Talk:Dog crossbreed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pedigree

The article could benefit from discussion of objections to the use of words such as 'pedigreed' and 'purebred' to describe hybrids. Also, the ethics/legality involved in F1 crosses of purebred, registered dogs, as most breed clubs specifically forbid such crosses, and legitimate breeders 'forbid' (for whatever difference that makes) the breeding of 'pet quality' dogs. I can't think of any brilliant way to word this JATM. Quill 22:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

"People who do this are IDIOTS! *****IDIOTS****!!!!!!! They should all be SHOT! They are EVIL! I HATE THEM ALL!" preferably with spittle flying in every direction. Or, hmm, perhaps that's a little POV.

Although, actually, I as usual straddle the fence on this. I think that educated and responsible breeders can breed whatever they want. The problem is that I think that 99% of average dog owners out there are neither educated nor as responsible as they think they are (if they even think about it, which I suspect is rare, too). So what I tell people is (as I've said in other places) you'd better have a danged good reason for breeding the dog--both parents excel at agility, or one excels at agility and another at herding, or mom at herding but mom's side has xxx genetic weakness that dad's side, who is a conformation ch, completely counters and we're going to try to breed this out, or like that. And, as you and I both know, "mom is real cute and dad is real sweet and they're both really special dogs" applies to 99% of the canine world, so that does NOT make it a good reason to add to the world's overpopulation. Elf | Talk 00:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Please vote on deleting Maltipoo, Yorkiepoo, Schnoodle

Please go here to here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorkiepoo) to express your opinion. Thanks. Elf | Talk 18:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

photo of a pugalier

Hi, I saw this cute dog in Western Australia and found out what it was (and the kids really loved it). Was putting a thumb here OK? cheers --Cas Liber — Preceding undated comment made 03:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Trimming the list

Anyone else think this list is excessively long and imaginative at times? "Gerbrador Sheptriever", for example, is amusing, but doesn't appear to be a recognized term. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, It's ridiculous that the list is there though. This should be more of an article not a list of cross breeds and hybrids. If the list should be there then it should be put onto a different page maybe? The article at the moment looks very messy and needs a well deserved cleanup. --An Apple a day keeps -The Doctor- Away.. Or does it! ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's obvious that some of those names are just made up. A "Hug"? Really! Mister Gallagher 21:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

list trimming, again

I propose the complete elimination of this list and the creation of a prose section detailing how the names are created, and speaking of the most notable (verified by sources) types. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, so long as the truly notable crosses can be retained in such a way that we don't end up getting lots of non-notable crosses (I'm looking at you, "Taco Terrier") added as well. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. Imagining how I would write it, I would retain the names as examples. So one or two names for say, Poodle crosses, and then only one or so reference to another general category of popular hybrids, such as between small toy breeds. I doubt that kind of thing would develop into a rambling prose list, and I think it would be easier to place a limit. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Conceptually, I figure the section ought to focus on the generic aspect of how these names are formed instead of trying to list all notable names. Here's an idea:

Names for poodle hybrids are generally formed with a "-poo" or "-doodle" suffix (e.g. Cockapoo, Labradoodle).

Other aspects to focus on might be the euphony of the formed name - "basschund" wins over "dachsset hound", for example. It's probably worth noting that most crosses do not follow the convention used in other hybrids of naming the father first. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all exactly what I had in mind. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for removal

"Famous mutts" doesn't really have anything in particular to do with crossbreeds. Also "Benji" was a mixed breed dog JoKing 02:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Change article name

This article has some major problems. It's basically an advertisement for "designer dogs." There is some fierce criticism of the designer dog fad, but this article barely mentions any of it. For example, what about the fact that these mutts are often bred by puppy mills and other unscrupulous breeders trying to make a quick buck? The article discusses one Labradoodle breeder's attempts to ensure healthy dogs, but his genetic testing is the exception, not the rule. Also, I very strongly oppose titling this page "Dog Hybrid" because the article itself states that hybrids are crosses of two different species, not different breeds of the same species. Unless someone offers a valid reason for preferring "Dog Hybrid," I'm going to change the title to "Designer Dog." Compuandy (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of going around and around on this has already been done for this article; there has to be a NPOV way to present the information, attacks are not sufficient and a lack of unsupported/unreferenced attacks does not make the article an ad for Designer Dogs. At WP:NPOV it says articles should represent "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" so I hope you will be able to add some more evidence about the downside of the designer dog fad (the "fierce criticism" you mention) from reliable sources (not blogs, web boards, or opinion pieces; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources.) For example, someone should work in information about the raid on the huge commercial kennel run by the man that "invented" the "puggle"--the most popular Designer Dog. Reliable information on that it would make the point quite forcefully. "The fact that these mutts are often bred by puppy mills and other unscrupulous breeders trying to make a quick buck" has been documented in the article, but not stated in just that way; if you could find a quote from a reliable source that says exactly that, please quote it! If you could find even more factual information that would be good. Also I don't find in the article anything about one Labradoodle breeder genetically testing, but there is a quote from Wally Conron who started the whole designer dog fad, critisising designer dog breeders for breeding irresponsibly. There is also a specific example of a designer dog being unhealthy, published in a major newspaper, not an opinion blog. To make the article NPOV it should include information about good qualities of designer dogs reported in reliable sources--but I haven't been able to find any such thing, although there is plenty of advertising and opinion on the topic!

As far as the name of the article, I think that the article should be titled "Crossbreed (dog)". A Designer Dog is a special subset of crossbred dog. Purpose-bred working dog crossbreeds are not usually called "hybrids". But there is a lot of emotional support for the current name "Hybrid dog". I think that is since those who have paid large sums for a crossbreed or mixed breed dog (because they fancy that it is healthier than a purebred) are offended by the idea that they bought their dog at least in part because "hybrids" are fashionable. They feel they are fighting against "fashion" by buying a "hybrid" and so will want yet another article on crossbred dogs called "hybrid dogs", exactly the same as a designer dog but with a rugged, "natural" image. It's silly. One article titled "Crossbred (dog)" should talk about traditional purposeful crossbreeding (as with Eurohounds and Lurchers), and Designer Dogs (those with the portemanteau names), and the fact people will pay lots of money for a crossbred (or mixed breed) if the breeder calls it a "hybrid".--Hafwyn (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've found a few reliable sources that discuss the problems with designer dogs. Would it be too bold to add a "Criticism" section? As for the article title, I see you point that the term "designer dog" is less than ideal. For what it's worth, a Google search for "designer dog" returns 644,000 results; "mixed breed dog" returns 197,000; and "hybrid dog" returns 29,600.("Mutt" returns over 9 million, but I doubt there's much support for using that word here.) There is already a "mixed-breed dog" article, so maybe the two should be merged. Compuandy (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some Wikipedia policy on Criticism sections, although I'm not sure where to look for it. I think it would be better to add your sources to the pertinent parts of the article, to strengthen points being made, or to add more information, while maintaing NPOV (not easy!) If you read through the designer dog section, there is lots of criticism, just no directly stated attacks (although the defenders of the term "hybrid" may see any criticism as an attack.)

As far as the Mixed-breed article, it already is too chaotic, and adding more information would just make it worse. Crossbreeding is not the same as random-breeding or generations of mixtures of unknown background; crossbreeding is done for some purpose, and so should be a separate topic from mixed-breed dog. As an article title, Crossbreed (dog) would be more sensible in terms of Wikipedia, as crossbreeding is an important topic in many species of domesticated animals, from cattle to pigeons to alpacas to tropical fish. Crossbreed (dog) as the article title would include the topics of "Designer Dog" (described with a portmanteau word) and the use of the term hybrid by commercial breeders to enhance the selling price of crossbred (or even mixed-breed) puppies. Crossbreed (dog) would be the best title, but "Designer Dog" is better than "Dog hybrid".--Hafwyn (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk

Good for you guys, seriously; however, this page is for discussing this article, not your dogs. no offense intended - I love dogs. yEvb0 20:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Need to think up a name for my hybrid. He's a Jack Russel/Pomeranian mix. Only 8 weeks old and smart a whip already. Fantastic mix.

You could call him "Whip". Clearly his breed is a "Jackeranian". :-) Elf | Talk 04:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know you're joking, but let's not encourage calling portmanteau crosses "breeds". Unless the AKC and CKC start accepting Laborrots, that is. Nora Bayes (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey i was just wondering if any one had bred a German Shepherd with an Alaskin Malamute and if any one could tell me the pros and cons of this? (Danila Moosw (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Fertility of Hybrids

Are dog cross-breeds always fertile - both male and female? If so, is use of the term "hybrid" accurate? In mammalian interspecies hybrids, males are typically infertile. Are dog breeds, in fact, species distinct? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Why the title of this article should be Crossbreed (dog) or Crossbred (dog) and not the meaningless "Hybrid" dog. Use of the term "hybrid" to mean crossbred (or even mixed breed) dogs is enforced by the puppy mill industry, who are afraid that the value of their "product" might decrease if they call the puppies what they are, crossbred dogs. Puppy producers (as opposed to conscientious dog breeders) use the term "hybrid" out of contempt for their customers. The puppy producers assume the buyers will believe they are getting something new and exotic if it is called "hybrid". I'm not sure why wikipedia is stuck with this puppy-mill devised term. (Yes, yes I know the puppy-mill defenders will reply that there is an obscure variation of the term that no one uses for animals that means crossbred within a species. More importantly, "Hybrid" is a fad word in current culture; hybrid cars are good! Hybrid stuff is good! Let's call crossbred dogs "hybrid" and rake in the cash!)--Hafwyn (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question-all dogs are of the same species. All domestic dogs are of the same species AND subspecies. Nothing is being hybridized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafwyn (talk • contribs)

Actually there is a great deal of confusion among the non-technical public surrounding the word "hybrid". Both genetic and taxonomic senses of the word are perfectly appropriate descriptions of the product of a cross between two distinct true-breeding populations within the same species or subspecies. This is technically correct usage. I have updated this article to remove misinformation under the "definition of hybrid" section (which section may now be somewhat superfluous), and attempted to make the terminology more consistent and less redundant throughout the article. 72.197.236.8 (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Resources

I am just reccomending various resources that you can use to contribute to this article.

1) Dogs 101 Designer Dogs Episode 2) Designer Dogs (A Book that creates a breed standard for popular hybrid dogs.)

Please check these out and help contribute. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to screw up somebody's 12 hours of nonstop work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie07 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Chiweenie.jpg Deleted

	An image used in this article, File:Chiweenie.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Fastily for the following reason: No license since 30 April 2011 What should I do?
	A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirection

Bernedoodle should no longer be directed here, its not very helpful and inhibits the creation of an article. --Qataq (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A draft is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bernedoodle, if somebody want to help. mabdul 13:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If that type is notable, by all means make an article for it: don't be inhibited. However, what makes you think it is notable, not just one of many rather similar poodle hybrids? To be considered notable, it needs independent, reliable sources – I don't wish to be discouraging, but I'm afraid none of the draft article's sources come close. (By the way, where is the discussion page for that draft?) Richard New Forest (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

POV in "Designer Dogs" section

A crossbreed of two parents with hip dysplasia, will have hip dysplasia. That goes for all genetic diseases, which are normally shared by multiple breeds. Therefore cross breeding these breeds, might have a financial advantage, as no breed club will ask for health certificates, when you sell them at high prices. Apart from this, puppy mills, were crossbreeds are normally breed, don't just cross breed pure breds. But anything that moves and has cute appeal. Great Spiel for the puppy mill industry, article without background knowledge or critcal view on the topic. but who really knows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.19 (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading it, the "Designer Dogs" section in this article seems to have a very serious partisan slant, and in fact doesn't seem to have any purpose beyond an attempt to refute the phrase "designer dog" as a slander. For example, the section likens the breeding of these "designer dogs" to the practice of breeding any breed, without acknowledging that in many cases it's only the first-generation hybrids that are desirable, whereas traditionally, breeders attempt to make the dogs "breed true." I'm not really even trying to pick a side here, but the section is just incredibly slanted and cites no sources.

I thought about just trying to fix the section myself, but upon reviewing it, I'm not really entirely sure why it's there, and I would probably just prefer to delete it, but I figured I'd try the talk page before I did that. --Ben.c (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The section needs citations, but I don't see it as biased, perhaps because I have seen so much angry "discussion" about the topic elsewhere. This seems fairly balanced. The section is essential for the understanding of why there is even a page called Dog "hybrid". What has traditionally been called a "crossbred" or "crossbreed" (dog bred from two different breeds) has become very fashionable, especially for crosses of smaller pet dogs. The internet is full of websites offering bred-to-order crosses, in what seems to be a very irresponsible manner. Don't remove the Designer Dogs section; it is essential to the article. --Hafwyn (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My response to both comments is below. --Ben.c (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Upon further review, the "Registration and recognition of hybrids" suffers some of the same issues, although it has the benefit of having a more clear purpose. Still, sections read as advocacy of hybrid breeds over pure breeds, which doesn't seem the appropriate tone. There is significant discussion about the benefits of hybrid vigor/vigour, but the article asserts that breeding two hybrids does not achieve the same benefit as breeding two purebred dogs, but does not justify this statement or cite a source backing it up. Furthermore, while there is much comparison to purebred dogs, there is little to comparison to mixed-breed dogs. --Ben.c (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, hybrid vigour only follows the first generation cross between members of two different stable populations (two different purebred dog breeds, in this case); that's just a definition, not a value judgement. Breeding two different hybrids produces a mixed breed dog; mixed breed dogs do not have hybrid vigour; although they may have good health, discussing that is beyond the scope of this article (there is a whole separate article on mixed breeds.) Breeding two hybrids of the same breed-ancestry is a second generation cross and does not generally show the advantages of hybrid vigour. All of this has been much studied in cattle breeding. I really don't see any bias.

First, I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful response, and I want to make clear that I have no plans to do any major revision to the article without consensus on the issues.

I read over the article on hybrid vigor and didn't get that definition, but I'll defer to others on this subject, as I'm not particularly well versed on it. Still, it seems that the crux of the "argument" in the article is that "Crossbreeding... results in offspring that may be stronger and healthier than either parent, an effect called hybrid vigour, but only if both parents are genetically sound," (from the introduction, emphasis mine). This could logically be restated as "If both parents are genetically sound, then crossbreeding... results in offspring that be stronger and healthier than either parent," but it is certainly not the case in general that crossbreeding can't lead to outbreeding depression, even if the parents are themselves fit. For all I know, this may not be an issue with domesticated dogs, but we need sources saying so.

The above just addresses the factual side of the article, which I think could be greatly improved by us working on citing sources. As far as tone, I maintain that the "Designer Dogs" section is structured as an argument that goes "dogs are bred for a purpose; the purpose of modern dogs is to be healthy and have a good temperament; hybrids have access to hybrid vigor which makes them more healthy;" and from these facts, we are left to deduce that therefore hybrids are healthier therefore hybrids are more fit as house-pets. The logic is very simple and flows right from the structure of the paragraph. Now, I'm not trying to defend purebreeds. My interest is instead in making this a better article, and right now, that paragraph sounds more like a sales pitch to me. --Ben.c (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For cattle, entire crossbreeding programs are set up, covering many generations, in order to optimize particular traits (size, milk quantity, calf size, etc.) In dogs, such long term programs are set up by individuals who are establishing a new purebred breed. The goal of dog crossbreeding traditionally was to emphasize some particular working or sporting trait, usually between two exceptional individual working or sporting dogs with complementary characteristics, not continuing past the first cross (although if successful, the breeding might be repeated.) For "Designer Dogs" (the ones with the cute portmanteau names) the goal is to produce a dog of a particular appearance, primarily for aesthetic or marketing reasons, from two identifiable purebred breeds. Breeding dogs past the first cross has never been documented as being done with any goal in mind other than establishing a new breed, one that is assumed by the breeder and puppy buyers to be healthier than the breeds of the original first cross parents; I've not seen any credible research on that, either, but that is the strongly (and very emotionally) held belief.

That's just some background. Even though I don't find this article biased, I cannot understand why this article is titled Dog hybrid instead of Crossbreed (dog), which is the actual topic. There is already an article that uses the word hybrid as it is more usually done in biology (as a cross between two species), Canid hybrid, and a section on crossbred dogs under Crossbreed. Crossbreeding is also discussed in the article Mixed-breed dog. Perhaps effort would be better spent by deleting this article and improving the other three. --Hafwyn (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Move to "Crossbred dog" as per WP:COMMONNAME

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Dog hybrid → Crossbred dog – Move this article to crossbred dog as per WP:COMMONNAME. Chrisrus (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment the term "dog hybrid" is not the same as the article states, since it covers any hybridized dog, including mixed breed dogs, and other more exotic hybridizations, such as wolfdogs or coyote-dogs. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Mixed breed dog, they aren't always a literal mix of breeds, but are frequently unbred dogs with no breeds in their ancestry, like most Afro-eurasian street dogs. So that term's scope is wider. Wolfdogs and coywolves and such are covered by Canid hybrid and not the referent of the term "dog hybrid", which aren't real hybrids as they are all the same species and subspecies. It's a new term for crossbred dogs that's used to avoid the negative connotations of "mixed breed dog" which the term "crossbred dog" can carry because the two terms sound so similar. Chrisrus (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading this, it occurs to me that this there is a second good reason beyond WP:COMMONNAME to move it: WP:PRECISION. These animals are not true hybrids as they belong to the same species or subspecies, so to entitle it "Dog hybrid" is technically less correct than "Crossbreed dog" or "Crossbred dog". Also, the experts who use the term "hybid dog" are promoters of this type of dog, and the term would not used in peer-reviewed scientific journals because it's confusing and actually technically wrong. These facts should be brought out more in the article. Chrisrus (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support and remove the phrase "dog hybrid" from this article (except perhaps, per Chrisrus, to explain why it is a misnomer). A dog hybrid is a hybrid between two species or subspecies of canines, such as domestic dog and wolf; it is not a "designer" cross of domestic dog breeds! Same goes for felines, equines, etc. E.g. the Cymric cat is a cross-breed of the domestic Manx cat and Persian cat breeds, while the Chaussie is a hybrid between the domestic cat (of whatever breed[s]) and the Felis chaus species. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Update "Designer Dogs" section

I am removing the material in the Designer Dogs section and replacing it with information that I have been able to document. --Hafwyn (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The old section, marked as undocumented:

The crossbreeding of two different purebred breeds, usually toy or small companion dog breeds, is now being deliberately done to produce what are called designer dogs, a novel-looking small size dog. The practice causes much controversy; opponents cite the often exorbitant prices charged for what is just a Mixed-breed dog.

