Talk:List of dog breeds/Archive 5

Manageability of list
A great list with links to a lot of important information. But, as with all large lists, it could be improved by more thought being taken to organisation.

As the content of individual articles is often similar, it would make sense to include a table indexing properties such as temperment, size, colouring, special characteristics etc. In this way, a reader who was not already familiar with a given breed would have a resource with which to, eg, identify a set of large, affectionate, low maintenance breeds, which could then form the basis for more detailed investigation of individual breeds, should he interested in purchasing a dog with these characteristics.

Maybe someone who knows more about dogs than I do could start the project?

--Philopedia 00:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We had a big discussion about this a few months back and decided not to do it. I just tried to find the discussion--dog breed project pages are everywhere--and couldn't find it yet, and now I have to go to dinner. I'll look again later. I keep thinking about the whole thing, though. When I find the original discussions, we can start talking again from there. Elf | Talk 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I lied, we didn't decide not to do it, I think we decided TO do it but someone needed to finalize the template. Soooooo...now that I've had Trysha's excellent template example to follow, I've implemented a new, hopefully almost final, test case here.  So please, everyone, go take a look at the very end of that discussion & give opinions.  Elf | Talk 06:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Hunting Dogs
Reincarnation

Video


 * Can you summarize the issue and whether something should be done about it, for those of us who can't or won't download the video? Thanks. Elf | Talk 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Be brave & click -:) SirIsaacBrock 02:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please summarize the point of this video in text? Thanks. Elf | Talk 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Did u watch the video ? If so, no need to summarize it.  SirIsaacBrock 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't and I'm not going to. If it doesn't apply to this article, then it doesn't need to be listed here. Elf | Talk 23:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Hunting Dogs are an extinct breed of dog, I cannot find them listed in any of my numerous dog books or even on Google searches. The video is a BBC news story I saw on TV that discusses the breed and one man 's attempt to reincarnate them. A very good video... SirIsaacBrock 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It does sound interesting. What do you think--is this one reference good enough to create a legitimate article on the breed? If I get a chance (probably next week) I'll go through the indexes and history sections of my dog-book collection and see whether I see anything, too.  Elf | Talk 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we need more written information to make the article meaningful, it is possible the BBC is not using the correct name for the dog breed. It might only be known by it's Chinese name; however, I do not know what that correct name and spelling is, so my Google searches get no hits. SirIsaacBrock 03:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew that getting into extinct breeds would be challenging to say the least. But I just dipped through a couple of sections in one book, and already found a couple dozen recently extinct breeds, including Braque Blege, Braque Dupuy, Levesque, Chambray, Harlequin Pinscher, Sheep Poodle, Tahl Tan Bear Dog, Liberian Dog, East African Dog, Bagirmi Dog, Bantu Dog, Zulu Dog, Bush Dog, Kabyle, Douar Dog, Baganda Dog, Kentucky Shell Heap Dog, Basketmaker Dog...   but no Chinese dogs so far.  Oh, well, back to real work again...   Elf | Talk 04:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Chinese Hunting Dog cane handle:
 * "Long considered extinct..." the Chinese Foo Dog, or Sacred Dog of Sinkiang, also known as the Chinese Choo Hunting Dog, Chinese Temple Forest Dog, Chinese T'ien Kou (Chinese Celestial Dog), or Chinese Lung- Kou (Chinese Dragon Dog):  (This same text or very similar exists on dozens of sites so they're all apparently from the same original source, whatever that might be)
 * Elf | Talk 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw these webpages before, the dog in the BBC story is a Hound. I think these dogs are a different type.  SirIsaacBrock 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

which is the biggest dog type?
Well?

Pece Kocovski 07:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Irish Wolfhound (Tallest) and English Mastiff (Heaviest and Longest) Article SirIsaacBrock 11:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Finding a dog breed
Does anybody know how or where to find out a specific breed of dog? I know what the dogs look like but I'm not sure how to find out what they are.ONEder Boy 23:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For me, getting my hands on a good dog-breed encyclopedia with tons of color photos that I can leaf through quickly is the easist way to find a breed. Try the library. If you have photos, you could try posting one here and seeing whether anyone recognizes it. Elf | Talk 01:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sight hound breeds missing from this list
There are a bunch of breeds listed in sight hound that aren't on this list that need to be researched for validity & most-common english-document usage. Elf | Talk 01:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Propose rename of "Australian Kelpie" to "Kelpie_(dog)"
In brief, there are no other Kelpies except the Celtic water-spirit, so the term "Australian" is a tautology. Most Australians who look for the article will first (as I did) look under "K", then wonder why such an important dog has no Wikipedia entry.

Basically, the ANKC represents only show Kelpies, which by definition are not Kelpies -- the argument is that Kelpies (as represented by the WKC) were bred as working dogs where conformation was, is and never will be important, and the name has never included the word "Australian". I should mention that the WKC (the primary authority on the breed) does not use the adjective "Australian" anywhere. The term "Australian Kelpie" is of UK origin, back when Australia was a British colony, and crept into the FIC from England. Further, looking at the "Maltese_(dog)" naming convention, there are only two uses of the word Kelpie, the other being a malevolent Celtic water spirit. Taking things to their illogical extreme, one might insist that the Poodle be renamed "French Poodle", or the Shi-Tzu to "Chinese Shi-Tzu"... Gordon | Talk, 22 June 2006 @07:30 UTC


 * (partial) COPIED FROM my Talk page on 2 July 2006 @05:42 UTC Gordon
 * But comparing "Australian Kelpie" to "French Poodle" isn't useful--there's no breed club or kennel club anywhere that I know of that uses the official name "French Poodle." And comparing it to "Maltese (dog)" doesn't work, either, because there *is* no other designation among kennel clubs for Maltese--it's just Maltese--so there's no other name to call it by.  However, since the major kennel clubs all DO call it "Australian Kelpie", it seems like a useful and reasonable way to title the article. SOOOOO then we can proceed into your argument which feeds into a much larger ongoing argument about whether the major kennel clubs are worth their weight in spit (ask me about my opinion of the AKC someday and get an earful--ok, no, you better not--) and whether it's reasonable in wikipedia to downplay the role of all other kennel clubs or similar organizations. THAT I don't have a great answer for either way. We've debated it off & on over & over. But IMHO as long as we have a widely accepted name for the breed, we might as well use it--if indeed the Plain Kelpie is considered to be a different breed by working-line clubs, then maybe there should be an additional page titled Kelpie (dog) for that breed, but then one wonders whether the info about history and appearance and temperament and all that will end up being 95% identical on both pages.  So...I'd vote for leaving it as Australian Kelpie.  You can copy my comments there if you want or let me know where it is and I'll do it next time I'm on, which probably won't be a while because in 10 minutes I'm leaving town again. I hope I don't sound curmudgeonly. I don't claim that resolving the dichotomies among working & show lines of ANY breed is easy.   Elf | Talk 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made a proposal to alter the infobox template Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dog_breeds/Templates to address the kennel club/breed standard question -- it's hidden in the "Dog Registries" section, about halfway down. I have sub-sectioned it there so people can notice it -- there didn't seem to be any other good place. If people have a better place to put it -- the bin doesn't count |:-[ --feel free to move it. Gordon | Talk, 2 July 2006 @06:00 UTC

Koolie/Coolie
Why are there two different articles on the same breed? They have the Koolie also listed under Coolie Dogs. Is there some difference between the two? I don't think so. Vortex 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Better Name Categorisation of List
It seems that someone should change the name of some dogs before commencing articles. For example, a Maltese Terrier, and a Maltese Terrier X are completely different. Because of examples like these, does any one think it is wise to put hybrids and cross-breeds with "X" at the end of their name. Another example is Maltese Shitzu, it should be Maltese Shitzu X. Note: "X" refers to cross.


 * This is not needed as there should not be any articles that are like you describe.   The only crossbreed articles that exist are the especially notable ones.    A Maltese is a commonly recognized breed.   A Maltese (dog) mixed with some sort of other Terrier is nearly impossible to define, not notable, should not have an article.    - Trysha (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Smoushond
Would anyone like to create a Dutch Smoushond article? I couldn't find much variable information unfortunately, but if anyone knows of a good source, please advise :) Siyavash 20:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

DOG BREEDS
AndreitaSC 01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)GraceV and AndreitaSC -Gundogs -Terriers -Sheep herding and livestock driving dogs -Guarding dogs -Sighthounds -Scenthounds -Artic dogs -Miniature (Toy) dogs

Inuit Dog
Please give evidence for the breed known as Inuit. I believe it should be removed as there is no breed page and I found no information anywhere else. The only breeds I know that have been called Inuit dogs are the Northern Inuit Dog and the Canadian Eskimo Dog. Inuit seems more of a type than a breed. Vortex (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Neilmut and other "breeds"
What is a Neilmut (Neil Laing)? Sounds more like a name than a breed. I can't find anything on it. Does anyone have evidence it exists? There's also quite a few other dog breeds that need more investigation, as I have found no information on them online and from many reliable dog books. Vortex (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion run a Search engine test on the breeds, if there are scarce Google results than it may be a hoax (term used loosely). Just on a side note, I revert any edit that removes a breed without an edit summary or reason provided, I feel this is necessary to prevent subtle vandalism. In my opinion, if a dog doesn't have an article it shouldn't be listed. My reasoning behind this is that if a breed has an article then it must pass the nobility and verifiability guidelines, however there is no general consensus to do this. ~ Ameliorate  U T C @ 03:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dog categories and types
I have cleaned up the dog breed list and verified that every breed I removed had no information on it whatsoever. I also added a few dog breeds and fixed name errors. I feel a lot more editing has to be done and many more breeds need to be verified though. I don't know what the purpose of listing a few dog types and categories is on this page. What dog categories are relevant to list seems to be a matter of opinion, and not all category articles are complete and the breeds in said articles are a matter of opinion as well. Vortex (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Google hits for breeds
Greetings. User:AmeIiorate requested (here) that I run a script to determine the number of Google hits each listed breed returned. I have done so, and the results are at Talk:List of dog breeds/stats. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternate names
I've been cleaning up the breed list by removing alternate names to many breeds. I've been listing the breeds under the same name as the breed article itself, and redirecting alternate names to the correct article. I believe having so many alternate breed names on the list is unnecessary. I don't think users use the list as an index, but more of a way to browse and see what breeds wiki has. If they're looking for a certain breed, I'm sure they could just type it in the search box and find it, no matter what name they use for the breed. That's just my opinion, and I wanted to explain why I am removing so many names. Please talk to me before you revert any of my edits. I think the breed list looks a lot cleaner and less cluttered without so many alternate names and "see - breed name". Thank you. Vortex (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was doing the same thing a few days ago. I agree the only name listed should be the name that the article uses, alternative names can be redirected and the "see " entries are completely redundant. Keep up the good work :) ~ Ameliorate  U T C @ 02:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm so glad you agree, thank you for helping clean up the list. I believe most of the clean up work is finished now, and it's looking much better. Of course breeds still need to be verified, but I think initial clean up is done. :) Vortex (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had someone run a bot over the page to check it for redirects. A list of all the entries in the list which redirect to other pages are here. Could be useful to see if there any that could be listed under a different name or are listed twice. ~ Ameliorate  U T C @ 07:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow I wish I would have known about that sooner. I checked them all manually already. Vortex (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I must apologise. The list was only made at 6:30UTC and I didn't check back until 7:30 so I think the list was made after you had made most of the edits, but if I had said what I was intending to do I could have saved you a lot of time. I'm so sorry about that. ~ Ameliorate  U T C @ 10:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh hey, it's no problem. I'll just remember to use a bot next time I need it. :) Thanks. Vortex (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
I have just set up archiving on this talk page as it getting quite big. Any discussion that has had no new comments in 60 days will now be archived. If anyone has an issue with this let me know. Cheers ~ Ameliorate  U T C @ 02:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, it appears that this talkpage was archived in the past, as there were already 3 existing archives that weren't linked from anywhere. So I've added another 3 links for the new archives to go into. ~ Ameliorate  U T C @ 02:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Xoloitzcuintli AKA Xolo
The Xoloitzcuintli right now is under Mexican Hairless Dog. Throughout the main article it doesn't refer to the Xolo as the Mexican Hairless Dog, but rather, 'Xolo'. American Kennel Society, United Kennel Club, among others, recognizes it as the Xoloizcuintli, or Xoloitzcuintle, and not Mexican Hairless Dog. There are also groups such as The Xoloitzcuintli Club of America. I don't see any Mexican Hairless Dog Clubs. As such, I think it should be changed to Xoloitzcuintli. (Avalik (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

You might find discussions about what breed names to use here, or in the Dog breeds project and its subpages, or in the talk page for the breed itself. Elf | Talk 04:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) Ï ï Ö ö Ü ü Ÿ ÿ  ß   Ã ã Ẽ ẽ Ĩ ĩ Ñ ñ Õ õ Ũ ũ Ỹ ỹ   Ç

Table
I had the list Peer Reviewed and it was suggested that to make it more useful the list be turned into a table that also lists the class and country of origin of each dog. Opinions? ~ Ameliorate  U T C @ 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that would be adding way too much information on a list this big, especially when the class or function of each dog can vary widely. And we already have a list of dog breeds by country that needs a lot of editing. Vortex (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Read this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Italic textthis was amazing i am not ling i did not know their was so many breeds of doggys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.51.65 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hybrids and Types vs. Breeds
I didn't know where to put this so I just hope people adding to this read this note! Please make sure if you're adding to the list that you are not adding a hybrid or a type of dog. Simply look at that breed's / type's / hybrid's article and it should tell you if it is a breed, hybrid, or type.

You can add types to this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_types
 * example of type: Pit bull, setter, bulldogs.

