thoughts on whether these should be permitted on the page? I realize there are getting to be a lot of pictures, but the one is a very good head shot, and the second depicts a Dalmation close up, from the front angle. I feel these are more encyclopedic then some of the others. For example the Dalmatian in the woods is a great pic, but it's difficult to see the dog because the picture is at a distance and the harness is distracting. Also, the dogs in the pictures are show quality animals, which I think is important in an encyclopedic entry about a purebred breed. I agree that it would be nice to get some pictures of Dalmatians coaching, or doing agility, etc. Mllefantine 19:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed them as there was already more than sufficient images showgasling desired attributes in the breed standard and frontal-view images. As the user didn't take the care to discuss adding images that are clearly repetitive, I didn't feel the obligation to discuss their removal. They are obviously gratuitous, and created a disruption in the article's text. So I removed them per WP:NOT, WP:IUP and WP:Images. A discussion on this page before making potentially-controversial changes, or replacing images already present that were similar instead of adding duplicates (which I wouldn't have had a problem with, as these are good quality images, and arguably better than some already present) would have been the proper protocol to follow. In removing inappropriate additions that violate clear policy/guidelines and were not discussed, I am not the one at fault. VanTucky 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi VanTucky. Nobody is trying to assign fault here, we're all just trying to make the article better. The policies & guidelines you cite don't directly address the addition of properly contextual, cited, and relevant images that are not in galleries into an article. They do mention that if the article is getting too crowded with images, that some can be "queued" onto the talk page for later re-addition to the article when it's expanded with enough text for the images to fit. You're right that the images could have been discussed here prior to addition to the article, but likewise it should have been discussed before they were deleted. I would like to direct you to the WP:REVERT guideline, specifically the "When to revert" section. It can foster ill will among editors to simply revert good faith edits that don't significantly damage the article. The article is currently 24.5k in size and has 6 images, in my opinion, two more hardly made it crowded- but opinions can differ. If the consensus is that 8 images would make the article too cluttered, then I would vote for a couple of the current images to be replaced, since the new ones that Mllefantine uploaded are of higher quality than a few on there. The old pictures can be queued here on the talk page as described in the guidelines you cited. Thank you very much for your helping in making this article better! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Christ, I'm blind sometimes. My sincere apologies Elipongo.

My assertion about crowding was about the way the images messed with the readability of the text, not an overall ratio; as there is no firm guideline about what that exact ratio should be and using that argument in other debates has not held water in my experience. But yes, I absolutely agree that the images I reverted are quite possibly better in reference to the minutiae of the breed standard. Normally I would just correct the redundancy with that factor of merit in mind, but as I did not feel qualified to judge images per the Dalmatian standard, I deferred to the images that had sat uncontested for quite some time. However, I would like to point out that images are not automatically preferred because they conform to a breed standard. This article is not an advocate for AKC/UKC standards of appearance. But in this situation, I don't see a problem with replacing say, the following image...

File:A black-spotted female dalmatian.jpg

Is that an edit you both might agree to? Just personally, I aesthetically prefer the full-body image. But I'm not particular. VanTucky 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the full body front image would serve the article better, the article does have a very nice head image of a liver spotted individual, but we don't have a frontal full body shot. I also agree with the particular image to be queued here. In looking over the history, I see several other images that have been replaced over time. I propose to set up linkified queue of those images here or on a subpage for later possible use in the article. I am uncomfortable with the idea of a gallery as described in WP:IUP for the very reason that it could turn into a pet photo gallery- I should think that a simple linkified list would be sufficient. I'll create one in a couple of days if there are no objections.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea for past images used in the article...but isn't the page you're speaking of creating something already filled by Wikimedia Commons? Perhaps the images should be moved to Commons instead, and then we can add a link (including with a mention of/category for images used in the past)? VanTucky 22:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents' worth is that I prefer this image:

File:Black spotted female dalmatian.jpg

to this one:

File:A black-spotted female dalmatian.jpg

As long as they're both encyclopedic and illustrate the subject, I believe the first one (which was removed) is more pleasing than the second one (quite clearly just another "my pet in the kitchen" shot). I'm also a long-time watcher of this page and I'm puzzled by the removal of the first, a (IMHO) better picture which, to boot, had been in this article a lot longer, while keeping what I consider an inferior picture. Roadmr (t|c) 22:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the blue-eyed Dalmatian is a very "pet-in-my" kitchen type photo. I liked the fact that it showed the blue-eyes, which aren't showcased elsewhere, but I agree that it is not very encyclopedic in nature. I like this photo:

File:Black spotted female dalmatian.jpg

because the liver dal only shows a profile, and if we end up removing the blue-eyed dal pic, there won't be a good, head on facial. In response to VanTucky, I agree that the pictures do not necessarily have to conform to any breed club's specific standards, but considering the page is about a purebred dog, I do think that inextricably links the a certian standard if possible. I do think it is important that the majority of the photos--although not necessarilly all-- should be of a high quality animal. But perhaps more importantly, aside from what the animal itself looks like, I think it is also important to try select pictures that are high quality and professional, and do not look like they personal snap shots of your dog in your living room. Anyway, Elipongo's idea about creating a link to a gallery of removed pictures is a good idea. I vote yea. Mllefantine 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)