Talk:Potcake dog

English variant
The article currently seems to be written in American English. Should I assume that's intentional, and keep it that way? The places these dogs inhabit are politically and historically more British than American, but on the other hand, there's not much information about what variant of English is used there for writing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intentional, per se, but I did consider what you're saying. It would probably be more consistent to keep it in British English so I'll go change what I can (though it's possible I'll miss something). All measurements were originally given in imperial units. Anna  talk 00:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognised breed?
So after reading this it seems that they are basically stray dogs of any mix of breeds, and no-one other than the Bahamian Islands and Turks and Caicos recognises them?

This is not a breed, as any mix can get into this classification, indeed the defining parameter seems to be "stray". If I took a wolf over there and it bred with a beach dog its stray puppies would be potcakes and if I took a Chihuahua over there and it bred with a beach dog their stray puppies would also be potcakes. Rather strange that most of the items I have just read, after reading most of the many of them are refs, seem to put "breed" of dog rather than breed of dog to denoting that they aren't really one. In fact the msnbc ref only mentions the word breed once, and not even in calling this mix of breeds a "breed". The Bahamian Kennel club list of breeds of dogs doesn't have them on it, so why are they a "breed"?

The article gives the impression they are some special breed, rather than a name for a stray. The wording of the infobox "Recognised by the Bahamas Kennel Club under Group 9" is also extremely misleading. The actual list of recognised breeds is here, where it is not listed: ("This is a listing of the breeds currently recognized by the Bahamian Kennel club").Chaosdruid (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * They are described as a breed, whether correctly or not, by several sources; however, I didn't use that terminology for the reasons you are describing. If there's a specific part that seems misleading, we can work on it, but this article does not call it a breed at all or even imply that (with the exception of the info box, as I share your opinion on that). I chose the more accurate "mixed breed dog type".
 * Discovery.com - "The stray dogs became an official breed, the Royal Bahamian Potcake, in the Bahamas the late 1970s, but a fancy name hasn’t done anything to keep them off the streets."
 * T&C Humane Society - "Although officially considered mixed breed dogs, Potcakes are recognized as a breeded dog in The Bahamas and this is the case in the Turks and Caicos Islands."
 * I don't see quotation marks in these excerpts and couldn't find them around "breed" in any of the references -- am I missing something? The Bahamas Kennel Club PDF indicates what was described in the article, though "Recognized" certainly isn't the best term. Would "Listed separately from the mixed-breed dog" be better? They are specially denoted and IMO that's worthy of note. Anna  talk 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but their "list of recognized breeds" does not include it. It may be on the list as "non-registered", the list is actually the "List of Breeds accepted by the BKC showing Group" (bottom link in the red box on their homepage ), which surely agrees with what I said about it not being recognised? Perhaps information about Group 9 should be included? In this context, it is akin to a Kennel club allowing a mixed-breed group at a show.
 * That sentence talks about "most of the items I have read ... seem to put "breed". I admit that the part in commas could mislead readers into thinking that was specifically about the ref articles - however it was related to the "many items I have read", intended to mean that I had read most of the refs. I have reworded it.
 * I am not sure what you mean by "specially denoted", they are certainly notable, as proven by the number of articles and refs to them.
 * Lastly, I do not think that having someone describe them as a breed means that is correct, in fact there is no mention of them on the UK or US Kennel Club breeds listings.
 * I agree that they are notable, deserve an article and are depicted on the whole correctly; I just cannot agree that they are a breed, nor that they are recognised as one - apart from having a non-registered category in a Bahamian show where it seems the UK equivalent would be "mixed-breed". Chaosdruid (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're correct that they're not recognized by any major kennel clubs or registries (though that's not the only criterion for being considered a "breed" and would certainly garner some disagreement :-). I don't consider it a breed myself and, aside from the poorly worded info box note, thought it was made relatively clear that it was a type of dog, in the general sense -- not the one depicted in the dog type article, which is why I didn't link it. Other than that, what you're saying is true and does need to be rectified; that's just sloppiness on my part. Saying they were recognized in the late 70s as whatever name is implicitly saying they're purebred but jibed with what the ref said -- and if those countries do think they're purebred, I figured I'd let that speak for itself. "given the name Royal Bahamian Potcake" would fix those issues, I think.
 * My comments were related to what you wrote here: "seem to put "breed" of dog rather than breed of dog to denoting that they aren't really one" I interpreted that as a claim the refs were using scare quotes. "Specially denoted" I used to mean "put in the same non-registered category, but listed separately from the standard mixed-breed dog". In other words, that corroborates their status as more than an entirely random mutt but not a breed in any common usage of the word. Anna  talk 19:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just tried to clarify it a bit. Better? More awkward? The info box note is less elegant now but I'm not sure it should be removed altogether. Anna  talk 19:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention to detail. That is much more acceptable and much less misleading :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it! Anna  talk 20:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nature and scope
What is the referent of this article?

At times, it seems to be a story about how, through the cultural practice of favoring certain dogs with handouts, a sort of well-mannered, pleasant-looking "breed" was selected out of the general population of free-ranging dogs.

At other times, it seems to be about any and all free-ranging dogs on the islands. Chrisrus (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Potcake dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101008222812/http://www.bekind.org:80/who/ to http://www.bekind.org/who/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Potcake dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150926003526/https://habricentral.org/resources/239/download/Potcakes.pdf?token to https://habricentral.org/resources/239/download/Potcakes.pdf?token

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)