Talk:Wolfhound

Broke up into two sub-lists
Since not all wolfhounds were bred to hunt wolves (some are called that because they are wolf-dog hybrids) I broke it up. I noticed that the Wolfdog entry says that many people prefer that term over wolf hybrid or wolf-dog hybrid because a hybrids are crosses of two different species, while dogs and wolves are in the same species. According to the Hybrid entry this is false. It reads "Hybrids between different species within the same genus are sometimes known as interspecific hybrids or crosses. Hybrids between different sub-species within a species are known as intra-specific hybrids. Hybrids between different genera are sometimes known as intergeneric hybrids." I will look into correcting that if I get a chance to first verify it. Bigdoglover 06:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Another meaning
Image found on commons - part of Western power's intervention in the 1918 revolution - User:Leonard G. 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean up
Needs excessively linking removed from Dogs section and removal of discussion. Tassedethe (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Primary topic?
The implicit theory that would be needed to justify the present top-level organization is that "wolfhound" One impulse i feel is to ignore WP:INCDAB or bend WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by treating something like Wolves and dogs as primary. But barring support from colleagues, i'm going to try something vaguer: moving much of the excessive prose of the first section into two (conceivably three) separate articles. Let's see what evolves. --Jerzy•t 21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) is an ambiguous term when applied to dogs and
 * 2) also has many metaphorical uses for things that are not dogs:
 * 3) groups of people (a band, teams, and military units including 1 mentioned on this talk page that so far has no article),
 * 4) models of military equipment (2 instances), and
 * 5) titles for discursive  literary  well, let's try communicative works.

Non-wolfhound material

 * The opening section, as noted in the section one level up in the section hierarchy of this talk page, says way too much. The two parts of it discussing


 * 1) recent dog/wolf hybridizations and
 * 2) breeding, without wolves, for wolf characteristics
 * are, per the distinctions drawn the first graph, not even legitimate parts of the accompanying dab.  That's where the cleanup starts. --Jerzy•t 08:05 &09:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and i'm not even sure which parts of it say something plausibly consistent. I'm going to probably have to look at some of the history to see where the confusion started. --Jerzy•t 09:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)