Talk:List of dog breeds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Dog breeds offers a suggested format for articles on individual breeds.


See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/General for more info.

Rare breeds/breeds in development[edit]

I saw in the archives that someone suggested the creating of a "breeds in development" page, which I think is a very good idea. I find it very disconcerting that some of the breeds in the List of dog breeds such as the American Bullnese are only recognized by "sham" breed clubs, while other more "breeds in development" (like the Labradoodle and Carlin Pinschers [1]) are not included on this list, even though the page states that this list includes some breeds in development. I think it would be more productive to have a separate list for breeds in development. Opendestiny (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That could possibly be an oversight; it could also be because they may be listed at the List of dog crossbreeds. I don't see why they shouldn't be here. --TKK bark ! 18:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Several reasons. Mostly they're crossbreeds, not breeds, though several are on the path to breed establishment (and several are not). They often cannot be reliably sourced; for many of them, the only sourcing is to non-WP:INDY promotional materials, like one-breed club newsletters and breeders' self-published websites, with occasional press mentions that aren't based on anything but those same breeder sites. Thus, most of them are not notable. This list includes notable breeds that have their own articles, not every alleged breed anyone's ever tried to stick a name on (see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NFT). As noted above, not all "registries" are created equal. Some of them are reliable sources from reputable organizations, others are just puppy-mill pseudo-registries and are not authoritative in any way (see partial list of these at Template:Infobox dog breed). Any "registry" of the "if you say it's a breed, and send us a picture and some money, we'll say it's a breed, too" sort is not a source we can use; it's simply a form of paid self-publication, no different from paying to self-published your book about perpetual motion and ancient aliens.

This list already over-long and confusingly unfocused, commingling modern standardized breeds, extinct and only-historically-attested varieties, sub-breeds, unrecognized landraces that have no standards, etc., etc., all in one list, instead of in sensible sections and, where needed, separate lists. At some point, this needs to be cleaned up. I would suggest as one step to take the approach used at List of experimental cat breeds, to separate breed-bound development programs from those that are clearly intending to continue producing "designer" crossbreeds like labradoodles. After sufficient development, any consistent crossbreed bred to itself to fix in a particular standard of traits will produce an actual breed; this is how most breeds we have today arose. These are distinct from crossbreeding programs where each generation of "product" is a crossbreed or maybe an F2 of the same crossbreed, and bred to mix particular traits of the parent breeds, not develop a consistent new set of traits. It's also distinct from "natural breeds" (i.e., landraces) arising as working dogs in a particular region, and eventually developed (usually be American, British, or other foreign fanciers) into a standardized breed. And it's distinct from reported varieties in ancient to medieval manuscripts. And distinct from wild–domestic hybrids. And distinct from temporary crossbreeding (to avoid excessive inbreeding) to true-breed a rare mutation into a new breed. Calling all of these things "breeds" as if they're identical and undifferentiated, then dumping them into one list does readers a serious disservice. These things should be in separate lists (whether embedded or stand-alone) and often categorized distinctly.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
PS: "Rare breeds" is a uselessly ambiguous term. Every uncommon breed, even ones that have been established for centuries, is "rare", as are landraces/natural breeds from remote areas, and (by definition) experimental breeds only a few people are working on, but they otherwise have nothing in common. The use of "rare breed" to mean "crossbreed or experimental breed" is pure PoV marketing language and WP is not in a position to adopt it because it's directly misleading to readers.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Merging of Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd[edit]


The breed standard of Australian shepherd does not recognize a "mini" version of the breed; in 2011, those trying to create a "mini" Australian shepherd renamed their breed the Miniature American Shepherd[1] and were subsequently recognized as Foundation stock by the AKC[2]. Thus, I propose these two records be merged in this list with a note indicating that what were previously considered "Miniature Australian Shepherds" are now officially "Miniature American Shepherds". Opendestiny (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This would probably be better served by a merge proposal on the Miniature American Shepherd page, or if that page does not exist, a move to that page. --TKK bark ! 22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, I'll head over there and suggest it now. Although the lines should still to be combined in this list as well. I'm still really new to this whole editing thing. Opendestiny (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
If the merge goes through there, I will combine the listings here myself if that's any reassurance haha. I'm going to watch both pages. I would support the merge wholeheartedly, especially if, as you say, it is the same breed with a name change. --TKK bark ! 18:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


The merge proposal passed in 2013, then stalled out in the implementation phase. I've opened an RfC to resolve the matter: Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#Renewed merge discussion  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Lurcher not listed[edit]

Resolved: Off-topic.

I recently came across a 'Lurcher' but which was not listed in any 'list of dog breeds'; it has its own entry in Wikipedia at just suggest it can be added to this list Nigbenet (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Nigel Benetton

According to the article lurcher‘s are not a breed of dog but a cross between different breeds. This article only lists breeds of dogs. GB fan 10:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
It's already covered in List of dog crossbreeds where it belongs.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Breeds[edit]

If a breed article was deleted, but the breed is mentioned briefly in some sources (perhaps not enough to have its own article, but it is mentioned in several places) would it be acceptable to list it here without a linked name and cite the breed's entry in the list to those sources?--TKK bark ! 19:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Everyone has link. Won't need refs. Noteswork (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

How about Dividing the List into Alphabetical Sections?[edit]

I think it's a little "frustrating" to scroll down all the long list in the case when only one or two breeds need to be added/modified. Therefore I was wondering if it could be divided into alphabetical sections (currently it's divided so that a certain letter can be easily found when reading the list, but I mean also dividing to sections that can be modified separately from each others)? For example in the Finnish Wikipedia, the corresponding list is divided in the way that makes modifying a certain breed much easier. --Canarian (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not against a redesign. I did the original design on the current list. The reason I put the whole list in a single table was to make it easy for the reader. If someone is looking for the dog breeds in a certain group they can resort the table and they would then be all together. Just something to consider if the table is split into multiple tables. GB fan 15:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It was a worthy goal, but the list has become unwieldy. It would probably make more sense to create separate lists/articles and categories for most of what people can sort for (dog type/group, breeds recognized by a specific registry, breeds by country of origin, etc.). There's been some semi-recent work to consolidate the type/group articles, away from all the WP:POVFORKing into separate articles for every other registry's oh-so-special terminology, and instead have manageable overview articles like scenthound, etc. We also have breeds-by-organization lists for three of the major organizations already. And we have a whole category structure under Category:Dog breeds by country of origin‎. So, there's not much incentive any longer to not reorganize this list into alphabetical section and, as suggested above, categorically to separate standardized breeds, unrecognized/unstandardized landraces (natural breeds), and extinct historical varieties, in this list, and probably have separate lists for "designer" crossbreeds, domestic × wild hybrids, and experimental breeds still in development and without major organizational recognition yet.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)