Talk:Dalmatian dog/Archive 1

Run Dalma Run!
Why would one breed a dog to run along horses or carriages? Kent Wang 01:27, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


 * --> They were used primarily for stage coach protection, therefore lived with the horses. They were also used to run ahead of the old fire wagon pulled by horses to clear the road. Stuart Pid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.137.245.198 (talk • contribs).


 * LOL! The same reason why people breed freakish looking poodle or pug. --Menchi 02:09, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I found better info in my dog books. Does this answer the question mo better? (You ask interesting questions! :-) ) And Poodles aren't really freakish looking (see photos on breed page). They're actually quite standard-looking beasties!--just the haircut seems sometimes a little odd to us normal people, and we don't have photos of those more hoity-toity cuts in their article. Probably should.  Now, Pugs, on the other hand-- Elf | Talk 02:32, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Great edits to this article recently! I really like the extra content and clarification. --Nevilley 23:37, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Smaller Danish Dog
However, I took out this sentence: "It is also sometimes, believed to erroneously, named Smaller Danish Dog." - as it does not on the face of it seem to make sense. What does it mean? Can we sort it out and put it back? --Nevilley 23:37, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no idea and couldn't figure it out but left it there hoping that someone else might know what it meant. I'm guessing that something somewhere (no idea in or out of wikip) refers to it as a "smaller danish dog" and whoever added this was pointing out that this is incorrect. Don't know whether it's necessary unless it's an authoritative source, but I don't know and didn't check history to figure out who added this. Elf | Talk 20:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I wrote that to mean "Dalmatian is also sometimes called "Smaller Danish Dog", but some people believe that name is erroneous" (since it also applies to some bulldogs, it seems). OED says "Dalmatian dog, the spotted coach-dog, sometimes called ‘smaller Danish dog’. Also Dalmatian pointer, etc." --Menchi 22:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember it was due to the naming of the Great Dane, that the seeming similarity in coloring of the Harlequin Great Dane and Dalmatians made people call one the "Greater Dane Dog" and the other the "Smaller Dane Dog" Elipongo 08:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Move this to Disambig page?
So, I am a Dalmatian too... ehm... and I'm not a dog. :) Dalmatians are also the inhabitants of Dalmatia, so I would like to move this page to "Dalmatian (dog)" and make "Dalmatian" a disambig page which would link to Dalmatia (for the people). If there are no objections in the next few days I'd like to proceed with that change. --Arny 20:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds prudent to me. I own a Dalmation (dog) and I don't think he would mind, either. :) Accurizer 21:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What?! No way! Only dogs are allowed to be Dalmatians! The rest of you must resign yourselves to becoming... er, um, Dalmatioids! Er, Dalmatiacs! Er, well, hmmm, OK, I guess your suggestion is a better one. (There's plenty of precedence for doing this, e.g., Maltese, Pomeranian. Just remember to fix all the redirects...and it's a big list for this one. Maybe someone could make a bot--?  Thanks.)  Elf | Talk 21:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, we Dalmatians (khm, people) sure did a fine job breeding such nice dogs for others to enjoy, at least we deserve a disambig entry ;) It seems there shouldn't be any serious objections so here is my plan: I'll move this to "Dalmatian (dog)", make "Dalmatian" disambig page for the dog and "Dalmatia", then correct the redirect "Dalmation" to point directly to the dog, and then correct links from the pages concerning dog breeds. The other links could be left as they are since they'd just be pointing to the disambig page (and I've seen many such cases on WP), or I might just engage in a manual "Search and destroy" campaign and hunt other links. What do you think? Greetings, fellow dog lovers from the sworn wikignome Arny 02:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's the deal: I made the change and corrected links from all articles about dogs and/or dalmatians I could find. There remain some links from userpages and articles concerning other topics. They now simply go to the disambiguation page (for which I used Maltese page as the template). This OK? --Arny 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. Elf | Talk 01:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problem!
Much of what's on this page is identical to that on http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/dalmatian.htm. That site states "The Material contained herein may not be reproduced without the prior written approval of the author. © 1998-2006 All Rights Reserved." 198.49.180.40 17:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Have to say, I can't see any relation (even when looking at versions from May 2006). Both articles mention many of the same points, but then they are discussing the same subject. -- Solipsist 08:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Smiles
The article states that dalmations are "unique" in being able to smile. Does anyone have a reference to prove this is true? I have seen several dogs from other breeds do this as well, so I think a reputable source may be hard to find! --Rachel 22:56, 3 Oct 2006
 * I think it's rubbish too. Of three English Springer Spaniels owned by my family in succession, two have "smiled" in exactly the same way that the Dalmatian here is doing. -- Necrothesp 01:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

New Picture
In response to the picture request, I have added two new photographs of our dog Paris (or Zagrab's Temptress at TNG), who is now retired from showing. Both pictures are from different angles, showing the front and side of the dog, both in the stacked, show conformation style. Mllefantine 01:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Print
Something's wrong with the Printable Version. I can only see a chaos there.

Historical inaccuracy
Found this while reading the history section of the article: "...However, no historical evidence of this breed being present in the Balkans dates before the early 20th century, when they where brought there by England." This is simply not true. There is a handful of evidence that these dogs were bred in Dalmatia during the medieval ages and where used as war dogs for taking down horses by biting them at the snout. In fact, there was a whole regiment equipped with these animals that fought against the Turks in the battle of Mohacko polje. 161.53.129.244 14:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with harlequin great danes
There was a statement saying that no other breed has spotted markings "(except for the "Harlequin" variety of the Great Dane). This is false: a harlequin's markings are more akin to a cow's patchy black markings; patches of color are undesirable on dalmatians, with the standard calling for clearly distinguishable, round spots (key here is the distinction between spot and patch). While it's true that a certain resemblance exists between dalmatians and harlequin great danes, it should be phrased in a way that makes it clear that it's just a resemblance, and in no way are the dalmatian's spots non-unique among dogs. With apologies to Ossipewsk, I chose to remove the statement since it's a bit misleading; I'm not opposed to adding this information again but please phrase in a way that makes this issue as clear as possible. Thanks! Roadmr (t|c) 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair call, I guess. Although I'd point out that most of the article's Dally show-pictures (including the first three head shots and the type-photo in the InfoBox) show specimens where the dark markings on the front half of the dogs could accurately be called "patches" rather than "spots" - especially on the ears, necks and chests.  They're certainly larger than the "size of a dime to the size of a half-dollar" spots defined by the | AKC standard and just as big, proportionately, as the black markings on a harlequin Great Dane.--Ossipewsk 03:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So to be correct according to the standard... I guess we shouldn't have named our Dal "Patches!" But I just couldn't imagine calling her "Spot!" ;-)

Use of language
I note a lot of words and phrases like "must" and "is not acceptable" in this article (e.g. "In liver Dalmatians, the nose must always be brown", "The blue eye is not acceptable in British Dalmatians"). It's written a little too much like a dog show handbook. Just because a dog does not meet the strict requirements of showing does not mean it's "not acceptable", just that it can't be shown. The whole tone strikes me, as a dog lover but not someone in any shape or form interested in the artificial world of dog shows, as somewhat arrogant, and I really think it should be rewritten in a slightly less condescending tone. By all means say what the dog show requirements are, but don't imply that dogs which are slightly outside those requirements are somehow inferior or unacceptable, any more than you would imply that human beings who are not among the "beautiful people" are somehow inferior or unacceptable. This is no more than a POV, and as in every other class of article there is no place for it in Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey! I've gone ahead and edited the article a little bit to improve it in this regard. I rephrased the indication that the british standard does not accept "such small" animals, to merely state the documented requirement for taller dogs. I also outright removed the "blue eye is not acceptable" sentence since it's unsourced and even the standard makes no mention of that requirement. I believe those two sentences were the worst offenders; I'll think of a way to rephrase the rest of the article to reflect the fact that, while a dalmatian not conforming to the standard will do poorly on the show floor, it's still a perfectly good dog. I know my dalmatian would fail miserably on a show but you should see the way she turns heads when we're walking her. Dalmatian charm rules! Roadmr (t|c) 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work. I've done a bit of copyediting. Hopefully all kennel club snobbishness now eliminated. -- Necrothesp 13:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Americanisms
Can someone please change the section which details the size of the spots? To anyone outside of America, the size of a quarter or a dime means nothing. I would change it, but I have no idea of the size of these coins! Thanks KillerKat (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

User Imbris
A review of Imbris' edit history reveals a nasty and chauvinistic, ill-informed user who refuses other users who have well-researched, scholarly contributions. Imbris is using this page to create an "FCI" type page, and in doing so, has reduced this forum to a political one. I see now why the content of this page has been substandard for all these years while the breed pages for other breeds has truly excelled. The nasty, selfish actions of an egotist can really defeat the entire purpose of WIKIPEDIA. Witness the Dalmatian page.

Woodrowpongo (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This kind of defamation deserves the ANI. I will not defend my character, we are not here for such edits, we are here to edit reliable sources and colaborate without violence. In accordance with WP you need more sources than one obscure author, and you need to learn to quote appropriately, with page numbers and links to books.google.com. Also you are a Canadian user, simpathetic to British Empire and similar. This is clear to us all. -- Imbris (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

@Imbrs, you are a nationalist twat and an idiot of the worst kind, you should be banned from editing any article pretending to European history. Now can someone ban this idiot please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.196.88 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Country of Origin
Dear Imbris and others, FCI is the only source which recognizes country of origin of the Dalmatian. No other Dalmatian authority accepts the FCI claim, because there is no research to substantiate it.

You are welcome to continue to revert the Country of Origin to Yugoslavia, if you wish. To do so is misleading and uninformed. To do so is also contrary to Wikipedia principles, which state that your propositions should be researched and verifiable.

Simply repeating chauvinistic assertions fails to meet appropriate wiki standards.

Woodrowpongo (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wikiproject on Dogs created the infobox Dog breed and determined what information goes into the box. Your retaliatory measures will not work. The FCI is the main authority on dogs, and all the local national authorities must comply with FCI, or else be expelled from its membership. Also those local national authorities gather up other organizations, clubs, dedicated to specific breeds, they must also comply with the Statutes of the FCI. Look it up, and please do not contines this accusatory methods and stating there is no reliable sources, the standard gave some sources and there are many. Please stop inserting false claims like English Coach Dog and similar, those can go into the history section under the disputed history subsection and not as accepted fact of the infobox. -- Imbris (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Twaddle
Dear Mr. Imbris, You reveal your ignorance. The FCI has no such status whatsoever: it is merely one of several national standards clubs. You are clearly uninformed on the topic of dogs, dog breeding and Dalmatians. Your methods and approach are in complete violation of wiki principles. You have clearly not read wiki policies and procedures; instead you are using this wiki as a personal forum -- a purpose which is forbidden. In doing so, you are denying readers their right to accurate and unbiased quality information. Virtually each and every line of the current wiki contains factual errors which require correction. I suggest you go and write for the wiki entry "BULLDOG" and leave civilized Dalmatian people alone.

Woodrowpongo (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are mislead, the fact remains that the FCI is the only international federation, this has precedece over other national clubs, it is international.


 * Your methods of over citing and using direct paragraphs and sentences are what is not permissable, per copyrights and otherwise.


 * You are the one that is using this article as a personal property, this Wikipedia is for all, and not just for those with low emotional inteligence, such as some offenders of personal integrity of editors and dishonest citation practicioners (copyrights offenders).


 * You are the one who makes the entire ordeal by quoting just what you like, where are Briggs, Giorgio da Sebenico, Drury, Walsh, Leighton and other authors who quote their sources. Why do you keep on insisting on fringe theories like the one about Banac purpotrated by Patches Silverstone in 1997.


 * Imbris (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-write needed
This article is awful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.229.189 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Breed Standard
The headings, “Appearance”, “Body”, “Size”, “Coat”, “Coloring” are basically a few of the key points of the breed standard (usually the AKC, with occasional marginal notes about other nations’ breed standard). The author has also thrown breed standard information into other sections, where it does not really belong (e.g. discussion of coat disqualifications in paragraph 1 – inappropriately specific level of detail re: one aspect of dog ownership, conformation showing). The next section, which should contain specifics, remains general.

I suggest a comprehensive review of the breed standard. This could even include the three major kennel clubs, US, UK and Canada. The subheadings are: General Appearance, Temperament, Size, Coat/Colour, Skull, Muzzle, Eyes, Ears, Neck, Topline/Body, Forequarters, Hindquarters, Tail, Feet, and Gait.

Gestation period is not specific to the Dalmatian. It makes little sense to state "Dalmatian's gestation is about 2 months". Gestation for all dogs is the same.

Woodrowpongo (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Popularity Section
The accuracy of the statements in this section is uknown: unsourced, they seem to reflect a point of view, which is not an acceptable purpose for a WIKI.

Further, the content of the questionable statements is redundant, merely repeating what the author has already tried to advance in the section entitled "Training".

Here again, if there is any place for this type of statement in a wiki, then my view is that it is under a heading such as "Breed Rescue" - conditions which led to the need for breed rescues and/or tested their capacities.

Otherwise, these statements lack the neutrality which is necessary for a quality WIKI entry.

As much as one might agree with them, they have little place in an encyclopedia. Making such arguments is the job of breed rescues, humane societies, and professional dog breeders. Encyclopedias can POINT to these sources, but must not adopt their views. To do so is against WIKI policy.

Woodrowpongo (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: History Section
The portion on Budweiser Beer and Anheuser-Busch does not belong in the section called History. As it stands, it sounds a little like an endorsement for a brewery, thus weakening the perceived reliability of this article.

I suggest the approach taken in the Old English Sheepdog wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_Sheepdog

There, the breed is also commercially associated with a paint manufacturer, Dulux. The heading used is Miscellaneous. Under the heading, the story -- which is of interest only to those who know of the Dulux dog -- is given.

I suggest hiving off the Anheuser-Busch reference in a similar fashion, as it is only a regional reference, unknown outside of the US. Other regional writers/editors would then feel welcome to add their own regional *mascots* in advertising, without the article seeming to be an endorsement of Budweiser.

Woodrowpongo (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Training Section
PROBLEM This section does not belong in an encylopedic breed description, as its content represents an individual's Point of View, and therefore do not meet WIKI criteria. Approaches to basic training is (in most normal circumstances)are not specific to breeds.

The content is additionally suspect because it is anthropomorphized (as mentioned by an editor below), key statements being unsourced.

The author also conflates breed rescue services with training. The temptation to make the linkage between training challenges and breed rescue is understandable, but not permitted by WIKI (because it is a point of view, rather than a fact).

Further, there is nothing breed-specific about dogs being given up because owners are too lazy to train them. It is a rather offensive that the first statement about training deals with the author's view of people who get it wrong.

SUGGESTED APPROACH I suggest replacing this with a link to the WIKI section on Dog Training and Behaviour, located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dog_training_and_behavior

The author's interests can be accommodated, if they can be stated according to WIKI criteria (no personal points of view), by adding a section entitled, Breed Rescue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dog_training_and_behavior

Woodrowpongo (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As of today (January 25, 2009), the Training sentence begins in the middle of a sentence. I don't have the knowledge to do anything about it.

John W. Kennedy (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not good family pets?
I heard that Dalmatians were not good family pets and can be aggressive. Is that true or did that just come out of nowhere? I'm only wondering because I was writing an article for a newsletter and I want my facts to be true. It's a Dalmatian article for a dog newsletter.

Like all improperly handled and trained dogs, Dalmatians can be very aggressive and dangerous. Their heritage is in guarding things (carriages, horses, etc.) and they are very territorial. Dalmatians are, however, the most affectionate breed of dog I have ever come across. With proper obedience training and curbing of bad behaviors, Dalmatians make wonderful family dogs. The thing is that you can't just plop a full-grown, untrained Dalmatian into a gaggle of small children and expect it to play nice. It takes work.

This is information that has been perpetuated since bad breeding practices* and innapropriate ownership / lack of excercise training became commonplace after a certain films release led to an upsurge in popularity. Its an opinion I am often questioned over when walking my Dalmatian, and people are amazed that he adores kids and is extremely gentle. Any breed of dog if improperly trained/ stimulated/ exercised/ socialised could be aggresive or develop other personality flaws. I see no evidence that dalmatians display a worse tendency in this respect. They are certainly energetic and require stimulation or can become destructive but that is the same for many similarly active breeds. Part of the belief may also have been perpetuated as adults told children that dalmatians didnt like children to negate requests for such a pet after seeing THE FILM. This has been brought to my attention as a number of people who have queried my pets temperament came to there belief exactly this way. Dalmatians have since declined in popularity and the number of breeders has dropped greatly (certainly in my area - Ontario). More responsible breeding means generally better temperament and health of the breed, but long waiting list and a lengthy journey may be required if you want to a pet "spotter". Gnarlyswine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.172.53 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If bad breeding has lead to a dog that is poorly behaved, then poor behavior is indeed a characteristic of the dog. It doesn't matter what the breed *should* be like. If a citation can be found to support such a claim, it belongs in the article.


 * to expand - the bad breeding lead to instances of animals with poor temperament, the exception , not the rule - so no. It is not a charcateristic of the dog , any more than a congenital deformity caused by multiple generations of inbreeding in an area could be considered a characteristic of human beings as a whole. I stand by my earlier statement. - Gnarlyswine.

They are not reccommended for families with children. http://animal.discovery.com/breed-selector/dog-breeds/non-sporting/dalmatian.html Ggrzw (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision needed
This page is looking really bad. The formatting is appauling! The use of titles, separaters and bold font is completely irregular. Also the section on Dalmatian training is extremely biased towards the author's own personal opinian of dog training. It is unprofessional and does not belong in an encyclopedic entry. There is no specific kind of "Dalamtian" training. Also, what happened to the old "Talk" page? There were several discussions that were valuable and should not have been deleted. This page a mess! Mllefantine 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. The author apparently did not have any experience in writing encyclopedia articles and there can be some major changes done to make the article better. There are a multitude of ways to train a dog and they should show ALL of them.

Dalmatian Training
I have been editing the pages with great care (i.e. only the 'Training' and 'Other Issues section'. My statements are primarily from the Dalmatians welfare point of view than a seller's point of view. In case you are deleting statements or modifying them, please indicate here, by way of discussion, clearly why you choose to do so. In particular, I would appreciate it if the first sentence in the training section is not deleted. Please sign up to one of the Dalamation rescues and see the plight of these lives brought upon by ignorance of the facts in the training section.

- Some of the spellings in there might seem a tad strange; they are not incorrect.

192.100.124.218 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's dalmatiAn, not dalmatiOn. ;-)--Pointeprincess 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While Dalmatian welfare is important, considering this is an encyclopedia, th most important thing is to provide unbiased, accurate, and professional information. Although I personal may agree with some of the views sighted on the training page, they belong on a personal web site, NOT in an encyclopedia. Mllefantine 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on this statement in the "Training": "Dalmatians have extremely sensitive personalities and will not forget ill-treatment and ill-treatment can and certainly will break a dog's spirit and a Dalmatian's - certainly so." I feel it's not really specific to Dalmatians. I don't think they are any more sesitive then any other breed--in fact, from owning three and working with numerous others, I would have to say they are extremely stubborn and strong willed and much LESS sensitive then any other breed that I have owned or trained. They are not a particularily willing-to-please breed. Obviously I am NOT condoning ill treatment of any breed, I just don't believe this information is specific to Dalmatians--at all! I feel it is leading people astray as to the typical personality of the breed. Would anyone object if I altered this?Mllefantine 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be okay for you to edit it. Dalmatians are pretty stubborn and many people might write a published article saying that Dalmatians are one of the most sensitive breeds, which is not true. That will lead even more people to the wrong conclusion. I say: "Change it so it does not show they are more sensitive then most dogs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.205.55 (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed-- the statement that Dalmatians are sensitive is not encyclopedic and not supported by citation anyway. I will remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.249.166 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Link
Looking at reference number 10, it actually states that Dominicans (the order of Catholic priests) are the "Watchdogs of the Lord", not Dalmatians. And the link between dalmatians and dominicans is weak at best.

Blue eyes linked to deafness
"Blue eyes are regarded as a fault by many organisations because Dalmatians with blue eyes are entirely deaf in the ear(s) on the same side(s) as the blue eyes." Any sources/evidence of this??? Back it up or it should be removed ... 67.161.186.85 06:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. From personal experience (and numerous searches), blue eyes are not a definitive trait of deafness.  However occurrences of deafness are significantly higher in dogs with blue eyes (and the Dalmatian has a significantly higher number of occurrences of deafness than many other breeds).  Kameron 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Research by the Dalmatian Club of America suggests that there may be a link between blue eyes and deafness. I added the citation on the main page where the citation was needed. Mllefantine 19:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a higher percentage of blue eyed dogs that are deaf, however certainly not all, this applies to a number of breeds though not just dalmatian. The gene causing deafness is also unfortunaltely linked to the spots so cant be bred out without introducing another breed lineage. Something like this has /is being tried by the backcross project to eradicate another common dalmation problem with the urinary tract http://www.dalmatianheritage.com/about/Seltzer.htm unfortunately AKC wont recognize these dogs currently.216.75.172.53 (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Gnarlyswine

Images
Just a few minutes ago one editor placed two images into the article in good faith, and another editor immediately removed them, citing as the reason that they had been removed before. I see no discussion here or in the archive relating to a discussion that there are too many images in this article. I don't think that good faith edits that don't damage the content of the article should be reverted without a bit of discussion. I do think that it would be nice to have photos relevant to the sections they are in, e.g. a Dal in the obedience ring for the training section and one with a firefighter in the association with firefighters section. Perhaps we could even get a picture of a dog actually coaching? &mdash;Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

These are the two images I posted that were immediately removed with no discussion. The user informed me that this is an encyclopedia, not a pet gallery. Can I get some thoughts on whether these should be permitted on the page? I realize there are getting to be a lot of pictures, but the one is a very good head shot, and the second depicts a Dalmation close up, from the front angle. I feel these are more encyclopedic then some of the others. For example the Dalmatian in the woods is a great pic, but it's difficult to see the dog because the picture is at a distance and the harness is distracting. Also, the dogs in the pictures are show quality animals, which I think is important in an encyclopedic entry about a purebred breed. I agree that it would be nice to get some pictures of Dalmatians coaching, or doing agility, etc. Mllefantine 19:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed them as there was already more than sufficient images showgasling desired attributes in the breed standard and frontal-view images. As the user didn't take the care to discuss adding images that are clearly repetitive, I didn't feel the obligation to discuss their removal. They are obviously gratuitous, and created a disruption in the article's text. So I removed them per WP:NOT, WP:IUP and WP:Images. A discussion on this page before making potentially-controversial changes, or replacing images already present that were similar instead of adding duplicates (which I wouldn't have had a problem with, as these are good quality images, and arguably better than some already present) would have been the proper protocol to follow. In removing inappropriate additions that violate clear policy/guidelines and were not discussed, I am not the one at fault. VanTucky 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi VanTucky. Nobody is trying to assign fault here, we're all just trying to make the article better. The policies & guidelines you cite don't directly address the addition of properly contextual, cited, and relevant images that are not in galleries into an article. They do mention that if the article is getting too crowded with images, that some can be "queued" onto the talk page for later re-addition to the article when it's expanded with enough text for the images to fit. You're right that the images could have been discussed here prior to addition to the article, but likewise it should have been discussed before they were deleted. I would like to direct you to the WP:REVERT guideline, specifically the "When to revert" section. It can foster ill will among editors to simply revert good faith edits that don't significantly damage the article. The article is currently 24.5k in size and has 6 images, in my opinion, two more hardly made it crowded- but opinions can differ. If the consensus is that 8 images would make the article too cluttered, then I would vote for a couple of the current images to be replaced, since the new ones that Mllefantine uploaded are of higher quality than a few on there. The old pictures can be queued here on the talk page as described in the guidelines you cited. Thank you very much for your helping in making this article better! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Christ, I'm blind sometimes. My sincere apologies Elipongo.
 * My assertion about crowding was about the way the images messed with the readability of the text, not an overall ratio; as there is no firm guideline about what that exact ratio should be and using that argument in other debates has not held water in my experience. But yes, I absolutely agree that the images I reverted are quite possibly better in reference to the minutiae of the breed standard. Normally I would just correct the redundancy with that factor of merit in mind, but as I did not feel qualified to judge images per the Dalmatian standard, I deferred to the images that had sat uncontested for quite some time. However, I would like to point out that images are not automatically preferred because they conform to a breed standard. This article is not an advocate for AKC/UKC standards of appearance. But in this situation, I don't see a problem with replacing say, the following image...

Image:A black-spotted female dalmatian.jpg


 * Is that an edit you both might agree to? Just personally, I aesthetically prefer the full-body image. But I'm not particular. VanTucky 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the full body front image would serve the article better, the article does have a very nice head image of a liver spotted individual, but we don't have a frontal full body shot. I also agree with the particular image to be queued here. In looking over the history, I see several other images that have been replaced over time. I propose to set up linkified queue of those images here or on a subpage for later possible use in the article. I am uncomfortable with the idea of a gallery as described in WP:IUP for the very reason that it could turn into a pet photo gallery- I should think that a simple linkified list would be sufficient. I'll create one in a couple of days if there are no objections.&mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea for past images used in the article...but isn't the page you're speaking of creating something already filled by Wikimedia Commons? Perhaps the images should be moved to Commons instead, and then we can add a link (including with a mention of/category for images used in the past)? VanTucky 22:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents' worth is that I prefer this image:

Image:Black_spotted_female_dalmatian.jpg to this one: Image:A black-spotted female dalmatian.jpg As long as they're both encyclopedic and illustrate the subject, I believe the first one (which was removed) is more pleasing than the second one (quite clearly just another "my pet in the kitchen" shot). I'm also a long-time watcher of this page and I'm puzzled by the removal of the first, a (IMHO) better picture which, to boot, had been in this article a lot longer, while keeping what I consider an inferior picture. Roadmr (t|c) 22:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to all: I agree that the blue-eyed Dalmatian is a very "pet-in-my" kitchen type photo. I liked the fact that it showed the blue-eyes, which aren't showcased elsewhere, but I agree that it is not very encyclopedic in nature. I like this deleted headshot because the liver dal only shows a profile, and if we end up removing the blue-eyed dal pic, there won't be a good, head on facial. In response to VanTucky, I agree that the pictures do not necessarily have to conform to any breed club's specific standards, but considering the page is about a purebred dog, I do think that inextricably links the a certian standard if possible. I do think it is important that the majority of the photos--although not necessarilly all-- should be of a high quality animal. But perhaps more importantly, aside from what the animal itself looks like, I think it is also important to try select pictures that are high quality and professional, and do not look like they personal snap shots of your dog in your living room. Anyway, Elipongo's idea about creating a link to a gallery of removed pictures is a good idea. I vote yea. Mllefantine 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've linkified the repeate images in this discussion because I think they were cluttering it up somewhat and making it a little hard to follow, if anyone disagrees with that edit, feel free to revert it- I won't mind.


 * I've also switched out the picture in the article since we've got four editors here agreeing about it. As for a queue, you bring up a good point about using Commons Vantucky. I think I'll post a note up at the WP:IUP talk page about whether that might not be a better route than having a talk page gallery as they suggest. As for the old images, there are some really useful ones on past versions of the article- one I think would be good to use is this nice one of a patched puppy Image:CIMG1892.JPG. You can't have a Dalmatian article without discussing patches vs. spots and a picture's worth a thousand words, as they say.&mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me, but just as long as the difference between "patching" and spotting is clearly explained in the article and the image's caption mentions the reason for exhibiting it (in relation to the relevant text). VanTucky 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitly agree with Elipongo that it would be great to have apicture of a patched dog! However I am not keen on the picture suggested (Image:CIMG1892.JPG) mostly because I am not entirely sure the puppy in the picture is a Dalmatian. It has no spots whatsoever, and to me, it actually doesn't even look like a Dalmatian; it looks more like a pitbull. Even patched Dalmatians always have spots. Is there any chance someone might have an alternative picture of a patched Dal?


 * Also, since VanTucky is concerned about clutter to the page (which I agree abount) is it possible to make the frontal pic of the Dalmatian a bit smaller? That would make the page look less cluttered. Mllefantine 02:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Is that size okay?&mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks awesome to me!!! Thanks!! Mllefantine 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the patched pup. It's pretty hard to tell breed at that age, and Dals don't always have spots- when they're whelped they're spot free and the ticking gene doesn't create their spots for several weeks. The image description says Dalmatian puppy in Spanish... at least I think it does. But there may be a better picture floating in the archives anyway, I haven't looked too hard yet. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I must humbly beg to differ. I have worked very closely with several very reputable breeders, and all Dalmatians have spots, regardless of whether or not they are show quality. You are right, they are born white, but the spots begin to show up at two weeks. The pup in question looks to be about 5-7 weeks old, and he should definitly have his spots well in place by then--after that age, they spots get bigger, darker and more defined, but their basic spot pattern is in place. Sorry to cause yet another disturbance, but I feel really strongly that this isn't a Dalmatian--aside from the lack of spots, even his face and ears don't really look like that of a Dal. I have some really great pictures of patched Dalmatians, but none of them are my own work. I'll see if i can unearth anything. if that fails, I am visiting a breeder this fall, and she may have a patched pup I can photograph for the page. Mllefantine 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * sounds like you know your dalmatians Mllfantine. I don't think the image is absolutely necessary even if it is one, so I've no objection to leaving it out. VanTucky 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please put a picture of a lemon spotted dalmatian on here? They may now be show ring acceptable dogs, but it would be nice to see them.
 * Lemon Dals are very rare, and I have yet to see one. The most informative page on the internet that I have found is: http://www.geocities.com/paisleydals/color.html. It is a personal web site, so i obviously can't post the pictures here, but it is very useful if you are interested and has lots of pictures. Is it possible to include the link in the links section? I'm not sure what the "rules" are on that.Mllefantine 04:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- I don't really think it is necessary to have a pic of a lemon Dal. they are extremely rare and not only are they not eligible for show or breeding, they are so uncommon that there isn't a "lemon" colour option on the Dalmatian registration forms. They're more like a freak of nature and don't represent 99.9% of the breed.Mllefantine 04:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Second shot - of female dog isnt really a good example of breed standard - shows currently popular "ghost face" patterning - very white facy, lots of heavy black on neck shoulders. Lots of merged spots dont actually meet the breed standard well so a more evenly spotted dog would be better.216.75.172.53 (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Gnarlyswine
 * It's pretty debatable that the second dog doesn't conform to breed standard. The standard calls for evenly distributed spots, but that is still open to interpretation. Furthermore, most breeders prefer a more open face than one that is heavily spotted. There are many dogs similar to this one that place repeatedly. I personally agree that the first picture is a better--the spotting is a little more evenly distributed--however, some users felt this picture should be deleted. I personally feel that the liver dog in the main fact box is quite unattractive and has a poor spot pattern. As a judge, I would not place that dog. Another secondary thing to consider is the quality of the actual photo. I feel that on dog pages especially a lot of the photos are obviously taken on point and shoot cameras by inexperienced photographers and are not in any way encyclopedic. They are very "pet in my kitchen" as someone pointed out. That's not to say a good picture by an amateur on a point and shoot can't be posted, but I think every picture should be of excellent quality, as well as representing dogs that conform as closely as possible to breed standard. Mllefantine (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that this is not an AKC breed standard page but feel that it would be best if the pictures in some way better represented the typical breed, and that is a white dog with black spots as the vast majority of %. The foremost picture being of a liver spot and rather a high % just doesnt seem appropriate. By all means I would add examples (including the lemon, and maybe long haired) in a varients section. Likewise with the association which is a strong identifier with the breed, a coaching , and fire engine shot would seem appropriate. My personal feeling is that the Budweiser connection is quite appropriate also as despite others feeling of this being to US - centric, they have featured heavily in superbowl adds which reaches a huge global audience. I became first aware of the Budweiser / Dalmatian connection whilst still residing in europe so do not feel an example would be innapropriate. - Gnarlyswine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.56.82 (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be good to know how old the puppies (with spots) are, to get an impression on how fast the dots appear. --Murata (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Temple Grandin on behavior
Temple Grandin noted in Animals in Translation that dalmatians suffer from temperament problems due to the chemical whose lack causes the distinctive coloration also being a calming hormone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Animals in Translation (ISBN 0743247698) would seem to be a reliable source per the guidelines, so I suppose the information can be added&mdash; just be sure to properly cite the addition using a footnote. I myself like to use the citation templates to make sure I have it formatted correctly. Cheers! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

i like the 101 dalmation written by dodie smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.7.6 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

12/22 edits by user Woodrowpongo
I have edited this article to remove the improper NPOV and citation tagging added by Woodrowpongo. If this user or any other wishes to reinstate these changes, please use proper NPOV templates for the article, and proper formatting for tagging unsourced claims. --Trunkalunk (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Genetic Urinary Defect in Dalmatians
Kidney and bladder stones

The section called "Kidney and bladder stones" contains the following inaccurate information. Uricase: the article makes two contradictory statements (1) that the uric acid problem is a fact of liver transport, not absence of the enzyme and (2) that the enzyme is not present in the gene pool at all. As for the pathology, the enzyme is actually present; the problem is with re-absorption by the kidneys.

Crosses to English Pointers: this section makes the mistake of presenting itself as neutral when it is actually a scientist's as-yet unproven hypothesis. It also reflects a misunderstanding of the mechanism leading to urinary stones in Dalmatians. The article states"the 'normal' gene for uricase is not present in the breed's gene pool at all. Therefore, there is no possibility of eliminatring hyperuricemia among pure-bred [sic] Dalmatians. The only possible solution o this problem must then be crossing Dalmatians with other breeds in order to reintroduce the 'normal uricase gene." The section then goes on to describe the "Dalmatian-Pointer Backcross Project" as well as a history of internal business of the Dalmatian Club of Canada with respect to the backcross progeny.


 * a) This is not fact: this is the hypothesis and scientific assumption of a genetic theorist, Dr. Robert Schaible. It is as yet unproven.
 * b) It is a mis-statement of the genetic defect: the defect is not in uricase production but uptake and conversion.
 * c) the "Dalmatian-Pointer Backcross Project" is now known as the Dalmatian Heritage Project, and is still the subject of controversy. The project deals with the goal of finding Low Uric Acid (LUA) Dalmatians.  Dr. Schaible's hypothesis is unproven; the results of the genetic experiment are also as yet unproven.
 * d) the level of detail with respect to the internal business conducted by the Dalmatian Club of America, is excessive, and not really relevant to an encyclopedic entry meant to describe the breed in general detail.

Gout is a secondary complication that would only afflict a small percentage of the small percentage of Dalmatians that suffer from manifest symptoms of high uric acid. Gout therefore is overspecialized as an encyclopedia entry on general information on the breed. Therefore, mentioning gout and its treatment is not necessary, and may be misleading.

RECOMMENDATIONS
 * 1) state the pathology correctly;
 * 2) give an overview of theory of the backcross project and where to find additional information;
 * 3) state that controversy exists and where to find additional information, including Dalmatian specialty clubs' points of view.

Woodrowpongo (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed New Section on Urinary Stones -- See Below
FYI -- I have built the footnotes to go along with all statements in this section, but not yet converted them to wki.

Dalmatian Uric Acid Defect:
During digestion, most vertebrates convert into uric acid the substances in food called purines. Uric acid is then converted by the enzyme called uricase into allantoin before being expelled in the urine. The Dalmatian is the only breed of dog whose urine does not convert the uric acid into allantoin. Earlier, it was thought that Dalmatians lack the enzyme, uricase. It is now understood that uric acid is not resorbed by the kidney tubules in Dalmatians as it is in other dogs. As a consquence, urinary uric acid production in Dalmatians is about twenty times higher than that of normal canines.

Uric acid acting on the epithelial cells in the bladder wall causes bladder stones. This leads to the formation of urate crystals. It is possible to have urine samples checked by your veterinarian for cystal formation. This condition is called urolithiasis. Eventually, the crystals from the salts of uric acid join together to form sand, stones or calculi in in the urine. Signs of urinary problems include: frequent and difficult urination, excessive straining, passing little urine, blood in urine, loss of "housebreaking" and behavioural changes. All Dalmatians are susceptible to urinary stones.

Bladder Blockages:
Urinary stones form in the bladder. Sometimes, “gravel” will be passed in the urine. Sometimes, in acute cases, small stones or sludge will pile up in the bladder. The accumulation reduces the capacity of the dogs bladder. The accumulation may actually block passage of urine from the bladder. This condition requires surgery to remove the accumulation of sludge.

Urinary tract Blockage:
Complete blockage of the urinary tract by one or more stones can occur. This occurs more often in middle-aged males than bitches. Sometimes a stone will be lodged in the urethra and cause great pain. It can be fatal if not treated promptly. Some experts estimate 20% of male Dalmatians will suffer life-threatening urinary blockage.

Food:
Dalmatian owners should take care to seek out a diet which does not contain proteins high in purines. Organ meats -- especially liver, and beef -- are major sources of purines and should be avoided. Lamb, poultry, eggs and most vegetables are proteins which are lower in purines.

Water:
Water dilutes the uric acid, postponing the precipitation of cystals leading to stone formation. Adequate water should be provided at all times. One scientist has stated that, because of the importance of hydration, feeding dry food to Dalmatians should be avoided. In the alternative, the dry food can be soaked. Dalmatians should also be given frequent opportunities to urinate in order to flush their urinary tracts of any crystals.

Low Uric Acid (LUA) Dalmatians:
It is thought that one of the foundation dogs from which the Dalmatian originally arose also carried a genetic mutation for the uric acid defect. It has been hypothesized that attempts to breed out the problem have failed because all Dalmatians carry the same defect. In the early1970s, a University of Indiana geneticist tried a new approach, by bringing new genetic material into the breed. He bred a champion Pointer to a purebred Dalmatian and then bred subsequent generations back to purebred Dalmatians. By the fifth generation, the dogs were reportedly indistinguishable from other purebred Dalmatians in all but one aspect: about half of the offspring had normal uric acid levels. As of 2008, there are a reported twelve generations descended from the original Dalmatian-Pointer cross. Controversy reigns as to whether crossing the Dalmatian with another breed is the proper approach to the uric acid defect

FURTHER READING:

Dalmatian Uric Acid Defect and Genetics - http://www.luadalmatians.com/Basics.html

The Dalmatian Heritage Project: http://www.dalmatianheritage.com/about/schaible_research.htm

Statutes of the FCI

 * http://www.fci.be/uploaded_files/Statutes%20Acapulco%202007_EN.doc

First of all discussions go below one other.

And now let me explain the Statutes of the FCI, latest accepted in Acapulco on May 22nd, 2007

Some definitions: Breed Standard:	Ideal cynological description of a breed. National canine organisation: An all-breed national canine organisation recognised by the FCI.


 * Article 2g - defining and publishing the characteristics of each breed after previous approval by the FCI (General Assembly or General Committee) based on the breed standards of the country of origin or of the country of patronage.

My comment: the breed standards of the country of origin is the one that superseed the translations to four official languages of the FCI, French, English, German and Spanish.


 * Article 9c subsection 7 - to respect the FCI breeds standards and breed nomenclature

No comment neccessary. Even to the editor based in Canada Privy Council Office.


 * Article 3 - Discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or groups of people on account of ethnic origin, gender, language, religion, politics or any other reason is strictly prohibited within the FCI and punishable by suspension or expulsion.

No comment neccessary.

Imbris (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Too much focus on AKC
This article focuses too much on the AKC's standards for the dogs. I came to the page to learn about the dog, not what is or is not acceptable in the show ring. I think that all of the AKC's standards should be gathered and put together into one section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.157.205 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to learn about a purebred dog, you will get a lot of kennel club information. These types of clubs celebrate the purebred dog and are the best place to get accurate information about purebred dogs. Mllefantine (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics section
The claim that : "Due to the minimal amount of oil in their coat, Dalmatians lack a "dog" smell and stay fairly clean." although has a citation, is not based on logic and seems to be an opinion. I have not altered the main page, as I don't have the reference book cited to check the accuracy, but I wouldn't have thought that oil would cause smell, more likely it is another reason that they stay clean, if in fact this is not a generalisation. The Wiki page for dog odor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_odor does not mention any special dalmation ability for odor. 60.234.229.163 (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)