Talk:Scent hound

Rhodesian Ridgeback
Errr...To whom it may concern, Rhodesian Ridgebacks are not scenthounds; they are sighthounds. I haven't checked the rest of the list. 66.108.4.183 06:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That ain't what the article on them says. And they are in the category for scent hounds. 144.9.8.21 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no real Kennel Club in the world that (yet) recognises the Ridgeback, or the Basenji, or the Podenco's, or the Podengo's, or the Pharaoh Hound or the Cirneco etc as "Sighthounds". That may happen some time in the future - because in North America they are accepted by ASFA as lure coursing eligible breeds. The first, the RR, is farm and hunting dog, the rest are hunting dogs, scent hunting dogs, they are simply Hounds - not Sighthounds. Verify the identity of a breed by researching its function and use. Provide that information and the provenance. Do not simply assume status because other people have approriated a foreign breed - and mistakenly afforded it a false status. --Richard Hawkins 14:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Different organizations are apt to classify different, too. These categories have arbitrary edges, the motivations of the organizations and their constituents differ, and even the identity of particular breeds if fluid between organizations, and often does not correspond much with the native SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Blackmouth Cur
Removed Blackmouth Cur because they are a cur dog, not a scent hound. They are classified as a cur by the UKC and independent BMC associations. --TrueBlueLacys (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposed
Scenthound Group should merge into this article. It's a content fork that serves no purpose, being basically a WP:DICDEF article about a jargon term the definition of which is, well, the subject of article. The lists in it are better sourced, and disputes like the above about what does and doesn't qualify as a scent hound (or scenthound, as you prefer) are less likely to arise after the articles are merged. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC) PS: The motivation for the split appears to be to have articles on Special Capitalized Group Names as Used By Kennel Clubs [sigh]. It's the WP:Specialized style fallacy at work again. This makes about as much sense as having separate articles for "Incomplete (Insufficient Credits)" and "Incomplete (Other Requirement Not Met)" for classifying undergraduates at a particular university just because that's the labels they use internally. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. Scenthound Group serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with all the reasons given above. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 10:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree Rosemary Cheese (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree should be merged. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 17:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * proposal is gathering speed after ten months. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 10:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, merges and splits often get forgotten about for months or years. The WP:CONSENSUS rede is that any unopposed move of that sort is presumed to have consensus after a month or so, and this one has active support, so let's do it, and then look at other "Breed Group" articles. Some could potentially turn out to be unique, in being tied to AKC or some other specific organization yet not simulatenously encompassing and limited to a specific dog type recognized in the cynological literature more broadly. In such cases, I'm highly skeptical the classification will be independently notable, and should thus be merged into a dog type classification (if there's near-complete overlap), and/or the classification section of the organization in question (creating one if necessary). It makes much more sense to work up a special article that is a table of classifications of breeds by class/group, according to what organizations, or work this info into the List of dog breeds (or both, though a properly crafted master table at the latter should be sortable by organization probably).  I've been working here and there on the same sort of thing for WP:WikiProject Cats, and even toying with the idea of doing this in WikiData, along with other breed info (e.g. to auto-populate infoboxes and stuff with this data, across multiple languages' Wikipedias).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

✅ — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 17:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Scent hound vs scenthound
Hello, I have noticed some of your recent contributions to this article, it is looking extremely tired so any attention here is most welcome. I have had a look at some of my go-to scent hound/scenthound references, and to my surprise all universally use the singular form “scenthound”. I am vaguely aware there was a discussion about this many years ago, but I have not seen it. I am very happy to discuss, but I am beginning to think a page move discussion may be in order, in the interim I think the alternative spelling without the UKC link should be restored to the lead. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC).
 * Hi Cavalryman, historically it was "scent hound" there is little doubt about that, Google it at various Kennel Clubs, now they are attempting to modernise it, very much as the "modern word": "sighthound", (dating roughly from the 1960's) before that it was "gazehound". I object to Microsoft attempting for years to straight-jacket that to "sight hound", to conform it to "scent hound", as well as someone erroneously trying to name the Bavarian and Hanover hounds "scenthounds" on a page with the title "Scent Hound". No doubt I will lose this as the playing field is moving. The only Kennel Club with a "Scenthound Group" is the UKC.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Peter Beckford and J. Otho Paget both spell foxhound “fox-hound”, so yes it seems singular form is modern. I can’t find many that say “scent hound”, when writing about scent hounds/scenthounds most of the old timers I am familiar with just say hounds. Cavalryman (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC).

Yes, scent hound is "modern", but not as modern as sighthound, which is a useful "americanism". Read online in the UK Kennel Club breed pages and you will find where they use it they still use "scent hound". There is a reason this page is titled "Scent Hound", which distinguishes it from "sighthound". That will change in time, but I suggest that time is yet to come.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer gaze hound, but I too am quite old fashioned. I suppose the point here is “scenthound” is not just used by the UKC, but some of the most preeminent dog writers of our day on both sides of the Atlantic (Alderton, Hancock & Morris are British), are you happy that we restore the alternate spelling to the lead? Cavalryman (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC). As I said, I'm going to lose this, because both the goalposts and playing field are moving. I found it a useful distinction between historic and modern terminology to keep to 'sighthound' vs 'scent hound', but I suppose it is going to happen whether I or the British Kennel Club like it or not. I'm sort of surprised that Desmond Morris allowed that, we both worked for the Royal Zoological Society in London at the same time, and I know he did invent things such as the "Potsdam greyhound" (I.G.) but I suspect that more importantly publishing house "style" editors, just as with Microsoft's "sight hound", are mostly responsible for this. I won't be changing it anymore :-) Cheers--Richard Hawkins (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Nose
German Shorthaired Pointer working with his fantastic nose exclusively. Sciencia58 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, that’s my GSP to the right pointing some quail, scent is undeniably her dominant sense. Cavalryman (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC).