198:. I would welcome any input from members of your group which breeds are probably of greatest importance for a good understanding of dogs in general, and which non-breed articles qualify as such as well. So far, I have only put in the assessment's top-importance category those articles which have been selected for the Knowledge (XXG) CD release. I think, given the large number of breeds out there, that there are without a doubt several more. On that basis, I wonder what the members of your group would think of the idea of selecting a set number, maybe 25, articles which we all basically agree are of top importance in the dog field, and, in effect, turning them into a group of 25 effective collaborations. Once most or all of those articles are brought to a sufficiently high standard of quality, we could choose another set to function as the next group collaborations. Anyway, I would welcome any responses regarding the choice of top-importance articles in general, and to the proposal for creating what would be an acting priority list for possibly both projects. Thank you for your attention.
1444:
sell the breed over the internet and maybe even get it registered with one of the many "registries" out there. Should this dog have an article? No. I think that's specifically of the things we are trying to avoid. Now,, let's say a group of 30 scientists genetically engineers a breed of dog combining human DNA with canine DNA to produce a breed of dog that is totally hypoallergenic, and is four times smarter than the average dogs :) - this development makes major newspapers and television programs. Should that have an article? Absolutely. Is there an AKC breed out there that is not the subject of some sort of work? The bar for option two is very high - most people won't be able to do that. Rather than just say "reliable sources", you can say "is the subject of one or more non-trivial published works" that's how most of the other notability guidelines work. -
1794:(which BTW still lacks an article here that honestly and objectively discusses its place in the dogworld and its manifold shortcomings and abuses) is going these days, it may have disappeared by the year 2050 if not sooner, to be replaced by multiple smaller, more responsive registry organisations. The trend is certainly in that direction at the moment. So my advice would be: stop looking for a foolproof criterion of notability and just continue to apply common sense, leaning heavily towards inclusivity and giving small landrace breeds, new breeds, alternative breeds, the benefit of the doubt. The dog world is in a state of turbulent change at the moment. It is not the place of Knowledge (XXG) to attempt to set norms for the canine fancy, only to document what's happening. My two cents worth...
1301:, however, does not pass the test for me. In all my spare time, I'll try to write down my 'test.' In the meantime, my fall-back criteria is if I cannot establish verifiability with what I consider scholarly research, then my perspective is the dog in question does not deserve an article of its own in this encyclopedia. (i.e. I am good at research and am good at finding other scholar's research. See for yourself amidst a number of my WP posts or ask me for some examples. Skeptics please note I said research, not just dog-related research. Also, I do not unilaterally always vote to keep or not keep; it depends on what my research bears.) A proposed Knowledge (XXG) policy that seems to expresses a lot of my approach is
1009:
reading this, that if you have concerns about the dog projects, you should contact the projects directly. The response I received from
Headphonos on this was that s/he was not interested in all the dog breeds, just certain ones ... and, I guess, with that reasoning, has chosen to not contact the dog projects. If you need me to provide links to my dialogs with Headphonos, I will. I do not feel that the dog projects are being portrayed accurately in this AfD. And, if there are concerns, if you do not raise them with the users who may be able to help, they cannot be addressed. Keesiewonder 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
551:
for this extremely engagin site and for my website. I understand that the spacve reserved for "external links" can't be monopolized and I don't intend to do that. However, from what I know, specific dog training is a niche and there is a lot of interest in it (or at least that's the vibe I got from dog related forums where I did a little reasearch on the potential interest there would be in such a website). Once my site grows a little bigger I plan to contribute by writing articles for
Knowledge (XXG) on related topics - for example, an article on training old dogs, which I belive doesn't exist.
1144:
no longer working registered Fox
Terriers as a result of selctive breeding for a larger dog? Or are they just called Jack Russells now? What about claims of extinct breeds from times before there were breed registries? At that time there was no requirement that dogs be of the same "breed" for breeding, you just put together the dogs that you had that did the work. If the dogs that make up the "old english bulldog" were used to make today's pit bull did that dog go extinct or just change? Or just become an unpopular breed name? What defines a breed? appearance? work? Temperment?
1747:
Shepherd, although well-established breeds, weren't recognized by the AKC or FCI until *very* recently, in large part because their breed registries severely resisted incorporation into organizations that they felt emphasized appearance over utility. So you couldn't ever say that a breed isn't a legit breed because it's not recognized by AKC or FCI. And of course each of the various clubs has "developing breeds" by various names that aren't full-fledged members but have some breed club somewhere who is working to develop a pedigree line.
694:
useful info, but most of it seems to be a duplicate of what's in the various bulldog articles and the site is trying to get you to buy books. heartwormsociety.org - i guess it's reputable and all those links are in one article at the very end, it's deep linking into specific sections of the site - maybe that's too much, a general link to the site would be fine, it's an easy to navigate site. The geocities sites are to specific user pages, i'm not sure that those should stay, given the amount of flux geocities has. dmoz.org - web directory.
510:
chance to send me photos of their dog, which I will post in the related dog training article. Speaking of that, I read your Wiki profile and noticed that you have a Basset Hound - the funny thing is that the article for this dog breed specific training was on my work schedule for Monday. If you wish, I would be more than happy to use a photo of your dog for the dog training article on
Bassets. I would also welcome any tips or tricks related to the training you used for your dog.
887:
who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in
January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at
536:
I'm just barging in here. :-) I'm not sure about the breed-specific training articles; most trainers I know do believe that there are some things that you must consider for each breed (or type of breed) to be an effective trainer. But, again, they don't look commercial to me, so couldn't the breed-specific links be appropriate, too? If you'll direct me to where you've already said something about this, that'd be great so I don't ask you to repeat it.
38:
1758:), but I'm afraid that even that has been a losing battle. If any given newspaper in a given country lists "purebred FoobyDooby puppies" for sale, then that means that there are an awful lot of people out there breeding what they believe are FoobyDoobies and that, in the sense of being info that someone's going to want to look up, makes them a "real" breed-- "legitimate" has an entirely different meaning, IMHO.
1297:. The former, at least, according to our Knowledge (XXG) article (which may not be completely up to date) is not recognized by any of the several international breed standard organizations; so, my reasoning has little to do with whether a breed is or is not listed there. I maintain that based on my research so far, these two bulldog breeds are welcome, in my opinion, to their own article on WP. The
124:
620:
people often have questions about - I've seen it time and time again at our dog training club, people come in having trouble training their dog and they think that they need some breed specific book or method so that they can train the dog when the real problem is that they simply haven't been consistent with training or simply don't understand how to train a dog at all.
1730:
being "real" breeds whether or not they're included in the FCI, AKC, etc. I check this table whenever a breed name pops up that I don't immediately recognize. But we've also established over time that there are hundreds of breeds that don't show up under these clubs, either, so we've also relied on published breed encyclopedias, such as Fogle's
1240:
anyone who puts up $ 50 get registration? For breeds which aren't AKC-recognized, what does it take to be notable? According to an argument elsewiki, the Shar Pei wasn't ACK-recognized until after lots of people had them. Was it recognized by a
Japanese or Chinese association? Why didn't the AKC recognize it?
1779:
as possible is the correct one. Knowledge (XXG) is, in my mind, not only the place one goes first for a good summary of an unfamiliar topic, but also the place one goes when the search for information fails elsewhere. I realise that the ongoing dissing of
Knowledge (XXG) by the hidebound professorial
1457:
Redundant? Perhaps. What I'm trying to do with that last clause is to establish a gray area between notable and non-notable breeds. Perhaps it isn't necessary, though. The second option is intentionally difficult to satisfy as written, though. Allowing any "non-trivial published works" opens the door
1008:
I am a member of the dog projects on WP, but am not the originator of them. Headphonos (and
Cowbonsai), I have not ever said anything anywhere resembling this: "if it doesn't belong to a major kennel or the FCI, it shouldn't be in Knowledge (XXG)." I did suggest that Headphonos, and now anyone who is
728:
The only thing that is slightly upsetting is that I put in a lot of time to write the breed specific training articles, and the "your links are not worth inclusion" response is a bit discouraging. Even though
English is not my first language I did my best to make each individual article sound like it
689:
4 members.aol.com 4 news.bbc.co.uk 4 www.canismajor.com 4 www.dogpatch.org 4 www.moloss.com 5 dmoz.org 5 news.nationalgeographic.com 5 www.basenji.org 5 www.expert-dog-training.com 5 www.iditarod.com 6 www.heartwormsociety.org 7 www.bulldoginformation.com 8 www.geocities.com
623:
I'd vote unlink them all, and once his site is done - if it becomes regarded as reputable dog training site after a while, then he should come back and consider contributing things from his site and referencing his site as a source. Right now, all we know about the info is that people emailed it to
498:
Hello Trysha and thank you for your reply. Although I am a bit disappointed about the fact that you removed my links, I will do my best to contribute to the dog related article on
Knowledge (XXG) while expanding my website. I went through teh links you provided and I have read the Wiki guidelines, so
193:
I am not a member of this project, largely due to my almost total lack of knowledge of the subject. But, as many of you will know, from the notice above if nothing else :), there is another project relating to dogs which has recently been started and is beginning to try to do some assessments related
1804:
My take is simple. The founding principle of the kennel clubs - the pure bred - is a myth. It dates back to the old eugenics movement, and is based on serious misconceptions about the fundamentals of genetics. The act of trying to create a pure-bred strain of dogs is enormously destructive to the
1572:
Yes, I meant that FCI. If you're located in Britain, the US or Canada (ir any other non-FCI country, for that matter) it's quite common for people not to know about the FCI as all those countries aren't part of the FCI, and generally distance themselves from it (speaking in terms of kennel clubs, of
1480:
Not meaning to throw a spanner in the works, here, but I do note that there is a breed of dog in Turkey called the kaldang. It is according to one of my sources illegal to export any animal of this breed from Turkey. Would this dog, which currently exists in very small numbers only within a specific
1245:
Lastly, look at where you might find discussions of rarer or newer breeds which aren't AKC-recognized, which aren't basically paid ads for the breeders. Which dog-fancy magazines aren't in the pockets of their breeder advertisers? What's their circulation? Do they write about every small breeder who
1143:
The Old English Bulldog discussion above brings up and interesting problem. What is an extinct dog breed? Does it require that all members of the "breed" fail to produce offspring? What if the dog is bred for a different purpose as the Fox Terrier was. Is the Old Fox Terrier extinct as there are
535:
article, where I replaced the link. The site is not blatantly commercial; in fact, I don't even really see anything commercial on this site. IMHO, these pages do provide useful info related to certain articles and can remain there. I can't find where the earlier discussions about these links are, so
509:
There is one other reason why I wish to help Knowledge (XXG) grow - a few relevant links would get interested visitors to my site. I will soon post a request on the website asking people who have dogs to contribute, if they wish, with their own dog training techniques. I will also offer visitors the
1750:
Failing mention in any of the accepted registries, the fact remains that if *any* registry lists the breed, then it exists in some group's mind and dogs will be made available under that breed name and peoplel might well come to Knowledge (XXG) looking for information. The best that we can do is to
1664:
The last three criteria capture: dogs of historical interest, the exclusion of most lines and crosses unless notable for being "more than just a type of dog", and states that notability for unrecognized types of dog should be evaluated from the viewpoint of "is this notable to society or to the dog
1490:
If there is a law in Turkey specific to that breed of dog, that's notable. Turkish law is a non-trivial, outside source. If it's illegal to export because it meets some guideline (for example, "dogs under 10kg"), then that does not establish notability. One might also look at the reasons the dog is
1443:
I would say strike the third option. It is redudnant. Let's stand back and look at it outside the dog community. Any group of people can get together and create a "breed", let's say a group of 30 people get together with german shepherds and pomeranians and want to make the "shep-pom". They
1276:
As I'm sure anyone reading this can appreciate, designing and implementing this is going to take some time. I fully believe it is possible, though. And I have faith that the new place we'll be after going through the process will be better for all parties. I cannot completely articulate it yet, but
1185:
I've been looking around other languages for dog articles (mostly in search of images, but I normally end up looking at the infobox) and I've noticed several different parameters that other language infoboxes have which I think may be useful here. For example height and weight parameters in German,
1093:
for more information. I have not contacted the site about the infringement as any complaints should come from contributors to one or more of the articles. If any editor who has contributed to any of the articles about breeds of dogs in Knowledge (XXG) wants to pursue this, please follow the process
886:
proposal for an appreciation week to end on Knowledge (XXG) Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals
720:
After being a while on Knowledge (XXG) I started to get a sense what a major online force this is. Of course, the external links to my dog breed training pages did bring traffic. However, I do not feel like I was "stealing" Knowledge (XXG)'s visitors. On the contrary, I was hoping you would see the
595:
guidelines - it doesn't' have to be commercial to not be allowed. I don't see anything especially new or novel on his site (yet) to make it acceptable under "what should be linked to number 5" - and it's explicitly disallowed under "what should not be linked to" number 2 (self promotion). I've
471:
article, which I just put back). If we linked to every possible dog-related web site on every dog-related article here, there'd be thousands of links in every article and it would be hard to find the ones that were really specifically related to the topic of the article. You'll get the hang of it,
173:
Fascinating, didn't think there would be such a thing. Of the three photos, the Tatra mountain one is probably closest, as they were of fairly slender build - nothing like the really heavy build of the other two. As they were on quite a traditional farm in the Tatras, the identification sounds even
1746:
the breed in passing, such as in a general discussion of types of dogs (e.g., hounds); we've accepted these as legitimizing the existence and acceptance of the breed, although there might not in fact be a breed in the FCI, AKC, or so on. Consider, for example, that the Border Collie and Australian
1729:
are legit breeds (this excludes some pay-and-we'll-list-you orgs that I know we have discussions about here somewhere--sigh--so many years of talks, not all perfectly organized). This table lists those breeds & alternative names & many other breeds that we established one way or another as
1470:
that it describes some of the breed's key personality traits as being able to say "mumma" and eating from a spoon!) Hence, as I stated above, I'm thinking it might make sense to require such references to be from sources outside the "dog community". The big issue here is that it's easy for trivial
1420:
I'm not sure how all the OEB breeds stack up. They all certainly fail the first two criteria: none of them appear to be recognized by the big three kennel clubs, and the closest I've seen to a news reference was a one-off mention of a particular dog's breed, which doesn't really count. Results are
1378:
That looks good, though a little more input into what constitutes a "reliable source" may be useful - is the Continental Kennel Club a reliable indicator of notability? Are there eqiuvalent organizations to the AKC/CanKC/BKC in Japan, China, Australia, or continental Europe? Which publications are
1147:
When breed registries came to be in the late 1800's there was a strong incentive to create noble and ancient histories for the dog breed to be recognized. These claims were possible because they were unverifiable. Are these sources now to be considered reliable for encyclopedic purposes? Is old
819:
This page has recently been revised to emphatically state that silver Labs are in fact pure labs, directly contradicting the prior text. I am in no way sufficiently well informed on the subject to weigh on, however, any expert in Labradors who could clearly indicate whether the silver Lab is or is
550:
Hello again. Elf, thank you for your remarks. My website is new and small, for now, but I plan to allow it to grow in time and become one of the best breed specific and general dog training resource on the web. It will take a while :)) I hope my stay here on Knowledge (XXG) will be beneficial both
502:
I plan to develop Expert-dog-training.com into the first website that offers specific, breed oriented dog training methods. This is why I thought some links toward my website would prove useful for the visitors of Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) offers some nice breed information, while the links
1219:
be established. Personally, I have no acquaintance with writing such guidelines, and certainly am completely unqualified to write regarding dog breeds. If anyone who has some experience regarding this sort of thing would care to do so, I and I think several others would be immensely appreciative.
873:
The names "Cesky Fousek" and "Cesky Terrier" are not properly transliterated. The first letter of Český is transliterated as a 'Ch' not a 'C'. It is not pronounced as Sesky terrier but as Chesky terrier. Should not our choice of name reflect this and be either "Český" or "Chesky" or the Victorian
724:
ON the other hand, I do not see a flawless logic behind Trysha's "4 link" policy. I believe that limits the access visitors on Knowledge (XXG) have to other relevant info not p[resent on the site. Take Daschunds for example - plenty of info on the breed, but almost nothing about training. My link
603:
I don't mean to condemn him - he's being a nice guy and is trying to play within the rules - unlike others who have tried this in the past (the most memorable one was the woman who copied a dog training book from gutenberg removed all citiations, copyright, and references to the author, and then
645:
OK, after thinking it over overnight and reading Trysha's thoughts on the subject and Knowledge (XXG)'s linking policy, I am coming to agree that a link from one or two relevant articles, such as one on dog training and possibly a couple of others, would be most appropriate to this site. Trysha,
1239:
Next, look at other notability guidelines. What makes a particular dog breed notable? You can find anything on the internet, but how much can you find? I'd suggest starting with AKC registrations. I assume the British equivalent is similar in how it selects breeds. Is the CKC selective, or does
693:
All the high number sites are major kennel clubs and list breed standards for the dogs, as well as competition rules, etc... The dogdomain.com and google.com sites host FCI standards, although dogdomain.com is kind of an annoying ad-laden site. The bulldoginformation.com, like moloss.com, gives
619:
I'll say that he does have a good idea to make a popular web site, So, by linking to his site (which is soliciting dog pictures and training info) to wikipedia, he's linking to a demographic that is more likely to provide him with information to make his site grow. And he's found a topic that
1404:
Perhaps I should clarify: "reliable sources" is meant to refer to sources outside of the dog fancy community, such as general-distribution newspapers. As I state in the proposal, that line's mainly meant to shoehorn in breeds that aren't official, but widely recognized anyway - another example
324:
we are beginning to discuss which articles are of the highest importance to the project. Clearly, the most important articles are ones which should probably be the focus of a good deal of attention by our members. Given that your project is generally much better informed about the relative
1429:
appears to fail, as it appears to only be bred by the Wilkinson family. The recently deleted "Tasmakan dog" would probably have failed the third criteria as well, as (if I remember correctly) there was no evidence it existed, much less that it was actively being bred by multiple groups.
646:
perhaps we could accrue all the comments on this into one central location (dog project?) so that we could all comment there instead of in myriad Edit Summaries and talk pages and user discussions? Then we could point people there who want to express opinions one way or the other.
858:
to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention.
1416:
If there are other big kennel clubs in Asia, Australia, or continental Europe which are considered to be on the same level of reputability as AKC/BKC/CKC, then, by all means, they'd pass too. I only mentioned those three because I knew that they're considered
157:. The dog in your photo appears to have a beard (or at least some hair on the muzzle), and none of the aforementioned breeds do (or should, at least). However, I'm going to put it in Tatra Mountain Sheepdog, since the geography and appearance both match. --
1808:
But more than that - the public is beginning to wake up to just how destructive a force to the health of dogs the kennel clubs are. And will remain so long as they continue their two most destructive practices - closed studbooks and registering litters.
1751:
provide articles with any neutral info that we can find about the breed and say it like it is. And, after that, we've also relied heavily on how often a breed is mentioned on the internet and how legitimate it looks after considering all the citations.
679:
Using this no individual web site has more than 4 links throughout the entire dog project with very few exceptions - the sites that do have more than 4 links those are large and universally considered authoritative. (akc.org, uckdogs.com, etc...)
1491:
illegal to export - is it protected for conservation-type reasons? If so, there's probably a Turkish conservation groups which has written about the breed, or there may have been newspaper articles about the breed being protected from export.
1507:
Agreed. If the breed's well-known enough that the Turkish government has seen fit to pass a law specifically about it, it's definitely notable. (However, Google doesn't appear to recognize it - are you sure you've got the right spelling?)
951:. You will also easily find my participation in the deletion review mentioned for Winston Olde English Bulldogge. I'm not sure what if anything to do next, and would appreciate hearing other active dog project user's input. Kind Regards,
754:. It appears to me that they are working through the alphabet adding an entry to every dog breed page under External Links to www.thedogscene.co.uk. Personally, I do not find this necessary or useful and have reverted their change on the
1691:
I think that depends on how selective the club is. If the Turkish Kennel Club recognizes as a breed anything which a breeder pays a fee for, then no. If they have some sort of reasonable standards other than payment of a fee, then yes.
375:
Hi, welcome and thanks for editing Knowledge (XXG). I'm sorry to say, I reverted your dog training external links from various dog breed article article. The sort of external link provided is not apropriate for wikipedia, since
1789:
There is no easy, foolproof touchstone-of-notability for dog breeds. Creating dog breeds is a human activity that has gone on for a long time; the structures that surround this basic activity are ephemeral and changing. At the rate
918:, as the article's authors have not found any outside references to the breed. Feel free to weigh in to the discussion, particularly if you know of articles (which are more than ads or trivial mentions) which talk about the breed.
891:
where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.
690:
9 clubs.akc.org 16 www.ckc.ca 37 www.fci.be 63 www.canadasguidetodogs.com 72 www.dogdomain.com 99 www.google.com 165 www.nzkc.org.nz 166 www.ukcdogs.com 168 www.ankc.aust.com 180 www.the-kennel-club.org.uk 197 www.akc.org
676:, i'm finding it hard to justify much more than that, I have a script that generates a list of all the external links from all the dog project pages. I use this to check for "hidden spam" that has been reverted in the past.
108:. This is an issue discused in the past. Hope that somebody from the developers would do somthing about it. My question here is about your opinion concerning the maximal number of keywords which should be supported. Regards
732:
One last question - I contributed to the Mioritic dog page - would a link under "references" also be considered too much? I'm also asking because there are several dog article stubs I was planning to contribute to.
668:
I think i've summed up my thoughts in the previous though, while THe dog trainer's site might become the best site on the internet for training dogs. I don't think it's wikipedia's place to promote the site.
387:
The text added in individual training sections isn't specific to to the individual breeds of dog in question, so I removed those as well. That is useful information, it's just not the right place for it.
1028:
1003:. I would really appreciate feeling like I am part of a project here, and not just some doggie person. There are accusations and generalizations that are being spread left and right ... Please take a look.
1649:
reliable sources, and are notable in their own right amongst breeds or crossbreeds or in some niche or role for more than just "being a dog". Mere existence is not sufficient grounds for notability.
503:
toward my website would also allow a person interested, let's say, in Bandog training to get some specific techniques that are focused on this dog breed. For Bandog, for example, the link would be
1754:
I'm not sure that you're going to be able to get more specific than that--as I mention elsewhere, it's been an ongoing battle to keep every cutesy hybrid name from having its own article (see
907:
596:
looked over a few of these articles and the dog whistle article is one of the few that mentions anything different than what can be inferred from information here. It also goes against
729:
was written by a native English speaking person. And I also believe the methods mentioned in the articles are at least 50% unique, something you can hardly say about web content today.
284:
breed of dog. I don't normally work on wikipedia dog pages so it probably needs work. Maybe the dog already has a page of some other name. I made it because it was mentioned in the
577:
One thing, I cannot say that I'd agree with the decision of letting this "dog trainer experts" web site stay as an external link anywhere. The most I'd suggest would be one link at
303:
1194:
version. Another could be "original use" and possibly "modern use" (no examples, I thought those ones up one my own). What does everyone think about adding some or all of those? --
1368:
How does this sound as a first approximation? Is there anything obvious that'd end up on the wrong side of this policy, or which could easily be covered by this policy but isn't?
1594:
Nice idea but to me, it doesn't seem to quite achieve its objective as it stands. Its hard to demarcate grey areas; that said my first thoughts for an updated proposal would be:
1722:
321:
1190:
version). Polish also appears to incorporate a link to a Commons gallery into the bottom of the infobox, which I think is quite neat. A "colours" one might be useful as in the
1780:
faction cuts deep and really hurts the feelings of the many sincere, serious contributors here -- but I think it is a disastrous mistake to attempt to respond to criticism by
1467:
218:
384:
for a list of what is apropriate to put in the external links section of an article. Simply having useful information alone doesn't make a site merit an external link.
1151:
I suggest that we need to maintain a skeptical eye when it comes to breeds that went "extinct" before the advent of written pedigree records (largely in the 20th century).--
1634:
A line, breed or crossbreed which has played a significant, demonstrable, and enduring historical role in breed development history, or in some industry, culture or niche,
1645:
unless they have an established history of being bred by more than one independent source, are highly regarded or cited as significant lines or crossbreeds by independent
1089:
The site http://www.about-puppies.com is mirroring articles from Knowledge (XXG) about breeds of dogs without any acknowledgement of Knowledge (XXG) or the GFDL. See
347:
131:
I have a photo I quite like of a dog. Is it of any value to Knowledge (XXG)? Maybe someone knows what type it is? It was working as a sheepdog, in Poland. Thanks!
