Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs

Requesting more input from project members

To give you a quick briefing, there are two main Miniature Australian Shepherd clubs in the US: MASCA and NAMASCUSA. MASCA considers it a variety of the Australian Shepherd breed, while NAMASCUSA has reached an agreement with the AKC and ASCA (Australian Shepherd parent club) that will recognize it (by the AKC) as a separate breed. The ASCA mandated a name change (to Miniature American Shepherd), and does not want Minis breeding with regular Aussies anymore. Naturally, there's some slow-motion edit-warring, and someone would like to create a new page for the Miniature American Shepherd because they consider it a separate breed. You can weigh in here. – anna 04:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Lifespan

What do you think the lifespan column in the infobox should show? The dictionary definition states that it is

The average or maximum length of time an organism, material, or object can be expected to survive or last.

As representation of the health of a breed, the average(either single value or range) is more useful, but as a measure of how much of a commitment getting that breed can be, the maximum or something like the most likely age of death(as a range) is more useful.

Also, when there is a significant difference between lifespan stated in breed books and websites and survey data(of varying reliability) how do we decide which to use? Survey data typically only give mean/median as single values. Would it constitute original research if we read from the tables and graphs and "estimate" a range? --Dodo bird (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been compiling lifespans by looking at reliable resources and merging their given ranges to create one that's more inclusive. When survey data contradicts other information, I'd probably note the average separately (e.g. "9-12 years; avg. 8.45 years"). – anna 09:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Are werewolves really under scope of this project?

Looking here Talk:Lycanthropy I see wiki project dogs - I'd suggest removing the tag - but I'm not anything to do with your project so I thought I'd leave it up to you EdwardLane (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say certainly not, since they aren't an actual recorded creature with a species name. Therefore, i've switched out the Wikiproject Dogs template for the Wikiproject Supernatural/Paranormal template, which I think applies a lot more. Lycanthropes are even less credible than cryptids are; they are generally just considered supernatural folklore. So I would say they certainly don't apply with this Wikiproject. Silverseren^C 04:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Silver seren. I don't think lycanthropy falls within the project's scope at all. – anna 04:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Also agreed. Astrology is not under the scope of the Space WikiProject, for instance - although the subject is superficially related, there's no knowledge that carries over. Zetawoof (ζ) 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hunting dog merge Catch dog?

I just wanted to bring this to the attention of a few more people. There is question as to whether the catch dog page should be merged with the Hunting dog page. Personally I'd never heard of a catch dog before, I'd always known them as pig-dogs. The reasons seem to currently be No merge since pig-dogs are not just used by hunters but also farmers. Yes merge since it is a form of hunting using dogs. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Merge per Keetanii. I've never heard the word, I am not a naive en speaker though. The word can be found only in one dictionary and the definition is different from the article. See [1]. Oda Mari (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have created the merger proposal on the hunting dog page. Interested parties are invited to add their opinion.Hunting dog Merger proposal. I've copied your opinion over to the discussion page Oda, I hope thats okay. Keetanii (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename?

It may be more accurate to call the project "WikiProject Canine" or "WikiProject Canines". Its scope extends beyond dog articles alone, and another project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine, already follows this convention. – anna 05:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support since wolves and foxes are currently classified under the scope of this project. If the name change goes ahead, I think WikiProject Cats should consider following suit.Keetanii (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support would make the inclusion of Wolves and Foxes better. Miyagawa (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support That makes much more sense in terms of the articles already considered in the scope of this project. Silverseren^C 20:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this has been up for several months with no objections, I'll be carrying out the rename to "WikiProject Canine" (as soon as I find out all of the project pages and templates that need to be moved/altered). If anyone wants to put a halt on this, please speak up over the weekend. Anna ^talk 15:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly" under the scope of WikiProject Dogs?

Tagged as being so on the discussion page for above mentioned article. I don't really see why it would be if werewolves aren't then either would this? yes? no? Keetanii (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say most certainly not. It's an aphorism that just so happens to use the term dog. We're not going to include every article that uses the term dog (even in the title) under the scope of this project. The aphorism physically has nothing to do with our scope of canine-based articles. Silverseren^C 06:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought not. I removed the WPDOG|class=c|importance=low tag from the discussion page. Keetanii (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Dog Breed Structure Part II

I put together a dog breed structure, finally! Please take a look and tell me what you think here! cReep talk 04:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Just a couple of points that came to mind

• Change metres to centimetres in the height ranges, otherwise we'll be dealing with sizes like 0.345m instead of 34.5cm
• In the hidden standards section, list in order the relevant clubs ie. AKC, ANKC, UKC, NZKC, CKC, FCI, KC (UK) and the wiki links to their individual pages.
• Not sure about the gallery section, it seems to me that most editors believe that there are enough pictures found throughout the text without having a potentially very large gallery section (which just invites people to put 100s of pictures of their pets) The gallery sections I have seen have required someone watching the page to cut down the number of pictures added (and make sure they are of that breed haha!).

Great work though!! Keetanii (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work! I would agree with the gallery section being dropped - only ones I've seen them on seem inevitably to collect pet photos. The Famous dogs part will be fine with a guidance not attached explaining that it should simply be a bullet pointed list. Miyagawa (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was a serious typo! The guidance should say that it should not be a simple bullet pointed list! Miyagawa (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What information exactly should be put in the working life/activities section of the breed pages? I'm noticing a few pages with "Can compete in confirmation dog shows, agility, obedience, "...Is this kind of information better of formatted in a different way perhaps? A thought came to mind of adding another hidden section to the dog info boxes with the list of general activities the breed is allowed to compete in. As far as I know there are zero breeds that are not allowed to compete in obedience, and even agility trials don't specify that certain size dogs aren't allowed to compete. Dog shows are obviously restricted to breeds registered with certain organisations (already listed in the breed info boxes). Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Keetanii (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it should include anything that the breed is known for being involved in. With conformation showing, I think its only relevant if the breed is particular successful or is ineligible to compete. For the agility and hunting work, there's usually only specific breeds used, and so those would be the ones that it should be included on. Miyagawa (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Rough Collie Issues?

Could I ask someone to have a quick read through the Rough Collie article and tell me if they think all of those improvment tags are still relevant? Please. I wanted to have a go at fixing it up a bit, but I'm at a bit of a loss where to start. So I thought I'd ask for other, more experienced people to take a look and perhaps give some suggestions on what needs fixing. Thanks in advance, Keetanii (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Had a quick look and this is what my initial hit list would be: Expand history section, and remove that massive quote; remove the appearance sub header from description as theres no other sub headers; grooming: if it needs to be there at all, it should be in description and not in health; working section needs to be much bigger if there is a need for it separate to the temperament section; normally I would say to drop the notable dogs section, but in this case I think it needs to be renamed to something like "Lad and Lassie" as these two fictional dogs made the breed instantly recognizable - the rest of the notable dogs can simply be deleted unless they can be merged into the history section (which is what I would do with the presidential collies). Final thing would be to replace all the external links with the dmoz template as its a bit of a link farm down there. If you need any help or guidance on how to do certain things, feel free to hit me up on my talk page, I'm always eager to see editors work on dog breed articles! Miyagawa (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! BTW what is a dmoz template?Keetanii (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the template to go to the Open Directory Project. The tempalte is {{dmoz|insert directory structure here}}. Miyagawa (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wolfpack

The usage of wolfpack and wolf pack is under discussion, see Talk:Wolfpack. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Health Section Structures

While working on and reading through a few dog breed articles, I'm wondering if the health sections shouldn't be made to be somewhat bulleted lists, (eg. Samoyed (dog) health section) which was taken from the german wikipedia page which has GA status. Each disease/condition almost always has it's own wikipedia veterinary medicine page with usually much better information, properly sourced and cited. This would make breed pages easier to read in my opinion instead of sifting through paragraphs of prose for specific conditions that have been known to affect that breed. I am in no way advocating making all sections bulleted lists or anything, just the health sections. I don't think it is really necessary to have Canine Diabetes explained in basic and different terms on every single dog breed page (for example), a link and a short sentence should do, depending on if breed specific information has been found. I also believe in doing this, it would make it easier for people to add diseases/conditions (cited by relevant literature of course) to the breed pages and also make editing the individual disease/condition wiki page easier (using the what links here and then using the citations listed to provide further information on that page as well). What do people think of this thought? Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that it doesn't help to have the confusion of more than one "deep" explanation of the medical issue, especially when it can be a different one on each article. We have some vet/canine specific articles on some but are in need of many others, though. Am hoping to be able to create ones on canine hypothyroid (most common endocrine problem in dogs) and canine Cushing's in future. With the endocrine issues, having one puts the sufferer at risk for other endocrine-related diseases. AFAIK, there's nothing on acromegaly from a veterinary standpoint other than what's on the List of dog diseases. Am sort of surprised, as it's more common in cats than in dogs. When working on Addison's disease in canines, there was really no other place to discuss Pacific Rimism. It's certainly not large enough to warrant its own article, but a line and a ref or two might be helpful for inclusion on those breed pages because they can be in perfect health and still have higher than expected potassium values. We hope (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes we need to get a few more veterinary minded people at the Veterinary medicine wiki project (as well as the Dogs project! I started Sebaceous adenitis and Samoyed hereditary glomerulopathy on en.wikipedia but I am not knowledgable enough to expand them further (nor do I have the resources (other than google scholar of course)). Upon attempt to change the American Akita health section to prose, it was incredable difficult because of the inline citations, and also made it so that inclusion of other diseases or information in the future would have been difficult for at least novice wikipedia users (and just because someone is a novice at wikipedia editing doesn't mean they are not heavily knowledgable in the area in which thay may have wanted to expand a wikipedia article). I would very much like to get some further thoughts and consensus on this matter if possible. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I really would like to get a general consensus from the WikiProject Dogs members about this. If agreed I was going to get started on some of the health sections of different breed pages to update them to something more like what is on the American Akita page at the moment. Doing this might also help to get a firm grasp of what dog-veterinary aritcles are missing or need expanding (I've noticed alot of diseases that are only described in therms of humans and not other animals). I certainly wouldn't wantto go changing some more of the breed pages without this consensus, since I understand that WikiProject dogs likes to have similar layouts on each breed page to keep things uniform. Keetanii (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that the bullet points just don't look right - the types of health issues are much better in prose with similar issues grouped together. Any such health issues of course need to be cited, and preferably accompanied with information on the rate of affliction in the breed along with comparison with any similar breeds. Going into generic information about the issue isn't required unless there isn't an article for it (at the time of writing English Cocker Spaniel for instance, Rage Syndrome didn't exist). I wouldn't say that articles need the depth of health information as in Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, which was the result of a failed attempt to get it past FA. Miyagawa (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Kangal/Anatolian Shepherd

Kangal Dog and Anatolian Shepherd Dog are using the same image in their infobox. Both articles claim the two breeds are separate (without citations) yet I have seen discussions that they are the same. The respective categories at Commons are also similarly jumbled and do not help. Which one should actually be using the image? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

They are recognised as two seperate breeds. Please see the ANKC websites for standards here and here. It turns out, the Kangal page has the wrong image. Thankyou for pointing that out. Keetanii (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Aha, the problem is that the breed is recognised as one and the same in some countries and as two seperate breeds in other countries. The picture is of a dog from the UK where they are considered the same breed. Keetanii (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If they are considered the same breed (especially in an English-speaking country such as the UK) should the separate articles be merged into one, with single or multiple sections dealing with how the breed is viewed? If not merged, should not alternate images be used in the separate articles to define the differences in how the breeds are viewed? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose The ANKC is the Australian Kennel Controlling body (Australia is a major english speaking country) and they are recognised as different breeds. The two articles clearly pass wikipedia's notability guidelines. While different images would be nice, there is a distinct lack of good photos of these breeds available with a free GNU licence. This is not to say that there is a distinct lack of good specimens in english speaking countries. At the moment that image is about the best available for both breeds. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Further seperate breed notability here Keetanii (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no law that says we must have one article per breed. If two breeds are similar, and some sources consider them them the same breed whilst others consider them separate, it could actually be easier to untangle & explain the situation to readers in a single article. bobrayner (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That would end up requiring 2 possibly 3 history sections, not to mention 2 possibly 3 description sections (I say possibly three because if we go down this path, the Akbash dog will probably get tangled up in this as well (see here)). Furthermore, if we start heading down this path there are many other breed articles which would need to have the same thing done to them. While there is no law stating that each breed requires it's own page, it seems bizzare to me that these two would just be lumped in together when they are notably different breeds in two major English speaking countries.Keetanii (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

...And yet in other parts of the world they are not separate breeds.

