Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

A proposal to reduce the number of articles which in the past have been badged WPDOGS on their talk pages.

Calling 07bargem, User:4444hhhh, Coaster1983, Cyclonebiskit, Elf, Hutcher, Lisapollison, Miyagawa, R9tgokunks, SMcCandlish, The Cool Kat, VanTucky, Dougweller, Dinosaur Fan, Cavalryman V31, Gareth Griffith-Jones, User:Genegerbreader, Jamesjpk123, 7&6=thirteen, CanineCrew, Atsme, Puduḫepa, MarialeegRVT, Normal Op.

As stated on the main WPDOGS page: "The scope of this project includes those articles contained within the Category:Canines and any other articles that directly relate to dogs, whether living or extinct."

Following the link to this category will reveal a list of links to articles about something that can bite you! These articles are about wolves, dogs, coyotes, jackals, foxes etc. This is our base.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide advises: "The pages of a WikiProject are the central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. Editors there develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes and keep track of work that needs to be done. It also provides a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed."

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Tagging pages with WikiProject banners advises: "Many WikiProjects use talk page banners to mark certain pages as within the scope of the WikiProject. This helps the WikiProjects to organize their progress improving pages within the project's scope......Consequently, pages should only be marked with WikiProject banners for projects that intend to support the tagged pages." [My bolding]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#WikiProjects define their scopes advises: "If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of a WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article. For example, washing toys for babies reduces transmission of some diseases, but the banners for WP:WikiProject Health and fitness, WP:WikiProject Biology, WP:WikiProject Viruses and/or WP:WikiProject Medicine do not need to be added to Talk:Toy."

In summary, WPDOGS gets to badge those articles that it intends to improve.

Back in December, we agreed on an Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Assessment#Importance scale, which categorises the nearly 3,866 articles and files currently badged as belonging to WPDOGS.

Since then, all of the articles rated as Top, High, and Mid have been placed on our recent changes patrol list to be watched over. A list of 100 "suspect" dog articles from the Mid importance category in need of validation, deletion, or merging was compiled and this now sits on the top of this Talk page for working through. The 700 articles in these 3 categories should be accepted as being in-scope to WPDOGS because their subjects are capable of biting you!

There exists another 2,000 articles that are badged WPDOGS and rated at low importance. Most are not on the page patrol list. Some are extinct species and breeds, some are individual dogs, some are the cross-breeds, but the others were never able to bite you. These include dog-related articles on greyhound races and stadiums, dog show trails and events, dog leads and harnesses etc. I suggest that these particular groups are all in-scope.

Also among the 2,000 articles that are badged WPDOGS and rated at low importance are many articles on fictional dog characters in cartoons, animation, Anime, Manga, video games, puppets, plasticine, TV series, movies, and novels. These fall under other WikiProjects as the main owners (sometimes under several projects):

WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Disney, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject Novels, and WikiProject Children's literature.

The article may be also badged with one or more of the 300 categories that are co-badged by WPDOGS along with other WikiProjects:

• Category:101 Dalmatians films
• Category:Animated films about dogs
• Category:Animated films about foxes
• Category:Anthropomorphic dogs
• Category:Anthropomorphic foxes
• Category:Benji
• Category:Books about dogs
• Category:Comics about dogs
• Category:Dogs in literature
• Category:Dogs in popular culture
• Category:Wallace and Gromit
• Category:Wallace and Gromit video games

• Category:Fiction about werewolves
• Category:Fictional canines
• Category:Fictional coyotes
• Category:Fictional dogs
• Category:Fictional foxes
• Category:Fictional jackals
• Category:Fictional robotic dogs
• Category:Fictional werewolves
• Category:Fictional wolves

• Category:Documentary films about dogs
• Category:Films about dogs
• Category:Films about foxes
• Category:Films and television featuring Greyhound racing
• Category:Films based on Little Red Riding Hood
• Category:Films based on The Call of the Wild
• Category:Films based on White Fang
• Category:Films featuring Foxy
• Category:The Shaggy Dog films
• Category:Wolves in film

• Category:Foxes in literature
• Category:Huckleberry Hound
• Category:Lassie
• Category:Lassie films
• Category:Lassie television series
• Category:Lists of fictional canines
• Category:Literature featuring anthropomorphic foxes
• Category:Novels about dogs
• Category:White Fang
• Category:Wile E. Coyote and The Road Runner
• Category:Wolves in literature

There are also dog-like fictional characters in folklore, myth, legend, and the supernatural and these fall under other WikiProjects as the main owners (sometimes under more than one): WikiProject Folklore, WikiProject Mythology, and WikiProject Paranormal:

The article may be also stamped with the following categories:

• Category:Animation about werewolves
• Category:Animal goddesses
• Category:Mythological canines
• Category:Mythological dogs
• Category:Mythological foxes
• Category:Anime and manga about werewolves
• Category:Comics about werewolves
• Category:Werewolf: The Apocalypse
• Category:Werewolves
• Category:Werewolves in film
• Category:Werewolves in games
• Category:Werewolves in written fiction
• Category:Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology
• Category:Wolves in Norse mythology

There are some shelters and rescue organisations that fall under WikiProject Animal rights and the article may be also be stamped with:

• Category:Abandoned animals
• Category:Animal rescue groups
• Category:Animal welfare and rights in Australia
• Category:Animal welfare in greyhound racing
• Category:Animal welfare organizations based in the United States
• Category:Dog welfare organizations

There are some dog breeders, judges, and artists that fall under WikiProject Biography, only some of these are badged WPDOGS, and the article may be also be stamped with:

• Category:Dog breeders
• Category:Dog judges
• Category:Dog artists

There are many veterinary articles that fall under WikiProject Veterinary medicine. These are usually also badged by the WikiProjects associated with the ailment, such as WikiProject viruses, WikiProject arthropods, WikiProject Microbiology, and if the condition also affects humans then Wikiproject Medicine. Sometimes these articles are also badged by WikiProject Animals, WP:Insects, WP:Biology, and WikiProject Science.

I propose that the following articles be de-badged from WPDOGS as these best fall under other Wikiprojects, that they be removed from the article patrol list as the page patrollers have enough to watch over with our priority articles, BUT we keep the current categories and their contents for any future reference. For your consideration are my suggested priorities:

Highest-priority: fictional dog characters in cartoons, animation, Anime, Manga, video games, puppets, plasticine. There are hundreds of these, and many more being added every year from producers around the world. It may be that members do not regard purple dog-like characters that speak human language and act similar to humans (anthropomorphic), or fly through the air without any apparatus, as being dogs for our scope. (Note: we are also talking about Walt Disney's "Goofy" and "Huckleberry Hound" here).

Middle priority: fictional dog characters in TV series, movies, and novels. Although these characters usually are dogs and behave similar to dogs, members may still regard them as fictional characters and not dogs for our scope. (Note: we are also talking about the novels "Lassie Come Home", "Old Yeller", and the TV series "The Adventures of Rin Tin Tin", and the series of movies about "Beethoven" here.)

Also, dog-like fictional characters in folklore, myth, legend, and the supernatural. Some of these are half snake-half dog, and some are vampires! However, some in legend may warrant keeping, such as when these are about a proper dog e.g. King Ulysses dog Argos (dog).

Lowest priority: Articles that fall under WikiProject Veterinary Science - perhaps these are best left to the veterinary and biology enthusiasts?

The shelters and pound articles that fall under WikiProject Animal rights - very few of these are badged WPDOGS. Perhaps these may, or may not, fall within our scope.

The biographies that fall under WikiProject Biography. Very few are badged WPDOGS.

I remind you that the deciding factor should be: As a member of WPDOGS, does this article fall under our present scope and would you be likely to work on this article at some stage? Conversely, if we remove these areas, will there be less attraction to the ranks of members because the scope is not wide enough? (We currently have 25 listed members, a few of which have not been active on Wikipedia for nearly a year, yet I know that there are people being helpful out on the dog and wolf pages who are not members.) We do not need to badge all of these articles on the basis that their subject matter may be related to dogs; that is the purpose of the 300 Wikipedia:Categorization categories which are co-badged by this project.

Additionally, an article might retain the WPDOGS badge but be removed from the current page patrol list. William Harristalk 11:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that fictional and mythological pseudo-dogs should be removed from the project. I am less inclined to remove the shelter/welfare section because at least they deal with REAL dogs and real dog issues. Include dog breeders and judges; exclude dog artists (goes with the fictional versus real). For film, I would only include documentary-style films about dogs; nothing fictional, even if a real dog-actor is included. Some veterinary articles yes (such as rabies or any canine-related disorders/conditions).

I agree with your high- and mid-priority removal order.

I disagree that shelters are categorized mainly as 'animal rights'. If shelter=NoKill, then yes it would be part of animal rights, but shelters were not traditionally of that ilk and there has been a swing away from the hardcore animal rights accommodations. Debadging those wouldn't serve "dogs". Yes, there's a plethora of shelter articles that need AfDing, but the subject of sheltering is of interest to dogs.

Maybe by the time we get through debadging the high- and mid-priority subjects, the scope of WPDogs will be better understood and then one can revisit the idea of whether vet & shelter topics should be included or excluded. By getting rid of the 'fandom' doggie stuff, the project may actually attract authentic dog enthusiasts, professionals and experts.

—Normal Op (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you for sharing your point of view, Normal Op. At this stage, the scope would be amended to:

The scope of WikiProject Dogs includes those articles contained within the Category:Canines and any other articles that directly relate to dogs, whether living or extinct. The scope excludes fictional dog or dog-like characters which appear in animated films, cartoons, comics, graphic novels, movies, novels, television, and video games. The scope also excludes dog or dog-like characters which appear in folklore, legend, myth, and the supernatural. The biographies of dog artists and veterinarians are also excluded.

Does anyone have a position on dogs in art i.e. paintings and statues listed under Category:Dogs in art? These largely fall under WikiProject Visual Arts, but some are co-badged with WPDOGS. Some paintings have a dog as the subject, most simply have one somewhere in the background or on the floor. William Harris (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

William Harris, I support everything you have proposed above, as I have noted elsewhere I do not believe there are any members of the project with an interest in these areas (and as far as I can tell there never has been).

Art is a tricky one, Landseer dogs are named after Edwin Landseer who painted a number of black and white Newfoundlands, one such painting is A Distinguished Member of the Humane Society, clearly about a dog. My personal opinion is the first obviously in scope, the second not (despite the proliferation of dogs in his art), the third probably more appropriately belongs within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts, (I do note the article was created by a project member). Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC).

Thanks for your input, this week's Editor of the Week!

This would be enough to get us underway, but I have just noticed a major issue on the WPDOGS main page that requires resolution:

• We state that we are "a wikiproject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's articles relating to the family of mammals known as the Canidae and commonly referred to as dogs" (i.e. the canids)
• We state that our scope "includes those articles contained within the Category:Canines" (i.e. the Caninae or canines)

So what is the difference? The canids includes 3 subfamilies of which 2 are extinct, leaving only the canines alive today. Does this project want to include in its scope those 2 extinct subfamilies of species which are also referred to as "dogs", or does it want to limit itself to the living canines - wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, the domestic dog, and their extinct DIRECT ancestors? William Harris (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Haha. I would support retaining them, it would be great to attract some of the editors who edit those pages into the project (in addition to you of course). You are far better placed to comment than me, but I just counted 41 articles here outside Caninae, not a big imposition upon the project. Cavalryman (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC).

I agree on 3 grounds:

1. The extinct canid articles need to be badged by some project, and the Category:canids is badged by WPDOGS. If alternately these articles were to be re-badged under our parent project - WPMAMMALS - they would become neglected and forgotten as WPMAMMALS has more pressing interests.
2. The categories appear to be confused on this matter with some "canine" articles included in some "canid" categories, which indicates that those who founded this project meant its scope to cover the 3 subfamilies. The species in each subfamily are all referred to as "dogs", even if some of the extinct ones could be better described as "bear-dogs".
3. The extinct canid articles are badged WPDOGS and WPPALEONTOLOGY - a few of our friends in that project were of valuable assistance in getting the articles Dire wolf and Beringian wolf up to FA standard a few years ago; we should keep up those valuable, cooperative contacts.

