Jump to content

Talk:List of dog breeds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sannse (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 22 July 2003 (Will look at the Balkan/Serbian Hound tomorrow). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Dog breeds offers a suggested format for articles on individual breeds.

OK, with all those changes I think I ought to comment. All these breeds are recognised by one or more of: the Fédération Cynologique Internationale, the American Kennel Club, the Australian National Kennel Council, the Canadian Kennel Club, the Kennel Club (UK) or the New Zealand Kennel Club. I've listed the name most commonly used by those organisations. Where only the FCI recognises the breed (and so its not clear if the English name is commonly used), I did a Google to find the most commonly used version on English language pages. Which is why we have "Greek Harehound" but "Deutsche Bracke".

I've also checked the capitalisation of the names. In some cases "terrier", "hound" and so on are part of the breed name and so are capitalised. I used the same checks as above to decide whether it was part of the name or not. If not, I didn't include it in the name listed here ("Azawakh" rather than "Azawakh Hound" and "Maltese" rather than "Maltese terrier" etc.)

I'm not sure what to do about listing alternative names. Should we have something like:

or:

or:

I don't like the last option myself, It would make it look as though there are more breeds than there are.

Including variations would make the list very long, but perhaps more useful. It's possibly too long already, and doesn't yet include unrecognised breeds. Maybe it needs splitting already. Any advice or opinions welcome! -- sannse 20:39 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

What about making a genealogical tree of dog breeds? I always wanted to know how do they evolved from the wolf. What are the more primitive breeds? Do all terriers share a common ancestor? And... is it possible to make such a tree? Or is a megalomaniac job? Muriel Gottrop

Personally I wouldn't know where to start! I guess you could try and write some sort of tree, but the origin of many of the breeds isn't clear. And others are crosses of several breeds. But still, if you want to try.... ;) -- sannse 16:37 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds/General

Adding new breeds

What about adding breeds to the list? I'm new here, obviously, so thought probably I should ask before doing something like that. There are a lot of rare breeds around these days that are outside the AKC/CKC/FCI orbit: Shiloh Shepherd Dog, Olde Englishe Bulldogge, Seppala Siberian Sleddog, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, and so on. What does Sannse think about this? Ditkoofseppala 23:34 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well it's not just down to me of course :) but here are my thoughts...
I've avoided putting these on the list so far, partly because I wanted to concentrate on the recognised breeds to start with and partly because it brings up the question: what is a breed? Many of these developing breeds could be seen as crossbreeds at this point, so should we have them as a separate list or on the "dog breeds" page?
At this point, I think my preferred solution is to list them all together and have an introductory paragraph explaining that not all the breeds listed can be considered purebred, then we can discuss individual issues on the article pages. That will reduce problems of which list a particular breed should be on and give us the most complete list possible. We could also have a separate list of developing dog breeds if someone is interested in the subject in the future (without removing them from the main list).
How does that sound? I think it will give us the most complete list while avoiding controversy (well, as much as is possible round here anyway ;) -- sannse 08:54 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The whole concept of "purebred" becomes quite a can of worms if you examine it closely, that's the problem. AKC, CKC and other big umbrella registries have few if any real controls on genetic input to their breeds, and there's a lot of cheating! Racing Greyhound Club of Australia instituted mandatory DNA microsatellite testing for parentage verification a few years ago, and found that most of their pedigrees were worthless.

In addition, there's a growing realisation that the rigidly closed stud books — in which breeding has taken place from a handful of founders (like, six or a dozen dogs in some instances) over sixty to a hundred years without fresh genetic input — are a genetic disaster for the dogs. They talk about the "genetic crisis in purebred dogs" — there sure is one, and it's all due to the closed stud book system. A gene pool is like a bank account — you can't go on making withdrawals forever without ever making a deposit. :) The "withdrawals" are automatic through inbreeding/selection and genetic drift, but the closed-studbook "breed purity" system forbids new deposits!

Rather than support the dinosaurs with their racist breed-purity fetish, I'd rather see us go with the spreading knowledge of population genetics and not penalise the newer breeds that ARE enjoying a little big of fresh genetic material by stigmatising them as "crossbreeds".

Would it be possible to make the distinction on another less judgmental level, refusing to open the "defining purebred" can of worms, and just classifying breeds as "traditional breeds," "new breeds," and "rare breeds," or something of that nature? The energy and interest in new and rare breeds these days often far exceeds what's found in the traditional breeds handled by the big umbrella registries. AKC and CKC have been forced to recognise this by adding quite a number of minority or rare breeds to their own rosters in recent years.

