Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
Archives: 1, 2 See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force/Categories
Contents |
[edit] Northern Inuit
I think the Northern Inuit dog page may need a bit of help. the disscusion page is getting a bit political and the article itself is looking a bit of a mess. Any help would be appreciated--Exhaustfumes (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Argentine Dogo
Hello, it would be great if someone from this project takes a look at Argentine Dogo. Several IPs have been adding external links which in my opinion look like spam rather than useful links. As I'm no expert on dog websites, could someone with more knowledge check the page and delete all unnecessary websites? I'll keep an eye on the article thereafter to prevent links from being readded. BTW, I asked the same thing at Wikiproject Dogs. Greetings
[edit] Capitalisation of breed names
Please see/join the discussion at the Manual of Style. Phaunt (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I found this - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (capitalization) - but no discussion of capitalisation of dog breed names. Was there some consensus?--Hafwyn (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pit Bull and tomberto.
At various times people have added a reference to tomberto to the pit bull article. This word only shows up 302 times on Google, the results including many copies of Wikipedia and stuff in Spanish I don't understand. Is there such a thing as a Tomberto or are we being vandalised?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Westminster WikiNews
Hi! I'm not a member of this project, and in fact don't even own a dog. But I am interested (and quite involved) in the whole wiki concept. So I was wondering if anyone from this project might be interested in reporting on WikiNews about the Westminster Dog Show, which is coming up in a couple weeks. If you are, head on over to the article prep page I started, leave a note on the talk page, and let's see what happens! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Coolie/Koolie
Koolie and German Coolie appear to be about the same breed of dog - and they appear to be primarily a POV fork based on some breeders holding higher/different standards. I don't know anything about the dogs, but I was confused trying to do some research. I left a note at WP:DOGS but there's been no reply; can someone take a look at that, please? Kuronue | Talk 04:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Confusion's just one result of the combination of human behaviour and the near-infinite variability of the dog. Anyone can create a dog breed, and find a registry that will take their money to register it -- or just start their own registry on the internet. It's like words in English -- you just say it, and it's a word. There's no governing body to say what words you can and cannot make up. Similarly, anyone can create a breed of dogs just by calling it one, inbreeding it, and creating their own registry. Internet forums are full of people wanting to start their own pet-registry business, so they can charge for certificates to enhance the value of puppy-mill dogs, or register their own invented breeds. Everyone loves to have their own "special" club to control.
- In addition, creating a breed out of another breed means the breed creator doesn't have to follow the rules laid down by the original club (see the Biewer Terrier for a good example; when the kennel club wouldn't register his pretty mismarked dogs in the 1980s, the breeder just found to a registry that would, and named the "new breed" after himself. Today it IS a breed, with clubs in several countries.) When a new breed "breeds true" (reproduces with consistent appearance and behaviour) and has been reliably documented for a number of generations, then it's a breed, by definition.
- The Koolie/Coolie page seems to be better written than the German Coolie page, but that does not make it more authoritative. You could research the registries mentioned and note which ones seem to be reputable (non-profit, widely used, member of governing body, etc.)