Therefore, I am going to change the Scope now and allow it to sit for several days to see what people think. After that, I shall begin the processing. We can sort out the 2 Categories at another time. William Harris (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As a result of the amended scope, I have removed the Wikiproject Dogs banner from 636 articles. I have just run WP 1.0 bot and we now have a total of 3,226 articles and files badged as WPDOGS that is shown in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Dogs articles by quality statistics.

I still doubt that the project needs to be covering dogs in reality TV shows, legal cases, pet food companies, animal shelters, articles covered by WikiProject Veterinary Medicine - is anyone here really going to do some work on Leptospirosis? - and the biographies of dog breeders, dog judges, and dog mushers because these are about people and not about dogs. However, this is my personal view that is challengeable, and so the amended scope will have to do for now. William Harris (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dogsbite.org, other dog attack-related advocacy websites - discussion you may be interested in at WP:RSN. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The AfD was closed, challenged and reopened. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 21#List of fatal dog attacks in the United States ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I had a very productive discussion with Cthomas3, and wanted to share his response 2020-09-23. I do believe we should clean-up the BLP vios in that list, starting with the names of non-notable people, and all poorly sourced "circumstances" per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. For the sake of accuracy, the breed-types mentioned should be removed unless there is a corroborated & confirmed ID of the dog for the sake of accuracy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Members note that the list being referred to is List of fatal dog attacks in the United States.

My own opinion is that all names of people should be removed. Are we listing dog attacks or are we making a WP:MEMORIAL for those killed? It would appear to be a bit of both. Additionally, at 500kb, the list is WP:TOOBIG and it will only increase. (And before somebody points out that WP:TOOBIG does not apply to tables in an article, WP:SPLITLIST does.) William Harris (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Another very serious concern is the effect the list of names has on victims' families. Imagine the potential conclusions some readers might draw when/if they read misinformation about the circumstances of the fatality and "presumed" breed type, which the CDC refuses to include in their reports because it is unreliable. We are required to exercise a high level of sensitivity per BLP which includes our consideration for the families of the victims, and the potential repercussions of them being judged and/or scorned by readers, especially when small children are involved in a fatal attack. Also, keep in mind the long-term repercussions that result from the misidentification of breed types based on unreliable sight id, and what it could mean to beloved family pets who get caught up in a ban because of wide-sweeping breed-specific legislation based on faulty information which WP may have published, such as that list. If the CDC is unwilling to publish such material because it is unreliable even when professionals are involved, why are we allowing it in our encyclopedia? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Talk:Belgian Shepherd#Possible merger with variety pages, project members are invited to provide their thoughts. Cavalryman (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

An formerly merged article of interest to the project—Tamaskan dog—has been proposed for splitting from Northern Inuit Dog. Project members are invited to participate at the split discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC).

The closer (Jo Jo Eurmerus) of the RVW of List of fatal dog attacks in the United States upheld the NC close and stated: "Some people (including among the endorsers) here are observing that the article still has issues that might merit a RfC, though, and I don't see anyone here explicitly contradicting them." At the article TP, I quoted the CDC's limitations regarding the information they do and do not provide. The discussion is ongoing, and all project members are invited to provide input. No RfC has been called yet, so suggestions for how best to approach it are welcome. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I think any AfC should deal with independent questions, which looking at the AFD the two most contentious areas are inclusion of victim’s names and identification of breeds / types.

Personally I tend towards not including victim’s names, but if consensus exists for the list to remain (or more accurately a lack of consensus to delete it) then, provided it is reliably sourced, breed / type information should be included. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

How can we determine "reliably sourced breed type info" when the CDC refuses to include breed data because of the inaccuracies in visual identification of a dog’s breed, including by professionals? We know this to be a fact. The only way to establish reliability of any source we use to cite breed type is to follow WP:MEDRS and at least make sure the source includes some form of official verification, such as a DNA evaluation to positively identify the dog's ancestry/breed type, or evidence of registration in a reputable breed registry. A visual ID, including that by professionals, and anecdotal information (the shelter or police officer on the scene said it was), is simply unacceptable; therefore, the breed-type should not be included - perhaps include a description of the dog, such as black, midsized male dog. The following reliable sources strongly support my position:

• Comparison of Adoption Agency Breed Identification and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs published in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science demonstrated that only 25% of visual ids for predominant breed type were accurate, whereas 87.5% were not; they did not have the genetics of the specific breeds identified by the agency. The conclusion: The discrepancies between opinions of adoption agencies and identification by DNA analysis suggest that it would be worthwhile to reevaluate the reliability of breed identification as well as the justification of current public and private policies pertaining to specific dog breeds.
• AMVA: The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior which states: identifying a dog's breed accurately is difficult, even for professionals, and visual recognition is known to not always be reliable. ::*NCSU Abstract (pg 49): According to a recent 13-year dog bite human fatality report, Pit-type dog breeds were the number one breed category responsible for fatal dog bites to humans (Dogbites.org, 2018). Thus, media presence could impact the way the public and veterinarian professionals view the breed. The CDC stopped collecting breed data in dog attack fatalities after 1998 since accurately identifying a dog’s breed based on visual recognition is not always reliable (Nolen, 2017).
• American Journal of Sociological Research: Conclusion: The disparities between visual and DNA identification of the breed composition of dogs and the low agreement among people who identify dogs raise questions concerning the accuracy of databases which supply demographic data on dog breeds, as well as the justification and ability to implement laws and private restrictions pertaining to dogs based on breed composition.

How much more evidence do we need? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, apologies I somehow missed seeing your reply. I agree, in all likelihood certain breeds/types are frequently mistakenly attributed as be responsible for certain things (we see the same here in Australia with the Bull Arab being attributed for every misdeed of any pig-hunting dog) but my interpretation of policy is if properly sourced, and no conflicting sources exist, it can be included. I would however support the inclusion of a section explaining the above. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC).

Cavalryman see WP:REDFLAG: Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; The sources used are questionable regarding dog breed and type. We do not include per WP:V. Some of the comments in the AfD and RVW supported this position. Perhaps this is an issue that needs wider community input at VPP? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 08:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, on reflection I think there is a good argument for removing them, if multiple credible organisations state the data is inaccurate as opposed to a junior reporter reporting for a regional news organisation then it's certainly a debate worth having. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC).

