Talk:Maltipoo

message: I changed the image of the Maltipoo. It is the same dog, but I feel this picture shows more of the dog and its size. --Msc44 16:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of Maltipoo

message: I have removed the list of notable dogs from this article following a discussion at the Teahouse. To be considered notable, these dogs need to have been the subjects of coverage in secondary rather than only primary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Instagram photos are primary sources. Some of the links you provide here look to be secondary coverage (I don't have time to check them now), and those are the sorts of sources you need to be citing for each of the dogs you want to include in the article. Note that in order to be consider notable, the dogs need to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to see any reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the "Maltipoo". YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and other social media are not reliable sources, because they have no professional editorial control. Brief passing mentions do not constitute significant coverage. As for individual dogs, the sourcing better be rock solid. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several good-quality admin run pet sites that have info about the Maltipoo, and here are some books about them that should meet RS if they go on preview. However, the sourcing for inclusion of individual dogs does need to be secondary. If they did appear on Comedy Central, they may be notable. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree that the stuff with the YouTube dog can be tossed. If we find that a dog of this type has been the animal star in a mainstream movie, then it's a notable Maltipoo. Somebody's pet shredding paper towels really isn't notable. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree with you, WP:NOTABILITY applies only to the topic and not the content. However, WP:NOT raises the question of in what way this section is encyclopedic? That is left to a consensus among editors, so I will await further comment and see what other editors might think. Editors will need to be clear - is the whole section to be removed or just the Youtube link that may violate copyright? Regards, William Harris •  talk •   20:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, I think the whole section can be tossed.  For example, it's not like the Redbone Coonhound article where many people's only exposure to these dogs is from a book and it's subsequent films. If a Maltipoo becomes famous through film, TV or books, we can always reinstate the section. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to look at the context. A search on youtube will reveal many videos of Maltipoos, as does a search of media articles. They don't all need to be linked to Wikipedia. Therefore, we need to ask why is this section special and what can we learn from it. If it is not informative then there is no reason for it to remain here - "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" It is my intention to remove the youtube link in accordance with WP:ELNEVER, after the removal occurs there may be no reason for the rest of the section to remain. Regards, William Harris •  talk •   08:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Also, part of the issue here is that there is very little material on the subject, which will result in WP:GOODFAITH - but perhaps low quality - edits to help develop it. If an editor or reader visiting this page has a secondary source (e.g. http://www.amazon.com.au/Maltipoo-Complete-Maltipoos-information-included-ebook/dp/B00IPG0H8Q) then I encourage their contribution. William Harris •  talk •   19:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I did try to find some sources, but I don't care enough to actually buy that book and it's hard to find stuff without the kennel club publications. I know what you mean about good faith but low-quality edits; I removed thousands of bytes of apparent OR and how-to from the Treeing Walker Coonhound article, and added some sourced history and appearance content. I tried to find sources for what was initially there, but it was hopeless, plus it was written in very promotional language. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, however someone who might visit this page may have this book or one similar, and could help further develop the article. Some readers are naturally hesitant to try editing or do not how where to begin doing it. William Harris •  talk •   23:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there has been 35 views of this page over the last day with no commitment, and that only one person supports the Notable section, and that WP:WEIGHT states that "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views", then I have removed the section devoted to a pet called Harley-Quinn. The editor who created that section is free to create a stub devoted to that dog - this article on the breed in general is not the place for it. Then the new stub can survive or be tagged for deletion on its own merits. Regards, William Harris • WikiProject Dogs • talk •  20:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Famous maltipoo mention of the viral video was made by me in January which was later edited by someone else as there was an addition in the contents of it and also another dog was added by some other user. So there are other people supporting it too. Also, this section has been removed initially by White Arabian Filly after which it was restored by another user as you can see in the Edit History. WhiteArabianFilly then took it further in the Teahouse and got it deleted again on grounds of lack of secondary sources. I then added the secondary sources and the deletion was then stopped. When she removed it at first, she even referred to it as "stupid stuff" in the removal comments and I think one can clearly see what these constant removals are about. E.gal18 (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fully aware of the history, as can anybody else who reads the View History and this Talk page. However, if you believe that the material is notable then I recommend that you create a separate stub on the topic. As we have received no comment from other editors over the past couple of days, I believe this is a fair resolution of this issue. My decision was based on Wikipedia WP:POLICY plus what I believe is the best outcome for Wikiproject Dogs rather than for individuals. If you still feel aggrieved, the dispute resolution policy can be found at WP:DISPUTE where you can, among the options, ask for an independent WP:THIRDOPINION - a role that I am attempting to provide. That third party will review the dispute in accordance with, once again, WP:POLICY. Regards, William Harris •  talk •   01:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable dogs

message: , if you want to add in the notable dogs section, which I, William Harris, Cordless Larry and Cullen328 agreed to drop, you need to add some third-party sources and edit the tone to be more encyclopedic. 2,200 followers are not really that many, and 4 puppies in a litter is not an unusual number. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur we do not need trivia like this.  The inclusion of an article on a mongrel crossbreed just because someone put a marketing name on it is already pushing the boundaries of WP:Notability.  Most coverage of these dogs is passing mentions in lists of funny crossbreed names in articles on "designer dogs" in general, with in-depth coverage rarely found outside of gee-whiz dog fancier publications, which are funded almost entirely by breeder advertising, and are thus not independent of the subject.   Maybe we can keep a few of these articles (labradoodle is probably notable), but that's not an excuse to start burying them in doggy fancruft.  "The famous dog in a viral video" is rank WP:RECENTISM and trivia; it will not be famous in a year, when it's been buried under 37 million other short-lived Internet memes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello White Arabian Filly and Mac. I just happened to drop by. What on earth happened here, I thought we had this resolved by a majority view of editors. What we are seeing here is the English-speaking world's online encyclopedia being turned into a shrine for individual's little white dogs. I recommend that we just delete the section Famous and other notable Maltipoos - once again - and enforce it. If we get any further problems from the editors responsible then we ask a friendly admin for assistance. Regards,  William Harris |talk  11:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable dogs again 

message: diff spelling Ies (talk)  17:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Maultipoo" is not the correct spelling of Maltipoo. "Maultipoo" is incorrect for the breed. Jamesjpk (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article is claiming Maultipoo as a distinct and notable breed, then I do not believe it satisfies our notability guidelines and should be deleted. Ies (talk)  17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that Maltipoo does not satisfy our notability guidelines as many sources have reported on this breed. Jamesjpk (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree, this is reasonable. Ies (talk)  13:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Maultipoo]] 

message: has repeatedly tried to re-insert the sections about 'famous' Maltipoo, repeatedly.   
I have removed it, saying "Social media sites and blogs are not WP:RS; with no appropriate sources, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia". The only sources are Instagram, youTube, and a blog, plus a "book" which is actually an unpublished E-book of approx 3000 characters, with no ISBN, which seems to consist mostly of pictures of the author's pet.
The user has already been blocked once for "Persistent addition of unsourced content". I have warned them again about the need for reliable sources.
There is no way that the information about "Harley Quinn" and "Reilly Rosalita" belongs in this article. I believe that there is a consensus above. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , I agree with you. I think there may someday be a need for a notable Maltipoos section, but only if a Maltipoo starred in a major movie or something like that. I also am dubious about the statement in there that one of the Maltipoos is the product of a Maltese/Standard Poodle cross. A mini or toy Poodle maybe, but I don't think a 60-lb dog could safely breed with a 10-lb Maltese. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable dogs again again