Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Dogs: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:33, 13 August 2019 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,818 edits Misplaced Pages policy and purposes as regards this topic: response← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:04, 22 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,619 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 15) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WPDOGS|class=project}}

{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
|-
|Sections of this talk page older than '''180''' days are '''automatically archived''' by ].
|-
|}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(180d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 10 |counter = 15
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
Line 16: Line 8:
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{archivebox|large=no|auto=long}}
{{WikiProject Dogs}}
}}
{{archivebox|large=no|auto=long|age=60|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}


{{archives|search=yes|list=<div style="text-align: center;">{{hlist | ] |] |] |] |]}}</div>}} {{archives|search=yes|list=<div style="text-align: center;">{{hlist | ] |] |] |] |]}}</div>}}


== Sources ==
== Should Hulk the pitbull get an article? ==
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 01:04, 20 January 2030 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1895101497}}<!-- END PIN -->
I've just removed from ] some content cited to perfectdogbreeds.com, on the grounds that that is not a ] (it's registered to an ). I've also recently removed from the same page content cited to yourpurebredpuppy.com and dogster.com, for the same reason – these are random internet websites with no reputation for accuracy or reliability, and not remotely suitable for use as sources for Misplaced Pages. I'd like to suggest that as a matter of urgency we should start a list of such unusable sites, with a view to removing them in short order from any article that cites them, and setting up filters that would prevent them from being added anywhere in Misplaced Pages; and also make a start on a more difficult task, that of identifying some sources for which there is consensus that that they are to be considered reliable by our standards.


As a very small start, I propose deprecation of:
Is the dog ] the pitbull notable as a dog even the he has an online show on ]. . ] (]) 15:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
* perfectdogbreeds.com
* yourpurebredpuppy.com
* dogster.com
and recognition as reliable of
* fci.be


Is this worthwhile? ] (]) 22:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
:: Barcroft TV channel isn't even notable to have its own page. ] (] • ]) 19:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


{{collapse top|Discussion, general agreement}}
:::Why not just include it in ]? <sup>]]]</sup> 13:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
:'''Agree''', about the three sites you have mentioned above, all completely fail as RS:
:* ''perfectdogbreeds.com'' terms of service states {{tq|"Perfectdogbreeds does not promise that the site or any content, service or feature of the site will be error-free ... Perfectdogbreeds disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including any warranties of accuracy ..."}}
:* ''yourpurebredpuppy.com'' terms of use states {{tq|"We make no guaruntee or warranty that our information is accurate, legal, reliable or safe."}}
:* ''dogster.com'' terms and conditions of use states {{tq|"Belvoir Media Group LLC does not warant that the sites will operate error-free ..."}} '''NB''' Belvoir Media Group LLC is the website's owner
:On a number of pages I have had to remove similar content from a number of similar websites most of which make similar disclaimers, and it seems to be the same editors that continually reintroduce it. Just because it gets a Google hit doesn't make it reliable and/or notable.
:Re ''fci.be'', personally I do not believe it should be treated any differently to any other national kennel club. Kind regards, ] (]) 23:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC).
::Just my opinion: the FCI evaluates the information submitted by individual kennel clubs, and this places it a a higher level of reliability; however, I added it here simply as an example of a website that we could, with due caution, regard as reliable.
::Some more that we cannot trust may be:
::* mastiffdogssite.com – page content consists only of: "ok"
::* completedogsguide.com – somebody's random website, ""
::* , somebody's random website on Tripod
::I've removed all three from ]. ] (]) 21:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
:::Also:
:::* scamperingpaws.com (""), removed from ]. ] (]) 22:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
::::Some more:
::::* ''www.bulldoginformation.com''
::::* ''dogappy.com''
::::* ''www.pawculture.com''
::::* ''www.petpremium.com''
::::* ''thehappypuppysite.com''
::::* ''www.thelabradorsite.com''
::::What are your thoughts on the best way to deal with these formally? Lump them together under an RfC at RSN? If passed we could add a list to the project page with a permalink. Kind regards, ] (]) 01:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC).


'''Agreed.''' JLAN and Cavalryman, I regard a website as being only reliable as the sources its cites. Many of these websites (above) have no author taking responsibility for the content, do not cite sources, and are basically anonymous opinion pieces. I am in favour of removing anything they have to offer, and encourage Project members to grasp the nettle and commence their deletions from all dog-related articles. ''']]]]''' 00:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
== List of Dog Breeds by weights? ==


