Talk:Cockapoo

Reliably sourced version
& if you are not the same person, please read about WP:Reliable sources, the version you keep reverting to is not adequately attributed to reliable sources. I welcome you to add to the reliably sourced version I have written, but please stop your blind reverting to a abysmal version of the article that does not adhere to Wikipedia’s standards. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC).

Unrealistic Standards for Reliable Sources
Some considerably large amounts of detailed information continue to be deleted from this page under the explanation that it is not reliably sourced. It seems the standards being applied are out of line with general practice across wikipedia, even if they could be (arguably) defended under the strict interpretation of wikipedia's reliable source guidelines.

The fact that a Cockapoo is a cross breed and not an official breed recognized by an association means it is impossible for there to be a definitive source or definition of what the breed is. In the absence of this, citing multiple long-standing websites that all concur on various details about the breed seems a reasonable way to cite the information.

Take for example the page about golden retrievers. This breed is one that is recognized by the American Kennel Club, which fits the the stricter definition of a reliable source, but it also relies on many websites similar in "reliability" as the American Cockapoo Club, which consistently gets removed as an unreliable source on this page. Examples of what has been allowed as a reliable source on the Golden Retriever page are www.k9web.com, www.fetchdog.com etc., This is an example of inconsistent standards being applied.

This page used to be full of what common sense would tell you is very good, detailed, reliable information. But it continues to get nuked because it is being held to a higher standard that usual. And given the fact that it is about a topic that will likely never have a "reliable source" some consideration needs to be made to aforementioned common sense.

If this unreasonable standard continues to be applied to this page it will forever remain a Stub. Given the acceptance of similarly reliable sources on other articles, it stands to reason that wikipedia would be better off retaining the old, detailed, informative, and generally agreed upon among multiple sources, version of this page, rather than have next to no information at all. Even worse, the current article is demonstrably wrong, but because of the unrealistic standards being applied it keeps being reverted to a wrong version. Examples include the weight and size range of the dog, the fact that it is a mix with a miniature poodle (it can be a mix with any poodle) and more. It is sad to see that an incorrect version of the page is being favored over a correct version because of an unfair and unrealistic standard of reliable sources. Arthurdents (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Arthur Dents
 * , if I had to choose between you and about who has more knowledge of Wikipedia's standards regarding the reliability of sources, or the reasonableness of what we can include with what kind of sources, Ima go with Cavalryman. We are not going to have content sourced to dogtime.com or poodlemixworld.com; the former is just another website with content but no editorial policy by which to judge reliability, and the latter is someone's personal website. Sorry, but no, that is not going to be accepted here. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Cavalryman removed sources including americancockapooclub.com, dogtime.com (which is sourced on over 1,000 articles on wikipedia), and a published book (ISBN 978-0-9927843-8-6). It is a shame that you see this as a contest between who is more knowledgeable, myself or him. I see this as a loss to Wikipedia that obviously reliable information is being deleted due to demonstrably unfair standards being applied. The result is that this page now has information that is in disagreement with a very large amount of other sources on the web (that have been accepted as RS on other articles) and in published text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurdents (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, americancockapooclub.com & dogtime.com are clearly short of Wikipedia’s standards for sourcing, anywhere I see the latter I remove it. As for the book, you did not include sufficient bibliographic information to WP:Verify what you were citing. I appreciate your frustration when you see other pages that are in poor shape, there are only so many working to bring these pages back into line with policy and so many hours in a day, therefore many pages are yet to be reviewed and rewritten if necessary. Cavalryman (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC).


 * I think it's appropriate to start having a discussion about whether Cavalryman is doing an edit war on this page, if you look at the page history, it's mostly compulsive edits of any information that he didn't personally ad to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gocreighton (talk • contribs) 18:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, I would welcome any review of my contributions, as you can see above an administrator has already commented on this discussion but if you think that is insufficient I suggest you post something at WP:AN. With regards to this recent contribution, as I clearly articulated in my edit summary the cited book is self published and as far as I can ascertain the author has never “previously been published by reliable, independent publications”. As such the book should be not be considered a reliable source and both it and the information attributed to it should be removed. Cavalryman (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC).

1950s or 1960s?
The Encyclopedia of the Dog and Designer Dogs books referenced in the article list the 1960s as the origin period for the dog. Purina also lists the 1960s.

The Cockapoos: A Complete Pet Owner's Manual at page 7, the Cockapoo Club of America, and the Cockapoo Club of Great Britain list the 1950s. Pet insurers LV and Tesco Bank also list the 1950s.

Is there a definitive answer to this ambiguity? RoanokeVirginia (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fogle and Morris are eminent sources and both say 60s, Gauge is more marginal but also says 60s. The reliable source that says 50s is Amon, it is probably more marginal again. None of the other links you have provided are reliable, secondary sources. Therefore, 60s is far better sourced. Cavalryman (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC).

Not to be confused with Kakapo
Is anyone really confusing the Cockapoo with the kakapo? The names are only slightly similar whilst sounding different regardless of accent Traumnovelle (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)