Talk:Scent hound

message: Errr...To whom it may concern, Rhodesian Ridgebacks are not scenthounds; they are sighthounds. I haven't checked the rest of the list. 66.108.4.183 06:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That ain't what the article on them says. And they are in the category for scent hounds. 144.9.8.21 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Different organizations are apt to classify different, too. These categories have arbitrary edges, the motivations of the organizations and their constituents differ, and even the identity of particular breeds if fluid between organizations, and often does not correspond much with the native [[landrace] from which (usually) Europeans and North Americans have developed a standardized breed. (Not just a dogs problem; also happens with cats, and agricultural livestock breeds).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhodesian Ridgeback 

message: Removed Blackmouth Cur because they are a cur dog, not a scent hound. They are classified as a cur by the UKC and independent BMC associations. --TrueBlueLacys (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackmouth Cur 

message: Scenthound Group should merge into this article.  It's a content fork that serves no purpose, being basically a WP:DICDEF article about a jargon term the definition of which is, well, the subject of  article. The lists in it are better sourced, and disputes like the above about what does and doesn't qualify as a scent hound (or scenthound, as you prefer) are less likely to arise after the articles are merged.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, merges and splits often get forgotten about for months or years.  The WP:CONSENSUS rede is that any unopposed move of that sort is presumed to have consensus after a month or so, and this one has active support, so let's do it, and then look at other "Breed Group" articles. Some could potentially turn out to be unique, in being tied to AKC or some other specific organization yet not simulatenously encompassing and limited to a specific dog type recognized in the cynological literature more broadly. In such cases, I'm highly skeptical the classification will be independently notable, and should thus be merged into a dog type classification (if there's near-complete overlap), and/or the classification section of the organization in question (creating one if necessary). It makes much more sense to work up a special article that is a table of classifications of breeds by class/group, according to what organizations, or work this info into the List of dog breeds (or both, though a properly crafted master table at the latter should be sortable by organization probably).  I've been working here and there on the same sort of thing for WP:WikiProject Cats, and even toying with the idea of doing this in WikiData, along with other breed info (e.g. to auto-populate infoboxes and stuff with this data, across multiple languages' Wikipedias).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposed 

message: Hello , I have noticed some of your recent contributions to this article, it is looking extremely tired so any attention here is most welcome. I have had a look at some of my go-to scent hound/scenthound references, and to my surprise all universally use the singular form “scenthound”. I am vaguely aware there was a discussion about this many years ago, but I have not seen it. I am very happy to discuss, but I am beginning to think a page move discussion may be in order, in the interim I think the alternative spelling without the UKC link should be restored to the lead. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Cavalryman, historically it was "scent hound" there is little doubt about that, Google it at various Kennel Clubs, now they are attempting to modernise it, very much as the "modern word": "sighthound", (dating roughly from the 1960's) before that it was "gazehound". I object to Microsoft attempting for years to straight-jacket that to "sight hound", to conform it to "scent hound", as well as someone erroneously trying to name the Bavarian and Hanover hounds "scenthounds" on a page with the title "Scent Hound". No doubt I will lose this as the playing field is moving. The only Kennel Club with a "Scenthound Group" is the UKC.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, Peter Beckford and J. Otho Paget both spell foxhound “fox-hound”, so yes it seems singular form is modern. I can’t find many that say “scent hound”, when writing about scent hounds/scenthounds most of the old timers I am familiar with just say hounds. Cavalryman (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

text: I personally prefer gaze hound, but I too am quite old fashioned. I suppose the point here is “scenthound” is not just used by the UKC, but some of the most preeminent dog writers of our day on both sides of the Atlantic (Alderton, Hancock & Morris are British), are you happy that we restore the alternate spelling to the lead? Cavalryman (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scent hound vs scenthound 

message: German Shorthaired Pointer working with his fantastic nose exclusively. Sciencia58 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , that’s my GSP to the right pointing some quail, scent is undeniably her dominant sense. Cavalryman (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nose