Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Discussion at Notability (sports) for Equestrians

See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Expanding Notability for Equestrians - since some of our dog project members are also horse project members or horse enthusiasts, I'm placing notice here. Your participation is requested. Atsme 💬 📧 21:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Dogsbite.org#WP:EW

Some editwarring, opinions/eyes are welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Reassessment Requested

Hello! I have expanded the article Chongqing dog quite considerably and would appreciate reassessment. Thank you!! Annwfwn (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Annwfwn - I just tweaked the article a bit, and added a source where you can find the Breed Standard, and add more material to the article. I will add more a couple more 2ndary sources on the article TP. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

AfD notice

See List of dog fighting breeds is currently up for deletion - Articles for deletion/List of dog fighting breeds (2nd nomination) - Atsme 💬 📧 01:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Good Articles recommended for review

There are some Good Article-level topics which were promoted over a decade ago and would benefit from a review. Therefore, I have added these to the WP:DOGS "To Do" box, and these include the following : Swift fox (2008); Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (2009); Clumber Spaniel (2009); Russian Spaniel (2009); Sussex Spaniel (2009)

The Swift fox is rated at High Importance to the project, the others are at mid-importance and all just happen to be spaniels. If anyone would like to review any of these then feel free to guide them through the WP:GAR process. It is also an opportunity to cleanse the articles by removing that text which is uncited or draws on unreliable sources. William Harristalk 10:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We also have only one Featured article that would benefit from a review: Beagle (2007) William Harristalk 12:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm game. I've been a little too lazy with my reviewing so this will help get me back on track. Atsme Talk 📧 14:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of these articles are in reasonable shape but they have picked up some "barnacles" over the years that need to be removed:

  • some unreferenced sentences that should be simply deleted
  • text from "mylittlepuppy.com" type websites without author or references that should be simply deleted
  • some paragraphs that are either grammatically incorrect or logically disconnected - they have been added on post-GA by well-meaning editors but these have disrupted the flow of the article

Did you have any article in mind? William Harristalk 23:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to do basic copy editing for all but if you're wanting formal peer review, it requires a different approach. Sundays are quiet time and when I can just sit back, read and do a bit of CE. If you have a particular article in mind, let me know. Atsme Talk 📧 23:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Confirmation request

  • Note: removed those who answered from this list.

Pinging all members, and asking that you please confirm that you are still active by signing in below. If you are no longer active, simply delete your user name from the participant's list. If you remain an active participant (hoping you do), then please take a moment to read the section below about the critical updates, and new research. User:4444hhhh, Coaster1983, Cyclonebiskit, Hutcher, Miyagawa, R9tgokunks, User:Steven Walling, Dougweller, User:Genegerbreader, CanineCrew, LoraxJr, DogBehaviorPro, Dogsrtoocute100, User:Ashjordan76,User:Necctaylor, Mcfuggins
Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 21:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Active

  • MarialeegRVT (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Atsme 💬 📧 21:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • KING WIKIPEDIAN DCCLXIV (talk | contribs) 21:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I am still active but a tad out of practice. i was legally blind for a few years until late april 2022. I am back now. LiPollis (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    So happy that you're back, and it makes me happy to know you cleared that vision hurdle. Atsme 💬 📧 23:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Present and active. Annwfwn (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am too ...
    Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm here Dswitz10734 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Present.Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • ARoseWolf 13:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • welllll... I don't often have time these days, but I do check in from time to time. I've hardly had anything to say for a while, though. If you don't mind me lurking and mostly quiet, I'd love to stay. Elf | Talk 02:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - thx for checking in! Atsme 💬 📧 02:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Critical updates about phenotypes, genetics and selective breeding

The following provides important updates about phenotypes, genetics, and selective breeding.

Dog ancestry

(see subsection List of research articles below)

  • Modern dog breeds are genetically disconnected from ancient ancestors
  • Ancestral dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes
  • Ancient dogs are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds
  • Breed does not predict behaviour

Some of the information in our current dog breed articles may be cited to outdated sources/research, or perhaps misinterpreted or taken out of context. Some articles may include unverifiable anecdotal accounts that are stated as facts in wikvoice. There is also some concern over BSL advocacies, or pit bull haters who are known to cause disruption on WP by socking, POV pushing, etc. Regardless, our job is to separate the wheat from the chaff. For example, "pit bull" is not a breed, although it is used ubiquitously as though it were, and is based on the mistaken belief that modern purebred conformation show dogs are the same dogs as their pit–fighting ancestors from centuries past. It is used to classify all bully-types, and has its roots in the (mistaken) belief that they are the same dogs as the heterogenous group of mixed breed dogs (or hybrids) once used in the bloodsports of rat–, bull–, bear– and badger– baiting back in the 1800s, and believed to be the progenitors of our modern purebreds dogs. And what is it based on? Primarily paintings & sculptures, and the occasional description of a dog type in a manuscript or letter – anecdotes.

When bloodsports became illegal, some of those ancestral dogs were later developed for the clandestine sport of dog fighting. However, that changed with the founding of the first breed registry in the UK, The Kennel Club (KC), founded in the latter 1800s, shortly followed by the American Kennel Club (AKC). Reputable breed registries would not register dogs that were to be used as fighting dogs, and also required a breed standard and show records. The focus went from the fighting pit to the conformation show dog ring. Dog breeders focused on the development of purebred conformation show dogs that became the foundation stock of the modern dog breeds we know today. As a result of all the confusion stemming from the pit fighting days, along with the multiple aliases that were used for dogs in centuries past, and a lack of knowledge about how selective breeding can drastically change/alter phenotypes and genetics, WP now has a host of dog breed articles containing a mix of anecdotes and material that comprises both false and factual information. Our job is to separate the wheat from the chaff by using the updated science and secondary sources while adhering closely to our core content policies, NPOV, OR, & V. If you're wondering why it matters, the simple answer is that accuracy is of the utmost importance because you never know who is reading our articles: Wikipedia Articles Sway Some Legal Judgments. And there's also this CBS News report among others. Atsme 💬 📧 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  • What does "Ancient dogs" mean in "Ancient dogs are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Hi, Mac - good to see you! It's been a while. See the Durham University Study below. The ancient dog concept came up in a discussion at the AfD for List of dog fighting breeds with reference to the ancient Chinese fighting dog that has been incorrectly linked to the modern Chinese Shar Pei like what is happening with all the modern breeds with no consideration for the "selective breeding evolution" of those breeds. To quote Scientific America: But when we look at the DNA, we see that there’s all this diversity in the past that is not represented in present-day dogs.” Atsme 💬 📧 01:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    I'm always around, just not as active generally as when WP was my main hobby. :-) Ancient dogs aren't breeds, in the modern sense, so "than other breeds" doesn't really make sense here; maybe "than modern breeds". But "Ancient dogs had more genetic diversity than modern breeds" (what you say the source indicates) isn't equivalent to "Ancient dogs are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds", which sounds like a questionable claim (along the same lines as "Iron Age people were no closer to Bronze Age people than modern people are"; it doesn't seem logically possible).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Wait a minute; I found your quote of the relevant source material; it's: "Breeds such as the Akita, Afghan Hound and Chinese Shar-Pei, which have been classed as 'ancient', are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds". This is a completely different sentiment; we're confusing two uses of "ancient" here. What that source is saying is that those three breeds, which are modern breeds, are called "ancient" by some people, but are not actually any more genomically ancient than other modern breeds. I.e., it is criticizing use of the word "ancient". The other source material is saying that actually ancient (historic, non-modern) samples of dog DNA from archaeology demonstrate greater genetic diversity than modern dogs (which is what we'd expect, because they haven't been subject to several hundred to several thousand additional years of in-breeding).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Mac, apologies – it wasn't my intention to confuse. Thx for clarifying. Atsme 💬 📧 18:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracy, misinformation

The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000). ~ ASPCA

The CDC stopped including the breed names after their 1995–1996 report.

Some of our lists are cesspools of misinformation, and raise serious concern because the names of victims are included. For example List of fatal dog attacks, List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, List of dog fighting breeds, Pit bull and other related articles that are based on the same incorrect ancestral history and mistaken belief that modern purebreds (bona fide breeds) recognized by official breed registries are the same dogs as the ancestral pit fighting dogs when that couldn't be further from the truth, as proven or challenged by scientific research. See the following deletion arguments that prevailed, resulting in the deletion of 3 lists that relied on misinformation and anecdotal accounts. We are still dealing with similar lists and articles for the same reasons. Atsme 💬 📧 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

List of research articles

  1. Science: Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes
  2. Nature: Massive study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour
  3. Smithsonian: Dog Breed Doesn’t Affect Behavior, According to New Genetic Research"
  4. Observations | Evolution: The Curious Case of Dogs by Christie Wilcox, an author for Nature Magazine – We picked dogs that were less aggressive or looked unique. And in doing so, we spurred on rapid diversification and evolution in an unbelievable way.
  5. The Conversation: Why Dog Breeds Aren't Considered Separate Species – In the course of dog domestication, their behaviour, morphology and physique has changed, and differences among dog breeds are indeed astonishing. Imagine if future palaeontologists were to find Chihuahua remains in the fossil record: this animal would appear to have little in common with wolves.
  6. The Atlantic: Humans Can’t Quit a Basic Myth About Dog Breeds,

Breed doesn’t have that big an effect on a dog’s personality.

  1. Durham University Study: Modern dog breeds genetically disconnected from ancient ancestors – Breeds such as the Akita, Afghan Hound and Chinese Shar-Pei, which have been classed as "ancient", are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds due to the effects of lots of cross-breeding, the study found.
  2. PLOS: This investigation also demonstrates how strong artificial selection may affect not only desired and selected phenotypes, but also the health of domestic animals... Strong selection by breeders for dogs who retained their skin folds into adulthood has altered the phenotype of the breed to the more commonly heavily wrinkled meatmouth type.
  3. PNAS:(2012) Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography
  4. Lewis & Clark Law School: THE BLACK MAN’S DOG: THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION

Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is partisan. @Atsme: you forgot to mention that dogs identified as "pit bulls" are still being flagged in medical reviews as causing disproportionate injury. [1]. Geogene (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't gotten to that yet, but I will, and it involves forensic studies that are likely to surprise you. Atsme 💬 📧 01:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a fan of the Schrodinger's Pitbull rhetorical game, but in the meantime, there's this 2019 literature review [2] from the International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology that says, Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed from our case series were combined to create a total bite risk plot. Injuries from Pitbull's [sic] and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe. This is about as good as any sources in Wikipedia get. Here's a 2020 paper from the Journal of Pediatric Surgery that says, This impact is likely to be further magnified when the breed of the dog is factored in — known high frequency and high severity offending breeds such as pit bulls [22] might require even greater restriction to reduce the risk. It sounds like doctors aren't impressed with this "you can't identify a pitbull" thing. Geogene (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Geogene, I am not aware of any reputable dog breed registry in existence today that has accepted a purebred Pit Bull into its Stud Book or breed registry. The only purebred that I'm aware of with pit bull in its name is the American Pit Bull Terrier, but official breed registry recognition is limited to the UKC & ADBA. We've been fed a lot of media hype about pit bulls for decades and with it, tons of misinformation and fear mongering. In the first article you cited, it states (my bold underline): Breed specific information may shed light on the risk to own certain types of dogs, but this has not currently been substantiated as a single predictive factor. The article repeatedly refers to pit bull as a breed but it rings hollow as to what comprises a dog breed. They provide stats from 2 regionally distinct trauma centers over 15 years but did not name even one specific breed of dog. The following sources and quotes may help clear your lingering confusion:
  1. See AVMA
  2. Reader's Digest which cites your IJPO link.
  3. Experts say: 'Pit Bulls' Don't Exist
  4. Power of the Pedigree
  5. NCRC DBRF
When I see pit bull and mixed breed dogs in a RS, I see red flags 🚩🚩🚩 because pit bull remains undefined and unverifiable. While you make good points about the dangers of dog bites – and I agree it is a problem – there is no good evidence in the sources you provided that substantiates anything beyond mixed breed dog. For the authors to also include pit bull along with mixed breed is redundant. Readers have no way of knowing what different individuals/witnesses consider a pit bull, or what a pit bull is supposed to look like, much less some form of consistency in the anecdotal descriptions in the reports. We have nothing to verify breed in those reports beyond the fact they were dogs.

