Talk:Maltese dog

message: this revert states that the old lead has to be restored because the page deals with the modern Maltese breed, Well, patently untrue, When I glanced at it, most of the page was dedicated to some ostensible 'history' regarding ancient writers' views on the 'Maltese dog'. 
Worst still, the evidence from ancient sources was unbelievably slipshod, messy, ragged, with unreliable secondary sources, even including dated Latin books or generic commentaries on Mediterranean going back centuries. There was, indeed, very little on the modern Maltese breed, and the page seemed polemically designed to undercut the opinion that Malta had anything to do with the modern variety. That is a contradiction. Why assert that the page is about the modern breed, and get spill so much virtual ink on classical references to a 'Maltese lap-dog'.
As a neutral editor, the answer was clear. The term 'Maltese dog', whatever its ancient topological denotation, has absor5bed earlier editors, so one corrects that by using the best contemporary classical scholarship to put some order into the citational mess and errant opinionizing about Martial, Pliny, Strabo et al., the earlier version provided. So the lead must cover both bases: (a) the term 'Maltese dog' in classical sources and (b) the distinct modern  breed.
What is annoying is that, I assume, editors familiar with the modern breed have added almost nothing of value, sparse details, on the modern breed, but are very much engaged in trying to twist the ancient evidence to undercut any possible association of the earlier species known by the same name as related. Well, of course they are not known to  be related. But the term has a continuity between antiquity and modern times, and therefore the page must cover both, and clarify the confusion.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The point here is that editors should not pick and choose bits and pieces from a grabbag of sources without discrimination, esp. when they contradict each other, as here.Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrigenda 

message: There's been a  formal objection to my adoption of a particular citational style in my overhaul of this article. I didn't think this important at the time, since this objection, and revert justification, has only emerged once, i.e. here, in the 900 articles which I have rewritten or created with software format Neil developed. People have of course raised occasional objections, but not to my format choice. But since Nableezy, - a redoubtable formalist, and stickler for the fine reading of policy, has wigged me on precisely this point - will be tempted seize the opportunity finally to cap his wiki ambitions by exploiting this oversight to take me to AE for a permaban, thereby proving he can, as often, succeed where a cast of hundreds have failed for two decades, I'll take the wigging seriously and go through the standard procedure.:) 
* The page before my editing had several citational templates. There was no consensus. 
* There were three reasons for my adoption of this style: Aesthetic effect: it's neat. (b) the possibility of adding notes for details that, though required, are philological or informative clarifications best hidden from the main text in footnotes to allow the reader to ignore them in reading, except if curiosity is spurred to verify the origins of information which most of the given sources fail to secure. It is a blight on this page that we have several texts citing a putative history of 'Maltese dogs' in classical sources, secondary texts written by dog lovers for dog lovers where patently these writers are people unfamiliar with the selfsame classical studies. Effectively we have meme reduplication between non-specialist sources, all drawing on positions that reflect, at best, ideas circulating loosely over a century ago 
* For the record (bona fides) I did begin by using my preferred style for the new sources I began introducing while leaving most of the others in the format I found on the page. The result was a visual mess caused by something in the software that produced messages of template conflicts. Of course, technically I'm a moronic hack, and so, my solution was to redraft all using one sinhle template, with its virtue of citational uniformity.
* I'm no particularly worried about whatever citational form is eventually chosen, suffice it that the page, once reviewed thoroughly, adopt a single format. Once I'v finished the sadsack revision grind, with the format that enables me at least to rewrite the page efficiently, consensus will determine if it is then necessary to rework it with another model.
So I'd appreciate input on this. What are the objections to this format? Should we stick with the old page and its various conflicting templates or aspire to uniformity? etc.Nishidani (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: In the Characteristics, it explains on the weight and height, but believe there is misinformation? Here is what I mean
 Adult weight is usually 3–4 kg (7–9 lb). Bitches are about 20–23 cm (8–9 in) tall, dogs slightly more.
It's the Bitches are about 20–23 cm (8–9 in) tall, dogs slightly more. What are "bitches" in this context? I refuse to believe this breed has an demonym being "bitchs". (120.17.191.141 (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s the standard in English for referring to female dogs, generically.  This isn’t a matter of opinion or what you choose to believe. 176.80.136.148 (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics 

message: Maltipoo's are a Maltese and Poodle mix that are highly intelligent. I am new to Wikipedia editing but I own a Maltipoo and am very excited to share my knowledge. Davnee09 (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different types of Maltese dogs breeds