This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 10:54, 10 July 2024 (Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 10:54, 10 July 2024 by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) (Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maltese dog article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
_part_2.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Corrigenda
this revert states that the old lead has to be restored because the page deals with the modern Maltese breed, Well, patently untrue, When I glanced at it, most of the page was dedicated to some ostensible 'history' regarding ancient writers' views on the 'Maltese dog'.
Worst still, the evidence from ancient sources was unbelievably slipshod, messy, ragged, with unreliable secondary sources, even including dated Latin books or generic commentaries on Mediterranean going back centuries. There was, indeed, very little on the modern Maltese breed, and the page seemed polemically designed to undercut the opinion that Malta had anything to do with the modern variety. That is a contradiction. Why assert that the page is about the modern breed, and get spill so much virtual ink on classical references to a 'Maltese lap-dog'.
As a neutral editor, the answer was clear. The term 'Maltese dog', whatever its ancient topological denotation, has absor5bed earlier editors, so one corrects that by using the best contemporary classical scholarship to put some order into the citational mess and errant opinionizing about Martial, Pliny, Strabo et al., the earlier version provided. So the lead must cover both bases: (a) the term 'Maltese dog' in classical sources and (b) the distinct modern breed.
What is annoying is that, I assume, editors familiar with the modern breed have added almost nothing of value, sparse details, on the modern breed, but are very much engaged in trying to twist the ancient evidence to undercut any possible association of the earlier species known by the same name as related. Well, of course they are not known to be related. But the term has a continuity between antiquity and modern times, and therefore the page must cover both, and clarify the confusion.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC) Problems
- We use an article written by Chelsey Parrott-Sheffer,Maltese Encyclopedia Britannica-
The authoress wrote formerly 30 articles for the EB. Her link in profile says she is ‘Experienced Talent Development professional and certified executive coach with 12 years of experience working in the legal industry.’ The online EC is not a reliable source, esp. when the article happens to be written by a non-expert, who here asserts the probability of a highly contested view.'breed of toy dog named for the island of Malta, where it may have originated about 2,800 years ago.' Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The point here is that editors should not pick and choose bits and pieces from a grabbag of sources without discrimination, esp. when they contradict each other, as here.Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Citation style
There's been a formal objection to my adoption of a particular citational style in my overhaul of this article. I didn't think this important at the time, since this objection, and revert justification, has only emerged once, i.e. here, in the 900 articles which I have rewritten or created with software format Neil developed. People have of course raised occasional objections, but not to my format choice. But since Nableezy, - a redoubtable formalist, and stickler for the fine reading of policy, has wigged me on precisely this point - will be tempted seize the opportunity finally to cap his wiki ambitions by exploiting this oversight to take me to AE for a permaban, thereby proving he can, as often, succeed where a cast of hundreds have failed for two decades, I'll take the wigging seriously and go through the standard procedure.:)
- The page before my editing had several citational templates. There was no consensus.
- There were three reasons for my adoption of this style: Aesthetic effect: it's neat. (b) the possibility of adding notes for details that, though required, are philological or informative clarifications best hidden from the main text in footnotes to allow the reader to ignore them in reading, except if curiosity is spurred to verify the origins of information which most of the given sources fail to secure. It is a blight on this page that we have several texts citing a putative history of 'Maltese dogs' in classical sources, secondary texts written by dog lovers for dog lovers where patently these writers are people unfamiliar with the selfsame classical studies. Effectively we have meme reduplication between non-specialist sources, all drawing on positions that reflect, at best, ideas circulating loosely over a century ago
- For the record (bona fides) I did begin by using my preferred style for the new sources I began introducing while leaving most of the others in the format I found on the page. The result was a visual mess caused by something in the software that produced messages of template conflicts. Of course, technically I'm a moronic hack, and so, my solution was to redraft all using one sinhle template, with its virtue of citational uniformity.
- I'm no particularly worried about whatever citational form is eventually chosen, suffice it that the page, once reviewed thoroughly, adopt a single format. Once I'v finished the sadsack revision grind, with the format that enables me at least to rewrite the page efficiently, consensus will determine if it is then necessary to rework it with another model.
So I'd appreciate input on this. What are the objections to this format? Should we stick with the old page and its various conflicting templates or aspire to uniformity? etc.Nishidani (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Characteristics
In the Characteristics, it explains on the weight and height, but believe there is misinformation? Here is what I mean Adult weight is usually 3–4 kg (7–9 lb). Bitches are about 20–23 cm (8–9 in) tall, dogs slightly more. It's the Bitches are about 20–23 cm (8–9 in) tall, dogs slightly more. What are "bitches" in this context? I refuse to believe this breed has an demonym being "bitchs". (120.17.191.141 (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC))
- It’s the standard in English for referring to female dogs, generically. This isn’t a matter of opinion or what you choose to believe. 176.80.136.148 (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Different types of Maltese dogs breeds
Maltipoo's are a Maltese and Poodle mix that are highly intelligent. I am new to Misplaced Pages editing but I own a Maltipoo and am very excited to share my knowledge. Davnee09 (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Explanation of etymology of Malta in a dog breed article
@Nishidani why do you believe it's due/relevant to include this information in an article on a dog breed? It doesn't change anyone's understanding of the breed itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of belief, but of being thorough in covering the topic. One could anally demand that pages on dog breeds remove all historical documentation, and strip down to the essential stuff about their characteristics, behaviour, illnesses etc. The people with Maltese pups, and they are many, whom I've chatted with about their pets, have all been delighted by the colourful details of the history, the names, island confusion, etc. It's the kind of touch that good composition aims for, to enhance the pleasure of reading beyond mere data for utilitarian use. In the two years since I wrote it, it has averaged 1,000 viewers per diem, and of those 700,000 readers, you are the only one to express dissatisfaction with that detail.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- The rest of the history section is good but this one part is just undue and unneeded, you didn't for example explain the etymology of the other Melita for example. It veers too far off what is relevant to the dog breed. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion. But you are abusing WP:Undue, which is hardly an issue with a brief sentence. 'Veering off'? The etymology of the other Melita? Well, one writes to sources, and if sources don't speak of that, one has no reason to challenge sources that speak of the known etymology of the other Melita. It's not a 'dog breed'. The article is about the confusion between two different breeds, the ancient and the modern, who happen to share the same name, and I wrote the article because endless editors were confused or editwarring precisely because they weren't familiar with these details, which very much demand some linguistic explanation. The Carthaginian toponym for example may well account for one tradition that maintained this older breed came from that area. This is a silly tempest in a teapot. No harm is done by that snippet, and it enlivens the background and the readers' knowledge. Wiki articles are not written to satisfy one or another individual's preferences, but to provide a broad encyclopedic coverage which can attract readers with all kinds of different interests and curiosities. If you are not curious, just ignore the sentence. Don't loose sleep over it. No one else among the 700,000 browsers has.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- The rest of the history section is good but this one part is just undue and unneeded, you didn't for example explain the etymology of the other Melita for example. It veers too far off what is relevant to the dog breed. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)