Talk:Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever

Photo

As requested on WP:RP, I've replaced the earlier face-only photo with Image:IggyTheToller01.jpg. —Ilmari Karonen 05:29:33, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Can we change the photo for the Duck Toller, including every other dog?

I have a good one, just use the link below to find it

https://vgl.ucdavis.edu/panel/nova-scotia-duck-tolling-retriever-health-panel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.154.148 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

That image is copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia. One source to prove copyright is https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/nova-scotia-duck-tolling-retriever-sitting-against-white-background-gm943996260-257887019

I'm not sure what you mean by "including every other dog" though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Portal-inline

Hello Walter Görlitz, as noted at the top of WP:P, which includes WP:PORTL, the page is an out of date information page, not a style guide or policy. On the other hand MOS:DECOR is part of a community authorised style guide. If you wish to include iconography for a portal link, the correct template to use is {{Portal}} (see MOS:SEEALSO), I have amended the template accordingly. Cavalryman (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC).

@Cavalryman: SEEALSO makes no mention of how to use a portal nor does DECOR. It seems to me your own interpretation of both. Shall we continue the inane edit war you started with your opinion, would you like to point to a specific place where it states portals with icons may not be used in see also sections, or shall we take this to a larger community? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully I will pull you up on your accusation of edit warring, you commenced it by reverting my revert of you, per BRD you should have commenced a discussion, something I have done here. If you can demonstrate an encyclopedic purpose for a miniaturised photograph of a Labrador Retriever in the see also section of a Toller I will gladly concede, but as far as I can tell it only purely decorative. A separated portal template or portal bar is a different story. Cavalryman (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC).

Well, that deteriorated quickly. We both edit warred so please drop your gloves and you are misreading BRD, as you were bold, I reverted and you at the point had the choice to continue, but you reverted again.

I cannot demonstrate what you are asking. Can you show me where the discussion to exclude portals with icons from see also sections? If your next response does not do so (and instead makes inaccurate accusations, as this previous did) I will go to a larger forum. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Very happy to lay down arms, it’s never productive when two good faith editors clash. A recent discussion between the members of WP:DOGS and WP:WPPORT occurred here, where consensus was to exclude the icon from see also sections. As far as I can discern, the only rationale for including such as icon is to draw attention towards the link and away from other, possibly more relevant, links in the section, it is purely decorative. As such I see no encyclopedic purpose to it. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC).

So again, it's your interpretation that it should not be included (even though of GAs have them). I have no problems with having them on the right side. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Hello @Gionabalena and Walter Görlitz: I have noticed the back and forward with the infobox image so thought I would start a discussion. For an infobox image I believe a dog standing in profile is better than a front on image as it better summarises the breed (looking at the camera is fine), optimally it is also fully grown, healthy with good conformation and not overweight, please see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: the purpose of an infobox ... [is to] to summarize ... key facts that appear in the article.

The options being presented plus a couple of others I have found are:

1. Status quo

2. Gionabalena’s first alternative

3. Gionabalena’s second alternative

4. Wikidata picture

5. Another possibility

As such, I think the status quo (#1) image is unsatisfactory, I do not believe it gives an adequate appreciation of the breed as the dog is front on and sitting. #2 is also unsatisfactory. I think any of numbers 3–5 above are satisfactory, if I had to list my preferences it would be #4, #5 then #3 but I would happy with any of them. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC). Further, per WP:NOTGALLERY, the image gallery in the article needs a serious overhaul, it appears to be an unencyclopedic picture repository, we have commons for that. Cavalryman (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC).

Thanks for the ping. The main characteristics that I think we should be attempting to demonstrate are the overall reddish colour, blaze (white mark on nose), boots (white marks on the paws), white underside and tip of the tail. Another characteristic is the barrelled chest. Granted the standard (for AKC I believe) goes on to state "Dogs with white on the shoulders, around ears, back of neck, across back or flanks, or with silvery, grey or black areas in coat are disqualified".