While the trend to produce hybrid or designer dogs is considered new it is, in fact, a continuation of the centuries-old practice of selective breeding. Almost all modern breeds of dog were created by interbreeding older breeds and types of dogs to produce a new breed with a certain set of desirable characteristics. All dog breeds were bred for a particular purpose, usually some form of hunting, herding, or guarding, although some of the very oldest breeds are of the lapdog type, bred purely as companions. Today the primary need is for healthy dogs with good temperaments, as domestic companions and pets. Breeding two different breeds theoretically allows the best traits of both parents to pass through, although the results may not be as expected. The difference between a designer dog crossbreed and a purebred dog is that the purebred breed is stable, and will look and act almost exactly the same across the generations, while the outcome of a cross breeding is unpredictable. The advantage of the designer dog is the novelty of its appearance, and the chance of heterosis. In addition, breeders find that they can charge premium prices for the crossbreeds, even if the purebred stock from which they come does not command such prices, and so they are popular with certain types of breeders.

Most crossbred dogs are only first generation crosses, and are never selectively inbred to create a breed. Poodles and Cocker Spaniels are the most often used to breed to other small breeds, but the Pug is also widely used in the most fashionable designer dog crosses. A choice of which dogs to cross may be dictated by the best portmanteau name that can be invented.

Certain crosses in which a desirable mix of traits occurs are popular. The Labradoodle, for example, was first bred as an attempt to develop guide dog for visually impaired people with allergies. Unfortunately, the popularity of crossbreeds such as the "Labradoodle" has resulted in rampant, and often unscrupulous, breeding. The resulting pups do not reliably demonstrate the desirable characteristics, such as a hypo-allergenic coat, that the original breeders were attempting to obtain, because they cannot be bred reliably for the same outcome.

Thank you. There seem to be editors with a pro-purebred or anti-crossbreed agenda that work on this article. While what this article says about unscrupulous breeders and horrific doggiemills might be true, there is no evidence given that it's anymore true of crossbreeders than it is about purebreeders. Unscrupulous breeders can be counted on to breed whatever they can make money breeding, and if that means pugs that can't breathe properly, German Shepherds whose back legs are basically crippled, or King Charles Cavelier Spaniels with heads so mishapen that they die very young and in horrible pain, or structurally unsound crossbreeds, then that's what they will do. I love purebred dogs and it's true that some of these crossbreeds are also have structural problems bred into them, but it's not fair the way this article has been talking about crossbreeders. I have a purebred and a crossbreed and favor only good breeding, not purebreeding or crossbreeding. I'm objective and neutral about it. Actually my purebread 16 and although recently deaf he's basically structurally very sound, and the vet says my crossbreed has serious structual problems in the knees and hips, so I know personally how crossbreeding can go very wrong and purebreeding right. Personally, I get all my dogs from shelters and don't deal with breeders. But in comparison to the rampant unscrupulous breeding of purebred dog breeders that has been well documented, it's just wrong for this article to single out crossbreeders for this kind of criticism. This article violates WP:NPOV! Chrisrus (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Chrisrus, puppy mills do not just breed crossbreeds, many do purebreds as well, so attaching them to only crossbreeds is rather ridiculous. Secondly I do not believe that the word "designer dog" is used to compare them to designer clothing and accessories, but merely because the dogs are created by design, with well planned thought and action. If it were true that designer dogs were bred to be accessories then many purebreds would be designer dogs too, and not just crossbreeds. I have also seen it mentioned that if you breed two parents with hip dysplasia you will get hip dysplasia, that is correct, but not all crossbreed puppies have two parents with hip dysplasia, and just because such a defect is known in the breed does not mean it is always carried by either parent, same is true for purebreds. However, while hip dysplasia may be incredibly common in one breed, it may not be as common in another, that is where the good of crossbreeding comes in. Some breeds are guaranteed to have such problems such as cherry eyes and ear infections in American Cocker Spaniels, while these issues don't exist in other breeds, therefore crossbreeding is beneficial in this case. Has anyone here heard of the LUA Dalmatians? Rutland Manor Labradoodles? I would still argue that crossbreeds have more vigor than purebreds, it is well documented that dogs which are not purebred make better mothers, have better instinct and milk production, as well as other qualities such as better hunting dogs. Some crossbreeds also do not share the same genetic defects, such as the crossbreeds I breed, Shih Tzu and American Cocker Spaniel. Both wikipedia articles on both breeds in terms of health problems are vague and not well written, Shih Tzu's and American Cocker Spaniels do share some defects but not that many and the defects they have in common are not that common in both breeds, the problems I found most problematic were primarily conformation related, more specifically exaggerated features related (quite pitiful when a long backed Shih Tzu can't even walk down some stairs without falling, or hop up on a chair, while a cocker has no problems doing these things), and the mix did a good job of getting rid of the problems. I find this article very biased and not neutral at all. I myself am biased and not neutral on the subject so I will leave the changes to someone else, but thought I would put in my two cents as well. ItsWolfeh (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested moved (March 2013)

