Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs

WikiProject Dogs (Rated Project-class)
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.

The future of WikiProject dogs

Hello all of the registered participants of WikiProject Dogs. Excuse me for calling on you but "there has been a disturbance in The Force!"

The "View history" log shows that WikiProject Dogs was created in May 2006 to provide a way of collaborating on the development of "dog and dog-related articles". It reached its peak in 2008 with several departments and taskforces. At some stage, someone included the project as a sub-project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals and expanded the scope to include all of the Canidae, which includes dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and foxes that are referred to in mammal science as a collective group called "dogs". Nearly a decade after creation, the page view stats show that on average only 8 people visit this project each day. The Talk page shows a passing comment by a drive-by visitor from time to time. The page view stats show that on average only 3 people each day visit the Dog breeds taskforce and some of its subpages have seen no activity since 2008, so I assume all of the editing activity is occurring on the specific breed pages with little coordination from that taskforce. There are only 63 articles in Category:Dogs, and Category:WikiProject dog articles does not exist so it is unclear how the project manages dog articles. In summary, this project is almost defunct. Some of you might agree that it has been so for a number of years.

The "View history" log also reveals that over time, one person or another comes along and focuses on furthering the project but then after a year or two then moves on. Some of you might now remove yourselves from the participants list and that is not a concern. I have recently processed the backlog of articles that had been waiting for assessment since 2011. I have attempted to restructure the project pages to assist visitors and to encourage them to get involved with the project if they decide to do so. Quoting Wikipedia, "A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. These groups often focus on a specific topic area." I see little evidence of this happening under this project.

When an organization falters, it is a signal that it needs to review its strategy and in particular its scope. I propose below some options for participants to consider, and seek comments over the next two weeks. The options I propose (and there may be others you might offer) are:

1. A - Do nothing. By this we assume that the project is easily found and therefore provides a good "signpost" to direct interested editors to the right places. At some time in the future, a group might form to progress this project further.
2. B - Full Expansion. There might be more interest in the project if its current scope was more clearly defined by its name. By this we would rename WikiProject dogs to WikiProject Canids so that it would more clearly show to other editors that it includes dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and foxes, and therefore perhaps attract more editors willing to assist from those subject areas. (It is supposed to be covering these now. I see little input from editors who are well known on the pages of these other areas.)
3. C - Partial Expansion. Rename WikiProject dogs as WikiProject Canines so that it would more clearly show to other editors that it includes the "wolf-like canids" such as dogs, wolves, jackals and coyotes but excludes the foxes, and therefore perhaps attract editors willing to assist form those subject areas.
4. D - Partial Contraction. There might be little interest in the project because its scope has become too wide. Under this option we return to the original definition used at the articles creation of "dog and dog-related articles". The project would remain named WikiProject Dogs. It is to include only the domestic dog, the dingo, wild, free-range and feral dogs.
5. E - Full Contraction. This is Option D plus we narrow the scope to be about biological "dog and dog-related articles". Articles that are not about biological dogs, such as articles that are about dogs in books, movies, songs (and the names of astronomical objects e.g. the "dog star") would no longer be supported under the WikiProject Dogs banner.
6. F - Super Expansion. Consider creating WikiProject Domesticated Animals under WikiProject Animals. (Suggested by editor Miyagawa below. Domestic Dogs would join it. WikiProject Cats does not have a Cats Breed Task Force, as yet. There is a WikiProjec​t Agriculture/Livestoc​k task force in existence that may be interested in joining.)

I seek your comments over the next two weeks prior to a possible proposal to be put to a vote. Perhaps we simply badge the project as inoperative on the project page and leave it for historical purposes. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 07:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• There is one other option I'd like to table, although I've no idea how possible it might be. How about a WikiProject Domesticated Animals. So that'd include pets, farm animals etc. However, I'm not sure what it's like over at WikiProject Cats as I've never been involved with them and as for the farm animals, I haven't even checked to see if there is a pre-existing WikiProject that exists there. Miyagawa (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject Cats scope includes the wild varieties as well - lions, tigers etc. Their collaboration page became inactive in 2010, so they suffer from a similar issue (are we seeing a pattern emerging here?) There is no WikiProject Domestic Animals but you raise a good point. At the minimum, this would right now make a fine Domestic Mammals Taskforce under WikiProject Mammals even without including cats and dogs. The difference between a WikiProject is that it covers "at least several hundred pages to thousands of pages", whereas a Taskforce "involves a few dozen to a few hundred pages" according to WP:PROJGUIDE, which also provides guidance on how to set it up. Alternately at the medium, there could be created a WikiProject Domestic Mammals that sits under WikiProject Mammals, and includes WikiProject Dogs and and WikiProject Cats as its "sub-projects" if their scopes were reduced to the domestic forms. Alternately at the maximum, a WikiProject Domestic Animals could be established under WikiProject Animals that would also include domesticated birds etc. This would be a huge undertaking but not impossible for an interested group. William Harris • (talk) • 23:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This idea is not without merits; I was helping draft something similar, a WikiProject Breeds, but it did not get off the ground. Despite what I said below about expanding scope, it is not the only approach. The problem I see with WikiProject Domestic Animals being viable is the same one WikiProject Breeds had: there are already long-entrenched "camps" of editors who have a vested personal interest in perpetuating all the separate WikiProject [insert one specific domestic animal type here]s, because in several cases each consists of a small, winnowed "in crowd" of a like mind about "their" topic, who can and will tagteam against "outsiders", sometimes very successfully (especially if they've got some pet admins). The two approaches to dealing with this are to make the project more attractive to new people and swell its ranks, diluting the influence of the "owners", or forming a new mega-project that merges them all as "Domestic" or "Breeds", with one clique counteracting the excesses of another.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• I think this project would function better if it focused on dogs, not all canids, and not dogs in media (though there's no guarantee that narrowing the scope would revive the project). A couple of years ago, articles on mammal species were scattered across seven different projects: mammals, cats, dogs, equines, cetaceans, rodents and primates. I added the mammal banner to all the Felidae, Canidae, Equinae and Cetacea species. The species account for a pretty small number of the articles with the cats/dogs/equines banner, and I don't see that people interested in cats, dogs and horses are likely to do much work on wild relatives of the domesticated species. Plantdrew (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:PROJGUIDE advises: "Is this a 'natural' scope? Will other people be able to easily understand what kind of articles the group is working on?" I concur with you, and I am not convinced that people coming to a project named WikiProject Dogs are expecting to also find work being done on the Black-backed jackal from the remote regions of southern Africa - they are expecting to find work being done on the Golden Retriever or similar. One thing is certain: it is the registered participants of WikiProject Dogs who will decide shortly on what is in and what is out of its scope; articles on other species will need to live with that decision. William Harris • (talk) • 23:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• I'm more with Plantdrew. I might edit a wild canine article if I see obvious issues, but I generally don't expand them or do considerable work there. I don't think ruling out the dogs in media type articles would help the project necessarily and might restrict it. New users with an interest in joining might be put off or confused if we didn't cover stuff like Old Yeller. Maybe the thing to do is start an article improvement drive and try to get more GAs, maybe improve some of the ones that have been delisted and get them relisted? White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I do have an interest in wolves and am part of the "Wikipedia wolf pack", I span both camps, however I can see what has happened to this project and it is in need of some urgent attention. There are arguments both ways for dogs in media and I have no position on that - I will observe other people's points of view. Article improvement is one of the purposes of a WikiProject but unfortunately collaboration appears to have broken down for both Dogs and Cats. Perhaps one of the reasons is that the examples used for the article Importance Scale is not clearly defined for this project, so without a guide we are unable to ascertain which are the important articles to work on and which are not. We currently have 29 articles rated as "Top Importance" - rightly or wrongly - however only 4 of them are at GA status. One of the Top importance articles is Hounds that has been at class=stub since 2002 - it is actually a list but that might be clarified at some point in the future. We have one more Tab available on this project's main pages (on the Project page, near the top of the screen) and perhaps it could be used for managing collaboration in the future. Our flagship article Dog is rated at class=B by the Dog Breeds Taskforce, having lost its GA status in 2007. I understand that a WikiProject does not "own" the articles under its banner, but if there were ever an argument for jointly "managing" an article through a WikiProject "collaboration" page then it is this one - there are far too many "drive-by" editors having their way in an unstructured manner on that article, and one long-term participant there has been slowly but surely deleting content under the guise of "improvement" for quite some time. Our quality grading scheme is given to us and is the same across Wikipedia, however we can include examples from within our WikiProject for what is a GA level article etc. Our importance rating examples and implementation is up to us. Where we attempt to direct our resources for the most value is also up to us and any editor willing to assist. William Harris • (talk) • 23:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• I think that we should increase our advertising on this project. We should create a survey saying how people were recruited to this project, and how we could capture that for use. What do you guys think? Jamesjpk (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Retraction - I have found all of our articles: Category:WikiProject Dogs articles, now included on the main project page under the heading "All articles". I have also found the list of Category:WikiProject Dogs members who display the project userbox on their userpage, now listed on the membership page. There are 90 of them, of which 30 are members of the Breed Taskforce. Of course, not all of these are active and two of them have been blocked indefinitely. I wonder what other little hidden gems are there just waiting for us to find them?
I have just had a quick look at some of the 90 editors that display the project userbox. Of those I looked at, many have not seen any editing activity in 3-8 years. I have also had a look in the archived Talk pages for the Project page. Some items of interest. There was once a WikiProject Dog Breeds, that got merged. There was a debate over what should be done with Movies, Cartoons, TV Programmes,and Comics. Someone thought that it was a good idea to start badging Canidae articles under WikiProject Dogs - no discussion was entered into. Later, someone complained that the scope was out of control. All of this was before 2008!! I see that WikiProject Mammals collaboration page ceased operation in 2011, and a good contact over at WikiProject Birds tells me they almost went extinct not long ago when a number of editors left over some minor disagreement. William Harris • (talk) • 05:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• I would go for full expansion (aside from fictional and other peripheral stuff); this will attract more biology editors and just critical-thinking, policy-conscious editors in general, and help stem the tide of COI articles on vanity dog "breeds", and other claptrap. Also agree that a project has to be advertised in various ways (the most effective isn't really advertising but directly inviting the participation of new and non-new editors working on the articles). I know from experience that having some simple and goal-oriented stuff to do is helpful – neither vague "overhaul all the dog stuff" hand-waving, nor bureaucratic "collaboration of the week" and "editing marathon contest" stuff. The fact, however, will remain that WP's serious editorial pool is dwindling as a natural part of the project lifecycle. Most of the important and/or controversial topics already have articles; what is left is hard work improving them, and the hard and largely uncheered work of adding articles on more obscure but still provably notable topics. This isn't "sexy" and doesn't attract many editors, so wikiprojects of all sorts are shrinking. This is actually okay; it's fine for a wikiproject to essentially consist of 3 or 5 or even 2 active editors, as long as they're actually active. What keeps a wikiproject viable are: a) actually bothering to use its talk page to coordinate, and b) avoiding territorial disputes (like taking "our articles" stances against "outsider" editors, etc.) that reflect negatively on the work and the people willing to do it. Not everyone is a "joiner" and wants to sign up to be in a wikiproject, but may be doing good work. At some point, a topical wikiproject's work can essentially be done. We're not there yet, but when that day comes, it is okay for a project like this to be tagged as dormant.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC); revised 11:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Sobering comments as always, thanks Mac. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• With the exception of those Projects falling under the umbrella of Military History, in my opinion, very few are constructive or productive these days as many are "controlled" by a small group of editors [obsessively] pushing their own agendas. It appears this Project is now being led down the same road with changes being made without discussion and seeking to take control of this Project. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Not come across WP:BOLD before, Phil? Perhaps you might outline what that agenda is? William Harris • (talk) • 09:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I suggest reading WP:BRD before continuing with sarcastic comments. I have no idea what, if any, agenda might be at play here; my comment was regarding how other Projects appear to be presently functioning. Anyway, I removed my name from the list of Project participants a few hours ago as I hadn't realised it was included (Hafspajen, who added it, retired from WP over 10 months ago after being harassed/hounded by socks etc so s/he is highly unlikely to return and might as well be removed as well). SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that, Phil. The artwork of Hafspajen is know across Wikipedia and you have been active with the Dog Breed Task Force. Perhaps you might reconsider sometime in the not too distant future. As you can see above, my agenda is to put the options (plus others identified) to the membership, perhaps leading to a vote or leading to no further action. That is not comparable to a "small group of editors [obsessively] pushing their own agendas", that is called democracy. William Harris • (talk) • 10:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I am fully conversant with what a democracy is, thank you. Interesting to note that you claim "I have basically been "WikiProject Dogs" for the last couple of years" - really? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
You may be conversant with what democracy is but can you recognize it when you see it? As interesting as you might find trawling through my User Contributions log - for an as yet undisclosed purpose - the context of that conversation was the assessment of articles, was it not? Do you dispute that I have been assessing articles for this project for the last couple of years? More importantly, do you have anything constructive to add regarding the options under consideration because this is what you were originally invited here to do. William Harris • (talk) • 11:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Phil's general point is valid, and one I make frequently. The no. 1 source of conflict on WP (outside of naturally controversial topics like GMO foods and Trump) is control-freak behavior by insular cliques of editors, which is what I was getting at in my own comments above, both with regard to WP:OWN and in favor of recruiting more people by invite when you see them working on dog stuff. BTW, it's helps – a lot – to refer to participation and participants not membership and members. The wikiprojects still using the latter words need to be rewritten to use the former. The last time WP had an actual internal membership organization was when WP:Esperanza was active, and it got shut down as WP:NOTHERE. Anyway, the main way a wikiproject avoids becoming the plaything of one or two editors is by making sure it always has new people in it with their own ideas, and the readers in mind, foremost, over internal politicking or editorial egos.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
These days I am not fussed whether a wikiproject is active or not - the biggest benefit is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Assessment page, which gives an analysis of the state of the articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
My vote would be "C" partial expansion to include wild animals that people can class as dogs, such as wolves, coyotes etc. 'E' is a whole different kettle of fish. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Apologies for the late contribution. Personally I am in favour of "D" partial contraction. I think the inclusion of all canids is too broad in scope, and whilst I have little interest in dogs from film or literature (with the possible exception of Jock of the Bushveld) I think this is the natural home for such work. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Close - no further action

