Talk:Yorkshire Terrier

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-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.

The "Temperament" section of this article is blatently not neutral It lavishes the dog with praise while giving only a very carefully nuanced and indirect admission of its yappiness. This is an encyclopedia. Just lay out the facts.

There seems to be too much fluffly language in this article. I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings (or waste my time) by trying to glean it all out, but I thought it should at least be mentioned. (Examples: "pack a surprisingly powerful...", "canine cousins")

Also, did anyone notice that the final paragraph of the Temperament section seems to be defending the intelligence of the breed?

There are several clauses such as, "like all dogs" and "as with many purebred dogs". These seem to warrant the removal of the statements that they modify. If such characteristics are not specific to the breed, why should they be specially noted in an article about the breed?

Finally, I don't think it's bad enough to be nominated for a dispute, but this article certainly seems to lack objectivity. Much has been contributed with little or no regard for neutrality, clarity, or verifiability. Apparently, some contributors have been so eager to discuss the topic, that the contribution guidelines were laid aside. --Jack 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Re "show dog" link that currently doesn't link to anything--it will eventually; there are quite a few pages that link to it so it's useful to have links-in-waiting. Elf | Talk 04:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

GuloGuloGulo, can you please explain why you changed "... fondly known as Yorkie" to "... also known"? "Yorkie" is a "pet" term, a sort of slang that is used to fondly refer to these dogs. It is not a name that stands on an equal footing with the full "Yorkshire Terrier" (at least as used by people I know). Nyh

I'm not the one who changed it, but I can tell you that "fondly" implies an emotional interpretation of why someone would call the dog that name, but since this is an an encyclopedia in which NPOV is important, it tries to report the facts (the dog *is* called a Yorkie, but what emotional state someone *might* be in when doing so is speculation).

Can someone please include some information in the Yorkshire Terrier article about the Trachea problem that can occur in this breed? I learned a year or so ago about this problem which can and does occur with this particular breed (and certain other breeds of small dogs) and many Yorkshire Terrier owners don't know about this issue. The Trachea can collapse in some of the dogs in this breed and when it does there's little or nothing that can be done about it, leaving the affected dog to be put to sleep. I've heard this problem may be genetic, but it can also be brought about by tugging at tight collars around the neck, as such collars shouldn't be used on these dogs but instead a halter to avoid pressure on the neck. I would include some information in the wikipedia article on Yorkshire Terrier about this myself, but at the moment I don't have the exact info about this in front of me so I'm hoping someone else will include the information. I've found this Trachea collapse medical problem mentioned in books on the breed and on various personal websites on-line. --Demonslave 15:45, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid those are the same sources that most of us would have available for adding that info. Would have to go find the appropriate books or web sites and write up what appears to be fact or commonly accepted wisdom in our own words. Which means you're as qualified as most people to do it. Be bold! Elf | Talk 16:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Elf, I'll try to get back to this page sometime in the near future and add this important bit of information. I appreciate your quick response to my comment. --Demonslave 16:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

--- Regis, 2005/9/11

Contents

[edit] "Gabby" yorkie photo removed

The latest yorkie photo is a much better example of the breed and is a clearer photo as well. The Gabby photo is no longer needed on this page. An anon user keeps putting it back, apparently feeling that this is his/her own private page. However, it's not, it's an encyclopedia. I hope that he/she will stop doing this. Elf | Talk 22:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Can you please explain why you think gabby is a better photo? I don't see it and neither do the other editors of this page. The dog breed pages never have 2 photos in the photo box at the top. I have moved that and another photo to a gallery at the end of the article, which we're doing with several articles now. Elf | Talk 05:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo vote

Photo 1
Photo 1

or

Photo 2
Photo 2

Which photo should be the main breed photo in the breed box, Photo1 or Photo 2? (Notes as to why or suggestions on changes would be helpful.) Compare to this image of a yorkie from the westminster kennel club

  • Photo 1. Looks more like typical Yorkie. Clearer photo, can see fur and eyes more clearly, more reflections in Photo 2. Elf | Talk 16:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Photo 1 Clearer photo with more detail. photo 2 would at least need cropping before me voting for it is even considered! (posted by Tekana)
  • Photo 1 While I don't think either is the best representation of a Yorkie, I do think #1 is the best of the two. Maltmomma (chat) 20:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Photo 1 is a more typical Yorkie and a better photo. Dsurber 22:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Photo 2 is a much better representation of a Yorkshire Terrier and much more suitable for an encyclopedia. The Wikipedia contributor who suggested that posting it constituted "vandalism" is, it seems to me, being unreasonable. 68.99.130.81 03:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Photo 1 i don't really like either photo, but #1 is a much better photo, it is more typical of the breed standard. The "gabby" photo's coat appears coarse in places and is too short to be a breed example (this could be a result of grooming), the blue on #2 is a silvery blue rather than a dark blue, the dog almost appears to be one color unless you know what you are looking for, the dog's hind legs appear somewhat splayed, the top of the skull is way too rounded. The #1 (Nika) photo is not without problems, lopped ear and mixture of blue with the tan on the top of head and face, the entire photo appears appears too dark. In the end, compare to dog show champion photo. #1 looks a lot more like the example than photo #2. - Trysha (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Photo 2 why do you refer to #1 as a "Jorkshire Terrier"? I have never heard of such a thing. Also, #1 has one ear up and one down. A show quality Yorkshire Terrier would have both ears up. #2 was posted first so put her back. - PupsAZ/63.73.199.69 16:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The filename doesn't really matter, although "j" can be pronounced like a "y" in some cases (like Jarlsberg cheese), so the photo's uploader could have been trying to be silly with the filename. Trysha (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • For someone who is so concerned about a posting a picture that best represents a Yorkshire terrier, you'd think they'd at least pay attention enough and spell it right.
  • The original uploader of that picture is a user named RegisCartoons. At that this user has done is upload that picture and a picture of shrek. One can only assume that they weren't so concerned about anything except helping out. That user has not commented here at all and has no agenda. I think that you seem overly angry whole gabby picture thing. You shouldn't take this personally. Part of the spirit of wikipedia is people working together to make the best information possible available. If someone reverts your changes, you should discuss it with them - that's the first step. Not undoing the changes - that will just make people mad at you. Be Bold does not mean come here and repeately revert a photo when everyone disagrees with you. That's just getting mad and stomping your foot. It will turn people against you. If people disagree with you, accept it and move on to something else. Find a better photo, or maybe research some information about yorkies and improve the info the page? Is it your dog? I can only assume that this is your dog (and that User:PupsAZ / [[User::Arizonaland]] are you) so how about taking a better picture of the dog, maybe one outdoors, eye level to the dog, with her looking over your shoulder at a slight angle so that people can get a side view in a natural environment. There are a lot of things that you can do to help out make things better. (and maybe people will disagree with me about what makes a good dog photo, and that's OK, we'll discuss it and come to a consensus!) - Trysha (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who Arizonaland is and I don't appreciate you acting like I am in a conspiracy with them. I was responding to a poll that someone put up who has WAY TOO MUCH time on their hands. As do you for that long reply. Gabbie is cuter and that's all. My yorkshire terrier just passed away and I was just viewing the page. Ok?? As you said, this a discussion and I should be free to say what I want without you making implications!!--63.73.199.69 15:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I (and im sure everybody else here) is sorry for your loss but i am afraid that does not entitle you to to make random insults at people here. Im sure that if you were to re-read Trysha's post you would see that what she stated was an assumption not an accusation and that it is not something that you should feel offended about.
Also, I feel you need to read through the wikipedia:policies and guidelines as i am afraid that a picture does not get entitled to be in the breed box simply because "it was there first" or is just "cuter" than the other one. Wikipedians work together to try and make the wikipedia the best encyclopedia possible, not the cutest. Is this something that you simply dont understand, or are choosing to ignore?
Besides, it is not like the gabby photo had been completely exiled from the page, if you would care to scroll down you would see that it is still there! You must realise that just because a photo is not in the breed box, does not make it inferior or overlooked, people looking at the page will pay as much attention to that as the one at the top of the page! Tekana (O.o) Talk 15:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You asked for a vote and my comments and that's what was posted. I did not "make random insults at people here", nor did I say anything about what I felt should be the "guidelines" for posting a picture, etc. The person asked for a vote and and to place my comments and that is what I did. I felt that the statement "I can only assume that this is your dog (and that User:PupsAZ / [[User::Arizonaland]] are you)" was insulting and I am sorry if you don't feel that way. My understanding is that this is a "discussion" board?--63.73.199.69 19:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Photo 1 is a better representation of the breed. A few have commented on one of its ears being down, but their ears tend to flop down when nervous or anxious or sick. In photo 2, the dog's ears are too big which would not be acceptable in a show, the coat isn't full enough, and the muzzle is a bit too big. Check the breed standards.-24.10.48.173 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo dispute

This article is now protected. Please work out your differences on the talk page instead of edit warring. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo request

I've added the photo request template and let me explain in detail. The main reason I added the request is because a don't think that any of the current photos do justice to this gorgeous breed. Second, there are no photos of a Yorkie in show coat, which would probably be preferable for the infobox. And third, there are no good photos of a Yorkie standing, which I feel is the best way to show the conformation. Pharaoh Hound 19:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Gabby" photo (yet again)

Once again, the infamous "Gabby" photo has ended up in the infobox. Since the disision of the vote was the first photo, I am putting it back in the infobox. (this is getting sorta ridiculus) Pharaoh Hound 00:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I added a whole bunch of IMPORTANT links to this page including workingyorkie - and earthdog Yorkie both nonprofit info siteson Yorkies in dog sports and they were all deleted. The only thing that was retained was the YTCA. Meanwhile you have a link to Smokey's page - and that is a published book and a commerical website. Could someone please explain the criteria being used here?

As for the dispute over the photos. I agree, that neither are show quality Yorkies. The first is better than the second although the ears are not pricked and the face is "muddy."

Apologies - that was oversight, the smoky web site has been delinked as well. We should not link to web forums, mailing lists, yahoo/google groups, dog home pages, advocacy sites, rescues, dog sports forums, etc. You may find examples of these things linked on wikipedia, but those are there merely because they have not been removed yet. There really should be very little in the external links section of this sort of page, and what is there should be sources to back up the information provided in the article. The yorkie club of america provides standards, any major official breed club should be linked to. - Trysha (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The owner of a forum yorkie talk keeps linking his links here. Also a puppymiller linked her site here: *.yorksmorksandmalts dot com Please be careful and monitor this page carefully -yorkies are hot items these days and free links are too tempting to millers.

[edit] Additions to Famous Yorkies

I recently added entries for Toto (of the book version of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz), and for Mignon, featured as the family dog on the US television series Green Acres. The entry for Toto is not totally verifiable, as many feel the illustration in Baum's original 1900 edition is that of a Yorkie; however, no specific mention of Toto's breed is known to exist. This is noted in the entry.

Also, I have a copy of William Wynne's book, Yorkie Doodle Dandy; should anyone feel that this entry needs reference, I'd be happy to edit this section in a way that ensures verifiability. --BuzzDog 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biewer Reference in Miscellaneous Section

The entry contains a biased statement, "As the Biewer develops, it should not be crossed back to the Yorkie." May I suggest that this be revised to read,

"It has been noted that many breeders hold the opinion that, as the Biewer breed develops, it should no longer be bred (known as backcrossing) with the Yorkshire Terrier.",

as this better represents this statement as an opinion, rather than as a fact? --BuzzDog 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dogs that appear sullen or life-less are to be penalized

penalized? heh heh..

ti 04:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I've fixed it like this "Dogs that appear sullen or life-less are penalized in dog shows"

There was a link here to a Yorkshire Terrier Society which including some other breeds as well - the link went back to a commerical breeding establishment! Please watch the Yorkie pages carefully as this is a prime puppymill breed and there will be plenty of online breeders who would love to capitlize on this webpage!

[edit] Image req

Images have been provided for this article, therefore the tag was removed. VanTucky 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The current primary image
(as shown on the right) is not very indicative of the breed. Not only does it have a unusual colouring on its underside, but it is "dressed up" with a ribbon. A different image would be preferable. Canderra 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. selection from Commons is rather sparse however. Here are a few options I think fit the bill...

this one still has a ribbon to clear the face, but I think it's a bit better.

what do you think? VanTucky 19:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the image you replaced in the infobox. I also added one more pet standard image of a Yorkie, as the size of the article merits it and it is good to have a balance (two show dogs, two pets - one showing a young dog). VanTucky 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have added an image that solves the problem. It's a Am. Ch. show Yorkie stacked. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 19:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation number 6?

What's wrong with citation number 6? It's cited as a reference for no fewer than 30 of article's assertions, and yet when I go to it at the bottom it's just blank. Where did all of that stuff come from? TobyTheRobot 15:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. It got messed up by an edit about three and one-half weeks ago. --Joelmills 03:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I made an edit to the breed history. Careful not to refer to the Broken Haired Scotch terrier as a "Scottie" or a "Scottish Terrier." A Scottie is a completely seperate breed that has absolutly no connection to the Yorkshire Terrier.

DO THEY SHED,DROOL? ARE THEY FRIENDLY TO PEOPLE AND OTHER DOGS? THIS IS WHAT I NEED TO KNOW BEFORE I GET A YORKIE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.70.149 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of Yorkie Hatred?

How can this entry NOT mention how so many people hate yorkies? Potential yorkie owners need to be aware that they risk alienating about 7/8ths of humanity by their ownership of this piece of crap dog. 72.222.192.193 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)