You can add hybrids to this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_hybrids
 * example of hybrid: Puggle, labradoodle and anything else that ends in "oodle" or "eagle".

Avalik (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Red links, Beagle, etc
Once in awhile we get someone taking out every single red link on this list, and recently undid some. I said I'd clarify here, so I will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists, Wikiepedia:Lists does not mention anything against the use of red links, except:

"Development

Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space."

Considering the majority of the article does not contain red links, I see that it fits the category of "helpful red links" that help with Wikipedia development purposes. Indeed! I know once in awhile a few people on the dog-breed task force will check this list and create any articles for the red links.

Also consider that the list is "List of dog breeds", and not "List of dog breed articles on Wikipedia" and thus ones without an article yet could easily be included.

Onto the beagle issue now. There are two breeds; 13 inch, and 15 inch. They do not each have their own article however they have been classified as different breeds. Considering this is a list of breeds, they should both be included. We do not just add "Corgi", we specify Cardigan and Pembroke, despite the article will clarify this.

If you want to remove a red link, use the talk page to prove/show that: 1. It isn't a real breed, or is a hybrid or type rather than a breed 2. The name is a secondary name for a different breed and is already on the list (i.e. Xolocuintli, it's other name Mexican Hairless Dog). 3. Other good reasons other than "it's a red link."

That's all. Avalik (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I remove them is becausew they are unverifiable. No article and no references make them unacceptable for wikipedia.  please see, WP:V.  Also in reference to above, it is not my responsibility to prove they don't exist, it is the responsibility of the editor ading or readding them to prove they are a breed.  A new name 2008 (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sortable table
I saw a suggestion here to change the list to a sortable table. I decided to go ahead and do it. What do people think? A new name 2008 (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the sortable table. Elf | Talk 17:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Where's the rest of the info?
Have noticed with dismay over time that all the alternative names have vanished from this list. Very big bummer, as that was the easiest way to determine that some name was in fact listed in WP as some other name, which (IMHO) helped avoid a lot of confusion (e.g., mine, and I worked on this stuff insanely for a couple of years). Can we put these back in? (E.g., if we're going to list the various clubs, we could go back to listing alternative names, as with this original source table: WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force/Breed source list?

Also notice that the new policy is not to list breeds for which there are no articles--so WHERE are those dog breeds now listed? For the most part, the list of articles needing work/missing/etc in the dog breeds project hasn't been touched much in the last couple of years. Anyone? Elf | Talk 17:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where the decision came from to only put each breed once in the article. When I created the table I used the guidance in the article to only list each breed once under the most common name.  The name I used is the article name of the breed.  I can see some benefit in having the breeds listed under other common names.  The list would probably end up being more stable since people won't be adding and reverting names all the time.  I can also see a downside. The table is very long at this point already and if we start adding in all the alternate names the table would get unmanageable.  Take for example Bernese Mountain Dog, the following are redirects to the article" Berner Sennenhund, Bouvier Bernois and Burmese mountain dog.  The following are also nicknames in the article that do not have redirects: Berner and Bernese.  If we added all of these to the table it would add an additional 5 lines.  I know not all dog articles have this many but even if a quarter of the articles do that would more than double the length of the table.


 * As far as why all the redlinks were removed from the article. I did that because there was nothing in the article to verify they were actually breeds.  If someone wants to add a breed that does not yet have an article I think it is reasonable to require them to add at least a single reference that shows it is a breed. --A new name 2008 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Name of Britain
In this article I see United Kingdom, Britain, Great Britain and also England, Wales and Scotland. The name of our country should be consistent (at least by category) for the whole article. Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When I created the table I pulled the country of origin from the individual articles. They are inconsistent across the range of articles. IMO the names should be corrected there first and then transposed here. --A new name 2008 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Should they all be renamed to United Kingdom then as that is the Wikipedia article on our country? Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how this should be resolved. Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland are all called countries in their articles and Countries of the United Kingdom does not help.  It is probably better to ask this question on the respective articles.  --A new name 2008 (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Images
Would it be too bandwidth intensive to include a column of thumbnails? I was thinking a standardised, lateral image for each breed would be nice for quick visual identification. -Craig Pemberton (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea, I have added a few User:A new name 2008/Template to show a possibility of what it would look like. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that. Where possible maybe it should stick to a sagital/profile view of the dog, so that they are all in similar positions.-Craig Pemberton (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I copied that back into the article, will add more as I find time. --A new name 2008 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does this list use the names that it does, instead of (fill in the blank)?
You're always welcome to recommend a change to the preferred breed name (for use here and as the primary article name for that breed). We recommend proposing the change here first, or it might just get changed back. This list was assembled by looking at the breed names used by all of the major English-language breed clubs (as listed in WikiProject Dog breeds), or by doing web searches to try to identify a large majority of usage, or by discussions here about other logic that would make a particular name the most appropriate for Wikipedia's multicountry, multiculture audience, or various combinations of these methods.

from other Wikipedias

 * sv:Norsk buhund with picture
 * fi:Bichon havannese with picture Gangleri 23:37, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * he:& == Canaan Dog with picture Gangleri 00:21, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
 * de:Kyi Leo, Kyi Leo without picture Gangleri 11:19, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

Errors on FCI page

 * group5 (FCI 5/4/97) Zwerspitz (Pomeranian) should be Zwergspitz. Gangleri 01:46, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

Phylogeny
Many articles on dog breeds list how one breed came from another... I had say a single phylogenetic tree must be available to show the dog breeds in the way they relate to each other phylogenetically... Anyone that knows how to do such a tree and gather the data agrees with me? Undead Herle King (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, not possible. Most breeds not known at all, or only guessed at, or by word of mouth. Only some of the most very recent ones are reasonably well documented. Any such tree is someone's best guess. Elf | Talk 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you so sure such trees are unreliable? I've seen at least one, if there is any reason for doubt it could be mentioned in a disclaimer but it could at least give an idea of breed antiquity and procedence (as that's another subejct to consider; for how long had a breed been raised)Undead Herle King (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Much like bacteria, I imagine that an intraspecies-phylogeny would be a hopeless mess and not a tree (data structure). Remember: dog breeds are free to interbreed with one another. -Craig Pemberton (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It can actually be like that, nonetheless existing knowledge could be way more organized, anyway breeds can only descend from older breeds so the complexity and lack of "tree-structure fitability" shall only come in the newest breeds based on the greater number of possible source-breeds for these... However on the other hand the newer a breed is the most likely it is not the result of mutts but of professional breeders and thus better documented... So, is there still 500% scepticism against this?Undead Herle King (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You could possibly create a graph (data structure) of this relationship. Maybe you could start collecting the data in another column of the table or in this section, and see if anyone chips in or knows how to render the data into a nice visual, which would be neat. -Craig Pemberton (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I know many articles have the data, and I had a book or two with the info, as soon as I have time I will try getting the data in here, with time others would improve it, hope I have tiem soon enough...Undead Herle King (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical list
Oh wow, I haven't been to this page for a looong time, it has been changed a lot and for the better.

A quick suggestion though, I don't know if it is possible, but would it perhaps be possible to add above before the list starts, a small box with the alphabet ... and if you click the letters, it will bring you to the first breed that starts with that letter, like the old list had?

Not sure if I'm making sense ... but, like

A B C ... and if you clicked 'C' in example would bring you to "Cairn Terrier" on the same page ... the list is VERY long so it might help people who are searching. Avalik (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I went through the history and found what I was looking for ... List of dog breeds/toc was the tag I'm talking about, but it would need to be remade for this page, obviously. Which I don't know how to do.


 * Do you have the link to the documentation for this feature? Maybe I could help you go through it. In the mean time you can always search using your browser's built-in search function. -Craig Pemberton (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to go about creating templates ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_dog_breeds&oldid=299262468 is a link of the older version of this page, it has what I am talking about.


 * I did a quick mock-up of what I was thinking: http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/3124/dogalphabet.png


 * Just a very non-instrusive little thing that might be useful for those searching through the article as you can see... it would work in a similar way to the one in the older one (I linked above) works. What do you think? Not sure if it can even be done =P


 * Looking at that template, the way it was accomplished, there was a header for each letter of the alphabet. With the way this is currently set up in a sortable table, that won't work anymore.  I will look at the documentation of the sortable table and see if there is any discussion on how to do that.   GB fan  talk 15:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)  (Formerly Known As A new name 2008)

Changing to "List of recognized dogs breeds"
At this point, the list is very large and vague. There are many definitions of a breed, of course, but there is no way here to distinguish what is a real breed and what breed clubs/puppy millers/breeders say is a real breed. The Alaskan Husky, for example, does not fit any definition of a breed I have ever heard; the basis for being considered a breed is that the offspring will look like the parents and the lines will continue to show the trait, with the exception of the occasional faults and runts. The Alaskan Husky is bred for working over show, and the ones breeding it base the dogs on health and ability to work above conforming to any breed standard (which it can't, because it's a working breed and there is no set standard). Thus, to keep the list more precise, I'm suggesting we remove all dogs that don't satisfy at least one of the following criteria: Also, the breed picture category should probably be removed and changed to "Other", with the other kennel club specified in that category if the breed is only recognized on a national level. The pictures slow the page down and are unnecessary in any case; if a person wants a picture of a certain breed, they should click on the link. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Recognized by the FCI
 * Recognized by a major English-speaking based kennel club (AKC, UKC, KC, NZKC, ANKC, or Can.KC)
 * Recognized by the national kennel club of a country (for example, Kennel Club of Thailand; basically, another country's version of the AKC/NZKC/etc)
 * I contest this change... it is completely unneeded. This list is for breeds and if someone adds a type or category of dog (in which you made a list of below and you give examples of) it should be taken down, no need to remove breeds that aren't widely recognized. What you're requesting is already (seems to be) policy which is to remove "types" and "categories" of dogs, and hybrids. I also much more strongly disagree with removing the images.
 * Edit: A list of "recognized breeds" would be perfectly fine however this list should stay as a "all the breeds" list. Create a new page instead. If you want sub-pages that's fine... my suggestion instead is to make lists by kennels, i.e. "List of AKC recognized breeds" instead of editing this list to remove breeds... from a list of breeds. Avalik (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I think the name change might be a good idea, and perhaps add an extra column stating which kennel clubs recognise the dog breed? Miyagawa   (talk)  20:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It could work, depending on how it was done. For the clubs already listed in columns, it wouldn't be needed because, but not having the a columnb for other registries would make it look unrecognized. I suggest changing to picture column into an "Other clubs" column for the fact that it slows down computers and isn't necessary; the image should be on the breed's page, while the list really only needs one picture that illustrates the vast differences that can occur between breeds. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Size: Removing the images would be unhelpful. Akin to removing the images from List of Presidents of the United States (because the pictures appear at each person's article, and slow the page down). Instead, WP:SPLIT the page into 2, perhaps.
 * Scope: Could you give us a quick list of all the 'breeds'(links) that you're suggesting removal of? Perhaps they could be briefly listed at the end of the article, outside of the main table (which we could then give a subheading of "List of recognized dogs breeds"). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between the list of presidents and this is that there are far, far more dog breeds than presidents. List of manga licensed in English doesn't have images, either. Note, though, that removing the images doesn't matter too much to me either way. In addition to adding breeds that are currently not listed (and renaming dogs to their official names), the current "breeds" I've found are listed below. I have made a subsection, though, to avoid it disrupting the discussion. There are many more, of course, but I currently don't have time to list them all. Also, I haven't looked too much into some of these breeds, so they are possibly recognized by a national club in their country of origin. I am not necessarily opposed to moving them to a short section, but there are many of them, and some a) are not breeds even by a breed club standard, b) are extinct, or c) recognized by an unreputable kennel club, a breed club/association, or nothing at all. When I do have time to find more, I'll likely create a subsection at this talk page so it doesn't mess up the discussion.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing the images would severely reduce the utility of this page. Most people don't care what kennel clubs say, they just want to know what to call a dog when they see it. -Craig Pemberton (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The List of manga cannot have images, as it would run afoul of our WP:Non-free content restrictions (this is why bibliography/discography/etc lists do not have coverimages).
 * I'd be opposed to simply removing information from here. Much better to clarify the differences between the various ways of classifying dogs. Similarly, we should keep extinct breeds listed, because this isn't a list of "available breeds". It's more of an index to all our articles on dog 'breeds' (under the various interpretations of that word). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see your point; also, if the "breeds" and mixes were to be removed, images would end up being removed in any case. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the list as it currently stands is beneficial. I don't think this list should be pared down to just the recognized breeds and we should leave the pictures in the list.  I do agree with removing links to non-breeds such as the Alaskan husky.  (I have removed that already) Other breeds whether recognized or not should be left in the list.   GB fan  talk 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (this goes to Avalik as well) We already have categories for breeds. We have no true way of maintaining a list with no clear set of guidelines as to what is considered a breed-- a list of recognized breed means that we have a set definition; dogs must be recognized by a reputable kennel club. Why keep this list when we already have categories, which really take the place of vague lists? A dog breed, by definition, is when a strain of dogs with similar characteristics can breed and give birth to pups with the same qualities, with results rarely varying. Being recognized is proof of this, while being recognized by a breed club or "all-breed" kennel club is not. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The picture of an Australian Cattle Dog shows a dog with a colour 'fault' and a docked tail. Can the picture be replaced by one of a dog that is closer to the standard? Mdk572 (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have one or can find one that is better you can change the picture. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.   GB fan  talk 02:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Unrecognized breeds

