Talk:Terrier

message: Just wondering if the Terrier breed list is incomplete, or if there are reasons why some breeds have been left out.  Anyone have any objections to my adding:
*Australian Silky Terrier
*Russian Black Terrier
*English Toy Terrier
*Miniature Fox Terrier
*Toy Fox Terrier
*Tenterfield Terrier
*Rat Terrier
*American Pit Bull Terrier
*Norfolk Terrier
*Norwich Terrier
*Japanese Terrier
*Shitzu crossed with fox terrier
----
:I just added a Terrier navbox that has more terriers included.  DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here</font> 13:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Terriers 

message: Was this distinction intentionally made?  I can see where it would be, but wanted to clarify.  Keep in mind, whoever is writing this, that some terriers 'cross over'; i.e. they are hunting terriers (which I assume applies to hunting for food or pelts, vermin routing etc.) and were used for The (Fox) Hunt.  Quill 00:10, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunt  Terriers vs. Hunting Terriers 

message: While the recent edit by an anonymous user was logical, ultimately it would confuse matters; someone would have to remember to come back here and change things back.  Further, this is a breed list, not a type list.  The fox terrier article discusses type; it is not restricted to the specific breeds Smooth and Wire-haired fox terriers.  I think a better choice is to leave the separation, as it is in keeping with the way the breeds are listed in the rest of the project.  Opinions? Quill 09:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Elf | Talk 22:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Yup. Refer to List of dog breeds. Elf | Talk 17:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox Terrier 

message: I've deleted a recent addition to the list of terrier breeds:  with all possible respect, I doubt that there is such a recognized breed as the "Nicole McPherson Bitch-Faced Terrier". Cactus Wren 18:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable addition 

message: First of all, the picture of the dogs in the article calls them Yorkies, while it would be much more encyclopedic to call them Yorkshire Terriers in the caption.  Then, take a look at the note below the breed list, which says Yorkshires are considered toy dogs; so should the picture even be in this article in the first place?  Maybe a terrier aficionado can clear this all up. 213.100.23.240 17:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yorkies

message: Shouldn't the FCI's group listings for terriers be used instead of the AKC's? Especially since the AKC's listing is only pertinent for the US whereas the FCI's is useful for roughly 80 countries (the number taken from their own entry).
Either that or link to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrier_Group which has a full listing of all breeds recognised as being a part of the Terrier group with International variations noted. 
Or if neither option, at least note which ones are recognised in which country as terriers etc.
--Aria elwen 08:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KC 

message: The previous list of terriers was not only incomplete, but was exclusive to terriers that were recognized by the AKC. (For example the Teddy Roosevelt Terrier was not listed.)  I replaced it with the Terrier template, which is much more complete and not exclusive to the American club, as what they call a terrier seems to be different from what everyone else calls a terrier.  Also, this Wikipedia is designed for all English using countries (incl. United Kingdom, Australia)  DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here</font> 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of terriers 

message: It doesn't seem that there is a "controversy" about what is registered as a terrier; different KCs just make different choices.
Norwich Terrier is not a toy; it retains more or less its original size, while others have been bred up to be larger dogs, mostly to win dog shows.
Bull Terriers are not a good example of fighting dog as they are too small and have been bred as pets for too long (100+ years). Fighting dog websites show the Tosa Inu and Molosser type dogs as preferred fighting dogs, although they claim if "properly" trained even a poodle will fight. No I'm not providing any links, it's too disgusting. I only researched it for clarity.
The trouble with categories of terrier is that almost any terrier can be in any category, with size being the main factor for purpose-bred and or raised dogs. For example, most terriers today are too big and too wide in the chest to go down a fox hole, even if that was why their ancestors were kept.  
Hafwyn (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary.   - DiligentTerrier (and friends)</font> 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I do usually put summary. I'll explain why I removed it: Where it said "The terriers were made famous throughout the 1990s, when Charlie "the champion" won the Dog of the Year award 7 years in a row" it is not particularly meaningful. Made famous where? In the UK where most of them came from they have always been well known. Also who is Charlie the champion, what kind of dog was he and what is 'Dog of the year award'. Are they notable at all? --CharlesC (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made famous... 

message: To prevent the article from being overwhelmed by photos of people's pets, I would like to suggest that photos be limited to clear illustrations of types of terriers mentioned in the article. This is what is in the article now, and what I see as the reasons:
*Short legged terriers: Terriers.jpg - the most iconic terriers are the short legged ones, especially the black Scotty and white Westie.
*Long legged terriers: Foxterrier sh klaas.jpg was already in the article, and shows the dog digging.
*Hunting: BedaleTerrier2005.jpg a "working terrier" in the field.
*Toy: Yorkshire teriery 522.jpg a very good example of long coated toys.
*Bull-type: BostonTerrierMaleBlack.jpg a very good example showing the short muzzle.
*Largest terrier: Airedale Terriers Flickr.jpg shows a person's legs, for scale. Good clear picture of the dogs.
The painting of the smooth coated toy from 1875 does not need to be duplicated by a more modern picture, they still look like that.
There should be a discussion before changing the pictures.--Hafwyn (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limiting the photos in the article 

message: When we were in England we heard it said a few times that the word "terrier" is a corruption  of "raterrier", which was the original name and meant, in essence, "rat hunter".
Old_Wombat (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreement re the origin of the name 

message: I note the Bull types paragraph in the Terrier Types and Groups section contains the following text:
"Responsible breeders have bred modern Bull type terrier breeds, such as the Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, into suitable family dogs and show terriers. These breeds and other descendants of the Bull and Terrier types, such as the Asian Gull Terr, are among the dog breeds still raised for illegal dog fighting."
It strikes me that "responsible breeders" is a slanted wording which implies that breeders who aren't breeding family or show dogs are irresponsible.
I'm aware that there's some controversy about bull breeds and breeding, but I don't see how the "responsible" element conforms to NPOV.
I've made an edit of that point, but I invite other editors to clean up the wording as I have no real expertise or interest in this subject. Jack of Many (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slanted wording 

message: Redundant WP:CONTENTFORK, maybe even a WP:POVFORK.  We already merged a bunch of these pointless overlapping articles over the last two years; not sure why this one was left out. See also: Talk:Toy dog#Merge from Toy Group; Talk:Herding dog#Merge from Herding Group; Talk:List of dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club#Merge redundant articles; Talk:Fédération Cynologique Internationale#Merge from "FCI [Whatever] Group" pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am seeing the same thing for articles such as  (redirected and merge notice removed without any corresponding merger of content),  (redirected and merge notice removed without any corresponding merger of content),  (redirected with no corresponding merger of content in the page history), and others. I defer to more editors who are more knowledgeable about this topic whether there was any content worth merging or if plain redirection was appropriate, but a redirection should not be described as a merge unless content was actually merged—the term "merge" has significance from a copyright standpoint. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , from memory the only sources on the merged pages were kennel club websites themselves, most of the articles in this space (dog types) are already poorly/un-sourced enough, I decided not to introduce more information for which only primary sources exist. Further, I figured the links were fairly intuitive. I am slowly (glacially if I’m being truely honest) trying to work through the various dog type articles. If people think a simple statement is required I can introduce something, but I would prefer to find a secondary source for it.Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:ABOUTSELF, the primary sources of the kennel clubs' websites and registration/show rules documents are perfectly fine as sources for basic things like "All terriers are classified by the American Kennel Club in its Terrier group, by the United Kennel Club in a group of the same name; however, the Kennel Club of Kerblachistan uses the term Terrier and Bulldog group, except [list of small breeds here] which are in its Toy Group", or whatever.  And we  include such information somewhere in here, and ensure redirects exist, or people will just WP:POVFORK again to write up redundant pages about their preferred dog registry organization's terminology (which is also a WP:NOTDICT problem).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a simple paragraph, I will replicate this across the other types. Cavalryman (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Cavalryman. I will defer to you and others more involved in these topics on the best path forward. Regarding the redirects, would you please remove  from those redirects (former articles) from which you did not actually merge (copy-and-paste) content, and leave them only on the ones from which you did merge content? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

text: @Cavalryman: Friendly ping. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , my apologies for not responding earlier.  I have added a paragraph which summarises the content from the former terrier group page, unfortunately it is sourced solely to a primary source. In future I will not include the R from merge template if nothing notable can be merged.  Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Terrier Group]] 

message: I would like to see citations for the opinions at the bottom of this article titled "Euphemism for pit bull". I deleted information that tried to separate pit bulls from other terriers, suggesting they have almost nothing in common. But the next sentence rendered that claim false when it gave the names of terrier breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The use of slang is important insofar as distinguishing it from fact and proper usage. I would like to see some sources address the use of the term "pit bull" and how it relates to terriers. What exists at the moment is unclear and unsourced.Vmavanti (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section should be removed. I could write a similarly unsourced section about Jack Russells and Fell terriers. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe this, but repeatedly the documentation says that all information in Wikipedia must be sourced with citations. Editors have become more scrupulous about this, so I discourage everyone from wasting their time trying to find some rule in the documentation that liberates them from the real work of adding citations. Any unsourced content can be deleted. If you want to keep it, source it.Vmavanti (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Content like this always needs to be sourced, especially when its contentious. I have removed this section as its entirely WP:OR. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support the removal of this content by .  Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pit bull section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hello, there is a discussion to merge the articles Bull and terrier with Staffordshire Bull Terrier.  You are welcome to participate. Blockhouse321 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal: [[Bull and terrier]] with [[Staffordshire Bull Terrier]]