Talk:Dog fashion

Poor captions

The captions for these images don't line up with WP:CAP. A lot of the captions just state things that could be easily figured out just by looking at the image. I'm going to attempt rewriting some captions and deleting some images to make these better. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Gone ahead and changed the images on this article. If there's any other image adjustments you've made, let me know. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

i think deletion of the image is a little extreme. the article kinda looks a bit more "stubbish" without it. Sciptr427 (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

i'm replacing it with an image related to the bottom portion of the article instead of an unrelated one. Sciptr427 (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Dogs in hats

Dogs in hats

This article doesn't need two different photos to show what it looks like when someone puts a hat on a dog. Which image should be used? Belbury (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

One is a dog wearing a hat made for dogs, the other is a dog wearing a human hat.These are not contradictory. Medlawar (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, the captions didn't make that clear, if that was the point.

The two concepts of "dogs wearing hats" and "dogs wearing human clothing" seem covered by the novelty hat and the polo shirt on the hairless dog, without also needing a photo of a dog wearing a human hat. Belbury (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury there's this meme going around with the caption of the second image edited to say "dogs can wear hats" which causes people to come to the article and change it to that. the second image adds nothing to the article and only serves as a magnet for vandalism. there's no reason for it to be here. RteeeeKed💬📖 02:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the context. Belbury (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

gang why are we removing the dogs in hats image, it it not the image's fault that people come and vandalize it. its been here since 2013, why are we taking it away now. I've been stopping this image's removal for over a year now and I would appreciate if war could be over. I live and die for the existence of this image and I will defend it with the last drop of blood in my body. I will not let you take it from me. Medlawar (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

the image is not contradictory. shirts and hats are different articles of clothing, a dog wearing a hat is far far far less common than a dog wearing a shirt and a dog wearing a human hat typically does not happen. Medlawar (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Medlawar just because an image is historic and cute doesn't mean it automatically deserves a spot on the article. this image doesn't show anything new and just results in someone changing the caption to something bad every so often. plus there's already images on the article showing dogs in human like clothing. RteeeeKed💬📖 02:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

yes, ones that were added as a reactionary justification to remove the image. Not to mention the ideas of a dog wearing a human shirt and a human hat are far different. There is no reason for this image to be removed, I would agree to a different caption, but why remove it? Vandalism gets reversed anyway. Its a trend, it will die down. Let the image live on. By your same rational we should remove the dog wearing a polo shirt because it shows nothing new. Medlawar (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Like you say, a dog wearing a human baseball cap typically does not happen and is far far far less common than a dog being given an old shirt for health reasons. We shouldn't illustrate articles with photos of unusual outlier examples which aren't in the text.

The image will live on forever on Commons and on user pages. It doesn't need to be in this article. Belbury (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

