Talk:Northern Inuit Dog

Image
The image in the infobox is from here, where it is clearly identified as a Northern Inuit Dog. If you don't like the image, feel free to provide another one or take one yourself- the standard for dog article pictures is to use an image of a stacked animal facing left without humans in the image, when it is available. -- T K K ! bark with me if you're my dog! 23:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Roots
It says at the beginning "However there are lines that will show no Samoyed or Grey Wolf." If this were true, that this animal has no wolf roots, then they wouldn't even be dogs at all. All dogs are wolves. 12.17.177.164 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal:Tamaskan Dog
I propose to merge Tamaskan Dog into this article. The only reliable sources on the Tamaskan page are a few newspaper mentions that have little or no detail about the breed apart from them being a combination mixture of GSD, husky & malamute blood, whereas the sources on this page describe them as just a splinter line of the same Northern Inuit dog. All other sources on the Tamaskan page clearly fail WP:RS. This page could include the two sentences in the Tamaskan popular culture section. Cavalryman (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I decided to recreate the Tamaskan article because I am interested in the breed and was surprised to see there was no Wiki article for it since it has become quite popular in recent years. News articles mentioning the Tamaskan are indeed sparse, but it is a relatively new breed and there are still a handful of reliable sources that mention it. My opinion is that it is notable enough for its own article, especially since the breed has appeared in a Broadway play and serves as a university mascot. Just my two cents! OveXPlaC (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello OveXPlaC, thanks for your visit here. I have edited the Tamaskan back in May 2019, and the Northern Inuit back in January 2016 and most recently, so both articles are known to me. I would support merging the Tamaskan Dog as a separate heading within the Northern Inuit Dog article. That would allow search engines to locate it out on the net. Additionally, the Tamaskan Dog article would be made into a redirect to that section, allowing Wikipedia users to locate it. Once the un-WP:RELIABLE sources are removed from the verbiage, it will be a much reduced - but much more reliable - section. Later, should reliable sources with detailed information become available, it could be split out again.  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 01:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me! OveXPlaC (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello OveXPlaC, unfortunately tamaskandogregister.com, sundogtamaskan.com and facebook.com/TamaskanDogRegister/ are not WP:Reliable sources, so I have removed them and the paragraph cited to them. I think I have better incorporated Tamaskans and the other two lines into the article. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC).

Undo merger from Tamaskan Dog
The Tamaskan Dog is a distinct breed which is recognized by the American Rare Breed Association.

Specifically, they're under Group 5 on ARBA"s website: https://www.arba.org/Pages/gallery-group-5-breeds.htm

And here is the breed standard, also on ARBA's website: http://arba.org/PDF%20Files/Group%20Five/Tamaskan%20Dog%20Breed%20Standard.pdf

Wouldn't this fit the requirements for the Tamaskan Dog to be moved back to its own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxypaws (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Hello, Wikipedia’s policy on notability states an topic is presumed to be suitable for inclusion in a standalone article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as discussed in the above section those sources do not exist (or have not been presented). The ARBA does not impart notability alone. If you have any reliable sources on the Tamaskan you can present here I would be very willing to change my opinion. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC).


 * I don't understand, are you opposed on grounds of notability or reliability? It sounds like you're conflating the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxypaws (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the policy linked above, significant coverage in reliable sources imparts notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. Cavalryman (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * pinging other participants in the above merger discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC).


 * Oppose until such time as WP:NOTABILITY is established. Additionally, what would be split apart from one line and the statement that they are recognised by the ARBA? It will be a very short article going nowhere, which is exactly where it was before the merge. (Please note that the Tamaskan entry can be found here from any search engine - just because something exists does not mean that it warrants its own article.) William Harris (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A separate article might look like this, which I reverted to a redirect pending the outcome of this discussion. Lithopsian (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources used would need to be WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic - Tamaskan Dog Register, and similar, are not. William Harris (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, I have removed the split template from the page as it has been over a fortnight since the last contribution to the discussion, there does not appear to be consensus for the split. If any editor would prefer a formal close I am happy to take it to make a request at WP:ANRFC. Cavalryman (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC).