Cavalryman (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
::{{reply to|Cavalryman}} Sure it does, but when you check that same link at the [[Wayback Machine]] [https://archive.org/web/ https://archive.org/web/] then you can find the archived version of the page. You've been an editor for over 6 years and 10,000 edits; are you telling me you've never heard of the Wayback Machine? Another way is to go to the original website and type in what you think the title of the page is in the search bar for that website. Both methods in this case give me a positive result. So yes, "technically" there is a "broken link", but the page is still available. See also [[Wikipedia:Link rot]]. [[User:Normal Op|Normal Op]] ([[User talk:Normal Op|talk]]) 22:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
::{{reply to|Cavalryman}} Sure it does, but when you check that same link at the [[Wayback Machine]] [https://archive.org/web/ https://archive.org/web/] then you can find the archived version of the page. You've been an editor for over 6 years and 10,000 edits; are you telling me you've never heard of the Wayback Machine? Another way is to go to the original website and type in what you think the title of the page is in the search bar for that website. Both methods in this case give me a positive result. So yes, "technically" there is a "broken link", but the page is still available. See also [[Wikipedia:Link rot]]. [[User:Normal Op|Normal Op]] ([[User talk:Normal Op|talk]]) 22:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::If you wish to fix it you are welcome to. [[User:Cavalryman|Cavalryman]] ([[User talk:Cavalryman|talk]]) 22:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC). |
:::If you wish to fix it you are welcome to. [[User:Cavalryman|Cavalryman]] ([[User talk:Cavalryman|talk]]) 22:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC). |
||
::::Why, so you can revert it? I see the game you're playing. [[User:Normal Op|Normal Op]] ([[User talk:Normal Op|talk]]) 22:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
Revision as of 22:44, 5 October 2020
Training
The article claims that "Belgian shepherds like to please, and can over-react badly to "negative" (punishment or deterrence based) training, so they should as a rule be clicker- or reward-trained only." Does anyone have any proof that belgians normally do best with reward-only training? I ask since I know of many Malinois being successfully used in police departments, and these departments definately do not use reward-only clicker training. They use lots of reward (prey drive) when training the dogs, but they definately don't use reward-only training, the dogs are corrected quite regularly. I doubt they would be doing this if "reward-only" training was more suitable for their K9s. If noone can come up with anything in support of the article, I think it would be more accurate if the term "reward-training only" was changed to "reward-based training". Rachel24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.36 (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017
Podden (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Possible merger with variety pages
During some recent contributions to the Tervuren dog page it has occurred to me that perhaps all four Belgian Shepherd varieties/breeds should me merged back into this page. The reasons for thinking this are:
- All four are in pretty terrible states (something I tried to rectify with Tervuren), the majority are either sourced to national kennel clubs or breed clubs or are just not sourced at all (Malinois is the possible exception).
- The majority of sources treat the four varieties together.
- All four have almost identical histories, they were considered one before 1891 when (whilst still considered one) they were divided into three (four from 1897) varieties based upon coat types.
- The four are practically identical except coat types with breed standards reflecting this, further many kennel clubs (including the Fédération Cynologique Internationale) regard them as one with different coats.
I think it would be possible to turn this page into a well constructed B-class or higher page that is highly informative if they were merged here, whilst currently five start class articles exist (in spite of what the TPs may claim).
I am keen to gauge thoughts prior to potentially formally proposing a merger. Cavalryman (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC).
- I can't imagine that merging them would help with maintenance. In the USA at least, all four are separate breeds and, if you know anything about American breeding, that means that they are four vastly different dogs at this point. Especially the Malinois which has taken on a life of its own. The Belgian Shepherd (that black one) has a fair following in the USA, and the other two are pretty rare. Just as the Malinois has become one of the top contenders in Schutzhund/IPO/IGP, the other three are infrequently seen in the sport. So while we see all four "varieties" lumped under one breed name at FCI, even in Europe (in the working dog world) they are not considered equal. Even the FCI standard says "These four varieties are judged separately" and "Any matings between varieties are forbidden", so I think even though the FCI calls them "varieties" and you think the only difference is their coat color and length, they really are considered separate breeds. I would keep the articles separate (with Belgian Shepherd article being the fifth). Normal Op (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have noticed the 5 "Belgian Shepherd" articles. I also noticed the good job done in merging the various "German shepherd" variants under the article "German shepherd", where these were warranted. The Belgian Shepherd article is only 16kb in size, tiny when compared with Labrador Retriever etc. If any of the 4 other articles cannot meet Notability, then I believe there is room for the removal of unreliable content from them and their merging under this article with their own separate headings and the current articles redirecting to them. We will need to state that the 4 variants are treated as separate breeds in the US. Conversely, should there be enough material to establish notability, I have no concerns with the articles remaining, or later being spun out on their own from Belgian shepherd when better sourcing is discovered. William Harris (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just as a resource, I found these two books that have some really interesting details (and photos and charts) of the history of the breed. [1] [2] Normal Op (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- More food for thought: Since you mentioned that the Belg Shep is considered separate breeds ONLY in the USA, I thought to do a little research. I enquired of someone who was active in Schutzhund in Germany. He said that throughout Europe the relationship between the four Belgians are considered more of a "type" than a "breed. The "Belgian Shepherd type" is spoken of in the same way we speak of "shepherd type", "hound type", "pointer type", "pit bull type", or "spaniel type". I was told that these four dogs are treated like four separate breeds rather than one-breed-multiple-coats. He said the Malinois is the only one that competes with any frequency in Schutzhund and is the top competing dog breed, neck and neck with German Shepherds (which the sport was invented for). He said that for every Groenendael, Laekenois, and Tervuren you see participating in Schutzhund, you will see a hundred Malinois; that Malinois is the dog that has always been "the biting machine" for over a hundred years, and the other three are known for their herding behaviors and compete in herding sports. He said that though within the German Shepherd breed, a single litter might contain short-haired and long-haired pups, you don't breed "Belgian Shepherds" and get mixed "coat" litters. They don't compete together in dog shows, and cross-breeding between the four Belgians is forbidden... if you want to register your dog with FCI. He said he's heard they are working towards separating them into four separate breeds. Normal Op (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- It sounds similar to the poodle (as discussed earlier in the year) in that the kennel clubs all take different viewpoints. The above OR is interesting but not reflected in any sources.
- This history section could be copied and pasted into all five articles (with a slight reordering of breed/variety names) and this description section could also be replicated with allowances for different coat types and colours. The sources I have seen either discussed them all as a group or, if discussed separately drew heavily on them being a group. When writing those sections linked I had to refer to the various entries (when discussed separately) to build a more complete picture. There just isn't a great deal separating them.
- The current Belgian Shepherd#Breeds versus varieties controversy section is an absolute mess, creating a controversy with nothing but WP:SYNTH, but a neat little section could easily be written describing how different kennel clubs classify them differently. I don't think any information would be lost in a merger and in fact a more complete picture would be presented to the reader. Cavalryman (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC).
Broken link?
@Cavalryman: I'm not sure why you used an edit-summary of "removed citation, link broken" in this edit [3]. [1]
The source is available in the Wayback Machine [4], including the PDF file mentioned at the bottom of the page [5].
If you search the current Kennel Club website for "purebred dog health survey results" you can find the current URL for the same source (websites often reorganize their page URLs over time). Here is the link for the 2004 survey [6] (which is the version in the original citation).[2]
There was a newer survey done in 2014, shown at this link [7].[3]
— Normal Op (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Normal Op, I am mystified at your confusion, when I click on the link it comes up with
Page not found
in large letters then below thatWe can't seem to find the page you are looking for, the page may have been removed or you could have typed the url incorrectly
, which to me says the link is broken. Cavalryman (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC).
- @Cavalryman: Sure it does, but when you check that same link at the Wayback Machine https://archive.org/web/ then you can find the archived version of the page. You've been an editor for over 6 years and 10,000 edits; are you telling me you've never heard of the Wayback Machine? Another way is to go to the original website and type in what you think the title of the page is in the search bar for that website. Both methods in this case give me a positive result. So yes, "technically" there is a "broken link", but the page is still available. See also Wikipedia:Link rot. Normal Op (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you wish to fix it you are welcome to. Cavalryman (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC).
- @Cavalryman: Sure it does, but when you check that same link at the Wayback Machine https://archive.org/web/ then you can find the archived version of the page. You've been an editor for over 6 years and 10,000 edits; are you telling me you've never heard of the Wayback Machine? Another way is to go to the original website and type in what you think the title of the page is in the search bar for that website. Both methods in this case give me a positive result. So yes, "technically" there is a "broken link", but the page is still available. See also Wikipedia:Link rot. Normal Op (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ KC/BSAVA Scientific Committee (2004). "Purebred Dog Health Survey". London: The Kennel Club/British Small Animal Veterinary Association. Retrieved 12 October 2013 – via TheKennelClub.org.uk.
- ^ "2004 pedigree dog health survey | Dog health | Kennel Club". www.thekennelclub.org.uk.
- ^ "2014 pedigree breed health survey | Dog health | Kennel Club". www.thekennelclub.org.uk.