Talk:Pomeranian dog

Too many images

There are just too many image on this page. Some of which I feel are unencyclopedic and/or poor quality and/or redundant of each other. I am removing this one, and this one. The only reason that I'm keeping this one is because it shows the breed in what looks like a show coat (though if any better photos of Poms in show coats are found I will remove it). --Pharaoh Hound 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

agreed.....too many photos. I am a pomeranian exhibitor and we need something better. I will upload a photo of one of the dogs which I show sometime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.100.58 (talk • contribs) .

I'm sensitive to the need to be sober in entering photos. I added the "Chocolate Pom" picture because 1) there was a need for photos of puppies representing the breed and 2) Too many people do not know/ understand that the darker colors of this breed are perfectly acceptable. This leads to an overpopulation of abandoned chocolate and black Pomeranians. Therefore, I don't think it is appropriate to only show traditional orange or blond Poms as "encyclopedic" standards of examples. MChmiel (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Mchmiel

How can you say that there are too many images in this article? Pomeranians come in many varieties and sizes and that can best be expressed thorugh various pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.97.55 (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with having historical photos and photos of various colors and types. There is no need for a hatchet job on this article. --APDEF (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Too many adult pomeranians

I took off one of the adult pomeranian because there are no puppies on this page. --X.claire 00:56, 12 February 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)

=

Art and Media

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)

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)