Talk:List of dog crossbreeds

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

Merger proposal: Gerberian Shepsky[edit]

CLOSED
Agree to merging of Gerberian Shepsky into List of dog crossbreeds article(s) as per Weak Consensus and Lack of Verification (see COMMONNAME also). There is no doubt that such cross-breeds exist, however, there is no notability for this portmanteau or particular mix indicated in any reliable, significant references to be found. Mere mentions of such a mix of dog breeds (all too common) even in reliable sources that do not use the "Gerberian Shepsky" moniker, do not create notability nor raise the subject to the standard of a stand-alone article. Any participant or interested party should proceed with the merger. Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest "Talk to Me" 15:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to restore the merger of Gerberian Shepsky back into this list. This recreated article still fails WP:GNG, only one source [1] comes close to providing WP:SIGCOV (addresses the topic directly and in detail) and it’s marginal, the majority of the remaining sources make mere mentions. The FBI dog, whilst interesting, does not establish notability of a common crossbreed, and definitely not by this name.

Further, the above linked source is the only one that uses the portmanteau “Gerberian Shepsky”, the remaining sources only refer the “Husky German Shepherd mixes” or something similar. Cavalryman (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Merge. The name "Gerberian Shepsky" is not its WP:COMMONNAME, which is shepherd/husky cross from the sources given in the article and what is available online. There is one archived website source with no references that was produced by a Reader's Digest lifestyle writer with no other interest in dogs who appears to have coined the name. Basically, this is a cross-breed and we list cross-breeds, unless these are notable enough to warrant their own article. William Harris (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article uses a range of reliable sources that directly address the suitability of the breed as a therapy dog with examples of where that has happened. Inevitably more sources will emerge over time. It's already been AFD'd and kept, and moved back to the list when it was a much weaker article but recently recreated because someone thought it deserved a stand-alone article. The article is vastly improved in its current form and should be given a chance to develop. The name of the article may be wrong but that is irrelevant to the suitability of the breed for a stand-alone article. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the the single source linked above, please show which sources discuss this crossbreed directly and in detail, and which use this name. I have reviewed every source and they all make single mentions of an example of a cross being used for something, or a certain cross possibly likely having pricked ears, but not any detailed information about this cross. Cavalryman (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Please don't try to undermine the article by adding every maintenance template you can think of. This sort of angry editing is not constructive. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy, I have previously raised my concerns about the article's notability on the talk page Talk:Gerberian Shepsky#Notability, this article clearly fails GNG (as stated above) and so has been marked as such. If you can present sources that establish notability I would be more than happy to remove the notability template and withdraw this proposal, but as it stands the sources just do not exist. Including every instance of any shepherd dog crossed with any husky is not constructive as it directly contradicts what the single source says these dogs are. Cavalryman (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose and keep with a name change to 'Shepherd-husky mix' or similar. It would be a shame to lose some of the information. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sympathetic to changing the name, but it does not address the notability issues. Cavalryman (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The alternate and simplified name "Shepsky" also appears on the internet, with equally dubious reliability of sources. William Harris (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to Philafrenzy & Whispyhistory, surely you both concede there is insufficient information per SIGCOV, it just does not exist. At least by merging the pages this information will be preserved so, when further sources present, there is a good base for an article. Cavalryman (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    @Cavalryman:...Intent was to do something useful. I tried and I can see you tried to help and a textbook source covering the breed is lacking. The several dogs described as shepherd-husky-mix that have been in involved in therapy/search etc seems important to know. Thanks Philafrenzy too. Hopefully the information will be saved somewhere. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article has survived AfD, so any proposal to merge can be seen as an attempt to re-run that process. Edwardx (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edwardx please review the timeline, the AfD was for multiple pages and closed as no consensus, one of the principle oppose voters at that AfD discussion conducted this merger because they could not establish the page's notability, that still has not been established. Can you present any actual sources about these dogs? I have searched at length and as far as I am aware only one quite weak source exists which I have linked above, that is insufficient for a standalone article. I get the impression from your vote that you are opposing on principle not policy. Cavalryman (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Edwardx refer Straw man. William Harris (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - belongs in mixed-breed dogs. There is no breed standard, and no official documentation or reputable breed registry with historic records of parentage/bloodlines. It is basically dependent on visual ID (which is proven unreliable). I'm surprised it survived AfD. Atsme Talk 📧 23:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, none of the oppose votes are grounded in policy, despite repeated requests for a demonstration of notability here, user talk pages and the DYK page none have offered any. Cavalryman (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Your opposition seems to be because you do not see sufficient sources that deal with this breed in the abstract. Nonetheless this cross breed is something that exists in the real world with multiple reliable sources testifying to that and discussing how the dogs have been used by their owners, specifically their use as therapy dogs. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy, as stated above there are insufficient sources that provide WP:SIGCOV on these dogs (addresses the topic directly and in detail), fleeting mentions are not close. The standard is very clear. Cavalryman (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge- having reviewed the article, as an uninvolved party, I would say that this dog breed fails to meet notability. Of the sources, most seem to focus more on service dogs rather than the actual (cross)breed, and the one that does sounds unreliable (the Reader's Digest article).--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can I put in a bunch of Crossbreeds on this article[edit]

Some breeds I want to include are the Aussiedoodle, Chion, Afaird, Affengriffon, and many more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan mlg (talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dylan mlg, anyone can make additions to Wikipedia and they are most welcome, but if those additions are not cited to a reliable secondary source they will be removed. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Stop[edit]

Stop 2603:8001:CD40:97D8:217C:2BB0:EBFF:AAF0 (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Some of the crossbreeds on this list, e.g. the Jack Tzu, do not seem to be either common or notable in any way in popular/dog culture. In accordance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines it might be wise to have a standard about what examples are common enough to be on this list? SkrikerandTrash (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for lists is lower, although the intro does say common so I agree some standards would help although given the nature of designer dogs it'd be hard to establish evidence of that.
I've gone and removed all unsourced claims for now Traumnovelle (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Breeds with questionable sources are as follows: Bernedoodle, Borador, Cavapoochon, Chiweenie (can't get source to load), Cojack, Gerberian Shepsky, Poochon, Sheepadoodle (I checked the source, it's a kid's book with the only mention being 'Old English Sheepdog + Poodle = Sheepadoodle' and nothing else).
Breeds that are mentioned with a reputable source but only brief and doesn't mention if they're common/popular are as follows: Chug, Jack-a-Bee, Jack-Tzu (this site recognises hundreds of crossbreeds), Jug, Malitpoo (a dictionary entry doesn't meet notability and Merriam-Webster doesn't have a frequency for it, OED does have frequency and could be better for determining popularity), Peekapoo (same as before dictionary entry alone isn't enough). Traumnovelle (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also interested in a criteria. I combed through Desmond Morris's dogs and literally only one of the dogs listed as problematic by @Traumnovelle was listed there but there were several additional crosses mentioned. Generally I've steered away from the designer dogs as the working crosses usually have more published sources. Annwfwn (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the entries were included as advertisements potentially. I viewed the images and one sounded like a sales pitch for the crossbreed and the other was a sales pitch with a link to an external website.
I'll remove Jack-Tzu as well given if we used that source this list would be one of the longest on Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to notability, my thoughts are that entries on the list should still have at reliable coverage from a published secondary source. Unlike standalone articles, entries to the list need only one or two sources to show notability. Annwfwn (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_dog_crossbreeds&oldid=1208229777"