 * Alangu Mastiff
 * Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog
 * Alaskan Husky (a type; created for work, rather than to conform by a standard)
 * Alaunt
 * Alopekis
 * Alsatian Shepalute
 * American Mastiff
 * Armant (dog)
 * Australian Bulldog
 * Bakharwal Dog
 * Bandog (this is a type not a breed)
 * Basque Shepherd Dog
 * Bisben
 * Black and Tan Virginia Foxhound
 * Blue Lacy
 * Blue Paul Terrier
 * Bohemian Shepherd (possibly recognized by a national kennel club)
 * Bouvier des Ardennes
 * Braque du Puy
 * Bruno Jura Hound (possibly recognized)
 * Bully Kutta (recognized it seems) The UNKC says they recognize all "breeds", including mixes, thus doesn't really count.
 * Canadian Pointer
 * Chilean Fox Terrier
 * Chinese Chongqing Dog
 * Chippiparai
 * Cordoba Fighting Dog (extinct)
 * Combai
 * Cretan Hound

Meecje (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Can any one tell me about the Australian heeler breed? I saw a picture of it in Rachel Ray's magazine.
 * Proper name for that breed is the Australian Cattle Dog. They're nicknamed Blue or Red Heelers on the basis of colouring. Miyagawa   (talk)  14:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

finding more breeds
i am a dog experet and think there are more breeds out there i will be posting on this page breeds that are not on here please do not add disghner dogs or hybrids put on this page breeds that you do not think are on this list of dog breeds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.238.234 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

List of dog breeds

 * Copied from my talk page GB fan (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw you put List of dog breeds up for peer review. I was just wondering what you thought of the idea of linking the individual breed standards to the individual kennel club classifications for each breed? eg: If you like the idea, I am more than willing to help out with the additions of links. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. We are going to have to ignore a guideline if we do this.  WP:EL says that external links "should not normally be used in the body of an article."  If we put everyone of those as a reference, we would have an unmanageable number of references at the bottom of the page.  I pulled the table into Excel and had it count up the number of citations we would need to properly reference all the cells.  There are 501 breeds on the list.
 * Cells needing referencing
 * Countries of origin - 501
 * Extinct - 27
 * FCI - 328
 * AKC - 233
 * ANKC - 179
 * CKC - 186
 * KC - 186
 * NZKC - 194
 * UKC - 315
 * That gives us 2149 cells to reference, minus the few that already have references. Some of these would be able to be duplicated but we are still talking over 1500 individual references on this list.  I think that is justification enough to use inline external links to the different breed standards.  We could probably reference the country of origin column, but that would still be 501 references on the list.   GB fan (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I see what you mean about WP:EL. I certainly think that the inline external links would be well worth it. Perhaps it would also be a good idea to put a note on the page discussion outlining why the WP:EL wasn't followed to the letter. I get on to putting the references in :) Keetanii (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * End of copied text GB fan (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting external link suggestions
the website http://dogbreedstandards.com/ would be an interesting external link for readers. This site does not contain any ads, does not require login and contains original information summary that any dog lover would like to read about more than 300 breeds.

would it be appropriate to add link to this site from dog breed page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.3.191 (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

edit breed name: Huntaway
I suggest the Huntaway should be the main article, rather than New Zealand Huntaway, for the reasons given on the talk page there. OnHawkspur (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

New Breeds Help
Hi guys

I'm a newie, please forgive my bad manners.

I am trying to find the breed name of a type of dog.

Many years ago in what was then Rhodesia,('74) I was given a Christmas present in a plastic shopping bag. Inside was a wee black doggie. He grew up to be a sort of smallish Labrador with spaniel attributes and a long snout that could 'see' where I went in the bush yesterday. His courage and determination kept me alive on two big occasions and alerted me to many other minor situations. While in South Africa, as a present for my boys, we went to the SPCA and welcomed an oddly same looking dog into our house, only he was a bit smaller and his litter brother was a 'wet dog' ie. longer hair. He was faster than a cat. I had been in the library looking at dog breeds (7 hours) and came out with the wrong name of breed.

I have since found out that the breed was started about a hundred odd years ago and that black Labbies were the lucky starting point. Instead of breaking through the bush, they were 'designed' to sneak through with their smaller size to do the retreiving, but still have the long tubes to smell their way.

The breed standard seems to be: Small (Medium), Black with White 5 pointed star on chest.

My doggies were both "Breed Standard" defects it seems, but they were true! Even though they had white fingers and toes!

Bryan Kirk Beebeekat01793 (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I believe that List of dog breeds by country should be merged into List of dog breeds, as List of dog breeds has the exact same information as the 'by country' list, except in a more easily searchable / sortable format. Having the other page seems redundant. -- Ti ku ko  20:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. There is no point having multiple pages of the same information.  Opendestiny (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Breeds
If a breed article was deleted, but the breed is mentioned briefly in some sources (perhaps not enough to have its own article, but it is mentioned in several places) would it be acceptable to list it here without a linked name and cite the breed's entry in the list to those sources?-- T K K  bark !  19:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Everyone has link. Won't need refs. Noteswork (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Rare breeds/breeds in development
I saw in the archives that someone suggested the creating of a "breeds in development" page, which I think is a very good idea. I find it very disconcerting that some of the breeds in the List of dog breeds such as the American Bullnese are only recognized by "sham" breed clubs, while other more "breeds in development" (like the Labradoodle and Carlin Pinschers ) are not included on this list, even though the page states that this list includes some breeds in development. I think it would be more productive to have a separate list for breeds in development. Opendestiny (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That could possibly be an oversight; it could also be because they may be listed at the List of dog crossbreeds. I don't see why they shouldn't be here. -- T K K  bark !  18:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: "Rare breeds" is a uselessly ambiguous term. Every uncommon breed, even ones that have been established for centuries, is "rare", as are landraces/natural breeds from remote areas, and (by definition) experimental breeds only a few people are working on, but they otherwise have nothing in common. The use of "rare breed" to mean "crossbreed or experimental breed" is pure PoV marketing language and WP is not in a position to adopt it because it's directly misleading to readers. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Several reasons. Mostly they're crossbreeds, not breeds, though several are on the path to breed establishment (and several are not). They often cannot be reliably sourced; for many of them, the only sourcing is to non-WP:INDY promotional materials, like one-breed club newsletters and breeders' self-published websites, with occasional press mentions that aren't based on anything but those same breeder sites.  Thus, most of them are not notable.  This list includes notable breeds that have their own articles, not every alleged breed anyone's ever tried to stick a name on (see WP:NOT and WP:NFT).  As noted above, not all "registries" are created equal. Some of them are reliable sources from reputable organizations, others are just puppy-mill pseudo-registries and are not authoritative in any way (see partial list of these at Template:Infobox dog breed).  Any "registry" of the "if you say it's a breed, and send us a picture and some money, we'll say it's a breed, too" sort is not a source we can use; it's simply a form of paid self-publication, no different from paying LuLu.com to self-published your book about perpetual motion and ancient aliens. This list already over-long and confusingly unfocused, commingling modern standardized breeds, extinct and only-historically-attested varieties, sub-breeds, unrecognized landraces that have no standards, etc., etc., all in one list, instead of in sensible sections and, where needed, separate lists.  At some point, this needs to be cleaned up.  I would suggest as one step to take the approach used at List of experimental cat breeds, to separate breed-bound development programs from those that are clearly intending to continue producing "designer" crossbreeds like labradoodles. After sufficient development, any consistent crossbreed bred to itself to fix in a particular standard of traits will produce an actual breed; this is how most breeds we have today arose.  These are distinct from crossbreeding programs where each generation of "product" is a crossbreed or maybe an F2 of the same crossbreed, and bred to mix particular traits of the parent breeds, not develop a consistent new set of traits. It's also distinct from "natural breeds" (i.e., landraces) arising as working dogs in a particular region, and eventually developed (usually be American, British, or other foreign fanciers) into a standardized breed.  And it's distinct from reported varieties in ancient to medieval manuscripts.  And distinct from wild–domestic hybrids.  And distinct from temporary crossbreeding (to avoid excessive inbreeding) to true-breed a rare mutation into a new breed.  Calling all of these things "breeds" as if they're identical and undifferentiated, then dumping them into one list does readers a serious disservice. These things should be in separate lists (whether embedded or stand-alone) and often categorized distinctly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

