Talk:Field Spaniel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleField Spaniel has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
March 12, 2011Good article nomineeListed
WikiProject Dogs / Breeds  (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Dog breeds and species task force.
WikiProject England (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page Inaccuracies[edit]

The page header was fundamentally incorrect, being taken from Peggy Graysons definitive book, the first 15 pages, when the field spaniel appears a few pages later! On behalf of the Field Spaniel Society, I have amended the header, and now will be updating the main body of the work via my sandbox. Please feel free to comment on it here: I also wish to add some disambiguation notes to help prevent the confusion between a Field Spaniel, and a field bred Spaniel, usually a Cocker or Springer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriswarry (talkcontribs) 10:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the health section, not only is there no mention of pasterns and their issues, the pasterns page doesnt mention dogs having them, only horses! Going to put a note there too of intent to add content. Kriswarry (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

And now even my own copyrighted, correctly posted via wikicommons photo to show the difference between a Field and a Cocker has been removed. You are bulling and harassing me, just deleteing everything however I post it. Kriswarry (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

As noted below, I posted a fairly comprehensive reason for reverting the page. Given the extensive issues introduced across the page, I didn't really have much of an option. In addition, given that you have introduced copyrighted content on several pages, I am checking your edits quite carefully when I have the time. This isn't harassment; this is accountability. An issue has been raised regarding previous edits, so it makes sense for someone to check and ensure that your previous editing hasn't violated the same rules. Unfortunately it has, which is why your editing is under significant scrutiny at the moment. Stui (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Vulnerable Native Breed[edit]

I would prefer this not be applied to the article. Most breeds do NOT have over 300 puppies a year. The Field produces only 5-8 puppies a liter and breeders purposely do not breed excessively.--Watershipkennel 17:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This breed is classed in Britain as a VNB - a breed which originated in the UK but now has registration numbers with the Kennel Club of less then 300 puppies per year.

I'm a Canadian teenager on a gap year before Uni and I'm really interested in this. Would anyone like a VNB paragraph/link on this page? I can write it, but am ignorant about formatting etc. Plus, I'm trying to put together a whole collection on all 29 breeds on this list, including history and so on, using Wikipedia as one of my many sources. If you can help, or are interested at all, please contact me either on my talk page or at

--The Wizard of Magicland 19:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


The current picture is acceptable but I will be providing more pictures for this article.--Watershipkennel 05:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

THe picture posted is not a field spaniel. It appears to be a field-bred springer spaniel, but field spaniels are self-colored (solid) usually a dark brown.--Counsel 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • If we're looking for a better image, there's one on the field spaniel page in a defferent language (Russian I think). Pharaoh Hound 15:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right--it's a Springer, or at least not a Field. I've added an external link at the end of the apperance section that shows my old Field.

Hi, if you want to link to an image of your dog - you should upload the photograph image into wikipedia and internal linking to that image. If you need help with this procedure, feel free to leave a message on my talk page - Trysha (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fields can be solid or roan, didnt see the picture, just wanting to correct the misapprehension above. I also wish to replace the pictures with those of some full CH and ShCh examples. Kriswarry (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Nomination[edit]

Going to be nominating this article up for a GA shortly. Just a note here to let the reviewer know that I won't be including this as a Wikicup entry as I don't consider myself to have done significant work on it this year. In fact, it was an oversight that I hadn't nominated it last October - I'd simply forgotten to nominate it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Field Spaniel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

  • Hip dysplasia links to a disambiguation page - have it link to the canine one.
  • The Canadian Kennel Club external link in the infobox isn't working; not sure if the site is just down or if there's an error in the link.
  • "The standard size for a Field Spaniel is 17–18 inches (43–46 cm) tall at the withers,[1] and weighing between 40–55 pounds (18–25 kg)" a bit awkward; i'd change to "and a weight of.."

Just those couple small issues. I'll put the article on hold and will pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed those three issues. Thanks for reviewing! Miyagawa (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks good now, so the article passes. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Field Spaniel. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 09:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Field Spaniel Society[edit]

There have been a series of edits by a new editor concerning the Field Spaniel Society's preferred wording on puppy purchase and confusiuon with other breeds. Something along the lines of "puppies of other breeds are sometimes marketed as "field spaniels," leading to confusion among prospective owners", which will need a source in any case, might be suitable, but the encyclopedia article is not an appropriate place for informal "buyer beware" notices place at the behest of a breed association. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

most of the article is incorrect, I am trying to correct it, I am slow, and so doing it bit by bit. if I was given enough damn chance to add the referneces then I would, instead my stuff just keeps getting deleted. this is very disability unfriendly after I have tried to explain what I am steadily dpoing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriswarry (talkcontribs) 13:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is a reviewed good article, fully referenced - you must discuss substantial changes here first, and you must provide references, in published literature. I am headed to work for the day. Please take the time to outline your concerns and sources on this talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit has several issues. In the second pagraph, the summary "Their coats come mostly in solid colours" was replaced by a list of eight or nine different colour variations. The lead section should summarise the content of the article, not provide all the details - and remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that every single detail should not be mentioned in any case. As for the new paragraph, I'm sorry, but it is not in fact supported by the source. The source doesn't mention anything about any confusion, or about people calling cocker spaniels or springer spaniels "field spaniel" inappropriately. --bonadea contributions talk 13:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Copy of message left on my talk page[edit]

