This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic
dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Well, this is a constant problem with content in other Wikipedias – it may be little, or often much, better than what we have, but is so poorly sourced as to be useless to us. In my opinion, our great strength is our insistence on complete and proper sourcing; the downside of that is that our pages may be less complete than the equivalent page in another project. I see that as an acceptable trade-off. Regards,
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
17:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)reply
We need their their content (at times, obviously the English Wikipedia is broader in scope with way more articles) with our sourcing. German Wikipedia's approach to sourcing is very strict, rather like the
Rheinheitsgebot is to brewing. So you and I agree. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)19:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
Those two articles seem to be about the same concept, aren't they? Except that the mercy dog seems to refer to WWI search and rescue dogs. Which means that this could become a history subsection of the article here (which currently doesn't even have a history section). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose The mercy dog had a specifically military and medical role and many thousands were used in an organised way in specific conflicts. That then forms a nicely distinct topic and its appearance as a DYK confirms its quality. The search and rescue article, by contrast, is broader and looser and so has multiple issues. Conflating the two would be improper synthesis as the OP presents no sources in support of their speculative theory. To get the best quality, we should divide such topics so that they are precise and succinct. Merger would be counter-productive.
Oppose While all Mercy Dogs are Search and Rescue, the opposite is not the case. Different functions. Different roles. Different training. Different history. This is a better and well developed article that will be a poor fit in the other less well developed article.
WP:Preserve.
WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)11:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose (naturally, as page creator). I think that merging Mercy dog (a 1100 word article) to the history section here will create an unbalanced history section when 'Search and rescue dog' is intentionally about a much broader topic. There's enough for a stand-alone article, imo
Eddie891TalkWork12:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment The Mercy dog article tells us that "...they would seek out wounded soldiers..." Is that not a search? Does that not lead to a rescue? That S&R dog is a wider topic is no reason not to merge. That S&R dog is a lesser quality article, and of smaller size, are still not reasons not to merge. None of these dubious reasons has anything to do with WP:POL. However, Mercy dog is supported by multiple RS, therefore it probably warrants a stand-alone article. Unfortunately at present its entire lede contains no references at all.
William Harris (talk)21:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)reply
William Harris, there are no citations in the lede because it's all referenced in the body (per
WP:LEDECITE). As you allude to somewhat, the reason a merger is inappropriate is because multiple
reliable sources specifically provide in-depth coverage of 'mercy dog' as its own well-defined topic, so that a fairly substantial stand alone article can be written that conforms to
policies and guidelines, rendering a merger inappropriate. The policy to cite is that none of the
WP:MERGEREASONs are met and the three
WP:NOTMERGE criteria are met. I cannot see any benefit that will come from merging the two.
Eddie891TalkWork17:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. Currently the mercy dog article is better sourced so probably warrants its own page. The quality of S & R dogs has been raised at
WT:DOGS[1] and a rewrite is planned. Once that has occurred this proposal could likely be revisited, after all as 7&6 says above all Mercy Dogs are Search and Rescue [dogs].
Cavalryman (
talk)
22:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC).reply
Weak oppose. I'm not sympathetic to arguments that the current quality of any given articles should affect our thinking here. Just as
WP:Deletion is not cleanup, merging is supposed to be about what the available sources warrant. And I am sympathetic to the argument that coverage of mercy dogs should have begun at the broader parent page, rather than beginning a brand new page (which seems like it was done just to qualify for DYK). This page does not even currently mention mercy dogs, which it absolutely should. It's not helpful to the encyclopedia to go around creating quasi-content forks that aren't properly integrated with existing pages; content creation ought to flow from the broad to the narrow, not vice versa. With that admonishment out of the way, however, I think there is enough difference in scope that it's appropriate for mercy dogs to have a separate page. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
Wiki Education assignment: Seminars in Forensic Science
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 6 April 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
CXthree (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Ringettem7.
Wiki Education assignment: Seminars in Forensic Science
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 30 April 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Taylorwikipag3 (
article contribs).