Image 1 is not ideal because the dog is seated and we cannot clearly see the tail.

With 2, the dog is wet and is the least preferable for me, even though the bread is a water dog.

In 3, the colour of the dog is almost brown but the other characteristics are present.

In 4, the blaze is not seen but is otherwise a great photo.

In 5, the white paws blend in with the snow and so that characteristic is missing.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Gionabalena is an owner of a dog in the breed and could possibly add another image that would be a great standard. Barring a late entry, I would argue that including 4 in the infobox would be good and having the other two images that are presently in the body demonstrate the blaze. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I am very happy with using #4, it is a good looking lean dog. I used to frequently look after a friend's Toller, unfortunately they have moved interstate so I cannot try to get another shot. Cavalryman (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC).

Hi,I don't have a Toller but a Border Collie. I accept your choices if they make the page more beautiful Gionabalena (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done The photo has been changed. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC).

Thank you. Should we address the gallery? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellent idea, yes. Personally I think the whole thing should be deleted and potentially some of the pictures dragged up into the body if they can be linked to relevant text. What are your thoughts? Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC).

I was never happy with the gallery. I'll let you use your excellent judgment to select a few representative images that match the copy and quietly retire the rest of the gallery. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have given it a quick trim, I thought there was only one worth retaining. Please feel free to adjust, amend, replace or revert as you see fit. Cavalryman (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC).

Where have you been all my editing days? Those captions were great! Thanks again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The changes are unnecessary and the side profile does not show one of the key characteristics of the breed. The issues with your unilaterally selected new photo is that it does not accurately reflect the breed standards.

head like a fox, white tall, pink or liver nose, white markings on forehead, white blaze on chest, white socks. By having a side profile you cannot see these adequately. Given the image has been up since 2011 and possibly earlier without complaint it is unnecessary to change it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyten (talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Scottyten: thank you for finally coming to the discussion but your edit warring is completely inappropriate. I appreciate this is a photo of your dog, very cute, but unfortunately it does not give an adequate appreciation of the breed and so is unsuited for use in the infobox. Further, there is already a head shot in the appearance section that describes the fox-like head. Cavalryman (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC).

The seated image has other issues. Have you reviewed the discussion above? Can you suggest an image that better represents the breed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Cavalryman, It's not an edit war when it's restoring a longstanding image. Can you please share why it is not an adequate appreciation of the breed? Are you registered with the Nova scotia Club for your state? What is inappropriate is removing a photo that has been the standard for 10 years after discussing with one person and not allowing for a consensus.The new proposed image does not meet your own criteria, so it would be great to discuss what the consensus is? Scottyten (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It is an edit war by definition. See WP:EDITWAR. In short, you made four reverts in under 10 hours, and that could pretty much get you a short block. I just restored the consensus version until a new consensus is reached.

We have explained why the previous image is not ideal. Care to read it? Care to offer why it is better (aside from showing the head)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not ideal as you can not see the white on nose or tail, the socks are obscured with snow. It is a good looking dog but does not reflect the breed as there are key characteristics missing.Front on is more relevant as it clearly shows the facial features. People often mistake these for Golden retrievers and selecting a photo that is similar and not front on risks compounding this. Please respect the status quo untila new consensus is reached.Furthermove 50% of the breed standards are dedicated to facial features see here -https://images.akc.org/pdf/breeds/standards/NovaScotiaDuckTollingRetriever.pdf Scottyten (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

My choice is no. 4, second choice no. 5. Denisarona (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Scottyten, my, your or any contributor’s association (or not) with any breed club is completely irrelevant to this discussion. We have stated above why we think your photo is ill suited for the infobox. Cavalryman (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC).

Sorry, I had to re-work the replies again.