I agree with your overall approach of listing all together and discussing the issues in individual articles, but think maybe it would be fairer to say that some breeds are popular breeds with huge populations, some breeds are traditional breeds with century-long breeding history as registered breeds, some breeds are rare breeds with their own registries, and some breeds are new breeds that haven't been around as registered breeds for long and may still be in their developmental stages. Point being that "purebred" and "crossbreed," far from avoiding controversy, are actually rather judgmental terms. How does this strike you? Ditkoofseppala 19:16 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

end of moved text

OK, so the general approach should work, but the introductory paragraph needs work. I'll have a think about how to reword it, but if you can see ways to improve it before I get there, go right ahead :) You are obviously very knowledgeable in this area.
I think it's important to remember our overall policy of neutral point of view. We need to find a wording that doesn't support the "dinosaurs" or the "new-breeders" (to make up terminology as I go along ;). I think we need to mention the concept of "purebred", but indicate the limitations and problems of this terminology - and explain that we are using a wider, more inclusive definition of the term "breed".
I'll have another look at the introductory paragraph in the morning and see how I can improve it. -- sannse 22:15 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This weekend I went to the Tendring Hundred Show and took more than forty photos of various breeds - all with my camera on the wrong setting! Forty pictures I would have been really pleased with if they weren't completely blurred :-/

I gave the Wikipedia address to some of the owners who kindly allowed me to borrow their dogs. So if any of them come across this page while looking for their pictures - that's what happened. Many thanks for your help and I'm sorry it didn't work! Regards - sannse 10:47 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Finally found time to write the Siberian Husky article. I have removed the existing photo as it *isn't* of Siberian Huskies, but probably Greenland dogs (photo was credited to NOAA, who have used Greenland dog teams in the past). Would be nice if Sannse could put one of her tables on the page. Too bad about all those photos, Sannse; I know what a dreadful feeling it is to do that! Maybe I can find a public-domain SH photo; I know of a couple places to look. Trouble with writing a new article is: if you put the links in, then you see all those holes where other new articles are then needed!!! It could turn into a geometrically-expanding task, couldn't it! But that is one beauty of the Wikipedia system -- it sure does show you what you need to do next! BTW, sorry -- I left the site to search something, was absent-minded, didn't open my search in a new window, got back and failed to realise I wasn't logged in anymore when I placed the new article -- how do you fix that??? Ditkoofseppala 22:41 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Addendum: I've been messing with the list, Sannse, putting in a few extra breeds. I'll probably do others from time to time. Also I'm putting in links to registries beyond just AKC and KC (UK). FCI serves nicely to cover Europe, so probably we don't need to link LOE (Spain) or FCC (France) and others, but Oz and Ennzed probably yes. Also major alternative registries such as UKC and Continental deserve a link. If I can keep my momentum and don't get called away to something else I'm going to try to cover some red-linked breeds. If I don't know enough about them to do a definitive article I can at least stub a few. It's fun getting things fixed up. If you want a giggle, check out the Talk page for "Sleddog" ;-) Ditkoofseppala 03:41 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is it still Jack Russell Terrier? I was watching a dog show on TV last week and they claimed that the new official name of the breed is "Parson Russell Terrier". RickK 03:50 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wondered about that, too, as I had just noticed both names in the list. I've just done a cursory search and on AKC's website appears: "Note: The name of the Jack Russell Terrier was changed to the Parson Russell Terrier effective April 1, 2003 as requested by the Jack Russell Terrier Association of America, which was changed to the Parson Russell Terrier Association of America." No idea of why, as I didn't search it in depth. Learn something new every day . . . Ditkoofseppala 04:34 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
But you left it in the "J" position when you corrected it, Rick! (Gotcha) ;-) Ditkoofseppala 04:56 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Whoops. But then, it got reverted, anyway.  :( RickK 05:00 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Sinn Fein strikes again! Ditkoofseppala 05:05 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There are now two (or possibly three) breeds. The Parson Russell is recognised by the FCI and in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand. There is also a Jack Russell, sometimes called the Australian Jack Russell, which is recognised by Australia and New Zealand and has just been recognised by the FCI (as of May 2003). Then there are the good old-fashioned non-recognised dogs, also called Jack Russels (in the UK anyway, I'm not sure about elsewhere) that basically includes any Jack Russell-like little yappy thing. -- sannse 09:20 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good work on the list Ditkoofseppala :) Just a couple of points I wanted to check::

Is "Otto" an alternative name for the "Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog"? I think the article should be at Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog rather than as a hidden link to Otto, I've listed Otto as an alternative name under "O".

I think until (unless) the name is officially changed we should have our article at Canadian Eskimo Dog. I've put the newer "Canadian Inuit Dog" in brackets after it. There are many more hits on Google for the older name still.

Let me know if these were a bad move for any reason. Regards -- sannse 10:04 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'm glad you fixed them, because I was a little at sea on these alternative names which (as you pointed out above with the Parson Jack Russell thing) float about a lot and are far from set in stone sometimes. I went ahead and put them in knowing that if I got it slightly wrong you would probably fix it, which is a good feeling for me.
I had the (I guess) mistaken impression they'd already changed the CED name. With Canada's determined mania for political correctness at all costs, calling anything "Eskimo" these days is mal vu, definitely a Very Bad Thing. I'll search the breed club and the Canadian KC for my own info.
Yes, the Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog is also known as the Otto. I'm quite happy to leave it to you ;-) to sort out a consistent policy on the handling of alternative names, as it's quite a thorny question and you have more experience than I. I still feel very green here and probably will for some time. Ditkoofseppala 18:29 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I've got an e-mail from the Canadian KC you might be interested in, listing the recognised breeds and the provisional (Miscellaneous Class) breeds. I can forward it if you like. They were very helpful, although there was a little "you could have found this yourself" dig ;)
I'll keep adjusting alternative names and hopefully a standard way of dealing with them will evolve. But don't hesitate to fix any mistakes I've made (or let me know of them if you prefer). My being around a little longer is no guarantee of my work - I rely on the Wiki way of copyediting too :) -- sannse 22:47 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yes, please do forward CKC's list to me at <jjeffrey@seppalasleddogs.com> as that would save some bother. CKC are like that, rather snobbish and snarky. After a titanic two-year effort to get an excellent Russian imported Siberian registered in CKC's Siberian Husky studbook, only in the end to receive a simple "no" and after it was all over a long, unpleasant letter from their CEO with all sorts of info in it that would have been good to know had it been offered a year earlier, along with all sorts of subtle hints that I had been trying to perpetrate a fraud of some sort -- I happily allowed my membership in the Club to lapse and went on to new breed development with a clear conscience. They are truly "dinosaurs" in that organisation.
As you can see, I've been bashing around in here trying to make a little progress. I hope I don't mess anything up irreparably. I keep running into intractable situations that can't be solved in a half-hour's work, such as the Russian Laika breeds. (I've emailed Vladimir Beregoboy for help on that one -- a breeder of Laikas who has a pretty good website about the four breeds.) I find it incredible when enormously popular breeds like American Cocker Spaniels don't even have a stub. I find I have to get over my feelings of "but I don't know enough about that," roll up my sleeves and do my best, trusting in the Wiki system to improve it subsequently if it's manifestly lacking. Works for me.
Sannse, what can we do about photos? Somewhere there has to be a source of public-domain good photos of the various breeds. Otherwise it's a question of somebody going to a big dog show, as you tried to do, or emailing breed clubs one by one -- and you know what they are like! Can you think of something? Another item -- do you mind inserting the table you made into the new pages as they turn up? I'm anxious to work together to whip this area into shape. Thanks! Ditkoofseppala 00:22 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The e-mail is on its way to you.
Your articles look great! I'm not too good at writing articles - I'm better at the sorting, tidying and organising. So I'm happy to keep adding tables as they are needed and do other fiddles - although I do intend to contribute a few full articles on breeds at some point.
Some of the photos I took have turned out OK-ish once resized (see Rottweiler for the first I've uploaded) but they are very blurred in the larger versions and I'm sure I can do better (now I have the camera on the right setting!). There is a big three-day show at Ascot in the first week of September, so my plan is to go and get some better photos then. That should sort out a lot of the more common breeds. The rarer types will be trickier. We may be able to fill in some of those by e-mailing individual breeders. They may be more willing to help than the breed clubs - everyone likes to show off their own dogs :)
By the way - I missed a question you asked about non-logged in edits, I don't think there is a way to sort that I'm afraid. One of the developers might be able to edit the database - but frankly I'm not sure they would have the time. If you are using a private computer it's worth clicking "Remember my password across sessions" as you log in. That minimises the times you are logged out accidentally. Sorry that's not much help. Ask at the village pump if you want to get more advice on this -- sannse 12:37 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

On another matter, what is the convention in this area for capitalisation of second and third words of dog names when these are common nouns, as Yugoslavian Mountain Hound??? On the list itself, the policy seems to be mostly to capitalise all three, with some exceptions. However, user Michael Hardy seems to think pages titled as the example just given need to be moved to a name with lower-case initials for the second and third words. A coherent and consistent convention applying both to the master list and the individual pages would seem to be in order, no? Ditkoofseppala 01:36 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Heh! Believe it or not, you have just run up against one of the most controversial and disputed subjects on Wikipedia. Capitalisation has been discussed on talk pages and the mailing lists many many times. And we have never really come to a happy solution. The current policy says, "Unless the term you wish to create a page for is a proper noun or is otherwise almost always capitalized, do not capitalize second and subsequent words". The dispute is over when "otherwise almost always capitalized" applies. Breed clubs, the registries and all five my books on dog breeds capitalise. Other general encyclopaedias don't. I think we should follow the majority here and capitalise. Personally, I think this is a clear case of "otherwise almost always capitalized". But not everyone agrees of course (do we ever?)
Much of the argument has been over bird names where the situation is very similar to ours. The current compromise there is to capitalise but ensure a redirect is available. I think the same should work for us. I've been moving articles as I come across them to fit in with this policy. But, of course, others will move them back at times - all part of the Wiki way!
We need to be careful about whether the second word is actually part of the name or a description - for example: "Azawakh hound", the article title should be Azawakh and hound shouldn't be capitalised in the text. But for Afgan Hound the "hound" is part of the name so I would capitalise. I've been using my books, web searches and Google to try and work out which is correct in each case.
I'm going to continue to standardise to the capitalised version - with redirects to the lower-case version. But I'm prepared to have to argue my case (heh!) a few times on the way. Regards -- sannse 12:37 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the CKC breed list which was in my email this morning. Thanks also for the kind word on the articles. I'm happy to back you up completely on the above issue; breed names are proper nouns and should be capitalised. I've moved the Yugoslavian Mountain Hound page back and fixed the capitalisation - on my head be it, if it starts a war. My personal opinion (if a newbie may have an opinion) is that people who sit there watching for new pages in order to nitpick on matters having nothing at all to do with content would serve Wikipedia much better were they to occupy their time by filling in the massive red-linked lacunae in the body of knowledge! It isn't an encyclopaedia until its content is encyclopaedic, which at the moment is far from the case. OK, it was only started in 2001, but all the more reason that all shirtsleeves should be rolled up for serious work and all shoulders applied to the wheel. Precious minutiae can come later, no? (This may get me pilloried!) Ditkoofseppala 18:22 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it will get you pilloried, Ditkoofseppala. But stick with it, and accept my best wishes. Tannin 23:28 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Go on, admit it, you two are the same person really ;) -- sannse

Naaah! It's just that us colonials always stick together! Ditkoofseppala 18:45 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sannse - It's midnite, I'm whacked, and I just discovered that "Barbet" links to a tropical boidie. Disambiguation is your bag -- I haven't the faintest idea how to go about it and am too tired to read and understand the undoubtedly involved and convoluted instructions, just can't RTFM this late. Would you fix it, at your convenience? There's no page for the Barbet doggie at this stage, not even a stub. Tks vy much! :-) Ditkoofseppala 06:12 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Done. No problem :) -- sannse 08:52 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Also, another breed name situation I was too tired to mention last nite. FCI has apparently done a "political correctness" name change on the Balkan Hound. Of course they couldn't bother to indicate this on their website and I had to go all the way 'round Robin Hood's barn to work out what had happened. Same FCI number is now "Serbian Hound"; I imagine this is fairly recent and the old name will hold sway for who knows how long, at least to extent that anybody knows or cares about this obscure breed. So I wrote the article as "Balkan Hound" and noted the name change at the end along with the FCI category. Do what you think best with it in the index... Ditkoofseppala 18:42 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I remember when I did my list it took me a while to work out that they were the same breed. But I had Balkan Hound as the FCI name, so either I made a mistake or they have changed it very recently. I'll have a look at the list again tomorrow (my turn to be tired, it's just gone midnight here) and think about the best way to deal with this one. I'll try and get a few more tables done tomorrow too. G'night -- sannse 23:11 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_dog_breeds&oldid=1185804"