Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dogs (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Edits on Dog and Origin of the domestic dog[edit]


Sagaciousphil and anyone else, can you take a look at the recent edits in the last a few months on these both pages, and especially Origin of the domestic dog. Do we remove every earlier research because they slightly differs from the new one? One of the editor (William Harris) continues to do so. Discussion at Talk:Origin of the domestic dog#Western Europe and Eurasia. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I would suggest that both pieces of research should be included. Perhaps a wording could be agreed between the two editors along the lines of: "research undertaken by blah blah blah in (year) indicated Eurasian origins but more recently in (year) studies by blah blah blah show a European (or whatever)" Hafspajen (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Asia and Europe", that's how we shall refer, but then both terms are properly covered under "Eurasia". OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Use "Asia and Europe". Hafspajen (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Please be aware that when I commenced the review of the Origin of the domestic dog page much of it was uncited, the research consisted of little more than links to questionable newspaper articles or studies dating back to 1991, and thought was being given to salvaging what was useful back onto the main Dog page and tagging the Origin page for deletion. It required serious culling - refer to my comment in October 2014 on Talk:Dog#Dog Page - History and Evolution - the culling came as a surprise to nobody. None of the monitoring Administrators stepped in and said "Stop, this is going too far". Additionally, the amendments came in phases that gave time for editors to offer their comments; they did not comment. That is because everything I published was supported by citations to recent, peer-reviewed scientific journals. As for the earlier studies that were removed because they were slightly different to the newer ones, if you compare their authors to the huge lists of co-authors who signed off on Thalmann 2013 or Freedman 2014, you will find them listed there - they no longer supported their earlier propositions. If they are no longer supporting them, then they no longer warranted inclusion on the page. The Origin page is not a historical recollection, it is a statement of what we know today, and that is all that readers are interested in. They go there to find out where the dog came from, not to read about who said what 20 years ago. Regards, William Harristalk • 04:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

New wolf subspecies article[edit]

Please see Canis lupus variabilis that I have just accepted at AFC. It's a rather basic article with some rough edges - e.g. it's lacking a Taxobox - so it needs some TLC. Please also integrate it into the Subspecies of Canis lupus list article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Yes he had created the article after the discussion on my UTP and I had checked it a few minutes ago. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so are you going to fix up the article? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I would also inform the creator. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there was a slight delay due to ascertaining the correct citation for the trinomial classification for the taxabox, refer Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals#Trinomial reference. Regards, William Harristalk • 06:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

health section on mongrels should be altered[edit]

altered to remove the line on hybrid vigor.

i have tried to edit it and was told i was wrong and sent to a part of wiki that was incorrect so now i believe i am in the right place but who really knows anymore.

i gave the links to the studies and the results TWICE

This has been shown in a recent study in June 1, 2013 by the Journal of american veterinary medical association[14] Where with a large study of mutts and purebreds it was shown that mutts have no less risk than a purebred does of genetic related disorders. It was found that mutts had a higher risk of cranial cruciate ligament tears than did their purebred counterparts and that while both are equally susceptible to genetic disorders Purebreds with genetic disorders were limited to certain bloodlines with the particular disorder.[15]

Populations are particularly vulnerable when the dogs bred are closely related. Inbreeding among purebreds has exposed various genetic health problems not always readily apparent in less uniform populations. Mixed-breed dogs are more genetically diverse due to the more haphazard nature of their parents' mating. However, "haphazard" is not the same as "random" to a geneticist. The offspring of such matings might be less likely to express certain genetic disorders because there might be a decreased chance that both parents carry the same detrimental recessive alleles, but some deleterious recessives occur across many seemingly unrelated breeds, and therefore merely mixing breeds is no guarantee of genetic health. Also, when two poor specimens are bred, the offspring could inherit the worst traits of both parents. This is commonly seen in dogs from puppy mills.[16]

"June 1 Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) researchers studied the medical records of 62,750 dogs diagnosed with genetic disorders during a 15 year period.

The study, titled, Prevalence of inherited disorders among mixed-breed and purebred dogs: 27,254 cases (1995–2010), Studied prevalence of 24 genetic disorders in the population.

Ten disorders were found to be more common in purebred dogs, purebred dogs had no higher incidence than did mixed breed dogs of health concerns. Mixed breed dogs had a higher prevalence of cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) tears than did purebred dogs.

According to the researchers, the study illustrates that for most heritable diseases mixed breeds confer no greater over all health. Heritable diseases clearly run in some pure bred lines, however according to the researchers, thirteen of the 24 diseases studied were present across the entire canine population prior to breeding for specific traits, and are therefore just as likely to show up in a mixed breed dog as a purebred.

Heritable diseases can be devastating for pet owners; knowing the history of a dog's lineage may provide a buffer against some of these issues. In-breeding has certainly led some breeds to have a high incidence for some diseases, and mixes derived from that breed can suffer from the same set of issues."

TfD: Dog-related infoboxes proposed for merge[edit]

Template:Infobox dog crossbreed has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox dog breed. As these templates are of interest to WikiProject Dogs, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Regards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Info box changes[edit]

An editor is changing several dog breed articles either replacing the dog breed info box template or adding a taxonomy template. In the case of Thai Ridgeback, the dog breed info box has been removed entirely with the edit summary "Hm, no, as they are dingoes". As far as I can tell, no discussion has taken place anywhere - certainly not on the dog project. I have just reverted the Thai Ridgeback article again as the dog breed info box supplies the links to the breed standards as recognised by the FCI etc. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Looks like edit war too. Warned, also editor was previously warned for edit war, even before. Hafspajen (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Let me suggest that someone needs to amend the Dingo page, third line, where it states "The Australian name has therefore sometimes been applied to similar dogs in South-East Asia, believed to be close relations." to state that this usage does not extend to the taxonomic classification. Regards, William Harristalk • 21:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

An idea for article?[edit]

[1] An article? Suggestion? Hafspajen (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

This one should either go in the external links or be used as an additional reference for the foundation:

Dog behavior page - redevelopment[edit]

A proposal was made 9 months ago to merge the Dog behavior and the Dog communication pages, but there has been no further action. The matter has been raised again at Talk:Dog behavior#Merger discussion - dog behavior & dog communication. At present, the direction appears to be:

  1. Not to merge the two pages
  2. Redevelop the Dog Behavior page from its current state, which is rather poor (see discussion).

We offer interested parties an opportunity to comment at Talk:Dog behavior#Merger discussion - dog behavior & dog communication and call for assistance from those who have an interest and are willing to help. Regards, William Harristalk • 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Can someone from this project please have a look at recent edits to Dalmatian_(dog)? There has been some back and forth at that page related to the origin of the breed. In particular, the anonymous editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been aggressively edit warring. This editor has been reverted on other articles on the basis of adding false information, so it is probably good to have a knowledgeable editor review his edits to Dalmatian_(dog). Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (breeds)[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (breeds) for a draft of a future proposal for a notability guideline on domestic animal breeds. As your wiki-project is involved in this area, I am dropping off an invite to the discussion. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability (breeds). Thanks! JTdaleTalk~ 16:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Gull Dong listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gull Dong. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

Thanks in advance for taking a look at this. There is confusion about whether this breed is the same breed as the Bully Kutta, and/or whether or not that breed or any of these breeds are actually recognized breeds at all. There are some other breeds involved in the discussion as well. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Dog Meat Festival[edit]

Comments welcome at Talk:Dog Meat Festival#The name of this article.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge Proposal - Ancient dog breeds[edit]

Hello All. Ancient dog breeds are thought to be so based on the historical belief that these breeds date back over 500 years. The Wikipage has been based on one research paper by Parker in 2004 who simply showed that 9 breeds thought to be 'ancient breeds' had some sort of phylogenetic relationship, and this has already been pointed out on the Talk page by User:Mangojuice|Mango back in 2009 who proposed merging elsewhere. (We humans and dogs have a phylogenetic relationship if we look back far enough.) The research by Larson in 2012 shows that due to their remote geographic location, these breeds have simply been less mixed with other breeds during the Victorian period and that does not make them ancient. I propose that the Ancient dog breeds article be merged under Dog breeds in a short section simply stating this using both the Parker and Larson citations, and with the Ancient dog breeds page set up as a redirect to that section. See Talk:Ancient dog breeds#Merge Proposal. Regards, William Harristalk • 23:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This matter has now been actioned. William Harristalk • 12:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)