Talk:Terrier

List of Terriers
Just wondering if the Terrier breed list is incomplete, or if there are reasons why some breeds have been left out. Anyone have any objections to my adding:
 * Australian Silky Terrier
 * Russian Black Terrier
 * English Toy Terrier
 * Miniature Fox Terrier
 * Toy Fox Terrier
 * Tenterfield Terrier
 * Rat Terrier
 * American Pit Bull Terrier
 * Norfolk Terrier
 * Norwich Terrier
 * Japanese Terrier
 * Shitzu crossed with fox terrier


 * I just added a Terrier navbox that has more terriers included.  Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 13:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hunt Terriers vs. Hunting Terriers
Was this distinction intentionally made? I can see where it would be, but wanted to clarify. Keep in mind, whoever is writing this, that some terriers 'cross over'; i.e. they are hunting terriers (which I assume applies to hunting for food or pelts, vermin routing etc.) and were used for The (Fox) Hunt. Quill 00:10, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fox Terrier
While the recent edit by an anonymous user was logical, ultimately it would confuse matters; someone would have to remember to come back here and change things back. Further, this is a breed list, not a type list. The fox terrier article discusses type; it is not restricted to the specific breeds Smooth and Wire-haired fox terriers. I think a better choice is to leave the separation, as it is in keeping with the way the breeds are listed in the rest of the project. Opinions? Quill 09:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. Elf | Talk 22:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

i reverted the edits made by Toytoy b/c the breed list shows the breed names with the wire, smooth and miniature after the main breed name. i believe that's what we've decided to use. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 14:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup. Refer to List of dog breeds. Elf | Talk 17:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Multiple terrier lists
I'm still bothered by the fact that we have at least 3 complete lists of terriers (not to mention the new category:Terriers that Multmoma kindly filled in)--Terrier, Terrier Group, and FCI Terrier Group. Harking back to this ancient discussion, I'd like once again to propose having just a single list, perhaps in the Terrier article, perhaps in a table similar to this:

(note countries are invented for this example.)

I think that it gives a more complete list of terriers and a better picture of what's recognized worldwide and what isn't; I think that it'll avoid confusing people who might land on multiple of these pages and not be clear on what's going on; I think that it'll help in long-term article maintenance.

Thoughts? Elf | Talk 17:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How about 1. Terrier delete terrier list from.  Add sentence like 'for a list of dogs classed as terriers, refer to category:terriers' .  2. Terrier Group add the line about not all dogs in the terrer groups being terriers and not all terriers being in the terrier group, leave the rest as is AND/OR add your table (e.g. above) in here.  3.  FCI Terrier Group leave as is.  Quill 09:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The only problem with relying on the category list is that it includes only articles that exist & not breeds that don't yet have articles. But I guess the terrier group article could just include all terrier breeds whether recognized by any KCs or not and that might suffice...  Hmmm.  Elf | Talk 18:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * uh...good point...forgot that bit...never mind.... Quill 22:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * old section -- but I do have to comment that the Terrier Group is not the same as the type of dog called terrier, although it is closer than some of the breed groups. The Terrier Group is a category created by the kennel clubs for whatever reason, and the lists there compare how the kennel clubs categorize breeds as well as which breeds are recognized by which clubs. It is very useful and interesting as long as it sticks to the major kennel clubs.
 * Which brings up another point about the nice chart: Please do not use the abbreviations for the kennel clubs. There are many small registries, clubs and internet-based dog businesses that have deliberately chosen their names so they use the same initials as the major kennel clubs. It is NOT obvious to the average person what exactly is meant by the abbreviation.--Hafwyn (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a table is a good idea. I just didn't know how to do one. If you know how to do this, go for it. Bob98133 (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The table comparing the major kennel club classifications of terriers is in the article Terrier Group.

Questionable addition
I've deleted a recent addition to the list of terrier breeds: with all possible respect, I doubt that there is such a recognized breed as the "Nicole McPherson Bitch-Faced Terrier". Cactus Wren 18:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yorkies
First of all, the picture of the dogs in the article calls them Yorkies, while it would be much more encyclopedic to call them Yorkshire Terriers in the caption. Then, take a look at the note below the breed list, which says Yorkshires are considered toy dogs; so should the picture even be in this article in the first place? Maybe a terrier aficionado can clear this all up. 213.100.23.240 17:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the 'Yorkies' caption to Yorkshire Terriers. 12Ghost12 10:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

KC
Shouldn't the FCI's group listings for terriers be used instead of the AKC's? Especially since the AKC's listing is only pertinent for the US whereas the FCI's is useful for roughly 80 countries (the number taken from their own entry). Either that or link to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrier_Group which has a full listing of all breeds recognised as being a part of the Terrier group with International variations noted. Or if neither option, at least note which ones are recognised in which country as terriers etc. --Aria elwen 08:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

List of terriers
The previous list of terriers was not only incomplete, but was exclusive to terriers that were recognized by the AKC. (For example the Teddy Roosevelt Terrier was not listed.) I replaced it with the Terrier template, which is much more complete and not exclusive to the American club, as what they call a terrier seems to be different from what everyone else calls a terrier. Also, this Wikipedia is designed for all English using countries (incl. United Kingdom, Australia)  Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments
It doesn't seem that there is a "controversy" about what is registered as a terrier; different KCs just make different choices.

Norwich Terrier is not a toy; it retains more or less its original size, while others have been bred up to be larger dogs, mostly to win dog shows.

Bull Terriers are not a good example of fighting dog as they are too small and have been bred as pets for too long (100+ years). Fighting dog websites show the Tosa Inu and Molosser type dogs as preferred fighting dogs, although they claim if "properly" trained even a poodle will fight. No I'm not providing any links, it's too disgusting. I only researched it for clarity.

The trouble with categories of terrier is that almost any terrier can be in any category, with size being the main factor for purpose-bred and or raised dogs. For example, most terriers today are too big and too wide in the chest to go down a fox hole, even if that was why their ancestors were kept. Hafwyn (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Made famous...
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do usually put summary. I'll explain why I removed it: Where it said "The terriers were made famous throughout the 1990s, when Charlie "the champion" won the Dog of the Year award 7 years in a row" it is not particularly meaningful. Made famous where? In the UK where most of them came from they have always been well known. Also who is Charlie the champion, what kind of dog was he and what is 'Dog of the year award'. Are they notable at all? --CharlesC (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo replacement
Tthe one larger image (File:Foxterrier sh klaas.jpg) has apparently been identified as a mixed breed; why has the quite good border terrier photo (File:Border-terrier-bitch.jpg) been replaced with a lower quality picture of another, similar mixed breed? The toy, the working terrier, and the short legged terrier photos are good examples but nothing is added by the head shot of "A border lakeland terrier; mostly terrier" wearing a scarf. Better additions would be full body photos of a bull-type terrier and a Manchester terrier type to show the range of the terriers. Unless someone objects I will replace the scarf-dog with a better image.--Hafwyn (talk)


 * I see that the scarf-dog image was added by its owner (or at least, photographer), User talk:Retro Rubix. Pictures of personal pets should not be used if they add nothing to the article.

Limiting the photos in the article
To prevent the article from being overwhelmed by photos of people's pets, I would like to suggest that photos be limited to clear illustrations of types of terriers mentioned in the article. This is what is in the article now, and what I see as the reasons:
 * Short legged terriers: Terriers.jpg - the most iconic terriers are the short legged ones, especially the black Scotty and white Westie.
 * Long legged terriers: Foxterrier sh klaas.jpg was already in the article, and shows the dog digging.
 * Hunting: BedaleTerrier2005.jpg a "working terrier" in the field.
 * Toy: Yorkshire teriery 522.jpg a very good example of long coated toys.
 * Bull-type: BostonTerrierMaleBlack.jpg a very good example showing the short muzzle.
 * Largest terrier: Airedale Terriers Flickr.jpg shows a person's legs, for scale. Good clear picture of the dogs.

The painting of the smooth coated toy from 1875 does not need to be duplicated by a more modern picture, they still look like that.

There should be a discussion before changing the pictures.--Hafwyn (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement re the origin of the name
When we were in England we heard it said a few times that the word "terrier" is a corruption of "raterrier", which was the original name and meant, in essence, "rat hunter". Old_Wombat (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Slanted wording
I note the Bull types paragraph in the Terrier Types and Groups section contains the following text: "Responsible breeders have bred modern Bull type terrier breeds, such as the Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, into suitable family dogs and show terriers. These breeds and other descendants of the Bull and Terrier types, such as the Asian Gull Terr, are among the dog breeds still raised for illegal dog fighting." It strikes me that "responsible breeders" is a slanted wording which implies that breeders who aren't breeding family or show dogs are irresponsible. I'm aware that there's some controversy about bull breeds and breeding, but I don't see how the "responsible" element conforms to NPOV. I've made an edit of that point, but I invite other editors to clean up the wording as I have no real expertise or interest in this subject. Jack of Many (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Terrier Group
Redundant WP:CONTENTFORK, maybe even a WP:POVFORK. We already merged a bunch of these pointless overlapping articles over the last two years; not sure why this one was left out. See also: Talk:Toy dog; Talk:Herding dog; Talk:List of dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club; Talk:Fédération Cynologique Internationale. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Fully support, including on WP:COMMONAME grounds. William Harris •   (talk) •  08:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Conditional support, provided Terrier does not become an article about show groups and dog club classifications. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cavalryman, SMcCandlish, and William Harris: Although there was consensus above to implement this merge, it does not appear that any content was actually merged from Terrier group to this article. Looking at the history of both pages, I see only two relevant edits: converting to a redirect the article Terrier group, and removing the merge notice from this article. If Terrier group was merely redirected without actually merging, it should not be tagged as a R from merge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am seeing the same thing for articles such as Toy group (redirected and merge notice removed without any corresponding merger of content), Herding group (redirected and merge notice removed without any corresponding merger of content), Working group (dogs) (redirected with no corresponding merger of content in the page history), and others. I defer to more editors who are more knowledgeable about this topic whether there was any content worth merging or if plain redirection was appropriate, but a redirection should not be described as a merge unless content was actually merged—the term "merge" has significance from a copyright standpoint. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , from memory the only sources on the merged pages were kennel club websites themselves, most of the articles in this space (dog types) are already poorly/un-sourced enough, I decided not to introduce more information for which only primary sources exist. Further, I figured the links were fairly intuitive. I am slowly (glacially if I’m being truely honest) trying to work through the various dog type articles. If people think a simple statement is required I can introduce something, but I would prefer to find a secondary source for it.Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Per WP:ABOUTSELF, the primary sources of the kennel clubs' websites and registration/show rules documents are perfectly fine as sources for basic things like "All terriers are classified by the American Kennel Club in its Terrier group, by the United Kennel Club in a group of the same name; however, the Kennel Club of Kerblachistan uses the term Terrier and Bulldog group, except [list of small breeds here] which are in its Toy Group", or whatever. And we  include such information somewhere in here, and ensure redirects exist, or people will just WP:POVFORK again to write up redundant pages about their preferred dog registry organization's terminology (which is also a WP:NOTDICT problem).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a simple paragraph, I will replicate this across the other types. Cavalryman (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Thanks, Cavalryman. I will defer to you and others more involved in these topics on the best path forward. Regarding the redirects, would you please remove R from merge from those redirects (former articles) from which you did not actually merge (copy-and-paste) content, and leave them only on the ones from which you did merge content? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Cavalryman: Friendly ping. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , my apologies for not responding earlier. I have added a paragraph which summarises the content from the former terrier group page, unfortunately it is sourced solely to a primary source. In future I will not include the R from merge template if nothing notable can be merged.  Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC).