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

---

• Crossbred dog → Dog crossbreeds
• List of crossbred dogs → List of dog crossbreeds

– "Crossbred dogs" implies individual dogs that are crossbreeds, not the 'standardised crossbreeds' themselves. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Rename to Dog crossbreeds. Agree with nom, but it should be plural. There are multiple crossbreeds. Crossbred dogs is not a good title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  Good idea.  Fixed Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Personal Pet pics

This page is starting to get clogged with personal pet pics, again. Let's keep an eye on new additions. One small pic per section is more than enough. One of the dogs posted is a missing dog - Please either place that by his picture are place another know to have an owner dog there- This is the cattle dog / jack russell picture on the left - His missing posts can be found here http://www.lostmydoggie.com/details.cfm?petid=59377# or here https://www.facebook.com/LostFoundCattleDogsUSA/photos/a.1487511778134835.1073741829.1482195718666441/1513854605500552/?type=3&theater

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:1B00:166:601F:70E:36AE:F135 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dog crossbreed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080803231007/http://www.celebrity-pets.com:80/articles/hybrid-dog-breed-names/ to http://www.celebrity-pets.com/articles/hybrid-dog-breed-names/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dog crossbreed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704210718/http://www.smallbiztrends.com/2007/12/pet-industry-trends-for-2008.html to http://www.smallbiztrends.com/2007/12/pet-industry-trends-for-2008.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dog crossbreed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704210718/http://www.smallbiztrends.com/2007/12/pet-industry-trends-for-2008.html to http://www.designerdoggies.com/Hybridsinthenews.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dog crossbreed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117171852/http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/beef/400-805/400-805.html to http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/beef/400-805/400-805.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140724153405/http://www.readersdigest.com.au/my-story-i-designed-a-dog to http://www.readersdigest.com.au/my-story-i-designed-a-dog
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313184648/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2339260.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2339260.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal:Poodle crossbreed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was redirect, nothing notable to merge. PainProf (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Poodle crossbreed into this article. Poodle crossbreed is a terribly sourced article and whilst poodle crossbreds they are relatively common within the modern designer crossbreed world I don't think the subject is notable enough for a standalone article. Given there is little information about poodle crossbreeds that is reliably sourced in the current article, a redirect may suffice. Cavalryman (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC).

• Support - its one reliable source informs us that they can come in a number of colours; most enlightening. Merge please, there is nothing to warrant poodle crossbreeds being treated separately from other dog crossbreeds. William Harristalk 05:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose* - Compared to the scope of a Dog crossbreed, a Poodle crossbreed is merely a historical blip. "Poodle crossbreed" should be assessed for notability in its own right (is that even worth a page?). A much better place to merge it to would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_crossbreeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

65.183.144.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I have moved your comments out of the discussion box above, as can be clearly seen in bolded, italicised, bright red text it is requested that it not be modified. In the above discussion the notability of Poodle crossbreed was assessed and found to be without merit given the lack of WP:Reliable sources, if you disagree you are welcome to present new sources here. Cavalryman (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

I only just got interested in this article, I'd appreciate my input being taken into consideration on this. Let's extend voting for a time and get other views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

65.183.144.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the above discussion is closed, please do not modify it, your comments are perfectly visible here. Cavalryman (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

You are WP:Edit warring which may result in you being banned from editing, I am happy to discuss other options but this process was conducted in accordance with all of Wikipedia's policies on the matter and all interested parties were informed. What is it you want? It seems you want to simply redirect Poodle crossbreed to List of dog crossbreeds, that does not require the above discussion to be reopened. Further, I am not sure that is an appropriate place to redirect Poodle crossbreed, it is a list article.

