Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 5

National Kennel Club Sub-Category In Dispute (POV)
The article regarding the NKC is not in neutral voice. It is an article about breeding ethics--not about the NKC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarangau (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Dogs
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Tamaskan dog
This article, repeatedly deleted in the past, has returned once again. I suggest interested parties inspect the article and the previous deletion discussion and see whether anything has improved, or whether it's still just promotion for an non-established breed.-- Nydas (Talk) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the three websites associated with the breed I see that it is now two years old. Their early history is much like other breeds' early history -- I notice the same on the German Shepherd article, the same quarrelling and division into separate groups with separate ideas. According to their information they "started over" with new records in 2006. There's quite a bit not to like about this breed -- the creation of a dog that looks like a wolf for the purpose of being a fashionable pet; the claim that it is from Finland, and then, bizarrely and offensively given a "American Indian" name, as if there were only one native people in the Americas, no reference to what their relationship with that "American Indian" people is or why they use the word from that language, whatever it is. All that fake "authenticity"! BUT I digress, and all that is actually irrelevant.


 * There are several REAL issues here, which bring up a variety of side issues as well--


 * 1. Is it a breed, or an advertising ploy? I am inclined to say it is a breed, since there seems to be recordkeeping, a following, and several clubs even if they are only populated by a very small number of people. Others may disagree. Perhaps someone could find out if all the websites are the work of the same person.


 * 2. Is it a recognized (kennel club recognition) breed? No. But this is where things get a little scary; the note above this one seems to imply that "clubs" are all the same, and citing them is advertising and shouldn't be allowed; as if some teenager in his mother's basement can create a website for a "kennel club", charge for pretty certificates, and claim that is the equivalent of a major national kennel club. So is the very important (to dog people) idea of "breed recognition" to be thrown out for Wikipedia? This is ridiculous. However, perhaps Wikiproject Dogs might wish to consider the issue of national kennel clubs and national breed clubs versus the infinite number of internet businesses and sneakily-named kennel clubs created to circumvent major kennel club rules.


 * 3. Most important for the issue of the Tamaskan breed - is it is a Wikipedia-worthy article? This is also a bit difficult, since articles about small/new/rare dog breeds don't show up often in peer reviewed scientific works, or in well-edited newspapers and news magazines, well-reviewed books, or other items that might be considered top notch Wikipedia references. In fact, almost NO breed of dog will be seen in any of those places. If this breed is rejected on the grounds, how many other breed articles will be eliminated?


 * Discussing the Tamaskan article opens a real can of worms.--Hafwyn (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also the Utonagan, a virtually identical breed. I recall from my research for the AfD that some dog owners suggested that the Tamaskan was the result of a schism with the Utonagan breeders.-- Nydas (Talk) 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That page references another, for the Northern Inuit Dog which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Inuit. All three breeds seem to have the same background and similar trendy "American Indian" names bestowed by non-Indians. Reading the quarreling on the talk pages is interesting sociology, but there does seem to be recordkeeping and each has a registry that keeps the stud book(s), at least one breed club per breed that is not the property of one breeder, and a following for the breed(s); all that is missing is some sort of written outside verification of their existence, and I'm not sure where they would get that, in a way that wouldn't be considered advertising. I'd say let them keep their articles with "fact" or "Unreferenced" on it. And maybe there could be a "Fake Wolves" article for the type in general.--Hafwyn (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I don't think that all dog clubs are the same. I do think that generic links to small, and especially "strictly local", clubs are inappropriate for a worldwide encyclopedia.  The clubs can be "real" without their website having any value at all to the general reader.  (And, yes, I still believe that WIkipedia is written for the general reader, not the enthusiast.)
 * I have no objection to links to major organizations, especially if you can link to a major organization's standards for the breed, or health information, or any concrete information that isn't (and won't be) available in the article itself or in another link already present.
 * Furthermore, links to small organizations seem to breed, presumably as members of the missing groups say that if that group gets to advertise on Wikipedia, then my group should get equal attention. WP:NOT, you know, and WP:EL repeatedly specifies the the goal is the minimum number of links.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Back to the Tamaskan... should it have an article, or not?--Hafwyn (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Shedding
I changed Shedding from a redirect to a disambiguation page. I fixed about a quarter of links to the disambiguation page, most of which were a formulaic sentence in dog breed articles, so a repetitive cut and paste job. Would someone here please fix the rest? My replacement text: This breed has little to no shedding (see Moult). Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't know 'shedding' was the same as 'moulting'! Also, how do they prove that those breeds have little to no moulting/shedding?--Hafwyn (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:Moult has some discussion of 'shedding' vs 'moulting'; I personally think they belong together in one article, at least for now.  If you anticipate splitting Moult then consider creating Shedding (pelage) as a redirect to Moult and using the redirect in this project's articles.  Anyway, that's a separate problem from Shedding needing to be a disambiguation page, and links to the disambiguation page needing to be changed.  Re proof, the Wikipedia way is to find a reliable source that says so, and cite it.  --Una Smith (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Spam
A complaint has reached WT:External links about spam in dog-related articles. Specifically, it appears that a number of dog clubs have used Wikipedia as a way of advertising their existence. This is a particular problem for small clubs with a few dozen members in a local area, because the English Wikipedia draws readers from all over the world. I'd appreciate it if members of this project supported WP:NOT by removing such links when they happen to find them. Obviously, if the article itself is about a notable club instead of a dog breed (e.g., American Kennel Club, not Border terrier), then linking to the club's website is just fine.

An ideal external link for an article about a dog breed might be a detailed page about the breed's characteristics or health. This page might published by a university or by a large national (or international) club, but the point is that the page is really good information about the dog instead of about the club's activities or membership campaign.

If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a note for me on my talk page, since I'm not watching this page. Thanks for your help, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to discover that links to dog clubs might be considered "spam." One should not group "dog clubs" together as if there was only one function or kind.--Hafwyn (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the problem is a general misunderstanding of the point behind having any external links. External links exist primarily to provide information about the subject of the article.  "Here's a dog club, if you happen to live in northern California" is not exactly "information about the kind of dog".  This is why I have repeatedly advocated linking to a page with actual information about the breed on it instead of a page about club membership or activities.  Does that make sense?  Do you understand why a webpage with, say, health information about the specific breed, or an essay on its history, or something like that, would be more informative to the general reader of a worldwide encyclopedia?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, a small dog club may have unique information, or it may not; but, after DAYS of looking, I have finally found one dog breed article that may relate to this problem; not that it links to clubs, but that it links to so many that no one has enough time to go through them all, and the sections of links are so large that they make reading the rest of the article difficult. If the question is to allow or not allow "clubs" because an editor may not know enough about dogs to tell the difference between one kind of club and another, that's one thing, but reams of links, no matter how worthwhile each might be individually, is undesirable (though I would not call them spam, exactly). Is that what we are getting at here? And what should be done with lists of links until someone can go through them? Should we be discussing numerical limits on links (or limits on inches of column?)--Hafwyn (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the Italian Greyhound article, BTW


 * If a small dog club has unique information that will interest a reader from some other part of the world AND that isn't duplicated in the article AND that isn't duplicated on some other website that's already linked, then that's a great external link. But could we agree in those instances to link directly to the page with the unique information, instead of to the club's main page?  It would be so much nicer for the reader to see
 * Unique, detailed information worth your attention from Small Dog Club
 * rather than
 * Website for Small Dog Club (good luck finding the page I'm thinking of)
 * --WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. I'm catching on. Yes, precise is good. Here is something I found at the bottom of an article that could be helpful to add to pages where the External links sections are getting out of hand:


 * Thanks to whoever thought that up.


 * As far as a policy goes, I don't think there is any way to flatly say what isn't allowed in terms of links. The IG massive number of rescue links was probably someone trying to be fair to all the organizations. I can see that would be good to move to the "DMOZ" so that there would be one "rescue" link, but I have no idea how to go about doing that; whoever does, please do.--Hafwyn (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd use Template:Dmoz (instructions on the page), but the first step is to figure out what the appropriate/matching category is at DMOZ.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Last bit for others to use: DMOZ is the website, http://www.dmoz.org/, still don't know what the DMOZ stands for. The main pages for dogs (with sub categories on each page) are:
 * Recreation: Pets: Dogs
 * Health: Animal: Mammals:Dogs
 * Health: Public Health and Safety: Emergency Services: Search and Rescue: Search Dogs
 * Recreation: Pets: Dogs: Dog Parks
 * Recreation: Pets: Animal Assisted Therapy


 * To submit a link (just one link at a time) fill out a web form (suggest URL tab at top of page) with the URL and a description of 25-30 words.


 * Editors decide what links are placed on the pages. To become an editor, one fills out an application. Links to the application are on links at the top of the page of the "category that interests you." I don't find any such link on dog pages until you get to a specific breed. Application form includes questions about internet experience and "sites that you own or have designed or promoted."--Hafwyn (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Double-nosed Andean tiger hound. Hoax?
We have an article Double-nosed Andean tiger hound. Seems to me that that's very likely a hoax. (Article cites a BBC photo of a dog with a "double" nose, but I've never heard of a "double-nosed" breed.) Is there anything constructive that can be done with this? (Note, I've posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptozoology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism on this to see if anybody there does have any reliable source.) -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There appear to be plenty of photos of dogs with double noses. There are also a ton of web references to the double-nosed andean tiger hound. It smells hoaxish to me, but it's been around long enough and spread enough that I think it would take a while to untangle it. Elf | Talk 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Dog to Domestic dog
Commments are welcome Mieciu K (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk:Dog "The result of the proposal was no consensus for move.-29 October 2008 (UTC)"--Hafwyn (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Help request: Šarplaninac
This article has seen constant edit-warring related to the Kosovo issue (Albanians vs. Serbs), involving such usernames as "Illyriandescendant" (cf. Albanian claim to be direct descendants from the Illyrians of Antiquity) and "User1389" (cf. 1389 Battle of Kosovo, of great significance to Serbs).

In the article's talk page see the short "About country of origin" section and the two short subsequent ones.

