Talk:Pal (dog)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Pal (dog) has been listed as one of the Media and drama 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 18, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 21, 2005.
WikiProject Dogs (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Stars? Fact check needed[edit]

Okay, exactly how many dogs--or characters--have stars on the walk of fame?

If it's only two, my money's on Rinty. Another WP article says three.

I'm going for three until we check it. Quill 22:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I only know of Rin Tin Tin and Lassie. This source says 2 [1]
Who is the third (if there is one?) Vaoverland 02:16, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Strongheart, if he has one. Quill 09:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Lassie[edit]

This article needs to be merged with Lassie. Lassie was portrayed by 7 different dogs including Pal and each of the Lassie's had its own name other than Lassie. There is no reason why the first Lassie needs to have its own article. Vivaldi (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. The content is very redundant between the two and Pal is not notable beyond being Lassie. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree, it is a good artical, it is a known dog, for example in Frasier, the dog is interpreted by a dog that has an artical, and then is replaced by his son, and that dog has an artical too. --Pedro J. the rookie 13:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This is crazy, it's got GA status! Pal is one of the most famous dog actors and therefore is easily notable in his own right. If this was a human actor then it wouldn't even be questioned. Miyagawa (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It has GA status in part because of a user who had some 20-30 sock puppets and is now banned for the socking, falseifying sources, and a variety of other inappropriate behaviors. Nor does being a GA make it immune from consideration of merging. Pal, himself, is not notable by himself, but only as being the first Lassie. There is no significant coverage of Pal himself, but only in the context of Lassie take from the book on Lassie. Most of the information here is redundant to the Lassie article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
There are four rationals for a merge. Duplicate: in this instance, one article is about a fictional character and/or series, another is about a dog actor in a similar way that Moose (dog actor) is different to Frasier. Text: Text is not an issue in either this article or the Lassie one. Context: Arguable, but I believe that Pal does not need the information in the Lassie article to be notable on it's own merit. Overlap: This is the only rational where there may be a case. However the requirement on Wikipedia:Merging states that "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap." Technically, the Lassie article talks about Pal quite a bit in the lead paragraph (in my opinion, probably more than it should) then under Dog Actors, Pal is mentioned only in the first three paragraphs. There is a large volume of information on the Pal article which is about Pal being Lassie, however there is significant information that has nothing to do with Lassie, and I feel would be inappropriate to place on a general Lassie page: for instance the entire section on Pal's death. Having reviewed both articles side to side, I think that there is a case to keep Pal as it's own page - however it needs to be regraded as I don't think it fits as a GA status as it does not cover Pal's life significantly outside playing Lassie; and that the Pal article needs to be expanded to cover it as such. Miyagawa (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why not combine all the dogs by age into one article called Lassie dogs.--Lassiewasadog (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean all of the dogs that portrayed Lassie? There is already an article for Lassie. I'm not sure a second article listing the individual dogs would be necessary though it is a possibility as an away to address the issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. - I reviewed the GAN for this article. Even putting aside the quality of the article, it all comes down to WP:NOTE for me. This one meets all the notability criteria: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As long as it meets that criteria, the fact there were a number of other dog actors that played Lassie doesn't prohibit an article about this specific dog actor. (Incidentally, if there is a call for a regrade, I think that's fine, but I strongly feel a merge is out of the question.) — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Its being GA does not mean it can't be merged, and its technically meeting WP:N does not either. The truth is, most of this article is not about Pal and doesn't belong here. With it removed, it would not meet WP:N nor WP:GA. Merged with Lassie, it would combine two weaker articles into one stronger, better one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Obviously the GA doesn't mean it can't be merged, but meeting WP:N is an extremely strong indication. I also don't see how you can say most of this article isn't about Pal and doesn't belong here. Everything in "Birth and early years" and the first two graphs of "MGM films" is all Pal, and the rest of that section and "Television series" are about Lassie information, but strictly with regard to Pal's participation. "Death" is again all Pal and "Legacy" is perfectly appropriate... — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Its about Pal as Lassie. Pal is not notable as Pal, he is notable as Lassie, the first of many. The Lassie information is about the character, not just Pal, and is repetitive to Lassie. Pal's history in the role, including his death, is fully appropriate within Lassie. There is no difference between Pal/Lassie and say Benji and Rin Tin Tin. You don't see articles for the first generation of those movie star dog legacies either. Further, Pal is not credited as "Pal" in any of those roles, but as Lassie. The only places he is referred to as Pal is in historical context. There is no Pal movie star, only Lassie, first played by a collie with a name of Pal. For another comparision, "Pal" is his kennel/casual name while "Lassie" is his official name - same dog, not differentiated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't buy this argument any more than I do that there is no difference between Terry and Toto; or, for that matter, between any role and and actor. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and the simple fact is Pal more than meets notability standards. (I mean, come on, the dog with "the most spectacular canine career in film history" isn't worth a Wikipedia entry?) But it seems to me there's no consensus for a merge here on the talk page, so if you want to keep pursuing this, take it up with WP:GAR for a reassessment and/or WP:AFD for a merge proposal. I'd recommend seeking the reassessment first, but that's just me... — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
AfD is not for merge discussions. A GAR, however, is highly likely, though also unnecessary to a merge discussion. Again, its status as a GA is not a valid reason to oppose a merge. The claims of "most spectacular canine career" are fan gushing and not supported by reliable sources. Note that Pal does not have a star on the Hollywood walk of fame, Lassie does. There is no clear consensus, so the next step is asking for other views from the appropriate projects. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose The quote "most spectacular canine career" is one you are free to disagree with, AnmaFinotera, but to call it not reliably sourced is false. It is from an article about Pal in the Saturday Evening Post, quoted in Parade, as the fn plainly states. Both are reliable sources. The dog Pal, as distinct from the film character, is certainly notable in his own right, having been the subject of numerous national publications, etc., and as progenitor of the line of collies to play the character for more than 60 years. Vivaldi's rationale for a merge actually strengthens the case against merging – there have been many collies playing the character over the years, but only one Pal. It is also difficult to see how marging the article about the dog Pal with the article about the character Lassie is helpful to the reader. He did, after all, play Laddie in "Son of Lassie".  JGHowes  talk 00:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, per the credits Lassie played Laddie, not a dog named Pal. It would aid the reader as it would have all of the dogs in one article about Lassie, rather than trying to give Pal a separate notability apart from Lassie. Please provide some of these numerous publications that are all about Pal, and just Pal, not Pal as the first Lassie. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Relevant information with proper citations. Ricardoread (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It's been almost a week since any discussion, and it seems like the consensus has only moved in the direction of not merge since bringing others into the conversation. Unless anyone opposes, I'm going to assume the debate is done here and drop the merge tags? And anyone who'd like to seek a GAR is more than welcome to... — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)