Hello Miyagawa, User:White Arabian Filly, Cavalryman V31, Plantdrew, Jamesjpk123, SMcCandlish, and Cas Liber. Thanks for your responses.

• I invited 32 "participants" to this discussion but only you 7 responded to the options.
• There are 6 options proposed and we have each one supported.
• Given this situation, I propose no further action.
• I don't believe that this project should join the ranks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Inactive projects, however we should probably tag the top of its Project page with Template:WikiProject status as semi-active i.e. it is not as active as it once was. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 23:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree that semi-active is best tag. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Template now in place. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Dog breed article moves

Please see Talk:Dalmatian (dog breed) re: recent changes to the article title of several dog breeds. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Domestic animal breed page names

Following recent discussions at Talk:Campine chicken and Talk:Dalmatian dog, I think a generalised discussion is needed to clarify naming conventions for domestic animal breeds and types. From what I can see there are several issues that complicate this issue the primary of which is probably global a lack consistency about animal breed names and naming conventions. The second is likely animal breed names are often derived from a place and so can be used across multiple species and also non-animal related objects, place names, peoples, cultures and even languages.

It is my opinion that currently we do not have the balance quite right and I suspect it stems from a desire to apply a uniform approach to an inherently inconsistent problem.

Whilst I will outline my opinions and a proposal below I feel common sense and clarity should prevail here over blind adherence to an ill fitting policy.

In my opinion simply including the species in the page name for a breed of animal whose name does not by convention include that species is misrepresentative. To use Dalmatian dog as an example, no one refers to their "Dalmatian dog" but instead to their "Dalmatian" and (without having actually confirmed) I suspect very few reliable sources refer to "Dalmatian dogs". I also found the old Dalmatian (dog) quite (albeit slightly less) jarring and again it could conceivably be misinterpreted as "a dog named Dalmatian". Dalmatian is quite rightly a disambiguation page and so we are left with a quandary which I feel was briefly solved with the move to the page name Dalmatian (dog breed), as it is clear and there is little chance of ambiguity. On the other hand some breeds of domestic animals by convention include their species in their name, for example St John's water dog, in these cases the species rightly belongs in the page name.

What I propose is:
1. Convention should rule. Informed up by reliable sourcing.
2. Where disambiguation is required, a clear, common sense disambiguator be added. Like (dog breed), or (horse type) for pages like Cob (horse).
3. Where no disambiguation is required, nothing be needlessly added. For instance Border Leicester sheep which are by convention called Border Leicesters and there are no disambiguation issues.
4. Allowances be made for exemptions, particularly differences between species. Discussions on a goat breed's talk page may not work for a dog breed and so if contentious, the individual talk page should be used to reach consensus.

I have will add messages on the talk pages of WP:WikiProject Agriculture/Livestock task force, WP:WikiProject Cats, WP:WikiProject Equine and WP:WikiProject Poultry in the hope of capturing the target audiences. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC).

