Talk:Pomeranian dog

celebs

I removed the celebs who own pomeranians section - the list was getting too long, and these items belong on the celeb's article - not the dog article - Trysha ^(talk) 03:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The list of Pom appearences in general is getting out of control. I almost want to mention the yapping little Pomeranian that Ahhnold walks by in The Terminator on his way to kill a Sarah Connor. Should we trim this list back to dogs that were somehow important to the plot? CSZero 17:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are people like Sharon Osbourne, Paris Hilton, and Nicole Richie "historically important"? I don't think it is right to have their name next to greats like Isaac Newtwon. We know that they are useless, talentless nobodies pushed by the tabloids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.187.67 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the "Historical" owners section undoubtedly needs to be cleaned. This portion has the potential to get wildly out of hand and certainly have no encyclopedic value to it. In the worst possible case, if it is insisted upon that some of the more popular, present day owners of Poms be listed here they should be listed under Pomeranians in pop culture and that should be highly moderated. For now I will at least split the list into two distinct lists, but something does need to be decided upon as to how relevant the information is. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} January 2, 2008 13:56 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The "celebrities who own Poms" is celebrity worship and contributes nothing to the knowledge of the breed of this dog.

I removed the comment by Queen Victoria having a Pom and that she was 'one of the first people ever to have a pomeranian'. First of all, if Newton and Michelangelo had Poms, there is NO WAY Victoria (who came 300-400 years AFTER Michelangelo, could have been among the first owners. The lack of citations is exactly why Wikipedia is becoming less and less of a place for people to turn to (and perhaps why donations are dramatically down?)65.215.94.13 (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The article is about Pomeranians, not pop-idols. Keep the historical references (Royalty, artists,)when that is primary source of information about the breed. --APDEF (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

i agree as well Tinnylover (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Pomerania

R9tgokunks has re-made changes he had made earlier to this article, stressing Pomerania as a lost German province. While this appears to have a strong POV and his talk page shows that he is clearly (excessively even) Pro-German, given the history of the breed and when the name would've originated (When Pomerania was part of Prussia/Germany), are his edits really unwarranted? Note this article is part of WikiProject Germany, not Poland... CSZero 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Pomeranian dog originates from that area which was a German province once and that is now part of Poland. But the time when the breed first "appeared", this area has been German territory. Saying that has nothing to do with being pro-German, it's just a historical fact! Therefore I think it should be mentioned. 77.188.34.88 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this area, but the following statement in the history portion does not make sense to me, "but they were still 2 pounds or more when they reached England." Perhaps someone can correct the size? ascholer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascholer (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous picture re-added

71.110.249.100 put the picture removed several months ago by Pharaoh Hound back on the page. As a terrible (blurry) picture of not the greatest pom, it serves no purpose on the page. If nobody disagrees, I would be more than glad to remove it once again.....any opinions?Tingalex 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

3 days, no responses...removed yet again. Tingalex 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

too many links

prsonaly i think there are way too many links on this article, that are just advertisments, that dont really help with getting the information.it takes up way too much space. any suggestions?-{kjv]--72.79.210.201 (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

take out some words? Tinnylover (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Art and Media

you can be dsdffsdfsfwĦĠĤ I removed this section because, at an encyclopedic level, almost none of these dogs are central to the plot, and even fewer of them are important as Pomeranians versus another dog. Wikipedia has a policy against collection of facts, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Therefore, keeping this section trimmed, readable, and relevant is becomming impossible. In addition, the number of times I've had to revert the censorship of the Big Lebowski quote is getting quite tiresome. Refer to the Not Censored clause in my above link. I know this article draws in a lot of kids looking for a cute cuddly dog, but we shouldn't Bowlderize. If you disagree, please feel free to add it back in, but can it be trimmed to something a bit more relevant instead of just a stream of pomeranian tails flashing onscreen?

CSZero 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC) i agree with you.it doesnt have much of a purpous being there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.210.201 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a non-pom picture in this? The painting is a Spitz, not a Pom, you can see it on the American Eskie page. They're related but look nothing like each other, except REALLY furry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.80.105 (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Gainsborough, who painted this, has a painting called "Pomeranian Bitch and Pup" it may be a better image here. Marj (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Pomeranian Bitch and Pup Gainsborough 1777 Marj (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

hmm that might actually work Tinnylover (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Do they shed

Do Pomeranians shed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.218.179 (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely, Just some more than others. I'm thankful both of mine don't shed a whole lot.--TheNuGai (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

As per the peer review on Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, I'm removing the recently added Gallery. The peer review itself is here. I'm yet to expand and reference the history and temperament sections so I'm sure that there will yet be plenty of space for those images to be worked back into the article. Miyagawa (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pomeranian (dog)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will start jotting some notes below. Feel free to revert any inadvertent changes I make. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• pomeranians can also learn quickly how to get what they want - ?? hmm...

Any time you are not training your dog, s/he is training you. :-) This was on a Pom site, it's better than describing them as 'stubborn' - dogs aren't stubborn, they just want what they want, not what you want, but we can look for a better way of getting the point across. Marj (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed to "Pomeranians respond well to firm, consistent obedience training, but otherwise will do what they please.[1]" Marj (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the rephrase. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Artic --> Arctic?? Currently leads to a disambiguation page

Changed to Arctic Marj (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Count Eberhard zu Sayne --> should this be Sayn?

Ended up having to check on geneology sites for dates, but certainly this seems to be the same chap. As Sayn is the common usage spelling, I've made the correction. All instances of Sayne on Google are related to this article. Miyagawa (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall, nicely done - just tidy up these three little things and I think we're there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: - could buff it a little more but fine for GA

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Behaviour

The link no longer works for the reference to the sentence, "They bond quickly with their owners, and can suffer from separation anxiety if not trained to spend time alone." The website that the link used to point to is hardly an authority on the subject anyway. I would suggest that either a new reference be cited or preferably, this sentence be removed altogether as it is a debateable subject. It is a commonly held opinion that owners should not be encouraged to leave their dogs on their own. Pups should definitely not be left on their own and as dogs mature into an older age, they occasionally prefer solitude, but to try to train this into your dog is misleading and sometimes possibly cruel. Afterall, dogs are a pack animal that feel secure when they have companions. Because I am neither a pom owner nor breeder I will not make this change myself. 60.234.229.163 (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Mention in media popularity not necessary?

I absolutely don't want to make any wrong moves here, but is the Fred Figglehorn reference really necessary at all? It honestly doesn't look like it is worth mentioning. That, and isn't that minor detail with the squirrels off-topic? Long story short, I'm questioning the Fred reference and am thinking about removing it. --219.78.205.217 (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you see it added, and it's still unreferenced - remove it. An editor keeps putting it back regardless of how many times it's been taken off. Miyagawa (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

yes Tinnylover (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Description

"A group of two pomeranians is commonly referred to as a "puff," while large groups (of three or more) are known as "tufts."

What is the source for this information? PCB 17 Apr. 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.41.126 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Campine (chicken) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved there was a consensus for a move away from the natural disambiguation. If someone wants to try a new RM for (dog breed) immediately, that would also be acceptable. There wasn't a consensus for that here, but it was also raised late in the RM. There was a clear enough consensus for a move away from the natural disambiguation, however, that I felt it would be best to move rather than relist or close as no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Pomeranian dog → Pomeranian (dog) – MUCH Better Name Dinan Blueje (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dinan Blueje: How is this much better? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Mahveotm (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Everyone might want to have a look here and here before you !vote. We've just been through this a few months ago. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:NATURAL._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The single word "Pomeranian" to refer to this breed is almost universal. "Pomeranian dog" is so rare that WP:NATURAL would not apply. -- Netoholic @ 10:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Netoholic. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Netoholic. WP:NATURAL does not apply to obscure names. "Pomeranian dog" appears to be an archaic term which nowadays is about as common as "Beagle dog", which is not common at all. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Pomeranian (dog breed). The natural disambiguation is indeed obscure, but I agree with nominator in the previous RM that using "(dog)" as a disambiguator is confusing due to its use for individuals. "dog breed" succintly describes and disambiguates this article. James (^talk/_contribs) 09:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I could get behind Pomeranian (dog breed). Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Pomeranian(dog)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pomeranian(dog). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Pomeranian(dog) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

Farther Readings 75.155.104.211 (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Pomeranian (dog breed )" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pomeranian (dog breed ) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Pomeranian (dog breed ) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"Pomeranian(dog)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pomeranian(dog) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6#Pomeranian(dog) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Title

Pomeranian The title as of September 18٫ 2022 is Pomeranian Dog. The "dog" part does not need to be there٫ there isn't anything else that is called a Pomeranian. Also the picture clearly shows they are talking about a dog. GenZenny (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

If you had done even a little checking before posting here you would have found that your idea that "there isn't anything else that is called a Pomeranian" is unfounded. For example, have a look at Pomeranian. JBW (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022

Add a note that says "Not to be confused with parmesan.". 206.190.231.82 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It is unlikely that this would be helpful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Pomeranian dog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: While work is ongoing by the nominator to improve the article, it's very far away from GA status, so a new GA nomination may be better after the work is completed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've had to rewrite the health section due to sourcing being unreliable and I've removed other citations due to being unreliable. Other issues include uncited claims (and not just ones where I've had to remove an unreliable source), too much weight being given to a particular colour of Pomeranian dog (merle), a guidebook style paragraph (that I've removed), a very large gallery (should be inserted into the article naturally and some images should be removed as they're pretty much duplicates in terms of encyclopaedic/knowledge value), a US focused popularity section that delves far too much into the popularity of the breed in specific cities, and anthropomorphism of dog behaviour. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propaganpedia and it's anti-german attitudes

Pomerania is a nowadays occupied province of Germany and at the dog is absolutely a German dog breed from a then German region. It has nothing to do with poland or the polish whatsoever. But you people know that, it's just your agenda to spread anti-german lies on wikipedia. 178.24.238.200 (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Take it up with the Pomerania article. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)