  • Given the prevalence of breed-specific legislation, there is a surprising lack of evidence to support its efficacy. This is partially due to the large numbers of mixed breed dogs; estimated in the U.S. to be 51% of all dogs. In most cases, identification of mixed breed dogs is based on physical appearance, creating the potential for misidentification or generalization when bites occur. As noted by Scott and Fuller, physical appearance is a poor indicator of breed or behavior when dealing with mixed breed dogs. Several studies investigating bite reports have reported similar inaccuracies, regardless of the level of prior knowledge of the person performing the identification. Members of the general public, animal shelter workers, law enforcement officers, and human health care professionals have all been shown to make incorrect breed determinations. The media also plays a role in shaping the public opinion in relation to specific breeds, yet media reports are often inaccurate and subjective. ~ Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Nov; 16(21): 4081. Published online 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16214081

  • Time published a very informative article back in 2014 titled "The Problem With People, Not Pit Bulls" that is further supported by recent scientific articles in secondary sources.
  • Bite statistics are public record. They can be found at local county facilities as a source to read bite reports, but, with the understanding that what you are looking at is a set of numbers without explanation. Bites and attacks are effects, to which there are always causes. The article goes on to say: Secondly in regards to statistics, when Pit Bulls are routinely mis-identified, it is more than plausible to see how their numbers are high on reports even though they are rated very high by the American Temperament Test Society as friendly dogs. An animal control officer was once asked why a dog in the lost dog runs was labeled as a Pit Bull even though it was an excellent specimen of an American Bulldog, the response was given that “he’ll end up in the wrong hands anyway just because people will think he’s a Pit”.
  • A more in-depth study published in Acta Paediatr. 2018 May; 107(5): 893–899 Dog bites in a U.S. county: age, body part and breed in paediatric dog bites – the study reviewed 14,926 cases of dog bites reported between 2007–2015. Registrations refers to the dog ordinance registration form that owners are required to complete naming their dog's breed, so if they filled in 'pit bull', they don't know the true breed of the dog:

  • A listed dog breed was available for 7998 (53.5%) cases. Breeds classified as ‘mixed’ constituted 1807 reported dog bites (22.5%) and were removed from further breed analysis. Using public data for dog licenses expiring in 2016, a total of 27,015 registrations were reviewed, of which breed data were available for 26,868 (99.5%). Of these, 9045 records (33.7%) were classified as ‘mixed’ breeds. Among those breeds not recorded as ‘mixed’, ‘pit bulls’, which comprised 4.9% of purebred dogs, accounted for 27.2% of all reported bites.

I'll end it here. Enjoy the weekend. Atsme 💬 📧 06:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for all of these explanations and references. I think (but don't have the data for it) that large-dog bites are more likely to be reported than those by smaller breeds, and also that bites from dogs that look like "pit bulls" are more likely to be reported than if, say, Fluffy Collie bit someone, thereby also skewing statistics in a very misleading way. It's a mess out there. A quagmire. We certainly need all the useful research and statistics that we can get. Elf | Talk 02:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Pit bull (and aren't you surprised)

Content disagreement at Talk:Pit_bull#Nipper, your input is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Also at the GA, Staffordshire Bull Terrier. See TP. Atsme 💬 📧 20:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of RfC at Talk:Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier#Quotes_RfC

