Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 4

Image query

Hi all.

Someone's written to us to ask about the image on Tosa (dog) - they say it looks like a Rhodesian Ridgeback rather than a Tosa. I confess I have absolutely no expertise in the matter - though I can certainly see how it looks like a Ridgeback - but perhaps someone here could check it? Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not look like a ridgeback to me.. it looks just like the numerous tosa images on the internet.. I don't think ridgebacks have that many wrinkles on the face either.. the angle of the photo makes it hard to tell the shape of the face, but i found many images on the net that looked similar to this one. some were more wrinkly that others and the amount of black on the muzzle varied..--Ltshears (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted the original uploader of the image and asked her to post here.. she has contributed many dog images and feel the image is legit. We might as well find out from her to be sure.. Either way, there are more Tosa Inu Images available at the commons that can replace it if necessary http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tosa_inu --Ltshears (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

9th most viewed article

Here's an oddity, in 9th most viewed article on wikipedia in Feb was canine reproduction ! Current stats [1], I don't know if it's down to an internet viral or something but it is a huge number of views (almost 2,000,000) for the article! LeeVJ (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

Does the project have any need for ? If not, please delete. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cynology?

On the page, Cynology it says "Cynologists (scientists who study cynology)..." but I cannot find any actual scientists (with advanced degrees from universities and papers published in reputable peer reviewed journals) who call themselves "cynologists"; instead, scientists and veterinarians whose work includes dogs call themselves "animal behaviourists", "geneticists", "zoologists", "ethologists" etc. What I do find in a search of English language websites is that those who use the terms "cynologist" and "cynology" to describe themselves and what they do are dog trainers, dog handlers, dog breeders, kennel managers etc., not scientists.

This muddying of what is and isn't science is very confusing.

"Cynology" is a popular culture term for dog trainer or dog handler (at least in English), not a scientific discipline, and it should be so described in the article. In addition, the Template:Domestic dog should not use 'Cynology' as a heading since the meaning is so unclear.

Does anyone have any thoughts on or information about this? Hafwyn (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Biewer

I've more or less nuked Biewer. Someone might want to take a look at the history.-Wafulz (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That page was copied right from the breed's American club website and should have been nuked. I found a few more problems in the remaining information (details on the Talk:Biewer page) and made some changes, also expanded the page a little. --Hafwyn (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Overview" template/table

Hi. There appears to be some concern regarding the introduction and/or maintenance of the erstwhile "Quick Facts" boxes in some breed articles, recently renamed "Overview". The Westie example as at this timestamp is thus:

West Highland White Terrier physique
Weight:	15-22 pounds (7-10kg.)
Height:	10-12 inches (25-30cm.)
Coat:	All-white, 2-inch, uncurled with a soft, dense undercoat
Litter size:	3 (average)
Life span:	12-14 years

Refs

The originator/main contributor is Shawnregan (talk · contribs). I would refer you to discussions here and here for a fuller understanding of the discussions so far.

I would like to begin the quest for a consensus one way or the other by stating that I believe Shawnregan has genuinely attempted to improve the state of some of the breed articles he has contributed to. However, this may not be enough to satisfy either the strict spirit of Wikipedia, or the editors who add to it. My own opinion is that the design is so striking that it diverts attention away from the information contained within the rest of the article. Much of the information is of course contained within the article in prose form already, and that is the most desirable method where Wikipedia guidelines are concerned. If not within the article, the information in the Overview can always be obtained by accessing the external References links where provided, or External links, again, where provided. Especially through the Breed Standards links for various Kennel Clubs in various countries.

I remain Neutral overall on this issue, subject to reading any comments offered hereafter. I would earnestly encourage editors to contribute to this discussion. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the discussion here - I'm still a little wiki-wary from a semi-recent experience.

I mentioned on the other discussion about "bullet-pointing the breed standard", which is what the current at this point in time Boxer box is doing:

Boxer physical traits
Build:	Compact and powerful, with square body
Weight:	55-70 pounds (25-32 kg.)
Height:	21-25 inches (53-63 cm.)
Coat:	Short, shiny, lying smooth and tight to the body
Color:	Fawn (red) and brindle, with white markings which in some may cover most or all of the body
Head:	In proportion to body, clean without excessive wrinkles, lower jaw extending beyond upper one, curving upward; nose is large and black with very open nostrils
Teeth:	Undershot; neither teeth nor tongue show when mouth closed
Eyes:	Dark
Ears:	Often cropped
Tail:	Carried high
Limbs:	Straight and parallel
Feet:	Compact, with well-arched toes
Life span:	Median 10-12 years

In general I am Neutral on the issue, too, depending on how the boxes are handled. I think they can be useful if they include more than simply physical traits, litter size, and lifespan; the original boxes included temperament, activity level, intelligence level, guard ability, watchdog ability, and in general I think those served a good 'information at a glance' function. Then the non-physical items were removed as POV, and it simply became a few bits of the breed standard which are usually pretty easy to find in the article in any case. In that form, I think the boxes are unnecessary. (The POV argument was, if I understood correctly, withdrawn if the information could be referenced; since all breed standards discuss temperament (which includes intelligence/trainability) and most national parent clubs address the other issues, in most cases they actually can all be referenced.) ~Newcastle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.107.12.18 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that my efforts have been recognized as well-intentioned. I have put a great deal of effort into organizing dog articles in a coherent, logical way, not just adding these boxes. If anything, these boxes also serve as punctuation organizing the article. If the boxes seem 'striking', that is part of the function of punctuation. I think some very basic -- and very essential -- information is being conveyed in the boxes, and that the references provided to the users are not being utilized. The breed standards for physical appearance and temperament are really crucial, since they are from an official body of experts who are not just describing the breed, but defining it. Shawnregan (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I originally included many things in the overview boxes, but they were deleted overnight (literally) because they were considered POV. So be it. Hence the creation of the new boxes of "appearance" and "temperament" which are placed within already established rubrics in the articles. If all the current information under "appearance" boxes is to be moved into an overall "overview" box, that is fine by me. But I am not sure if "learning rates" and "activity level" are referable to breed club standards. I just do not know. (I could not find it.) I've done so much work at this point I just don't want to see it wasted, the way it was with the overview boxes. cheers, Shawnregan (talk)

In some cases, the information in the boxes is not even mentioned in the text of the article. For example, there was not even a "History" section in the poodle article. And if the article's text is borrowing from the breed standards, it often is not doing a good job in reproducing it -- or referencing it.

Not only do the standards and histories from the breed clubs complement the article, but I think that it complements that from other breed clubs, providing expert knowledge and authority that supplements other accounts that are by necessity incomplete. I find that there is a 'family resemblance' in the breed standards that while not identical with one another or with the text, provides the layman for a 'feel' for the breed. (And this is so very essential in making important decisions about getting a pet dog. This was my original motivation of providing an 'Overview', since I used to do a lot of rescue work, a saddening experience.) And I do not think that the layman (or even the breed expert) is likely to click on the kennel club links to view that information, which is often written in a less than 'user friendly' way.

The boxes are also user friendly because they organize information, preventing it from running all together in the text. That's important cognitively. In fact, I think that the color coding, so to speak, provided by the boxes helps to break up and organize the text in a pleasant, coherent way for the average reader, so that _hypothetically_ even if the boxes were empty, the reader would find the article easier to read. (Hence all my efforts to make the boxes look appealing.) I really believe in what I am doing here and in its usefulness for the average reader. Cheers! --Shawnregan (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to quote multiple standards purely for complementary purposes, how are you deciding which ones to quote? There are at least seven different kennel clubs which maintain their own standards (AKC, CKC, UKC, KC, FCI, ANKC, NZKC) - while most are similar in basic points and some are nearly identical, there are significant differences in phrasing.