380:
a link farm, a method of link exchange to generate higher google search results. or a vehicle for promotion of products websites. You can read the article on
1215:
There are currently a number of active discussions for deletion regarding some little known breeds of dogs. It has been proposed that perhaps a guideline for
266:
I personally think this is probably more in your field than it is in mine. Please make any comments or changes as necessary. Thank you. Thank you very much.
781:
325:
significance of breeds than some of our members might be, we would welcome any input any of you might choose to give as well. Thank you for your attention.
1281:
for an example of a complicated mess) and trying to work through a methodology we can write down may provide insight for how to deal with all domesticated
1560:
1775:
I post here reluctantly, due to the fact of having a vested interest in the outcome. However, I feel quite strongly that the general policy of being as
1695:
855:
888:
721:
links as exactly what links are designed to be on the Internet - doors to related information that site A's visitor might want to look at on site B.
554:
In any case, I will keep in touch and I appreciate your support adn your patience, as I am still getting the hang of being active on Knowledge (XXG).
1628:(is this really helpful? See below and note that some notable types of dog may possibly have very strictly controlled breeding sources? See below)
1065:
Please do. This WikiProject always welcomes new members. For this WikiProject (as with all the ones I've ever seen) you don't even have to ask. --
725:
would have provided exactly the "informational bonus" if you will, the normal step after learning about the breed is how to train it, isn't it?
1471:
sources to look nontrivial in this sort of context, particularly given the existence of registries that'll essentially add anything for a fee.
414:
1805:
health and well-being of those dogs, and the various manias and absurd fashions that periodically infest the dog fancy only make it worse.
418:
1652:
Types of dog not recognized by a major KC should usually be evaluated for notability from the perspective of society in general, or the
306:
for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit.
1543:
Why is the FCI not included in the three KCs which registration with guarantees notability under your proposal (I'm merely curious). --
588:
is to use wikipedia to make his site more popular. (and to improve wikipedia after more people have sent information to his site??).
1641:
Specific lines, colorations, and crossbreeds (for example proprietary types of dane or bulldog or labrador, and most crossbreeds) are
1742:. What's particularly interesting is that, even when these boosk don't have an entry specifically for a breed, they might one or all
1602:
if it is recognized by a major internationally recognized Kennel Club (for example, the American, British, or Canadian Kennel Clubs).
1273:
Argyriou -- Thanks for your input! I feel you have given us a great place to start; please let us know if you think of anything else.
1090:
241:
54:
23:
17:
1234:. Start small. If the cat and horse people want to imitate your proposal, that's great; if not, let them make their own guidelines.
1216:
1024:
1016:
402:
1707:
1231:
350:. We would welcome any input from the members of this project regarding the proposed deletion. Thank you for your attention.
1095:
1721:
A good place to start with very well-accepted breeds is with the research that a user started and we continued with here:
983:
83:
1131:
195:
607:
I think that I'd be really upset if we had a link to his site from every single dog article (as he seems to want to do
410:
1682:
that they recognize the Akbash dog, although the FCI doesn't. Would recognition by any of these smaller groups count?
1563:? If so, it's definitely worth mentioning - the only reason I didn't list it was because I hadn't heard of it before.
592:
463:
I just wanted to add a note that your dog-training tips indeed look useful and I hope you do investigate starting at
381:
1290:
45:
638:
585:
369:
426:
1246:
crosses their gate, or only about breeds which will likely soon become AKC-recognized, or at least AKC-debated?
1302:
68:
939:
I have had a headache all day, and, am afraid I have made it worse by doing some due diligence. Please see a
513:
I hope we will keep in touch and, from now on, I will check with you first before posting any text or links.
146:
1579:
1549:
1200:
1071:
836:
163:
142:
1459:
1425:
appears to fall into the gray area, as the article implies that there are multiple breeders out there. The
1422:
1305:. To be continued ... I am going to post a link to this thread in the other dog project ... Kind Regards,
1294:
911:
793:
561:
522:
883:
624:
him. Is it verifiable? Besides a site shouldn't need links from wikipedia in order to make it popular.
433:
1027:
is currently being considered for deletion. If you would care to comment on this proposal, please go to
972:
1725:. It's based on our agreement repeatedly over time that breeds listed in any of the major kennel clubs
1426:
1298:
1000:
531:
Just popping in here. I think that links to this site in related articles are appropriate, such as the
406:
1816:
1798:
1769:
1711:
1686:
1672:
1584:
1567:
1554:
1531:
1512:
1502:
1485:
1475:
1448:
1434:
1395:
1372:
1309:
1261:
1224:
1205:
1175:
1155:
1124:
1104:
1076:
1059:
1035:
987:
955:
929:
896:
863:
841:
824:
801:
762:
707:
654:
631:
564:
544:
525:
484:
454:
354:
329:
310:
292:
270:
260:
253:
230:
202:
178:
168:
135:
1791:
1413:. Basically, it's for unofficial or unrecognized breeds that have widespread name recognition anyway.
289:
249:
1795:
751:
75:
Halló! I have seen an InterWiki link and hope to find some people interested to come here. Regards
1784:
information and limiting inclusivity, because that strikes at the root of what Knowledge (XXG) is.
1660:
or the size and spread of the owner population (whether generally or in a specific area or niche).
1703:
1683:
1574:
1544:
1528:
1498:
1482:
1391:
1257:
1221:
1195:
1066:
1032:
925:
893:
860:
831:
821:
813:
351:
326:
307:
267:
199:
158:
1678:
Follow-up. Would any of the possibly minor club, like the Turkish Kennel Club, qualify? It says
221:. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.
1306:
1172:
1168:
1121:
1099:
952:
785:
759:
467:
and go through the category tree to find articles where your pages are appropriate (as in the
257:
226:
175:
132:
1191:
1187:
1051:, Lexie who appears on the Papillon page as the one with perthes, and Truman, a (democratic)
1052:
492:
473:
154:
597:
377:
285:
101:
1463:
214:
149:) is a strong candidate. However, there are two other breeds that look quite similar: the
1610:
1342:
504:
422:
1384:
How do the Olde English Bulldogge breeds fare when tested against those three criteria?
1322:
An easy way to start would be to define some black, white, and gray areas. For example:
1117:
1048:
440:, like this: ~~~~. This automatically adds your name and the time after your comments.
256:
and some others. Somebody who's a bit more knowledgeable might want to look into it.
1289:). For instance, right now, I have no qualms what-so-ever having an article about the
915:
1766:
1755:
1699:
1564:
1509:
1493:
1472:
1431:
1410:
1386:
1369:
1252:
1152:
920:
651:
571:
541:
481:
464:
109:
87:
76:
1056:
976:
683:(actually, looking through this list, I think that i should do some housecleaning)
673:
578:
395:
343:
335:
222:
943:
I have made on my talk page. For more background information, you may wish to see
499:
I am sure my future contributions will be better suited for this ingenious site.
1665:
world in general", rather than "is it of interest to its own fans and breeders"?
1445:
1406:
1348:
704:
700:
There are a total of 728 external sites that pages in the dog project links to.
628:
532:
468:
451:
53:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1813:
1679:
1524:
123:
1360:
if a breeding population does not exist independently from its originators. (
1148:
and unverifiable better than new and unverifiable when it comes to sources?
304:
Knowledge (XXG):Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar
1625:
if a breeding population does not exist independently from its originators.
1278:
948:
944:
940:
1762:
1669:
1330:
if it is recognized by the American, British, or Canadian Kennel Clubs. (
968:
882:
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of
755:
647:
537:
477:
425:
is also quite useful. In addition, you might want to add yourself to the
1362:
This is meant to apply to made-up breeds like the East Miami Swamphound.
1332:
This is meant to apply to well-known breeds such as the German Shepherd.
830:
I've tidyed up tha section, which was heavily biased towards silvers. --
281:
1055:. Also, I may try to make a Userbox that adds membaers to a category.
1029:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/American Rare Breed Association
150:
24:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force/Archive 2
217:
is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found
1761:
Hope this rambling helps clarify wikipedia history on dog breeds.
820:
not recognized as a pure Lab would be more than welcome to do so.
437:
1085:
Mirror site infringing on Wikiepdia articles about breeds of dogs
856:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine
248:
There seem to be a lot of questionable article/edits coming from
1345:
independent of the breeder which describe the breed in detail. (
672:
At most, i think we could compromise and allow a single link at
665:
So, i've consolidated this discussion here for others to input.
1282:
106:
feature request: control of meta name="KEYWORDS" content="..."
32:
1656:
population in general, and especially in view of citation by
616:, etc..). One site doesn't merit that amount of linking.
391:
I hope that this does not discourage you from contributing.
1091:
Knowledge (XXG):Mirrors and forks/Abc#All About-puppies.com
808:
End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.
782:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia
398:
article, and maybe putting some of your information there.
1347:
This is meant to apply to popular crossbreeds such as the
967:
I just wanted to call attention to my plan to rewrite the
874:
version "Bohemian"? Bejnar 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1723:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Dog_breeds/Breed_source_list
1096:
Knowledge (XXG):Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process
995:
Might be nice to help out a fellow member, here. Please.
322:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Dogs/Top-importance articles
614:
612:
610:
608:
444:
505:
http://www.expert-dog-training.com/Bandog-training.php
1462:
as references, which definitely isn't what we want. (
1006:
My most recent post copied from the AfD discussion:
971:
page to be sure I get all the advice I can get. See
914:
article. The primary claim is that the breed is not
1379:
pretty much automatically indicators of notability?
1277:... thinking just about the bulldog situation (see
1541:Question completely unrelated to the above comment
443:If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my
432:By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on
141:Well, it was taken in the Tatra mountains, so the
1617:populations, which describe the breed in detail.
1270:Badbilltucker -- Thanks for starting this thread!
784:. If you wish to comment, please comment there.
717:Hello Elf, Trysha and anyone reading this post.
697:Westminster kennel club only has two links.
1186:French and Polish IBs (I particularly like the
999:I just posted the following in the AfD for the
1047:I would like to join this. I have two dogs: a
736:Thanks and may you all have a Happy New Year!
8:
686:These are the by number of links, in order:
346:is currently being considered for deletion
935:Please Help a Dog Project Member with This
302:There is currently a barnstar proposal at
889:User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week
472:I'm sure. Also continuing discussion on
288:. Just thought you guys should know. -
122:
1232:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (dog breeds)
51:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1561:Fédération Cynologique Internationale
557:Best wishes to you and your dogs! :)
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Dogs
7:
1609:if it is widely recognized by major
1341:if it is widely recognized by major
850:Proposed Veterinary medicine project
316:Dogs Project Top importance articles
1230:My first suggestion is to title it
854:There is now a proposed project at
604:tried to link it everywhere here).
394:You could consider looking at the
240:We just received this note on the
31:
1167:Tamaskan Dog is back; please see
364:Consolidating Conversation Here:
189:Top importance collaboration list
1132:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Dogs
196:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Dogs
36:
1736:The Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds,
1732:The New Encyclopedia of the Dog
1025:American Rare Breed Association
1017:American Rare Breed Association
908:article for deletion discussion
174:more likely. Thanks very much!
1181:Expanding the infobox template
1112:Considering an article for AFD
742:09:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
360:The question of external Links
1:
1481:country, qualify as notable?
1206:13:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
897:17:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
802:03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
763:14:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
708:21:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
655:20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
632:19:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
565:21:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
545:18:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
526:09:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
485:18:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
455:23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
355:15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
330:18:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
311:15:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
293:18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1770:03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
1712:18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
1687:14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
1673:10:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
1585:13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
1532:14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
1211:Breeds notability guidelines
1176:10:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1156:17:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
1125:01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
1105:01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
1077:01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
1060:01:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
1036:22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
864:22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
842:17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
825:16:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
598:wikipedia is not a link farm
271:00:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
261:00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
231:03:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
203:22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
179:22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
169:12:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
136:10:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1613:independent of the breeder
1605:A breed is also considered
1568:23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1555:22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1513:23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1503:22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1486:21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1476:21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1449:20:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1435:20:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1396:19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1373:18:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1337:A breed is also considered
1310:09:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1303:Knowledge (XXG):Attribution
1262:05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1225:00:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1171:. So is this the 3rd time?
988:22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
956:01:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
930:20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
581:and that bothers me a bit.
401:You may wish to review the
1832:
1817:04:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
1799:20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
1291:Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog
902:Olde English Bulldogge AfD
878:Knowledge (XXG) Day Awards
100:Dear friends, I submitted
1468:the Wilkinson Bulldog AFD
1130:Copied from talk page of
639:User_talk:THe_dog_trainer
423:Knowledge (XXG) directory
370:User_talk:THe_dog_trainer
1421:mixed on the third; the
963:Alaskan Malamute Rewrite
869:Cesky v. Český v. Chesky
415:avoiding common mistakes
90:20:31, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)
79:20:26, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)
1727:included in the infobox
750:Please beware edits by
143:Tatra Mountain Sheepdog
112:18:05, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
1598:A breed is considered
1423:Olde English Bulldogge
1326:A breed is considered
1295:Olde English Bulldogge
1287:Canis lupus familiaris
912:Olde English Bulldogge
419:Knowledge (XXG) is not
280:I made a page for the
242:Dogs Project talk page
128:
1698:comment was added by
1458:for using pages like
775:Beginning cross-post.
126:
49:of past discussions.
661:Continued Discussion
1643:usually not notable
1523:No, wrong spelling
1217:Notability (breeds)
1023:The article on the
713:Expert dog training
591:That's against the
436:, simply type four
210:Mixed-breed dog FAR
1139:Extinct Dog Breeds
814:Labrador Retriever
586:his stated purpose
129:
82:List available at
69:he:Category:כלבים
1738:, or Mehus-Roe's
1715:
1582:
1552:
1501:
1427:Wilkinson Bulldog
1394:
1299:Wilkinson Bulldog
1260:
1203:
1169:Talk:Tamaskan Dog
1074:
1001:Wilkinson Bulldog
928:
839:
797:
790:
413:, as well as the
298:Wildlife Barnstar
194:to dog articles,
166:
119:What is this dog?
61:
60:
55:current talk page
22:(Redirected from
1823:
1693:
1638:for that reason.
1611:reliable sources
1580:
1577:
1559:Do you mean the
1550:
1547:
1497:
1390:
1343:reliable sources
1256:
1201:
1198:
1072:
1069:
1053:Golden retreiver
979:
924:
837:
834:
799:
795:
791:
788:
739:THe Dog Trainer
493:User_talk:Trysha
474:User talk:Trysha
378:wikipedia is not
254:Tamaskan Wolfdog
164:
161:
155:Maremma Sheepdog
40:
39:
33:
27:
1831:
1830:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1694:—The preceding
1575:
1545:
1320:
1213:
1196:
1183:
1165:
1135:
1114:
1087:
1067:
1045:
1021:
1019:up for deletion
997:
986:
977:
965:
937:
904:
880:
871:
852:
832:
817:
794:
786:
772:
748:
715:
691:
663:
642:
575:
562:THe dog trainer
523:THe dog trainer
496:
373:
362:
340:
318:
300:
290:Peregrinefisher
278:
238:
215:Mixed-breed dog
212:
191:
159:
121:
97:
72:
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1829:
1827:
1802:
1801:
1796:Ditkoofseppala
1786:
1785:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1662:
1661:
1650:
1639:
1636:may be notable
1632:
1631:
1630:
1603:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1452:
1451:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1418:
1414:
1399:
1398:
1381:
1380:
1366:
1365:
1354:
1335:
1319:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1274:
1271:
1265:
1264:
1248:
1247:
1242:
1241:
1236:
1235:
1212:
1209:
1182:
1179:
1164:
1161:
1134:
1128:
1113:
1110:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1044:
1041:
1020:
1014:
996:
993:
982:
964:
961:
936:
933:
910:regarding the
903:
900:
879:
876:
870:
867:
851:
848:
845:
844:
816:
811:
805:
804:
771:
768:
747:
744:
714:
711:
688:
662:
659:
658:
657:
641:
635:
593:External links
574:
568:
548:
547:
516:Warm regards,
495:
489:
488:
487:
459:
382:External links
372:
366:
361:
358:
339:
333:
317:
314:
299:
296:
277:
274:
264:
263:
237:
236:Breed question
234:
211:
208:
190:
187:
184:
183:
182:
181:
127:I need a home.
120:
117:
114:
113:
96:
93:
92:
91:
80:
71:
65:
63:
59:
58:
41:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1828:
1819:
1818:
1815:
1810:
1806:
1800:
1797:
1793:
1788:
1787:
1783:
1778:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1768:
1764:
1759:
1757:
1756:poodle hybrid
1752:
1748:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1734:, Cunliffe's
1733:
1728:
1724:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1685:
1684:Badbilltucker
1681:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1671:
1666:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1626:
1624:
1619:
1618:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1601:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1586:
1583:
1578:
1576:Pharaoh Hound
1571:
1570:
1569:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1553:
1548:
1546:Pharaoh Hound
1542:
1539:
1538:
1533:
1530:
1529:Badbilltucker
1526:
1522:
1514:
1511:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1495:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1484:
1483:Badbilltucker
1479:
1478:
1477:
1474:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1450:
1447:
1442:
1441:
1436:
1433:
1428:
1424:
1419:
1415:
1412:
1411:Alaskan Husky
1409:would be the
1408:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1388:
1383:
1382:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1371:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1352:
1350:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1317:
1311:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1275:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1244:
1243:
1238:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1223:
1222:Badbilltucker
1218:
1210:
1208:
1207:
1204:
1199:
1197:Pharaoh Hound
1193:
1189:
1180:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1170:
1162:
1160:
1158:
1157:
1154:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1133:
1129:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1119:
1111:
1109:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1101:Donald Albury
1097:
1094:described in
1092:
1084:
1082:
1078:
1075:
1070:
1068:Pharaoh Hound
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1042:
1040:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1033:Badbilltucker
1031:. Thank you.
1030:
1026:
1018:
1015:
1013:
1011:
1010:
1004:
1002:
994:
992:
990:
989:
985:
980:
974:
970:
962:
960:
958:
957:
954:
950:
946:
942:
934:
932:
931:
927:
923:
922:
917:
913:
909:
901:
899:
898:
895:
894:Badbilltucker
890:
885:
877:
875:
868:
866:
865:
862:
861:Badbilltucker
857:
849:
847:
843:
840:
835:
833:Pharaoh Hound
829:
828:
827:
826:
823:
822:Badbilltucker
815:
812:
810:
809:
803:
800:
792:
783:
779:
778:
777:
776:
769:
767:
765:
764:
761:
757:
753:
752:85.92.183.119
746:The Dog Scene
745:
743:
740:
737:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
712:
710:
709:
706:
701:
698:
695:
687:
684:
681:
677:
675:
670:
666:
660:
656:
653:
649:
644:
643:
640:
636:
634:
633:
630:
625:
621:
617:
615:
613:
611:
609:
605:
601:
599:
594:
589:
587:
582:
580:
573:
572:User_talk:Elf
569:
567:
566:
563:
558:
555:
552:
546:
543:
539:
534:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
520:
517:
514:
511:
507:
506:
500:
494:
490:
486:
483:
479:
475:
470:
466:
465:Category:Dogs
462:
461:
460:
457:
456:
453:
448:
446:
441:
439:
435:
430:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
399:
397:
392:
389:
385:
383:
379:
371:
367:
365:
359:
357:
356:
353:
352:Badbilltucker
349:
345:
337:
334:
332:
331:
328:
327:Badbilltucker
323:
315:
313:
312:
309:
308:Badbilltucker
305:
297:
295:
294:
291:
287:
283:
275:
273:
272:
269:
268:Badbilltucker
262:
259:
255:
251:
247:
246:
245:
243:
235:
233:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
209:
207:
205:
204:
201:
200:Badbilltucker
197:
188:
186:
180:
177:
172:
171:
170:
167:
162:
160:Pharaoh Hound
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
139:
138:
137:
134:
125:
118:
116:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:
94:
89:
85:
84:he:גזעי כלבים
81:
78:
74:
73:
70:
66:
64:
56:
52:
48:
47:
42:
35:
34:
25:
19:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1781:
1776:
1760:
1753:
1749:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1726:
1720:
1667:
1663:
1657:
1653:
1646:
1642:
1635:
1627:
1622:
1620:
1614:
1606:
1599:
1593:
1540:
1527:. Sorry. :)
1492:
1405:besides the
1385:
1367:
1361:
1357:
1346:
1338:
1331:
1327:
1321:
1307:Keesiewonder
1286:
1251:
1214:
1184:
1173:Keesiewonder
1166:
1159:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1136:
1122:Keesiewonder
1115:
1108:
1100:
1088:
1081:
1046:
1039:
1022:
1012:
1007:
1005:
998:
991:
966:
959:
953:Keesiewonder
938:
919:
905:
881:
872:
853:
846:
818:
807:
806:
774:
773:
766:
760:Keesiewonder
749:
741:
738:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
716:
702:
699:
696:
692:
685:
682:
678:
674:Dog training
671:
667:
664:
626:
622:
618:
606:
602:
590:
583:
579:Dog training
576:
559:
556:
553:
549:
521:
518:
515:
512:
508:
501:
497:
458:
449:
442:
431:
427:new user log
403:welcome page
400:
396:Dog training
393:
390:
386:
374:
363:
344:Tamaskan dog
342:The article
341:
336:Tamaskan dog
319:
301:
279:
265:
258:Fightindaman
239:
213:
206:
192:
185:
130:
115:
105:
102:bugzilla:846
62:
50:
44:
1782:restricting
1668:My $ 0.02.
1623:not notable
1621:A breed is
1573:course). --
1407:labradoodle
1358:not notable
1356:A breed is
1349:Labradoodle
1220:Thank you.
1116:Please see
1043:May I Join?
975:. Thanks! ≈
906:There's an
884:Esperanza's
770:Stablepedia
533:dog whistle
469:dog whistle
421:pages. The
43:This is an
1658:non-owners
1654:dog-owning
1647:non-owning
1525:Kangal dog
1464:CMacMillan
1417:reputable.
1137:heading -
434:talk pages
252:, such as
1777:inclusive
1740:Dog Bible
1615:and owner
1466:notes on
519:Michael
445:talk page
411:stylebook
250:Bigsteeve
1708:contribs
1700:Argyriou
1696:unsigned
1565:Zetawoof
1510:Zetawoof
1494:Argyriou
1473:Zetawoof
1460:this one
1432:Zetawoof
1387:Argyriou
1370:Zetawoof
1318:Proposal
1293:and the
1253:Argyriou
1049:Papillon
969:Malamute
921:Argyriou
756:Keeshond
584:I mean,
560:Michael
407:tutorial
153:and the
110:Gangleri
95:KEYWORDS
88:Gangleri
77:Gangleri
1792:the AKC
1744:mention
1607:notable
1600:notable
1339:notable
1328:notable
1153:Counsel
1057:Geohevy
978:Krasniy
916:notable
286:NYTimes
282:Guanmao
276:Guanmao
223:Joelito
176:Stevage
133:Stevage
104:named:
46:archive
1581:(talk)
1551:(talk)
1499:(talk)
1446:Trysha
1392:(talk)
1258:(talk)
1202:(talk)
1192:French
1188:Polish
1073:(talk)
926:(talk)
838:(talk)
796:ROCKER
789:MESSED
758:page.
705:Trysha
629:Trysha
452:Trysha
438:tildes
409:, and
165:(talk)
151:kuvasz
1814:jdege
1163:Again
1098:. --
947:and
637:From
570:From
491:From
368:From
147:image
67:Wow!
16:<
1767:Talk
1704:talk
1680:here
1283:dogs
1279:this
1118:this
973:here
949:that
945:this
941:list
780:See
652:Talk
542:Talk
482:Talk
417:and
348:here
227:talk
219:here
1763:Elf
1670:FT2
648:Elf
538:Elf
478:Elf
338:AfD
320:At
1812:--
1765:|
1710:)
1706:•
1120:.
703:-
650:|
627:-
600:.
540:|
480:|
476:.
450:-
447:.
429:;
405:,
244::
229:)
86:.
1714:.
1702:(
1364:)
1353:)
1351:.
1334:)
1285:(
984:c
981:/
798:★
787:★
225:(
145:(
57:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