Kriswarry has left the following message on my talk page: tHE FIELD SPANIEL PAGE NOW HAS THE REFEFRENCES ON IT, THEREFOE IT IS NOT SUBSTANSIATED, SO WHY ARE YOU STILL DELETING IT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriswarry (talkcontribs) 13:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I had again reverted as the unsubstantiated commentary still remained. Kriswarry, why not try working in a your sandbox? But remember that would not guarantee that any alterations may not be reverted. At the moment you are edit warring and risk being blocked. Re: the edit made a few minutes ago, although it is referenced, it should be in the body of the article not the lead. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be in the body, but with only enough energy to do a bit a day, I have had to put it in the top for now to stop it getting deleted mid way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriswarry (talkcontribs) 14:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Kriswarry: I'm sorry you are having health problems but the most recent edit as it stands really cannot remain in the article lead at the moment. It does not make sense. As I suggested above, why not work in a sandbox where you can go at your own pace? PS: Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~ SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

[[User:Kriswarry|Kriswarry]] ([[User talk:Kriswarry|talk]]) 14:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

But the original header says it was a show dog originally which is incorrect, the colour stuff is also incorrect, in fact most of the damn header is incorrect. I have now linked it also to the wiki page for cocker spaniels to confirm this change. I cant add conflicting stuff down in the page and leave the header completely incorrectly contradicting it. Kriswarry (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Kriswarry Please slow down and practice some edits in your sandbox as already suggested. The series of edits you have just made are not acceptable for several reasons: they are not grammatical, incorrectly formatted, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source (and if you have copied text from another article, attribution must be given - see WP:CWW. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, I have now reverted as a copyvio. "In the late 19th century the term “field spaniel” was used to describe all the land spaniels which were then apportioned with names depending on size and colour: smaller dogs were cockers, larger ones springers. If the larger ones were liver/white and black/white they were deemed springers, if solid coloured they were Fields." has been directly copied from the Kennel Club here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Some one else insisted I move the reference to that page further down the text! I had put the reference in the header along with the wiki page reference to the cocker spaniel page. It therefore isn't a copyright violation! will you please all be consistent Kriswarry (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The bit about the history you deleted was from a wikipedia page! would you like to delete the cocker spaniel pages too? please see paragraph 3 as per the link... you cant delete stuff for not being referenced from wikipedia, and then delete the wikipedia refernecs! Kriswarry (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Kriswarry, please slow down. Text must not be copied from external sources, it is a copyright violation. As indicated above, the text you added (shown in green above) was directly copied from the Kennel Club website which clearly has a copyright notice at the bottom of every page on its website. I can see that Diannaa is around at the moment, she is an expert in copyright and may need to look at removing it. You are also edit warring. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have put in an appeal against you. you have been consistently agressive, unhelpful, and are even deleting information from other wikipedia pages. I have made the changes you requested and yet you still find more excuses to delete, conflicting with your prior advice. This is very intimidating and against the ethos of the brand when someone is just trying to correct a very incorrect header that conflicts with the breed standards and specialists. you wont let me use my own words, use external words, or use wikipedia words from other pages. I tried doing small edits and carefully saying where some of this came from around wikipedia, and yet you are not reading it, simply bulk deleting everthing and blaming me, no matter what I do. Kriswarry (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Only UNAUTHORISED use is a copyright violation, plus under fair use terms in the UK there are ways of using single sentences etc. as long as there are proper references - which there were until you made me move them lower down as otherwise you would delete it all. Kriswarry (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kriswarry: Please slow down and work in your sandbox. Everybody's trying to help you stay within the guardrails of Wikipedia policy, which among other things prohibit copying text from other websites which do not share Wikipedia's copyleft scheme - all Wikipedia content must be freely redistributable and may not originate in non-free sources. Fair use is severely restricted on Wikipedia. This is for specific legal reasons and is not subject to negotiation. There are ways to donate text, but it's simpler to rewrite than to do that paperwork. Nor may you copy text from one part of Wikipedia to another without clear attribution, or use Wikipedia itself as a source for other Wikipedia content. Please assume good faith - everybody who's interacted with you has done so, please reciprocate. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an extension of or free webhost for any breed society. The article may certainly be improved, but it is vital that you use this talkpage to make clear, specific suggestions for improvement and correction, and that you work within Wikipedia's referencing policy and manual of style. Freely editable does not mean that anything goes, and all contributions may be more or less edited or removed - if you've worked with an editor in real life you know what to expect. Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I would also point out that it has to be acceptable in all major jurisdictions. Citing UK law here isn't particularly relevant. It's usually better to reword and rephrase. Stui (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've had to revert the page back to the original version. My reason for this is because the edits made it extremely similar (both in wording and style) to the cocker spaniel page. In addition, there were a ton of grammar errors introduced, which materially affect the page. I'll give this one a copy edit when I'm done writing for the day, but I'll keep it on my watchlist.

I'm concerned that this is starting to get a little silly. While I appreciate that the edits are generally done in good faith, the same issues are coming up: so far, we've had unsourced statements, problems with grammar and spelling (quite serious ones), and copyvios and now we're getting copy shifted over from other pages. Are field spaniels really worth a separate page from cocker spaniels? And is the information about cocking relevant to field spaniels?

Stui (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)