If you could drop by and comment on how this WikiProject approaches such issues it would be most welcome. - Thank you already, Ev (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * the article on the Pomeranian went through something like that, since Pomerania (at the time the dog breed was created) was a German-speaking principality; but today it is Polish, so is the Pomeranian dog considered to be "from" Germany, or Poland? This seems to rouse nationalistic fervor and lots of edits, even though it all seems like a long time ago. The Šarplaninac case is more recent, and involves three countries!
 * People in other countries have and show the Šarplaninac, using the breed standard approved in 1970 by the Yugoslav Canine Federation (JKS) -- is that defunct, along with the rest of Yugoslavia? The FCI currently lists the sponsoring country as "Serbia/Macedonia "; they have already changed the breed name once and may do so again if the sponsoring country/s settle on a new name.
 * The information about the breed should come from the breed club in the country(s) of origin (the original name should be listed with the English translation, since often names can be translated in more than one way). The country of origin writes the standard published by the FCI; the FCI isn't some distant abstract body stealing the breed somehow. The information all comes from the breed's country of origin. However, if things have collapsed to the point where no reliable kennel club exists (as in Russia currently) then there is no one to make changes and submit them to the FCI. So the 1970 standard still stands.
 * If someone or some group for reasons of nationalistic pride wants to redefine the breed, they can do that. All groups involved can do that, and then market their new breeds under whatever name they choose (of course, each one will be the most ancient and the most pure and therefore the most valuable.) This may result in the breed being split into multiple breeds along the lines of political geography; that happens. In that case, they may eventually want to have their own breed articles or separate sections in the current article.
 * But until that happens, the breed is the Šarplaninac, and the only internationally recognised breed standard written by the breed club(s) in its country of origin is the one published by the FCI.--Hafwyn (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for taking the time to write these much needed clarifications, Hafwyn. :-) I have been keeping an eye on the "politically-motivaded" edits to the article, hastily cleaning up that briefest of "History" sections (diff., diff., diff.) to remove the unsourced "most everything" that was already being added to it. But, knowing little to nothing about dogs -& the terminology used around dogs, even that of my Spanish language-, I really should be among the last persons touching such entires. – Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Article request: Heeling
Is there a wikipedia article that explains heeling? --Una Smith (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Copied from User talk:Una Smith:
 * Hello Una, what exactly are you looking for? There is an article on Obedience training. Heeling can be just getting your dog to walk with you, or the highly formalised competitive training sport called "obedience", which has very exact requirements for heeling in the ring (see Obedience trial). Also see Clicker training. The term heeling is also used to refer to a style of livestock herding, where a small dog nips at the heels of large animals (usually cattle) to get them to move (see Herding dog.) --Hafwyn (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those leads! I made a disambiguation page, Heeling, to gather all the different articles on "heeling".  What I am still looking for is an article on heeling in the sense of an animal staying in a certain position with respect to its handler.  Not just dogs, but horses too are trained to do this, and it is fairly varied in form.  There is work on lead and off lead, and maintaining position in front of you, beside you, and behind you.  Some horsemen want the horse always on their right, no exceptions;  others require the horse to lead equally well on the right or on the left.  When did these customs become established, and why?  I was looking for a typical Wikipedia article, both broad and deep, that discusses this and includes some history.  --Una Smith (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The above comment about horses "heeling" is OR. Horses do not "heel."  They are trained to lead.  When they are well trained, they can be led without a rope (sometimes).  We horse people will sometimes jokingly say that horses that can lead off a line are "heeling," in the humorous sense that the horse is as gentle as a well-trained dog.  It's not an official term.  The only "heeling" in the horse world is in team roping when a rider ropes the hind feet of a steer. Also, horses are trained to be handled from the left side because in medieval Europe, right-handed people armed with swords hanging on their left side found it easier to mount from the left and throw their right leg over the saddle.  Other cultures not burdened by swords sometimes taught the horse to handle from the right.   Most modern trainers advocate getting a horse used to being handled from either side, just in case some idiot who doesn't know anything has to handle the horse.  Any basic book of horse handling and history explains this.  The above user ought to consider discussing this issue at WP:EQUINE and not go "asking the other parent" over here at the dog pages.   Montanabw (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Dogs/Dog photos task force being considered for deletion
The above subproject of this project is currently being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Dog photos task force. All comments are welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Now listed with Category:Inactive WikiProjects

Dog breeds and Political Boundaries

 * In another instance: Edits (mostly by someone who only uses an IP number) claim that the Central Asian Shepherd Dog did not originate in Russia, despite cited information that the breed was developed in Russia. Apparently the issue arises because the breed was developed from one of the very (very) old types of livestock guardian dogs from Central Asia. Although it is interesting that national pride gets mixed up with dog breeds, basic dog article information shouldn't be distorted for political purposes. That being said, when the political boundaries or names of countries change, what should be listed as the country of origin?


