Talk:Cockapoo/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Cockapoo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Updates

Well it appears that someone did not like the 6 hours of work I put into updating this page. Why they think they know more is beyond me.. Oh they own a cockapoo so they must know it all. I am the founder and run the American cockapoo club with many years of experience in the "breed".. I will change it back, and I will keep changing it back..

You will now see some updates to this. The American Cockapoo Club standard is the correct standard and very deatailed. The American Cockapoo Club also requires that there be cockapoo to cockapoo breeding which will give us 2nd and 3rd generation. By the 3rd generation there is more predictabilty in the outcome of the cockapoo as far as genetics (look etc..) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clippclan (talk • contribs) .

Your edit was reverted because it violated the American Cockapoo Club's copyright. If you continue to insert it, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME??? I OWN the american cockapoo club! Karla J CLippinger--Clippclan 04:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We have no way of verifying that; see Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission for instructions on how you can handle this. In any case, stating that the text is "copyright American Cockapoo Club ... Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this licensed document, but changing it is not allowed." is incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing terms; you'll have to release it under GFDL for it to go here. Remember that Wikipedia is a community encyclopedia. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? Because I already talk to a woman from Wikipedia and she said there was NO problem with be editing this. You most certainly can find out easily who has copyrights to the ACC, and that it is ME.. So you tell me in plain english what I have to do to get you to back off!!??? I honestly think your full of it and just get off on doing this.. Clippclan 05:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Who did you talk to, and where? I don't see anything in your contributions that matches. Additionally, you've still got a "Copyright Karla Clippinger" in there; that still isn't OK. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, tell my why I cannot put copyright information on there? Is this the ONLY problem? If so I will remove it..Like I said, plain english would work wonders.. Clippclan 06:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This was my first time doing anything in here. I saw the page and emaile WIK, to tell them their info was incorrect and gave them the correct info from my web site. Someone wrote me back and told me to sign in, and change it if I wanted to.. I had NO idea I could do this. So about a week later I cme in and did it. SO when I checked in for another eason I saw it had been changed back and some of my pics removed. So I checked around and found out how to revert it back..

Now if you had a problem with something I was or wasn't doing you should have told me, I do not understand all this beating around the bush and you just confused me. Now if you had said, hey Karla, remove anything saying copyright, I would of understood that. As far as I can tell that is what you are saying correct? Thank you for the gallery view of the pictures. I was trying to do that before and I could only do it in tables.. KarlaClippclan 06:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I wasn't aware that you were the owner of that document. Wikipedia gets a lot of copy/paste from random web sites, and that's not permissible - it could put us in a lot of trouble with copyright owners; anything we publish on the site has to be ours alone. The one issue that still remains is that - to an editor who hadn't seen this - it would look as though this was still a copyright violation.

The best way that I can come up with to handle this would be to change the original page the standards appear on. Because of how Wikipedia's articles are licensed (GFDL), a statement that "Wikipedia may reproduce this text" will not suffice. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for details. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs to be written more in the form of an actual entry. Ohyeahmormons 01:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was being helpful. More at your talk page. Quill 01:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio blanked

After seeing this page on the POV dispute page, I completely removed the sections Appearance and Temperament, as they were both thinly veiled copyvio from here. If someone can add the information in a way that is more than just a subtle rewording of that website, go ahead and put them back in.

On the bright side, it looks like I took care of your POV problem for you, as the disputed section is now gone. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 15:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep; I ran into this issue earlier. Clippclan (talk · contribs) - the contributor of that text - appears to be the owner of that site; however, we never really got proper copyright permission. Zetawoof^(ζ) 15:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Contributor has the following text on page User:Clippclan:

My name is Karla Clippinger and I am the founder and CEO of the American Cockapoo Club. Only I have persmission to change my own breed standard on this site. If someone changes my words I will hold you legally responsible! The American Cockapoo Club all rights reserved Clippclan 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That is, of course, a direct contradiction to the policy here. I'll alert the user of the problem, but it looks like the text needs to stay out unless that gets replaced with a GFDL release. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

whatever, I am done with this.. The sections Appearance and Temperament,comes from The american cockapoo clubs breed standard: , in which myself and our board wrote. They are similar because it is the same darn breed of dog..DUH..I just plain give up..do what you want with the page,,now someone is adding ugly dogs that do not even look like a cockapoo (last pic)--Clippclan 10:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

six hours was not enough cleanup

please use spell chek. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.14.160 (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Photoshop Puppy Clean-up

January 14, 2008 I'm not sure what the protocol is for commenting on this discussion page. Do the newest comments go first? I hope so. I modified the cockapoo puppy to get rid of the glare in the eyes and I brightened the colors in the photo a bit. I hope that's OK. If not, the author of the photo can revert to the previous version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurajbo (talk • contribs) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How do I remove my pictures from this site?

I want to remove my pictures from my gallery and from this site and I cannot find how to delete them!! can someone help please? I no longer want to give permission for use as people are taking them and using them on their own web sites.. Thanks clippclan 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to request their deletion. Determine what images they are and tag them. See WP:DEL. - Revolving Bugbear 23:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

NOTE: The class of this article needs to be re-reviewed as it has undegone many revisions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurajbo (talk · contribs) 14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources for other names

Would it be possible to find sources for the alternate names of this breed? I removed cockerdoodle, thinking at first that it was nonsense. After seeing some forum links that support the name, I've replaced it. There still needs to be reliable sources that mention these names somewhere... --Onorem 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A Cockerdoodle is not a name for the cockapoo. Check the breed registries, it is not used. The only one used by ANY cockapoo registry including the CKC is cockapoo! So I have removed it along with some other things added that made no sense.. Only american cockers are supposed to be used, check our breed standard!

Your reliable sources would be a cockapoo registry/club.. check the american cockapoo club..You just cannot go around making up new names for an already established breed.clippclan

Okay, a cockapoo is a MUTT. It's a designer mix. People call them whatever they want. Cockapoos, Cockerdoodles, Spandles, etc. It's not an 'established breed'. It isn't a breed. Those are just a bunch of people who got together and created a club. Designer dogs are called whatever someone wants to call them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiotMonday (talk • contribs) 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

does anyone else think that 'cockapoo' is a singularly unfortunate (or, perhaps singluarly apt) name for a dog? 216.165.244.123 (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't know....I had a cockapoo when I was a kid, and "poo" was not his problem.....he was named "Puddles" because he kept leaving them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.66.3 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Health, History, Appearance

Under Health: "Cockapoos tend to have far fewer genetic problems than their parent breeds" Where is the proof of that?

Questioning the first paragraph in History, also Appearance and Health, in that: 1. The Cockapoo club of American and the North American Cockapoo Registry both denounce the breeding of cockapoo to cockapoo at this time. The North American Cokapoo Registry specifies that this is a first generation cross.

2. Appearance: Actually, several sizes are delineated by the clubs. I realize that the paragraph says 'usually'.

3. Health: I recommend rephrasing. It sounds like a claim of genetic superiority, which would not be certain with a first generation cross.

Quill 07:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like it's worth mentioning that there might be 2 schools of thought on the breeding. Also worth clarifying that there are a lot of unknowns in this breed but that *possible* sizes/health could be... Elf | Talk 21:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"EXCUSE ME??? I OWN the american cockapoo club!" LoL. That and two dollars will get you a coffee and a donut!

maurajbo:

1. Go ahead and add more info. More info is always better. Add, "The Cockapoo Club of America and the North American Cockapoo Registry currently do not recommend breeding cockapoo to cockapoo, because..." Cite a reference, because someone may want to look up more information about this.

2. Again, feel free to add more info. Add, "The xxxx Club delineates xx sizes of cockapoos. The largest is... The smallest is..."

This would be great, because it will make the article more informative and that's always a good thing. It's important to have information about cockapoo size, because someone would want to know its size if they were considering a cockapoo for a pet. "How big is this dog?"

3. I agree about the "fewer genetic problems." If that is still in the article, I will remove it. Maurajbo (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?

Which links to cockapoo info sources are allowed and why?