Pit bull section
I would like to see citations for the opinions at the bottom of this article titled "Euphemism for pit bull". I deleted information that tried to separate pit bulls from other terriers, suggesting they have almost nothing in common. But the next sentence rendered that claim false when it gave the names of terrier breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The use of slang is important insofar as distinguishing it from fact and proper usage. I would like to see some sources address the use of the term "pit bull" and how it relates to terriers. What exists at the moment is unclear and unsourced. Vmavanti (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the section should be removed. I could write a similarly unsourced section about Jack Russells and Fell terriers. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC).

To Vmavanti, From Nomopbs: I am attempting to find citations for you. I have found citations/articles referring to the need to rebrand or rename a pit bull so it can get adopted out, but I haven't yet found any articles referring to the use of the word "terrier" alone. There are numerous instances in social media where individuals recommend to others to use the word "terrier" instead of pit bull when seeking a rental or insurance. But no news articles suggesting lying about the dog in order to hide its breed.

I recall reading before something for wiki-editors about not needing a source if it's something commonly known, but I cannot find that anywhere, despite spending a good hour poking around. I wanted to re-read it to see if this situation of no-citation was covered under the policies. If you know where that policy is (about citation exceptions), please let me know. Vmavanti (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe this, but repeatedly the documentation says that all information in Wikipedia must be sourced with citations. Editors have become more scrupulous about this, so I discourage everyone from wasting their time trying to find some rule in the documentation that liberates them from the real work of adding citations. Any unsourced content can be deleted. If you want to keep it, source it.

Here are three news articles discussing the need to rebrand the pit bull and it covers several shelters where they attempted to rename the dogs:

1. "Q: When is a a pit bull terrier not a pit bull? A: When it's a patriot terrier" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1451409/Q-When-is-a-a-pit-bull-terrier-not-a-pit-bull-A-When-its-a-patriot-terrier.html

2. "NYC; Rebrand Fido? An Idea Best Put Down" https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/13/nyregion/nyc-rebrand-fido-an-idea-best-put-down.html

3. "Shouldn't We Just Kill This Dog?" https://archives.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/shouldnt-we-just-kill-this-dog/Content?oid=2134297&showFullText=true

As an example of the common use of "terrier" when meaning "pit bull" (but trying to hide that fact), are these links showing dogs actually being called "terrier" or "terrier mix" when they are obviously pit bulls. Go to petfinder.com and search for "dogs", breed = "terrier", location=anywhere, age=adult, size=large, coat length = short, and scroll through the photos. There are several dogs at any one time referred to as "terrier" or "terrier mix" that are obviously pit bulls. The terrier group is so diverse with enormous differences in look, that there should be no reason to call a dog a "terrier" when it looks like a pit bull (which is considered a "type", not a "breed"). But it is done in situations where the person-in-the-know wants to con the person not-in-the-know.

This link might help save you time: https://www.petfinder.com/search/dogs-for-adoption/us/missouri/?age%5B0%5D=Adult&breed%5B0%5D=Terrier&distance=Anywhere&size%5B0%5D=Large

Here's one example of a pit bull simply called "terrier": https://www.petfinder.com/dog/albie-43808110/mo/clinton/clinton-animal-shelter-mo294/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomopbs (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Content like this always needs to be sourced, especially when its contentious. I have removed this section as its entirely WP:OR. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully support the removal of this content by . Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC).

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (2 version) Grupp 3, YORKSHIRETERRIER, NO UCH SE UCH Oxzar Amazing Bel’s Toffy (24310212305).jpg

Merger proposal: Bull and terrier with Staffordshire Bull Terrier
Hello, there is a discussion to merge the articles Bull and terrier with Staffordshire Bull Terrier. You are welcome to participate. Blockhouse321 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)