Talk:Pal (dog)

Stars? Fact check needed

Okay, exactly how many dogs--or characters--have stars on the walk of fame?

If it's only two, my money's on Rinty. Another WP article says three.

I'm going for three until we check it. Quill 22:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I only know of Rin Tin Tin and Lassie. This source says 2 [1]

Who is the third (if there is one?) Vaoverland 02:16, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Strongheart, if he has one. Quill 09:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Lassie

This article needs to be merged with Lassie. Lassie was portrayed by 7 different dogs including Pal and each of the Lassie's had its own name other than Lassie. There is no reason why the first Lassie needs to have its own article. Vivaldi (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. The content is very redundant between the two and Pal is not notable beyond being Lassie. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree, it is a good artical, it is a known dog, for example in Frasier, the dog is interpreted by a dog that has an artical, and then is replaced by his son, and that dog has an artical too. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This is crazy, it's got GA status! Pal is one of the most famous dog actors and therefore is easily notable in his own right. If this was a human actor then it wouldn't even be questioned. Miyagawa (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It has GA status in part because of a user who had some 20-30 sock puppets and is now banned for the socking, falseifying sources, and a variety of other inappropriate behaviors. Nor does being a GA make it immune from consideration of merging. Pal, himself, is not notable by himself, but only as being the first Lassie. There is no significant coverage of Pal himself, but only in the context of Lassie take from the book on Lassie. Most of the information here is redundant to the Lassie article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There are four rationals for a merge. Duplicate: in this instance, one article is about a fictional character and/or series, another is about a dog actor in a similar way that Moose (dog actor) is different to Frasier. Text: Text is not an issue in either this article or the Lassie one. Context: Arguable, but I believe that Pal does not need the information in the Lassie article to be notable on it's own merit. Overlap: This is the only rational where there may be a case. However the requirement on Wikipedia:Merging states that "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap." Technically, the Lassie article talks about Pal quite a bit in the lead paragraph (in my opinion, probably more than it should) then under Dog Actors, Pal is mentioned only in the first three paragraphs. There is a large volume of information on the Pal article which is about Pal being Lassie, however there is significant information that has nothing to do with Lassie, and I feel would be inappropriate to place on a general Lassie page: for instance the entire section on Pal's death. Having reviewed both articles side to side, I think that there is a case to keep Pal as it's own page - however it needs to be regraded as I don't think it fits as a GA status as it does not cover Pal's life significantly outside playing Lassie; and that the Pal article needs to be expanded to cover it as such. Miyagawa (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why not combine all the dogs by age into one article called Lassie dogs.--Lassiewasadog (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean all of the dogs that portrayed Lassie? There is already an article for Lassie. I'm not sure a second article listing the individual dogs would be necessary though it is a possibility as an away to address the issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. - I reviewed the GAN for this article. Even putting aside the quality of the article, it all comes down to WP:NOTE for me. This one meets all the notability criteria: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As long as it meets that criteria, the fact there were a number of other dog actors that played Lassie doesn't prohibit an article about this specific dog actor. (Incidentally, if there is a call for a regrade, I think that's fine, but I strongly feel a merge is out of the question.) — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Its being GA does not mean it can't be merged, and its technically meeting WP:N does not either. The truth is, most of this article is not about Pal and doesn't belong here. With it removed, it would not meet WP:N nor WP:GA. Merged with Lassie, it would combine two weaker articles into one stronger, better one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously the GA doesn't mean it can't be merged, but meeting WP:N is an extremely strong indication. I also don't see how you can say most of this article isn't about Pal and doesn't belong here. Everything in "Birth and early years" and the first two graphs of "MGM films" is all Pal, and the rest of that section and "Television series" are about Lassie information, but strictly with regard to Pal's participation. "Death" is again all Pal and "Legacy" is perfectly appropriate... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Its about Pal as Lassie. Pal is not notable as Pal, he is notable as Lassie, the first of many. The Lassie information is about the character, not just Pal, and is repetitive to Lassie. Pal's history in the role, including his death, is fully appropriate within Lassie. There is no difference between Pal/Lassie and say Benji and Rin Tin Tin. You don't see articles for the first generation of those movie star dog legacies either. Further, Pal is not credited as "Pal" in any of those roles, but as Lassie. The only places he is referred to as Pal is in historical context. There is no Pal movie star, only Lassie, first played by a collie with a name of Pal. For another comparision, "Pal" is his kennel/casual name while "Lassie" is his official name - same dog, not differentiated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't buy this argument any more than I do that there is no difference between Terry and Toto; or, for that matter, between any role and and actor. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and the simple fact is Pal more than meets notability standards. (I mean, come on, the dog with "the most spectacular canine career in film history" isn't worth a Wikipedia entry?) But it seems to me there's no consensus for a merge here on the talk page, so if you want to keep pursuing this, take it up with WP:GAR for a reassessment and/or WP:AFD for a merge proposal. I'd recommend seeking the reassessment first, but that's just me... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 18:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD is not for merge discussions. A GAR, however, is highly likely, though also unnecessary to a merge discussion. Again, its status as a GA is not a valid reason to oppose a merge. The claims of "most spectacular canine career" are fan gushing and not supported by reliable sources. Note that Pal does not have a star on the Hollywood walk of fame, Lassie does. There is no clear consensus, so the next step is asking for other views from the appropriate projects. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose The quote "most spectacular canine career" is one you are free to disagree with, AnmaFinotera, but to call it not reliably sourced is false. It is from an article about Pal in the Saturday Evening Post, quoted in Parade, as the fn plainly states. Both are reliable sources. The dog Pal, as distinct from the film character, is certainly notable in his own right, having been the subject of numerous national publications, etc., and as progenitor of the line of collies to play the character for more than 60 years. Vivaldi's rationale for a merge actually strengthens the case against merging – there have been many collies playing the character over the years, but only one Pal. It is also difficult to see how marging the article about the dog Pal with the article about the character Lassie is helpful to the reader. He did, after all, play Laddie in "Son of Lassie".  JGHowes  ^talk 00:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, per the credits Lassie played Laddie, not a dog named Pal. It would aid the reader as it would have all of the dogs in one article about Lassie, rather than trying to give Pal a separate notability apart from Lassie. Please provide some of these numerous publications that are all about Pal, and just Pal, not Pal as the first Lassie. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I oppose a merge. Hunter detailed why. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Relevant information with proper citations. Ricardoread (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's been almost a week since any discussion, and it seems like the consensus has only moved in the direction of not merge since bringing others into the conversation. Unless anyone opposes, I'm going to assume the debate is done here and drop the merge tags? And anyone who'd like to seek a GAR is more than welcome to... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pal (dog). 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/20090204184346/http://petpublishing.com/dogken/breeds/collie.shtml to http://www.petpublishing.com/dogken/breeds/collie.shtml

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) 07:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Pal (dog)

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Per previous ItsLassieTime GARs ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The article was almost exclusively written by the banned serial copyright violator ItsLassieTime, primarily with offline sources that are not easily accessible. I've sent the article to WP:CP where it'll most likely be shrunk to a stub, and as such will be nowhere near GA quality. Wizardman 22:44, 31 August 2023 (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.

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MER-C 11:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)