Talk:Bulldog type

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comment

See Talk:Bulldog for discussion of article naming. Elf | Talk 16:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the jaw claim?

I suspect the "vice" jaw stuff is utter nonsense. The pitbull manages excellent bitepower with a conventionally arranged jaw. What proof have we that the jaw of authentic bulldogs projected?

My theory is that this is tripe cooked up by modern English bulldog-fanciers to connect their dogs with the original breed.

Seconded. BulldogPete 22:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need work

This page is fraught with POV and needs some serious work. Would be great if a professional breeder or someone familiar with breed characteristics/show criteria could improve page,--RexRex84 21:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullmastiff

Could/should the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullmastiff bullmastiff be included? Delete this sentence if assuredly not.

Old Roman bull-dog

I am removing the following section for being unreferenced:

===[[Old Roman Bull-Dog]]===
Dave Coleman of Virginia has created the Old Roman Bull-Dog, in an attempt to recreate the fighting dog, attested in various Classical sources as coming from Gaul or Britain. He has acquired the genetic makeup from proven working stock to reproduce what he thinks these dogs once were - An oversized, giant framed Bull-Dog that can work, play, guard and are companions.

To return it, please provide a source to verify what is stated ... not just Mr. Coleman's claims about his breed, but also that the breed actually exists. I also think this section reads as something of an advertizement for Mr. Coleman and his breed (it talks more about Mr. Coleman than the dogs) so some re-writing may be needed. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC) CORRECTION- DAVE COLEMAN DID NOT CREATE THE OLD ROMAN BULLDOGGE. HE MIXED HERMES OLDE BULLDOGGES TO A MIXED LOW QUALITY NEAPOLITAN MASTIFF HYBRID INTO A RANDOM POOL OF GENETICS TO TRY AND CREATE THE ULTIMATE BULLDOG. HIS PROGRAM LACKS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, AND VERY LOW CONSISTENCY IN PRODUCED OFFSPRING. TO MAKE A CLAIM THAT HE HAS CREATED SOMETHING OF SUCH A TITLE IS A UNTRUE STATEMENT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.245.67 (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible inclusion of two breeds

I think that two more breeds from Brazil should be included, the Campeiro Bulldog and the Serrano Bulldog. If this could be done, that would be all of the major breeds of this type.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I re-worked the article

@Montanabw, Elmidae, Jts1882, Atsme, Elf, Andrew Davidson, Reywas92, and Aquataste: To all those who have voted or remarked on the AfD page [1] so far:

  • I re-worked the lede to give an overview of "What is a bulldog breed?" and "What is the current real life interest in bulldog breeds?" Then I added a few lists that link to other dog breed pages, explaining what each list was about.
  • I recommend removing most of the breed summaries and images that are below the lists. (I did not remove them without concensus that the format I made above those summaries is sufficient for the page.)
  • I recommend adding to the gallery a small collection of photos of the various bulldog breeds. That way, someone glancing at the gallery can see the similarities of the 'type'.
  • Note that Bulldogge Brasileiro is actually re-directed to this article and its text and image was removed on 6 August 2019. So we'll have to make accommodation for it somehow. In the meantime, I pasted it back into the article.
  • Take a look at the changes. Please add below your ideas and/or comments.

— Nomopbs (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that, and you added back unsourced and poorly sourced material that I removed. Atsme Talk 📧 13:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: The solution to 'unsourced and poorly sourced material' is to tag it as such or do some research and add some citations, not to delete the content with an edit summary of "not officially recognized breeds, fails GNG, V and OR" (which contradicts WP:NOTEWORTHY). I recovered that content so that it can be improved or incorporated correctly. Per another AfD completed just 11 days ago, [2] it was decided the Bulldogge Brasileiro content should be merged into the Bulldog breeds article. They didn't vote to delete the content, but to keep it... just in another location (merge). I'm now pinging those participants (User:SalmanZ, User:William_Harris, and User:Waz8) in case they're interested in that content. — Nomopbs (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nomopbs - the solution to disruptive editing is a block, and that is where you are headed - in fact, based on the disruption you caused during a GA review, it appears you may be headed for a t-ban. By adding back the material I removed, you are Wikipedia:Edit warring. Several of us have AGF with you, and have exercised more than our share of patience. There are no verifiable RS for that content, and that is why I removed it - see WP:OR and WP:V which are core content policies VS the guideline you are citing. If you can find RS, do so, and then discuss the addition on the article TP. Regarding the AfD merge - discuss what you think should be merged on the article TP - and it needs to be cited to RS. If it is not, do not merge. Call an RfC and see if you can get consensus for what you want to merge, but until RS are cited, I oppose anything being merged and so do other editors. Leave it out. Atsme Talk 📧
Atsme Talk 📧 18:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC) I think that Nomopbs is doing a good job on the article and should be commended! Aquatastetalk 18:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aquataste, one of the first things we ask new editors is to become familiar with our core content policies, especially when attempting to edit in controversial topic areas. Atsme Talk 📧 19:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: At 1,400 edits I am no longer a "new editor", and this topic wasn't controversial. I have been keeping all of my communications about CONTENT, and I refuse to be goaded again into reaction like a few weeks ago. If you fail to keep your discussions to CONTENT and POLICIES, and you threaten me one more time, I will escalate the matter. The accusations and threats you just made are the same you made to me during the Staffordshire Bull Terrier edits and discussions, and is the same pattern of communication that got you topic banned twice from another area of Wikipedia, the last sanction just 17 days ago (coincidentally, during the same period as you were exhibiting the same communication patterns on the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Talk page). This is my one and only warning.
This article is in flux and I even posted as such (above). There is no need for all edits to happen immediately, at once, and to perfection. I made a lot of changes last night and wanted feedback before I proceeded. I asked for feedback on those changes and my proposal for further changes. There is no need to communicate anything beyond opinions about CONTENT — as it is, how it was, or how it should be. — Nomopbs (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The burden (WP:BURDEN) for adding new content is on the person adding new content. So in this case Atsme is correct to revert this content to the last stable, properly sourced version. In this case, WP:FRINGE also applies, as not every dog called a “Bulldog” is necessarily recognized as such by mainstream organizations. Further, Wikipedia’s prohibitions on original research and synthesis (WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH) apply here. Where a topic is controversial, it is particularly critical to remain neutral and within the consensus of recognized experts. ”I like it” has no bearing here. Montanabw(talk) 21:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Atsme didn't revert anything. She removed a block of content that was inserted from an article that had been through the AfD process and it was decided to MERGE the content into Bulldog breeds. It was put there just 6 or 7 days prior to Atsme deleting it altogether. Like I said, the article is in flux at this point. There is no reason the Bulldogge Brasileiro cannot remain another day or two until I (or another editor) get around to looking it through thoroughly. — Nomopbs (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed the block of unsourced, unverifiable material - see User_talk:Jo-Jo_Eumerus#Bulldogge Brasileiro merge. The closer, Jo-Jo Eumerus explained what needs to be done, and Montanabw was correct in that the onus is on the editor who restores challenged text. Also, see this comment by William Harris. Atsme Talk 📧 00:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simplification of list

Rosebud0214 (talk · contribs), I see you have reverted my edit that reduced the paragraphs for each breed to a simple lis. Currently only two of the breed paragraphs are reliably sourced and the what is drawn from these sources is of little value. It is my opinion that this should be a simple list with RS for each breed that specifically describes the breed as a bulldog, currently there is swathes of unsourced stuff on the page. Cavalryman (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

This is not a WP:ARTICLE, the Talk page states that this is a WP:LIST. In accordance with WP:STANDALONE, my view is that these dogs should be converted into a simple, alphabetized list. Further detail about them can be found on their hyper-linked article pages. If someone is prepared to convert it into an article, then they will need to WP:CITE expert WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY. William Harristalk 09:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the link that you get when you click on the "List-class" link (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists) there are many types of lists.

  • Using examples from that page, take a look at subheading-structured list List of cat breeds. Not every item on that "list" (table) has a citation. It is expected that you click on the article's blue link to find further information about the topic.
  • Look at example Glossary of philosophy. This "list" has text describing each item. Again, very few citations for the entire page. It is expected that you click on the blue links to find further information and any relevant citations for each topic.
  • Each entry in the article Bulldog type has a blue link which people can follow to find citations that support the text. It looks to me that the text that makes up the "list" of bulldog breeds is a very brief summary of each dog, like the glossary example above, and was taken from the original article. "Swathes of unsourced stuff on the page" sounds like an exaggeration. If there is something on the page that is not verifiable from the blue link for that breed, then go ahead and remove that bit.
  • If you had instead altered the article to look like Molosser#Molosser breeds or Spaniel then you might not have been reverted. But to remove content and downgrade the article from a "list with information" to a simple list no better than a WP:CATEGORY, is to destroy content for no reason. Looking at the edit history of this article, I see that summary text and photographs have been the format of this article for the last ten to eleven years. There is no reason to demote it and you gave none when you made your bold edit. Both explanations given above are unconvincing in light of the fact that a blue link to a fully cited article is available in all cases where there is no other citation provided.
  • I see that ever since an AFD last August failed you've been chipping away at the article, Cavalryman. In particular, your complete history of edits on this article include: 9/5 (-1,811), 9/5 (-643), 10/11 (-175), 10/21 (-1,832), 10/22 (-1,069), 10/22 (-642), 11/7 (-8,803). Three edits in 2018, but the majority of your effort has been since the failed AFD. I have to wonder about your real intentions for the future of this article.
  • If you don't like the current format, then come up with a format that replaces it in a realistic sense, like the Spaniel or Molosser articles have done. Bulldogs are no less a group of dogs than molossers and spaniels are.

Rosebud0214 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately all of the examples you have listed fall short of Wikipedia's policies, they too should either be cited or reduced to a simple list. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
What is accepted in other WikiProjects is irrelevant - this article falls under WikiProject Dogs. The WikiProject's accepted format for a list appears at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Assessment#Quality scale William Harristalk 10:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal: Bull and terrier with Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Hello, there is a discussion to merge the articles Bull and terrier with Staffordshire Bull Terrier. You are welcome to participate. Blockhouse321 (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bulldog_type"