Talk:Dog crossbreed

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dog crossbreed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704210718/http://www.smallbiztrends.com/2007/12/pet-industry-trends-for-2008.html to http://www.designerdoggies.com/Hybridsinthenews.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dog crossbreed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117171852/http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/beef/400-805/400-805.html to http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/beef/400-805/400-805.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140724153405/http://www.readersdigest.com.au/my-story-i-designed-a-dog to http://www.readersdigest.com.au/my-story-i-designed-a-dog
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313184648/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2339260.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2339260.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal:Poodle crossbreed

I propose to merge Poodle crossbreed into this article. Poodle crossbreed is a terribly sourced article and whilst poodle crossbreds they are relatively common within the modern designer crossbreed world I don't think the subject is notable enough for a standalone article. Given there is little information about poodle crossbreeds that is reliably sourced in the current article, a redirect may suffice. Cavalryman (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC).

• Support - its one reliable source informs us that they can come in a number of colours; most enlightening. Merge please, there is nothing to warrant poodle crossbreeds being treated separately from other dog crossbreeds. William Harristalk 05:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose* - Compared to the scope of a Dog crossbreed, a Poodle crossbreed is merely a historical blip. "Poodle crossbreed" should be assessed for notability in its own right (is that even worth a page?). A much better place to merge it to would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_crossbreeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

65.183.144.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I have moved your comments out of the discussion box above, as can be clearly seen in bolded, italicised, bright red text it is requested that it not be modified. In the above discussion the notability of Poodle crossbreed was assessed and found to be without merit given the lack of WP:Reliable sources, if you disagree you are welcome to present new sources here. Cavalryman (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

I only just got interested in this article, I'd appreciate my input being taken into consideration on this. Let's extend voting for a time and get other views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

65.183.144.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the above discussion is closed, please do not modify it, your comments are perfectly visible here. Cavalryman (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

You are WP:Edit warring which may result in you being banned from editing, I am happy to discuss other options but this process was conducted in accordance with all of Wikipedia's policies on the matter and all interested parties were informed. What is it you want? It seems you want to simply redirect Poodle crossbreed to List of dog crossbreeds, that does not require the above discussion to be reopened. Further, I am not sure that is an appropriate place to redirect Poodle crossbreed, it is a list article.

Further, per your edit summary at Poodle crossbreed I would welcome the input of an Admin, your edit warring is not appropriate, the above discussion should be re-closed as that action was done per policy, your subsequent objections are being discussed here now. Pinging William Harris as the other contributor to the discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

You are edit warring, I want this change discussed in good faith before the changes are made. You do not own this page, this is a community edited page and we discuss things before prodeding. Are you saying my input here is not welcome, or is not being considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. I am pinging several admins for stalking, harassment, and edit warring. You literally followed me to another talk page, and closed my discussion. You then undo all my changes here while accusing me of edit warring and removing my votes in opposition to your changes. Your response is pinging a token admin who seemingly supports you on all issues. I'll be reaching above your friend on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, as I have said I welcome any admin to look at what has occurred here, and I am trying to avoid parallel discussions on the same proposal occurring on three different talk pages, all of which I have on my watchlist. You still have not answered the most critical question, what are you actually proposing? Cavalryman (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, now that we have gone through the dance at ANI can I ask again, what are you actually suggesting here? It appears from your oppose !vote that you actually support redirecting Poodle crossbreed somewhere. Cavalryman (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

• Support Merge - agree with William Harris. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge whatever little useful info there is in that article that isn't already in this article.. The IP has suggested at Talk:Poodle crossbreed that that article instead be redirected to List of dog crossbreeds .That's a list article. Of course that list should mention any sourced poodle crossbreeds, regardless of where the redirect points. Everyone seems to agree that the poodle crossbreed article should go. Meters (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't discuss the other proposal here. Once we have enough opposition votes for the proposal about sending Poodle crossbreed to Dog crossbreed, which may take a month or two, we will redirect poodle crossbreed to the list of dog crossbreeds. This is a better choice because it makes sense. You are looking for a poodle crossbreed? WHICH poodle crossbreed? Here is a list of dog crossbreeds, nearly half of which are based on the poodle. The other proposal can be discussed seperately at the list of dog crossbreeds article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_dog_crossbreeds#Merge_in_poodle_crossbreeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, I am completely confused, you reopened this discussion but it seems you are not supportive of this merger. If you had wanted to re-redirect Poodle crossbreed why not list it at WP:Redirects for discussion? Cavalryman (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

I think the IP is more than a bit confused. The list is a list. I already said it It should contain material on the poodle crossbreeds. It already does. This article already links to that list, so no-one is going to get lost. If there is any useful generic crossbreed info in the poodle crossbreed article it should be merged here. The poodle crossbreed article needs to go away. It may have some content that should be merged to this article. I don't see an additional information in the poodle crossbreed article that needs to be merged to the list article. I really don't care where the redirect points., but as the poodle crossbreed article currently reads, this is a better target (the article has more to say about crossbreeds in general thann it does about specific poodle crossbreeds).

