Talk:Famous dogs

Article Checklist for "Famous dogs"

Workgroup category or categories	History Workgroup, Media Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	--Todd Coles 09:19, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

I'm not wedded to the idea of this article, but didn't think it should be in the biological article dog.

Certainly not sure about adding in fictional dogs, due to what happens at that other wiki with respect to the growth of lists at the expense of encyclopaedic knowledge.

Would appreciate opinions and suggestions. Better yet, go ahead and act.

Aleta Curry 22:55, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

What, Lassie was fictional, Ahh shucks.. ;-) Matt Innis (Talk) 23:13, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

hee hee hee--cheer up--I think "Lad" was based on a real dog!Aleta Curry 23:23, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

this isn't history--folklore (or anthropology) or classics maybe. Argos was fictional of course. ...said Richard Jensen (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

I suggest it should inclusively be classics, history, and media, since we are dealing with dogs ranging from mythology (e.g., Cerebrus), to ones of historical fame (e.g., Balto), to ones in popular culture (e.g., Scooby Doo). As for who will approve? Ideally, editors from all three? Stephen Ewen 01:58, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Given the way this is shaping up, I think the fictional dogs should probably be moved from here to "dogs in popular culture" or "fictional dogs", and this should be reserved for historic dogs for the sake of balance.

That having been said, I don't see why the workgroup should be anthropology rather than history?

Aleta Curry 18:36, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

p.s. to say that we could do it another way: move real-life dogs to Historical dogs or dogs in history or some such. Aleta Curry 19:38, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Given the general goofiness of this article, why not entries about "Hot dogs", "doggonit!", "She's a real dog!", "You son of a bitch!", etc., etc.? Hayford Peirce 23:47, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

You've convinced me, Hayford--historical dogs need to be moved outta here! Aleta Curry 19:27, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Images

This is a holding place for all images for possible later use in this article.

Balto

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnporcaro/113577600/ - free
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/russellbernice/481805651/ - free

Greyfriars Bobby

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/roblz/474683333/ -free
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellissay/231381229/ -free
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/chicago_photo_weblog/167023361/ -free

Laika

• http://astroprofspage.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/laika.jpg - ? - probably Public Domian

Source

http://www.citizenlunchbox.com/famous/dogs.html - Index of famous dogs throughout history

Fictional dogs?

Explain, I'm confused: what does it mean to say that Rin Tin Tin was real, while Lassie was fictional? Both "dog actors" were real, and both played in fictional stories. What's the difference? --Larry Sanger 10:28, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

As I understand it, Lassie, a female rough collie, was a character in written fiction; later the stories were adapted to the screen and TV. All of the dogs that portrayed Lassie, were, I believe, male. The actor's name was Pal. --Robert Rubin 14:26, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, Robert is right on all counts. Rin Tin Tin was a real dog, named Rin Tin Tin, who was extremely well-trained and went on to performance (films, public appearances, charity work....) Lassie was a fictional bitch character portrayed by a series of well-trained dogs. Good point, Larry--there's a difference between Rin Tin Tin,(dog actor) and Rin Tin Tin (fictional character). Aleta Curry 19:19, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Focus on "fame"?

Maybe, in order to make the article less of a listing of famous dogs, it should focus on fame. For instance, I've just added some famous dogs belonging to U.S. politicians and generals to the list. But the real reason the dogs are notable are that they humanized their owners. A few years ago I worked on a book with author Roy Rowan, First Dogs[1], that scented out this pattern. (Har har.) But it could make an interesting article if linked to research about why public figures need such "humanization" through the animals they own. --Robert Rubin 14:35, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, Robert, but I'd also distiguish between notability and genuine fame. An example--people know off hand who Balto and Greyfriars Bobby are--but a president's dog is usually only known for the period the human is in office. Hmm...let me think about this.

Certainly, I think your idea has merit--is there only this one work on the subject? Is there a lot of research? Go ahead and write it up!

Aleta Curry 19:25, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Anthro workgroup?

I think this probably does not belong in the Anthropology Workgroup and should be removed - How about a workgroup on famous animals?

14:32, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm inclined to agree, but Richard threw it out of History and suggested Anthro (see above).

I confess I do not know. I can always place it in that category for things-with-no-category

We can't just create new cats, we have to use the workgroups we have.

Aleta Curry 17:24, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

• Ok - just wondering while trying to learn the way the system works!

Lee R. Berger 03:22, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

OK, I've added history and removed anthropology (message left on RJ's talk page). Maybe someone can explain why anthopology should be added, because several of us (including an anthropologist don't get that. --Larry Sanger 03:46, 12 August 2007 (CDT)