 * Suggestion for discussion -- The Dog Project should use as country of origin either 1. the historical name of the place where the dog breed is documented to have originated, or 2. the place of origin listed by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale. If those two are different there should be some explanation in the article.--Hafwyn (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Temperament sections
Is anyone else troubled by the "temperament" sections on a lot of the dog breed articles? I've noticed a severe tendency to make unsourced generalizations about breeds - here's a composite example:
 * Swamphounds are typically very friendly, playful and active. They love time with owners. This is because they were bred to be companion dogs and thrive on love and attention. They are friendly dogs to people they know, but can bark excessively at strangers, and may bite lightly when upset. Some Swamphounds have been known to play in their water bowls or spill water in order to lay in it and keep cool on hot days. They are very intelligent, and can easily be taught to stand on their hind legs.

etc, etc. In general, it's been my impression that these sections often end up filled with two types of statements: Is there any possibility of removing these sections from articles about breeds where no characteristic personality traits are known? I'm particularly interested in just getting rid of these sections from crossbreed articles, as there are generally no personality traits specific to those mixes. Cases such as the Shiba Inu (which is specifically described in the standard as possessing "spirited boldness" and "artlessness") are of course exempt. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 08:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Statements which are vague enough to apply to any well-socialized dog ("intelligent" / "playful" / "easily trained" / etc.)
 * Statements which generalize from the personality and habits of an author's dog ("The X likes to..." / "can be taught to..." / "often...")


 * I completely agree. Unless some credible citation is included, these sections should be deleted. Can we get a consensus on this?--Hafwyn (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gulfport Mullet Hound
Can someone with more knowledge in the world of dogs be able to take a look at the page Gulfport Mullet Hound? I smell either a hoax or a made-up article. Thanks! -- moe.RON   Let's talk  04:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gulfport Mullet Hound Deleted as a hoax 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Identificasation
Does anyone know what this breed is, It maybe a mixed breed of the Poodle family. As there are so many breeds it is hard to tell. Thanks. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok the RSPCA says that it is a cavalier cross poodle. What would people say? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say he looks pretty soft and cuddly!

I have a registered Bearded Collie and because I don't show her anymore, I started shaving her because of our hot summers. When she is shaven she looks exactly like this dog on the picture. Many people comment and say she looks like some kind of poodle. There is a picture of my Bearded Collie on my website http://www.dogtrainingtipsforfree.com Mdutoit (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposing delisting of rabies as Good article
I was surprised to find rabies was listed as a Good article. In its present state, I believe it fails to meet the criteria, and would therefore propose delisting. Please add your comments to the appropriate section of the rabies talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Project Banner
Over the course of the last year I have been slowing assessing articles for this WikiProject. I have noticed that our banner needs some improvement so that it looks like other current banners. I would like to see the following three changes:
 * Put the assessment comments in a show/hide box like MaTalk.
 * Add a reqphoto parameter
 * Add a reqbreedphoto parameter for dog breed articles. This would replace the reqbreedphoto template

Any comments would be appreciated. Coaster1983 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Although there haven't been any comments yet, I went ahead and added these features to WPDOGS. Using reqphoto puts articles in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of dogs, and using reqbreedphoto puts articles in Category:Wikipedia requested breed photographs.  These categories can easily be changed if you have better ideas.  In addition, the banner uses more categories: Category:Dogs articles needing attention, Category:Dogs articles needing infoboxes, and Category:Dogs articles with comments.  I tried to organize these categories a bit within Category:WikiProject Dogs articles, but I'm not sure exactly how you want things organized.  I also changed the banner so that it uses WPBannerMeta.  This standardizes the coding for banners, and any future additions or changes will be very easy to do.  --Scott Alter 16:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish I knew what this was. Can you explain? --Hafwyn (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically, these additional parameters to WPDOGS allow for editors to more easily tag and group articles based on their deficiencies. The categories I mentioned above all contain articles missing something (photo, breed photo, infobox, etc).  I do not think assessment comments are commonly used anymore, but they allow for an editor to state an article deserves the designated rating.  These features are only useful if editors choose to use them.  On their own, they do not accomplish anything.  --Scott Alter 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Horse breeds
Navigation of horse breed articles, perhaps modeled after the navigation of dog breed articles, is being discussed on Template talk:Equine. Your insights would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Review request
I've already tagged them up, but could someone with a little knowledge of UK Terriers review Toy Manchester Terrier and English Toy Terrier (Black & Tan) and see if a merge is justified? Had there not been a wikiproject for dog breeds, I would have done this myself.

Thanks.Vulture19 (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed mergeto tag. Hafwyn did a nice job with the article in question.Vulture19 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dog under GA review
Dog is current under GA review. This is our flagship article, so it is important that it is passes GA review. Any help would be greatly appreciated.Coaster1983 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

St. John's Water Dog
I'm leaving it be since it's going nowhere, but my attempt to remove several images that are crowding the text and violating MOS on St. John's Water Dog is meeting resistance from anons and a user who has added a single image of their dog to multiple articles. I really don't care to waste time on it anymore, but the article's pretty unreadable in its current state, FYI. Steven Walling (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, doesn't look so bad to me, and the pictures are all integral to the article. Article needs more information and cites, not fewer pictures. Any other opinions?--Hafwyn (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Hafwyn. Seems that there are a few regular contributors who took umbrage at a new editor just dropping in for the first time and cutting up the page without discussion. There are only three pics on the page, two historical, and one referencing the breed's genetic legacy. For me that was the most interesting part.

And Steven Walling, according to the edit history there were only two smaller images on this page when you got at it, and you removed one of them. Far from the "attempt to remove several images that are crowding the text and violating (standards.)" Tsk Tsk. Don't exaggerate to boost your case. Nora Bayes (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrier
Terrier article was seriously messed up, possibly by someone trying to add a picture of their pet. I have tried to reconstruct it but it still needs work. There should also be some decision about what and how many photos to use, although the problem of lots of photos being added isn't as bad as with the "doodles".--Hafwyn (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Akita Inu Owners
Experience Akita Inu owners please help. My Akita Inu dog which i love to bits, is almost 5 months old now and when i feed my dog, i just give her the basic dry dog food and plenty of water, but recently i heard that Akita Inu dogs must also eat lots of rice and fish. Is this true? Also is there any other tips which you could offer me, so i could give my dog everything that it requires.

Ian Simba --Ian Simba (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never owned Akita inu, but I'm Japanese. It's nonsense. Remember that never give dogs onion, garlic, chocolate, milk, cheese, yogurt, and chicken bones. And if you have similar questions, please post your questions at Reference desk. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Akita Inu Owners
Thanks for the advice Oda, really helpful. Just one more thing. So i take it my dog will eat almost anything except the other foods which you have told not to give her. Ian Simba --Ian Simba (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a real expert. I think you should find some helpful sites with professional advice somewhere on the web (I found a lots in Japanese) or ask vets or breeders. Oops, I shoud have said every dairy products and every member of Allium.  According to several sites in Japanese, you don't give grapes/raisin, Macadamia nuts, peanuts, avocado, xylitol, salty/sweet food, green tomato, cuttle fish, octopus, raw pork, fresh water fish, caffeine, mineral water and raw egg too. I think the safest and healthiest way is never give your food and just give s/he only dog food. Oh, I found good pages for you., , , and . Take good care of your dog! Oda Mari (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Maltese (dog)
"Imbris' perspective is hardly in line with the truth." said Pietru il-Boqli. What perspective is he talking about? There are few absolute true/false answers to questions like: at what temperature does water boil? We have to uphold the Truth which Pietru il-Boqli holds so dearly? What is the "Truth" in this case? There is no singular answer and Pietru's insistence on the "Truth" speaks only about his bias and nothing else.

What stand is the verifiability and the authenticity. This is why we use reliable sources and not every source; this is why we try to be as neutral as possible, as collegial as possible.

During the past month I have started to edit the article on the dog breed called Maltese. Before I came the article was in short Malta biased. This would, to say the least, mean that the article had not contained any reference to Italy as the "patron" and the Central Mediterranean Area as the "country of origin".

