Talk:Australian Shepherd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Origins
I am seeing a possible discrepancy in the introduction. It says that the breed was developed in the US, however a book on breeds I have lists the breed as having its "... beginnings in Spain and Andorra, where it worked with Basque shepherd. When the Basques followed the sheep-herding movement to Australia, the faithful dogs went along.. Then, when the Australian sheep were imported into the western U.S., once more the Basque herders and their dogs, now renamed the Australian Shepherds, made the trip."
Source: Dogs in Canada, 2005 Annual, pgs. 296-297
- The History section of the article includes discussion of the Basque herding dogs, but from what I've read & learned from Aussie breeders, the breed developed from a variety of breeds here & received its name here. You'll see that the FCI, which organizes dogs by country of origin, also lists it as a US breed [1]. Elf | Talk 16:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Image format
The images on this page are formatted supremely weird. I can only get them to approximate normalcy by shrinking my browser's width way down. I'd fix the formatting myself, but I don't know what the OP had in mind. Someone care to fix it. Perhaps a table would do the job? โFrecklefoot 17:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Can you describe "supremely weird" with a little more detail? They look fine on my browser, of course, or I wouldn't have left them like this. :-) Elf 17:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Doe! I should've thought of that. Too bad I don't have anyplace I can slap a screenshot, but I'll try to describe it. Instead of the "Red tricolor Aussie" image being below the "Blue merle Australian" image, like I think it is with your browser, it is shifted to the lower-right of the "Blue merle" image. All the accompaning text is then wrapping around the right side of the "Red tricolor" image until it falls back into place after the image. While this would look fine if the image was placed correctly, it looks funky for wider browsers (like mine). The "...agility pause table" image in the table looks fine. HTH :-) โFrecklefoot 17:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I just moved the 2nd image further down the page for now. Hopefully weirdness is no longer supreme. Elf 17:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Looks much better. Still looks a little strange on my browser, but not weird. :-) And, as sannse noted, it will look better as the article gets longer. Kudos! โFrecklefoot 18:46, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] More photos
I saw the image request and uploaded 2 pictures, maybe you like them.
Pharlap 18:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. The request is for an Aussie herding sheep, but the face shot of the 2 dogs is nice & I added it to the page. Elf | Talk 18:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh okay, I didn't see that, I was wondering already why you ask for more pictures since the pictures you included into the article are very nice. I do have a copy of a magazine, sent to me by a fellow aussie-lover, showing an aussie at work, herding sheeps. But I'm afraid that this one is copyrighted. I wish you good luck with the article and the pictures. You did good work ! :=) Pharlap 19:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Images for you here:
[[User:Maculated|Maculated]I can also get you an all merle Aussie photo.--Maculated 07:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Blue Merle
I have noticed that all of these Aussie's have large amounts of white. Does the white develop as they age? I have an Aussie puppy that doesn't have any white and is black and grey. Is this what is called blue merle? The previous owner says that it is an Aussie. I could contribute some pictures of my dog if anyone wants. Jaberwocky6669 23:48, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Long answer: Most but not all Aussies have white as in the photos on this page; they're born with it if they're going to have it, so it won't develop over time. Blue merles do darken over time, though. There's an article on merle (coat colour in dogs) with photos from different breeds so you can see what blue merle looks like--it has nothing to do with whether there are white markings, even though all of these have them. That just makes them blue merles with white markings. :-) If you have a dog whose breed identification is only "the previous owner says that's what it is", then who knows what it really is. But if it looks like an Aussie, it probably is one, but that's hard to say, too; Aussies still have a lot of physical variation even among documented purebreds. Elf | Talk 17:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- And, oh yeah, I'd love to see a nice photo of an all-merle dog. Elf | Talk 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] No Tail
I have an Aussie and he was born with out a tail. I think this is something unique about the breed and should be mentioned in the article.
- Good point. I mentioned it. There was already some info about it in the article on docking, so not sure how I managed to miss it in this article. Elf | Talk 22:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Popularity of Aussies with veterinarians
I would encourage one of the principal authors of this article to address the enormous popularity of this breed with Vets for their personal pets. I know that there have been several articles written in Veterinary professional journals on this topic. Hokeman 05:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Be bold! I have no access to such articles, I don't think, but if you can cite one or some in References, go for it. Elf | Talk 16:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A mongrel is not a breed.
The indecisiveness of the constituancy of this breed IMHO makes it not a breed. Cattle mongrels that have been bred from working dogs brought over hundreds of years ago are invalid unless we can say they come from a discernable heritage (see: breeding) and thus can label it's breed.
Every dog in every picture looks entirely anatomically different, the only consistant element is they're all kelpie mongrels from appearance based on skull shape and the unmoveable white tufts of fur that never seem to breed out.
What's with all these 'Australian <insert real breed>' breeds of dogs around about anyway? Apparently, all these Australian <Breed> dogs are only known outside Australia? And oddly, none are recognised? Seriously, what's up with that? 211.30.71.59 16:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Kelpie" An Aussie IS a breed!Who made YOU the judge of that!?
[edit] Too many photos
There were an excessive number of photos. Please remember that WikiPedia is not a family pet album! --DrL 03:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Bull, photos are media, and they are extremely helpful. I think we need tons of photos of all sorts of these dogs to make a complete article. This isn't Encyclopedia Brittanica, its Wikipedia, the idea is to have everything about something. ReignMan 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Philosophy in dog articles (during the 2+ years I'd been working on them) was to try to have photos that showed new & useful encylopedic information about the breed. For example, because aussies have so many coat variants, it would be nice to have a good photo of each major variant, but not 3 or 5 of each variant. And you'd want a face-on shot or two if there are wide ranges there, and a couple of action shots showing what the breed does well. For Rottweilers, for example, there's only one color variant and not much variance in appearance, so one good shot of the whole body, one good face shot, and an action shot or two (or showing a couple of the jobs they usually do) would be more than sufficient.
- All additional shots--and I agree that it's useful to have many--belong in Wikimedia Commons, whose whole point is to provide access to tons of photos. But of course they should still be good-quality photos, not out-of-focus, blurry, etc. :-) See commons:Australian_Shepherd--there could be lots more there if people would log in and upload there. Elf | Talk 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Photo choice for red aussie
Originally this photo was included as an example of a red tri. Later it was removed because although purebred pedigreed working stock someone felt that it wasn't representative of the breed. Now there's a blurry photo of a red seen from the back from which you can't tell anything about the breed. I hesitate to put the original back because I took the photo (no, it's not my dog), but I think it's a good photo and the one that's there isn't particularly useful. So can someone else take action on this please? Thanks. Elf | Talk 06:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Put it back.Its better than that other picture and it's pretty.--70.165.71.229 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)