Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Dogs: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:29, 13 August 2019 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,813 edits →Re-opened an AfD: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 22:33, 13 August 2019 edit undoAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,813 edits →Misplaced Pages policy and purposes as regards this topic: responseNext edit →
Line 176: Line 176:


::::And WHO, pray tell, gets to decide which dogs/breeds/landraces/types belong in the proposed ] article or category? Even classifying a dog to go under such a title would require an outside reliable source, else it be ]. You are treading in the scientific field of ]ing with this ] proposition, to a depth where ] never dared to trod. — ] (]) 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC) ::::And WHO, pray tell, gets to decide which dogs/breeds/landraces/types belong in the proposed ] article or category? Even classifying a dog to go under such a title would require an outside reliable source, else it be ]. You are treading in the scientific field of ]ing with this ] proposition, to a depth where ] never dared to trod. — ] (]) 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, first we need to get the encyclopedia back on track following WP:GNG, N, V and NOR. Why is it important? Well...let's start with the following article that is quite disturbing:
stated:
{{talkquote|"Not only do shelters misidentify breeds as much as 75 percent of the time, but as used by shelters, law enforcement agencies and even courts, “Pit Bull” is not a breed of dog. It is, according to a leading advocacy organization, “a catch-all term used to describe a continually expanding incoherent group of dogs, including pure-bred dogs and mixed-breed dogs. A ‘Pit Bull’ is any dog an animal control officer, shelter worker, dog trainer, politician, dog owner, police officer, newspaper reporter or anyone else says is a ‘Pit Bull.’” When it comes to dogs we call “Pit Bulls,” PETA is not only killing them based on meaningless stereotypes, they are asking shelters to kill dogs they mistakenly think fit those stereotypes by the way they look."}}
Other articles of note: , , , and on and on. We do not want WP to be used as a source of misidentified breeds and breed types. We MUST get the article right, and our core content policies are quite clear about how we go about it. I'm thinking we need to include a paragraph about misindentified breeds in our ] article. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 22:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


== Re-opened an AfD == == Re-opened an AfD ==

Revision as of 22:33, 13 August 2019

WikiProject iconDogs Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

Sections of this talk page older than 180 days are automatically archived by MiszaBot.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Should Hulk the pitbull get an article?

Is the dog Hulk (dog) the pitbull notable as a dog even the he has an online show on Barcroft TV. . Dwanyewest (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Barcroft TV channel isn't even notable to have its own page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Why not just include it in Pit bull? 13:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Dog Breeds by weights?

I'm looking for a sortable list of dog breeds by weight, weight range, etc. AKC's list of breed weights is very useful, but it is not sortable by weight. Would such a list here on WP be useful, and not considered copyvio? It'd be nice if the list could be automatically generated from the breed article's infobx, à la SemanticWiki, but that's probably not feasible. But if went through the effort to put such a list together, with cited refs, would it be useful? sbb (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested Edit

I requested trimming some unsourced commentary on a page about a dog food brand here under the heading "Un-Cited Content." I have a disclosed COI and the page doesn't look very active, so I thought someone here might have a minute to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 21:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on American Veterinary Medical Association on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of a American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) literature review on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § American Veterinary Medical Association. — Newslinger talk 01:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Dogsbite.org controversy

Is there anyone here willing to solve the Dogsbite.org controversy regarding the neutrality of the sources and what is and not acceptable. There has being a prolong debate at Talk:Dogsbite.org if anyone would like to contribute in helping resolve the issue it would be most welcome.193.164.114.35 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Dogbreed template

Hello. I don't know why I don't manage to formate the dog breed infobox in the article Pražský Krysařík. It does not show the section "classification and standards". I tried to check several other articles that use the same template, but they seem to be fine and I have a problem only with this article. In case if someone could help me, this is the section I am trying to add there: "|fcigroup = 9 |fcisection = 9 Continental Toy Spaniel, Russian Toy and Prague Ratter |fcinum = 363 (provisional) |fcistd = |akcgroup = |akcstd = |ankcgroup = |ankcstd = |ckcgroup = |ckcstd = |kcukgroup = |kcukstd = |nzkcgroup = |nzkcstd = |ukcgroup = |ukcstd = |notrecognized =" --Canarian (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Canarian, I hope you do not mind me moving the conversation here. From what I can tell, you require the URL link to the breed standard to make it work. I think I have fixed it. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC).

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No source for Drafting dog

There are no live sources for Drafting dog --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Should Dogsbite.org be retitled?

Does anyone think Dogsbite.org should be retitled to DogsBite.org as that is how the website is titled? What are other users opinions? Dwanyewest (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Nah...the website is www.dogsbite.org in lowercase. When you type either in the search bar, the correct page comes up. Our time would be better spent fixing the issues at that article. Just my 5¢ worth. Talk 📧 17:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Atsme Maybe DogsBite.org should be a redirect as a compromise a debate seems to have started on Talk:Dogsbite.org. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Change "Rescue Dog"

The proper term for a dog saved from a shelter or abuse is a RESCUED dog, not a rescue dog. Please use proper grammar. A rescue dog would do rescue work, not be rescued.

Actually, it's called a "rescue" as are horses and other rescued animals. For WP purposes, common name article titles would be Animal rescue (dog), and Animal rescue (equine) and so on. SPCA calls it animal rescue and they are commonly referred to as rescue dogs, rescue horses, rescue cats. Dogs that rescue people are called search and rescue dogs (SAR). Talk 📧 15:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Swinford Bandog

An article of interest to the project—Swinford Bandog—has been proposed for merging with Bandog. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Kaelin up for deletion

IMO, well sourced article about a geneticist. But you can help improve it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee Good Article nomination

FYI, I've nominated Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee, the 2009 Westminster Best in Show winner, for Good Article. However, I was at a bit of a loss for the category in which to nominate him. I ulimately went with "Culture, sociology and psychology", but if anyone has any thoughts for a different, better category, let me know. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Natural Sciences: Biology & Medicine is what you seek. William Harristalk 09:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Bulldogge Brasileiro

Hello, I nominated the article Bulldogge Brasileiro for an AFD as not notable due to only one minor breeder and a lack of citations. The article notes there are only fifty dogs of this rare breed. It is to soon for a Misplaced Pages article to me; however, others should provide input to buildup a consensus, one way or another. In addition, we could merge article to Bulldog breeds, to keep the information in Misplaced Pages without having its own article. Aquataste (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Aquataste, I agree with you and deleted the section for the reasons you mentioned. Please see my comment on the article TP. I am also going to research other articles that fail GNG, V, OR as it appears WP is being used to give credibility to non-established types of dogs. I am pinging William Harris and Montanabw for more input. I will be on my laptop in a bit and will ping more editors who have an interest in this topic area. Talk 📧 12:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Atsme hi you misunderstand the article deletion consensus was to merge the article stand alone page to Bulldog breeds. SEE Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bulldogge Brasileiro. Aquatastetalk 13:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I saw that, but that doesn't make it compliant with WP:PAG. The AfD said merge, but there was no discussion on the TP of the bulldog article as to what should be merged. It is not unusual for merge discussions on the TP of the recipient article to eliminate all or most of the material, especially that which is noncompliant. Talk 📧 13:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I recommend that any text taken from what was once the Bulldogge Brasileiro article should be able to WP:CITE expert WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY. There are no reliable sources offered in that article, in my opinion. You have now raised the issue of dubious "breed clubs" and their claims elsewhere; most commendable. William Harristalk 08:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixing of Paisley Terrier article

A small part of the last section of the Paisley Terrier article has been deleted. Can it be fixed?Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Malcolmlucascollins, please provide the WP:DIFF so we will know to what you are referring. Talk 📧 12:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Chinese TianYuan Dog

Anyone care to try to evaluate whether this dog is notable? All sources are in Chinese, so Chinese language skills would be a big help! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Time to establish guidelines

Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dogs/Members – This is the correct page. Talk 📧 14:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

One of the conundrums brought about by the internet is an influx of dog registry associations in various flavors, many of which are registering breed-types that do not necessarily adhere to long established practices for developing breed standards. Long established purebred registries and their official kennel clubs are considered RS for dog descriptions, breed standards, breed history, etc. Such registries would include The Kennel Club, American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club, Canadian Kennel Club, Australian National Kennel Council, and comparable others across the globe. The issues that concern me are the new associations and registries that have sprung up on the internet such as the United Canine Association (UCA), American Rare Breed Association which is also a double registry because they "register dogs recognized by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale or by its own board of directors that are not yet recognized by the American Kennel Club." I find the latter somewhat disconcerting. We also have a List of kennel clubs, many of which are red-links. WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:V, and/or WP:RS are at issue, as is what actually constitutes a "breed" or "purebred dog". This morning I spent a bit of time checking citations for some of our dog articles and was overwhelmed by what I found, some of which are used as citations in our articles, and/or were used to establish notability. Examples: Sarah's dogs, Royal Canin, Dog Breed Info, Dog Time, Vet Street, etc. Let's discuss.

Pinging a few: Chrisrus, Montanabw, Cyclonebiskit, Elf, SMcCandlish, Doug Weller, White Arabian Filly, Cavalryman V31, Gareth Griffith-Jones, 7%266%3Dthirteen, Tikuko Talk 📧 19:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Fix & add: Cavalryman, William Harris Talk 📧 19:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Our colleague Chris has not been active for over a year, I have sent him emails twice and it saddens me to fear the worst.
The issue is compounded by commercial interests that cross-breed dogs and then claim that the product is a new "breed" recognised by a "breed club" or "breed registry" which they themselves have established. Additionally, the internationally recognised kennels provide dubious histories of their dogs which are based on myth, legend and heresay rather than historical research. You have seen this type of thing before where they state: "There are depictions of (insert name of any breed here) on cave walls dating back 9,000 years." Fortunately the FCI has begun to remove these types of claims; the others have much work to do. William Harristalk 08:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
This is going to be a real mess. The 'status' of being a "recognized breed" (or not) by various clubs is itself dubious. It has a lot to do with pirating breed registrations (and attendant fees). As an example (of which I am personally familiar) the Leonberger Club of America largely did not want to be part of the American Kennel Club. There were some members that wanted recognition. Recognition came nonetheless; some of this is based upon a breed's "popularity."
And of course, there are the ancillary decisions as to what is a "breed." One need only look at Akita, Akita Inu and American Akita to see how that plays out. Or look at German Longhaired Pointer, German Shorthaired Pointer and German Wirehaired Pointer.
Likewise the matter of groupings.
Individual clubs differ, and they have their own agendas and purposes. Some are in it for the betterment of the breed, and some less so. So we should tread carefully. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
William Harris, 7%266%3Dthirteen, Montanabw, Gareth Griffith-Jones - let's try to model after Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Resources and establish a set of guidelines for RS in much the same way they established MEDRS. Breeds that are not officially recognized by notable breed registries do not belong in the pedia unless the article is compliant with NOR, V, NPOV, GNG and all material is RS. I'm of the mind that the first thing we need to do is create a DOGRS standard (like WP:MEDRS) which includes a list of recognized breed registries and websites that are acceptable. It is the only way we're going to get a handle on these OR & PROMO articles. Common sense and good judgement tells us that if the dog is not recognized by one of the non-profit breed registries it is not a "purebred" therefore it is just a "type" of dog - a Heinz 57 or mutt or backyard creation that happens to look like a purebred, or it is a crossbred that a person or group is attempting to get recognized as a breed and they're using WP as their platform. We are also experiencing issues with advocates of Breed-specific legislation which has introduced noncompliance with WP:NOT, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. Then we have the good-intentioned dog lovers who write blogs, or proclaim themselves as experts and simply don't know or try to understand our PAGs. These are issues our project can resolve.
I don't forsee any problems identifying notable breed registries once we establish guidelines per consensus. We have more than our share of backyard breeder websites, self-proclaimed experts (puppy mills & dog lovers) providing online "information" about dogs, and commercial dog registries which are not unlike unaccredited institutions of learning & higher ed. We simply handle those types of registries the same way we do the unaccredited others. Much of the information in our current dog articles is poorly sourced, and some of the articles about "breeds" are not breeds at all, and fail both OR and V. We can fix those issues but we need to do so with as a project using a consensus-building approach, not unlike the incredible accomplishments of Project Med with their informative project site and creation of MEDRS. Talk 📧 13:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Elf - active member. Talk 📧 13:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy and purposes as regards this topic

Let me start with an analogy: some people would say that because a word isn't "yet" in any printed dictionary, it isn't a word. Remember "ain't"? These words were only recently recognized by the OED: co-parent, deglobalization, e-publishing, hangry, mansplain, and selfie. The subject of linguistics teaches that words crop up spontaneously in a population, become commonly used in speech, and then get put into a dictionary. It's a matter of which comes first. In this analogy, the common use of the word comes before the recognition of the word by dictionary companies. The same applies to the creation of dog breeds and their eventual recognition (or not) by kennel clubs and breed registries.