During the course of editing I have won over the attention of an editor who edited alongside with Pietru in then protecting the article, against those IP users whose editing might be construed as disruptive. That editor was Tool2Die4 (now inactive) who had validated my efforts in bringing a neutral and balanced version. He had started reverting Pietru's edits.

Then Pietru started curbing his POV to what he thought is NPOV. The issue dropped to two pieces of data.
 * 1) Whether or not to mention Mljet in the context of present time Croatia
 * 2) Whether or not to rephrase the sentence "Maltese are generally associated with the island of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea"

Sadly enough there is also a certain little "quarrel" about whether or not to include names in the native languages. Pietru was all for including the names in the Maltese language and the Croatian language before I started asking questions about the validity of the name in the Maltese language (suspected it to be a hoax, or at least fishy and lacking in reliable sources confirming the name). In the same time I provided sources for the name in the Croatian language.

In conclusion I would like to express my faith in the editors of this Wikiproject that they might be benevolent towards sources rather than beliefs.

See also:
 * 1) Talk:Maltese (dog) (there is also an archive)
 * 2) Talk:Maltese_(dog)
 * 3) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive511

Thanks for your input.

Imbris (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While I am sure everyone appreciates your additional historical information, this argument does not really seem appropriate. Please add a section on the various theories of location of the early type or types that preceded today's modern breed, and leave it at that.--Hafwyn (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not started editing the article to provide any proof whatsoever on the simmilarity of the Maltese of today with the proto-Maltese of ancient history. I have only quoted sources that described some of the history of the breed.
 * This argument/discussion/dispute is very much needed because editors with a Malta background successfully maintained the article at a Malta biased form in denial of other sources. They denied current patronage of Italy.
 * I have started editing to solve that problem and also to point out the three well known places that could have started the name Maltese. It is all about the name here, hence inserting names in modern languages of those three places.
 * Articles about dog beeds are full of different names and omitting the name in the Croatian language would be denial of valid information in times when that information is very much needed (because of the recent denialism of all other sources than Malta POV sources by Malta editors). I am all for including the Maltese language name and the Italian language name, but the Maltese language name doesn't exist (or better, the sources that would describe the usage of Kelb Malti as a valid word in the Maltese language and in the Kinology of Malta, do not exist). This is why the dispute started because Pietru added unsourced name and I added a well sourced name. See Talk:Maltese (dog) where the list of dogs which use in the infobox under other names section lots of different non-English language - names.
 * I belive that the lead would be "A Maltese is a small breed of dog that is believed to be descended from dogs associated with various areas in the Central Mediterranean region, but mostly of European descent". No long, silky white hair.
 * I deeply object that I am cementing nationalistic claims because I managed to turn the article from a completely Malta POV to an article that doesn't describe false origin claims but concentrates on claims of the name of the breed. I have successfully added valid and invaluable historical content and will continue in the future.
 * This is all for now, please ask whatever question you like, I will do my best to answer it.
 * Imbris (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Imbris, I think I understand part of the nature of the problem in this article. You need to contact Peer review or maybe Requests for comment -- I'm not sure where exactly, but what you want is an editor that can help edit your writing in order to help you express your thoughts more clearly and concisely in the English language, which is obviously not your first language. I think if you can improve the clarity of your writing, the communication problem and resulting edit warring will diminish.--Hafwyn (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The RfC is well under way. The RfC process is by my account a process in which an editor who is not involved in the field comes and brings a new perspective. But I am not confident that in the case of this RfC it is going well, simply because the editor who came used Solomon's solution by giving each side of the dispute a little "something", a little piece of their request. That could be a good solution but what if it is a forced solution by giving a biased editor his POV and deny the other editor his proposed solution. The process of RfC that is under way on the Talk:Maltese (dog) brought allmost nothing (we have some 20 days left before it will be concluded). There are 7 points of the RfC so if you can spare the time. -- Imbris (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)