Further, per your edit summary at Poodle crossbreed I would welcome the input of an Admin, your edit warring is not appropriate, the above discussion should be re-closed as that action was done per policy, your subsequent objections are being discussed here now. Pinging William Harris as the other contributor to the discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

You are edit warring, I want this change discussed in good faith before the changes are made. You do not own this page, this is a community edited page and we discuss things before prodeding. Are you saying my input here is not welcome, or is not being considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. I am pinging several admins for stalking, harassment, and edit warring. You literally followed me to another talk page, and closed my discussion. You then undo all my changes here while accusing me of edit warring and removing my votes in opposition to your changes. Your response is pinging a token admin who seemingly supports you on all issues. I'll be reaching above your friend on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, as I have said I welcome any admin to look at what has occurred here, and I am trying to avoid parallel discussions on the same proposal occurring on three different talk pages, all of which I have on my watchlist. You still have not answered the most critical question, what are you actually proposing? Cavalryman (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, now that we have gone through the dance at ANI can I ask again, what are you actually suggesting here? It appears from your oppose !vote that you actually support redirecting Poodle crossbreed somewhere. Cavalryman (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

• Support Merge - agree with William Harris. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge whatever little useful info there is in that article that isn't already in this article.. The IP has suggested at Talk:Poodle crossbreed that that article instead be redirected to List of dog crossbreeds .That's a list article. Of course that list should mention any sourced poodle crossbreeds, regardless of where the redirect points. Everyone seems to agree that the poodle crossbreed article should go. Meters (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't discuss the other proposal here. Once we have enough opposition votes for the proposal about sending Poodle crossbreed to Dog crossbreed, which may take a month or two, we will redirect poodle crossbreed to the list of dog crossbreeds. This is a better choice because it makes sense. You are looking for a poodle crossbreed? WHICH poodle crossbreed? Here is a list of dog crossbreeds, nearly half of which are based on the poodle. The other proposal can be discussed seperately at the list of dog crossbreeds article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_dog_crossbreeds#Merge_in_poodle_crossbreeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, I am completely confused, you reopened this discussion but it seems you are not supportive of this merger. If you had wanted to re-redirect Poodle crossbreed why not list it at WP:Redirects for discussion? Cavalryman (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

I think the IP is more than a bit confused. The list is a list. I already said it It should contain material on the poodle crossbreeds. It already does. This article already links to that list, so no-one is going to get lost. If there is any useful generic crossbreed info in the poodle crossbreed article it should be merged here. The poodle crossbreed article needs to go away. It may have some content that should be merged to this article. I don't see an additional information in the poodle crossbreed article that needs to be merged to the list article. I really don't care where the redirect points., but as the poodle crossbreed article currently reads, this is a better target (the article has more to say about crossbreeds in general thann it does about specific poodle crossbreeds).

Reopening the discussion about the redirect on the poodle crossbreed article talk page while the article's merge is under discussion here is disruptive. Meters (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Cavalryman is extremely confused. The page on Poodle crossbreeds is being deleted and there is no worthwhile information there worth saving. It may as well simply redirect to the list of poodle crossbreeds. There is no information on the poodle crossbreed page that belong on this page. A poodle crossbreed? Here is a list of them. There's no information there that belongs here. If you can identify some specific piece of information on that page that belongs on this page, we can more seriously consider your proposal. Otherwise, it literally makes no sense. The article has no original information, there is nothing to merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, oppose redirecting poodle crossbreed to list of dog crossbreeds, if anything is salvageable it should be merged here. Cavalryman (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC).
• Support merge again: Following on from the IP's mildly amusing farce at ANI here, he has now attracted my undivided attention to this page. The IP will need to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. I recommend that he familiarise himself regarding that policy's requirements; I certainly have. William Harristalk 22:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am well familiar with the standards of notability and even the difference between a primary and secondary source! So, if you pull any funny business about claiming something isn't notable while violating the rules, I will ANI you or arbitrate. In the mean time, you can enjoy doing what Cavalryman tells you to do. You seem to be his minion, voting as he does 100% of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, your last attempt at ANI ended in complete farce and you appear to be hiding from it, otherwise you would answered the questions posed to you there. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG before embarrassing yourself again. Cavalryman (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC).

It ended in this discussion. If I need to ANI you again for you to cease deleting my comments in talk pages and engage me in discussion before implementing changes, I will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No it ended in humiliation for you as you were shown to have been completely incorrect, and not only have you failed to acknowledge your mistakes you have refused to apologise for wrongly casting aspirations. Instead of cowering here out of hear of further embarrassing yourself, why don’t you why don’t you face the music there? Cavalryman (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC).

You started out by edit warring me in a talk page and ignoring my attempts to discuss changes with you. The ANI was needed to get you to abide by the rules. If you step out of line again, I will ANI you again. Very simple. Abide by the rules, assume good faith, and follow procedure and we will have no issues. Violate the rules, get ANI'd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, have you ever edited as LeoRussoLeo (talk · contribs)? Your language and editing style appear very similar. Someone at ANI has already made the connection, if you do decide to return to ANI can you request a checkuser confirm/dispel this? Cavalryman (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC).

I've never owned a Wikipedia account. Also, you should direct these sorts of comments to my talk page. Since you started this off-topic thread, a good idea would be to delete this comment here and the one above it (written by you, asking about my identity) and move them to my talk page. I hope you can handle this responsibility, it is something of a baby merger and will keep this discussion here in Talk:Dog_crossbreed clean. 65.183.144.120 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I oppose people voting twice, also I am confused by some random person's mention of notability. Are people confused as to what that term means? We're currently voting for a redirect. Although, if this page is deleted I'd be happy with that outcome since my original proposal would be implemented instead, Poodle crossbreed redirects to List of dog crossbreeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Background Comment * This vote was reopened. I had to ANI Cavalryman for that to occur, as he was simply deleting my vote and pushing it aside while implementing changes and edit warring. Luckily, reporting Cavalryman's inappropriate behaviour seems to have had a positive effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: "We're currently voting for a redirect." No, we are not. We are voting on the merge of Poodle crossbreeds into Dog crossbreeds - refer the title of this merger proposal. There is currently 4 for support and 1 for oppose. All irrelevant comments and posturing are not going to change that. After a period of time when there has been no new votes, the proposal will be formally closed by a neutral party. And so this matter comes to an end. William Harristalk 12:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Which specific content in the Poodle crossbreed article are you proposing be merged within this article? Which specific sources are you proposing be taken into consideration or added into this article? When the vote was prior closed, no merger took place. Instead, a redirect occurred. The poodle crossbreed article was deleted and it was redirected here. There was no merger. If you propose a merger, a merger must take place. If you propose a merger, you should not instead implement a redirect. What is being merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That is up to whomever performs the merge, if you think it is incorrect you are always welcome to edit the article, adding or removing content. Cavalryman (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC).

Please describe what information from the Poodle crossbreed article you plan on merging here. Thanks. 65.183.144.120 (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As said, that is up to whomever performs the merge, any editor can add or subtract afterwards. Cavalryman (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC).

If you are planning on performing this merger, please describe which sources and which information from the Poodle article that you plan on merging here. I suggest making a draft first.65.183.144.120 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

proposing a rewrite

I propose a rewrite of this article. Why is there such a long section on "designer dogs" and a bizarre subsection about "defects?" Cross breeding is not new.

The history section is also missing a great deal of juicy and well-citable detail, such as the entire and detailed origin of all the Victorian-era dog breeds that were basically just inbred lines of crosses. The Golden Retriever pedigree contains many cross breeds, such as Wavy Coated Retriever crossed with an Irish Setter. See: https://grca.org/about-the-breed/breed-history/brief-history-of-the-golden-retriever/

Right from the official breed club, and they even have an extensive bibliography.

Considering how historically important these cross breeds are in the creation of so many of our dog breeds, the history section in this article has the potential to be quite extensive and well sourced. It might also be interesting to observe which crosses were popular during which time period, and who was buying them and for what purpose and what they were called.

There are also modern genetic studies that show something of a "family tree" of dogs, where you can visually see the origins of many dog breeds and how they are mainly just inbred crosses of other dogs. For example, this excellent Nature article has such a family tree that was created with a large scale genetic survey of dogs. See Figure 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08837 It is behind a paywall but I have a copy of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I would support all efforts to rewrite this page, it is in a pretty terrible state. Cavalryman (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

I will add, breed clubs are not a reliable source for information, they should not be used to source anything. Cavalryman (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

In this case I mentioned the breed club because they have a fully sourced bibliography which can be used to verify all of their claims. Did you read the text above that I wrote?

Also, in this instance a breed club is a perfectly fine source for establishing rough details about a breed. Primary sources are useful in that respect eg family histories. Don't be confused in that just because a source cannot be used to establish notability, does not mean that it can't be used in the general sense. We don't want to over-rely on primary sources, but using them to fill in historical details about cross breeds is appropriate in my opinion. In some cases those are the only records that exist of such things. The original pedigrees are historical documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, I will still support all efforts to improve this page. Cavalryman (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC).

"Gerchowder" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gerchowder. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 17#Gerchowder until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)