Talk:English Cocker Spaniel

message: I removed a statement that stated that the difference in appearance between show and field lines was "likely" the result of cross breeding with other dog breeds among hunting lines.  No source was offered and in researching this issue, I have found nothing to support it.  As these two types of dog have always been registered with the same body, it is not any more likely that field-dog breeders would cross breed dogs than show breeders would.  Moreover, the differences are entirely explainable through selective breeding.  In fact, a good case can be made that the field-bred dog is more similar to the classical spaniel than is the show bred dog.  Afterall, field dogs have not been selectively bred to alter their appearance.  They have been selected for hunting ability, while show dogs have been selected for physical traits that breeders believe will attract the attention of show judges.  This has led to longer ears, silkier coats, and larger body size.--Counsel 16:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense to me.  I suspect it'll be tough to find reliable sources that explain this one way or the other. If you find any web sites to support these thoughts, would be nice to add them as references.   Elf | Talk 17:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This difference in appearance between show and field lines is not uncommen, even in other breeds, and is more likely the result of a different focus in breeders breeding program. In field lines the focus is usually on the dogs performence as a working dog, and less on it's appearance. Jerazol 13:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross Breeding 

message: I have added a number of sources to the page.  Question: when is this section titled "Sources" and when is it titled "References"?  Additionally, I posted links to a very lengthy history of the breed.  There is good information there, some of which we should include in our history section.  I will give it a go later, but do not have time right now.  That is why I posted it in External Links rather that sources.    If some of the information is incorporated into our history section, should these links go into the Sources section?--Counsel 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources Added 

message: I have placed a GA rating on this article.  I believe that this article meets the qualifications of this rating and compares favorably with those rated similarly.--Counsel 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I think that we should nominate it for good-article status officially, so that it can be formally recognized as such. On that basis, I am now submitting the nomination. In general, I personally intended the section of the Dogs project page to list only those which have, as it were, officially been recognized as good articles, so I think that in the future we might want to get the "formal" recognition before unilaterally declaring an article to be a GA. After all, that really is in the domain of another group. But I certainly have no objections to seeing "B" class-rated articles which are only right now rated that because they haven't "officially" been recognized as GAs nominated and given the recognition they deserve. Badbilltucker 23:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: Does anyone have a source for this?--Counsel 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epilepsy 

message: A quick scan of this article shows that it contains almost no inline citations.  Without citations in place, it cannot qualify as a Good Article.  I'm placing the review on hold, which will allow up to a week for citations to be added.  Once they are, I'll be happy to review the article again. Shimeru 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: Since no citations have been added to the article in the past week, I am failing it.  Please feel free to reapply when citations are put into place. Shimeru 10:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: This article failed good article nomination. 
There are very few citations and the ones that are there don't follow the citation format. Quite a few unsourced statements that could be taken as POV. The prose seems pretty good, but the article could use a copy edit.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  Thanks for your work so far. 
--Scorpion 05:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: Technicly these may be mutts, but Cockeranians are reconized by many dog associations. I'm thinking about creating an article on them, and would like permision to add a statement about the mix here. Any counter suggestions?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnnywalterboy (talk • contribs). 
:I don't see a problem with mentioning the mix in the article, but I don't believe the introductory text is the appropriate place to add it. Posibly the history section, or a small separate section. Jerazol 07:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several popular cocker crosses around (spoodles, spanadors... there's probably a spottweiler somewhere out there ;-) so a small section covering all of these might be appropriate somewhere in the article body. --Calair 07:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed the text again. I tried to rewrite it, but removing all the unsubstantiated claims like "Almost as popular as pure bred cockers", "If for any reason, a Cocker Spaniel Breeder chooses to breed a mixed litter, they will probably choose the Cocker Spaniel-Pomeranian(dog) mix" etc left me with nothing. The text as it was read like an advertising for someone trying to push their particular flavor of Cocker-mix. Jerazol 05:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cockeranian

message: Traning your dog takes time. If your puppy doesnt learn it right away just keep going over the trick with the dog. A good reward is givng the puppy a treat. 
If your dog is bad send it to his/her bed.
Training your dog will make it more obediant. If you do have problems training your dog go to obetiant classes. That is what I did with my dog. It helps I promise you.
If obedient classes dont work then your local vet may be able to give you some help.
REMEMBER YOU CANT TEACH AN OLD DOG NEW TRICKS!!!
START WHEN IT IS STILL YOUNG!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.91.250 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Training

message: In response to the GA failure, I've added a load of citation needed tags to the article today.  These are the points I believe that need citations in order to progress this article to GA status. Miyagawa (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: Going to use this section as a checklist to show where the improvements are following the GA review.
So far completed are:
* Converted height/weight into sentences of prose.  Also added reference for this too, as found that the breed standard was different to what we had listed. Miyagawa (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Improvements 

message: To celebrate the GA status, I've created my first userbox specifically for English Cocker Spaniel owners:

Feel free to use it where ever you like!
Miyagawa (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Cocker Spaniel Userbox 

message: Can someone remind me when the Wikicup is done to come back and overhaul this article. It was the first one I worked up to GA, and when you compare it to even the American Cocker Spaniel article (let alone the King Charles Spaniel article), it's rather lacking and I feel theres a lot the add (the history section is especially poor for such a well known breed). Miyagawa (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to article 

message: The dog shown on the pictures is very cute, no doubt of that. These picures vere removed only because the composition is very unbalanced and it does not show much of the English Cocker Spaniel dog’s characteristic features, so actually I think you should try to take a better picture to put into the article. Why I think is not a very good picture is because the composition is kind of dislocated, the picture shows the nose of the two dogs and nothing of the breeds other features. The same Editor who took the picture  was the same, who also initiated the change, and that would be lobbying for own work and own picture, even if I do understand the creators feelings for liking their own pictures, it’s not a good enough reason. These pictures are not as good pictures as the ones removed , so it was the reason why we remove them time to time, but they keep coming back. The author is putting them back all the time.   There is a conflict of interest when promoting one’s own pictures. Even if I do understand the creator’s feelings for liking their own pictures, it’s not a good enough reason.   Hafspajen (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures removed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on English Cocker Spaniel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427081157/http://www.defra.gov.uk:80/animalh/welfare/act/docking.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/docking.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121224038/http://ecsca.org/difference.html to http://www.ecsca.org/difference.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091231031924/http://terrificpets.com/dog_breeds/english_cocker_spaniel.asp to http://www.terrificpets.com/dog_breeds/english_cocker_spaniel.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209072359/http://petrix.com:80/dogint/11-26.html to http://petrix.com/dogint/11-26.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604070439/http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1537/hscockerspaniel.pdf to http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1537/hscockerspaniel.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007121644/http://www.ecsca.org/98healthsur.html to http://www.ecsca.org/98healthsur.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609194859/http://www.ecsca.org:80/healthsurvey02.html to http://www.ecsca.org/healthsurvey02.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520105946/http://www.dogstuff.info:80/cocker_rage_syndrome.html to http://www.dogstuff.info/cocker_rage_syndrome.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325224224/http://www.cockerspanielrage.org.uk:80/whatisrage.htm to http://www.cockerspanielrage.org.uk/whatisrage.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230171520/http://friendlypettraining.com:80/files/Dog_Research_Information2.doc to http://friendlypettraining.com/files/Dog_Research_Information2.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609112540/http://felsteadgundogs.com:80/gundogs.html to http://felsteadgundogs.com/gundogs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110530030941/http://www.darshama.net:80/frostieblog/travel/cuba to http://www.darshama.net/frostieblog/travel/cuba
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402005045/http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/113 to http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/113
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050419032341/http://www.gundogmag.com:80/gundog_breeds/emma_gun_dog/index.html to http://www.gundogmag.com/gundog_breeds/emma_gun_dog/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified