Talk:Rough Collie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Dog breeds task force
 This article is within the scope of the Dog breeds task force.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

The article's section on the origin of the Rough Collie raised my Collie-breeder eyebrows as I would question the claim that the breed has a 50% bird-hunting family tree, and have never heard that claim anywhere else. I'd be interested to know where this info came from.Ruffcotes 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Scotland
 Rough Collie is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Scotland Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

The article's section on the origin of the Rough Collie raised my Collie-breeder eyebrows as I would question the claim that the breed has a 50% bird-hunting family tree, and have never heard that claim anywhere else. I'd be interested to know where this info came from.Ruffcotes 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Scotland To-do:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rough Collie article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Temperament section

This section concludes "the herding instinct is still very much apparent in the breed today" after saying in the preceding paragraph that the collie now has "little" herding instinct that is "diluted" – which is it?

Added contradiction tag JGHowes talk - 13:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As a lifelong owner of these dogs, I'd definitely say that the instinct is still apparent, rather than it being diluted. 62.232.17.94 12:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've edited to resolve the "Contradiction" tag accordingly - it's been there long enough. If the editor who originally added the unsourced information can provide info. to substantiate the contradictory statement, please discuss here before changing it. JGHowes talk - 21:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent in some of these dogs, but others barely show it.I know this from personal experience, and I've changed the article to note this.--SalukiGirl 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Being "apparent" and your own personal experience fall under the no original research policy. Sources need to be found to actually support the statements. Collectonian 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[2] Mike0001 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit protect request

Can the page be restored to the version id 189988375? The only contentious issue was the image, and this version fixes issues with the references (there but malformed), MOS fixes (including a missing references tag in the reference section) and some text clean up Collectonian (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the version currently protected has broken syntax JGHowes talk - 17:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This revision, correct? · AndonicO Hail! 18:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this what you meant? · AndonicO Hail! 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
yes, thanks JGHowes talk - 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. *now goes to cool her head*  :) Collectonian (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you stick the image in till Collectonium cools down please? Mike0001 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No, because that was the source of controversy, not the other edits. And I wouldn't need to cool down if you'd quit trying to shove an unnecessary image in just because you took it. Collectonian (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Collectonian, I think you are being terribly bossy here! Why not let Mike0001 put the image on? 86.149.32.64 (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has guidelines about articles, and adding the image would not follow them. Presuming you are not Mike just not logged in, I explained to him how he could improve the article in a way that would then possibly allow the addition of his image, but he doesn't seem to want to actually do that. He only appears to want to add his image and do nothing to really improve the article. Collectonian (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
OK,let us look at the reasons given so far for non-inclusion. (a) Because I took the picture! (b) Because the picture might possibly be my pet. (c) Because I like the picture. (d) Because the article is too short. ( I agree there, but every time I try to edit you undo.) As for improving, I have already offered to reword the following: Viewed from front or side, head resembles a well-blunted clean wedge, being smooth in outline. Skull flat. Sides taper gradually and smoothly from ears to end of black nose, without prominent cheek bones or pinched muzzle. Viewed in profile, top of skull and top of muzzle lie in two parallel straight lines of equal length divided by a slight, but perceptible stop or break. A mid-point between inside corner of eyes (which is centre of a correctly placed stop) is centre of balance in length of head. End of smooth, well rounded muzzle blunt, never square. Under jaw strong, clean cut. Depth of skull from brow to underpart of jaw never excessive (deep through). Nose always black. Mike0001 (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Content needs to be in actual prose, not a list of bullet points without the bullets. It also needs a source. And no, reasons given are primarily because the article is too short to support another image and the image illustrates nothing discussed in the text at this time. The other three are the reasons for your being obsessed with adding the image and starting an edit war. Collectonian (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC):

Can we reach some sort of compromise on this issue? The picture is actually quite good and does illustrate well a distinguishing feature of the collie. We just need some good text to go with it. As a former collie owner, I know that collies were bred with the Russian bolshoi[sp?] to get a more "noble" head but it is also a source of vision problems for the breed. If someone can do some more research on this, I think it would be fine to have the picture on the article since it is a good picture of the subject. Just throwing out a suggestion there to help resolve an issue with two people both trying to help in different ways.Comatose51 (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment!  :-) Mike0001 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting out the problem, hopefully

I'd like to try and help sort out this issue, but I'd like to hear from both parties in the dispute as to what the problem is and why the dispute has come up. I'll discuss individual issues with each of them on their talk page, so let's keep this discussion specifically targeted at the article, please.

As near as I can tell, the dispute is surrounding the inclusion of the head shot of the dog, and a couple of bits in the article that are points of contention. Is that about right? If both Collectonian and Mike0001 can explain what their concerns are below - commenting on the article and the benefits or problems with the insertions, not the editors involved, please - that could be a good step towards resolving the issue. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I undid the inclusion of the headshot because the article is too small to support anymore images per WP:IMAGE and the MOS section on images. I made the suggestion that it could be included if the the article was expanded to give a more detailed discussion of the head shape (which it currently does not have) and over all appearance. If such an expansion were made, then a good head shot might aid in illustrating the point. As it stands now, including the image would simply be decoration, and not a valid or useful contribution. For the other edits, Mike001 appeared to disagree with several statements in the article, and replaced them with his own beliefs. I think this issue has now been resolved, however, as the section has been clarified and I added sourcing for all of the statements Mike001 seemed to disagree with. Collectonian (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the recent edits made by Collectonian in clarifying points in a section that was mostly POV. The article needs expanding considerably, in my view (possibly we all agree on that?) particularly in the description of breed section. I inserted the image because it illustrated a point in the History section. I used an image of a pedigree rough collie that I have taken myself in the past because it illustrated the point about the change in the head shape that is characteristic of this breed. It is immediately apparent when one sees it, and contrasts sharply with the shape of a Border Collie head, for instance.
I was then going to possibly expand on this in the description page, drawing first upon the material in [1], which amongst other things has a detailed description of the head. (I assume this is a reliable source!) I meant to change the wording of course!
This was just a start, but there are a few other edits I made that were disputed. I provided a link to the Collie Forum, which I believe would be useful to readers, but that was reverted.
There is much material in a book Collies by Alice Wharton that is relevant[2], and I reckon this book needs referencing. In particular, on p28, there is a picture of a rough collie, head, with the caption The head is what gives the (rough) collie his distinctive appearance. It should be inclined towards lightness and n ever massive or coarse looking. (My parentheses: collie in the US means rough collie in the UK.)
Finally, in the above book, there is discussion of the history of the breed, and the show standard, which bred out the stamina of the original collie, and resulting in a relatively lazy dog, particularly when contrasted with the border collie happy to walk 40 miles a day. This however makes the rough a good pet! Mike0001 (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ Wharton, Alice (1998). Collies. ISBN 0-7938-2800-7. 
Okay, so the reason for the photo's removal sounds reasonable to me; the section it was inserted in is just too short to be illustrated at this point. Mike, it sounds like you have a reasonable amount of background information you can make use of to create an expanded and well-sourced section on the breed history - heaven knows, there should be a lot of information out there to make use of.
Here's my suggestion: Mike, would you be willing to take some time and do a rewrite and expansion of the history section, using those sources you've got and any others that are relevant, in your userspace, maybe at User:Mike0001/Collie rewrite, and then bring that back to this talk page for discussion before it's incorporated into the article? That would give you the opportunity to make the edits that you feel are important, build out a section that would support inclusion of another photo, and improve the article all at the same time. I think that would help work things out, and - if our two combatants will agree to stay clear of one another in the interim except for discussion here - I'd be happy to unprotect the article so other edits can be made in the meantime, with editors knowing that work is going on.
How's that sound? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ruff! (ie, yes!) Mike0001 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have done a first draft at User:Mike0001/Collie rewrite Mike0001 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The forum link is inappropriate and will need to be removed. We do not like to forums and discussion boards. Please see the dog breed MOS and WP:EL for a full discussion of appropriate links. Collectonian (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be about the only issue that I can see with the rewrite; does anyone else have any comment on Mike's userspace version? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It still seems to short for a picture, to me, but if the second picture is going to stay, it would probably look better if it were on the right side instead of stacked on the left. The references will also need to be cleaned up, but that can be done later. Oh, and make sure the commons link is kept in the EL section. Collectonian (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Commons inserted. Forum gone (pity)! I had tried putting the head on the right but it bumps up against the breed panel. I wasn't thinking that this was it, BTW, just a start.
I just noticed in your last version that you moved the head picture down. For it to be acceptable, it must be in the section discussing appearance (image should illustrate a point in the section where it has been included), so please consider moving it back up. Collectonian (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I could bump it away from the breed box. Unfortunately its actual placement is dependent on your browser window size. I have moved it back to the correct section now. It looks fine in a small browser window. Full screen on my laptop, it hits the breed box and also floats into the next section, but there is nothing we can do about that. At least its anchor is right now! Mike0001 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Seems like this is working out reasonably well; anyone opposed to my unprotecting at this point? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Request

{{editprotected}} Can {{Commons|Rough Collie}} be add to the EL section? No idea why its missing, as the Commons has lots of Rough Collie pics. Collectonian (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)}}

Y Done Tony Fox (arf!) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Blech, just noticed somehow some spam links snuck in the article! Can the link "Collie Dog Owners - Rough Collies" be removed. Mike may also want to remove it from his rough draft.Collectonian (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Removed from draft. Mike0001 (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interbreeding with Borzoi

I have not found a reference to this anywhere. Is it true? Mike0001 (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read the same a few places myself, but I'll look and see if any of my references mentions it. Collectonian (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
OK thanks! Mike0001 (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The International Encyclopedia of Dogs also notes that collies may have been bread with Borzoi's to obtain the head shape (though they go with may rather than saying its 100% certain) Collectonian (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant, I can stick that reference in. Mike0001 (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Done! I have finished for now. Is this version ready to go? Mike0001 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

It looks like everyone can play nicely with one another at this point; I'll unprotect, and urge all to go forth and edit in peace. Thaninks. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)