I understand your point about presenting information for those looking for a pet dog, but as Ref said in another discussion, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia articles. They are supposed to be encyclopedic; the boxes would be appropriate as sidebars in a "[dog breed] for Dummies" book, but not in an encyclopedia.

Newcastle (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Earlier discussions and original template

There's a page of templates related to dogs here in the dog-breed project area, which includes a link to a detailed discussion dating from 2005 on a breed-detail template whose colors better match the existing material. And notes that we'd discussed this in the group on various occasions and had agreed to implement a box--just no one ever pushed it thruogh to completion. I think it's a good idea to have a standard template and to use it; sure, that info's in the text, but it's pretty standard info that fits well in a table and is more easily scanned by readers. There's a reason that most dog encyclopedias published in the "real world" use tables for that kind of info.  :-)

About an "AKC" table--our approach in the past is to look at all the major breed standards and post a summary WITH a notation "standards vary by organization" or such (you'll see that in the proposed template). If they want to know AKC standards, IMHO, it's better to go to the AKC site than for us to exactly duplicate the info here. This is a world-wide encyclopedia, and I've been trying hard to make sure that articles are NOT AKC-centric, because in many cases, AKC is a minority on its standards compared to everyone else. Elf | Talk 20:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

More clarification: I'm referring to short/distinct bits of info, like height, weight, maybe a simple list of colors, age range. If it takes a full sentence to say what needs to be said, it doesn't belong in a table. Elf | Talk 21:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I briefly scanned through some breeds articles, and I agree that these boxes within the text is distracting. Items in the "physique" boxes could easily be added to {{Infobox Dogbreed}}. I also think items like height, weight, a simple list of colors, and age range do belong in the infobox. These are features of a dog that lay people are interested in more so than "Classification and breed standards." I also agree that items needing a sentence to describe do not belong in any infobox or text pullout. The {{Infobox Dogbreed}} template could also be better designed such that it takes up less space and looks more like the newer infoboxes commonly used in other areas of Wikipedia. --Scott Alter 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I also find the boxes distracting. And I've been wanting to have that sort of info put in the infobox for some time. The infobox could use a "face lift" anyway. And summarizing the breed standard is OK, but no dog matches its breed standard perfectly, and describing an "ideal" appearance is not the same as describing the breed's typical appearance (something that is more relevant to the "average" reader). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 13:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion these templates are terrible. Wikipedia wasn't aiming to be a series of quick fact flash cards last time I checked. Look at Golden Retriever now. It is almost unreadable. Plus the validity of reproducing swathes of non-free text from the kennel club standards is questionable at best. Yomangani^talk 12:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I also find the boxes distracting and would like to remove them as well. I am working on modifying the {{Infobox Dogbreed}} template to include what Elf and Scottalter suggested. I have a work in progress version at Infobox Dog Breed test and a mock up using a copy of the Siberian Husky article. I only have enough time to work on the Infobox on weekends. Any help on modifying it would be appreciated. --Coaster1983 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I just started to make some changes. There are still issues with the spacing, but I think it is starting to look much better. I've playing with making the standards section collapsible - maybe there could be several collapsible sections for standards, physique, etc. --Scott Alter 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I made some more additions to the infobox, including a trait section, which you can see on the mock up. Now, you need to decide what is important to include in the infobox. --Scott Alter 03:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that [Scott Alter] has caught on to something really useful! This might be a big step in the right direction. cheers, Shawnregan (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Scott Alter's template is very nice, too. At what point is consensus reached? (I'm anxious to get rid of those boxes! <g>) ~Newcastle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.107.12.18 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the modifications to the infobox. One thing I would like to change is the "stds" abbreviation for "standards". I have seen many editors not realize this meant standards and instead they put links to the standards in the external links section (I myself did this at first!). Perhaps "stnd" or even just plain "standard" would make things less confusing? Also, how can we deal with "breeds" that have multiple standards such as the Dachshunds or Poodles. Splitting the articles isn't called for, but the infoboxes are very difficult to manage with multiple links and groups. Perhaps another section could be "original use" or something like that (I find this sort of thing interesting, but that might just be me). My final proposal (and this is extremely superficial) is to change the colour? (I've always hated that pink). Entirely unimportant, but I figured I'd bring it up while the infobox is being discussed. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 22:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 2 issues to discuss: modifications to the infobox and use of tables (appearance, appearance standards, temperament standards, history). Consensus seems to have been reached on replacing the current infobox; however, it still has not been decided on what to include in the infobox. The traits I added (weight, height, litter size, life span, color, and coat) have been present in the "overview"/"physique" table for a while. I did not include the newer items that Shawnregan has recently added, because I do not think there has been a decision regarding consensus. I am a believer that infobox and pullout (table) items should be "short/distinct bits of info," as Elf commented earlier. Additionally, the information provided should be informative to the reader in distinguishing the major differences between dog breeds. I made the changes Pharaoh Hound suggested above. I changed the color to the same blue that the breeds navigation footers use, and I changed "Std" to "standard."

Shawnregan, while we appreciate your work and effort, I recommend you stop making changes to the tables until this discussion has reached consensus on how to proceed. I have several concerns with these tables. First, you are actually inserting many individual tables into each article, rather than using a template. Whether or not the tables stay, they should all use templates so that the appearance of them all can be controlled in a central location. Second, the tables are way too large and disrupt the visual flow of the articles. This is partially due to the amount of content in the box, and partially due to poor formatting. My primary concern is that I do not think the tables belong directly in the articles. Blocks of text, or multiple line long descriptions should be part of the rest of the text. Additionally, it may be considered copyright infringement to use direct quotations from other sources. As I see it, here are the options:

1. Use the tables as is and continue adding tables to all dog breeds articles.
2. Use the tables via a newly-created template and add to all dog breeds articles.
3. Integrate text from the tables into the main articles and remove the tables.
4. Remove the tables.

It is now up to the project to decide on how to progress. Decisions need to be made on what to include in the infobox, and whether or not to keep the tables. And if the tables are kept, should they all be kept or just some, and should quoted text from other sources be removed? --Scott Alter 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My vote is to remove the tables. If information needs to be added (such as the Poodle history), then that can be done on an individual article basis.

Newcastle (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

After over a month with no further progress, I went ahead and implemented the revised {{Infobox Dogbreed}} template. There are now 8 new parameters that should be added to all of the dog breed articles: maleweight, femaleweight, maleheight, femaleheight, coat, color, litter_size, and life_span. I added these to Siberian Husky. With these new parameters, the "appearance/trait box" can be removed from the text. --Scott Alter 03:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Another new template from Shawnregan

Now he's added another appearance template, this time it copies from the breed standards. If the "quick facts" box wasn't garish enough this one definitely is. Here's the one he put on the Boxer page:

American Kennel Club appearance standard
"The ideal Boxer is a medium-sized, square-built dog of good substance with short back, strong limbs, and short, tight-fitting coat. His well-developed muscles are clean, hard, and appear smooth under taut skin. His movements denote energy. The gait is firm yet elastic, the stride free and ground-covering, the carriage proud. Developed to serve as guard, working, and companion dog, he combines strength and agility with elegance and style. His expression is alert and his temperament steadfast and tractable. The chiseled head imparts to the Boxer a unique individual stamp. It must be in correct proportion to the body. The broad, blunt muzzle is the distinctive feature, and great value is placed upon its being of proper form and balance with the skull."

Fédération Cynologique Internationale appearance standard
"The Boxer is a medium sized, smooth coated, sturdy dog of compact square build and strong bone. His muscles are taut, strongly developed and moulded in appearance. His movement is lively, powerful with noble bearing. The Boxer must be neither cumbersome or heavy, nor light or lacking in body substance."