Scottyten makes a point about the importance of the dog's head I glossed over earlier, but since the dog is a Canadian breed, what the AKC has to say about its standard is not as relevant as what the CKC has to say: https://www.ckc.ca/en/Choosing-a-Dog/Choosing-a-Breed/Sporting-Dogs/Retriever-Nova-Scotia-Duck-Tolling . You'll see that the dog they have there is standing, in profile and wet. Its blaze is obvious. Markings on the tip of its tail and front of chest are visible while its boots are not. I also recognize that the head of any breed is described in detail. Take for instance these two Canadian Eskimo Dog and Labrador Retriever. SO to suggest that the head is more important with this breed and therefore should be a primary focus in our image is not relevant. The key feature on the had is not its fox-like shape, as the CKC does not use the work fox in its standard, but its blaze, which is described. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Walter The Canadian breed standard can be found here, it is almost identical, as funnily enough standards are fairly consistent. the page you have linked to is just a brief summary > https://www.ckc.ca/CanadianKennelClub/media/Breed-Standards/Group%201/Retriever-Nova-Scotia-Duck-Tolling.pdf As you can see the head is still a significant component of the standard. The fox reference is listed in the current Wikipedia article, and the reasoning for the colour and shape of a Toller is to resemble a fox to be used in hunting. I have a lot of experience with these breeds, owning multiple purebreds and I am registered with 2 kennel clubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyten (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Scottyten, to reiterate your membership with any breed or kennel club is irrelevant. To quote the breed standard, Colour is various shades of red or orange with lighter featherings and underside of tail, and usually at least one of the following white markings - tip of tail, feet (not exceeding beyond the pasterns), chest, and blaze. A dog of otherwise high quality is not to be penalized for lack of white. (Bolding mine) I stand by my pervious opinion that any of numbers 3–5 are fine for the infobox, my preferences in order are 4, 5 & 3, the current consensus photo clearly has a white markings on the chest and feet. Cavalryman (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC).

Scottyten, as you could see if you had read what I wrote, it's no more a significant component of the standard than other breeds. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@CAVALRYMAN, you have not addressed the requirement of the head, please understand those who are actively involved with the breed have a greater understanding of the standards and representations pput forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyten (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Scottyten: Please stop claiming that there is something special about the head when compared to other breeds. Please understand that you do not a corner on the facts of this case. If you do not express an opinion on which of the five images presented above you prefer and why you do not prefer the others, or if you do not offer a new image to consider, there's really nothing that we can do to help you further. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I have been curating this page since 2011 and your changes (without being associated with the breed) are not in line with the best interest of the breed. The original image is the most suitable out of the 5, but if a better image is found then I am open to changing it.Scottyten (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. You do not WP:OWN this article though, and your opinion does not carry more weight than others. That is how WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS works.

The fact that you added "fox" to the article does not make it a necessary feature to be demonstrated.

You have not explained why image one is the best choice and the others do not.

What evidence do you have that I am not associated with the breed?

Our interest is with Wikipedia, not the breed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not add the fox,

I have added in quite a lot of detail on why the new one is not relevant

″And for the record, I own a Toller cross, but she has recognizable Toller features so I am in no way ignorant of the breed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)″

Wikipedia is an important resource for a less common breed and its best managed by people connected/familiar with the breed Scottyten (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Scottyten, the page indicates all of your contributions to this page have been to insert this picture into the infobox (see here), are you saying you have an undisclosed separate account you also edit under? Cavalryman (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC).

Well blast. I lost my edit due to a conflict. In short, sorry for claiming you made the "fox" claim. It was made without a reference in May 2005 and it still goes unsourced. It should probably be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cavalryman, not sure where you are pulling that assumption from?! You might be mistaken Scottyten (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

To address the topic, you stated I have been curating this page since 2011 but here are your edits:

2011-02-10T07:01:19 diff hist +17‎ Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever ‎ Inserted the image you uploaded to commons.

2015-05-24T10:32:02 diff hist −23‎ Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever ‎ Current dog does not have white markings on face typical of breed, also has black nose which is not unique to breed. Restoring the image .

2021-08-31T10:40:31 diff hist +30‎ m Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever ‎ Restored image following editing war - This image has been up for 10 years, change is unnecessary Tag: Reverted Restoring the image.

2021-08-31T12:09:55 diff hist +30‎ Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever ‎ Undid revision 1041595121 by Cavalryman (talk). Again this photo has been up for 10 years. Unilaterally changing it with a quick discussion by 2 people is not sufficient. Particularly as none of the editors owned or bred the breed. Tags: Undo Reverted Restoring the image.

2021-08-31T12:13:34 diff hist +30‎ Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever ‎ Undid revision 1041597610 by Denisarona (talk) Restored to long-standing image Tags: Undo Reverted Restoring the image.

2021-08-31T20:21:05 diff hist +30‎ m Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever ‎ Undid revision 1041605305 by Denisarona (talk). Restored image to image that has been in place since 2011 after the original was removed. Please stop changing and will move to tak page. The new image added is not a good fit as it does not show boxy head, white on tail, colour is to dark. Latest changes are not in line with breed standard and it is unnecessary to change status quo due to one persons opinion. Will request pause edits Tag: Undo Restoring the image.

2021-09-01T20:42:47 diff hist +30‎ Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever ‎ Restored long standing image/status quo whilst consensus is discussed as per SOPs. Left date changes below. Discussion ongoing on talk page. Tag: Reverted

2021-09-02T02:52:39 diff hist +17‎ Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever ‎ Tags: Manual revert Reverted Restoring the image and adding some content.

2021-09-02T03:01:13 diff hist +15‎ Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever ‎ LISTED FOR PAGE PROTECTION DUE TO EDIT Warring & Long standing image being removed. Left second on temporarily Tag: Reverted Adding a second image.

So maintaining your image in this article has been the extent of your involvement here since 2011, with the exception of one edit.

@Scottyten, yet you assume that because I have a Toller cross that I am not associated with the breed. Stellar logic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Walter you are welcome to start a Toller Cross page if you prefer. @Cavalryman Yes 2011 is 10 years. @Both I have no problem changing it to something better, but 2 people (who just had an edit war) deciding to change it without consenus or time frame is not sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyten (talk • contribs) 05:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Three editors have determined that the image is better and have provided reasons.

You are welcome to stop claiming ownership of this article because you are a breed owner. You are also welcome to stop claiming no one else has an interest in the breed just because you think they doe not (or have no right to). You are also welcome to read and understand CONSENSUS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox photo – break

Scottyten, you have said you have no problem changing it to something better, as we have all stated we find your picture unsuitable let's assume it's not an option being considered. Which of the above photos (of numbers 3–4) do you find acceptable? Or can you suggest an alternate? Cavalryman (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC).

The article was protected several days ago and Scottyten has made no effort at compromise and has not recognized anyone else's opinion as valid on the topic, essentially claiming the consensus change as invalid because they disagree with it. Do we expect this to change when the page is unlocked in several days? Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Alas, I suspect not. We will have to wait and see. There are now five participants in this discussion, three oppose the old image and have given their reasons (basically that the sitting front-on image does not give a complete appreciation of the breed), one is agnostic (but had twice previously tried to replace the old image) and only one wants to maintain the old image, they believe there needs to be a greater focus on the breed’s head as rationale for maintaining the picture.

@Scottyten: opinion seems to be pretty firmly against returning to the old image, I ask again Which of the above photos (of numbers 3–4) do you find acceptable? Or can you suggest an alternate? Cavalryman (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC).

I find it unreasonable and possibly sexist that you think that having a female dog on the page is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.156.173 (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you are now clutching at straws. Again, if you can state your preference from the above numbers 3–4 or suggest an alternate photo that would be appreciated. Cavalryman (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If you can show where we even used the dog's as a reason for exclusion you could have a point, otherwise, it is not at issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)