Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive B1

message: For anyone interested, I just put up an article on Spaniels that gives some background on what a spaniel is and then lists breeds that are probably classifiable as Spaniels.  If anyone knows more about what makes a spaniel and what doesn't (and it's not just whethe the name includes the word "spaniel" ;-) ), I'd be delighted if you'd review the article and even add more info.  Elf 17:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Review Spaniel article

message: I've just discovered something completely by accident:  Wikipedia will generate a list in :category:blah that we can access but that does not show up in a Search.
Can we use it to solve some of our categorizing problems?  Like put articles there while we're deciding what topic or group they should belong to?  Or hold them there until they've been entered manually onto the right list, and then whoever enters them can go back and delete them from the holding page?  Is this making sense?  Quill 23:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But that will put a non-category at the bottom of those articles.  Do we want that?  I suspect that if we start adding :category:to be assigned to articles we may be heading for arguments.  Perhaps it is better to make a list in the Wikiproject area instead - we would still be able to access it, but it wouldn't be part of the article space.  Of course, it would need maintenance - just an alternative suggestion :) -- sannse (talk) 16:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good point.  Too bad there isn't a way to hide the category to be assigned.  I think a list of articles awaiting categorizing somewhere in the Wikiproject area is a good idea.  Among all of us we would be able to maintain it.  It might even help us sort out which categories are needed/work best. Quill 21:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-list lists 

message: *I think we should start a feature request about displaying the content of a category in the same manner as "My contributions". I mean as a list with newest changes displayed first. It should be possible also to display the content of (some) special pages (as categories and so on) with a Startig from and Until input mask. This would save both database resources and user resources as well. What is your opinion about this? Regards Gangleri 05:25, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
*Questions:
**How to see new articles in a category if you do not have sysop priviledges? Should you remember them all? Should you look at all?
**What turn around would be available until such a feature would be available? We could insert the ~~~~~ (five "~"'s) for the system timestamp in the "working list". But then it will be overloaded and this would be no automated solution. Gangleri 00:58, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
:Great questions that I've also wrestled with. Every once in a while I go to the categories pages and manually read thru the list and try to remember whether I've seen the topic before.   Seems like there should be a better way.  Of course this page isn't the place for requesting new features. Elf | Talk 04:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Either I'm totally misunderstanding what you guys are looking for here, or can't you just click on "related changes" on the category page, and see what's been most recently updated or added? Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what Related Changes is supposed to do; never figured it out. It doesn't help with what has been added to the categories. For example, Akbash Dog was added to :Category:Dog breeds on Oct 17, but it does not show up when I click Related Changes on the Category:Dog breeds page.  Elf | Talk 19:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized that related changes only shows recent changes to wikilinks in the text portion of the category page, and not the articles in said category. Hmm. Maybe that should be the feature request: have related changes include changes to the articles themselves, and that should show what's been added too. Lachatdelarue (talk) 20:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  WDP feature request 

message: Moved anon question to Talk:Shih Tzu. Elf | Talk 20:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shih Tzu question

message: Since modern science asserts that DNA underlies all natural (and unnatural) selection, why not base a dog breed grouping scheme on genetic info.  After all, it was the Victorians who were obsessed with Linnaeus and categorizing everything based on appearances (since they didn't know about DNA).
Some insightful research has been done at the National Human Geneome Research Institute.  It is analyzing the genes of the various dog breeds.  Since the research is still is its infancy, there are many breeds excluded.  Also, the research only reveals which breeds are very similar, and those that are very different.  There is a large grey area in between.  (It's like being taught a history that begins at the earth's beginning, then skips to the last couple of years -- but doesn't reveal anything about the interveneing years.)  But there will continue to be research, and there will continue to be more clarity revealed.
For example, it shows that the Basenji split off quite early, as did the Eastern-breeds (Chow, Shiba Inu, Shar Pei, etc).  And it shows that the Belgian Sheepdog and the Belgian Tervuren are essentially the same breed.
Here is a rough map (look on page 21 of the pdf file) of dog breeds, as calculated by the Canine Genomic Research At NHGRI.  You will note, quite reasonably, that German Shepherds are more closely related to Mastiffs than to other "herding dogs."  In fact, the old taxonomy of "working dogs" and "toy dogs" and the like is a false construct.  The dogs are organized by genetic origin.  And though the relation between very similar and very dissimilar dog breeds is currently understood, it would be fortituous to base a Wiki evolving document on the evolving forefront of our scientific understanding of dog breeds.
68.15.221.177 04:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a genetic basis of categorization? 

message: Should there be a "gun dogs" category, or should it be divided into more specific categories such as "spaniel", "pointer" etc, OR should the categories "spaniel", "pointer" and such be subcategories of "category:Gun dogs"? (as you can tell, I'm new to this "creating categories" thing) Pharaoh Hound 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories (yet again)