Reference Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs main page - Article alerts. I have added several more categories so that members can be aware when these activities occur. Additionally, I have added the project's 77 templates to the recent changes list so that these too can now be patrolled. William Harris (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the templates cropping up, I think that's great as it's often through changes to navboxes I have on my watchlist that I see new articles cropping up. Cavalryman (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC).

I have almost completed a rewrite of the Belgian Shepherd, do project members feel it is worthy of Good Article nomination? Pinging Atsme & William Harris who have I know to have successfully herded (pun intended) articles through the process. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I wondered what you were up to with that article. Yes, in my estimate it would make a successful WP:GAC. William Harris (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It didn't start out as my intent, I stumbled upon a poorly sourced article so started a minor renovation and we are here. I had a USMC attack dog team under my command in Afghanistan for a month or so, the dog was a Belgian Shepherd and he was absolute dynamite, a really nice and affectionate dog until the handler whispered the word (he wouldn't share it) then the dog just transformed, it was quite the spectacle and really intimidating!!! Cavalryman (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC).

At first glance, it looks great. In the morning, I'll give it a more thorough read if you'd like. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I have witnessed the reverse happening with a dog - the not-so-secret word for that is "treaties!". William Harris (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Haha, I think I too have seen that. Thanks, to both of you, Atsme that would be great. I will look into nominating it now. Cavalryman (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC).

Might be of interest to the project. Atsme 💬 📧 13:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabueso Cántabro. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I propose to amend the status of the dog breeds task force from semi-active to inactive, whilst the project is clearly active the task force is no longer. SMcCandlish very wisely merged the talked pages in November 2018 after a number of threads sat unanswered for years. I think we should remove the tab from the top of the project pages and have a simple link on the project main page. The recommended breed page structure can be moved to the main page which may result in greater adherence. Thoughts? Cavalryman (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

Yep. This subdivision may have made some kind of sense in WP's early days when we still needed basic articles on wild canids at all. But today the vast bulk of the project work pertains to breeds anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Even on the list of members, there are some who have not been active in nearly 12 months. I have seen nothing happening in that space. William Harris (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

William Harris, I can see you have been removing the dog breeds task force parameter from breed talk pages, for some reason you have been reverted on a number of pages [1]. I have removed the parameters for both the dog breed and greyhound racing task forces from {{WikiProject Dogs}} so the parameters should no longer show up on talk pages. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC).

Many thanks, that is a far more efficient approach. William Harris (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

An article of interest to the project—Gerberian Shepsky—has been proposed for merging with List of dog crossbreeds. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC).

In future, these should get listed at WP:PAM, or peeps are apt to whine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Calling the listed members of the Dog Breeds Taskforce: Elf, hmwith, VanTucky, Coaster1983, Miyagawa, 07bargem, Canarian, SMcCandlish, and Atsme.

For the first time in over a year, a dog breed has been nominated as a Good Article Candidate. There exists a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dogs/Dog breeds task force#Recommended article structure, which should be applied to this candidate. I ask that you review the recommended structure and discuss any proposed amendments here, if necessary. William Harris (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• An initial comment - where there exists a breed standard, do we need to include the two suggested sections titled Appearance and Temperament? William Harris (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I would say that some of that is core information, but the recommendation (which I've inserted into a collapse box above) needs work. I'll try to whip up a revision in a moment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• The extant structure list calls for a "Temperament and/or Characteristics" section, but "Characteristics" is a very general term, a superset. To the extent there should be a "Temperament" section (better named "Behavior" or "Behaviour" depending on MOS:ENGVAR), it should be a subsection of "Characteristics", as should "Appearance". While much of that would come from breed standards, there's still opportunity to add other material with other sources (e.g., I'm sure that in bulldog and terrier articles, there'll be considerable editorial attention toward studies of alleged aggression). "Care", to the extent this should be covered at all per WP:NOT#HOWTO, is part of "Health". "Activity" as no clear meaning here that would not be encompassed by "Training" (and various breeds are "traditionally" trained certain ways for certain things); it probably meant "activities", like dog sports, but maybe "activity level"?. Since the lead will already have a nutshell appearance description, I would actually move the "History" section to immediately after the lead, as this is where the definition of this breed/topic is going to be; that is, how to distinguish this as a subject from related or similar-looking dogs in the first place. I've been on the warpath before about promotional and pseudoscientific nonsense in "Temperament" or "Behavio[u]r" sections, but such a section makes more sense in an article on a dog breeds than articles on other domesticates, since many dog breeds have in fact been selectively sculpted for true-breeding behavior patterns (herding, pointing/setting, pulling, etc.). So, we'd end up with something like this:

Not all of these correspond to section headings. The best way to approach this is probably to lay it out as a pseudo-article, and include notes as the text under headings, saying what types of info should and shouldn't be there. It'll also be of use to pore over a bunch of the better extant articles and see what they are doing, then adjust this. PS: I'm skeptical that "Notable people who own" should ever been included, but have not gone looking to see if extant articles usually include this. It seems like WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE stuff, but we'll see.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Initial thoughts. I really like the revised version although I would advocate flipping history and characteristics, I often find myself explaining the background of certain characteristics in the history section, if you don’t set the scene first you have to do so in the history section then it’s redundant when you get to characteristics. Also, I personally prefer “Temperament” to “Behavior”.

BTW, I was blissfully unaware of this recommended structure before now, I seem to adopted something similar by osmosis. Cavalryman (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC).

Most of the breed articles are something along these lines already, so there's lots of osmosis. I get your point about order; we should probably advise using an order that makes the most sense for the material. I can think of other cases where it would also make the most sense to address morphology first then the history of how it got that way, though in many cases the appearance details mean little and interest in the breed has more to do with regional origin or other historical matters. On temperament, the problem is that the average person interprets this as "How friendly is it?", and we then get all kinds of injections of OR and breeder marketing about safety around children, "very intelligent" claims, etc., etc. Behavior is objectively observable (and broader, including things like bred-in patterns of action in response to particular stimuli, like pointing at game, or pulling when leashed/harnessed), while temperament (a behavior subset) is a subjective assessment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Making the order a matter of judgement is much more sensible. And I take your point re temperament vs behaviour, I am happy either way, I suppose I think of a breed’s/person’s temperament (underlying character traits) and an individual dog’s/person’s behaviour (choosing to behave a certain way), that could be a personal thing. Cavalryman (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC).

Part of explaining each line item in more detail in a revised recommendation would include making it clear that temperament info belongs with any other behavior details.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you both. I have updated the Recommended article structure from what we have here. William Harris (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I seem to have missed this – like Cavalryman, I didn't know there were such guidelines. For what it's worth, I'd have suggested a much simpler structure similar to that already in use for most other domestic animal breeds – essentially: lead; History; Characteristics; and Use. History would cover origins, iconography, development, recognition, any controversy or specific legislation, derived breeds and so on; Characteristics would include appearance/morphology, physiology, any pre-disposition to specific diseases, any unusual behavioural trait etc; and Use would include any work or activity for which it is suited or used. We should specifically exclude sections on:

• care, because we don't host how-to content
• controversy, because we don't do "controversy" sections, but integrate controversies into the text; and
• popular culture, because (thankfully) we no longer include WP:TRIVIA sections in our articles (a major cultural milestone could always be mentioned in History).

I've often wondered how so much unsourced and unencyclopaedic tripe got into our dog articles, and I'm afraid this page may be at the root of much of it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

On reflection I broadly agree with Justlettersandnumbers in culling the above sections, I would however retain an optional notable dogs section for the likes of Dicken medalists etc and an optional legal and regulatory matter section. Further I feel training should be scrapped, training a dog is not breed specific but role specific and get rid of the dog sports section, any dog can compete in agility and tracking etc. Something like this:

Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

Further, a real finicky one, should we specify an ordering of the project's navboxes at the bottom of the page? For instance, should country of origin navboxes come before or after breed grouping / type navboxes? Cavalryman (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

I would put the group/type first, since it's more meaningful information. A lot of "national origin" stuff verges on fiction (e.g. foundation stock allegedly from Elbonia and neighoring Kerblachistan, but mixed with other breeds and standardized into a new breed somewhat similar to the foundation-stock landrace, by breeders in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, or some other place).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Two brand new editors seem to have cropped up at Africanis in the last few hours. What are project member’s thoughts on this as a source? Cavalryman (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC).

Interesting, indeed. The source is questionable at best, so I'd tag it ^{[better source needed]}.^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A collection of words paraphrased from the Africanis Society website and pix taken from "Commons". Some scratchings on a rock are claimed to be "Africanis-like hunting dogs", whatever that term means. Given that the source is largely the Africanis Society for the topic, I would not rate this source as independent. BSN per Atsme. William Harris (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Did some minor cleanup on it. I'm a bit concerned about some of the threads on the talk page that want to either treat this as an established standardized breed, or fork off a separate article for such, when there is no evidence to support this idea, only claims by one local breeder group that they want to try, and claims by another one that are trying. It's a WP:CRYSTAL problem, as well as a WP:NPOV one of siding with non-independent, primary-source claims. This is common problem throughout articles on landraces that people are trying to breed-true and standardize. At the talk page there, I've suggested that our current general practice is good: write about landraces as such, and including information on standardization efforts as a section. If standardization is internationally recognized as successful, then flip that order and focus on the established breed. It's just patently WP:UNDUE to attempt to focus our articles on alleged/provision/experimental "breeds". Most efforts to establish new breeds (of anything) fail.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, it’s a big improvement. Cavalryman (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC).

I concur; thanks Mac! William Harris (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Four articles of interest to the project—Groenendael dog, Laekenois dog, Malinois dog, and Tervuren dog—have been proposed for merging with Belgian Shepherd. Project members are invited to participate in the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC).

Two articles of interest to the project—Anatolian Shepherd and Kangal Shepherd Dog—have been proposed for merging. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC).

New dog-article, feel free to improve if you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Btw, he's in an issue of Dogs Today [2]. If anyone has access, please use it if it's good for something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I recently made an article for Raymond Coppinger. He was an expert on dog domestication. The article is a work in progress. Feel free to assist! Thank you. Thriley (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thriley, thank you very much for directing us to this, I am certainly aware of Raymond and Lorna Coppiner, their Dogs: a startling new understanding of canine origin, behavior & evolution gives some great insights, I have found it very useful when writing about some livestock guardian dog breeds. Cavalryman (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC).

United Kennel Clubs International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment at the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I was brought to Search and rescue dog by a suspected copyright violation, which I wasn't able to confirm; I removed the relevant content as unsourced and unencyclopaedic. The problem is, virtually everything else in the page has the same two characteristics. I'm inclined to simply remove any unsourced content, but that would leave only a minimal stub. Before I do, does anyone want to launch a search-and-rescue operation? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

When I get a chance I will have a look at it, having a quick glance I think we do strip it back to the reliably sourced bones then add some meat. Cavalryman (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

An article of interest to the project—Alpine Spaniel—has been proposed for merging with St. Bernard (dog). Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC).

Teacup Dogs Agility Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion. Project members are invited to comment at the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The Geography of dog agility article that I have recently started editing contains a lot of red links to to the articles about Clubs and organizations that have not been written yet. I am new to wikipedia and would like to ask if it is ok to remove them from the article and place into the to do list for creation here in the Wikiproject. Thanks!--LoraxJr 20:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello LoraxJr and welcome to the project. To be brutally honest I do not think the Geography of dog agility article as it currently stands meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, all four of the sources cited are primary sources and not independent of the subject, further almost all of the article is completely uncited. To be deemed notable a topic should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I have doubts that you will be able to meet that threshold for most of the redlinks in the article. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC).

Cavalryman What would then be the best strategy to improve this article? To remove the red links all together? If you think the article is not notable, then should we suggest merging it with the original Dog agility article or maybe with History of dog agility? I can do that if this is neccessary. But if there are other ways of improving it, please let me knowLoraxJr 01:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion is to keep

United States Dog Agility Association (USDAA)

UK Agility International (UKI)

Australian Shepherd Club of America

British Agility Association

Notable for creating articles. Where should I put them? Is there a list for creation or talk page to add them to? Thank you!LoraxJr 02:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

LoraxJr, everything on Wikipedia needs to be cited to reliable sources, and to meet the above linked notability guidelines it needs to be cited to multiple, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (ie not a kennel club or an agility competition themselves) and provide significant coverage of the subject (as in not just a mere mention). If you can find such sources for the above organisations then by all means create the articles, as to where to link them I would be speculating, if you have reliable sources indicating they are affiliated with established kennel clubs then perhaps link to that, or link to the dog agility article in the see also section. If you want to make a list somewhere for yourself, I suggest your sandbox or user page.

As for the geography of god agility article, I have not had a detailed look but I think every paragraph that has not citations should be deleted outright (most of the article) and then the few bits that are properly sourced can be placed into a discrete section in dog agility (which by the look of it requires serious pruning). A review of the history of dog agility tells me it also most likely falls short of GNG and should be merged into the dog agility article as well. Cavalryman (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC).

Should we put that somewhere else for discussion to other users, or can I go ahead and do as you suggested? Sorry, I am new here, not quite familiar with procedures yet. LoraxJr 23:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cavalryman I have started to add citations where possible and deleting everything else. Once I am done with that, could you advise me on the best merging strategy? Should I create one new section in th Dog Agility article and move relevant information there? Or a few sections? The article itself is rather big already... LoraxJr 11:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cavalryman I have cleaned the article as you advised. Could you please review my edits, I have cut the changes into small portions to make it easier to cancel them if needed. Is there something else to optimise or should we merge what is left from the article? If yes, what it the best way to do it? Thank you! LoraxJr 12:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello LoraxJr, apologies for the delayed response. Whilst you have added some sources to the article, they all appear to be WP:Primary sources from organisations directly involved in the sport, so the article still fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Whilst primary sources are not prohibited, they should only be used to supplement secondary sources with finer details etc. From my perspective a simple paragraph in dog agility stating something like “globally dog agility competitions are regulated and run by the FCI and a number of national kennel clubs” is all that is warranted, the rest should be deleted. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC).

@Cavalryman Thank you for your advice. I understand it clearer now, about primary and secondary sources especially. I will create the section in Dog agility article and move what is necessary there. My suggestion would be to keep a bit of information about competitions and titles, I think I could find secondary sources such as newspaper articles to support them. After that is done, how do we delete the merged article? Do administrators do that? LoraxJr 23:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Agility Association of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment at the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, as in everyday conversation, I use the word "bitch" when talking about a female dog (just as I call a female horse a mare, a female chicken a hen, a female donkey a jenny and so on). On several occasions (e.g., here) this has been removed, often by new or IP editors. So: do we have any reason not to use this word in dog articles? I'm aware of course that the word can be used in other ways, some of them impolite if applied to people; but the same is true of many words relating to animals – ass (British usage), cow, dog, pig, worm etc. – but we don't seem to have any trouble using those. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I too use the word bitch, and I have been noticing (and reverting) these petty attempts to remove the word from across the article space. Personally I think the word is not only correct but completely appropriate for use in dog articles. Further the word is used by most of the big kennel clubs (FCI [3], AKC [4], ANKC [5], KC [6] and NZKC [7]).

This reminds me, some time ago I proposed to adopt the terminology in Template:Infobox dog breed, see Template talk:Infobox dog breed#Height & weight parameters, I had forgotten about it and clearly never posted a link to the discussion here. Cavalryman (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC).

American Russell Terrier Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment at the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Template talk:Infobox dog breed#Height & weight parameters. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC).

Now that the AKC has recognized Biewer I think the redirect should be restored back to an article. See discussion at: Talk:Biewer_Terrier#This_article_needs_to_be_restored. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

An article that been involved with (Pet harness) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Dog harness). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Canine Performance Events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment at the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

American Dog Breeders Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment at the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC).

Cavalryman, thank you for the heads-up. I can't recall much of what happened in the past with the ADBA article, but it easily passes GNG. For example, ADBA's breed standard for Pit Bull Terriers is what's used as the protocol for identifying Pit bull types (forensically) in collaboration with Staffordshire University and others in the UK, USA, Ireland and Australia. ADBA publishes a quarterly magazine, and has done so since 1976. There is plenty of material out there for verifiability, and that also establishes ADBA's notability, including primary (for corroboration), tertiary & secondary sources. I went ahead and voted but it would save us all some time if you'd simply withdraw that AfD. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 08:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed a concerted effort is being made to dual tag all of our breed pages marked {{dog-stub}} with the additional {{mammal-stub}}. Whilst dogs are mammals I am not sure it is productive to add an additional stub tag to the bottom for domestic breeds etc, further it contradicts the instructions at Category:Mammal stubs, therefore I propose these tags be removed. What are project member’s thoughts? Courtesy ping to Treekangaroosandlions 2. Cavalryman (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC).

Justlettersandnumbers, I have just seen you have reverted one such [8]. Cavalryman (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC).

Yes, I reverted a couple, Cavalryman. My edit summary at Ca Rater Mallorquí was "dog" is a subset of "mammal", and I think similar reasoning applies in several cases where these have been added. I'll admit that I normally never pay the slightest attention to stub tags except to remove them if they're no longer applicable, so I feel that this is pretty low on our list of priorities. But yes, probably better to remove the mammal one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. I'm sorry about what I have done. You can remove all of them, it's fine. Treekangaroosandlions 2 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Seppala Siberian Sleddog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion, project members are invited to comment at the article's entry at AfD. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have four stamps representing the Arubian Cunucu Dog breed. I would like to upload one or some of them to Wikimedia Commons, as it currently lacks a photo of the breed. However, I am not sure if it is legal to scan and upload a national stamp? Does anyone here know regulations about that? --Canarian (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Canarian, I've no experience of actually doing that, but I believe it to be a minefield, as it varies from country to country. There's basic guidance here, but if that's not enough you may want to ask here. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I’m hoping a member of this group can help out with a few changes I’ve proposed to improve the Freshpet article. Talk:Freshpet#Request Edits February 12 2021. I have a COI, so am unable to edit the article directly. Thanks! NJ0220 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a tab on our project's main page for our dog-related source guide, and also added a wikilink to it at the NPP source guide for Animals. I haven't updated any of it in a while, so please feel free to make any updates or changes that will provide improved criteria. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 17:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a need to split this article into the American Akita and the Japanese Akita, as per the 2 FCI Breed Standards. There has been much effort, and confusion, in maintaining the one article to cover the two separate breeds. William Harris (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If it is a cause of tension in the article then perhaps a split is required, I imagine there are enough sources to support both articles. That being said most of my usual sources treat them as one, we have a number of breed articles that discuss breeds with different kennel club recognition. Cavalryman (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC).

The FCI offers two breed standards. One for the Akita (the Japanese original), and one for the American Akita which would be the spinoff article. William Harris (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There have been a number of edits to navboxes over the last year or so adding lists of extinct dog breeds/types/varieties to both out national and type navboxes (recent example). If we have these dogs covered in two navboxes, do we really need another to navbox to aid navigating between breeds/types/varieties whose only relationship to each other is their lack of continued existence?

What are project member's thoughts about:

• completing the task of including all of our extinct breed/type/variety articles into the appropriate national and type navboxes; then
• nominating Template:Extinct dog varieties for deletion?

Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC).

It appears to me that this template is only being deployed under the extinct breeds? William Harris (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Colombian dogs has been nominated for deletion. Project members are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC).

Template:AKC standard has been nominated for deletion. Project members are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC).

Cocker Spaniel, an article of interest to the project, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. Project members are invited to participate at the reassessment page. Cavalryman (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC).

Our "flagship" article Dog has just failed GA again. (Of course it failed, its a mess, what was the nominator thinking). The comments are on the Talk page. For those who are interested, now is the time to start removing some of the fleas from the Dog article, using Talk:GA Review as a good reason in your edit summary. William Harris (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Always happy to remove fleas, ticks and other parasites, but I suppose the first question I have do we think the foundations are there or should we consider a rewrite? Then, is the structure fit for purpose? Perhaps cat or horse are good templates. I must admit that I roll my eyes just at the infobox image that shows nine very western pet dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC).

I have tried to overhaul - and chase away drive-by editors who want to have it their way - for years with this article. It is fairly much a loosing battle. What we have is a mixture of good science plus a trash-pile of editors' findings from various (and dubious) news sites, websites and even blogs. If an improvement were to be made, we should begin with a firm foundation. Base it on either cat or horse, or even wolf to some degree. Else, take an internationally renowned text, such as Serpell, and use that as a comprehensive structure.

The first step is to cull the rubbish, and reduce the USA-focus - Dog is an international article. Which brings us back to the infobox image - these are all popular dogs in the US. It needs to go; our grouping down at the bottom of the WPDOGS main page is more representative. We could simply go for a new montage of 4: one European, one African (Basenji, Africanis?), one East Asian, and one form of sled dog for the Americas (Malamute?). William Harris (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree we need to reduce the US focus, I can think of no need to mention any nation state, continents yes. As a featured article it would be good to base this on the wolf article but obviously as a domestic species it will need a slightly different bent.

Re infobox image, it needs to be a square number, so four or nine, it can be a separate topic of conversation but I thinking a sighthound (Europe/Asia/North Africa), livestock guardian (same), husky (Siberia/North America), African village dog (Sub-Saharan Africa), pye-dog (East Asia), non descript mongrel, retriever (English speaking world, this is English Wikipedia), toy dog (one of the Chinese ones popular in European courts) and roll the dice to determine between a scent hound, terrier, herding dog or mastiff. Cavalryman (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC).

OK, I see we can move away from recognised breeds as well. I think it is time for you to drop the concept on Talk:Dog to see if anyone is interested in discussion. (Dog tends to be the opposite to Wolf, there is a keen pack at Wolf who cooperate to get things done quickly - no such luck at Dog.) It might signal a change coming to that article.

Regarding Serpell (who is the editor for a multi-author book, all being recognised experts in their respective fields), the structure used is 4 main Parts: (a) Origins and Evolution (b) Behaviour, Cognition, and Training (c) Dog-Human Interactions (d) Life on the margins (feral, village, etc). It then has chapters under each. William Harris (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Will do. I have just had a look at the Serpell book, it’s certainly a great start, some of my usual sources could supplement it in places. I will defer to you on evolution and classification etc. Cavalryman (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC).

Hi, sorry to interrupt, but in case you need a non-drive-by editor to help, let me know, what I could do to. I can fulfil smaller tasks that need to be done. LoraxJr 14:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have completed the sections on Evolution/Domestication which match Part 1 (of 4 parts) in Serpell. William Harris (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A number of Commons categories of possible interest to the project have been nominated for discussion, project members are invited to comment at c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Dog hybrids. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have not been out on Wikimedia Commons before folks, don't be shy - just follow the link and have your say, similar to Wikipedia. All of these Wiki projects have the same look and feel, by design. William Harris (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• A few more categories have been Commons categories of possible interest to the project have been nominated for discussion, project members are invited to comment at c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Dog breeds recognized by United Kennel Club. Cavalryman (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC).

• Another nomination, c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Rare dog breeds. Cavalryman (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC).

An article of interest to the project—Purebred dog—has been proposed for merging with Dog breed. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC).

As some will no doubt have seen on the related changes log, there has been a bit activity at Template:Chinese dogs ([9]). What are member's thoughts about splitting off the Tibetan breeds into a Template:Tibetan dogs? Whilst China has controlled Tibet since the 50s I tend to think a separate template may be warranted. Cavalryman (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC).

From what I am seeing in dog genetic history, I would not be keen to see Tibetan dogs split from Chinese dogs. There is a growing argument for going the other way - a Template:East Asian dogs divided up similar to the way in which Template:Chinese dogs is currently split, but with more regions included: China, Tibet, both Koreas, Taiwan, Japan, etc. Another would be Template:Southern Asian dogs, as we know that some breeds there that extend beyond national boundaries in that region. It depends on what we are trying to show with these templates, and what is the criterion for inclusion under the headings currently used. William Harris (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I would support a template for Tibetan dogs, as they have not that many breeds but with very unique and traceable history, that have been regional and only recently have started spreading worldwide, like Tibetan Mastiffs and terries. Although they are gaining popularity, their creators were very selective about these unique breedings. LoraxJr 19:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There is some debate over whether Draft:Royal Sussex Hare Hound is a hoax article and I thought you guys would be the best judge of this. Is this a real breed? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Liz, many thanks, it’s a complete fabrication, I have commented on the talk page. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC).

I've raised a question about notability at Talk:Kratu (dog)#Notability. I'd welcome advice there from editors who are familiar with the subject. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Dogs articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. This submission about cavoodles has been sitting in WP:AfC for a long time. Can someone here take a look at it and advice on if it passes WP:GNG? I Googled cavoodles and they do have a lot of press coverage and coverage in reliable sources about dogs, but, it also appears to be a lot of WP:NOTNEWS stuff about a dog in Australia. I also see there are books about cavoodles. I just don't know what would qualify dog wise for inclusion. Here it is: Draft:Cavoodle. I encourage WP Dogs folks to just simply review it (accept/reject) or advise AfC project members. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The draft is 4 sentences relying on news articles for support, and unlikely to develop into anything further. There was a reason the original article was deleted. I cannot see how anybody would regard this as an article to be created. There are books to be found on Google Books about [insert name of dog breed here] that are mass produced by the same author/publisher. Basically, we give little credence to these. William Harris (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Missvain, thank you for bringing this here. A quick look at the sources:

• "Australia most popular dog". News.com.au. Retrieved 2020-12-11. – RS Y SIGCOV N → only states a pet insurance company insures more Cavoodles than any other type in Australia
• "Cavoodles are 2020's top dogs". The-Riotact. Retrieved 2021-01-11. – RS Y (I think) SICGOV N → as above, the cross is popular in Canberra
• "Australian Prime Minister's Dog". Informit. Retrieved 2020-12-02. – RS ? SIGCOV N → Julia Gillard has a Cavoodle
• MacCallum, Mungo (25 September 2013). Mad Marathon. ISBN 9781922231161. Retrieved 2020-12-11. – RS Y SIGCOV N → as above
• "Renter cannot keep untrained cavoodle puppy". Canberra Times. Retrieved 2020-12-20. – RS Y SIGCOV N → a Canberra tenant was told they couldn’t have a Cavoodle and a Cavoodle is a cross between a Cavalier and Poodle
• "Dogged battle under way for custody of Instagram-famous cavoodle Oscar". The Guardian. Retrieved 2021-01-12. – RS Y SIGCOV N → two parties fought over possession if a Cavoodle
• "K-Mart Impalement". 7 News. Retrieved 2021-01-31. – RS Y SIGCOV N → a woman’s Cavoodle got injured
• "Nothing cute about online Cavoodle scammers". About Regional. Retrieved 2020-12-11. – RS Y (just) SIGCOV N → they’re a cross between a Cavalier and Poodle, they’re popular in Australia, expensive and some people fall for puppy scams

There just is not significant coverage that “addresses the topic directly and in detail ... [and] is more than a trivial mention”. By that I mean there are no sources that discuss the traits of this cross, the history of the cross etc etc. This is just the results of a search of the name Cavoodle in Google news. Further, the books you mention are usually self published, print to order pamphlets that are retitled for every possible breed and crossbreed imaginable, for instance this book’s author has penned these titles. The current redirect is far better sourced than this draft and I would not hesitate to reject it. Cavalryman (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC).

I had a feeling you were going to confirm all of this - and yes, further look at those books revealed self published rubbish, despite those cute little doggo faces. I really appreciate your assistance and spending so much time on this. It's out of my purview and has been sitting in the queue for so long, your help really helps not only the project and I, but moving the article out of the queue to provide feedback to the submitter. Thank you!!! Missvain (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I am glad we could be of assistance. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC).

An article of interest to the project—Bull and terrier—has been proposed for merging with Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

Do we have a page on Working trials? I've not been able to find it. Our page on Sheepdog trials seems to suggest that that's a sport, but that's not my understanding – isn't a working trial (whether of herding, tracking, hunting or whatever) a test of ability in a working dog, and a pre-requisite to registration in many breeds? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is there are various gundog trials (retriever, pointing, flushing etc), ground dog/terrier trials (unsure of exact name), sheepdog trials (in Australia we also have “working sheepdog trials”, similar concept but more suited to Australian type tasks), tracking trials etc, I will have a look for anything to do with working trials but I am unaware of any off the top of my head. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC).

Sheepdog trial was created in 2003 but has not progressed beyond being only 8.5kb in size. It receives on average only 36 visitors per day. I believe a WP:MOVE to Working dog trials is in order to help "widen the field of competitors" a bit. We also have the article Working dog which is little more than a definition provided from three dictionaries - WP:NOTDIC is relevant. Perhaps the trials may become a section of the working dog article? William Harris (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

We do have an article on Tracking dog, that I have recently merged with Tracking trial article. The Sheepdog trial article needs improvement, that is for sure. I can start working on that. There is an amazing article on it in Russian version. As for the Working dog, maybe we can transform it into a sort of list of working trials to begin with and then gradually ad information and links on pages being created or improved?--LoraxJr 05:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have put some effort into Sheepdog trials article, as I enjoy these topics very much, being an owner of various herding breeds. Could you please review the article and let me know if it is good enough to stay now. I agree that we need some sort of consolidated article on Working trials, maybe we can modify it into a similar one as List of dog sports for now. William Harris? LoraxJr 09:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You have managed to double its size, which is a good effort. My concern with the article is that much of the History section is unsourced. However, that can be left for another day. William Harris (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I will look into sourcing. What do you think about the article listing types of work dogs do?LoraxJr 13:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@William Harris?

Hello, there is a discussion to merge the articles Bull and terrier with Staffordshire Bull Terrier. You are invited to participate . Blockhouse321 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Er, thanks, but members are made aware of these matters, and more, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs#Article alerts. William Harris (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Blockhouse321, further if you look above, a notice already exists here. Cavalryman (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC).

I suggest that Sheep dog article is either merged or deleted all together, as it lacks sources and does not have any information on the subject that is not presented in the Herding dog article. I am currently working on expanding it, will continue to do that. @William Harris? @Cavalryman? --LoraxJr 15:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello LoraxJr, thanks for the ping. "Sheep dog" is a list rather than an article. "Herding dog" is an article which contains a list, which includes those dogs already listed on "Sheep dog". I support a WP:BOLD change of "Sheep dog" into a redirect which points to "Herding dog". William Harris (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

LoraxJr, thanks for the ping. I will need to think about this one, not all herding dogs are sheepdogs (some breeds are specifically developed to herd cattle) and the term sheepdog is also sometimes used to include livestock guardian dogs. I agree though, both articles are in need of a good scrubbing. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC).