Talk:List of dog breeds/Archive 4

Newbie Issues

Okay! I would like to get started. Can someone tell me how to add the pink box to my articles, and how to enter information into it?

My personal feeling is that I’d prefer to write, write, write and let someone else take care of organization and formatting. I’m a good editor, and will do such work if needed…in a pinch…if I have to…but I’d prefer to just write freely. Does that work for you guys?

I also have some issues to raise:

• Registries and All-Breed Clubs

I feel very strongly that the UKC should be included in the pink box. It is a legitimate registry of long-standing with a somewhat different focus to the AKC.

I would not like to see these articles written as if Recognition by an all-breed registry is the ultimate goal of all dog fanciers. To me, that is subjective and not in keeping with neutral point of view writing. There are breed clubs that have been indifferent to or even completely against official recognition for many years; their reasoning is valid. We should not list independent breed clubs as ‘not yet recognized by The Kennel Club’ or any such language, to do so implies the superiority of the Show world, or at the very least, the superiority of one all-breed club to another. Such clubs should be listed as ‘Independent’ or ‘non-affiliated’ or some such. Writers should take care that if they list a breed as ‘seeking Recognition’ that that is, in fact, the goal of that particular breed club.

If this is out of keeping with the philosophy of this project, please let me know and I will bow out with no hard feelings. Thanks!

• Use of the word ‘Breed’

I recognize that this project uses the term ‘breed’ broadly, and I applaud such usage. I would like to point out, however, that there is a growing trend to list any crossbreed mix as a ‘new breed’, and that the practice is largely deplored in the dog world. Can we be careful to distinguish between established breed, breed under development, recognized breed, newly-recognized breed, pure breed and cross breed and the like as we write?

• References

I noted with interest that one new writer raised the question as to whether or not s/he could cite a book s/he’d written as a reference. The responders seemed to agree that s/he could and should, if the book was germane to the Wikipedia article. I had the same question, particularly since some of the breeds I will write about have little written about them and Wikipedia wants us to use references, can I cite a published article I myself have written?

• Use of photographs

Are photographs I take ‘mine’, i.e. can I place them into the Public Domain without asking permission of the subjects (or—ahem! the subjects’ owners)? I was curious because someone mentioned using pictures s/he’d taken at a dog show.

Apologia

Please forgive me if these questions were asked and answered elsewhere—I’m trying to read through all the old stuff, but it’s at more than one location, and plentiful! Quill 00:07, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, I now what it's like trying to find out all the info on a project, questions are always welcome :)

The infobox - The template is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds. Click edit, and you will see the code. You can then cut and paste this into the article and add the details. The code is quite complex when you first look at it, so if you would prefer to leave this for now then I (or Elf, or anyone else passing) can add it for you. I have most breed articles on watch, but if I don't appear to add the box then you could just leave me a note and I'll put it on.

Write, write, wite - Please do! The real benefit of a wiki is that we can all do what we are good at, and (hopefully) others will add their share. I'm much better at organising, layout and format edits, wikifying and so on than I am at writing - I write very few articles. So I'm happy to follow you doing what I can to help there. Elf is also an excellent editor (and she does good articles too)

UKC - I know we discussed this somewhere, but can't remember where. And if I recall we felt that the UKC should be on the tables. I just haven't got around to doing anything about it :) I'll start adding it.

"not yet recognized" - That's a good point. If you see this sort of bias, then either leave a note on the article talk page or jump in and change it. I think we need something in the table to indicate that we haven't just forgotten to add in the links, but I can see what you mean about this (I came across this issue when writing about Jack Russells.) We are aiming for a NPOV of course, it looks as though you will be helpful in getting us there!

Use of the word 'Breed' - Yes, the individual articles should explain what this actually means with respect to the individual breed.

Can I cite a published article I myself have written? - If it's relevant and useful to the reader of that article - go ahead. Of course, this being Wikipedia you may have to defend your additions. And occasionally someone may feel strongly enough to really argue the point (although this is a quiet little backwater of the 'pedia - we don't have many edit wars here).

Use of photographs - The photographer holds the copyright of all photos. Some events may have restrictions on whether you can take photos for general use, but if they allow it then the resulting photos are yours. It is, of course, best to ask the owners permission - and I always explain the purpose of the photos too. Some are wary of photos of their dogs being posted on the Internet (especially valuable breeds). But in my experience most owners are very happy to have their dog's photos used in this way. Another advantage of asking owners is that you get much better photos. A posed photo is much better than a quick snap in my view. You can either release your photos into the public domain or you can licence them under the GFDL or a similar licence such as the Creative Commons (or both). These mean that you keep the copyright, and reserve some rights (for example the right to be identified as the author). All my photos are GFDL. This is quite a complex area, so if you need more info on this ask on my talk page.

I hope I answered everything there. Of course, all this is just my opinion - if there is anything in it you are not happy with it's open for discussion :) -- sannse (talk) 07:59, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies.

The infobox-- I'll have a look, but from what you say my gut feeling is that it'll be too scary and I'll leave it to you!

UKC Yes, I've read about it in earlier discussions. Please add at your convenience.

Our own articles--It it turns out that anyone objects I've got no problem deleting the reference; frankly my writing is that good, and my ego isn't that big! VBG

I think this is great! Quill 11:37, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Who fixes Errors?

I'm at it already! I said I didn't want to edit, but I just can't help myself; after 10 years of this it's in my blood and I do it automatically. [Quill shakes head and sighs heavily.]

My question is, whom do I notify (and where) if I spot an error that I think needs fixing (other than a typo or something).

Case in point, I'm reading the Dog main article and this sentences strikes me:

Mutts (or 'mongrels' in British English) are dogs that do not belong to specific breeds, instead being mixtures of two or more.

Actually, 'mongrel' is the proper term for a dog of undetermined origin in any of the English dialects, not just British. 'Mutt' is short for 'muttonhead' and is slang for an idiot as well as for a mongrel.

So, if I want to point out that something like this should be corrected, without insulting the author, to whose attention do I bring it? Quill 00:55, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to notify anybody: this is a wiki, you can just fix it yourself--in fact, we'd appreciate it. See Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great. Eventually, the whole thing will improve. In this case, the best thing would be just to make your changes, with an edit summary like "mongrel is the correct term" or something. Meelar 01:01, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

um...okay...I just wanted to be sure since this is a project with a list of participants and I didn't know if that made a difference, and, basically, I'm a coward. - Quill 03:26, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make a difference - it's still part of the Wikipedia, a Wikiproject is just an informal grouping of people with a shared interest really. It helps the articles to have a group looking out for them that are aware of past discussions, but the wiki ethic of "edit away" still holds. If you feel an edit will be particularly controversial then a careful edit summary and/or a note on the talk page can be helpful, but mostly just jump in and fix -- sannse (talk) 07:59, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Crossbreeds vs. New Breeds

• I’m uneasy with the listing of Schnoodles, Peekapoos etc. as breeds. I’ve got nothing against crossbreeds, believe me, but the problem is that these dogs do not ‘breed true’ and are therefore in a different stage of development than other breeds.

I would even hesitate to include Labradoodles, but for the fact that they are now familiar and fanciers are working on them at such a rate as to indicate the probable appearance of a true breed in the near future. I am, however, going to edit the Labradoodle stub; right now it reads a bit like an advertisement.

• Perhaps we can resolve this to everyone’s satisfaction by having a Developing Breeds article and separate categories? What do you all think?

Hi again, Quill! I'm not REALLY following you around... You ask a lot of the same kinds of questions that I did when I started. There was some discussion about this in Talk:List_of_dog_breeds/archive_1#Adding new breeds and earlier on this page. The main arguments for listing all names here were that (a) what is purebred and what is a crossbreed is often in the eye of the beholder--I've seen heated arguments about whether a breed is a breed at agility trials no less, where it doesn't even matter, and (b) for most of humanity, they won't have a clue whether a "labradoodle" is a recognized solid breed or just something that some people are tinkering with and will want to come here to find it. The issue about "breeding true" is iffy anyway. Just look at AKC's insistence that black Belgian Shepherds and Tervuerens are different breeds--if 2 black Belgians give birth to a brown dog (which they sometimes do), in AKC's eyes it's just a bad Belgian, unlike in Canada, where it's a valid coat variation called a Terv. So in the past we have thought it best to just keep listing all of the names that are used often-enough to be "real" (vs one guy's pet dog). Take a look at the dog breed article, which is currently a very stubby stub that I started, where some of these issues really need to be discussed...written by someone with a wiki addiction and interest in dogs. ;-) Elf | Talk 03:11, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at the dog breed article?! Like that'll help? That's what started me off with this--a cockapoo. [Quill takes deep breath and continues.] Seriously, I see where you're coming from. Belgian Shepherds? How about in Australia where they mate them all and assign the variant names Tervueren, Lakenois etc. based on what colour the puppies come out? Why are there seven variations of Jack Russell? How come a Papillon is the same breed as a Phalene, but a Norfolk isn't a Norwich? Why is a smaller Airedale called a Wirehair Foxie? How come there's a Standard Poodle but not a Standard Schnauzer? Why is it not a problem that a Miniature Pinscher is not an exact miniature of a Doberman Pinscher, but a Miniature Fox Terrier started a breed war? How many more of these can I think of?

May I have a drink now?

You may ;)

Seriously, I think all these issues are interesting ones, and should be part of both the dog breed article and the individual breed articles. I agree with Elf that this list should continue to use the very loosest of definitions of "breed" -exactly because of all these problems with the term. Even the cockapoo is described as a "breed" by some, we should not make a stand on whether this is valid or not - just report it and the views of others on it. -- sannse (talk) 18:42, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(Huh, edit conflict with Sannse! Trying again:

Sure, have two! That's all *great* material for the dog breed article if one of us can manage to write it in NPOV without screaming and pounding the table in the middle of it. In other words, not the slathering breed person who attacked me because I suggested that crossbreeding might be a good way to develop dogs for doing dog agility, and not the slathering love-my-mixed-breeds mood that I'm sometimes in. There are already comments in some breed articles (e.g., Australian Kelpie) about how in many breeds there are strong divisions among those who want their dogs recognized by a major kennel club because they think it will strengthen the breed and those who don't because they think it'll ruin the breed. It's fascinating stuff. Elf | Talk 18:45, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

English Toy Terrier

Okay, I'm trying to fix an inaccuracy here. I'm letting you know in case I mess it up.

The ETT is not exactly the same dog as the TMT, (not according to ETT purists, anyway) so I have entered the TMT on the list of dog breeds; I'm going to clarify the ETT stub. I'll also write to a breeder and see if the photo on the present ETT page is in fact an ETT or a TMT.

The redirect command from TMT to ETT with have to be deleted, and a TMT article written. Quill 23:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You can change a redirect to an article pretty easily. When you search for TMT and it brings up the ETT page, it has a link below it that says "redirected from TMT". Click that link, and voila you've got an edit page for TMT. Just put in the new text, replacing the redirect text. Elf | Talk 01:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can clarify on the photo - it was at a KC(UK) show, so is definitely a ETT, and champion one at that :) I've just checked again in the show programme too - all is OK on the breed ID.

Looking around it seems that the NZKC and the CKC regard the two as the same breed, the other kennel clubs only mention the one name (Toy Manchester Terrier for the AKC and UKC, English Toy Terrier for the FCI, ANKC and the KC(UK).) So I guess our best bet is to have the two articles, both linking to each other and explaining the difficulties. Quill, if you have a good link to a breed club explaining their view that they are separate breeds I think that would be a useful link for us - I'll have a look around later too - I'm just about to have to give up this computer for the rest of the day :-/

Another "interesting" breed confusion - what fun! ;) -- sannse (talk) 09:21, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, We have two ETT stubs at the moment: English Toy Terrier and English Toy Terrier (Black & Tan) - I think the confusion may have come from both English Toy Terrier and Toy Manchester Terrier originally being redirects to my stub. So, I think the first job is to decide where the ETT article should be - then we can combine the stubs and write a new one for Toy Manchester Terrier. I think it should be at "ETT (B&T)" - because of the usual rule of using the term most usually used by the registries. It's a bit of a mouthful - but with a redirect in place for the shorter title I think it will be OK. What do you think? -- sannse (talk) 18:33, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ya gotta love this stuff! Yes, I caused the two stubs, Sannse--I didn't want to do any deleting until I was sure by which name we should properly call the ETT. Come to think of it, I wouldn't know how to delete the ETT (B&T) stub, anyway!

Thanks for the clarification on the photo, Elf. No, I don't know a good link that explains the difference; my info is from the rabid (you should excuse the pun) ravings of ETT breeders. I do know that the ANKC refuses to recognize the TMT; upon my information and belief, they do not recognize the TMT and the ETT as the same breed.

Sannse, your solution works for me. Quill 23:31, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are getting you Elfs and Sannses mixed up ;) - although that's my fault for answering twice! I've merged the text into ETT (B&T) and returned ETT to a redirect. I've also made a very basic stub for TMT. I didn't delete as I think the unneeded title is better as a redirect to catch any articles using the shorter version of the name. Deletes can only be done by Admins Quill, so if you need any done Elf or I can sort it, just give us a shout (some need community consent before we delete, but some we can do straight away) -- sannse (talk) 10:08, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Use of Photographs

I found a webpage with some terrific images of Japanese Terriers, a breed it's very hard to get a picture of.

Here's my problem: I was going to write to the author for permission to use them on Wikipedia, but there's no e-mail address. There's an address for the webmaster, but that's it.

The webpage hasn't been updated since 2000.

Where do we stand on the use of these images, ie. can do or can't do? Quill 23:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd go ahead & send email to the webmaster to see what you can find out. Sometimes there's still a live person there even if the site hasn't been updated. (*Someone* has to be paying to keep the site alive.) If no response & you can't find out anything about them, then I believe we have to assume it's *not* a public-domain image and not use it. Bummer, huh? Elf | Talk 00:57, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't drop the ball on this one, I *did* write to the webmaster--no response! Shame.... Quill 02:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Working Dog"--category?

There is a nice working dog article that is not in a category. Where do we put it?

Also, let's link to this article whenever we notice the words 'working dog' or 'working breed' in an article.

I've put it in Category:Dog types, does that sound right to everyone? -- sannse (talk) 10:08, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yup. Elf | Talk 01:10, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Corgis again

I see that Hephaestos changed the links for the corgi articles from Welsh Corgi (Type) to Type Corgi a while ago - I missed it at the time. It's something we've discussed before on this page, and I said then that I felt the titles should be as usually used by the registries (as in Corgi (Type)). I understand why Hephaestos changed them, it's not the usual way of titling articles, but in this case it is the conventional way of referring to the two breeds. Unless anyone objects I would like to restore the old titles and move the articles back. In the mean time, the articles should be listed alphabetically as well as cross-referenced so I've restored Anon's edits. -- sannse (talk) 19:29, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm just going by this. - Hephaestos|§ 20:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alaskan husky

So the Alaskan husky breed page uses lowercase on husky because it is a type rather than a breed. Now that this has been pointed out by someone naturally wanting to capitalize it here, it brings up the question whether this should be in the list of breeds or in the preceding list of types? If it's in the breeds, it shd be capitalized; if it's not a breed, it shdn't be in the breeds list? (I understand that it's even more of a "type" than, say, cockapoos or labradoodles. Back to that pesky where-do-we-draw-the-line question.) Elf | Talk 00:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I hate when I do this: I typed a response in here, went to look up the Alaskan husky article and lost my reponse. Sigh. I can't do that all over again.

Are you saying that the name would normally be written 'alaskan husky' but gets a capital 'A' here because of Wikipedia format? Seems to me that huskies are in the same place Jack Russells were 5 years ago, and we still capitalized JRT. Unless you're going to put a type called 'Husky' into the groups--and what else would go there? The 'group' is 'sled dog', no? We've got some crossbreeds capitalize [Quill shrugs] Why don't we just capitalize 'Alaskan Husky'? Quill 02:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I kinda think that the Alaskan husky should stay in the breed list. Since it's not actually a group of dogs, the way terriers or hounds are, putting it with the breeds is probably best. I don't know what to do with the capitalization, though. I just went to look up info on the dogs, and i found this site Alaskan Husky. It's a personal page, but it seems to have a lot of information. This is really pretty much a judgement call; there're no clear lines here. There're my two cents. Lachatdelarue 03:17, 5

Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, Alaskan would always be capitalized no matter what it was used as an adjective for. I was really asking about the "husky" part. I don't think that Alaskan huskies are anywhere near where JRTs were five years ago or even 10 or 15. There's a tremendous variation because pretty much anyone can breed in whatever they want to try to get the traits they're looking for. But yeah, I guess the name is sort of arbitrary as to whether we capitalize or not and the A. husky is probably closer to a breed than "hound" or whatever. BTW, the external link you just gave doesn't exist; when I pop up one level in its hierarchy, it redirects to some site in a foreign language. Elf | Talk 18:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That was odd. I just tried to post the page above the one I tried to put up before, and it's not working either. It works fine if i type it into the browser. <shaking head in bemusement> If you wanna see the page, search for "alaskan husky" in google, it's the one title "The Alaskan Husky Homepage" Lachatdelarue 21:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aha--now I'm taking your point; I didn't realize quite how all-over-the-place Alaskan huskies were. It is a problem when you're dealing with 'types' or 'strains', or I-don't-know-whats in this case. I guess if anyone can think of another instance like this, we could write Alaskan husky because then we'd have a trend. Right now...yeah, let's not bang our heads against a wall and write Alaskan Husky. Quill 22:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Italian Spinone

Which is more common, Italian Spinone or Spinone Italiano? The breed info (well, substub) was put up today under "Spinone Italiano", but the "Italian Spinone" is listed under Pointers. I got more hits in google for the first option. Opinions? Lachatdelarue 21:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When the breed list was first put together, Sannse looked both at what the major kennel clubs called it and at the common usage on the Internet. I just dbl-checked the kennel clubs: AKC and UKC in the US and FCI internationally all use Spinone Italiano; NZKC, KC, and ANKC (one could say "British empire clubs..."?) all use Italian Spinone. Of course we'd do a redirect from either one to whatever the article was called, so the main issue is how is it referred to here & in other places in Wikipedia. I'm leaning a little towards Spinone Italiano based on what you found on google & on the FCI's preferred naming. What do others think? Elf | Talk 00:45, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's already a redirect from Italian Spinone, so I say leave it as is (under Spinone Italiano). I'm sure most outsiders trying to look up the breed would search for whatever the AKC calls it, since that's probably the best known club to non-dog people. Lachatdelarue 01:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oops! I just moved based on my original list (intending to explain on the talk page there). It was only when I checked for double redirects I noticed this discussion. Sorry!

I must admit I'm not in favour of using the AKC as the decider, doing so brings up difficult issues about the Americanisation (or maybe Americanization ;-) of Wikipedia. But, as you say, the Google results are "Italian Spinone" = 6,990 "Spinone Italiano" = 38,400 So I agree that, with the even split on the breed clubs, we should go for "Spinone Italiano". I've reversed my move -- sannse (talk) 19:15, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, agree with all; including Sannse's sensibility about the 'americanization' of Wikipedia. Quill 22:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

new article

ok, i just posted my article for the american pit bull terrier. it's not 100% complete (of course), nor is it all i plan on writing, but it's a good start. it's the longest thing i've written for wikipedia so far, so i'd like everyone's opinion on it. Lachatdelarue 01:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It looks good! Had a quick read; I seem to be brain dead, so I'll come back to it, but I made some suggestions at Talk:American Pit Bull Terrier Quill 23:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Missing photos

See Wikipedia:Requested_pictures#Dog_breeds; I'm working on filling in this list from existing articles; anyone else can feel free to do the same. :-) Elf | Talk 23:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Osterreichischer Kurzhaariger Pinscher/Austrian Pinscher

We've got this listed as the main breed name on this page; however, I see that it's not apparently recognized by any of the main kennel clubs we're using and it does have an alternative English name, the Austrian Short-Haired Pinscher. I haven't done a google search, but since this is an english-language encycl, and the nonEnglish version is so non-English, I'm inclined to use the English name as our main entry. Thoughts? (Sorry, that was me Elf | Talk asking).

Humm, this is an interesting one. It's recognised by the FCI (Group 2 Section 1). In their breed list they list it as a "Österreichischer Kurzhaariger Pinscher" (Austrian short-haired Pinscher). But in the standard it says "In the year 2000 the breed was renamed Österreichischer Pinscher (Austrian Pinscher)". I hadn't seen this when I did my list - and it makes quite a difference (see below)

I don't think we can go only on the fact that it has an English name because of breeds like the Kooikerhondje - which has an English name, but English speakers usually use its home language name.

So.. where only the FCI (or none of the kennel clubs) recognise, I think we have to try to decide which version of the name is most often used by English speakers - the English language one or the home language one.

Google results:

319 English pages for "Österreichischer Kurzhaariger Pinscher" or "Osterreichischer Kurzhaariger Pinscher"

56 English pages for "Austrian short-haired Pinscher"

7 English pages for "Österreichischer Pinscher" or "Osterreichischer Pinscher"

915 English pages for "Austrian Pinscher"

I had only compared the first two results before - but with the new name included it looks as though "Austrian Pinscher" is the most common form. Sorry to be so long-winded in saying so - I've written this as I've been been searching for answers :) -- sannse (talk) 09:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Long-winded is good here because it clearly shows the rationale--I'd vote for Austrian Pinscher, then, too. Elf | Talk 17:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tornjaks

Here's another set: The Croatian Mountain Dog, aka Croatian Tornjak, aka Croatian Shepherd. Apparently there are multiple Tornjaks, including the Bosnian Tornjak maybe AKA Bosnian Sheepdog. I've done a little poking around on the web but most of the pages I'm finding are somewhat amateur--even though some are breeders. So I'm not positive that these aren't duplicates of breeds we already have, but meanwhile I'm adding them to the breed list (since there's at least one page for them out there...). Another alias: "Bosnian-Herzegovinian sheepdog - tornjak" Elf | Talk 19:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

References:

• Tornjak page
• quick summary and details on another page
• another description

I've got nothing on this one, I can't see anywhere on the list that it might be duplicated though. I did find another useful site: tornjak.net - maybe we can get a photo out of them ;) -- sannse (talk) 10:20, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that one, too. I wouldn't say that there are a lot of Tornjak pages out there. :-) BTW--when y'all talk about doing google searches & coming up with numbers like that, what tool or method are you using? e.g., just putting "tornjak" into the search box gives me all languages, not just english-- Elf | Talk 17:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are "Advanced Search" and "Language Tools" links next to the text box on Google's main page - either gives the option of returning pages in a specific language. Sometimes there is an "English only" link at the top of the results too - but that's not always there, just if you get a lot of non-English results I think. I use the Google tool-bar a lot as well, that makes site-specific searches easier (otherwise, type site:www.whatever.com at the beginning of the search). The only other thing I can think of to mention, is that I use quotes around names of two or more words to try and make the search more specific (which I'm sure you already knew!). Hope that's helpful -- sannse (talk) 17:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poifect! Thanks. Elf | Talk 18:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

tornjak.net have got in touch on my talk page. Apparently the Croatian Shepherd and the Croatian Mountain Dog Tornjak are different breeds. I would guess the same might be true of the Bosnian Tornjak and Bosnian Sheepdog. This is a section that needs more work it seems -- sannse (talk) 19:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Viszlas

At least 2 all-breed clubs recognize the wirehaired and smoothhaired varieties as separate breeds, although others don't. My thought was that they should therefore have separate entries in the breed list here even if they end up at the same article--with the article treating them like we do Dachshunds. On the other hand, I see that this list doesn't include Miniature Dachshund, Wirehaired Dachshund, and so on as separate breeds, so, hmmm, I don't know, but I thought I ought to point it out. Elf | Talk 16:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think having two links implies that there are two articles. Perhaps it would be clearer if we also listed "Hungarian Shorthaired Vizsla - see Hungarian Viszla". But then perhaps that would look strange as they are all so close on the list. I'm not sure... my edit was an alternative, but I'm not sure that it's the right solution. Two articles doesn't seem to be the right solution either, because so many of the breed clubs regard them as the same species (and I'm not sure there is much to say differently about them anyway). Another tricky one -- sannse (talk) 11:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Number of Dog breeds ??

1. How many dog breeds are there in the world ?
2. How many dog breeds are listed at wikipedia ?
3. How many dog breeds are left to add to wikipedia ?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirIsaacBrock (talk • contribs) .

I already responded to this where you originally asked it, on my talk page. Elf | Talk 20:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have re-read you User Talk page and have a better idea now. I believe that our list has breeds that are not on that compiled list, such as, Old English Bulldog and others, particularly the extinct breeds. Thanks SirIsaacBrock 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds; it's a well-established project with a lot of activity and several experienced users active or semiactive. Currently we're converting all of the breed info tables to an easier-to-read (we hope) and more consistent format. You can read the project page and its discussion page and its subpages (particularly the To-Do list subpage) and their discussion pages, and also probably Talk:List of dog breeds, and you'll start to get an idea of what's going on and what has gone on over the last 3 or 4 years.

According to Category:Dog breeds, we have 322 dog breed articles so far (although a lot are pretty sparse, as indicated in the To-Do list, or even stubs--see Category:Dog stubs). The List of dog breeds article lists about 160 more than that. Our source spreadsheet at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/Breed source list lists 518 breeds; there's a very large overlap with what we've already got but not complete. So I'd guess there are well over 600 breeds of dogs in the world.

You can also start looking at Category:Dogs--all of the pages that you can get to from there and its subcategories are loosely associated with and often monitored by people in the dog breeds project. You can get an idea of the level of activity and who's doing what by going to any of those category pages and clicking the "Related changes" link on the left of your page; this shows all edits by anyone on any of the articles in that category within a certain amount of time.

Good luck. Have fun. Ask if you have questions. Elf | Talk 22:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I also just found the book Dogs: The Ultimate Dictionary of over 1,000 Breeds (ISBN 1570762198) by Desmond Morris--so now it looks as if there are "over 1,000" breeds of dogs in the world! I'm going to have to get a copy of the book, although apparently it's out of print so you have to find it used (and its illustrations are black & white rather than color). Elf | Talk 17:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)