{{collapse bottom}}
I'm looking for a '''sortable''' list of dog breeds by weight, weight range, etc. is very useful, but it is not sortable by weight. Would such a list here on WP be useful, and not considered copyvio? It'd be nice if the list could be automatically generated from the breed article's infobx, à la SemanticWiki, but that's probably not feasible. But if went through the effort to put such a list together, with cited refs, would it be useful? ] (]) 20:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:First thoughts on how to start dealing with these: either just go ahead and remove them and see if there's any complaint, or (probably better in the long term):
:* reach consensus here on those listed above – is a week long enough for all interested to comment?
:* start a /Deprecated sources subpage and
:* use ] to find and remove any mainspace occurrence of those;
:* rinse and repeat.
:It seems to me that those listed so far are so obviously unusable, and so unlikely to be used outside this wikiproject, that local consensus should be sufficient; but if anyone suggests that these might be appropriate sources then yes, RfC is the next step.
:Removing crap websites seems to be the easy part; identifying and agreeing on unusable books may be more of a challenge. Thoughts? ] (]) 11:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Justlettersandnumbers}}, {{u|William Harris}}, {{u|Cavalryman}} and other interested editors - please see <s>]</s> ] <sup>Updated the link ] ] ] 16:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)</sup>. Perhaps we should also consider establishing a subpage such as ]. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 12:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
{{collapse top|More bad sites}}
{{od|2}}I wish to add to the list, some I have removed today:
* ''vetstreet.com''
* ''dogbreedplus.com''
* ''101dogbreeds.com''
* ''dogtime.com''
* ''dogs.petbreeds.com''
* ''designerdoginfo.wordpress.com''
* ''puppiesndogs.com''
* ''dogdisease.info''
* ''petguide.com''
* ''dogzone.com''
* ''allthingsdogs.com''
* ''teacupdogdaily.com''
* ''thedogsjournal.com''
] (]) 11:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC).


And more today:
== Requested Edit ==
* ''dogable.net''
* ''topdogtips.com''
* ''sittersforcritters.com''
* ''pets4homes.co.uk''
* ''retrieverbud.com''
* ''canna-pet.com''
* ''k9rl.com''
* ''mixbreeddog.com''
* ''iams.com''
* ''leashesandlovers.com''
* ''puppydogweb.com''
* ''thegoodypet.com''
] (]) 01:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC).


And a few more:
I requested trimming some unsourced commentary on a page about a dog food brand under the heading "Un-Cited Content." I have a disclosed COI and the page doesn't look very active, so I thought someone here might have a minute to take a look. ] (]) 21:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
* ''dogpage.us''
* ''puppiesclub.com''
* ''puppy-basics.com''
] (]) 06:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


Some more today:
== A new newsletter directory is out! ==
* ''animalso.com''
* ''europetnet.com''
* ''russiandog.net''
] (]) 23:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


I would like to add another that I assumed was already here:
A new ''']''' has been created to replace the . If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like ), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the ] and someone will add it for you.
* ''molosserdogs.com''
:– Sent on behalf of ]. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
] (]) 23:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC).
<!-- Message sent by User:DannyS712@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Headbomb/Newsletter&oldid=891933551 -->


A couple more:
== Discussion on ] on the reliable sources noticeboard ==
* ''dogipedia.ru''
* ''dogsglobal.com''
] (]) 07:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC).
{{collapse bottom}}


===Consolidated list===
There is a discussion on the ] of a ] (AVMA) literature review on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|American Veterinary Medical Association}}. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 01:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see the main list at ] for potential updates. We should probably make a more prominent link to that page. ] ] ] 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


:Can Doggysaurus be added? I see it cited quite a lot yet the site itself states "All of the advice and content on this website is written from our own personal perspective of owning and caring for dogs over the last few years.", it's a few people's personal experience without any verification or scrutinising. ] (]) 03:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
== Dogsbite.org controversy ==
{{columns-list|colwidth=22em|

* ''101dogbreeds.com'' {{tick}}
Is there anyone here willing to solve the ] controversy regarding the neutrality of the sources and what is and not acceptable. There has being a prolong debate at ] if anyone would like to contribute in helping resolve the issue it would be most welcome.] (]) 14:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
* ''allthingsdogs.com'' {{tick}}

* ''animalso.com'' {{tick}}
== Infobox Dogbreed template ==
* ''bulldoginformation.com'' {{tick}}

* ''canna-pet.com'' {{tick}}
Hello. I don't know why I don't manage to formate the dog breed infobox in the article ]. It does not show the section "classification and standards". I tried to check several other articles that use the same template, but they seem to be fine and I have a problem only with this article. In case if someone could help me, this is the section I am trying to add there: "|fcigroup = 9 |fcisection = 9 Continental Toy Spaniel, Russian Toy and Prague Ratter |fcinum = 363 (provisional) |fcistd = |akcgroup = |akcstd = |ankcgroup = |ankcstd = |ckcgroup = |ckcstd = |kcukgroup = |kcukstd = |nzkcgroup = |nzkcstd = |ukcgroup = |ukcstd = |notrecognized =" --] (]) 16:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
* ''completedogsguide.com'' {{tick}}
:{{u|Canarian}}, I hope you do not mind me moving the conversation here. From what I can tell, you require the URL link to the breed standard to make it work. I think I have fixed it. Kind regards, ] (]) 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC).
* ''cosmosmith.com'' {{tick}}

* ''designerdoginfo.wordpress.com'' {{tick}}
==Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!==
* ''dogable.net'' {{tick}}
]
* ''dogappy.com'' {{tick}}
Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the ] list. Thanks, ] (]) 00:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
* ''dogbreedplus.com'' {{tick}}
{{clear all}}
* ''dogdisease.info'' {{tick}}

* ''dogipedia.ru'' {{tick}}
== No source for ] ==
* ''dogpage.us'' {{tick}}

* ''dogs.petbreeds.com'' {{tick}}
There are no live sources for ] --] (]) — If (reply) then (]) 14:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
* ''dogsglobal.com'' {{tick}}

* ''dogtime.com'' {{tick}}
== Should Dogsbite.org be retitled? ==
* ''dogzone.com'' {{tick}}

* ''europetnet.com'' {{tick}}
Does anyone think ] should be retitled to ] as that is how the website is titled? What are other users opinions? ] (]) 14:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
* ''europetnet.org''

* ''iams.com''
:Nah...the website is www.dogsbite.org in lowercase. When you type either in the search bar, the correct page comes up. Our time would be better spent fixing the issues at that article. Just my 5¢ worth. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 17:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
* ''k9rl.com''

* ''leashesandlovers.com''
::] Maybe ] should be a redirect as a compromise a debate seems to have started on ]. ] (]) 13:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
* ''mastiffdogssite.com'' {{tick}}

* ''mixbreeddog.com''
== Change "Rescue Dog" ==
* ''molosserdogs.com'' {{tick}}

* ''pawculture.com''
The proper term for a dog saved from a shelter or abuse is a RESCUED dog, not a rescue dog. Please use proper grammar. A rescue dog would do rescue work, not be rescued.
* ''perfectdogbreeds.com''
:*Grammatically correct but generally a rescued dog is known as a ]. ] (]) 23:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
* ''petguide.com''
:*The name is reflective of a dog which has been adopted from an animal rescue organization. The same is true for ''shelter dog'', which is a dog adopted from an animal shelter. In practice, the terms are used interchangeably. ]:]-]-] 04:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
* ''petpremium.com''
::Actually, it's called a "rescue" as are horses and other rescued animals. For WP purposes, common name article titles would be '''Animal rescue (dog)''', and '''Animal rescue (equine)''' and so on. SPCA calls it and they are commonly referred to as rescue dogs, rescue horses, rescue cats. Dogs that rescue people are called ''search and rescue dogs'' (SAR). ] <sub>]</sub> ] 15:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
* ''pets4homes.co.uk''

* ''puppiesclub.com''
== Merger discussion for ] ==
* ''puppiesndogs.com''

* ''puppy-basics.com''

* ''puppydogweb.com''
] An article of interest to the project&mdash;]&mdash;has been '''proposed for ]''' with ]. If you are interested, please participate in ]. Thank you. ] (]) 09:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
* ''retrieverbud.com''

* ''russiandog.net''
{{done}}. ] (]) 06:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
* ''scamperingpaws.com''

* ''sittersforcritters.com''
==] up for deletion==
* ''teacupdogdaily.com''
*{{Find sources|Christopher Kaelin}}
* ''thedogsjournal.com''
*{{lagafd|Christopher Kaelin}}
* ''thegoodypet.com''
IMO, well sourced article about a geneticist. But you can help improve it. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
* ''thehappypuppysite.com'' {{tick}}

* ''thelabradorsite.com'' {{tick}}
== ] Good Article nomination ==
* ''topdogtips.com'' {{tick}}

* ''vetstreet.com'' {{tick}} (for dogs only)
FYI, I've nominated ], the 2009 Westminster Best in Show winner, for Good Article. However, I was at a bit of a loss for the category in which to nominate him. I ulimately went with "Culture, sociology and psychology", but if anyone has any thoughts for a different, better category, let me know. Thanks! — ]] ]] 04:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
* ''yourpurebredpuppy.com'' {{tick}}

}}
:Natural Sciences: Biology & Medicine is what you seek. ''']]]]''' 09:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
====Discussion====

Have started to remove from articles, will tick as complete. This will likely require review again. ] (]) 22:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
==]==
: I've forgotten if or how we agreed to actually go about this, would some kind soul remind me (preferably in words of about one syllable or fewer). Anyway, here are three that I've just removed from ]:
Hello, I nominated the article ] for an AFD as not notable due to only one minor breeder and a lack of citations. The article notes there are only fifty dogs of this rare breed. It is to soon for a Misplaced Pages article to me; however, others should provide input to buildup a consensus, one way or another. In addition, we could merge article to ], to keep the information in Misplaced Pages without having its own article. ] (]) 09:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
:* www.chihuahuawardrobe.com
:{{u|Aquataste}}, I agree with you and deleted the section for the reasons you mentioned. Please see my comment on the article TP. I am also going to research other articles that fail GNG, V, OR as it appears WP is being used to give credibility to non-established types of dogs. I am pinging {{u|William Harris}} and {{u|Montanabw}} for more input. I will be on my laptop in a bit and will ping more editors who have an interest in this topic area. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 12:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
:* k9carts.com
:{{u|Atsme}} hi you misunderstand the article deletion consensus was to merge the article stand alone page to ]. SEE ]. ]]]] 13:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
:* dogcare.dailypuppy.com ("Come to DailyPuppy.com for your fix of the cutest furbabies of every breed")
::I saw that, but that doesn't make it compliant with ]. The AfD said merge, but there was no discussion on the TP of the bulldog article as to what should be merged. It is not unusual for merge discussions on the TP of the recipient article to eliminate all or most of the material, especially that which is noncompliant. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 13:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
:] (]) 21:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

:::I recommend that any text taken from what was once the Bulldogge Brasileiro article should be able to ] expert ] sources which other editors can ]. There are no reliable sources offered in that article, in my opinion. You have now raised the issue of dubious "breed clubs" and their claims elsewhere; most commendable. ''']]]]''' 08:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

==Fixing of Paisley Terrier article==
A small part of the last section of the Paisley Terrier article has been deleted. Can it be fixed?] (]) 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|Malcolmlucascollins}}, please provide the ] so we will know to what you are referring. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 12:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

== ] ==

Anyone care to try to evaluate whether this dog is notable? All sources are in Chinese, so Chinese language skills would be a big help! ] (]) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

== Time to establish guidelines ==

{{Moved discussion from|1=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dogs/Members |2=This is the correct page. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 14:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)}}
One of the conundrums brought about by the internet is an influx of dog registry associations in various flavors, many of which are registering breed-types that do not necessarily adhere to long established practices for developing breed standards. Long established purebred registries and their official kennel clubs are considered RS for dog descriptions, breed standards, breed history, etc. Such registries would include ], ], ], ], ], and comparable others across the globe. The issues that concern me are the new associations and registries that have sprung up on the internet such as the ] (UCA), ] which is also a double registry because they ''"register dogs recognized by the ] or by its own board of directors that are not yet recognized by the American Kennel Club."'' I find the latter somewhat disconcerting. We also have a ], many of which are red-links. ], ], ], and/or ] are at issue, as is what actually constitutes a "breed" or "purebred dog". This morning I spent a bit of time checking citations for some of our dog articles and was overwhelmed by what I found, some of which are used as citations in our articles, and/or were used to establish notability. Examples: , , , , , etc. Let's discuss.

Pinging a few: {{u|Chrisrus}}, {{u|Montanabw}}, {{u|Cyclonebiskit}}, {{u|Elf}}, {{u|SMcCandlish}}, {{u|Doug Weller}}, {{u|White Arabian Filly}}, {{u|Cavalryman V31}}, {{u|Gareth Griffith-Jones}}, {{u|7%266%3Dthirteen}}, {{u|Tikuko}} ] <sub>]</sub> ] 19:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
:Fix & add: {{u|Cavalryman}}, {{u|William Harris}} ] <sub>]</sub> ] 19:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

::Our colleague Chris has not been active for over a year, I have sent him emails twice and it saddens me to fear the worst.
::The issue is compounded by commercial interests that cross-breed dogs and then claim that the product is a new "breed" recognised by a "breed club" or "breed registry" which they themselves have established. Additionally, the internationally recognised kennels provide dubious histories of their dogs which are based on myth, legend and heresay rather than historical research. You have seen this type of thing before where they state: "There are depictions of (''insert name of any breed here'') on cave walls dating back 9,000 years." Fortunately the FCI has begun to remove these types of claims; the others have much work to do. ''']]]]''' 08:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
:::This is going to be a real mess. The 'status' of being a "recognized breed" (or not) by various clubs is itself dubious. It has a lot to do with pirating breed registrations (and attendant fees). As an example (of which I am personally familiar) the Leonberger Club of America largely did not want to be part of the ]. There were some members that wanted recognition. Recognition came nonetheless; some of this is based upon a breed's "popularity."
:::And of course, there are the ancillary decisions as to what is a "breed." One need only look at ], ] and ] to see how that plays out. Or look at ], ] and ].
:::Likewise the matter of groupings.
:::Individual clubs differ, and they have their own agendas and purposes. Some are in it for the betterment of the breed, and some less so. So we should tread carefully. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 21:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
::::{{u|William Harris}}, {{u|7%266%3Dthirteen}}, {{u|Montanabw}}, {{u|Gareth Griffith-Jones}} - let's try to model after ] and establish a set of guidelines for RS in much the same way they established MEDRS. Breeds that are not officially recognized by notable breed registries do not belong in the pedia unless the article is compliant with NOR, V, NPOV, GNG and all material is RS. I'm of the mind that the first thing we need to do is create a DOGRS standard (like ]) which includes a list of recognized breed registries and websites that are acceptable. It is the only way we're going to get a handle on these OR & PROMO articles. Common sense and good judgement tells us that if the dog is not recognized by one of the non-profit breed registries it is not a "purebred" therefore it is just a "type" of dog - a Heinz 57 or mutt or backyard creation that happens to look like a purebred, or it is a crossbred that a person or group is attempting to get recognized as a breed and they're using WP as their platform. We are also experiencing issues with advocates of ] which has introduced noncompliance with WP:NOT, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. Then we have the good-intentioned dog lovers who write blogs, or proclaim themselves as experts and simply don't know or try to understand our PAGs. These are issues our project can resolve.
::::I don't forsee any problems identifying notable breed registries once we establish guidelines per consensus. We have more than our share of backyard breeder websites, self-proclaimed experts (puppy mills & dog lovers) providing online "information" about dogs, and commercial dog registries which are not unlike unaccredited institutions of learning & higher ed. We simply handle those types of registries the same way we do the unaccredited others. Much of the information in our current dog articles is poorly sourced, and some of the articles about "breeds" are not breeds at all, and fail both OR and V. We can fix those issues but we need to do so with as a project using a consensus-building approach, not unlike the incredible accomplishments of Project Med with their informative project site and creation of MEDRS. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 13:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Elf}} - active member. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 13:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

===Misplaced Pages policy and purposes as regards this topic===

Let me start with an analogy: some people would say that because a word isn't "yet" in any printed dictionary, it isn't a word. Remember "ain't"? These words were only recently recognized by the OED: co-parent, deglobalization, e-publishing, hangry, mansplain, and selfie. The subject of linguistics teaches that words crop up spontaneously in a population, become commonly used in speech, and ''then'' get put into a dictionary. It's a matter of which comes first. In this analogy, the ''common use'' of the word comes before the ''recognition'' of the word by dictionary companies. The same applies to the creation of dog breeds and their eventual recognition (or not) by kennel clubs and breed registries.

Breeds are created by people, not necessarily groups of people, and sometimes by just one person. That person, or the groups of people, may not care about "recognition" by a breed registry, may not be interested in paying others for registration of "their" dogs. Many believe that recognition by an organization with its breed standards and bent towards ]s will destroy the hard work put into the creation and establishment of a foundation stock and ongoing breeding programs (see ]), and ]. It's long been proven that focusing soley on conformation will ruin a breed's temperament, and that's why no one in Germany purchases a German Shepherd puppy unless both its sire and dam have also passed at least basic Schutzhund training (including passing the firearms test), proving their solid temperaments. The lack of buyer-pressure of behavioral and performance testing of breeding stock in the USA has produced a country full of almost useless gunshy and thunder-terrified GSDs, causing police departments to almost exclusively import their dogs from Europe and eastern European countries.

To say that a dog breed ''isn't a real breed'' because it hasn't been sanctioned by, rubber stamped from, or incorporated into, a national organization is the same snobbery as saying "ain't" ain't a real word in today's English-speaking world.

{{color|red|Do not allow the use of the Misplaced Pages platform to attempt to redefine the word "breed" to something it is not!}}

Check any dictionary and you'll discover there are many definitions for each word, each slightly different from the others. You'll discover that all definitions are valid; some used more frequently than others in ordinary speech. To exclude all other meanings of a word in favor of one single meaning is contrary to the purpose of Misplaced Pages and specifically to the policy ]. There are several definitions of the word 'breed', only one of which means what we traditionally understand to be a purebred. To require Misplaced Pages editors to exclude all other uses of the word 'breed' in favor of one single specific meaning is ]. I understand the desire to want some form of standardisation, but you cannot cause the rest of world to conform to this idea, and as Misplaced Pages editors we report what is out there in real life; not what we want it to be.

'''GNG policy:''' Note that the GNG policy ] does not exclude the mention of non-notable subjects, it only describes which subjects shouldn't get their own standalone article. The section is followed immediately by ]. Therefore, using the high standard of ] to exclude all mention of non-notable dog breeds from inclusion within any and all Misplaced Pages articles is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy.

'''MEDRS:''' The idea that content about dog breeds need a strict policy such as ] (]) is not defensible. The purpose of MEDRS is so that ideas about untested, controversial, or dangerous matters do not affect the health and well-being of a population through reading about it in Misplaced Pages. There's probably also a liability factor to Misplaced Pages if they allowed casual re-publication of fringe medical ideas. The risk of inclusion of minor, rare, or controversial dog breeds in an encyclopedia has no such risk factor.

I don't believe there is a rampant uncontrollable "OR & PROMO problem" that needs further policymaking as a solution. Misplaced Pages already has plenty of policy to handle it; just edit and move on.
*We already have a policy against standalone articles for non-notable topics: ]
*We already have a policy against using unreliable sources: ]
*We already have a policy against writing original research: ]
*We already have a policy against advertising and advocacy: ]

'''In closing:''' the proposed idea (of codifying the word 'breed') is a wrong use of Misplaced Pages resources, is contrary to its key purposes, and violates Misplaced Pages policy.

— ] (]) 20:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
::
:Which underscores an issue not addressed - what to do about the landraces. For example, the ]. The ] came into being long before the Victorian-era clubs commenced their selective breeding. There are nearly 1 billion dogs on this planet, most of them do not fall under the category of a breed that is recognised by a Western kennel club. However, I also note that none of the landrace articles claim them to be a dog "breed". ''']]]]''' 11:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


===A couple of "good websites"===
::WH, I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting: that we classify a dog as a breed OR a landrace (never both) and use such criteria as 'Is it recognized by a breed registry and has a breed standard,' to determine whether we use the word 'breed' or 'landrace' exclusive of each other?
I would like to propose two websites containing a number of very informative articles as "good sources":
* , and
* .
Both authors have been published widely in dog publications and Hancock in particular has a number of published books on dogs. Both websites contain a number of articles, most of which have previously been published in magazines but some may not have been. I think both meet the criteria under ] as {{tq|"produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"}}. ] (]) 22:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC).
:At davidhancockondogs.com, the pix to the right - a man out of my own heart! ]] 10:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
::Formerly of ], I have most of his books although I would really like a copy of ''The mastiffs'' but it is well out of print and around £150 online, there is a transcript on his website though. ] (]) 22:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
::: Now I am lost in sources, the websites you have listed mainly contain printed information and most of the popular web resources are listed in "bad sources", kennel club websites that seem to have reliable information cannot be used as primary sources... Could you please give examples of dog-related web resources that would be considered suitable?--] 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::I suggest you read ] and then ], basically if it has not been produced by an author who has previously demonstrated expertise in the field, or a publisher with a good reputation for robust editorial oversight and fact checking, then it's pretty safe to assume it's self-published. Most of the "popular web resources" are ]s, and when you scrutinise them closely you realise often Misplaced Pages is their starting point, we don't site ourselves.
::::The "good websites" above contain a series of articles written by two authors who are expert dog writers, both have previously been very widely published in a number of reputable publications from very good publishers and all of the articles on their websites are transcripts of articles that have been published in such publications, that's why they are suitable for use as sources. ] (]) 22:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC).
::::: Ok, that makes clearer on one side and much harder to find sources on the other. This rule is the equally applicable to sources in other languages too? ] 11:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::Yes it is applicable to sources in all languages, and yes it can be difficult to find sources. This is why large tracts of text and even occasionally articles are deleted as they are not cited to reliable sources. ] (]) 12:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC).


As a note, you can permanently prevent those mylittlepuppy.com not-sources from being added to articles at ]. It's a bit of an extreme measure though, so only use if if there's a problem with a site being persistently added. --] (]) 01:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
::To correct you, I must point out that ] and ] (the first example used in the ] article) calls both dogs a 'landrace' AND a 'breed' in their respective articles. In fact, it sounds like 'landrace' is considered a subset of 'breed'.


== Discussion on ] about lifespan parameter ==
::I don't know which part of the English-speaking world commonly uses the term 'landrace' or whether it is a new word or a very specific esoteric word, because I never heard the word in my many decades of life (except as the name of a breed of pig) until I started editing on Misplaced Pages. 'Landrace' does not exist in my 1994 print edition of a college-level dictionary. It appears that the new meaning "A local cultivar or animal breed that has been improved by traditional agricultural methods" was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2005. The wiktionary says there is an overlap of 'landrace' and 'breed'.


There is a discussion at the template on whether the parameter should be retained or removed. ] (]) 22:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::The ] (landrace) goes on to describe how the ] (breed) diverged from the existing Scotch Collies because of breeding, hinting that 'landrace' is the old and 'breed' is the new and deliberately improved version. In the case of the ] (recently under attack in wikiland as 'not a breed'), the Catahoula BD is a deliberately bred dog, not the earlier natural local version that the word 'landrace' is being used for in doggie-wikiland. So if you are suggesting an angle that we should reclassify such (Catahoula BD) as a 'landrace' because 'it doesn't have a registry or a standardised look' is flip-flopped on its head because which comes first -- the chicken or the egg, the landrace or the breed, the breed or the registry?


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
::We already have guidelines in wikiland to whether or not a subject gets a standalone article and whether or not it even gets a mention in an article. So far, none of that has been in dispute. I assert that the wiki guidelines are alone sufficient to determine whether a breed or landrace gets its own page and/or whether it can be mentioned within another article. I assert there is no need to re-define words in the English language (<small>*cough* breed *cough*</small>) to create strict policy in wikiland in order to censure and censor things that exist in the real world. If the locals call it a breed, then it is a breed. Period. As wikieditors we report what is out there. We aren't a group of scientists on a project to ] reclassify and subclassify all dogs everywhere across the planet in order to write encyclopedia content. We leave that to the scientists, who can then publish something we will use in the encyclopedia.


] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 04:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::— ] (]) 16:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


== Draft of interest to this WikiProject ==
:::I recommend a refresher read of ]. Nomopbs, the content of your 1st and 2nd paragraphs directly below the section title confirm my position about OR and WP:NOT. See ]:
:::{{talkquote|"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Misplaced Pages is not, particularly the rule that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.}}
:::When the cited source cannot verify origins, existence, consistency or the important factors that make a breed a breed, notability then falls to RS coverage with emphasis on reliable, DUE and WEIGHT. There is also the possibility we may or may not include it as a standalone article. We already have ], and lists. Perhaps we need a new article that lists ] or something along that line. What is most important is that we clear-up the confusion, not add to it. Science/biology tells us a breed breeds true, and since WP is all about mainstream science and WP:V, it is our obligation to use discretion when considering WP:FRINGE views, the latter of which I'm of the mind that a questionable breed would fall under. A type of dog is not a breed - use the correct terminology which would be "breed type" or "breed standard" for a recognized breed, and "type of dog" for one that is not recognized. To do otherwise leaves us open to inclusion of every fictitious breed imaginable as what William Harris alluded to in his comment. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


Those who watch this page may be interested in expanding ]. ] ] 18:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::And WHO, pray tell, gets to decide which dogs/breeds/landraces/types belong in the proposed ] article or category? Even classifying a dog to go under such a title would require an outside reliable source, else it be ]. You are treading in the scientific field of ]ing with this ] proposition, to a depth where ] never dared to trod. — ] (]) 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


== Tika ==
Well, first we need to get the encyclopedia back on track following WP:GNG, N, V and NOR. Why is it important? Well...let's start with the following article that is quite disturbing:
stated:
{{talkquote|"Not only do shelters misidentify breeds as much as 75 percent of the time, but as used by shelters, law enforcement agencies and even courts, “Pit Bull” is not a breed of dog. It is, according to a leading advocacy organization, “a catch-all term used to describe a continually expanding incoherent group of dogs, including pure-bred dogs and mixed-breed dogs. A ‘Pit Bull’ is any dog an animal control officer, shelter worker, dog trainer, politician, dog owner, police officer, newspaper reporter or anyone else says is a ‘Pit Bull.’” When it comes to dogs we call “Pit Bulls,” PETA is not only killing them based on meaningless stereotypes, they are asking shelters to kill dogs they mistakenly think fit those stereotypes by the way they look."}}
Other articles of note: , , , and on and on. We do not want WP to be used as a source of misidentified breeds and breed types. We MUST get the article right, and our core content policies are quite clear about how we go about it. I'm thinking we need to include a paragraph about misindentified breeds in our ] article. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 22:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


New stub about a "celebrity" dog: ''']'''
== Re-opened an AfD ==


---] <sub>(])</sub> 23:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Attention Project Members - ] - please review the cited sources, the article itself, and weigh-in at the AfD. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 19:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:04, 22 October 2024

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDogs
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Archiving icon
Archives


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Sources

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

I've just removed from German Shepherd some content cited to perfectdogbreeds.com, on the grounds that that is not a reliable source (it's registered to an anonymous entity in Cheshire, England). I've also recently removed from the same page content cited to yourpurebredpuppy.com and dogster.com, for the same reason – these are random internet websites with no reputation for accuracy or reliability, and not remotely suitable for use as sources for Misplaced Pages. I'd like to suggest that as a matter of urgency we should start a list of such unusable sites, with a view to removing them in short order from any article that cites them, and setting up filters that would prevent them from being added anywhere in Misplaced Pages; and also make a start on a more difficult task, that of identifying some sources for which there is consensus that that they are to be considered reliable by our standards.

As a very small start, I propose deprecation of:

  • perfectdogbreeds.com
  • yourpurebredpuppy.com
  • dogster.com

and recognition as reliable of

  • fci.be

Is this worthwhile? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion, general agreement
Agree, about the three sites you have mentioned above, all completely fail as RS:
  • perfectdogbreeds.com terms of service states "Perfectdogbreeds does not promise that the site or any content, service or feature of the site will be error-free ... Perfectdogbreeds disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including any warranties of accuracy ..."
  • yourpurebredpuppy.com terms of use states "We make no guaruntee or warranty that our information is accurate, legal, reliable or safe."
  • dogster.com terms and conditions of use states "Belvoir Media Group LLC does not warant that the sites will operate error-free ..." NB Belvoir Media Group LLC is the website's owner
On a number of pages I have had to remove similar content from a number of similar websites most of which make similar disclaimers, and it seems to be the same editors that continually reintroduce it. Just because it gets a Google hit doesn't make it reliable and/or notable.
Re fci.be, personally I do not believe it should be treated any differently to any other national kennel club. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC).
Just my opinion: the FCI evaluates the information submitted by individual kennel clubs, and this places it a a higher level of reliability; however, I added it here simply as an example of a website that we could, with due caution, regard as reliable.
Some more that we cannot trust may be:
I've removed all three from Kumaon Mastiff. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Also:
Some more:
  • www.bulldoginformation.com
  • dogappy.com
  • www.pawculture.com
  • www.petpremium.com
  • thehappypuppysite.com
  • www.thelabradorsite.com
What are your thoughts on the best way to deal with these formally? Lump them together under an RfC at RSN? If passed we could add a list to the project page with a permalink. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC).

Agreed. JLAN and Cavalryman, I regard a website as being only reliable as the sources its cites. Many of these websites (above) have no author taking responsibility for the content, do not cite sources, and are basically anonymous opinion pieces. I am in favour of removing anything they have to offer, and encourage Project members to grasp the nettle and commence their deletions from all dog-related articles. William Harristalk 00:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

First thoughts on how to start dealing with these: either just go ahead and remove them and see if there's any complaint, or (probably better in the long term):
  • reach consensus here on those listed above – is a week long enough for all interested to comment?
  • start a /Deprecated sources subpage and
  • use Special:LinkSearch to find and remove any mainspace occurrence of those;
  • rinse and repeat.
It seems to me that those listed so far are so obviously unusable, and so unlikely to be used outside this wikiproject, that local consensus should be sufficient; but if anyone suggests that these might be appropriate sources then yes, RfC is the next step.
Removing crap websites seems to be the easy part; identifying and agreeing on unusable books may be more of a challenge. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, William Harris, Cavalryman and other interested editors - please see User_talk:Atsme/sandbox#More about RS Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources . Perhaps we should also consider establishing a subpage such as Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Talk 📧 12:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
More bad sites
I wish to add to the list, some I have removed today:
  • vetstreet.com
  • dogbreedplus.com
  • 101dogbreeds.com
  • dogtime.com
  • dogs.petbreeds.com
  • designerdoginfo.wordpress.com
  • puppiesndogs.com
  • dogdisease.info
  • petguide.com
  • dogzone.com
  • allthingsdogs.com
  • teacupdogdaily.com
  • thedogsjournal.com

Cavalryman (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC).

And more today:

  • dogable.net
  • topdogtips.com
  • sittersforcritters.com
  • pets4homes.co.uk
  • retrieverbud.com
  • canna-pet.com
  • k9rl.com
  • mixbreeddog.com
  • iams.com
  • leashesandlovers.com
  • puppydogweb.com
  • thegoodypet.com

Cavalryman (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC).

And a few more:

  • dogpage.us
  • puppiesclub.com
  • puppy-basics.com

Cavalryman (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Some more today:

  • animalso.com
  • europetnet.com
  • russiandog.net

Cavalryman (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add another that I assumed was already here:

  • molosserdogs.com

Cavalryman (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC).

A couple more:

  • dogipedia.ru
  • dogsglobal.com

Cavalryman (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC).

Consolidated list

Please see the main list at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources for potential updates. We should probably make a more prominent link to that page. Atsme 💬 📧 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Can Doggysaurus be added? I see it cited quite a lot yet the site itself states "All of the advice and content on this website is written from our own personal perspective of owning and caring for dogs over the last few years.", it's a few people's personal experience without any verification or scrutinising. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  • 101dogbreeds.com checkY
  • allthingsdogs.com checkY
  • animalso.com checkY
  • bulldoginformation.com checkY
  • canna-pet.com checkY
  • completedogsguide.com checkY
  • cosmosmith.com checkY
  • designerdoginfo.wordpress.com checkY
  • dogable.net checkY
  • dogappy.com checkY
  • dogbreedplus.com checkY
  • dogdisease.info checkY
  • dogipedia.ru checkY
  • dogpage.us checkY
  • dogs.petbreeds.com checkY
  • dogsglobal.com checkY
  • dogtime.com checkY
  • dogzone.com checkY
  • europetnet.com checkY
  • europetnet.org
  • iams.com
  • k9rl.com
  • leashesandlovers.com
  • mastiffdogssite.com checkY
  • mixbreeddog.com
  • molosserdogs.com checkY
  • pawculture.com
  • perfectdogbreeds.com
  • petguide.com
  • petpremium.com
  • pets4homes.co.uk
  • puppiesclub.com
  • puppiesndogs.com
  • puppy-basics.com
  • puppydogweb.com
  • retrieverbud.com
  • russiandog.net
  • scamperingpaws.com
  • sittersforcritters.com
  • teacupdogdaily.com
  • thedogsjournal.com
  • thegoodypet.com
  • thehappypuppysite.com checkY
  • thelabradorsite.com checkY
  • topdogtips.com checkY
  • vetstreet.com checkY (for dogs only)
  • yourpurebredpuppy.com checkY

Discussion

Have started to remove from articles, will tick as complete. This will likely require review again. Cavalryman (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC).

I've forgotten if or how we agreed to actually go about this, would some kind soul remind me (preferably in words of about one syllable or fewer). Anyway, here are three that I've just removed from Chihuahua:
  • www.chihuahuawardrobe.com
  • k9carts.com
  • dogcare.dailypuppy.com ("Come to DailyPuppy.com for your fix of the cutest furbabies of every breed")
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

A couple of "good websites"

I would like to propose two websites containing a number of very informative articles as "good sources":

Both authors have been published widely in dog publications and Hancock in particular has a number of published books on dogs. Both websites contain a number of articles, most of which have previously been published in magazines but some may not have been. I think both meet the criteria under WP:RSSELF as "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Cavalryman (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC).

At davidhancockondogs.com, the pix to the right - a man out of my own heart! William Harris (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Formerly of The Light Infantry, I have most of his books although I would really like a copy of The mastiffs but it is well out of print and around £150 online, there is a transcript on his website though. Cavalryman (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
Now I am lost in sources, the websites you have listed mainly contain printed information and most of the popular web resources are listed in "bad sources", kennel club websites that seem to have reliable information cannot be used as primary sources... Could you please give examples of dog-related web resources that would be considered suitable?--LoraxJr 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:SPS and then WP:USINGSPS, basically if it has not been produced by an author who has previously demonstrated expertise in the field, or a publisher with a good reputation for robust editorial oversight and fact checking, then it's pretty safe to assume it's self-published. Most of the "popular web resources" are content farms, and when you scrutinise them closely you realise often Misplaced Pages is their starting point, we don't site ourselves.
The "good websites" above contain a series of articles written by two authors who are expert dog writers, both have previously been very widely published in a number of reputable publications from very good publishers and all of the articles on their websites are transcripts of articles that have been published in such publications, that's why they are suitable for use as sources. Cavalryman (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC).
Ok, that makes clearer on one side and much harder to find sources on the other. This rule is the equally applicable to sources in other languages too? LoraxJr 11:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is applicable to sources in all languages, and yes it can be difficult to find sources. This is why large tracts of text and even occasionally articles are deleted as they are not cited to reliable sources. Cavalryman (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC).

As a note, you can permanently prevent those mylittlepuppy.com not-sources from being added to articles at WP:BLACKLIST. It's a bit of an extreme measure though, so only use if if there's a problem with a site being persistently added. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on Template:infobox dog breed about lifespan parameter

There is a discussion at the template on whether the parameter should be retained or removed. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Jack Russell Terrier

Jack Russell Terrier has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft of interest to this WikiProject

Those who watch this page may be interested in expanding Draft:Dangerous dog. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Tika

New stub about a "celebrity" dog: Tika (dog)

---Another Believer (Talk) 23:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dogs: Difference between revisions Add topic