United Kennel Club appearance standard
"The Boxer is usually shown with a docked tail and cropped ears, but cropped ears are not mandatory. The breed is muscular and noble appearing. It has a short, smooth coat. The square, bulldog-type muzzle quickly identifies the dog and its ancestral link."

He puts it right at the end of the appearance section where it is extremely distracting and (in my opinion) rather ugly. They have also gone up on Dachshund, Golden Retriever, German Shepherd Dog, Yorkshire Terrier and Labrador Retriever from the looks of it. Should they be removed? (also, it appears that Shawnregan doesn't know his templates are being discussed, I'm notifying him after I post this). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 12:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had some talk page conversations with Shawnregan about his boxes, and he has already been told by another editor or two that they aren't a suitable replacement for the existing article infoboxes, and it has been commented that "if it ain't facts and figures, it shouldn't be in a table" (which is what his boxes are in reality). I think consensus needs to be gathered once and for all, and I have to say broadly that I now Disagree with the current uses for his boxes, and suggest they be removed until such time as more dialogue can be started with him over this.

Also, if readers can't be bothered to go through the whole textual version of an article, and need boxes full of words to chew on, they should move on to another article, perhaps covering a less in-depth subject. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not know that my boxes were becoming garish, so I will tone them down. cheers!, Shawnregan (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have redone the temperament and appearance boxes, toning them down quite a bit and putting them at the heading of the section. Originally, I put them at the end of the section to keep them low key, but I guess that only makes them somewhat disorienting. I welcome all new suggestions and constructive criticism. Shawnregan (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally a discussion is going about these boxes. I've seen them popping up in several of the dog articles and have wondered. If these things are going to be showing up like a plague is there at least a template now built for them? If not we might as well have a template for some consistency on this. That aside I tend to feel that these overview boxes are very distracting from the article. Typically the way they show up you have the small lead followed by the infobox on the right with a TOC on the left. All of this is followed by yet another box which typically does not render consistently and doubles the amount of dead white space at the lead of the article. If this box is to be placed in the articles at all it I would think that it need be done in such a way that does not disrupt the flow. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 22, 2008 05:43 (UTC)

Note: For clarity's sake, I would advise those adding to this discussion to insert a clear one-word statement somewhere in their post, to the effect of "Agree", "Neutral" or "Disagree", in bold, to indicate their position for consensus-building. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the current implementation, if it could be cleaned up and not be disruptive to the article I would have no problem with it. My appologies for the lack of clarity. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 22, 2008 14:11 (UTC)

Disagree with the current boxes as they are copyright violations and disrupt the article's flow.--Coaster1983 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See my discussion point later on this talk page about these boxes - the contents are copyright violations as they are lifted directly from the AKC website (and others). They should be removed as they are bringing WikiProject Dogs into disrepute IMHO. I have reported 4 articles already as copyright violations, but believe that the best approach is to proactively identify and remove any copyright violations in the scope of WikiProject dogs. Under WP:BOLD I am tempted to go and do this myself but would be interested in the opinions of others first. --TimTay (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with current extent of infoboxes.

• There are clear copyright issues especially on topics such as history.
• Textual information on history, temperament etc is best laid out as free-flowing text with proper references to sources (and proper indication of quotations if they are justified.)
• The variety of colours of boxes in e.g. Rottweiler is distracting.
• Breed standards are not the same as descriptions of the variety of animals that exist in a breed. The assorted kennel clubs wouldn't need to mention marking down dogs that deviate from standards, if such did not exist. This is a particular issue when it comes to temperament where the kennel clubs are likely to expect Rottweiler's to be well-socialised and tolerant of strangers (e.g. judges) and the thugs who may own some such dogs may encourage them to vicious and aggressive. Wikipedia needs to reflect the range of animals that exist in reality not the ideal adhered to by one or other organisation.

I'd like the information that is retained in boxes/tables (and some would appropriately be so) to be laid out so that it can be tucked away on the right with the text flowing down on the left.

--Peter cohen (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happens after consensus is decided, could we agree that someone inform User:Shawnregan of the outcome as a matter of common courtesy, as the originator who has admittedly put a lot of work into them in good faith? Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea, Ref. I also think that User:Shawnregan should be invited to join the dog breeds task force since he has had many contributions to the dog breeds articles.--Coaster1983 (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

He has contributed here. So I'm sure he will see the conclusion, but I agree that getting him involved in the task force is a good idea. It's best to have someone with his energy involved early in discussions on genral layouts than alienated for the project.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Has there been some decision on their use? If not, could they just be put at the END of articles? They make reading the articles that they inhabit almost impossible, they are so large that the text of the article actually becomes irrelevant. Or is that the idea? And is there any chance of changing the raw-liver color to something less alarming, like the blue or pale brown of the other infoboxes? Or some other color that doesn't bring the eye to a dead halt?--Hafwyn (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though most people agree with your assessment of these boxes. In addition, copying direct quotes is probably a copyright violation. All of these boxes should probably be removed. The information in the physique/appearance infobox can now be included in the traits section of {{Infobox Dogbreed}}, so that information can be preserved in a nicer format. --Scott Alter 22:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pack (canine)

The article Pack (canine) needs some work. It is largely unreferenced and barely more than a stub. Several pages within this project's scope link to Pack (canine). User:Pedant (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Made a few additions but it is a pretty overwhelming topic. --Hafwyn (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems like it is two topics: 1. canine packs, and 2. use of wolf pack theory in dog training. I put both in but there should probably be some consensus on what the page is supposed to be about. Talk:Pack (canine)

--Hafwyn (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tuscany Dog Project

I don't find much on it in English, but the German Wikipedia page is here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuscany_Dog_Project

This is a very interesting study on dog behaviour being done in a park where packs of semi-feral dogs roam around. They are attempting to compare the behaviour of the dogs with the behaviour of wolves in wolf-packs. It would be a useful article to refer to.

I'm not sure how to include a non-English wikipedia page or if that is allowed... Perhaps someone whose German is better than mine could translate it, or leave a request on the German site for an English version?

--Hafwyn (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Raw feeding

Anyone wants to help expand teh Raw feeding article? Needs elaboration of different practices and claimed benefits, and citations for those benefits. --165.21.155.13 (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dock jumping

Does this apply to an article recently submitted; Dock Jumping? Can anyone help to link all pages that need to be linked to Dock Jumping?? gd8man 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Elizabethan collar

One dog in a picture is listed as having received a wound on his neck from a "grass seed". Surely this is a typo?--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Foxtail (diaspore); I've clarified the caption.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ARBA

I have been working on the American Rare Breed Association page and I think I have brought it up from its stub status but I am not sure. It also needs cleaned up a little. I want to add the logo to the page do I have to notify the ARBA before adding their logo? Noodles74421 (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 559 of the articles assigned to this project, or 36.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea! I am going to sign this project up for the service! Coaster1983 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Member

I am interested in becoming a member is there someway to apply? Noodles74421 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the same question! Binglebongle2000 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just add your name to bottom of the Members list. Coaster1983 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages

Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.

Thank you, Neelix (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review of German Shepherd Dog

German Shepherd Dog is currently being peer reviewed. Please review the article and leave comments if you can.Coaster1983 (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Something you should all see

Hi dog lovers. Tonight I watched a very interesting TV programme - [dogs exposed]. It is currently available on the BBC iplayer. Essentially the programme details the way in which selective breeding in dogs, and especially the kennel club, have created vast numbers of severely inbred dogs who are mentally retarded and physically disabled, and who live pain-filled and often short lives. I confess I know nothing about dogs, and presume these issues have been discussed somewhat on pages within WikiProject Dogs. However this really is a very good, eye opening programme, and I would encourage all of you to watch it, and more importantly add information from it to any relevant articles. Cheers, Willy turner (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)