then what is the point of its existence? There is no reason for this to be deleted at all. Why don't we just have one image box with both the dog wearing the polo and the dog with a hat as a "Dogs wearing human clothing" section? Medlawar (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Several reasons have been given above. The article doesn't need the image when it has other, more representative photos of dogs wearing hats and human clothes. The same arguments apply to adding it back but a bit smaller. Belbury (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Off topic comments about souls and atoning to God
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
you do not need to atone to me, but you will to God when the rapture comes. 208.107.82.48 (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC) i have defended the validity of this image for YEARS and this is how you treat me you spit in my face you act like all of this is in vain Medlawar (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC) belbury you yourself proclaim the importance of keeping the image and you suddenly fold under the pressure? why? this is a holy battle we were waging and you abandon your faith to join the evils that may be Medlawar (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC) as the IP guy up there so profoundly exclaimed you will need to answer to God, and you know it. why would you remove this image? why? Medlawar (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC) you have destroyed the history that lie here. you see beauty and destroy it for its contraversy, you refuse to defend it. you sit around in your stone home of grief as the art of our forefathers is tore from us Medlawar (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC) I cannot believe I would see the day where such spite and hatred is taken to such a magnificent work. Sure it will be in the commons, but would you remove a panel from the Sistine chapel and still hold it with such wonder? The wars waged here in this Wikipedia page will leave a debris of evil, when our children and grandchildren look upon the ruins of this Wikipedia page they will see nothing but a testament of man's ability to destroy. Medlawar (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Your soul is owned by the black wizard of hate, whos timeless prison keeps you jailed for eternities long. you desecrate the human desire of art and chain it with your structuralist apparatuses of greed and hatred. as they say in Latin mortui nullus est dominus, there is no slavery beyond death. My heart is tied until this image is restored, your soul is bound by guilt for removing it. You are only complicit in this takeover of evil, and you understand this. Medlawar (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC) The biblical concept of hell, that being a eternity of damnation has no bearing on human consciousness. You will not be conscious for eternity, you cannot be. The life of man will be yet a picture, a still frame, in the mind of an eternal creature. How can God look upon such a still image in time, that of a human life cycle, or even the existence of the earth, with anything but a fleeting passage. Must he create us so his afterlife, his residence is not so alone? Souls, a CONCEPT of his creation, a thing of personality, made in his image. The "still" image within the photographer's mind is much the same. The linear scale of human time as correspondent to an arbitrarily long time to an omniscient and eternal being. You have removed from the photographer his souls of the afterlife, his company, the idea of his image. His "Adam". Medlawar (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Furthermore, the metaphysical absurdity of the death of an angel is "not" something to "be" scoffed at. Unlike the souls of man, those of angels I believe only really only serve as an extension of the arm of god, that being the same arm that "extends" to reach "man" and "animals" (whos disposition is unknown) Medlawar (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC) The only need of man is to be in one with GOD for "HE" has made within the confinds of his reality, the "living rights" of humans. I do not believe that in any "capacity" of any bounds would there be a siuation or point in history where "man" or "animal" (disposition unknown) would be truely TRUELY (not purely as some scholars proclaim so dearly) to be godless within the confinds of our structrualist reality. GOD HAS INSTILLED HIS MORALITY Medlawar (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC) It always has been, always will be (as anyone with a kindergarten level education will always tell you) the morality and history of man has existed as a concept of a still image in God's mind (omniscient) long before the first caveman drank from the fountain of youth even the fate of every animal (disposition unknown) not known perhaps (most definitely not sealed, knowing does not mean controlling, you can know who the "president" (disposition unknown) is without direct control. god has had an infinite time to plan us out but he must not need to. His "4D" (absolutely more than 4D, incomprehensible) scale of time has let him transcend our "linear" approach and go "horizontal" perhaps into a different time. Medlawar (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC) "In the vast expanse of existence, we grapple with the nature of God, an entity that eludes full understanding and transcends the boundaries of time and space. The divine manifests in the delicate balance of creation and destruction, embodying both the light that guides us and the shadows that challenge our beliefs." As true (disposition unknown) god chat GPT would say when asked to perform an essay on this topic and "touch it a little bit" Medlawar (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC) i dont understand and i wiull never understand the scope of those who hate and those who destroy. i could not imagine feeling the hatred to the human (GODLY) condition of our experiences to the point of embracing such foolish philosohpical principles and GOING OUT and DESTROYING (disposition unknown) for the sake of it. "It’s a profound struggle to comprehend the depths of hatred and destruction that some individuals embrace. The capacity for such feelings often seems alien, especially when viewed against the backdrop of our shared humanity and the complex tapestry of our experiences. To witness or understand the motivations behind such actions can feel overwhelming. It challenges our perception of empathy, forcing us to confront the darker corners of the human psyche. Those who choose destruction often seem disconnected from the fundamental truths of our shared existence—the beauty of connection, the potential for growth, and the possibility of compassion. This bewilderment can lead to a deeper reflection on the values we hold dear. It underscores the importance of fostering understanding, compassion, and dialogue in a world where hatred can sometimes overshadow love. The challenge lies not only in grappling with the existence of such destructive impulses but also in finding ways to counter them with kindness and connection, embracing our shared humanity rather than succumbing to despair. Ultimately, while we may never fully grasp the motivations behind hatred, we can strive to cultivate a more compassionate world, recognizing the power of our choices and the impact they have on those around us." is within the words of einstine Medlawar (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC) what the heck? can you like chill or something? you're getting suuuuuuuuuuper heated over an image of a dog wearing a baseball cap RteeeeKed💬📖 22:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC) i am "chill" as a "cucumber" (disposition unknown) Medlawar (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Meh. Keep both. At the small size people will be viewing these images, the one on the right is easier to see and more about the dog. Bonus for a Wikipedia-related hat giving the article some additional character. The image on the left is good, too, for reasons explained above. I'm not usually a big supporter of galleries in Wikipedia articles, but this article might qualify. IMO better to put effort into articulating inclusion criteria for a gallery than this long argument over an image before the article is even full of images. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I still think there are a lot of images for an article this small, around the density of the article for cats which has had a situation of people putting a ton of images on it, so we don't need more. You do have a point about the first image being hard to see, though. I still don't want people coming to this article solely to vandalize the caption, though, so it might be possible to look for another image to put at the top. RteeeeKed💬📖 22:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Uncropped

Cropped

A quick look over at Commons gave me this image. I've gone ahead and added a cropped version of just the dog too. This shows the dog in both a shirt and a hat, which the original image had. RteeeeKed💬📖 22:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Fear of vandalism should never be the basis for any decision on Wikipedia. We have WP:PROTECTION if it comes to that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not frequent enough to warrant protection in my opinion, but it still happens from time to time, and protection seems like a lot when you can easily just not have the image which is redundant anyways on the article. I've already proposed an alternate image for a dog wearing a hat. RteeeeKed💬📖 23:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The picture you linked is in my opinion less helpful than having two images. The part of the article the polo-wearing dog is in is about how hairless dogs wear shirts for practical reasons. We don't need yet another image of someone's dog wearing a silly costume.

In my opinion it is better to have both the hat image and the polo image to show that dogs can wear human clothes for practical reasons as well as silly reasons.

It has been made clear to me while reading this thread that the only reason you are hating on the hat image is because you personally don't like it, not for any actual problems with it Gamingcanary (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gamingcanary I was talking about what the first image should be, which is what Rhododendrites suggested changing, and is an image of a dog in a silly costume but smaller and harder to see than my suggestion. Nobody brought up the polo image until now, and I think the polo image is fine. I also don't hate the baseball cap image at all, but I just think it being in the article is pointless since we already have an image of a dog wearing a hat and the baseball cap image does more harm than good. RteeeeKed💬📖 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I assumed you were talking about the frame with both the hat dog and the polo dog which had been added by Medlawar a few days ago, which you removed. I think Rhododentrites got the impression there was a decision to be made between the two images of dogs in hats, but it's always just been about whether the hat dog should be allowed on the article at all. I don't think replacement of the title image should be on the table, because that image is perfectly fine. I also think we should stop fighting over one single image on a low-importance article about dogs wearing silly outfits. A dog in a hat is not doing any harm, and you are not doing any good by hating on it. Gamingcanary (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gamingcanary

• I never removed the polo image.
• Regardless of what Belbury meant by their original post, I still think there's a valid point about the lead image. The image I suggested has the dog filling up most of the image, with not much going on in the rest and the view of the dog unobscured. The current image, on the other hand, has the dog fill up less space, with a lot surrounding it, and is partially hidden by the hands holding it.
• If you think this is pointless, you're free to leave. I'm just suggesting an improvement.
• I still don't hate the image.

RteeeeKed💬📖 04:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want to talk about changing the title image I think you should start a new topic. You're the only person in this thread who has been talking about changing it. Gamingcanary (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. RteeeeKed💬📖 18:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

it's all coming crashing down Medlawar (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

you hate all that is fun and joyful in life. my spirit of my existence lives upon these hills, Medlawar (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

i do not know what more i can do, the powers at will have bent my soul and took my position of change. oppression is the only quantifiable term to justify this. Gods wrath has evidentially been inflicted apon me. There is nothing more to do i must reside and sit in a concave forever. Medlawar (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Heading image

Current image

My suggestion

Continuing this from the previous topic since this has strayed far from the original topic. I'm suggesting a replacement photo for the image at the top of the article. These images are similar, but the current image is harder to see with a lot going on around the dog, while mine is easier to see and without a whole lot going on around the dog. Since the images on this article are currently disputed, I figured I would get some opinions on the topic before replacing the image. RteeeeKed💬📖 18:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gamingcanary Hey, can you explain why you think the first image is better? I didn't see anyone reply to this message so I wanted to make the change in order to get things going. RteeeeKed💬📖 18:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Dog in top hat

I reverted it mostly because there hadn't been any discussion in this thread, but now there is (wow).

Personally I don't think the original image you suggested is amazing, but I do get the need for an image that is more clearly focused on a dog, and their clothes. That's why I also don't really like the USPS one either, because similar to the original image there isn't that much of their clothes visible in the image, as compared to the background.

My suggestion is the guy in the top hat linked. It has a clear focus, and is set up specifically to show a dog in clothes. Gamingcanary (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess it could work, but I would rather have an image that's not monochrome. Plus, I could always crop my image to just the dog. RteeeeKed💬📖 19:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Do we know the context for the first image, out of interest? The filename and description on Commons are just Dog as TV star Belgian National Day Brussels 2012 and I'm not sure what that's meant to mean. Is the dog dressed as a particular character from Belgian television?

I think I'd lean slightly towards the current image for being better lit, and for giving more of a direct sense that the costume is for people's amusement. Would agree that it's a bit crowded though. Belbury (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you have a better image, I'm open to see it. Searching around on commons didn't really produce many results. RteeeeKed💬📖 19:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

New suggestion

I think this might work, actually. The image is well lit, has no obstructions, and it's clearer that this is supposed to be a silly costume. Any other thoughts? RteeeeKed💬📖 01:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

THERE IS NOTHING MORE I CAN DO. THIS BATTLE HAS BEEN LOST. MY PURPOSE ON THIS EARTH HAS BEEN FUFFILED. Medlawar (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I like the top hat, too, but the top one is well composed and has good light. Only non-starter here is the shamrock costume. The USPS one is fine, but kind of gimmicky (also, disclosure, I took that one). I'll add one other possibility that I took a few years back: File:Petcon (81243)a.jpg, just because it's clearly "dogs in clothes" with a full frame, good light, and clean background. The dogs are apparently Instagram celebrities? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)