Talk:Dog agility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Dog agility was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 17, 2007
WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
News This article has been cited as a source or otherwise recommended by the mainstream press. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source for details.


Contents

[edit] What do dogs think of dog agility?

I think there should be a paragraph near the beginning of the article about how dogs themselves react to Dog Agility. Yes, I know it's generally good for them both mentally and physically, but I still think that such a key issue deserves it's own paragraph. Also it should probably have some mention of how suitable different breeds are for this sport, and it should mention that it can also be practiced as a hobby without intention of competing. Maybe also a mention that it's one of the best hobbies for dog breeds who are both physically and mentally very demanding pets. I'm not an expert on the subject, so it would be better if someone else could write the paragraph.

Tuukka Tiensuu

I think that most dogs love agility!! I know for one my dog does. I think that it is a little easer for smaller dogs to do the tunnels as the bigger dogs don't fit as well. But my lab loves most parts of agility!

Tara —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.107.243 (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

Is it fair to say that although it was first seen at Crufts in '78, many of the basic "tricks" have been part of police dog (and presumably army dog) training for much longer than that ? -- Finlay McWalter 00:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not familiar with those areas and so hesitate to say anything at all. Feel free to add an appropriate note with possible links. -- User:Elf
Well, I dunno, but the police HQ near by home has always (I _think_ since before '78) had little walls and ramps for the dogs and I think they're supposed to jump through hoops too. I'm not sure enough to make the change, however. -- Finlay McWalter 01:04, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
On seeing the obstacle pictures, it looks exactly how I remember the police dog training regime to be. Fortified by this, I put in a mention that the original had elements of both policedog training and sheepdog trails. -- Finlay McWalter 17:52, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but not as the agility we know it, it's an obstacle course much like the one grunts in the army has to do. It is to train the dog to adapt to new situations, and it includes anything from climbing walls, jumping to walk on grated iron, enter containers etc. (the latter is used a lot for narcotic's dogs) Chosig (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to add metric equivalents to the dog agility page. Instead of simply converting the (presumably US derived) measurements, I decided to look around the world at the various rules and see if I could find dimensions in metric numbers. For example, the current page says that the ramp should be 8 ft long but some countries say that it can be 3 m long. Of course, with 200 countries it is difficult to find a consensus (even if I could read all the languages). So I looked for a source that is reasonably acceptable as a reference.

I found a document at a South African site which gives fairly comprehensive metric and non-metric values. I am not a dog agility expert. Do you guys think it is a good source for using here?
Bobblewik 19:06, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow--like, actual research! :-) I double-checked a couple of things and fixed some US measurements in this article to be more accurate. IAL is interesting because its rules were created about 6-7 years ago by active (and sometimes vehement) negotiation among agility enthusiasts around the world in an attempt to come up with equipment specifications that at least somewhat resembled what most organizations were doing at the time. So its measurements represent sometimes an average, sometimes a majority, sometimes a compromise. What I have in the article at the moment attempts to capture the wide range of rules among different organizations. For example, here in the U.S., NADAC requires that the Aframe be no more than 5 feet high; USDAA requires it to be 6 foot 3 inches high; CPE goes as low as 4'8". NADAC and USDAA have 36" yellow contact zones on the teeter and dogwalk but CPE uses 42". CPE and AKC require 24" openings in the tire jump; USDAA wants no more than 20". And that's just in the U.S.! So I attempted to put what I know about American & international measurements into he article, hence some really wide ranges (e.g., dogwalk planks 8-12 feet). Soooo... I suggest starting with what I have in the article; feel free to compare to IAL and ask any questions about things that, to an outsider, might seem odd or wrong or confusing--because this article, I presume, will be read by more outsiders than agility experts! At least I hope so.  :-) Elf | Talk 19:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The original agility equipment measurements were in imperial units due to the British origins of the sport, and imperial units for measurements of length were and still are widely used (all our road signs are in miles, not kilometres). The current, recently amended Kennel Club regulations for the A-frame are: "'A' Ramp—Two ramps 2.74m (9ft) long by 914mm (3ft) wide hinged at the apex 1.7m (5ft 7ins) from the ground. The last 1.067m (3ft 6ins) from the bottom of each ramp should be a different colour to indicate the area with which the dog should make contact. Each ramp to have a non-slip surface, and anti-slip slats at intervals but not within 152mm (6ins) of the start of the contact area." AgilityAddict, 29 May 2006