Having multiple copypasted description & history sections in one article would be silly. If there's an ambiguity between breeds, descriptions, standards &c we should resolve that in prose rather than blindly applying standard article types or copypasting sections which had not been conceived with this problem in mind. bobrayner (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I say that the article would need multiple copy-pasted description and history sections? No. So please don't mis-represent what I am saying, that was a simple strawman fallacy. Keetanii (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You appeared to oppose on the basis that the article would need multiple history sections and multiple description sections. If you are now conceding that we could actually describe the maybe-two-breeds-or-maybe-one with a single "history" section and a single "description" section &c in an article (or, heaven forbid, we could use whatever section headings best fit the prose, rather than copying the headings used in other articles) then I'm happy to go forward from there. bobrayner (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You have as much right to edit pages as I do and don't need my approval. I once suggested merging catch dog and hunting dog for similar reasons to you but was shot down, it seemed to me after that, that some overlap is not generally an acceptable reason to merge articles (perhaps I too readily concede my opinions). I certainly don't know everything, and have even been known to be proven wrong from time to time! I'll strike through my opposition, since noone else has weighed in and because you seem so enthusiastic to make something better out of the articles. In years to come, they may need to be seperated again, due to world wide recognition as seperate breeds and perhaps the breeds diverging further genetically (thus one breed being prone to one disease and the other not, etc.) and phenotypically, but that would be a long way down the track. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The bulldog article

reads like it was written by a bulldog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.102.14 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

perhaps you could have a shot at fixing it? Keetanii (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of American Akita and Akita Inu

It is proposed that American Akita and Akita Inu be merged into Akita (dog), which currently is a redirect to Akita Inu. Please comment at Talk:Akita_Inu#Merger_proposal:_July_2011. --Philcha (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Still need more comments until a concensus can be reached. Keetanii (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone going to comment? --Philcha (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

King Charles Spaniel FAN

Letting the dog project know that King Charles Spaniel has been nominated as a Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King Charles Spaniel/archive1. (If you want to be notified of these sorts of things without relying on someone posting here, watch this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Article alerts) Anna ^talk 20:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Western Veterinary Conference Proceedings

The proceedings for many years worth of the Western Veterinary Conference were online and free for all to view at omnibooks online, but for the past few days, all you get is the Apache server page there. When trying for a PDF link, you get "file not found" from the Apache server.

Have sent them an e-mail asking whether the papers will be back online at omnibooks or if they have moved them elsewhere. If they've moved them to a site where viewing isn't free to all, we probably will have a job replacing some of the links & refs for the dog and veterinary articles. The ones used in the diabetes and other endocrine articles are not affected because they are hosted elsewhere. Did some preliminary searching and found that at least some of the papers can be found at Google docs. Will post here after they give me a reply about what happened to them. We hope (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Dog Breed Info -- reliable source or not?

A disagreement over whether, and if so, where, dogbreedinfo.com is permissible as a source on Wikipedia. Anna (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Background

The source Dog Breed Info has been called into question several times in the past: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_47#Dog_breed_sources Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#Nineteen_dog_breed_sources_in_question Additionally, it's been tossed out in GA reviews and AfDs. In the second RSN link, there was a tenuous consensus to allow me to go through and prune Dog Breed Info citations from articles (or at least no one objected). When I did that to King Shepherd, however, User:Shepaluteprez undid my change and posted on my talk page. You can see the ensuing discussion here (her message) and here (further exchange) I'm just now getting around to starting this as I've had a lot on my plate recently, but I wanted to put it up for wider feedback as no definitive decisions have been made yet.

Basically, my position on it is that Dog Breed Info, and similar sites, almost certainly fail the reliable source criteria: the author is not identified, there's no indication that he/she/they are "expert" in the Wiki-way, and seemingly no editorial oversight is exercised. Counterarguments to that could be that it has received attention in the media (it's very prominent in Google Searches) and rarer breeds have less sourcing options. I agree with that and can sympathize, but most of the information there could be pulled from primary sources (breed clubs, registries, etc.) just as easily, and it would probably be somewhat more accurate. Additionally, if this is considered acceptable, it may be used to prop up many of the "non-notable" designer dog articles during their AfDs, even though there's no indication that the information is coming from anyone worth citing -- for all we know they're making guesses themselves in many of those cases. And when dealing with even slightly common breeds, there is no need to cite this site -- plenty of other resources are out there, even if you have to trek to the library for them (see Greater Swiss Mountain Dog for an example that uses DBI as a source but doesn't need to). I don't know how their pages are put together -- Shepaluteprez said that the American Alsatian club contacted the site, but we don't know how other pages are written. She's free to expand upon her points below if I've missed something and it's not in the discussion links above.

Should this site be accepted for use in...

• All articles?
• No articles?
• Certain articles? (criteria can be suggested)

Please weigh in below -- I think this summarizes it adequately but anyone is free to elaborate if they think I've missed out on something. Cheers, Anna (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

As you all may know, I have an invested interest in the American Alsatian dog breed apart from Wikipedia and so I taught myself some basic Wikipedia policies and learned some of what is acceptable and what is not to help improve the American Alsatian article. With just a bit of knowledge in hand, I recently ventured out to help another dog breed article, the King Shepherd, since there were absolutely no sources at all in the article. I remember back when I first created the American Alsatian article and how quickly it was deleted due to lack of sourcing. See: Speedy Deletion Therefore, I sought to help the article by adding some sourcing, although I soon found that third party sourcing remains very obscure for this breed. The first source I added was dogbreedinfo.com as many other dog breeds use this source for their articles (Anna has graciously already referenced that for us), I wanted to adhere to Wikipedia's no original research policy and I was not aware of previous controversy to the dogbreedinfo.com site as a source.

So, back to dogbreedinfo.com... In my breed's case, although our club did contact dogbreedinfo.com initially (which consequently also happens with newspaper articles), the author of the site (I've contacted dogbreedinfo to see if I can get a name, but have no response yet) asked numerous questions regarding our breed before writing the article. Dogbreedinfo posted the article after interviewing us through email. A major fault I can see in this case is that the dogbreedinfo article on the American Alsatian may not have been peer reviewed and fact checked by someone else other than the author... that we know of. Also, is the author anyone of notability and is the information generally accurate? I don't know for sure about that, but dogbreedinfo.com is referenced by many other reliable sources as mentioned previously in the discussions with Anna above and in my breed's case, the information is accurate.

The dogbreedinfo (reliable source or not?) issue really comes into play when a rare breed has little third party reliable sourcing available. I, personally, have no issue with taking out dogbreedinfo sourcing on breeds that have better sources available to them. Consider the following guideline from Wikipedia: identifying reliable sources, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." (Which is exactly what we are doing here! Thank you, Anna.) In more prominent breeds, dogbreedinfo may not be the "best such source for that context." However, in a rare breed that has not received much media coverage, but nonetheless has legitimate breed status (as is the case with the King Shepherd through ARBA), but dogbreedinfo is arguably one of VERY few third party reliable sources (one of which only includes a standard and the other briefly mentions one fact). Rare breeds, with little PR relations, have less to go on as other more well-known breeds. That is when sites like dogbreedinfo can truly play a role in supporting the information in the article, in my opinion.

By the way, Rightpet is another website very much like dogbreedinfo, except you know the author's name, Brett Hodges. He interviewed us and wrote an article. I'm not certain he was fact checked or peer reviewed, either. Also, I've been told from another Wikipedia editor that Sarah's Dogs was reliable. You only know her first name and is she fact checked or peer reviewed? I can't say for sure. So, even though this particular discussion is about dogbreedinfo being reliable or not for dog articles on wikipedia, perhaps we ultimately need to look at exactly what we are going to allow as reliable third party sourcing on dog articles and what we are not. I believe Anna has wanted to create a list of good reliable third party sourcing, at least for the obscure dog breed website sources. The big ones like AKC probably would just be assumed, but we all know what assuming does, right?  :) Anyway, I'm good either way, but I do want to make the case for those rare breeds out there that may already have few reliable sources to go on. I'd hate to see them all deleted from Wikipedia until more reliable sources appear, but that's just my opinion. Greetings to all, Shepaluteprez (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know if this suggestion is feasable, but...What if we left in Dogbreedinfo (and for that matter Rightpet and Sarah's dogs), strictly only in circumstances where the breed is too rare, uncommon or has little english tranlated information available? If that idea were to be adopted, I would suggest that a notice be put on those pages to the effect that "this page requires better references in the future to meet wikipedia's quality standards." or something to that effect. Just a thought. Keetanii (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think Keetani's suggestion is an excellent compromise for the lesser-known breeds. While I'm not a member of this WikiProject, we have a similar situation at the Equine WikiProject; without sources which would otherwise not meet the reliable-source guidelines, many articles on small or obscure breeds would be unsourced (I know this, because I've written a couple :-)).--Miniapolis (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I like Keetanii's suggestion too, but I'd like to note that Sarah's Dogs was already tossed out in one of the discussions above, and as I've found lots of errors there and there's zero author info, less than DBI, I -- personally -- am not really comfortable with its use in such a prevalent resource as Wikipedia. That was hashed out on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and Miyagawa seemed to agree. Another concern: if this is acceptable, do we allow the random designer breeds that have pages on these commercial sites, even if there are no truly suitable resources that cover them? How important is WP:V in relation to these articles? I know there's WP:IAR, but I'm not sure it makes sense here -- others disagree, it seems. Personally I'd prefer unsourced to poorly-sourced (in reference to many articles, not the ones discussed), but I may be in the minority! Tossing these out here for discussion.
• Shepaluteprez: do you know how the King Shepherd page was put together? You've made strong arguments for its use in American Alsatian. Cheers, Anna (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think we will need to have a seperate debate about designer dog articles. I do think a guidline needs to be put in place for what is acceptable as far as designer dog articles go. The problem is that there are over 400 different pure breeds of dog, with a cross for each of those the number of possible designer dog breed articles is phenominal! Keetanii (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would argue that the GNG sets a reasonable bar. Out of all those thousands of possible combinations, only a small subset will actually have been bred, and discussed sufficiently by third parties. bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• True true, although this is going off topic, so I'll stop commenting until a specific thread is made. Keetanii (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with that, but I'm concerned because what's under discussion is Dog Breed Info as a reliable source. Since notability mandates coverage in reliable, secondary sources, DBI will be used as justification in AfDs if dubbed "reliable". It covers many different crosses and it can be difficult to separate the two in some cases -- when does a cross turn into a breed? There can be ambiguity, although that's rare. That's part of the reason I'm so uneasy about making exceptions for it -- it just doesn't fit any of the reliable source criteria and I don't see why we should make *blanket* exceptions. On an article-by-article basis is reasonable; justification like what Shepaluteprez has offered for the American Alsatian article is great (she's certainly made good points and I wouldn't try to remove it there!). Am I missing something obvious in WP:RS, WP:SELFPUBLISH or WP:SOURCES? This site just doesn't fit, which in turn goes against the verifiability policy. I can't prove a negative; I've spent some time looking myself and turned up blank. Cheers, Anna (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source - The WP:Reliable source guideline requires that sources be accurate and trustworthy. The Dog Breed Info web site appears to be a very informal web site. There is no clear indication who the author is, or if the information was reviewed for accuracy by any peer, editor, or quality assurance group. Advertising appears to be a primary goal, and the layout is rather random and disorganized. If the topic of dog breeds were a rare topic, with very few other sources, then perhaps informal web sites could be used as a last resort. However, there are scores of highly regarded books on the topic of dog breeds, therefore there is no reason to resort to informal web sites. The fact that it is a web site is not fatal: indeed, web sites run by reputable organizations known for accuracy and quality may be acceptable. For example, web sites of large, well-organized dog organizations such as www.akc.org would meet the WP:RS requirements. But not dogbreedinfo.com. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I posted a notice at the Reliable sources noticeboard so other editors with RS experience could provide input. --Noleander (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not Reliable - (posting as a result of Noleander's request at WP:RSN) - I don't see any indication that this website meets our standards of reliability. To call this website reliable we would have to know who is behind the website, and we don't. We don't know who the author is... we have no indication that they know what they are talking about... we don't even have an address to tell us where this "center" is. Without such information, we must assume that it is nothing more than one (anonymous) person's dog oriented fan-site. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not Reliable, also here from RSN. I concur with Blueboar. I am also concerned that editors with a "vested interest" in any of the more obscure breeds would suggest that we relax standards because of a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Vested interest suggests a COI, and those with a potential COI should try to be very careful to not even appear to be promoting a particular view. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well that seems to be having a go at me, so I'll reply. I have no vested interest. I do own 2 dogs, neither of them are rare breeds by any strech of the imagination. I suggested a relax in standards for the rare breeds as a compromise. I also suggested that a notice be put on all pages that use any of those unreliable sources. Sheesh, you have zero evidence against any of the editors who were just looking for a compromise to suggest that they have a COI. It was only a suggestion, not a vote one way or the other. Keetanii (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keetanii, I don't think Nuujiin was referring to you. Anna (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Nuujinns point about how he is "concerned that editors with a "vested interest" in any of the more obscure breeds would suggest that we relax standards because of a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources." That concerns me as well. The impression I got from the discussion above the RfC was: "for well-documented breeds, we'll stick to reliable sources, but for some new/obscure breeds, we'll make an exception and use this informal web site as a source." If that was the thrust of the discussion, that is not really consistent with WP reliable sources policy. Reliable sources are required for all breeds: well-known and obscure. --Noleander (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

For clarification, I reacting to the first line of this section, but not addressing my comment to any particular editor, and I apologize if my comment was offensive to anyone. But we should not relax our standards because we want to have an article on a given subject, even if we note it, when there are insufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with all of this, thanks for putting it so well. I'd like to say that I think its use is okay in American Alsatian, and American Alsatian only, because the president of the breed club has personally vouched for its accuracy. That's an unusual situation and I think it merits special consideration and common sense. Other breeds, no. Anna (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• not reliable I came via RfC, not RSN. THis seems to be both user generated and self-published, generally considered the lowest quality sources, and the most unreliable, only a tad above a personal blog. However, I could see it being used in WP:EL external links if an alternative is not existing (similar to the use of the IMDB in articles on films and actors). In general, it would seem to me that in this topic area such "better" external links can be found trivially, for example, breed registrars and non-commercial/non-profit associations usually have websites for breeds, with relevant information that cannot be used for sourcing, but is perfect for external linking, so I would advice to refrain from linking to this website unless absolutely no alternative can be found. --Cerejota (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not reliable Here from RSN where I replied to one of the previous threads on dog related sources. This site does not fulfill the WP:RS criteria, as explained by others above. And as Noleander already touched on above, there seems to be a strong focus on finding online sources on dog breeds. Surely there must be offline dead-tree books and magazines about dogs and dog breeds? Sources absolutely do NOT need to be accessible over the internet to be reliable and usable (WP:SOURCEACCESS.) Often the highest quality, most reliable sources are books that are only accessible offline. Siawase (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. Wikipedia articles often have a kind of FUTON bias, but there are lots of other good sources out there. bobrayner (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I still think a list of good online resources, however short, would be valuable to some here. Many editors do gravitate toward the easiest source of information, aka whatever comes up on the first page of Google, and that would at least be a way of minimizing damage, though we obviously don't need to cite an all-breed website in most articles. Agreed that there is a frustrating bias, though. Anna (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Here via RSN. I have my doubts that its even a good source for verifying notability, as Shepaluteprez says that his club contacted the site to get their dog listed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)