Reopening the discussion about the redirect on the poodle crossbreed article talk page while the article's merge is under discussion here is disruptive. Meters (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Cavalryman is extremely confused. The page on Poodle crossbreeds is being deleted and there is no worthwhile information there worth saving. It may as well simply redirect to the list of poodle crossbreeds. There is no information on the poodle crossbreed page that belong on this page. A poodle crossbreed? Here is a list of them. There's no information there that belongs here. If you can identify some specific piece of information on that page that belongs on this page, we can more seriously consider your proposal. Otherwise, it literally makes no sense. The article has no original information, there is nothing to merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, oppose redirecting poodle crossbreed to list of dog crossbreeds, if anything is salvageable it should be merged here. Cavalryman (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC).
• Support merge again: Following on from the IP's mildly amusing farce at ANI here, he has now attracted my undivided attention to this page. The IP will need to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. I recommend that he familiarise himself regarding that policy's requirements; I certainly have. William Harristalk 22:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am well familiar with the standards of notability and even the difference between a primary and secondary source! So, if you pull any funny business about claiming something isn't notable while violating the rules, I will ANI you or arbitrate. In the mean time, you can enjoy doing what Cavalryman tells you to do. You seem to be his minion, voting as he does 100% of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, your last attempt at ANI ended in complete farce and you appear to be hiding from it, otherwise you would answered the questions posed to you there. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG before embarrassing yourself again. Cavalryman (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC).

It ended in this discussion. If I need to ANI you again for you to cease deleting my comments in talk pages and engage me in discussion before implementing changes, I will do so.

• Comment I oppose people voting twice, also I am confused by some random person's mention of notability. Are people confused as to what that term means? We're currently voting for a redirect. Although, if this page is deleted I'd be happy with that outcome since my original proposal would be implemented instead, Poodle crossbreed redirects to List of dog crossbreeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Background Comment * This vote was reopened. I had to ANI Cavalryman for that to occur, as he was simply deleting my vote and pushing it aside while implementing changes and edit warring. Luckily, reporting Cavalryman's inappropriate behaviour seems to have had a positive effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: "We're currently voting for a redirect." No, we are not. We are voting on the merge of Poodle crossbreeds into Dog crossbreeds - refer the title of this merger proposal. There is currently 4 for support and 1 for oppose. All irrelevant comments and posturing are not going to change that. After a period of time when there has been no new votes, the proposal will be formally closed by a neutral party. And so this matter comes to an end. William Harristalk 12:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Which specific content in the Poodle crossbreed article are you proposing be merged within this article? Which specific sources are you proposing be taken into consideration or added into this article? When the vote was prior closed, no merger took place. Instead, a redirect occurred. The poodle crossbreed article was deleted and it was redirected here. There was no merger. If you propose a merger, a merger must take place. If you propose a merger, you should not instead implement a redirect. What is being merged?

proposing a rewrite

I propose a rewrite of this article. Why is there such a long section on "designer dogs" and a bizarre subsection about "defects?" Cross breeding is not new.

The history section is also missing a great deal of juicy and well-citable detail, such as the entire and detailed origin of all the Victorian-era dog breeds that were basically just inbred lines of crosses. The Golden Retriever pedigree contains many cross breeds, such as Wavy Coated Retriever crossed with an Irish Setter. See: https://grca.org/about-the-breed/breed-history/brief-history-of-the-golden-retriever/

Right from the official breed club, and they even have an extensive bibliography.

Considering how historically important these cross breeds are in the creation of so many of our dog breeds, the history section in this article has the potential to be quite extensive and well sourced. It might also be interesting to observe which crosses were popular during which time period, and who was buying them and for what purpose and what they were called.

There are also modern genetic studies that show something of a "family tree" of dogs, where you can visually see the origins of many dog breeds and how they are mainly just inbred crosses of other dogs. For example, this excellent Nature article has such a family tree that was created with a large scale genetic survey of dogs. See Figure 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08837 It is behind a paywall but I have a copy of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I would support all efforts to rewrite this page, it is in a pretty terrible state. Cavalryman (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

I will add, breed clubs are not a reliable source for information, they should not be used to source anything. Cavalryman (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

In this case I mentioned the breed club because they have a fully sourced bibliography which can be used to verify all of their claims. Did you read the text above that I wrote?

Also, in this instance a breed club is a perfectly fine source for establishing rough details about a breed. Primary sources are useful in that respect eg family histories. Don't be confused in that just because a source cannot be used to establish notability, does not mean that it can't be used in the general sense. We don't want to over-rely on primary sources, but using them to fill in historical details about cross breeds is appropriate in my opinion. In some cases those are the only records that exist of such things. The original pedigrees are historical documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)