To Elf and others, as a longtime agility competitor and new Wikipedian, I really like this page very much. It is a cogent and understandable explanation of the sport. I think it does credit to both dog agility and Wikipedia.

Regarding the discussion of police dog work, isn't that taken care of by a link to Schutzhund? -- Jimhutchins 12:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure; thanks. I added it. More notes on your talk page. Elf | Talk 20:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How is a 270 degree turn different from a 90 degree turn? Is it actually necessary for the dog to turn more than half way around, rather than just turning directly to its new path...?

Yes indeed! If I get a chance, I might try making some course diagrams. Sometime. Eventually. Meanwhile, picture this overhead view of two jumps:
 |-----|  
    1     --
           |
           | 2
           |
          --
The dog goes out over the jump numbered 1 and travels around to his right, making a 270-degree turn, then comes in over jump 2.

Elf | Talk 15:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History questions

When did USDAA introduce different titles? Different games? What was evolution of sport in England? When did FCI recognize agility? When was 1st international ch? When did it first take place in various other countries? Why did Nelson split off from USDAA? What happened to NCDA and AAAI?

Good questions! Wish I had answers! Elf | Talk 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prairie Dawgs Agility

I'm a bit concerned about this company. They've added one advertising page to Wikipedia which was deleted as spam. This is the second time that they've added a link to their company web site. I've removed it from this article because I think it is of local interest only and doesn't have the broad (often international) applicability of the other links. I'm also concerned that they're trying use Wikipedia to pad their Google rank and sell product.

If someone who is a more regular editor of this page has any thoughts, I'd love to hear them. I'm assuredly not an expert on this topic, and if the consensus is that their site ([1]) adds substantial information not present in the existing external links then it should go back. --TenOfAllTrades 02:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you; I've removed it at least once myself. If they're not reading the history or the talk page to see why their link was removed, there's really nothing to do but to be patient and keep removing it. Eventually such things usually go away from exhaustion. It's not really vandalism, particularly with only one or two links here and there. Elf | Talk 14:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Removing links

I and others have removed quite a few external links from this article; here's some commentary.

  • Agility Video Service Library of Video Clips (although I believe anyone can view these video clips of agility for free, which might be very worthwhile, this is the site for someone who sells the videos to regional competitors.)
  • Agility Eye (an online agility magazine whose front page is all ads, which is generally against wikipedia's approach to external links. Can't find a good page to link to that shows it as a collection of general agility info w/out ads)


  • Agility Addicts (just one of thousands of agility clubs, many with useful agility info as well as regional-specific info; no reason for this one to be listed)
Forums (wikipedia generally doesn't consider forums and blogs and such to be encyclopedic-type links)
  • Agility Forum
  • Agility Vision (another online agility magazine-like-thingie that's free with blogs including some from prominent agility folks, free videos, etc., but also page is decorated with ads. A borderline case for allowing some sites with ads, as these might be (but not sure) more generally useful agility blogs than run-of-the-mill individual dog's blogs.)
  • Dog Patch Forums
  • Agilitynerd - Dog agility and technology (it's a blog; it has lots of good posts about agility training and courses but also veers into personal blog stuff depending on the situation. Another borderline case where sometimes it would be really useful and sometimes not.)

