Difference between revisions 427775979 and 427830454 on enwiki

< previous diff
next diff >
User talk:Schneelocke
__FORCETOC__
<div style="padding:1em;border:4px dotted black"><font size="+1"><strong>NOTES</strong></font>

* Every page I protect is on the wrong version, of course, so to conserve valuable electrons, just leave a link to the page and a number from [[m:the Wrong Version|the list]]. Thanks.

* Please add new messages at the bottom of this page, and sign them using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Thank you!
</div>

(contracted; show full) redirect so that there won't be any confusion. Given that the [[borador]] redirect has a history (it was apparently made an article twice), I won't delete it, but I strongly suggest that those who're involved more intimately in these dog-related articles resolve the situation, ideally by (re)creating a proper article. Clearly there are people interested in it, and Wikipedia isn't paper.

:: -- [[User:Schneelocke|Schneelocke]] ([[User talk:Schneelocke#top|talk]]) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
⏎
::: If it passes GNG, I don't see why it can't have an article, but a quick check is indicating that's not the case. Often the result in designer breed deletion discussions is "redirect to list of dog hybrids" (I'm not opposed to deleting, but obviously I have no power to do that or consensus even if I did). People are as interested in it as they are in the [[Pugapoo]] or [[Maltepoo]], and I sympathize, but there are so many crosses out there and so few reputable sources (Dog Breed Info is notorious); many of these are entirely unsourced. Designer breed articles are ''often'' (not always) created by single-purpose accounts, presumably because they own a [[Dorgi]] or [[Chug]]. That's fine, and I don't really have anything against crossbreeds, but that's separate from the question of whether or not they should all have articles. &ndash; [[User:Anna|<span style="color:#4CBB17;">'''anna'''</span>]] 23:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)