Glad you jogged my memory about this. It reminds me that Category:Dogs needs a great deal of WP:RM cleanup work. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I'll have a look .— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 9:04 am, Today (UTC+0)
If you see User:SMcCandlish/Organism names on Wikipedia#Capitalization (and disambiguation) of breeds and cultivars, you'll get an idea what an uphill climb it has been trying to get even basic consistency and sensibility in the names of animal breed articles. In about two years' worth of RM discussions, some subjected to organized WP:TAGTEAM opposition, I've been successful in cleaning up most of that mess and bringing some order to the chaos. Category:Dog breeds is the last hold-out. I've been waiting before trying to bring those articles under the unbrella, because the most concerted (and "how dare you"-attitude) push-back I received was from the dogs wikiproject early on. It made more sense to organize the other material first and use piles of RM precedent and a WP:CONSISTENCY argument to resolve the no-rhyme-or-reason naming of dog breed articles. And that's just the breeds. There's also these breed group articles, some of which are about breed groups recognized in the general caninology literature (either on the basis of genetics, or of human utilization of specific breeds), while others are specific to certain organizations and don't really align with the broader categorizations. I think per WP:NOTDICT, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:N we do not need articles on AKC's (etc.) labels, most especially those that don't correspond to anything more real than their own internal sorting system for dog shows and breeding programs. After at least most of the dog breeds mess is cleaned up, I want to draft a WP:Naming conventions (breeds) to cement these years of RM decisions into an actual guideline. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a great help. Thank you. I am copying this to my Talk for future reference. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It may be instructive to skim those old RMs. You'll see a familiar opponent in virtually all of them, and the central theme of all the arguments: consistency must be resisted, just because, and cherry-picking sources to get to a different name, even a foreign one, to thwart consistency, is a valid approach; this is necessary because wikiprojects having total authority to make up their own conflicting rules is super-duper-important, no one who didn't already work on an article a lot has any business changing it, and WP:MOS/WP:AT just need to die. If I may caricature the reasoning a little. Of the triumvirate opposing all these moves, one disappeared (the pigeon guy), and one changed their mind (the horse editor, whom I'd quoted in the first Twentse Landgans RM), leaving just the one. None of them are the dog editors; that was a different set of opposition early on, mostly triggered by a Billy (dog) → Billy dog move. That still needs to be done, because "Billy (dog)" indicates an individual dog named Billy, and as the quoted horse editor pointed out, it's WP:NATURAL English to add the species name after the breed name even among breeders any time they need to qualify. No dog person would ever say something as cryptic and confusing as "I have a Billy" to someone not already fairly certain to know they meant a dog breed by that name (unless they were intentionally trying to be a snooty ass). They'd either say "I have a Billy dog" or perhaps "My dog is a Billy" (still ambiguous; "I don't have a dog, by my wife is a Janet"), or at worst "I have a a Billy-breed dog", if they were going out of their way to just avoid speaking plain English for some reason. Similar resistance was met against "Akita dog". I wasn't even aware that needed to be disambiguated, but whatever. If one had to disambiguate in person, one would still say "Akita dog". — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yesterday you wrote, "Good job on the merge. I guess the next obvious one would be Hound Group → Hound ..."
Completed task for your approval.
Talking about "Billy", how about this:
Here're two other obvious ones: Toy Group → toy dog, and Companion Group → companion dog, with conforming copy edits (e.g. "The Maltese[malˈteːse] is a small breed of dog classified in the "toy dog" group by various kennel clubs ..." I've already done some copy editing at toy dog. The WP:SSF over-capitalization has been rampant all over these articles (going far beyond this I keep finding breed group sections, coat colours, etc., all capitalized). Things are not capitalized as proper nouns except in the specific context in which they are such (AKC's "Toy Group" is a proper noun in AKC, when discussing the group as a discrete entity, but two things called "Toy Group" in 2 clubs are "toy groups" as a plural common noun, for the same reason Oxford University and the University of California are "universities" not "Universities". Even when discussing a specific organization's terminology, it's annoyingly browbeating to keep doing things like "classified in AKC's Toy Group", when "classified in AKC's Toy group" will suffice. When discussing terminological conflicts (i.e. words as words, we can use italics or quotation marks to make this clear: "The AKC's Toy group is a subset of the international Toy and Companion classification (FCI's Group 6)", etc.
The only time something like a coat colour or other feature should be capitalized is when it's a formal competition category, and in that exact context "2015 photo of Moppins Wündercat III (a seal-point Himalayan), three-time TICA Grand Champion (Colorpoint Division)" – "Colorpoint" could be capitalized there, but would be lower-case otherwise, e.g. "both TICA and CFA, but not FIFe, have competitive divisions for color-point breeds; FIFe has separate divisions for different breeds including the Siamese and Himalayan", etc. [I'm just making up these details; I have no memorized which fancier orgs. do what.] In keeping with your recent edits, I agree that things like "scent hound" should not be fully compounded except in the case of proper names ("AKC's Scenthound group does not entirely correspond with the similar groups in two other clubs ...)". Basically, we should be using plain English when possible - colo[u]r-point, not "Colorpoint", long-haired not "Longhair", but without falisfying proper names (TICA has a "Domestic Shorthair" competition category for mixed-breed, short-haired cats; there is no "Domestic Shorthair" breed, and such cats should generally be refrred to as "domestic short-haired cats", not "Domestic Shorthairs"; it's only a proper name as a competition category in a particular organization's events). Anyway, the general principle is covered at MOS:CAPS: when in doubt, do not capitalise, and don't do so for emphasis (which is what all this "we capitalize everything important to our special interest" behaviour is). Also at MOS:LIFE: Do not capitalize terms for general groupings of organisms. It does not address formal, standardized breeds direct (by design – there's been a controversy about that for years, and it will need to be settled by RfC), and it includes a dog type/group example on purpose to indicate that we should not capitalize them. No one seems to be noticing, so I've attempted to address this more specifically at the MOS:ORGANISMS draft (the expanded version of MOS:LIFE we've been working on for a long time, but which has been held up because of the breeds dispute). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to this article. I don't have the capacity to take on the project right now, but I do hope to see the article promoted to Good status in the future. Keep up the great work! ---Another Believer(Talk) 21:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
As I explained in my edit to that page, if the headlines is about the dog's coat and colour then it must speak about their coat and colour, not just about their colour. This is being constructive, if someone knows the breed standards for their coat and their ocassional divergences, they must edit to add such data, until that the entry only informs about colour. Let's do not begin an edit war over such a simple issue.220.127.116.11 08:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I have added, "The coat of a Pointer is short, dense, smooth with a sheen. They are generally white with either liver, lemon, orange or black markings. Although pointers may have solid coloring in any of these hues, most pointers are primarily white with some body markings." — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard | 08:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Great, that is better. I am and come and go wikipedia editor (the consequences of being a heavy wikipedia user precisely 'cause I lack time to do more thorough research) who edits based on his common sense and knowledge (which I pride myself to be quite large) but I am posting this from a friend's computer because I've forgotten my account's password (it usually enters on its own thanks to computer-memory), so I do know a thing or two about the edits. Thanks for adding to the page, now it does makes sense to say "coat and colour".18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Well that's good! Do you live in Peru?
Why don't you add your Username here, please? — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard | 08:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)