• WP:ATDAB policy exists for a reason, and years of RMs have consistently applied it to breed articles (I've catalogued most of them at WP:BREEDDAB, though some recent ones are missing, like Campine Chicken). What's going on here, among those who keep losing it over things like "Campine chicken" or "Shetland pony" and demanding "Campine (chicken)" and "Shetland (pony)", is a specialized style fallacy. If two cat fanciers (for example) are talking to each other, they say something like "I have a Manx" and "I prefer Persians." If they are not talking to cat people, they often have to disambiguate. "A Manx what?" "Why do you narrow your dating pool so much?" We universally do this by adding the species name (or a synonym or subset of it) after the breed name: cat, dog (or hound, etc.), pig (or swine), pigeon, horse, pony, etc., etc. Thus "Manx cat". This is a natural feature of English, and it is not species-specific. It does not matter that when dog breeders/fanciers are talking to or writing for each other they just say "My Dalmatian is a vigorous runner"; the answer to "Dalmatian what?" is "Dalmatian dog."

That preamble out of the way:

1. Yes, convention should and does rule, per WP:CONSISTENCY. No that does not mean dog breeder or chicken breeder convention, it means Wikipedia article title policy convention. We don't depend on unreliable sourcing, so of course it's informed by reliable sourcing. But do not fall for the specialized-style fallacy: "reliable sources" does not mean "just specialist sources". When it comes to how to write English for a general audience, specialized sources [on anything other than writing English for a general audience] verge on the least reliable, because they are written in varying levels of insider jargon that is cloudy at best and often opaque to the non-initiated. This is important here because the vast majority of domestic animal breed names, by themselves, are ambiguous, mostly being place, culture, or nationality names, and thus usually confusable in one context or another with a human population (even with two-part names, e.g. Argentine Criollo, Anglo-Nubian, Welsh Black, Algerian Arab, etc.).
2. Nope, because:
1. A. Per WP:ATDAB policy, we use natural disambiguation when available, while parenthetic is the choice of last result other than making up a descriptive title (like 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team – we only do that when there is no WP:COMMONNAME). For breeds, natural disambiguation is virtually always available., even if it grates on the ears of breeders who don't use it when talking with other pig or turkey or whatever specialists. The only conceivable case natural disambiguation is unavailable is when a) the common name in English is a foreign term that includes the species name or a synonym of it (e.g. Dachshund, in which -hund = hound) such that a "breed + species" name would be redundant (Dachshund hound or Dachshund dog); and b) the name is ambiguous and must be disambiguated; ${\displaystyle \wedge }$ the breed is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name; and d) there is no other nearly-as-common alternative name to use instead – all four at once. Only then would we resort to parenthetic disambiguation (I think we'd agree that the intervening disambiguation case – comma-based – isn't appropriate here.) This virtually never happens. The only case I can think of is a breed and a crossbreed (both cattle) that share the same name, such that one's disambiguated with "(breed)" and the other with "(crossbreed)" because even "Black Hereford cattle" was ambiguous.
2. B. Multi-word disambiguations like "(dog breed)" are overdisambiguation; in the ultra-rare cases that we need a parenthetic disambiguator for a breed, ever, it's simply "(breed)", per WP:DAB and WP:CONCISE. One of the most common speedy renaming patterns at WP:RM/TR is removal of extraneous words from disambiguations, so even if some ginned up attempt at "local consensus" went around renaming things again like you tried the other day, others will object to it again and again and it won't stick.
3. Yes, though "by convention called" (i.e., how breeders of Border Leicesters talk about them) is irrelevant. It should be at Border Leicester not Border Leicester sheep because there is no other Border Leicester from which to disambiguate the breed. I.e., there isn't anything breeds-specific going on here, it's just routine application of the don't-unnecessarily-disambiguate rule. We disambiguate when there's an article title clash, and even when there's not if the resulting name is intolerably ambiguous, as it was with "Algerian Arab" now at Algerian Arab sheep, etc.
4. No, per WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:CONLEVEL, and WP:OWN policies. This is just another "let different wikiprojects make up their own conflicting rules" proposal, and we just don't go there.
• An additional and serious problem with this parenthetic nonsense is that it presupposes that everything claimed to be a breed actually is one. This often turns out to not be the case. Many are crossbreeds with no breed recognition by any notable organization, others are names for feral or mongrelized populations, some for domestic–wild hybrids, others for sub-breeds or appearance variations, for types or classes or breed groups, for landraces, for local populations not distinct except by geography, and so on. It can sometimes take a lot of additional sourcing to determine whether something is a breed (and according to whom). WP labeling them all breeds without concrete proof of this on a per-case basis is a WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:V problem all at once. Anything that fails all the core content policies simultaneously cannot proceed.
— SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  09:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, an older discussion on this exact topic is here. One problem I see with dog names is that some of these are arguably the most common uses of that particular adjective in English. Thanks to Disney, every kid knows that a Dalmatian is a type of dog. Most people will never even learn that "Dalmatian" refers to anything else. The phrase "Dalmatian dog" just isn't common or natural in everyday English.

Another problem is that alternative two-word names do exist for some of these breeds, eg "Brittany spaniel" as a synonym for "Brittany". In that case, "Brittany dog" just looks bizarre. The title was essentially made-up on the spot.

These concerns don't apply to every dog breed, and honestly, I haven't even heard of all of the breeds whose pages were recently moved. I just wanted to throw in some ideas. Zagalejo^^^ 17:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It emphatically is common in everyday English, just not among "dog people". Incontrovertible proof: news, books, web. The exact phrase "Dalmatian dog" is even overwhelmingly more common in book sources than the phrase Dalmatian breed. Dog breeders and fanciers are living in a magical alternative reality tunnel in which they're very incorrectly certain that the way they talk with other dog people is universally the way English is used in every context by everyone, and that everyone understands their jargon automatically. (And your assumption that everyone who uses en.Wikipedia is familiar with 1961 Disney content is faulty, if it were even relevant – Disney didn't do a movie named after every dog breed.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  01:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: The fact that Brittany spaniel is another name of the Brittany dog breed is not a "problem" it's an alternative name we should consider using. I'd bet good money it's actually the WP:COMMONNAME, too, just not among dog-specific publications. If it's not it's very, very close. This can be demonstrated by doing a Google News search an excluding surnames from "Brittany Surname here" results (up to the max Google will allow), then looking at the actually dog-related result. "Brittany spaniel" is very common [1]. It's also really common in books; most of those that do not include "spaniel" are dog-focused publications, not general-audience works [2].  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  02:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Raw Google search numbers can be misleading. This doesn't even use the phrase "Dalmatian dog", as best as I can tell. Neither does this. And lots of the results are just incidental pairings of the two words (eg, "the Dalmatian dog breed"). I'm not going to analyze all of the links. But one thing I did infer from the book results is that the Library of Congress subject heading is indeed "Dalmatian dog". If it's good enough for them, then I'm not going to spend any more time on this.
Given a choice between "Brittany dog" and "Brittany spaniel", I'd definitely pick the latter. Although, as an aside, I don't like the way your argument dismisses "dog fanciers". We want people who are passionate about dogs to be editing these articles. Their enthusiasm and expertise should count for something, and this condescending attitude turns people away. Zagalejo^^^ 05:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Dog fanciers are very welcome to edit the articles, complete with their passion about dogs, but they must realise that Wikipedia is not primarily for reading by enthusiasts and experts and other people with a passion for dogs. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Aye, and Zagalejo is imagining a "tone" that isn't present. I'm a cat fancier – like off-the-chart "crazy cat gentleman", cat fancier. I apply the exact same criteria I'm applying here to cat articles, and I started the cleanup in that category, then livestock and poultry, and moved to dogs dead last. So, any suggestion that I'm scornful of dog fanciers and their concerns is mistargeted. I'm entirely aware that the dog fancy has "it's ways". The very point, though, is that they are not Wikipedia's ways, and not the ways of English usage in a general-audience register, for people with no experience of pure-bred dogs, and often limited experience with English itself.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• SMcCandlish, I remain unconvinced by your arguments and your Google searches are frankly underwhelming. A quick glance at my parent's (early 90s edition) World Book Encyclopedia this afternoon revealed "Dalmatian is a popular breed of ..." (only Dalmatian entry) and "Brittany is a popular ... also known as the Brittany spaniel ..." (followed Brittany entry). An online search of Encyclopædia Britannica revealed "Dalmatian, dog breed named after ..." whilst the search function displays "Dalmatian (breed of dog)". My knowledge of Flemish chooks is a little scratchy, but Shetland ponies are by convention called "Shetland ponies" and so that is not in any way controversial, I'd imagine to the people of the Shetland Islands they are just "ponies", and a look at Britannica reveals "Shetland pony, breed of horse ...". As to your labelling me and others with similar concerns "dog fanciers", I assume you are attempting bluster as a diversion. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC).
Already addressed this [3]. PS: things like Shetland ponies are called just Shetlands among horse fanciers. Every usage about dogs that seems strange to dog people is normal to horse people and don't-care-about-animals-just-dubstep-or-chemistry people, just as usage that seems inept to horse people about horses seems regular to you. Let me quote one of the most active horse-focused editors (who also initially opposed natural DAB in favor of parenthetic but switched) summing up the issue pretty well in January 2015, on distinguishing between Mustang horses and other things named "Mustang": "We have a[n article about the] Shetland pony, which within the pony world is commonly called a "Shetland", likewise, within the horse world, we have "Mustangs" "Arabians" "Hanoverians" and so on. Outside of the horse world, any rational person will clarify an "Arabian horse" or a "Hanoverian horse" so as to be clear where we are talking about a horse or not." [4] This is not different in any way for dogs, sheep, rabbits, turkeys, cats, etc., etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• No change. There's an awful lot of words here, but no convincing case for either changing WP:ATDAB, or carving out exceptions from it (nor is this the right venue for that, per WP:CONLEVEL). IMO, ATDAB already strikes the right balance: natural disambiguation is favored where there is an alternative title in common use, with the threshold of what's "common" left to common sense and case-by-case determination. WikiProjects have some freedom on how to decide what's "common" for the articles in their purview, but WP:CONLEVEL is firm: WikiProject guidance must be consistent with ATDAB. That means that a title that is common in non-specialist writing (and it doesn't need to be the most common) is to be favored over a parenthetical, even if it's not common in specialist writing. If anyone has an issue with that, they need to take it up on Wikipedia talk:Article titles; a WikiProject does not have the authority to ignore project-wide guidance. —swpbT go beyond 15:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• No change Wikipedia is written for a general audience, as SMcCandlish has amply argued. The naming preference of groups that take a special interest in various subjects is routinely ignored in favor of WP:COMMONNAME and that should be the case here. This change serves no-one well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• It should be on a case-by-case basis. The regional names like Pomeranian or Newfoundland I would favor adding dog instead of (dog). Pomeranian has several animal breeds including a duck, a goose, and a sheep. Also Brittany dog would be preferable to Brittany (dog) as the latter would most likely refer to a dog named Brittany. As for Dalmatian, there's the debate whether the dog is the primary topic, and then afterwards (which I suppose is this thread) whether Dalmatian dog or Dalmatian (dog) is more commonly used in general. I'll side with Shetland pony over Shetland (pony) though. I don't see much use for specifying dog breed vs. dog unless there are multiple articles. I also agree that it's redundant to add dog to a name like American Bulldog dog or to ones that have already established primary topic like Poodle or Bloodhound. But then you have purposely redundant dabs like Hound dog. Within the article it can stick with the specific name without dog afterwards. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It's more that "hound dog" is a genuine Southern American colloquialism, and lots of things have been named this after Elvis popularized the song by that name. Actual dogs wouldn't be at titles like "Foo Hound dog"; if "Foo Hound" were actually ambiguous and not the primary topic, then "Foo Hound (breed)", since "dog" is already automatically implicit in hound, and would be redundant.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll add that WP:ATDAB seems to have a suitable flow: primary, then natural phrasing, then parentheses, while avoiding awkward phrases like Bulldog dog AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• No change per SMcCandlish and others. It is less important that you approve of his style of discussion than that his arguments are sound. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD:Majestic Tree Hound

This seems to hinge on what the notability standards are for a minor breed that's not recognised by the major kennel clubs, but does seem to have some recognition around its own breed owners. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that would be true of anything. My book collection has great significant to me and the people who like to borrow my books, but we don't need an article about it. :-) 11:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Followup note, for future reference

The way to deal with this in the future is simple. We certainly do not need that article, since it's a miserable stub and will almost certainly remain one, and new-breed attempts like this most often result in extinction within a decade, meanwhile most of the sourcing is not truly reliable (dog fancier publications are largely written by breeders and serve a promotional purpose).

The fix is an article like List of dog crossbreeds and List of experimental cat breeds (yes, they could use more consistent naming). We just a couple of months ago AfDed to merge an iffy cat article into the latter of those list articles, and the same can be done with iffy dog article like this one into the former. We could quite literally end up with 100+ crap "articles" like this if we don't take this approach (and we already have dozens of potential merge candidates), because backyard breeders are trying to create new breeds all the time, and if they look funny or whatever, someone somewhere (probably with a connection to one or more breeders) will write about them somewhere and lend a false sense of notability. Maybe this Majestic Tree Hound page technically passes the GNG, by a [dog] hair, but the project is better served by compressing info on wanna-be breeds like this into a list article.

PS: We also have List of extinct dog breeds and a bunch of junk stubs should merge to that, too.
11:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup of breed group mess

FYI: Pointers to relevant discussions elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Non-Sporting Group#Requested move 20 February 2018. The follow-on comments also cross-reference various ongoing merge discussions. 11:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

06:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Call name

Is this an official term in the world of canines? Please see Call name (disambiguation). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Found myself: Breed registry, but may be a better target? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. 07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Dog sports

Question: will it make sense to move in here with dog sport activities, competition results etc.? This might result in massive amount of pages, articles (depending what level of competition is worthy of being added here but I assume at least World Championship level competitions under FCI are worthy). What about competitors? Can you point me to some specific guidelines on the matter? This is not about dog shows - rather obedience, agility, IPO, herding etc. Nimdil (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Water dog needs help

The Water dog and Gun dog need some urgent help I have started with Gun dog any help would be wonderful. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Dwanyewest, I agree entirely, gundog is inadequate and water dog is a complete mess, it seems to include all retrievers. I'm currently away from home, but when I return I will see what I can do using the several books I have on the topic. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC).
Dwanyewest, I have done a minor re-write although there remains plenty of opportunity for someone to take the article much further. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC).

Should this exist?

What's anyone's opinion of American Temperament Test Society existing. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD:Red-Tiger Bulldog

Red-Tiger Bulldog has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited at the article's entry at AfD. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC).

AfD:Continental bulldog

Continental bulldog has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited at the article's entry at AfD. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC).

AfD:Leavitt Bulldog

Leavitt Bulldog has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited at the article's entry at AfD. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC).

Play bow

I wonder whether anyone wants to dissuade me from (eventually) writing this article. There has been some research by dog behaviorists, and there's at least one usable image on Commons. Or maybe someone who knows more about dogs (that would not be hard!) would like to do it? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

... and they have a category: c:Category:Dogs bowing to initiate play. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, how extensive is your reference? I think an article like Dog body language would be great. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC).
So far I have noted on my home comp (I'm currently at work) a couple of different analyses to what I believe is the same study that casts doubt on a previous study. We in fact already have Body language of dogs, to which I've just redirected your Dog body language redirect red link. I think that's a useful overview to have but I only found it through its use of one of the images in that Commons category. I note that German Wikipedia has de:Vorderkörpertiefstellung, which adds academic references that JSTOR may well not show me (haven't looked yet). Thoughts from you folks who know the field? Yngvadottir (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC) ... German Wikipedia led me to a usable book reference and JSTOR lets me see multiple articles by Bekoff including the one critiqued in the later work. I think I'll set this aside and come back and do it if no one else has first. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

List of articles that need improving

Bracco Italiano, Pudelpointer, Pointing breed, Galgo Español, Ca de Bou are there other dog breed articles that need additional information as I am trying to add sources to articles without third person information. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Polish Greyhound, Cirneco dell'Etna also need help to if there any others I would like to potentially work on them. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

New article Kurdish dog

Could someone take a look at this please? I'm not sure this is right, or that the sources all back it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on the origin of the Poodle

There is a request for comment on this at Talk:Poodle#Request for comment on how to describe the dispute over the origin of the poodle. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the Godfather of dog fighting notable?

Ed Faron is widely recognised as the godfather of dog fighting which he did for 40 years as part of Wildside Kennels do you think he should he should have an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources if anyone is interested [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]Dwanyewest (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Is Wallace the pitbull notable ?

Should Wallace (pitbull) have an article as he was a Disc dog in world championships what are anyone's thoughts? Dwanyewest (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have some sources if anyone is interested [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Dwanyewest (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Is •2006 Cynosport World Champion •2007 Purina Pro Plan Incredible Dog Challenge National Champion. •He qualified multiple times for the Ashley Whippet World Championships, the UFO World Finals, the Skyhoundz World Finals, and the USDDN World Finals. good enough as accomplishments. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)