Talk:English Cocker Spaniel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleEnglish Cocker Spaniel was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 19, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 14, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 11, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
August 13, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 18, 2014Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Delisted good article

Rage Syndrome -- how prevalent?[edit]

I have an English cocker and have met many other owners of this breed -- I have never heard of an actual instance of "rage syndrome." However, many people otherwise unfamiliar the breed and dogs in general have heard of this rage syndrome. I'm concerned that the public perception of this issue is out of proportion with its rate of occurrence -- there is a large section devoted to this issue which any lay person looking into the breed will be confronted with, and this may have an undue affect on their decision whether to adopt a dog of this type. Does anybody know its actual prevalence? In what percentage of individuals does this occur, and in how many instances it occurs over that individuals's lifetime? These are questions that must be addressed to give the reader the facts he needs to reach a reasonable conclusion of his own, rather than induce apprehension and a distorted and possibly unfounded sense of fear. This issue and how it is presented also affects how the public in general perceives the breed and may create a prejudice that, once created, will be difficult to dispel, like that against pit bulls, which resulted in their being redlined from many public and private spheres, including the whole of the United Kingdom. Is such a large section really warranted here? As a sort of novelty, perhaps, as it is associated with the breed, but in any case, for a balanced entry that enables a reader to develop an informed opinion, facts on how common and serious this syndrome is need to be included, otherwise the entry may serve to misalign the breed and perpetuate flimsy, half-informed "I heard they have rage problems" rumors.

Cross Breeding[edit]

I removed a statement that stated that the difference in appearance between show and field lines was "likely" the result of cross breeding with other dog breeds among hunting lines. No source was offered and in researching this issue, I have found nothing to support it. As these two types of dog have always been registered with the same body, it is not any more likely that field-dog breeders would cross breed dogs than show breeders would. Moreover, the differences are entirely explainable through selective breeding. In fact, a good case can be made that the field-bred dog is more similar to the classical spaniel than is the show bred dog. Afterall, field dogs have not been selectively bred to alter their appearance. They have been selected for hunting ability, while show dogs have been selected for physical traits that breeders believe will attract the attention of show judges. This has led to longer ears, silkier coats, and larger body size.--Counsel 16:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense to me. I suspect it'll be tough to find reliable sources that explain this one way or the other. If you find any web sites to support these thoughts, would be nice to add them as references. Elf | Talk 17:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This difference in appearance between show and field lines is not uncommen, even in other breeds, and is more likely the result of a different focus in breeders breeding program. In field lines the focus is usually on the dogs performence as a working dog, and less on it's appearance. Jerazol 13:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Added[edit]

I have added a number of sources to the page. Question: when is this section titled "Sources" and when is it titled "References"? Additionally, I posted links to a very lengthy history of the breed. There is good information there, some of which we should include in our history section. I will give it a go later, but do not have time right now. That is why I posted it in External Links rather that sources. If some of the information is incorporated into our history section, should these links go into the Sources section?--Counsel 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It shd always be "References" for items used to add or verify info in the article. Sometimes there's a "Further readign" section for books that people might find interesting that don't necessarily relate to anything in the article. Yes, web refs just like books go into the Refs section when used to add info. Even better would be a few footnotes that indicate what key info came from where; I've been slowly figuring out how to do this. Elf | Talk 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a bit to the History section and will add a bit more soon. I am using the Harvard footnote style that Wiki says is one of the prefered styles. If someone more skilled that I can put in the Whiz-Bang numbered footnote system, that would be neat. As the Spaniel Journal articles are now properly cited in the history section, I moved them to references.--Counsel 05:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rating[edit]

I have placed a GA rating on this article. I believe that this article meets the qualifications of this rating and compares favorably with those rated similarly.--Counsel 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think that we should nominate it for good-article status officially, so that it can be formally recognized as such. On that basis, I am now submitting the nomination. In general, I personally intended the section of the Dogs project page to list only those which have, as it were, officially been recognized as good articles, so I think that in the future we might want to get the "formal" recognition before unilaterally declaring an article to be a GA. After all, that really is in the domain of another group. But I certainly have no objections to seeing "B" class-rated articles which are only right now rated that because they haven't "officially" been recognized as GAs nominated and given the recognition they deserve. Badbilltucker 23:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epilepsy[edit]

Does anyone have a source for this?--Counsel 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold[edit]

A quick scan of this article shows that it contains almost no inline citations. Without citations in place, it cannot qualify as a Good Article. I'm placing the review on hold, which will allow up to a week for citations to be added. Once they are, I'll be happy to review the article again. Shimeru 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA[edit]

Since no citations have been added to the article in the past week, I am failing it. Please feel free to reapply when citations are put into place. Shimeru 10:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination.

There are very few citations and the ones that are there don't follow the citation format. Quite a few unsourced statements that could be taken as POV. The prose seems pretty good, but the article could use a copy edit.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Scorpion 05:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cockeranian[edit]

Technicly these may be mutts, but Cockeranians are reconized by many dog associations. I'm thinking about creating an article on them, and would like permision to add a statement about the mix here. Any counter suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnnywalterboy (talk • contribs).

I don't see a problem with mentioning the mix in the article, but I don't believe the introductory text is the appropriate place to add it. Posibly the history section, or a small separate section. Jerazol 07:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are several popular cocker crosses around (spoodles, spanadors... there's probably a spottweiler somewhere out there ;-) so a small section covering all of these might be appropriate somewhere in the article body. --Calair 07:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, sorry about that, I was so tired last night I wasn't even thinking.Johnnywalterboy 17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the text again. I tried to rewrite it, but removing all the unsubstantiated claims like "Almost as popular as pure bred cockers", "If for any reason, a Cocker Spaniel Breeder chooses to breed a mixed litter, they will probably choose the Cocker Spaniel-Pomeranian(dog) mix" etc left me with nothing. The text as it was read like an advertising for someone trying to push their particular flavor of Cocker-mix. Jerazol 05:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Training[edit]

Traning your dog takes time. If your puppy doesnt learn it right away just keep going over the trick with the dog. A good reward is givng the puppy a treat. If your dog is bad send it to his/her bed. Training your dog will make it more obediant. If you do have problems training your dog go to obetiant classes. That is what I did with my dog. It helps I promise you. If obedient classes dont work then your local vet may be able to give you some help. REMEMBER YOU CANT TEACH AN OLD DOG NEW TRICKS!!! START WHEN IT IS STILL YOUNG!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.91.250 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed[edit]

In response to the GA failure, I've added a load of citation needed tags to the article today. These are the points I believe that need citations in order to progress this article to GA status. Miyagawa (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Further note, I've now found citations for all of those and have nominated this article for GA once again.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:English Cocker Spaniel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will begin reviewing this article. I will massage the prose as I go. Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead - this should be a summary of salient points in the article - thus it should contain a one or two sentence description, note on health/genetic diseases, close relative dog breeds, and one or two other most important points. I will add a few in a minute. But "merry" sounds a bit unencyclopedic --> "good-natured"??
  • I have not heard "cocker" as an abbreviation before. Is this recorded elsewhere and used?
  • I'd convert the Height and Weight into a few sentences of prose for the Description section. good work
  • Sentence 1 in the Colour section leaves me wanting to know which colours are seen that are not allowed in show competition. Also, is there any information on which are common and which are rare? better
  • I'd remove the subheadings in the Health section as they leave very small sections - I'd add some notes on what Hip dysplasia means for a pet owner, a limping dog? a paraplegic dog? etc. Ditto the cardiomyopathy - is it early onset or late onset?
  • The article really needs to mention how an English Cocker Spaniel differs from an American one, and it needs to be mentioned in the lead as well. Also, why the split?
  • Please format the references and add parameters - author, accessdate, work etc. This is where I find the "cite" format really useful.
  • If it is closer to the two springer spaniel breeds, then 1-2 sentences at the end of the description section should be added expalining similarities and differences. This also then satisfies lead requiremnts as a note mentioned in lead which is expanded elsewhere in the article.

Overall, has promise very nearly there - if we can sort out some content and structure, then I think it'll pass as GA, but some stuff needs to be done first. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Improvements[edit]

Going to use this section as a checklist to show where the improvements are following the GA review.

So far completed are:

  • Converted height/weight into sentences of prose. Also added reference for this too, as found that the breed standard was different to what we had listed. Miyagawa (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed sub headings from the health section. Also expanded and added references to the hip dysplacia/arthritus and cardiomyopathy. Still looking for a definative source to say if it's early or late onset, from what I've read it seems to lead that it's late but I want something to state it specifically.Miyagawa (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now added reference regarding onset of canine cardiomyopathy. Couldn't find details for certain if it was "early" or "late", but have added a reference which states that it's "adult" onset. Miyagawa (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transferred all references onto the cite template with existing data. Will go back through later on and double check for things like author names and publisher details etc. Miyagawa (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone through all references and added any additional publisher/author details as avaliable. Miyagawa (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded colour section. Miyagawa (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added section to description and history regarding American Cocker Spaniel size differences and history. Miyagawa (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added paragraph and reference explaining differences between English Cockers and English Springers. Miyagawa (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Wiktionary template and links to both the Cocker Spaniel page and the Cocker page under external links. The Cocker page specificially lists itself as an abbriviation for Cocker Spaniel. Miyagawa (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - Added line summarising health section to lead paragraph. Miyagawa (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done we're there Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-GA Improvements[edit]

Since this article just passed GA, I am going post two improvements that I think should be done to the article. I would like to get everyone's opinion before I do it, though. The two improvements are as follows:

  1. Move the History section to just under the lead section like our FA-class Beagle article.
  2. The article currently uses the UK Kennel Club breed standard for height and weight. While those values are used by most of the world, it should be noted that the American and Canadian Kennel Clubs have a slightly higher height standard (16-17 inches for males, 15-16 inches for females) and a slightly different weight standards (28-34 pounds for males, 26-32 pounds for females). Coaster1983 (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with point 2 that all three standards should be mentioned (wonder what we use here in Australia then...). History sections differ from article to article. Aligning it with Beagle would be good. I'd also possibly expand the health a little. More info on the actual debility of the dogs and ages when they get these conditions and what is being done about them. Genetic probelms are highly controversial in dog breeding at the moment. It would be nice to take this article to the next level....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you input, Casliber. For your information, the Australian National Kennel Council, a member of the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI), uses the FCI breed standard. That standard is identical to the UK Kennel Club standard. The New Zealand Kennel Club is also a member of the FCI.

English Cocker Spaniel Userbox[edit]

To celebrate the GA status, I've created my first userbox specifically for English Cocker Spaniel owners:

This user is usually being snuggled by their English Cocker Spaniel(s)

{{User:Miyagawa/UBX/English Cocker Spaniel}}

Feel free to use it where ever you like!

Miyagawa (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update to article[edit]

Can someone remind me when the Wikicup is done to come back and overhaul this article. It was the first one I worked up to GA, and when you compare it to even the American Cocker Spaniel article (let alone the King Charles Spaniel article), it's rather lacking and I feel theres a lot the add (the history section is especially poor for such a well known breed). Miyagawa (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures removed[edit]

A black coloured english cocker spaniel

The dog shown on the pictures is very cute, no doubt of that. These picures vere removed only because the composition is very unbalanced and it does not show much of the English Cocker Spaniel dog’s characteristic features, so actually I think you should try to take a better picture to put into the article. Why I think is not a very good picture is because the composition is kind of dislocated, the picture shows the nose of the two dogs and nothing of the breeds other features. The same Editor who took the picture was the same, who also initiated the change, and that would be lobbying for own work and own picture, even if I do understand the creators feelings for liking their own pictures, it’s not a good enough reason. These pictures are not as good pictures as the ones removed , so it was the reason why we remove them time to time, but they keep coming back. The author is putting them back all the time. There is a conflict of interest when promoting one’s own pictures. Even if I do understand the creator’s feelings for liking their own pictures, it’s not a good enough reason. Hafspajen (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

File:Vito Garcia 4.jpg
File:Nino Reyes 14.jpg
Just feels like a monolog, but this picture is not better than the lead picture, it shows a just as much leggs and shoes, as dog, and and in the lead we use standing dogs. Hafspajen (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This last picture, please just do not add that back, please. It doesn't not show anything of the English Cocker Spaniel dog’s characteristic features, one can't see the legs, head, eyes, ears, - well, nothing that is heelpful to describe a dog breed, it shows only the back, from above. We can put it maybe into an other article, but not this one. Hafspajen (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Move it to Bird's-eye view article. Hafspajen (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop adding pictures that are not up to wikipedia standards, please. One can not jump into an article and replace the leading picture in this random way. There is a conflict of interest when promoting one’s own pictures. We chosed that picture and this one is not at all as good as the lead picture, so leave it alone, please. One can't have a sitting dog in the lead.


  • Please notice that your contributions are disruptive. Removing established good quality pictures and replacing them with your own, much lower to lower quality at English Cocker Spaniel, is not helpfull. Stop doing this, you can't remove an established picture from an article to replace it with a much worse, without discussing this, AND you are edit warring. When you see other editors don't agree with your additions, you must discuss that, but no, you just keep adding the same very bad pictures all the time, even when I explain to you why you should stop doing this and why those pictures are not good enough. And unless you have an extraordinarely wonderful picture that is much much better that the lead picture - the lead picture stays where it is.
  • Now he is back for about 5th time and removing the lead picture, replace it with some bad quality picture of his own and refuse to discuss it. Hafspajen (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on English Cocker Spaniel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_Cocker_Spaniel&oldid=1213517046"