Talk:Cavoodle

Review

This is a great article! Great job Greg ! - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaludvigsen9 (talk • contribs)

I did a bunch of copyedits, which you can view in the history, and dropped some tone templates. Presently, it reads too much like a "So you want a dog?" webpage. I'm looking forward to seeing the photo! -Reagle (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Uncited or unreliably sourced content

Hello LeoRussoLeo (talk · contribs), you keep reverting my addition of reliably sourced content from the article and replacing it a version that is either unsourced or cited to sources that fall short of Wikipedia’s standards. Please stop doing so. I have left a note on your talk page that includes some hints on how to get started editing Wikipedia. Cavalryman (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC).

Hi Cavalryman

Thank you for your explanation. Could you then remove just the parts you don’t agree with instead of removing everything.

I don’t understand why you removed so much then removed the entire page and directed to the cross breed page.

The information you put up doesn’t offer much information at all. If you want to change things, could you please just replace small sections with your more reliable sources?

Also, what makes your sources more reliable than the ones already there.

I understand that you may be pro purebred but some of us recognise Cavoodles as a breed so please don’t try to ruin the page. We don’t remove information from pure bred dog pages because we like cross bred dogs.

Thank you in advance

Leo LeoRussoLeo (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Leo, thank you for the response. WP:No original research is one of the three cornerstone policies of Wikipedia, basically all content on Wikipedia must be cited to a reliable source. WP:Reliable sources is the policy Wikipedia editors are bound to when assessing sources; thecavoodle.com, designerdoginfo.wordpress.com & cavalierpoos.com all appear to be self published websites that have little or no editorial processes and are not independent of the subject, burkesbackyard.com.au may be reliable but I did not think it offered anything above the two other sources I introduced to the article so I removed it.

You are incorrect in assuming I am pro purebred, I am anything but, I believe the current trends of kennel club fanatics and dog breed fancier groups of only breeding from registered pedigree animals is seeing the decimation of a number of once great dog breeds, they place pedigree and appearance over health and function, if you want to see what this results in, read about Charles II of Spain.

I have done the same to many an article about recognised and likely ancient dog breeds, there is a lot of rubbish content added to many dog articles on Wikipedia and a number of editors are trying to bring these articles back to reputable status. The content I added to this version of the article is everything reliably sourced and reputable I could find on these dogs, I ask that you revert to that version and then add reliably sourced content to that start point as it becomes available. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC).

Note: The Better Homes reference has no author, therefore does not meet WP:REPUTABLE under WP:RELIABLE and faces deletion. Regarding the 101 dogs reference, Rachel Hunter is a photographer, produces photobooks on a range of subjects, and is no expert - the reference is of dubious value. William Harristalk 03:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Although you refer back to the guidelines, I can’t help but notice you input a lot of your own opinion into this. You decide what is ‘rubbish’ and what has enough ‘editorial input’. Who would you say is a reliable source when it comes to Cavoodles and why?

Also, please don’t personal beliefs get in the way of your contributions. I don’t believe just removing 99% of the page because it doesn’t meet your standards is helping anyone. Is the information actually wrong? If so, what? Do have have experience with Cavoodles? Are you part of a Cavoodle club? I noticed you may not be a Cavoodle enthusiast but again please don’t ruin the page for those who want information. If you remove anything, replace in with a source that you personally approve but don’t just remove everything.

Lastly, you reference things a lot, so please read the terms of use in regards to maintaining a safe environment for everyone.

It’s great to see you contributing but again, don’t let your personal beliefs get in the way of your good work. Thanks again from the Wiki community. LeoRussoLeo (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Familiarise yourself with WP:RELIABLE sources. William Harristalk 05:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

LeoRussoLeo (talk · contribs), I am expressing no personal opinion, maintaining a WP:Neutral point of view is another of the three cornerstone policies of contributing to Wikipedia, simply the content and sources you keep reintroducing to the page are not reputable enough for Wikipedia. Including personal experience with a type of dog is entirely irrelevant and a direct contradiction of the already pointed to WP:No original research.

I too was new to editing Wikipedia once, and I too took a little time to understand the policy, my advice is let read some of the links I left on your talk page before proceeding. Lastly, I think your statement to please read the terms of use in regards to maintaining a safe environment for everyone is entirely unnecessary and frankly does nothing for the credibility of your arguments, I suggest we leave that one there. Cavalryman (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC).

LeoRussoLeo, you have been directed by a Wikipedia Administrator here to engage in dispute resolution, however you have chosen not to do that but to engage in WP:EDITWAR, which is not advisable as your site risks being blocked. You would be wise to familiarise yourself with the WP:DISPUTE process before returning here. William Harristalk 22:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible AfD?

Cavalryman, William Harris - something to consider if we are unable to find RS to satisfy the requirements stated in WP:NRV - particularly No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally., If there is no established reputable breed registry to confirm the actual crossbreeding and parentage, how do we know this is actually the crossbreed as stated or that it is truly a notable crossbreed with lasting encyclopedic value? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There exists one reference "101 dogs" by Rachel Hunter who is a photographer, produces photobooks on a range of subjects, does not appear to be an expert on dogs, and does not cite any sources. The book has one page that tells us illuminating wisdom about their "cute disposition" and being "good around children" (i.e. it is a dog). The reference is of dubious value. Cavalryman has done a good job of attempting to consolidate all of the cross-breeds without RS into one list so that people can at least find the dog. I have no view on that process, however it is clear that this topic should undergo an WP:AfD process. We have what I believe to be an editor associated with a breeder here in Australia trying their best to get their website into the External Links section of this article in order to help sell puppies - something that I will not tolerate. AFD would also bring an end to this issue. As our North American cousins say, "Nuke it"! William Harristalk 22:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Given what happened at the previous AfD, I doubt another would be successful. Perhaps a merger with/redirect to List of dog crossbreeds? I did do a bold redirect a week ago. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

The last AfD involved about two dozen dogs and the bulk deletion was resisted, largely for the novel concept of a bulk deletion. We did have a merger with/redirect to List of dog crossbreeds before it was reversed, but perhaps putting it formally through the WP:DOGS might be a first move. We can always reserve AfD as a second, and more permanent move. William Harristalk 03:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to the credibility of the remaining source, I agree it is marginal at best, does it suffice for inclusion at List of dog breeds? Cavalryman (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

Should it exist on Wikipedia? GNG advises "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" - the book is arguable as to that criterion. "Reliable means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability", I see no evidence of editorial integrity (no sources) and doubt the expertise of the author. Based on WP:POL, the best course of action would be to propose an AfD, however I fear its simple recreation. I believe the optimal (maybe not the best) course of action is to formally merge it into the cross-breed list. You could always propose AfD and see what the majority of the punters think. William Harristalk 22:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

I have created a simple, referenced, non-bias information about the Cavoodle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minisini (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Minisini, please read WP:GNG, in particular the line on significant coverage, yes the Cavoodle exists and is adequately covered at list of dog crossbreeds, but there is not enough here to warrant a stand alone article. Further I have moved your comment here into a new section, I hope you do not mind. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC).