Talk:Search and rescue dog

German Wikipedia
Rescue Hound has an excellent article that we need to copy from. Lots of material we are missing. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And The rescue dogs from the German Red Cross in German. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that Rettungshund article is almost entirely unsourced, so unless someone's prepared to find the relevant sources I see little value in copying any of it here (and at that point it'd probably be quicker to write new content anyway). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Justlettersandnumbers You are right about the paucity of sources. But the content is really good, and goes well beyond what we have in the English Wikipedia article.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a constant problem with content in other Wikipedias – it may be little, or often much, better than what we have, but is so poorly sourced as to be useless to us. In my opinion, our great strength is our insistence on complete and proper sourcing; the downside of that is that our pages may be less complete than the equivalent page in another project. I see that as an acceptable trade-off. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We need their their content (at times, obviously the English Wikipedia is broader in scope with way more articles) with our sourcing. German Wikipedia's approach to sourcing is very strict, rather like the Rheinheitsgebot is to brewing. So you and I agree.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge mercy dog with Search and rescue dog
Those two articles seem to be about the same concept, aren't they? Except that the mercy dog seems to refer to WWI search and rescue dogs. Which means that this could become a history subsection of the article here (which currently doesn't even have a history section). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The mercy dog had a specifically military and medical role and many thousands were used in an organised way in specific conflicts. That then forms a nicely distinct topic and its appearance as a DYK confirms its quality.  The search and rescue article, by contrast, is broader and looser and so has multiple issues.  Conflating the two would be improper synthesis as the OP presents no sources in support of their speculative theory.  To get the best quality, we should divide such topics so that they are precise and succinct.  Merger would be counter-productive.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 10:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose While all Mercy Dogs are Search and Rescue, the opposite is not the case.   Different functions.  Different roles.  Different training.  Different history.  This is a better and well developed article that will be a poor fit in the other less well developed article.  WP:Preserve.   WP:Not paper.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose (naturally, as page creator). I think that merging Mercy dog (a 1100 word article) to the history section here will create an unbalanced history section when 'Search and rescue dog' is intentionally about a much broader topic. There's enough for a stand-alone article, imo Eddie891 Talk Work 12:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Mercy dog article tells us that "...they would seek out wounded soldiers..." Is that not a search? Does that not lead to a rescue? That S&R dog is a wider topic is no reason not to merge. That S&R dog is a lesser quality article, and of smaller size, are still not reasons not to merge. None of these dubious reasons has anything to do with WP:POL. However, Mercy dog is supported by multiple RS, therefore it probably warrants a stand-alone article. Unfortunately at present its entire lede contains no references at all. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 21:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , there are no citations in the lede because it's all referenced in the body (per WP:LEDECITE). As you allude to somewhat, the reason a merger is inappropriate is because multiple reliable sources specifically provide in-depth coverage of 'mercy dog' as its own well-defined topic, so that a fairly substantial stand alone article can be written that conforms to policies and guidelines, rendering a merger inappropriate. The policy to cite is that none of the WP:MERGEREASONs are met and the three WP:NOTMERGE criteria are met. I cannot see any benefit that will come from merging the two. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:William Harris I agree with User:Eddie891. Usually, the custom is no citations in the lead paragraph.  Not sure if that is covered in WP:MOS, and I admit that sometimes they are there, even if not preferred.   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with your reasoning, thanks both. (Somehow I had developed the idea this was only for GA and FA articles, which it isn't.) <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 08:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Currently the mercy dog article is better sourced so probably warrants its own page. The quality of S & R dogs has been raised at WT:DOGS and a rewrite is planned. Once that has occurred this proposal could likely be revisited, after all as 7&6 says above all Mercy Dogs are Search and Rescue [dogs]. Cavalryman (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC).
 * Oppose The mercy dog seems to be a specific type of "search and rescue" dog and seems notable on its' own.★Trekker (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I'm not sympathetic to arguments that the current quality of any given articles should affect our thinking here. Just as WP:Deletion is not cleanup, merging is supposed to be about what the available sources warrant. And I am sympathetic to the argument that coverage of mercy dogs should have begun at the broader parent page, rather than beginning a brand new page (which seems like it was done just to qualify for DYK). This page does not even currently mention mercy dogs, which it absolutely should. It's not helpful to the encyclopedia to go around creating quasi-content forks that aren't properly integrated with existing pages; content creation ought to flow from the broad to the narrow, not vice versa. With that admonishment out of the way, however, I think there is enough difference in scope that it's appropriate for mercy dogs to have a separate page. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been over a month since the last comment, can this matter be closed off now and the template removed? <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 07:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminars in Forensic Science
— Assignment last updated by Ringettem7 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminars in Forensic Science
— Assignment last updated by Lorrriana (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)