Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dogs This 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 Wikipedia. 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 WikiProject Dogs To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs: Recent changes patrol: members can review the recent changes list to be aware of improvements or vandalism. Expand and improve citations: Akita (dog), American Bully, Azawakh, Barbet (dog), Basset Fauve de Bretagne, Bavarian Mountain Hound, Bearded Collie, Beauceron, Berger Picard, Black and Tan Terrier, Black Norwegian Elkhound, Border Collie, Border Terrier, Bouvier des Flandres, Braque du Bourbonnais, Brazilian Terrier, Brittany (dog), Bullenbeisser, Bull Terrier, Ca de Bou, Cairn Terrier, Cardigan Welsh Corgi, Campeiro Bulldog, Chilean Terrier, Corsican Dog, Cretan Hound, Croatian Sheepdog, Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, Danish Spitz, Dobermann, Dogue Brasileiro, Dunker, English Cocker Spaniel, English Foxhound, English Toy Terrier (Black & Tan), Erbi Txakur, Estonian Hound, Estrela Mountain Dog, Finnish Lapphund, Flat-coated Retriever, French Bulldog, Galgo Español, Gaucho sheepdog, German Hound, German Shepherd, German Wirehaired Pointer, Glen of Imaal Terrier, Gordon Setter, Great Dane, Greek Harehound, Griffon Bruxellois, Guatemalan Dogo, Gull Dong, Halden Hound, Hamiltonstövare, Hanover Hound, Havanese dog, Hokkaido (dog), Hovawart, Ibizan Hound, Icelandic Sheepdog, Indian Spitz, Irish Setter, Irish Terrier, Irish Water Spaniel, Istrian Coarse-haired Hound, Jagdterrier, Jämthund, Kai Ken, Karakachan dog, Karelian Bear Dog, Karst Shepherd, Keeshond, Kokoni, Kooikerhondje, Koolie, Kuchi dog, Kuvasz, Labrador Retriever, Large Münsterländer, Lucas Terrier, Magyar Agár, Miniature Bull Terrier, Miniature Fox Terrier, Mongrel, Mountain Cur, Norwegian Elkhound, Norwich Terrier, Old Danish Pointer, Old English Bulldog, Old English Sheepdog, Pastor Garafiano, Pastore della Lessinia e del Lagorai, Patterdale Terrier, Pekingese, Perro Majorero, Peruvian Hairless Dog, Petit Basset Griffon Vendéen, Pharaoh Hound, Plummer Terrier, Plott Hound, Polish Greyhound, Porcelaine, Portuguese Water Dog, Pudelpointer, Rajapalayam dog, Rat Terrier, Saarloos wolfdog, Sabueso Español, Saint Miguel Cattle Dog, Šarplaninac, Schipperke, Serrano Bulldog, Shikoku dog, Skye Terrier, Sloughi, Slovak Cuvac, Small Münsterländer, Smithfield (dog), Smooth Collie, South Russian Ovcharka, Spanish Water Dog, Standard Schnauzer, Swedish Vallhund, Tatra Shepherd Dog, Terceira Mastiff, Thai Bangkaew Dog, Tibetan Mastiff, Tibetan spaniel, Tornjak, Weimaraner, Welsh Hound, Welsh Terrier, West Siberian Laika, Westphalian Dachsbracke, Xoloitzcuintle, Xigou Stub class articles in need of development: Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, Argentine pila dog, Armant (dog), Assyrian Mastiff, Banjara Hound, Billy (dog), Braque Dupuy, Bruno Jura Hound, Bulgarian Scenthound, Ca Rater Mallorquí, Calupoh, Campeiro Bulldog, Can de Chira, Cane Paratore, Cantabrian Water Dog, Chortai, Córdoba fighting dog, Denmark Feist, East European Shepherd, English Shepherd, Faroese Sheepdog, Gończy Polski, Grand Griffon Vendéen, Gull Dong, Hanover Hound, Hygen Hound, Japanese Terrier, Kaikadi (dog), Kars dog, Koyun dog, Kunming dog, Kurdish Mastiff, Levriero Sardo, Mahratta Hound, Majorca Ratter, Maneto, Markiesje, Molossus (dog), Montenegrin Mountain Hound, Rampur Greyhound, Romanian Mioritic Shepherd Dog, Sapsali, Sarabi dog, Schweizer Laufhund, Segugio Maremmano, Segugio dell'Appennino, Sinhala Hound, St. Hubert Jura Hound, Taigan, Tatra Shepherd Dog, Tazy, Toy Bulldog, Treeing Cur, Vikhan Sheepdog, Westphalian Dachsbracke, White Shepherd Suggested Featured Articles due for re-assessment: Beagle (2007) Suggested Good Articles due for re-assessment: Swift fox (2008); Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (2009); Clumber Spaniel (2009); Russian Spaniel (2009); Sussex Spaniel (2009) Requested images: Briquet de Provence, Denmark Feist, Erbi Txakur, Jeju dog, Kaikadi (dog), Kars dog, Koyun dog, Levriero Sardo, Liangshan Dog, Perdigueiro Galego, Segugio dell'Appennino, St. Hubert Jura Hound, Tarsus çatalburun, Tibetan Kyi Apso, Vikhan Sheepdog, Villanuco de Las Encartaciones

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Archives

T B1 B2 B3 B4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

I've just removed from German Shepherd some content cited to perfectdogbreeds.com, on the grounds that that is not a reliable source (it's registered to an anonymous entity in Cheshire, England). I've also recently removed from the same page content cited to yourpurebredpuppy.com and dogster.com, for the same reason – these are random internet websites with no reputation for accuracy or reliability, and not remotely suitable for use as sources for Wikipedia. I'd like to suggest that as a matter of urgency we should start a list of such unusable sites, with a view to removing them in short order from any article that cites them, and setting up filters that would prevent them from being added anywhere in Wikipedia; and also make a start on a more difficult task, that of identifying some sources for which there is consensus that that they are to be considered reliable by our standards.

As a very small start, I propose deprecation of:

• perfectdogbreeds.com
• yourpurebredpuppy.com
• dogster.com

and recognition as reliable of

• fci.be

Is this worthwhile? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First thoughts on how to start dealing with these: either just go ahead and remove them and see if there's any complaint, or (probably better in the long term):

• reach consensus here on those listed above – is a week long enough for all interested to comment?
• start a /Deprecated sources subpage and
• use Special:LinkSearch to find and remove any mainspace occurrence of those;
• rinse and repeat.

It seems to me that those listed so far are so obviously unusable, and so unlikely to be used outside this wikiproject, that local consensus should be sufficient; but if anyone suggests that these might be appropriate sources then yes, RfC is the next step.

Removing crap websites seems to be the easy part; identifying and agreeing on unusable books may be more of a challenge. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, William Harris, Cavalryman and other interested editors - please see User_talk:Atsme/sandbox#More about RS Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources ^{Updated the link Atsme 💬 📧 16:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)}. Perhaps we should also consider establishing a subpage such as Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the main list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources for potential updates. We should probably make a more prominent link to that page. Atsme 💬 📧 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can Doggysaurus be added? I see it cited quite a lot yet the site itself states "All of the advice and content on this website is written from our own personal perspective of owning and caring for dogs over the last few years.", it's a few people's personal experience without any verification or scrutinising. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have started to remove from articles, will tick as complete. This will likely require review again. Cavalryman (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I've forgotten if or how we agreed to actually go about this, would some kind soul remind me (preferably in words of about one syllable or fewer). Anyway, here are three that I've just removed from Chihuahua:

• www.chihuahuawardrobe.com
• k9carts.com
• dogcare.dailypuppy.com ("Come to DailyPuppy.com for your fix of the cutest furbabies of every breed")

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose two websites containing a number of very informative articles as "good sources":

• Charwynne Dog Features (davidhancockondogs.com), and
• Ria Hörter (riahorter.com).

Both authors have been published widely in dog publications and Hancock in particular has a number of published books on dogs. Both websites contain a number of articles, most of which have previously been published in magazines but some may not have been. I think both meet the criteria under WP:RSSELF as "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Cavalryman (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

At davidhancockondogs.com, the pix to the right - a man out of my own heart! William Harris (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly of The Light Infantry, I have most of his books although I would really like a copy of The mastiffs but it is well out of print and around £150 online, there is a transcript on his website though. Cavalryman (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Now I am lost in sources, the websites you have listed mainly contain printed information and most of the popular web resources are listed in "bad sources", kennel club websites that seem to have reliable information cannot be used as primary sources... Could you please give examples of dog-related web resources that would be considered suitable?--LoraxJr 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:SPS and then WP:USINGSPS, basically if it has not been produced by an author who has previously demonstrated expertise in the field, or a publisher with a good reputation for robust editorial oversight and fact checking, then it's pretty safe to assume it's self-published. Most of the "popular web resources" are content farms, and when you scrutinise them closely you realise often Wikipedia is their starting point, we don't site ourselves.

The "good websites" above contain a series of articles written by two authors who are expert dog writers, both have previously been very widely published in a number of reputable publications from very good publishers and all of the articles on their websites are transcripts of articles that have been published in such publications, that's why they are suitable for use as sources. Cavalryman (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, that makes clearer on one side and much harder to find sources on the other. This rule is the equally applicable to sources in other languages too? LoraxJr 11:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is applicable to sources in all languages, and yes it can be difficult to find sources. This is why large tracts of text and even occasionally articles are deleted as they are not cited to reliable sources. Cavalryman (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

As a note, you can permanently prevent those mylittlepuppy.com not-sources from being added to articles at WP:BLACKLIST. It's a bit of an extreme measure though, so only use if if there's a problem with a site being persistently added. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About three months ago I mentioned on the Talk:Australian Cattle Dog page that I was researching the breed’s early history. I’ve now completed a diagram that I believe clarifies a common misconception.

While some sources (including popular videos) present "two types" of ACD using modern, inaccurate criteria, my research indicates the real historical distinction is between:

1. The Bentley line – tracing directly to the original breeding at Bentley, NSW.
2. The Bagust brothers’ line – developed independently in Sydney.

The diagram also includes the role of George Eliot, a figure almost entirely overlooked in Australian breed histories.

Here’s the diagram on Commons:

I’d appreciate feedback on historical accuracy, clarity, and whether it could be a useful addition to the article.

Cheers! Nodocéphale (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed Beagle for WP:FAR if anyone would like to work on it. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested that Talk:Colossal Biosciences Dire Wolf Project be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, American Bully, there seems to have been a rash of edits on the article that paint the breed as being violent and dangerous. These changes are clearly biased as any degree of aggression towards humans is an automatic disqualification (or, if not outright stated as such, then strongly implied) under the breed standards of the United Kennel Club, The National Kennel Club, The American Bully Kennel Club, and The American Dog Breeders Association. Even the European Bully Kennel Club and the UK Bully Kennel Club make absolutely no exceptions for aggressive behavior.

References:

https://www.ukcdogs.com/american-bully

https://nationalkennelclub.com/american-bully/

https://abkcdogs.net/breeds/breed2/

https://adbadog.com/american-bully-conformation-standard/

https://ebkc.org/dog-breeds/american-bully/breed-standard/

https://www.ukbullykennelclub.co.uk/american-bully-standard

What is particularly telling is that most of the negative information about the breed shows clear signs of cherry picking and confirmation bias. For example, the line about the breed being linked to hip-hop culture cites articles from media outlets that would be biased against said culture. The first source is from the Wisconsin State Journal which primarily covers political news from the state's capitol, and the second source is an article that is clearly sensationalist, bandying terms like "devil dog".

Additionally, there is a good deal of information that is sourced from the UK activist "Bully Watch", which the American Bully Kennel Club has made strong claims that their information is biased and even fraudulent. Ref: https://abkcdogs.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Bully-Watch-Research-based-on-fraud-bias-and-hype.pdf

Additionally, Bully Watch themselves state that the likely reason for the rash of Bully attacks in the UK is due to the majority of the UK bloodlines being descended from a controversial sire named "Killer Kimbo", and that excessive inbreeding by unlicensed and unsanctioned breeders is a probable cause of these highly aggressive tendencies.

It is my opinion that the article requires a complete overhaul - to be rewritten to emphasize, first and foremost, that these dogs have been carefully and painstakingly bred to be as non-aggressive as possible, and that they are meant to be companion animals that, while alert and energetic, are calm, gentle giants who are eager to please their owners. That aggressive tendencies are automatic disqualifications under the standards of virtually all kennel clubs that recognize the breed.

It should also be emphasized that acquisition of American Bullies should only be done through known, licensed, and reputable breeders, and that adoptions should only be done through reputable organizations such as the Humane Society. Rescues and fostering should only be undertaken by people with experience in handling canine breeds that are especially large or strong. (I understand that this applies to canines in general, but this is taking into consideration a layman who is completely new to the particulars of dog ownership, and has landed on the American Bully article out of curiosity about this particular breed.)

Actual information about attacks should be relegated to its own subsection in the article, kept only to relevant and verifiable facts, and emphasized that these attacks were most likely the result of improper, grossly negligent training, as well as non-sanctioned breeding that is not recognized by any reputable kennel club.

If someone is willing to undertake this, I am willing to assist in whatever way possible. I am no expert on the matter, but one of my brothers is an owner of an XL American Bully registered as a breeding stud. BlackAeronaut (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think articles should be written from a kennel club POV. And kennel clubs would naturally deny their dogs are aggressive, wouldn't they? Because kennel clubs exist to promote the commercial interests of dog breeders.

This is a matter of public interest in the UK, and has been covered by the media there. I don't see why that should be censored because parties with a fiscal interest in selling dogs may not like it.

Usually, these concerns should be brought up first on the article's talk page. But I appreciate this notice, because now I can add that article to my watch list. I'm also going to ping @Boynamedsue: since you seem to be targeting their edits and all but naming them. Geogene (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edits highlighting that American Bullies are dangerous are entirely due, it is one of the main facts of importance about a breed based on coverage in reliable sources and statistics. It is also extremely important to note in the lede that the XL-bully's ownership is now severely restricted in the world's second most populous native-English-speaking country and the reasons for this.

As Geogene stated, Kennel clubs can have whatever opinion they want, but they are generally only reliable sources for their own standards and opinions. It is not wikipedia's job to provide training guides for dogs, we should not try to do this especially with dangerous dogs. This would be highly irresponsible of us.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to discuss this is at Talk:American Bully, particularly at the constant undiscussed deletion of content discussion. @BlackAeronaut and Geogene: I do not see you in discussion on that talk page yet. Peaceray (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that that discussion was about including details on the catalogue of attacks by American Bullies in the UK which led to its banning. I felt it was due, but the consensus was against its inclusion so it's not found on the page. But yeah, discussion on the talkpage would be the normal course of action here.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peaceray: to quote my post, which you must have seen, Usually, these concerns should be brought up first on the article's talk page. But I appreciate this notice, because now I can add that article to my watch list. Since this was important enough to ping me, I'll repeat myself to make sure you saw it. Geogene (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]