Pinging all verified active members & hopefully the non-actives will wake-up and see it, too: MarialeegRVT, KING WIKIPEDIAN DCCLXIV, Lisapollison, SMcCandlish, Annwfwn, Gareth Griffith-Jones, Dswitz10734, Unbiased6969, ARoseWolf, Elf Please participate at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Quotes RfC Atsme 💬 📧 17:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Adding – I initially forgot to add the RfC template, but it is added now so please participate. Atsme 💬 📧 15:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Closed archived discussion

Per a closure request, I have closed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 14#Proposal to update the project's RS guideline. The result was no consensus. I believe a more conservative revision along the lines proposed by SMcCandlish would be more likely to obtain adequate support. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Fighting dog merge discussion

There is a merge discussion within the scope of this Project at Talk:Dog fighting#Merge proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

checkY Atsme 💬 📧 18:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible rename of the WikiProject

Hello! I feel that this WikiProject should be renamed to "WikiProject Canidae" or "WikiProject Canines" since it doesn't focus solely on dogs but all Canidae (which aren't all called dogs, for example the fox). Canidae would be more accurate however most people simply refer to the main focus of the project as "Canines" (probably because the other 2 subfamilies are extinct but still are relevant to the project) which is why I also propose "WikiProject Canines". The current name simply implies it's a WikiProject for the many different breeds of dogs. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Disagree - common name is better so people can find it. WikiProject Canines may refer to teeth. ^_^ Atsme 💬 📧 10:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I understand that, although the issue is that it's innacurate since dogs are simply one of the many species of Canidae (Canis familiaris). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 12:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a very good reason for why we use common names. For example, people look up fox, and they find the article Fox in WP, and in that article that see the taxobox. They don't look up Canidae when looking to read about a fox, the same applies to dog, and wolf. Atsme 💬 📧 15:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware of WP:COMMONNAME. However I don't recall that being something that applies to Wikiprojects? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
This project was established in 2006. WP:PROJGUIDE states: Creating a WikiProject is technically as easy as starting a page titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Your Favorite Topic. The favorite topic here is DOGS. Let's not belabor a name change when we have multiple articles that need work. Atsme 💬 📧 16:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an editor who sometimes reads and writes in this project. Due to special circumstances I haven't been as active I would like lately. But I have enough time to say that I also think that WikiProject Dogs narrows the project down to just dogs on purpose, and those are the articles I come here to find. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Deletion attempt for Darla (dog)

There is an ongoing deletion request for Darla, who starred as Precious in Silence of the Lambs which may be of interest to this project. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Beagle

See this post from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals

Many pages of animals do not have either wikiprojects attached to them or even existant talk pages, on this linked post i listed in my sandbox (since otherwise it would clogged a lot) about 300 such pages, some of which of pertinent to this wikiproject, notably 15 individuals dogs, 2 individuals wolves, 1 wolf-dog breeds and 6 dog breeds. There is probably also a few others pages that could be pertinent to this project.

Entry of the talk page : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Are_individual_animals_page_in_the_WikiProjectMammals_?

Cheers ! Gimly24 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Dog

I like to talking about a dog's 🐶 .Why Xhosa people hate dogs . because a dogs is so nice 🐕🐕Italic 41.114.252.205 (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion. This talk page exists for coordinating the editing of canine-related articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

How many images were requested for Chien Français Blanc et Orange in the to-do list of this project ?

Hello, when i looked at the page today, there is a live picture of the dog breed present. Is this sufficient to mark it as done in the "to-do" list of requested images ?

I assume that in the case of the Pale fox, a live picture is requested instead of an old illustration, so it wouldn't be done.

Thank you and have a wonderful day ! Gimly24 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Both of those sound right to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

'Dog' 'breeds' not descending from wolves?

The Fuegian dog and possibly the Hare Indian Dog (and maybe Paleolithic dog as well as the ancestors of the Falkland Islands wolf) did not come from domestication of grey wolves, yet are generally called dogs and are categorized as such in their articles, is this appropriate? ★Trekker (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I have now created Category:Domesticated canids. I feel like this is a decent solution.★Trekker (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Nipper at Pit bull, again

Talk:Pit_bull#Notable_pit_bulls, your input is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång for notifying our project participants of the above mentioned pit bull discussion. I will add that further discussion has developed about the article in general. I hope participants of this project have this TP watchlisted, and will provide input. Atsme 💬 📧 16:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Fighting dogs, yet again

Due mainly to an IP who edit wars but won't engage in talk page discussion, there's been a spate of POV-pushing that such dog breeds are evil. I've gotten semi-protection for Staffordshire Bull Terrier, but the IP seems to be moving from page to page within the topic area. More eyes on those pages would be helpful. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish, it is an ongoing issue that plagues Project Dogs, and it is not isolated to IP editing as evidenced by the rampant misinformation in the content at American Staffordshire Terrier, and Pit bull. Years of media hype, misunderstandings and misinformation tend to incite advocates of BSL. It is their mission to perpetuate the myth that "pit bull" is a breed that needs to be exterminated, and that people should be warned that their lives are at risk as long as pit bulls exist. SMcCandlish and I were once confronted by such an advocate who knew no limits to doxxing and harassment. Unfortunately, that person was in a leadership position at the time of our encounter, and quite reasonable to be concerned about repeat encounters. Atsme 💬 📧 10:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The off-site doxxing is a major issue for anyone who wades into this content area. This, combined with the fact that its a complex dispute involving maybe 20 academic papers from both the veterinary and plastic surgery fields, and the fact that it's watched by very few people, makes it, in my opinion, an unsolvable problem for Wikipedia. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. In the time since I posted this, the immediate disruption by that IP editor has quieted down. I appreciate the eyes from this WikiProject, and I'm certainly appalled at the degree to which zealots will harass good-faith editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this is going to be a long-term issue, as with any controverial subject. If it comes down to it, we can eventually push for an ArbCom case to officially determine that it's among the Wikipedia:Contentious topics, under discretionary sanctions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The same IP just came back. (And I don't want to cross 3RR.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The Project_Dogs community should be aware, we keep running into the issue of people warring over the dogsbite.org source (See DogsBite.org article for more information). We've recently encountered a sockpuppet account that has made a large number of edits to that page, and other dogs-related pages. Another associated account was banned.
When it's time to discuss whether this is actually a WP:RS item or not (please tag me when this discussion happens), I would like to make the larger dogs project aware of this via my comment in Talk:Dogsbite.org#WP:NPOV_Issues_from_certain_accounts
(diff permalink)
PartyParrot42 (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Should there be community sanctions for dog attacks and/or dog breeds?

Project member input would be welcome at this discussion started by Tamzin. Note that this is an attempt at brain-storming, so please avoid jumping in with bolded "support" or "oppose" !votes at the moment. Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Please stop by if you get a chance - the article needs your attention. Atsme 💬 📧 21:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Need help with japanese dog breeds

Hello, I am trying to add articles on dog breeds that are on the japanese wikipedia but not english wiki. They are old japanese breeds, some are extinct but I would like to document as many as I can. I am struggling due to not being able to speak japanese so I need help finding sources. I currently have drafts for the Mino Shiba Inu, Kawakami Inu, and Jikkoku Inu and need help expanding these so they can hopefully be accepted. Thank you SpookMew (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

To-do list

Can someone edit the to-do list? Its almost 10 years out of date. I can’t figure out how to do it. SpookMew (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone else comes across this, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#WikiProject: Dogs hopefully explains it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Review request

Would anyone be able to review Draft:Kawakami Inu and tell me what I need to change? I did a lot of work on it. Thank you! SpookMew (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

St Hubert Jura Hound Extinct?

I'd appreciate others' research on if this dog breed is extinct: Talk:St._Hubert_Jura_Hound#Extinct? Thanks! Annwfwn (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Phalène

Hi, I think Phalène should be merged to Papillon dog since they’re both the same breed just with different ears. They’re both shown as the same dog in Kennel Club shows and both are included in the standard for the Papillon. The Phalène is just a variety of the Papillon, they even occur in the same litter.

[3]https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/search/breeds-a-to-z/breeds/toy/papillon/

Does anyone know how to do a merge? I’m relatively new to wikipedia SpookMew (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Support. You will want to make it super clear that the FCI considered them to be separate breeds. For this particular move, you will need to manually add phalene into the papillon article. Then go here for steps to merging articles. Annwfwn (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Bitches

I know it's being used in its original sense and isn't being used in a derogatory manner, but I still think there's no need to use the word bitches when male and female would work just fine. Wikipedia should be as safe and welcoming a space as possible without compromising it's integrity. Here, using the word bitches provides no benefit to Wikipedia but serves to potentially distance and offend some viewers. I see no issue in having a terminology page that mentions the use of the term bitches, but I don't think the word needs to be used so prominently in the info boxes on every page. Science Is My Life (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

A bitch is first, and foremost, a female dog. That is the proper and appropriate definition. Its use as a slur or slang term is secondary and should, as such, not be given undue weight by becoming the primarily term. Annwfwn (talk) Annwfwn (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The main problem with the term is that it is jargon. MOS:JARGON, a guideline, advises that language used in articles should be understandable by as many readers as possible. Using the word "bitch" to mean "female dog" does not meet that standard. Using "male" and "female" would meet that guideline's advice while maintaining accuracy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Jonesey95, it's just the correct technical terminology. In all domestic animal breed articles we use the correct technical terminology to describe the sex, parts, gaits, behaviours and other attributes of those animals. Among the innumerable sex-descriptors used as standard in animal articles are mare, stallion, gelding, colt and filly (horses); ram, ewe and wether (sheep); cow, bull, steer, bullock, ox (cattle); cock, hen, goose, gander, drake, duck, tom (poultry) – and so on. Correct technical terminology is in use throughout the encyclopaedia, in every kind of article (try to make sense of one of our pages on American football!).
If you really think that anyone might have difficulty in understanding 'bitch' (which to be honest seems pretty unlikely), perhaps we should link it to a Glossary of dog terms, to be created along the lines of our glossary of sheep husbandry or glossary of equestrian terms. I'm available to help create such a page if you think it essential. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Turns out we have that page. It's at Canine terminology. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Needing to link to a glossary page is a clear indication that jargon or technical terminology is being used. There is no need to use jargon when a clear, accurate alternative is available. Thanks for the examples above, including "mare" and "stallion", which are not used in {{Infobox horse breed}}. See {{Infobox horse breed/testcases}}. You motivated me to look at other animal infoboxes. "Male" and "Female" are also used at {{Infobox goat breed}} and {{Infobox cattle breed}} and {{Infobox sheep breed}}. Male and female symbols are used at {{Infobox bird}}. It looks like consensus is firmly against the use of jargon terms in animal infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
This has been discussed before but it worth revisiting, especially since "bitch" is not actually the problem; "dog" is. Disputation at Template:Infobox dog breed is what brought me here. While the idea that "bitch" in this context is somehow "offensive" is tiresome and silly, we do have a problem that "dog" is ambiguous, being used in various breeding-related articles to mean "male dog" while everywhere else in the same page, from its title on down, it means "dog in general, regardless of sex". That's potentially confusing for readers, even if dog breeders don't mind and prefer using "dog" and "bitch". No one anywhere is confused by "male" and "female". The fact that dog breeders have some specialized terminology doesn't require Wikipedia to use it in our own editorial voice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I've said my piece at Template talk:Infobox dog breed § Revert of change to "males" and "females" (before I became aware of the discussion here). Summarizing it for here: I agree that we should instead use "male" and "female". Technical knowledge is needed for the usage here of "dog" and "bitch", while the terms "male" and "female" don't need that technical knowledge and is therefore clearer to our audience. That ignores "bitch" as an insult outside the context of dogs and at the very least, that simply makes its appearance surprising to our audience.
I agree with Jonesey that "dog" and "bitch" are jargon (which we should "minimize", though I couldn't find MOS:JARGON before), and with SMcCandlish that "dog" is ambiguous about whether it refers to male dogs or all dogs.
At the very least, "dog" and "bitch" needs to be linked to an article/section that explains their technical definitions, but that's ignoring the fact that our change to "male" and "female" will make this matter moot. (Note that as of writing, they're not mentioned in our Canine terminology article.) LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • This popped up on my watchlist. Came here to suggest switching this from "dogs" and "bitches" to "males" and "females", since "bitches" is vulgar and also jargon to a reader unfamiliar with technical dog terms. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I have restored the non-jargon labels in the infobox to match the consensus above, including the consensus in other animal infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Article Dorgi

I have proposed to delete Dorgi. My concerns are that all references bar one are trivial mentions of the dog's relation to the late British Queen and the article features more about the Queen than the cross-breed itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Royal corgis#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Royal corgis#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Vital articles

From what I gather, the unanimous consensus (among those who responded) at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 10#Swap: reorganisation of dogs, to organize the WP:Vital articles listing of key dog articles by dog type and breed purpose instead of cherry-picking particular breeds out of hundreds as more "important" than others, somehow did not get implemented, and we have to vote on it again at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#2022 nominations for some unexplained reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish, your vote formed the consensus at 4-0. We do not need any more voting. We have voted 4-0 that the ignored consensus should be implemented. I was just hoping someone could summarize the add/remove consensus items that remain to be addressed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Albany and West Lodge Bassets

You can view the deletion discussion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Albany_and_West_Lodge_Bassets Traumnovelle (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Spiculosis into Kerry Blue Terrier

I've proposed to merge the articles. You can discuss this on the talk page. Talk:Kerry_Blue_Terrier Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the Indian National Kennel Club able to establish notability?

I'm looking at the Chippiparai and I'm not sure whether or not it meets WP:Notability (breeds), the Indian National Kennel Club is a FCI member but the FCI doesn't mention the breed on it's website. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

List of dog breeds from India claims it has FCI recognition but I cannot find said FCI recognition (unless recognition from the Indian National Kennel Club qualifies as FCI recognition due to it's membership). Traumnovelle (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

English Sheepdog is English Shepherd or Old English Sheepdog?

I came across a US study that noted a predispostion of DCM in 'English Sheepdogs': the problem is I don't know which animal it's referring to. Does anyone familiar with American dogs know if English Sheepdog is used in the US to refer to the English Shepherd? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they meant Old English Sheepdog. DCM is mentioned in that article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I do believe they likely did mean the Old English Sheepdog as 'old' is a pretty simple word to omit from a title, the only reason I'm asking is due to English Sheepdog disambiguating to English Shepherd as well. I just wish for confirmation that 'English Sheepdog' is not a common name for the English Shepherd in the US before I add it. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Expert/reliable source.

I'm not sure whether Ria Horter and the article she wrote: https://caninechronicle.com/current-articles/small-hungarian-sheepdogs-puli-pumi-mudi/ would qualify as a reliable source or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ria Hörter is a judge for The Kennel Club and a prolific writer on dog breeds. Her works have been published by numerous organizations, including the Canadian Kennel Club, Canine Chronicles, Onze Hond and De Hondenwereld (she writes in both English and Dutch). Her primary focus is on working dogs, of which this article pertains. Annwfwn (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll consider it reliable but keep it tagged as it's preferable to have another source unaffiliated with any kennel club. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Spitz article

I believe the Spitz article is in need of an overhaul, given the loose nature of the definition of Spitz it's hard to categorise dogs as spitz or not and most dogs included have no reliable source stating they are a spitz dog.

I propose the list should either be removed or consolidated to dogs that are obviously spitze such as the Pomeranian and German Spitz. If you wish to add your opinion please discuss it on the talk page, I've yet to make any changes so far. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Smoky (dog)#Requested move 28 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Smoky (dog)#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Akita (dog)#Requested move 5 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Akita (dog)#Requested move 5 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs/Archive_15&oldid=1222208869"