Talk:Dog agility

GA failed
I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have unfortunately decided to fail this article. The article, although very comprehensive, needs more referencing. None of the information has inline citations, which should be added after any statement that a reader may question about its verifiability. There are plenty of images in the first half of the article, but there are only two for the rest of the article, so maybe consider spacing some of them out a bit. I know that some of the images correspond with the specific event, but they should also be reduced a little in size. The article is also very long, maybe consider extending parts of the articles off into another article and just have a short summary of the section left on this article. Consider getting a peer review for other editors to take a look over the article and see if there are other recommendations that they may have to improve it. Please do consider renominating again once you have addressed these issues. If you believe this review is in error, see Good article review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed
User:Alvis added "citation needed" notes to 2 places in the article, and I'm not quite sure how to fix them: User:snowmman Might be useful to add info on typical "qualifying rate" (percentage of teams that run clean) and typical time differences between placements. I guess that varies a lot. But note that judges design courses to match skill of expected teams, such that "clean runs" average around 50% in the long run? agree/disagree? so it's not just a matter of "who's got the fastest dog". Dogs that always run clean, tend to not be so fast. So the combination of judges designing for a desired <100% clean run rate, and fast typically meaning a larger likelihood of not clean...you get the unpredictablity. If it was predictable, it wouldn't be fun. So there is always a chance you can win, not just run clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.213.62 (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Many things can go wrong, though, and for any course on any day, it is rare to be able to predict which team will perform best". I don't know how to cite this or change it to be more acceptable. The point is that any dog could, in theory, earn 1st place. There are some dogs for whom, if you put even money on every time, you'd maybe come out ahead in the long run. Maybe this is a tautology that's just true for any sport. I guess I wouldn't object to having it come out.
 * "This is a fairly simple, flowing course, probably used for novice dogs " (in the photo caption). Could take out the "probably used for novice dogs". But, yes, by the standards of all the organizations in North America, at any rate, and based on what I've seen of international competition, this is a fairly simple, flowing course. Any suggestion on how to qualify that? Can't really put citations for all the rules for all the world's agility organizations there. Would just "This is a simple, flowing course" be satisfactory?
 * Elf | Talk 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it helps, my concerns that led to the edits:
 * I took issue with "it is rare to be able to predict which team will perform best". This is either original research (assumed common knowledge) or reflects some study of the odds which isn't cited.  Although I suspect it to be the former, I gave it the benefit of the doubt and hoped there was a citation available.  In cases like this, I usually check back in a few months and see if said citation has been made available and, if not, remove the passage.
 * I'm not involved in dog agility competitions, nor do I follow them (ie, an average Wikipedia reader), so I have no way to judge this course as novice nor advanced. If it is to be pronounced as either in this article, it should have some sort of third-party commenting as to the course's difficulty.  Without such a citation, it should be left without such comments. Alvis 04:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agility in Nintendogs
Does the "Agility in Nintendogs" section really belong here? It just seems so trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Proposed splits
I have proposed to split this article because it has become large and ungainly. I was trying to find some way to split of the "agility in [name of country]" sections, but couldn't think of any way to neatly unify them. Any objections or suggestions? -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)   (The Game)  12:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:
 * History of dog agility seems like a good break.
 * If we were to move the agility equipment descriptions out of this article, a better title would be dog agility obstacles rather than list of dog agility obstacles, because the latter format article is usually a simple list, not actually a discussion. But I think that this article would lose critical info if the equipment descriptions were moved elsewhere, since dog agility is all about the obstacles.
 * How about dog agility around the world? Could move all of the following there:

# 7 Agility in the United Kingdom

* 7.1 Eligibility for competition * 7.2 UK organisations * 7.3 Kennel Club shows * 7.4 Other UK agility shows

# 8 Agility in the United States

* 8.1 U.S. organizations * 8.2 Qualification for competition * 8.3 Agility titles and championships * 8.4 National championships o 8.4.1 USDAA national championships o 8.4.2 AKC national championships

# 9 Agility in Canada # 10 Agility in Australia # 11 Agility in New Zealand
 * I'd suggest leaving the International championships in place and then referring to the new "around the world" article.
 * Elf | Talk 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your suggestions sound good. I'm fine with leaving the obstacles here, but some of the images need to be removed (there are serious crowding issues). Perhaps instead of "dog agility around the world" it could be "dog agility worldwide"? (By the way, sorry it took me so long to reply, I've been busy) -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)   (The Game)  12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "worldwide" sounds good. For the same reason I stated, that the obstacles are integral to the sport, we need to keep photos of them available. This might require creative reorganization. Perhaps a table with photos in the left column and descriptions in the right? Elf | Talk 21:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The table sounds good. If you're okay with the details than you can execute the move (or I can, really, but I'll wait for your reply). -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)   (The Game)  12:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really have time to do it now. Maybe sometime in the next couple of months... or, if you're in the mood, go for it. I can always come along and hack at what you've done. ;-) Elf | Talk 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)   (The Game)  13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dog Sports
Just thought that I would add Dog Sports to your page. I wrote the article about Dock Jumping.gd8man 01:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article has a TON of vandalism. It should be reverted to the last edit by D'ohBot to get rid of it all.
 * Done. Apparently one editor reverted one of the vandals, but only got the last edit by that vandal. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work
This article is a mess. I cleaned up here and there and added references until I ran out of time to work on this. I propose changing the Agility Worldwide section to Sanctioning Bodies, and outlining on that page the different organizations which sanction agility around the world (right now there are only two). IMO that would make more sense and could be better organized than the page is now. As an idea, one could make a table of the different governing bodies and highlight major rule differences between them (such as jump heights, use of obstacles, etc). Finally, there are a lot of pictures on this page compared to the text those pictures are related to. Furiizaa (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did some more work, it's still pretty messy. The obstacle section should probably have its own page. There are a lot of pictures; I hope people aren't just coming along and putting pictures of their own dogs on here for the hell of it.Furiizaa (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently people are putting in their dogs pics, I think pictures do help explain the different obstacles. With that said there should be only one (1) picture of each obstacle, and maybe better ones than are in the article.I will spend a little time and go back and check if there are better pics. Oh and why do we need to see a pic of ribbons? gd8man (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment for WikiProject Dogs
I've kept it at C because it still needs more references -- there are many unsupported statements that could be questioned. – anna  08:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. Now that the Spring Agility trialing season is winding down a bit I might actually have some time to take a look at this page. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Video
How do others feel about including a video clip in place of one of the many photos? There are several already on Commons (I'm sure there are some on Flickr as well, but I haven't checked there yet). – anna  07:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, even a couple or three videos sounds like a great idea to me. This article is a natural for dynamic media. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Error maybe in first paragraph
and the handler can touch neither dog nor obstacles, think should be can't** touch cause has the nor words Plasma laser (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

agility
i think you should add in their that mixed breeds can do it too i have a dog named ace border collie lab mix and i just found out that mutts can go in the akc and it is really exciting because for the longest time they could not stallion gal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion gal (talk • contribs) 19:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dog agility. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719223258/http://www.k9cpe.com/forms/2011rb.pdf to http://www.k9cpe.com/forms/2011rb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

List of equipment specifications
It has been requested that this list be converted to footnotes and footnotes applied to the end of each equipment paragraph for all of the organizations. In this case, leaving the list as is makes much more sense to me, in terms of what people will be looking for and to reduce frustration (if I saw footnotes on all of the paragraphs, I'd expect the footnotes to be to different places for each paragraph, but no, they'd all be to the same places for all the paragraphs). Elf | Talk 17:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Geography of dog agility into Dog agility
Not notable as a standalone article Doug Weller  talk 14:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. It’s this or AfD. Cavalryman (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC).
 * Support per nom. William Harris (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. LoraxJr


 * I've been asked by User:LoraxJr if what they've done is enough. I presume it should all be merged? Doug Weller  talk 13:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have left a message for at WT:DOGS, I still think the article should be merged with the vast majority deleted in the process. I would be happy to do it if you and LoraxJr would like me to. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC).
 * , thanks, I'd appreciate it. I think User:LoraxJr would also but we can wait until they reply. Doug Weller  talk 17:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I would happily do that, but how we decide what to keep? I think a section about International competitions is important, also National Championships and titling can be merged together and also kept. Most of the other information can go...LoraxJr 23:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have looked through Dog agility article, it appears that there already exits the section about titles, it is rather short and general, do you think it would be beneficial to move there information from the article we are merging, those paragraphs that have sources of course. Titling in agility is rather complicated and fascinating. LoraxJr 23:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merging with Geography of Dog agility
I have started preparing the Geography of Dog agility article for merging, adding sources where possible and deleting everything else. Could more experienced users suggest how to move the relevant information from that article here? All in section under the same name, or maybe several separate sections on Titles, National Championships and International Events? What would be the best option? --LoraxJr 11:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I have moved one part from Geography of Dog agility about titles, which in my opinion is significant, and also has sources. I will remove that section from the original article and will carry on merging, what is relevant and sources and then will propose the article for deleting. --LoraxJr 05:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done now. Could somebody advise what it is the procedure to nominate Geography of dog agility for deleting? --LoraxJr 06:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello LoraxJr, I think they are all off eating their Christmas pudding.
 * I assume that you have finished replicating the useful material from the "Geography of Dog agility" article onto the "Dog agility" article. You would be wise to now simply blank the Geography of Dog agility main page and make it a redirect to Dog agility. This approach avoids any administrative complications arising (i.e. there may be some editors who may want to keep the article once it starts going through the formal deletion process). On the Talk page, you can change the class to =redirect. Any issues or complexities please let me know. William Harris (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you for your advice. I have copied everything useful, yes. Will do as you advised. --LoraxJr 15:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * @ William Harris One more question, how do I change the page class? --LoraxJr 16:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Now fixed; have a look! William Harris (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @ William Harris Thank you! I could not find the button myself))) Will know now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoraxJr (talk • contribs) 10:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, apologies for my tardiness I haven’t been very active on Wikipedia over Christmas. For future reference WP:Merging gives a comprehensive explanation of the process of performing a merger. I have had a look at what you have merged, still it is pretty poorly sourced and may require future work. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC).
 * It is ok, I was not either, just wanted to finish the process before holidays. I will continue to work on the improvement of the page, as agility interests me a lot. I am glad, that I was able to do something to help.LoraxJr 10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)