Breeds are created by people, not necessarily groups of people, and sometimes by just one person. That person, or the groups of people, may not care about "recognition" by a breed registry, may not be interested in paying others for registration of "their" dogs. Many believe that recognition by an organization with its breed standards and bent towards conformation shows will destroy the hard work put into the creation and establishment of a foundation stock and ongoing breeding programs (see Conformation show#Criticism), and may lead to health problems for an entire population of dogs. It's long been proven that focusing soley on conformation will ruin a breed's temperament, and that's why no one in Germany purchases a German Shepherd puppy unless both its sire and dam have also passed at least basic Schutzhund training (including passing the firearms test), proving their solid temperaments. The lack of buyer-pressure of behavioral and performance testing of breeding stock in the USA has produced a country full of almost useless gunshy and thunder-terrified GSDs, causing police departments to almost exclusively import their dogs from Europe and eastern European countries.

To say that a dog breed isn't a real breed because it hasn't been sanctioned by, rubber stamped from, or incorporated into, a national organization is the same snobbery as saying "ain't" ain't a real word in today's English-speaking world.

Do not allow the use of the Misplaced Pages platform to attempt to redefine the word "breed" to something it is not!

Check any dictionary and you'll discover there are many definitions for each word, each slightly different from the others. You'll discover that all definitions are valid; some used more frequently than others in ordinary speech. To exclude all other meanings of a word in favor of one single meaning is contrary to the purpose of Misplaced Pages and specifically to the policy Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. There are several definitions of the word 'breed', only one of which means what we traditionally understand to be a purebred. To require Misplaced Pages editors to exclude all other uses of the word 'breed' in favor of one single specific meaning is Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. I understand the desire to want some form of standardisation, but you cannot cause the rest of world to conform to this idea, and as Misplaced Pages editors we report what is out there in real life; not what we want it to be.

GNG policy: Note that the GNG policy Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline does not exclude the mention of non-notable subjects, it only describes which subjects shouldn't get their own standalone article. The section is followed immediately by Misplaced Pages:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Therefore, using the high standard of WP:GNG to exclude all mention of non-notable dog breeds from inclusion within any and all Misplaced Pages articles is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy.

MEDRS: The idea that content about dog breeds need a strict policy such as WP:MEDRS (Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)) is not defensible. The purpose of MEDRS is so that ideas about untested, controversial, or dangerous matters do not affect the health and well-being of a population through reading about it in Misplaced Pages. There's probably also a liability factor to Misplaced Pages if they allowed casual re-publication of fringe medical ideas. The risk of inclusion of minor, rare, or controversial dog breeds in an encyclopedia has no such risk factor.

I don't believe there is a rampant uncontrollable "OR & PROMO problem" that needs further policymaking as a solution. Misplaced Pages already has plenty of policy to handle it; just edit and move on.

  • We already have a policy against standalone articles for non-notable topics: WP:GNG
  • We already have a policy against using unreliable sources: WP:RS
  • We already have a policy against writing original research: WP:OR
  • We already have a policy against advertising and advocacy: WP:NOTADVERTISING

In closing: the proposed idea (of codifying the word 'breed') is a wrong use of Misplaced Pages resources, is contrary to its key purposes, and violates Misplaced Pages policy.

— Nomopbs (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Which underscores an issue not addressed - what to do about the landraces. For example, the Indian pariah dog. The Landrace#dogs came into being long before the Victorian-era clubs commenced their selective breeding. There are nearly 1 billion dogs on this planet, most of them do not fall under the category of a breed that is recognised by a Western kennel club. However, I also note that none of the landrace articles claim them to be a dog "breed". William Harristalk 11:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
WH, I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting: that we classify a dog as a breed OR a landrace (never both) and use such criteria as 'Is it recognized by a breed registry and has a breed standard,' to determine whether we use the word 'breed' or 'landrace' exclusive of each other?
To correct you, I must point out that Indian pariah dog and Scotch Collie (the first example used in the Landrace#Dogs article) calls both dogs a 'landrace' AND a 'breed' in their respective articles. In fact, it sounds like 'landrace' is considered a subset of 'breed'.
I don't know which part of the English-speaking world commonly uses the term 'landrace' or whether it is a new word or a very specific esoteric word, because I never heard the word in my many decades of life (except as the name of a breed of pig) until I started editing on Misplaced Pages. 'Landrace' does not exist in my 1994 print edition of a college-level dictionary. It appears that the new meaning "A local cultivar or animal breed that has been improved by traditional agricultural methods" was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2005. The wiktionary says there is an overlap of 'landrace' and 'breed'.
The Scotch Collie (landrace) goes on to describe how the Rough Collie (breed) diverged from the existing Scotch Collies because of breeding, hinting that 'landrace' is the old and 'breed' is the new and deliberately improved version. In the case of the Catahoula bulldog (recently under attack in wikiland as 'not a breed'), the Catahoula BD is a deliberately bred dog, not the earlier natural local version that the word 'landrace' is being used for in doggie-wikiland. So if you are suggesting an angle that we should reclassify such (Catahoula BD) as a 'landrace' because 'it doesn't have a registry or a standardised look' is flip-flopped on its head because which comes first -- the chicken or the egg, the landrace or the breed, the breed or the registry?
We already have guidelines in wikiland to whether or not a subject gets a standalone article and whether or not it even gets a mention in an article. So far, none of that has been in dispute. I assert that the wiki guidelines are alone sufficient to determine whether a breed or landrace gets its own page and/or whether it can be mentioned within another article. I assert there is no need to re-define words in the English language (*cough* breed *cough*) to create strict policy in wikiland in order to censure and censor things that exist in the real world. If the locals call it a breed, then it is a breed. Period. As wikieditors we report what is out there. We aren't a group of scientists on a project to taxonomically reclassify and subclassify all dogs everywhere across the planet in order to write encyclopedia content. We leave that to the scientists, who can then publish something we will use in the encyclopedia.
— Nomopbs (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I recommend a refresher read of WP:NOTFORUM. Nomopbs, the content of your 1st and 2nd paragraphs directly below the section title confirm my position about OR and WP:NOT. See WP:GNG:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Misplaced Pages is not, particularly the rule that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

When the cited source cannot verify origins, existence, consistency or the important factors that make a breed a breed, notability then falls to RS coverage with emphasis on reliable, DUE and WEIGHT. There is also the possibility we may or may not include it as a standalone article. We already have Dog types, and lists. Perhaps we need a new article that lists Unregistered dog types or something along that line. What is most important is that we clear-up the confusion, not add to it. Science/biology tells us a breed breeds true, and since WP is all about mainstream science and WP:V, it is our obligation to use discretion when considering WP:FRINGE views, the latter of which I'm of the mind that a questionable breed would fall under. A type of dog is not a breed - use the correct terminology which would be "breed type" or "breed standard" for a recognized breed, and "type of dog" for one that is not recognized. To do otherwise leaves us open to inclusion of every fictitious breed imaginable as what William Harris alluded to in his comment. Talk 📧 18:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
And WHO, pray tell, gets to decide which dogs/breeds/landraces/types belong in the proposed Unregistered dog types article or category? Even classifying a dog to go under such a title would require an outside reliable source, else it be original research. You are treading in the scientific field of Taxonomic ranking with this WP:DOGRS proposition, to a depth where WP:MEDRS never dared to trod. — Nomopbs (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, first we need to get the encyclopedia back on track following WP:GNG, N, V and NOR. Why is it important? Well...let's start with the following article that is quite disturbing: Winograd stated:

"Not only do shelters misidentify breeds as much as 75 percent of the time, but as used by shelters, law enforcement agencies and even courts, “Pit Bull” is not a breed of dog. It is, according to a leading advocacy organization, “a catch-all term used to describe a continually expanding incoherent group of dogs, including pure-bred dogs and mixed-breed dogs. A ‘Pit Bull’ is any dog an animal control officer, shelter worker, dog trainer, politician, dog owner, police officer, newspaper reporter or anyone else says is a ‘Pit Bull.’” When it comes to dogs we call “Pit Bulls,” PETA is not only killing them based on meaningless stereotypes, they are asking shelters to kill dogs they mistakenly think fit those stereotypes by the way they look."

Other articles of note: USC.edu, Plos, Smithsonian, and on and on. We do not want WP to be used as a source of misidentified breeds and breed types. We MUST get the article right, and our core content policies are quite clear about how we go about it. I'm thinking we need to include a paragraph about misindentified breeds in our Bulldog breeds article. Talk 📧 22:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Re-opened an AfD

Attention Project Members - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catahoula bulldog - please review the cited sources, the article itself, and weigh-in at the AfD. Talk 📧 19:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Categories: