Talk:Welsh Corgi

message: The article states "The tails of Pembrokes are NOT docked as some think."; however, the 3rd picture's caption states "The Pembroke Corgi's tail is often docked, and its ears are smaller." Clarification?
:The tails of the dog have been docked for centuries, and today very few are born with tails.  However, in the rare instances where a corgi is born with a tail (usually very short) it is almost always docked.Martin Heidegger 23:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC
::That sounds like a Lamarckism argument. Docking a dog breed's tails for 10,000 years wouldn't make them magically be born without tails. If stuff like that worked, humans would be born with pierced ears. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tails

message: Anyone? Nklatt 14:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corgŵn = /ˈkɔrguːn/, but the English plural is just corgis. Strad 05:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  corgwn pronunciation? 

message: I have removed the statement that corgis are "believed to be descended from the Vallhund".  Firstly, an encyclopedia article should stick to demonstrable facts, not just offer what is believed.  Secondly, is there any genetic evidence that the two are related, or is this just breeder's folklore derived from the obvious physical similarities?  If they really are related, how do we know that the exchange was in that direction – could the Vallhund not just as easily be descended from the Corgi?---- Richard New Forest (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From 1925 to 1939, the two breeds were considered the same and interbred. So, it is true that they're probably going to be genetically similar, yes. But the popular and widely accepted theory (as the exact history is lost), Cardigans come from crooked-leg Teckel Dogs (relating to Dachshunds and Bassets) whereas the Pembroke comes from straight-legged Spitz types like the Vallhund. Not necessarily from the Vallhund itself. Cardigans came much earlier, around 1200 B.C. (with invading Celtic tribes), and the Pembroke arrived around 1100 A.D. (with Flemish Weavers), 2000 years later. There's still very distinct physical differences that make them the two types: When Pems have a tail, it's curly, and they have lighter more pointed muzzles, where Cardigans have deeper chests, bent legs, and heavier muzzles. Sources:     KrypticKlaws 21:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting references, but sadly none of this stuff appears to be based on real modern research.  Essentially various people have theorised freely, and their ideas have been absorbed into breed folklore – however their theories do not appear to have any scientific or historical basis.  The sources are useful for providing factual information (such as descriptions of early corgis and of other possible contributing breeds), but I can't see how they are any use whatever in telling us where corgis came from or when, or whether the two types are related.  Apart from anything else they are full of other errors (such as the meaning of "cur" and the claimed existence of impassible mountains between Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire). Richard New Forest (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Descent

message: So is it just for shits & giggles that Welsh Corgi, Cardigan Welsh Corgi, and Pembroke Welsh Corgi all have different IPA pronunciations? Come on, people. -- 76.28.238.29 (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they all ought to be the same: now corrected.  (Not a particularly savoury phrase, that, by the way...)  Richard New Forest (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: A lot of material added recently, much of it reffed to Welsh Corgis: Small Dogs With Big Dog Hearts, a web-based owners' magazine.  Unfortunately this cannot be considered a reliable ref.  It is a tertiary source which gives no indication of its own sources – so we cannot judge which facts are true, which are untrue but widely believed, and which were suggested to the author by a friend and put in to bulk out the article.  Just to take the first example: the alternative theory about the origin of the name.  It is ascribed on the page to "others".  Who are these "others"?  Are they real lexicographers, or just people who once flicked through a Welsh phrasebook?  Have they published their theory in a recognised journal?  When?  What evidence do they offer for it?  What do other lexicographers say about it?  If this (quite plausible) theory is properly sourced we should certainly mention it, but the ref used at present is entirely inadequate, and unless a better one can be found, it should be removed.  I'm afraid the same goes for most (and perhaps all) of the material sourced to that page.  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That'll be Dookie. She didn't get Susan until her 18th birthday. Miyagawa (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable refs

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: not moved Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose per WP:Commonname. Dog breed capitalisation was resolved during the second half of last year. The consensus was that all the words of a dog breed name were to be capitalised. Miyagawa (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

text: * Support—It doesn't make much sense to defer to COMMONNAME for style; we would have a different style for each title. If LEGO is the common name, great—write it in Wikipedia's style: Lego. If Welsh Corgi is the common name, write the common name in our style: Welsh corgi. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

text: *Further note Here is the relevant policy: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). Specifically requires animal related articles to follow the Common Name wherever possible, and this includes capitalisation - for instance Peregrine Falcon isn't Peregrine falcon. Also see every single other dog article on Wikipedia. Miyagawa (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

text: *:The common name doesn't need to be interpreted as including common capitalization. If it did, in any case, we'd probably be lowercasing a lot more often than we do, including peregrin falcon! But more to the point, the section dealing with capitalization below the one you quote can probably safely be seen as more relevant. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

text: *::I knew we'd had this exact same discussion before. Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines and the associated talk page. Consensus was reached there that Dog Breeds should be listed in Upper case. Subprojects under the Mammals WikiProject are allowed to set their naming conventions, and although WikiProject Dogs doesn't have a specific document, I think it's clear that from all the other dog breed articles that this is the format followed. Miyagawa (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

text: *:::There was no such consensus at that draft guideline. Dog breeds were barely discussed. Also, I don't see why "subprojects" should set their own naming conventions; conventions should be consistent project-wide. Prefer that to local consensus. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

text: *:::: Actually consensus was reached, except you disagreed with it. Breed names were discussed heavily in relation to both dog breeds and horse breeds and result was that uppercase was confirmed as the policy. The only failure here was that that agreed policy wasn't then copied into the MOS. Your view that subprojects shouldn't set naming conventions hasn't stopped others from doing so - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles. Miyagawa (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

text: *::::: Beg pardon. Rather than disagreed with it, I must have simply missed it. Would you be so good as to point me to the discussion at the draft capitalization guidelines that you are referring to? thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Great idea. I've posted at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters also to get more input. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Also I'd like to apologise for the harshness in my previous comment. This is now the third or fourth time this same issue has come up and I was being far brasher than you deserved. Miyagawa (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries! Likewise if I came off as unpleasant. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

text: *Bullshit You are just playing with ngrams until you get a result that you like. Other times you have used "the" instead of "a". Why not here? Because then you get a result that you don't like. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

text: *:Don't both "the" and "a" appear lowercased in title case (ie titles) quite often? Perhaps neither ngram is useful? I'm not sure. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Enric, thanks for asking.  When I tried "the Welsh corgi" in Ngrams I got no hits, as I already said and your link confirms, so it was clearly hitting the lower limits of what was includable as a trigram.  I didn't consider trying uppercase "The" as you did, as it would obviously not help to exclude titles and headings.  If you look at actual previewable book hits for "The Welsh Corgi", you find (or I find) 10 of the first 20 with lower-case corgi.  It's a very long way from consistently capitalized.  Most of these books with lowercase corgi also have it uppercase in a title, which is why the Ngrams are so biased.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if ngrams is unreliable, then let's not use it so much to prove points. If I look at simply "welsh corgi" in prewieable books I find that books that are reliable sources for dogs capitalize, and that lowercase appears in many books that are not RS for dogs: fiction books, surgery books that mention the breed once, divulgative books with a dozen pages. Personally, I would simply defer to editors familiars with dogs sources, who have looked at lots of reliable sources in dogs and who can identify the good ones from the bad ones much more easily. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you're saying is that specialist books capitalize dog breeds, and generalist books don't (there's a recent essay on that: WP:SSF).  We agree on that.  And we agree that book n-grams don't prove points; they are merely one form of evidence about usage, and need to be interpreted carefully.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am saying that reliable sources for this topic capitalize the name, and unreliable ones sometimes do and sometimes don't. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm saying that's a specialist bullshit position.  Is this book not an RS "for the topic"?  Or this one?  this one?  How about a thesaurus?  And what do RSs have to say about WP caps style in the first place?   Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, "reliable sources for this topic all capitalize" is only true if we define reliable source as a source that capitalizes the way Enric likes. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hint: Dicklyon is cherry-picking those books that happen support his position, independently of quality, and neglecting to mention the good quality books that don't support it. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  And it's so easy to cherry-pick, since my position is that sources are mixed on capitalization.  But we knew that already from the n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Enric—I'm a little confused, you indented as if you were replying to me but I don't see any relevance. Was your "hint" supposed to be for me? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

text: See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:POLICY. WikiProjects emphatically do not create policy.  That said, the fact that all the animal breeding projects agree on capitalization (for recognized, formal breeds, not types or breed groups) and so do plant breeding projects, strongly suggests that  moving this and similar articles to lower case right now will cause disruption for no clear gain.  (I.e., you are right to oppose, but your argument is half reasonable and half not.) — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Close enough for me for now!  ;-)  Montanabw(talk) 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
===New request===
I recommend that the article title be moved to just Corgi; everyone says just "Corgi" rather than "Welsh corgi". Besides, the "Welsh" part is redundant; "corgi" (a Welsh word) refers specifically to two dog breeds (Pembroke and Cardigan) that are (apparently) originally from Wales. Wikipedia's general policy is that article titles should be concise, and i strongly support such a policy.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I recommend that the article title be moved to just Corgi; everyone says just "Corgi" rather than "Welsh corgi". Besides, the "Welsh" part is redundant; "corgi" (a Welsh word) refers specifically to two dog breeds (Pembroke and Cardigan) that are (apparently) originally from Wales. Wikipedia's general policy is that article titles should be concise, and i strongly support such a policy.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: New request

message: I'm tempted to propose this article for deletion or merge, since all of the content here is already contained at Pembroke welsh corgi and Cardigan welsh corgi. Perhaps this page would be better as a disambiguation page? --TKK bark ! 23:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be better as a disambiguation page, similar to Springer Spaniel? Miyagawa (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. I'm going to make a comment on WP:DOG and get some broader consensus before I do anything, though. --TKK bark ! 20:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  I added merge tags. Gccwang (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Any result? As of now we just have an ugly purple tag on two articles. --AmaryllisGardener  talk 02:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

text: (BTW, I would say merge and dab would be the best option) --AmaryllisGardener  talk 02:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion/Merge 

message: Section on activities says they're used for hunting bears. Really? A: no bears in the British archipelago since dog knows when. B: herding and hunting are very different activities. C: diminutive corgi vs. great big bear would be funny right up until it became horrible.
Was this a historic use, or is someone having a laugh? 71.248.115.187 (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunting bears? 

message: Why is there a spitz navigation template at the bottom of the article, when the template does not include this article (Welsh Corgi)? -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 22:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spitz? 

message: Presumably there are some non-Welsh corgis?  Where?  Or perhaps whence?  Mongolian?  Argentinian? Monmouthshavian?
 
Enquiring minds also want to know about the many non-Japanese sushis of this world.
 
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What About The Others? 

message: Regarding the legends linking Corgis to the Welsh faerie folk, is the phrase "the origins of this legend are dubious" meant to suggest that the idea that Corgis were bred by the faeries is dubious or that the "legends" themselves may have been created artificially? PurpleChez (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference reads, "In Welsh legend, corgis were once the steeds of the fairy folk. ​You can still see the faint markings of the fairy saddles across the Pembroke Welsh Corgi's shoulders and back... or so I've heard. I found many books and websites which mentioned the "ancient legend," but none provided a source. Conversely, I could not find any books of Welsh legend that mentioned the corgi's enchanted origins. It's an orphaned fun fact."I would take it that  are correct with your second interpretation. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks!! PurpleChez (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Breed 

message: Should Corgi always be capitalised? Or only in combination, as in Welsh Corgi? Goustien (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: When writing in any other language than Welsh, yes.Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 10:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: I have found several sources that indicate the first Welsh Corgi to win best in show has a name of "Sierra Bowhit Pivot" as opposed to "Bowhit Pivot", as currently listed in the History section. 
Here are a few websites that indicate the name as "Sierra Bowhit Pivot":
https://www.welshcorgi-news.ch/Leseecke/InfoCorgi/Pivot_eng.html
https://www.pedigreedatabase.com/pembroke_welsh_corgi/dog.html?id=1625760-bowhit-pivot?_v=20080825154722
https://www.morningcorgi.com/content.html
https://www.akc.org/about/archive/guide-collections/pembroke-collection/ KyleJHendrickson (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change name of first dog to win best in show 

message: The redirect Corgidor has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 05:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Corgidor]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]