I added a temperament section to the cockapoo wiki page, but have repeatedly had my source link, and an external link to that same site, which I consider an authoritative site on cockapoos, removed. The site does feature adsense and has a page promoting a book, but so do most of the other sites linked to and uncontested on the cockapoo wiki page. There are breeders, cockapoo clubs, and others linked to without issue, but although the www.cockapoocrazy.com site features dozens of free and informative articles above and beyond what is offered by most sites, and has become a popular site for cockapoo info, it doesn't make the cut. I intended to use this and a couple of other sources to add even more relevant material to this section, but refuse to do so if they will simply be deleted. What is the specific issue with this website, why is it vandalism to include the link, so that I don't include other information sources and links like it in the future?Psychocy (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In order for it to be considered a reliable source, it needs to be shown that the author of any information is an authoritive source on the subject. Who are the authors of the information on cockapoocrazy and what makes them an expert on the subject? Miyagawa (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, I never realized how difficult adding info to Wikipedia would be. The author of the seemingly unattributed articles on Cockapoo Crazy is the site owner, Edward Sweet (who wrote the 2011 & 2012 Cockapoo Owner's Handbooks,) but other original articles are attributed as being by Jordan Family Kennels and other dog breeders. There are probably 100+ articles on the site, all original & free, and exclusively featuring cockapoo information. I am of the opinion that this site is no different than other sites listed, and actually has more info. Take the site of the user (user JonLangford) who originally chose to delete the source reference and external link. His own cockapoo enthusiast site (cockapooclubgb) is listed and contains some articles. Certainly this site equals that one in terms of information, as it does with the breeder site listed, and several of the other sites. Psychocy —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC).

See WP:SOURCES for info on sourcing policy. Also WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:THIRDPARTY for more info. WP:EL for external links policy. For a topic like designer dogs, it's difficult to gauge what is a reliable source. WP:CONFLICT is a guideline that addresses problems with conflict of interest. Anyone can edit wikipedia so just because one person remove something does not mean that it is not allowed. Similarly just because something stays in the article does not mean that it is allowed. Enforcement of guidelines and policies can vary between articles depending on editors' interest and their familiarity with policies. Feel free to be bold and remove anything that is inappropriate. --Dodo bird (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the site and the ebook(which is self-published and actually has no author information other than attribution to the website) and have to conclude that they don't meet the reliable source standard. If you happen to be Edward Sweet, you should take a closer look at the COI policy.--Dodo bird (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I will stop trying to help with the cockapoo wiki. The book that Edward Sweet wrote is self-published, but I didn't know that diminished the value of the content of a website the author writes for. If you recall, I was linking to the site as a source, not linking to the book. Regardless, the fact that breeders also link to the site, that the book is popular and well-reviewed, the articles are accurate and numerous, and so many thousands of cockapoo owners worldwide are active on the site's FaceBook fan page made me think it generally acceptable as an info source in a field rather devoid of info sources. Obviously, I was wrong about what qualifies as useful information.Psychocy —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

The self-published policy also applies to websites. Try reading some of the links Dodo bird gave you. Just because there are no good reliable sources doesn't mean that we should accept unreliable sources. Neither popularity nor usefulness are indications of the reliability of a source. These are just Dodo bird's interpretation of policies and guidelines and Dodo bird might not necessarily be correct.--Dodo bird (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Colors

Pictures

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 consensus was to remove the images from the article

As we're apparently entering edit war territory with the set of "1 week - 2 weeks - etc" images on this page, I'd like to open discussion on them so we can reach consensus on if we'd like to keep them in the article.

I say they should go; not only does it disrupt the appearance of the article, WP is not a photo gallery for the growth of your dog. No other dog article has an image sequence like this because it's unnecessary; we know what the puppies look like (there are numerous puppy images) and we know what the adult dog looks like - we don't need a growth cycle that stretches far beyond the end of the article without adding any substantial information to the text.

Pinging @Themastereditor3000: and @Sagaciousphil: I'm also going to post a link to this on WP:DOG. --TKK ^{bark !} 22:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove - the article is overloaded with images that do not illustrate any relevant text. The text is only around 537 words (3291 characters) so cannot justify the inclusion of nine images. I also don't feel this series of images add any encyclopaedic value and, particularly as this is a cross breed, other pups are likely to look very different; the article states: "While some Cockapoos appear more similar to Cocker Spaniels, others will exhibit more Poodle traits, creating a variation in Cockapoo appearance and temperament." So how does four/five pics of the same dog convey these differences? It looks as if these images have been removed by a number of other editors in the past. To be honest, I also have reservations about the refs used and the list of external links given. The article needs an overhaul and some TLC - I'm afraid it's not something I could undertake myself though! SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Remove - They don't have a place in this article unless there is something unique about the growth of a Cockapoo as opposed to any other breed of dog. However, they might warrant being placed in the Puppy article as a gallery (rather than using the image tags) as in that article, the images of a dog at different ages might actually be useful. Miyagawa (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove. I can understand why people might want to upload lots of photos of their dog, but they overwhelm the article. What we need is more sourced content, not more pictures of family pets. bobrayner (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Caveat Sorry to shift topics, but this brings up an interesting point. A gallery of "ideally posed" cockapoo pictures would be a fine addition to the article. It should be captioned to illustrate the point that cockapoos, as a crossbreed, not a breed, don't breed true; they exhibit all sorts of features. When I said "ideally posed" I was referring to that standard profile, as if posed for a dog show, as you see in dog breed charts on the veterinarian's walls. Everyone who owns a cockapoo should upload such a picture to the commons, we could choose the best and illustrate this and also maybe the article crossbreed dog with it, to make the same point over there; the difference between a breed and a crossbreed. As one of the most common crossbreeds, the cockapoo would be a great choice for this. So in this way, the observed urge among owners to add pictures to this article could be harnessed into article improvement. So I support removing these pictures but at the same time just suggest we say to such contributors, thank you but please add an "idealized" picture to a special place, maybe a section on this talk page, set aside for this purpose, and to explain about it. Chrisrus (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That side tangent there, about the 'show posed' (the word you want is 'stacked') dog pictures as a gallery to show the differences? That is a genius idea. Maybe WP:DOG can campain a bit and get people to take those photos: there's gotta be a lot of Wikipedians who own cockapoos (or other -poos) who also own cameras. --TKK ^{bark !} 21:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We could do something like this: Chrisrus (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2013 (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.

Important error!

Picture Gallery

Why would we not include a picture of a cockapoo growing up. This is a breed that can have inconsistent traits. Seeing how they evolve seems important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themastereditor3000 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the picture gallery a lot. It's important to include pictures of several cockapoos, because some cockapoos look very different from others. So giving one picture does not accurately tell people what these dogs look like. By including a gallery, people can get a much better idea of how cockapoos look. Y'all agree?

I do think we should make a couple of rules though:

1. No cockapoos that are mixed with other breeds. It's a site about cockapoos, so we shouldn't confuse people by including cockapoo/border collies or cockapoo/shelties or anything like that.

2. The gallery should only include one picture of each dog.

What do you guys think?

Maurajbo (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but it may not be practical when you consider the variations in F1 cockapoos caused by differences in the American Cocker, English Show Cocker and English Working Cocker bred against the different sizes of Poodle. Throw in variations caused by breeding further generations and you have a huge task. Differences in grooming styles will also have an effect, meaning that the task is huge and would not be indicative of any particular "Breed Standard". Eddoubois (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Pinging @Sagaciousphil:, @Bobrayner:, @Tikuko:, and @Chrisrus:, as you were involved in the initial discussion. Themastereditor3000, please do not re-add these images to the article unless a consensus to do so is reached here. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As before, I think we should have a gallary of pictures of identically "stacked" (side-view, stood "dog show style") photos of a bunch of cockapoos, with a caption saying that the purpose of the gallary is to support the statement that, as a crossbred dog, cockapoos show great variation, from ones that look almost like a cocker, then almost like a poodle, but all kinds of combinations between those extremes. That would also make a good addition to the article "crossbreed" to illustrate that crossbreeds don't "breed true". Cockapoos are among the most common of crossbreeds, so they seem a good choice for that article also. Chrisrus (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, I simply do not think that adding a host of images in such a manner is constructive to the article. A single Cockerpoo at various ages does not benefit the article at all unless it shows something unique to the breed. I agree that due to crossbreed variation, a gallery of different dogs posed in the same manner would be beneficial. I'm still not opposed to the images in question being placed on the Puppy article as a gallery. Miyagawa (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Miyagawa and my opinion above stands. The image sequence of the growing cockapoo should be removed: It doesn't "demonstrate the differences" of anything except a growing puppy, it imparts no important information, it clutters the article, and it seems to be included simply because "LOOK AT MY CUTE DOG!! ISN'T MY DOG CUTE!!" I have no objection to a 2x2 image showing different, individual cockapoos or a small gallery showing a sampling; but these should be separate dogs and not simply a sequence of the same dog. I also have no objection to adding the growing cockapoo sequence to the Puppy article. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 23:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I also can only re-iterate my statement previously - this is a cross breed and the variations from one 'Cockapoo' to another, even between siblings, can be vast; to include a series of images of one animal is not illustrating anything here and adds nothing of encyclopaedic value to the article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)