How about Dividing the List into Alphabetical Sections?
I think it's a little "frustrating" to scroll down all the long list in the case when only one or two breeds need to be added/modified. Therefore I was wondering if it could be divided into alphabetical sections (currently it's divided so that a certain letter can be easily found when reading the list, but I mean also dividing to sections that can be modified separately from each others)? For example in the Finnish Wikipedia, the corresponding list is divided in the way that makes modifying a certain breed much easier. --Canarian (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not against a redesign. I did the original design on the current list.  The reason I put the whole list in a single table was to make it easy for the reader.  If someone is looking for the dog breeds in a certain group they can resort the table and they would then be all together.  Just something to consider if the table is split into multiple tables.  GB fan 15:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a worthy goal, but the list has become unwieldy. It would probably make more sense to create separate lists/articles and categories for most of what people can sort for (dog type/group, breeds recognized by a specific registry, breeds by country of origin, etc.). There's been some semi-recent work to consolidate the type/group articles, away from all the WP:POVFORKing into separate articles for every other registry's oh-so-special terminology, and instead have manageable overview articles like scenthound, etc. We also have breeds-by-organization lists for three of the major organizations already. And we have a whole category structure under Category:Dog breeds by country of origin‎.  So, there's not much incentive any longer to not reorganize this list into alphabetical section and, as suggested above, categorically to separate standardized breeds, unrecognized/unstandardized landraces (natural breeds), and extinct historical varieties, in this list, and probably have separate lists for "designer" crossbreeds, domestic × wild hybrids, and experimental breeds still in development and without major organizational recognition yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Lurcher not listed
I recently came across a 'Lurcher' but which was not listed in any 'list of dog breeds'; it has its own entry in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurcher just suggest it can be added to this list Nigbenet (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Nigel Benetton
 * According to the article lurcher‘s are not a breed of dog but a cross between different breeds. This article only lists breeds of dogs.  GB fan 10:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's already covered in List of dog crossbreeds where it belongs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Merging of Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd
The breed standard of Australian shepherd does not recognize a "mini" version of the breed; in 2011, those trying to create a "mini" Australian shepherd renamed their breed the Miniature American Shepherd and were subsequently recognized as Foundation stock by the AKC. Thus, I propose these two records be merged in this list with a note indicating that what were previously considered "Miniature Australian Shepherds" are now officially "Miniature American Shepherds". Opendestiny (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This would probably be better served by a merge proposal on the Miniature American Shepherd page, or if that page does not exist, a move to that page. -- T K K  bark !  22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I'll head over there and suggest it now. Although the lines should still to be combined in this list as well.  I'm still really new to this whole editing thing. Opendestiny (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the merge goes through there, I will combine the listings here myself if that's any reassurance haha. I'm going to watch both pages. I would support the merge wholeheartedly, especially if, as you say, it is the same breed with a name change. -- T K K  bark !  18:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The merge proposal passed in 2013, then stalled out in the implementation phase. I've opened an RfC to resolve the matter: Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yorkie/poo
the yorki/poo was not first bred in the united states unless who ever bred it was in the late 70's, I bred my female white mini/toy poodle with my male steel blue and silver yorkshire terrier back in the late 70's in Toronto Ontario, she had four puppies and when people came to buy them they asked me what they were called, I thought and said Yorki/Poos, I have never in my entire life prior heard of a Yorki/Poo until I gave this breed the name, I have a picture of one of my dogs sent to me by the people that bought it. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise, I have proof and pictures, my name is Nevenka and I live in the same house 40 years after I bred a litter of yorki/poos. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:12A0:265:9909:ED69:63AC:2154 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are stating this here. This list does not mention the Yorkipoo at all.  Even the article, Yorkipoo does not mention when or where a Yorkie and a Poodle were first bred together to make the mixed breed Yorkipoo.  ~ GB fan 10:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Quantity? What is the total number of dog breeds, worldwide?
This is a wonderful list and I'm among the many readers, no doubt, who are grateful to those who've contributed to it. Just a thought: it would be helpful to the reader if there were a summary count in the header stating the total number of dog breeds listed here--with perhaps subtotals by the different recognizing bodies. (Of course, this count would then need to be kept updated if there were changes to the table, so perhaps a comment in the coding to alert contributors?) Just a suggestion. Thanks again for a wonderful list. -T2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbuk-2 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Addition to the list
One breed needs to be added to the list: the Yakutian Laika. This is because it is on the American Kennel Club's Foundation Stock Service Program list.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can fix it yourself. ~ GB fan 01:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, thanks; but see above.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: It's been done.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetization of dog names
These names need to be put under their right letter sections:


 * Braque de l'Ariege (under B),
 * Cimarron Uruguayo (under C),
 * Romanian Mioritic Shepherd Dog (under R),
 * Standard Schnauzer (between Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Stephens Cur in S).Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can fix it yourself. ~ GB fan 01:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the permission and the vote of confidence, but I'm not that much of a computer-literate expert enough to do it without worrying about screwing it up in some way. I prefer to leave this to someone who knows how.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: All but the second one are done.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with a photo and a picture
Can someone please fix what's wrong (if anything) with the photo for the Bosnian Coarse-haired Hound and the picture for the North Country Beagle? Thank you.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Whoever did this, thanks.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetization of dog names: Part 2
These six dog breeds need to be placed in alphabetical order under these names:


 * Cimarron Uruguayo (under C)
 * Grand Basset Griffon Vendeen (under G)
 * Hallefors Elkhound (under H)
 * Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen and Petit Bleu de Gascogne (both under P)
 * Swedish Elkhound (under S)

This time, I can't do it because some of the letters on the names of the articles are written as foreign-language versions and I don't know how to write those.

Also, Gos Raton Valencia needs to be added to before the listing for Ratonero Valenciano (under R) so that it can refer to that article (however, Ratonero Valenciano needs to remain unchanged on the main article, so that it can be listed with the other three Ratoneros that are already there). Again, the letters on the name of the article are written as a foreign-language version and I don't know how to write that.

My purpose for all of this is to keep this list as simple and consistent as possible. If anyone could help out with these corrections, that would be great.

Thank you.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: Whoever did the G and the two Ps, thanks! Now if someone can just please do the C and the S, plus add the H, that'd be even better!Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Russian Salon Dog picture addition
Could someone please add in the picture of the Russian Salon Dog? The file name for it is written in Russian and I can't write it out. Thank you.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a list of dog "breeds"
This list is a list of dog names, many of which are recognized dog breeds, others are dog types or mixed breeds of unknown origin that should not be listed as a breed of dog. It is misleading and a disservice to our readers. I would appreciate some feedback with regards to moving this article to List of Dog types and official breeds. Atsme Talk 📧 17:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The purpose of these lists is unclear. If I sought a list of dog breeds then a link to the FCI breeds page is all that is needed, rather than Wikipedia editors recreating it here - and then not keeping the list maintained. Anything not on the FCI list would be a dog type - once again, why editors would want to list these is unclear, especially when there are one billion dogs on this planet with most of the types going unnamed, apart from the term "village dog".  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 21:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, it can be deleted as redundant. Oh, and William - watch for sock activity - we have a few issues. SMirC-thumbsup.svg Atsme Talk 📧 22:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I will assume that you know how to initiate a WP:SPI or know a friendly administrator. I have just been responsible for having yet another one blocked indefinitely - the predator can quickly find themselves the prey........  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 09:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any possibility of achieving consensus to delete this, obviously a valuable page of the encyclopaedia. If there are non-breed dog types listed here (and I don't know if there are – I searched for two, Lurcher and Courser, and found neither), two possible options might be: I'm sure there are other possibilities too. A more serious problem in my view is that of systemic bias: the FCI is an international organisation, so it's reasonable to show how it classifies each breed; but on what basis did we choose to show the classification of those six kennel clubs in particular? Are they somehow more important than the kennel clubs or national dog breed authorities of the other 200-odd countries in the world? And if so, why? I suggest removing those columns from the table. I believe that the dog breed infobox may need attention for similar reasons, by the way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * move them to separate section, as has been done for horse types in our List of horse breeds, and create a redirect to it at List of dog types
 * if that section turns out to be unduly large, consider splitting it out to that title.
 * Valuable page. I agree to both move to the new title and split into separate sections. Or as second choice to split in two pages creating the list of dog types--Pierpao (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this page needs some serious pruning and all entries (regardless of them having a page) should be reliabily sourced as being a breed. I disagree that only breeds recognised by the FCI or a kennel club are “breeds” and all others are types, it’s a tricky distinction but probably worthy of of conversation. Three of the most helpful definitions I can find are: Wikipedia’s breed page has a pretty good opening sentence, defining a breed as “a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species.” Perhaps a broader conversation on the Dogs project page to delineate between breeds, types and crossbreeds is a good start point, then a good pruning of this page following that. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC).
 * the Oxford Dictionary which defines a breed as “a stock of animals or plants within a species having a distinctive appearance and typically having been developed by deliberate selection”
 * the Collins Dictionary which defines a breed as “a group of organisms within a species, esp a group of domestic animals, originated and maintained by humans and having a clearly defined set of characteristics”
 * the Chambers Dictionary which defines a breed as “an artificially maintained subdivision within an animal species, especially farm livestock or pet animals, produced by domestication and selective breeding, eg Friesian cattle”
 * - you mentioned systemic bias and the 6 separate kennel clubs. See the list of FCI non-members here; each has an accompanying .pdf that provides the particulars. I'm not sure why the Australian NKC and New Zealand KC are shown separately on that list since they are members of FCI but it may have something to do with grouping. The FCI does not actually register dogs or distinguish purebreds except by using info they are provided - they evaluate the records submitted to them by individual breed registries world-wide. If a breed registry doesn't meet FCI's qualifications for recognition on an international scale, they are denied membership or vice versa. The FCI is neither a dog registry nor participant in the long, drawn-out process of establishing a purebred which, as you know, takes decades of lineage record keeping, evaluating/documenting DNA test results, and working closely with long-established kennel clubs whose members are reputable breeders of quality dogs and are actually the ones who provide all the information to their respective registries for recognition. I agree with in that the large numbers of dogs and list maintenance are serious issues. There was quite a bit of discussion about list maintenance when multiple categories were removed from the pedia. We already have List of dog crossbreeds, but I'm of the mind that we must be careful about letting WP be the launching pad for those groups who want recognition for a breed they are developing, or as a marketing arm for what some term as "rare breeds" when the reason they are rare is because they don't breed true. Atsme  Talk 📧 16:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I screwed up the ping . Atsme Talk 📧 16:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One argument regarding "bias" is that this is the English-speaking Wikipedia and one would expect those kennel organisations situated in nations where English is the first language to be very strongly represented. A counter-argument is that we should be working towards a standard, and the FCI could possibly be that standard. Although Australia is a member of the FCI, it considers the dingo as a dog breed - there is a dingo breed standard - although the FCI does not. Similarly, there is a NZ herding dog that they recognise but the FCI does not. This topic is complex, and it appears to have attracted few editors to this discussion. As Cavalryman suggests, "Perhaps a broader conversation on the Dogs project page to delineate between breeds, types and crossbreeds is a good start point" - I fully concur.  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 22:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Purebreds breed true; crossbreds or mixed breeds do not. The genotypes that comprise a specific breed of dog are far more involved than just appearances. I previously included some science-based articles that explain the issues involving the misidentification of dogs based on appearances and why visual id is not a good idea, but I'll include another article from the National Canine Research Council titled Visual Breed Identification. With regards to systemic bias, I'm not quite sure how that fits into the big picture. The KC and AKC are reputable, long-established breed registries that date back to the 1800s. The AKC is the largest breed registry in the world. I find it difficult to fault them for not becoming a member of FCI, although they do have an arrangement, so things may change. I'll just toss a little thought grenade out there: homogeneity, conformity and control. Anyway, there are 2 interesting science-based articles at Nat Geo's site: Centuries of breeding have reshaped dog brains—here’s how and Build A Dog, both of which speak to breed genetics. Following is a quote from the latter: Atsme Talk 📧 01:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, we classify species, subspecies, and breeds by phenotype. It is only when there is doubt that DNA is called upon.  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 01:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true for species in the wild, but we're discussing domesticated breeds that were created by human intervention, not by natural selection. There is a stark difference. Atsme Talk 📧 05:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the second sentence of that quote encapsulates almost everything I despise about kennel clubs. I think we are in agreement about breeds breeding true, but they don’t need kennel club recognition for that to be the case. In many breeds we are seeing a divergence between kennel club recognised (show) specimens that are bred true to the standard and unregistered (often working) specimens, that doesn’t make the latter any less examples of that breed. The same is true of breeds that are not recognised, they can breed true to the defining characteristics of that breed without recognition. Provided we can find sufficient, credible, reliable sources for a breed then I believe it is notable as such. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC).

Just a few thoughts regarding breeds, species/subspecies per Dog type - the sections I’ve read in that article are very well-written, well-sourced and informative and I see that our project's own was one of the contributors. The section ‘’Names in English’’ helps define species/subspecies vs modern breeds. Another informative section is ‘’Other uses of the word type in dogs’’. The section ‘’Dog types and modern breeds’’ does an excellent job of making the distinction between breeds and types.

Cavalryman, while a dog breed may be verifiable without one of the official kennel clubs recognizing it as a purebred, I'm pretty sure we're on the same page as it relates to WP:GNG, the need for multiple independent RS, and compliance with NPOV, V, and NOR. I realize there is disagreement over some of the practices of long-established breed registries and/or groups of established breeders comprising grassroots kennel clubs, but they still rank high as it pertains to verification of purebreds. Some of the older breed registries offer a foundation stock service program such as the one AKC offers which is an excellent service for reputable breeders and kennel clubs seeking breed recognition. As an editor, I feel obligated to protect WP from being used as a tool for advocacies, or for promotion of an unrecognized, newly developed breed that fails verification as a purebred. In that regard, the reputable, long-established dog registries play an important role, and have held true to their breed standards. They have also maintained a centuries worth of recorded lineages and various other documentation. We must exercise caution to avoid including or citing questionable private breed registries, even if they began with good intentions as with Tom Stodghill’s American Research Foundation which basically went defunct following the deaths of the owners. Unfortunately, all the pedigree records and registrations were lost, assuming they were even kept much less well-maintained beyond anecdotal reports. Perhaps records were kept by reputable breeders and grassroots kennel clubs but again V is one of our core content policies. We also should not perpetuate the poor practices of visually misidentifying dogs because misidentification paves the way to wrongful euthanasia, flourishing puppy mills and backyard “designer breeds” and "rare breeds", some of which are nothing more than another way to monetize deformities, such as bifid noses as well as a variety of disqualifying faults. Hopefully our project members will be able to create an acceptable guideline that can be added to WP:N as well as establish some sort of guideline to help editors recognize RS vs questionable and downright unreliable sources. Atsme Talk 📧 19:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we are in complete agreement. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC).
 * I would like to see this list limited to notable breeds that are recognized as such (and not just provisionally) by a major (notable) national or international registry/kennel club (not just a one-breed club). One-breed clubs that meet some "not just backyard breeders" standards are basically aggregated into FCI already. We should do pretty much the same for all "List of species breeds" pages, except probably horses: there's not an international breed recognition/registry system, and it often does come down to breed-specific organizations, though some of them are huge and are notable. We have other ways of determining horse-breed notability and list-worthiness, and there's much less tendency for random nobodies to claim that their mongrel crossbreed is a "breed", because no one in that sphere will take them seriously, unlike in dog circles).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal:Simplification of list
I propose to simplify this list to simple links to breed pages, removing the table with all of the photos, countries of origin and selected kennel club recognition parameters. My reasoning is currently the list is incredibly unwieldy.

I propose we have sections for each letter of the alphabet with breeds listed in alphabetical order in columns within each section and some select photos included for each section. In time we should see every breed cited but to start I propose we simply remove the table. Cavalryman (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely! Our list of horse breeds is a lot more complicated than it needs to be, but still much more accessible than this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but at what point is it simplified so much it's simply duplicative of the category? We need to be mindful of WP:CLN and provide usefulness specific to the list format. Overall, I agree that this page is unnecessarily complicated.  We should probably cross-compare this list, List of horse breeds, List of cat breeds, List of cattle breeds, and all the other such lists, and see which structure and which kinds of information are good to retain, and also remember that we can provide more information in sublists and keep the main list very concise. I'm not entirely sure that the List of horse breeds model is ideal, because it's not grouping them into sublists.   we probably do want thumbnails, since this is a feature that a list can provide that a category and a navbox cannot, and will be of interest to various readers.  But it need not be in the top-level "List of species breeds".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &, I have simplified the list in one of my sandboxes, please have a look and let me know your thoughts. I have made a start at citing all of the entries (Bruce Fogle gets a real workout), but there remains a few unsourced entries  some of which are good candidates for AfC, some just need a little research. I think the sublist idea has real merit, but most of the type articles include a list of breeds (of varying quality), additionally if we tried to split this into types I suspect it would become a real mess as various kennel clubs and authors have very ideas about types, whilst a number of the entries would not fall within the traditional types.
 * Also, I have cross-linked to other lists of breeds in the see also section but am wondering if some of the major types would be better. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC).
 * Just a quick initial reaction: (1) huge improvement; (2) still overloaded with images; (3) for the refs, perhaps consider sacrificing page numbers and using Listref? Looks like that was a lot of work, thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to just repeat my previous comment, since this revision doesn't really address anything I said. :-/ It's duplicative of the category, in simply being an alphabetical listing. It isn't dividing the breeds up into types that make for good sublists (which would be where images would be useful).  The images presently included are not helpful, but are just decoration for its own sake; they are not present for each breed, yet are also not connected in any way to an organizational principle like sections by type.  I agree that in the top-level list article, reducing it primarily or entirely to text is the way to go, but just making it an alpha. list like the horses one isn't very useful.  Both should organize the breeds into groups that are meaningful, or we might as well not have a list and just have a category.  I agree with JLAN that the forest of page-number references isn't very useful. For things like topical encyclopedias written alphabetically, entry names are usually already more specific than page numbers anyway.  If we wanted to keep page numbers,  is another more concise way to do that. (It defeats both the "^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw Source Name Here" problem, and the problem in this sandbox of a huge section of the same source being listed over and over in redundant citation lines.  We should also keep in mind that breed encyclopedias are tertiary sources and some of them over-include non-breeds as "breeds" just to try to have more entries than competing breed encyclopedias. They're not terribly reliable as sources by themselves (though are better in the aggregate; a breed found in every breed encyclopedia is obviously legit, while one found only in a single work is suspect, and its presence in one doesn't establish notability).  Fogle (like Desmond Morris) is a higher-reputation source than average for these things, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree about most breed encyclopedias, I believe those used are some of the better ones. A possible future plan is to divide the list by continent, I am really loath to attempt to go down the type path, I suspect it will lead to major conflict with various flyby special interest groups. I will work on the citations and bin the pictures. I am also considering adding a key for FCI recognition although am hesitant as it may open the floodgates to other national kennel clubs. Cavalryman (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Putting back visual representation (picture) of each breed
Just want to propose whoever can do this to put back a picture for every Dog Breed as it was before.In this way people that are searching for a breed can find it almost instantly.Having just a list of the breeds doesn't help too much and it takes hours to check all the pages to eventually find what are you looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.251.75 (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)