Elf | Talk 01:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the last remaining link (IFCS) in the External Links section to its proper place in the International Competition section, and have also incorporated links to the other international competition pages in that section. In the Reference section, I've removed the two books listed as they were shown with identical ISBN numbers. I've added a link to a UK-authored Introduction to Agility to balance the American equivalent. AgilityAddict, 29 May 2006

[edit] Expanded sections on agility in the UK and elsewhere

I've reorganised and expanded the information on agility in the United Kingdom so that it is similar in format to that on agility in the United States. I've also started sections for agility in Australia and New Zealand, but I don't have the expertise on those parts of the world to do more than provide some basic links. The page could do with knowledgeable contributors from Canada, Australia and New Zealand to provide a fuller picture of agility across the English-speaking world, and we could do with providing more information about agility in other countries as well. AgilityAddict 21:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media section

I've removed the Media section. Although I can see advantages to including video clips, I'm dubious about the two links that had been placed there. One was a file in .ogg format that I couldn't even view with Media Player. Another was an agility video on a page with videos of several other canine disciplines. AgilityAddict 15:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the Ogg formats? I'm not sure if you're saying "I don't know what this .ogg format is or how to play it" or if you're saying "I've set up Windows Media Player to play .ogg files, but there's something wrong with this one and it doesn't work." For the record, the Ogg formats are endorsed by Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Media_help. The "Audio and Video" tab gives instructions for setting up Windows Media Player to play them. Being in Ogg format is not, by itself, a reason to remove media (quite the contrary, actually). -- Coneslayer 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up of miscellaneous edits

  • I changed the American spellings back to American spellings; Wikipedia policy is to leave as originally found unless there's a really overwhelming reason to change it (e.g., and article about a London subway station could be argued outght to be in commonwealth english).
  • I've never heard the prelimary strategizing period called a "run-through", only a "walk-through". I changed it back but left the "run-through" as an alternative term, as I'll admit that I haven't traveled 'round the world talking to competitors in other places.
  • Changed "soft-sided crates" back to crates, which is a more general term and in fact all kinds of crates are used at agility trials.
  • Removed "This is the hardest one for everyone." from the chute--it's just not true. Some dogs never do the teeter confidently. Some never do the weaves confidently. Some do the teeter the first time they see it; some do the chute the first time they see it.
  • Removed paragraph about positive reinforcement from the intro; that's useful info but not critical to understanding what dog agility the sport is. Merged later into article.
  • Details about difficulty of running a course probably don't go there, either. Merged later into article.
  • Created a new section, Philosophy of dog agility, to cover some stuff. Not sure whether this is a good title and topic, but I think so. (And I started this article way back when, so there. :-) )

Elf | Talk 03:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I added AKC in the Nationals area, both the Invitational and National event.
  • I have a feeling that this article is biased towards USDAA. Most of the AKC information is very short or it mentions USDAA or NADAC.
  • I read over the Philosophy info and most of it was relevant. However, the statement about not allowing verbal correction is false. I will not edit it yet, but if you would please explain or elaborte because very often competitors will tell their dogs 'No!' or 'Argh!'.

--Arithmia 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have unfortunately decided to fail this article. The article, although very comprehensive, needs more referencing. None of the information has inline citations, which should be added after any statement that a reader may question about its verifiability. There are plenty of images in the first half of the article, but there are only two for the rest of the article, so maybe consider spacing some of them out a bit. I know that some of the images correspond with the specific event, but they should also be reduced a little in size. The article is also very long, maybe consider extending parts of the articles off into another article and just have a short summary of the section left on this article. Consider getting a peer review for other editors to take a look over the article and see if there are other recommendations that they may have to improve it. Please do consider renominating again once you have addressed these issues. If you believe this review is in error, see Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

User:Alvis added "citation needed" notes to 2 places in the article, and I'm not quite sure how to fix them:

  • "Many things can go wrong, though, and for any course on any day, it is rare to be able to predict which team will perform best". I don't know how to cite this or change it to be more acceptable. The point is that any dog could, in theory, earn 1st place. There are some dogs for whom, if you put even money on every time, you'd maybe come out ahead in the long run. Maybe this is a tautology that's just true for any sport. I guess I wouldn't object to having it come out.

User:snowmman Might be useful to add info on typical "qualifying rate" (percentage of teams that run clean) and typical time differences between placements. I guess that varies a lot. But note that judges design courses to match skill of expected teams, such that "clean runs" average around 50% in the long run? agree/disagree? so it's not just a matter of "who's got the fastest dog". Dogs that always run clean, tend to not be so fast. So the combination of judges designing for a desired <100% clean run rate, and fast typically meaning a larger likelihood of not clean...you get the unpredictablity. If it was predictable, it wouldn't be fun. So there is always a chance you can win, not just run clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.213.62 (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • "This is a fairly simple[citation needed], flowing course, probably used for novice dogs " (in the photo caption). Could take out the "probably used for novice dogs". But, yes, by the standards of all the organizations in North America, at any rate, and based on what I've seen of international competition, this is a fairly simple, flowing course. Any suggestion on how to qualify that? Can't really put citations for all the rules for all the world's agility organizations there. Would just "This is a simple, flowing course" be satisfactory?
Elf | Talk 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
If it helps, my concerns that led to the edits:
  • I took issue with "it is rare to be able to predict which team will perform best". This is either original research (assumed common knowledge) or reflects some study of the odds which isn't cited. Although I suspect it to be the former, I gave it the benefit of the doubt and hoped there was a citation available. In cases like this, I usually check back in a few months and see if said citation has been made available and, if not, remove the passage.
  • I'm not involved in dog agility competitions, nor do I follow them (ie, an average Wikipedia reader), so I have no way to judge this course as novice nor advanced. If it is to be pronounced as either in this article, it should have some sort of third-party commenting as to the course's difficulty. Without such a citation, it should be left without such comments. Alvis 04:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agility in Nintendogs

Does the "Agility in Nintendogs" section really belong here? It just seems so trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.39.252 (talk) 09:24, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed splits

I have proposed to split this article because it has become large and ungainly. I was trying to find some way to split of the "agility in [name of country]" sections, but couldn't think of any way to neatly unify them. Any objections or suggestions? --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 12:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts:
  • History of dog agility seems like a good break.
  • If we were to move the agility equipment descriptions out of this article, a better title would be dog agility obstacles rather than list of dog agility obstacles, because the latter format article is usually a simple list, not actually a discussion. But I think that this article would lose critical info if the equipment descriptions were moved elsewhere, since dog agility is all about the obstacles.
  • How about dog agility around the world? Could move all of the following there:
 # 7 Agility in the United Kingdom

   * 7.1 Eligibility for competition
   * 7.2 UK organisations
   * 7.3 Kennel Club shows
   * 7.4 Other UK agility shows

 # 8 Agility in the United States

   * 8.1 U.S. organizations
   * 8.2 Qualification for competition
   * 8.3 Agility titles and championships
   * 8.4 National championships
         o 8.4.1 USDAA national championships
         o 8.4.2 AKC national championships

 # 9 Agility in Canada
 # 10 Agility in Australia
 # 11 Agility in New Zealand
I'd suggest leaving the International championships in place and then referring to the new "around the world" article.
Elf | Talk 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Your suggestions sound good. I'm fine with leaving the obstacles here, but some of the images need to be removed (there are serious crowding issues). Perhaps instead of "dog agility around the world" it could be "dog agility worldwide"? (By the way, sorry it took me so long to reply, I've been busy) --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
"worldwide" sounds good. For the same reason I stated, that the obstacles are integral to the sport, we need to keep photos of them available. This might require creative reorganization. Perhaps a table with photos in the left column and descriptions in the right? Elf | Talk 21:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The table sounds good. If you're okay with the details than you can execute the move (or I can, really, but I'll wait for your reply). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 12:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have time to do it now. Maybe sometime in the next couple of months... or, if you're in the mood, go for it. I can always come along and hack at what you've done. ;-) Elf | Talk 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dog Sports

Just thought that I would add Dog Sports to your page. I wrote the article about Dock Jumping.gd8man 01:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)