Talk:List of individual dogs

comment

I want to have a list of famous dog people such as Emily Carr, Martha Stewart, possibly breeders but even just those famous for their love of dogs. What do you think? Can it fit in this category? dan

Should we edit this to add in Ong Fatt, the six-legged dog? He has gotten quite a lot of fame lately.

---

Thanks, I was trying to find Checkers :) ~ender

---

What is a historical dog ? Dogs that are no more and moved into history ? How are George Bush's dogs "historical" dogs ? Jay 06:52, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's noticeable that most of the dogs on this list are simply the pets of various American presidents. I think we could do better. Deb 21:21, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Please have a look at the title-change discussion at Talk:List_of_historical_animals#Historical or Historic ?. Not many seem to have that page in their watchlist. Jay 21:08, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I think I like the subdivisions that were just created. I'm going to add "Famous" to the subheads, though, because there's a distinction between famous dogs of presidents and merely dogs that presidents owned. E.g., Checkers is way for sure howzah famous. And lots of people have heard of Roosevelt's Fala (I don't know why, that was a long time ago). But it seems useful to keep this list distinguished from List of U.S. Presidential pets which doesn't imply that all of the animals on that list are famous. If I'm making sense while sleep deprived... Elf | Talk 05:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I plan to remove the word "historical" from the article name. See Talk:List_of_historical_animals for further discussion. Jay 08:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I saw that discussion and I'm not sure that I agree with it unless we replace the adjective with another one, such as "List of famous dogs". "List of dogs" is just wayyyy too general, and loses focus. Elf | Talk 14:52, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions says no adjectives like "famous", "noted", "important", etc are to be used. The page also uses this page as an example citing the word "historic", but I plan to remove that and thats what this discussion is about. Jay 15:37, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It also says "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." So once this becomes "list of dogs", what's to stop it from containing fictional dogs, mythical dogs, dog names that are popular but don't apply to any particular dog, and so on? Somehow we need to distinguish this as *real* dogs with some fame to them. I guess we could put a paragraph at the top that says "this is a list of dogs who actually existed and are well-known for some reason" but it seems that the title should reflect that as well, no? If there's a list of fictional dogs, seems there ought to be its counterpart. I could ake this discussion back over to that list if you think I really ought to-- Elf | Talk 16:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is good that you're open to this discussion. Firstly, to clarify, I'm ok with the list of fictional dogs list because its a specific category, and I'm not talking of merging that with this page. Secondly I'm ok with not one, but plenty of counterparts for list of fictional dogs. My point of discussion is that "historical" is not a valid category. "mythical dogs", "dog names that are popular but don't apply to any particular dog" are ok. Please continue this discussion at Talk:List of fictional animals if applicable. Jay 16:42, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, no, I want an edit war and then get a bunch of people pissed off! ... Oh, all right, I'll go quietly to the other discussion. And I thought I was just quietly hiding in the random-dog-pages area where no one else ever went so I didn't *have* to discuss anything. ;-) ... Elf | Talk 16:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

hehe, I've been trying to find out what is a "historical" dog since 14 Nov (see top of page). Jay 16:50, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Somebody should add a note about 'Zeus & Apollo' from the TV series Magnum P.I. there probably notable enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.71.72.57 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Shouldn't the dog's from the movies Marley and Me, Underdog, Beverly Hills Chihuhua, Space Buddies, Snow Buddies, Beethoven, Old Yeller, Racing Stripes, Eight Below, Zues and Roxanne, And All Dogs Go To Heaven be on the list. There should also be a note about famous dogs from books.

I think Fido, president Lincoln's dog should be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.59.147 (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hachiko

I've added an English translation (with some expansion) of the Japanese page on Hachiko -- comments welcome. adamrice 17:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cool! Looks pretty good. I'm not familiar with "filaria", though; possible there's another spelling? Elf | Talk 17:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, filaria is a word in my English dictionary, and it's what my J-E dictionary gave for the word used in the source. On closer reading, "filaria" is the name of the parasite, and "filariasis" is the name of the affliction with same. There may be a more colloquial term, but I haven't found it. adamrice 19:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Hachiko article is simply wonderful BTW. I saw the japanese film about Hachicko about 8 years ago and cried my ever-lovin' eyes out at the end. It features a scene of Hatchiko dying in the snow from exposure and then at the moment of death seeing the professor again and running to jump into the professors arms, reunited at long last. Man, did I bawl. Nothing like a loyal dog story to turn on thre fuacets, eh?Lisapollison 13:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The N-word (notability)

I propose that the list be trimmed, and edited in the future, to include only dogs that show notability either in a dedicated article, or in a referenced mention in a related article. It is just too easy to add the dog of every single famous person and this list is about famous dogs, not dogs owned by famous people. —Dgies^t c 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Why is Astro, the Jetson's talking dog listed on this page for non-fictional dogs? He's listed under Television and Space Dogs. 64.210.30.198 20:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

users are always adding fictional dogs to the list for some reason. I just removed a few. When you see them - delete them and list the reason as the fact that they are fictional. If you see dogs listed without a reference, look for a reference yourself if you can and add it. If you can't find one and it looks as if someone just wants to list their own dog - delete it.LiPollis 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm going to have a go at rewording this: "Natividad, a dog starved to death in a controversial display by artist Guillermo Vargas Habacuc in the Visual Arts Biennial of Central America" because I think it's been fairly conclusively shown from the various investigations that the dog was not starved to death by the artist, just taken from the streets and displayed until he escaped. Omgplz (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim the Wonder Dog

There's a non-trivial amount of chatter about this psychic dog from the Depression elsewhere on the internet. I'm trying to puzzle out why there's no mention of him here. This article was put up very recently (dated next month): http://www.ruralmissouri.org/10pages/10MarchJimWonderDog.html It's a reprint of an article from 1979 written by an eye witness. He also has a website dedicated to his memory: http://www.jimthewonderdog.com/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepSkyFrontier (talk • contribs) 04:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

i need to now how tto teach my dog tricks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.55.179 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bob the Railway Dog

added Bob the Railway Dog to the list. Sulzer55 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

images of famous dogs

Please consider my website, Famous Dog Names, www.jimwegryn.com/Names/Dogsall.php for an external link on the "List of Dogs" Wikipedia page. It has images as well as links to Wikipedia entries.

Jim Wegryn 71.41.114.101 (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Faithful dogs

Dogs who made amazing journeys to reunite with their families

• Bobbie, the Wonder Dog, after accidental abandonment on a cross-country trip, Bobbie made his way back over 2800 miles to his family's home.
• Baekgu, the Korean Jindo Dog, After being sold by original owner due to economical hardship, to a new owner 300 km away, came back to the original owner after 7 months.

There are only two? C'mon. We've all heard such stories, haven't we? We need to {{expand article}}!Chrisrus (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Dogs who would not leave dead owner

• Fido, a mixed-breed dog, whose master, Carlo Soriani, had died in an air raid over Borgo San Lorenzo (near Florence, in Italy) in 1943, during World War II. Fido waited in vain, for the following 14 years, for Soriani's return, going daily at the bus stop in Luco del Mugello (a frazione of Borgo) where the man used to get off after coming home from work.
• Greyfriars Bobby, a Skye Terrier in Edinburgh, Scotland, was loyal to his master long after his master's death in 1858. Until Bobby's death 14 years later, he reportedly spent every night at his master's grave. A statue in memorial of Greyfriars Bobby was erected near the graveyard.
• Heidi, a Jack Russell Terrier from Scotland, made her way down a 500 foot vertical drop to get to the body of her owner (after he fell to his death while hiking) and stood guard over his body for days in 2001.
• Hachikō, an Akita who became a symbol of loyalty in Japan, is now honored by a statue in Tokyo. Hachikō is famous for his loyalty to his long dead master, by returning to the train station and waiting for his master to return, every day for the next nine years during the time the train was scheduled to arrive.
• Old Shep, a Border Collie, who - after seeing the coffin of his master loaded onto a train in Fort Benton, Montana in 1936 - maintained a vigil at the station for six years.
• Squeak, a Jack Russel Terrier who would not leave the body of his owner, Zimbabwean farmer Terry Ford, after Ford was murdered in 2002 by a violent mob carrying out Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe's land seizure programs. The photo of little Squeak guarding Ford's bloody body raised world-wide awareness of land-related violence in Zimbabwe.
• Waghya, Chhatrapati Shivaji's pet dog. Waghya is known as the epitome of loyalty and eternal devotion. After Shivaji's death, the dog mourned and jumped into his master's funeral pyre and immolated himself. A statue was put up on a pedestal next to Shivaji's tomb at Raigad Fort.
• Leao, a mix breed who stayed by the side of her owner who died on January 2011 during Brazil's flood. His owner was Cristina Cesário Maria Santana. Her body (along with other 3 bodies of members of the family) was retrieved by the rescuers after looking at the dog digging over some mud.
• Hawkeye, a Labrador retriever, stayed by the coffin of his owner, Jon Tumilson, a Navy Seal who was killed in Afghanistan in 6 August, 2011 when the CH-47 Chinook he was riding on was shot down by a rocket propelled grenade.
• The yellow dog of Lao Pan. After his master, who had no family apart from the dog, died in November, 2011, his unnamed dog attracted worldwide media attention for refusing to leave his gravesite.

Dogs who saved their owner's lives

• Pompey, a Pug that foiled an assassination attempt on the life of William The Silent, Prince of Orange.

Dogs named in notable legal cases

• Old Drum, an American Foxhound whose death at the hands of a neighbor was the subject of a lawsuit and George Graham Vest's famous closing argument "Eulogy to a Dog."

Dogs belonging to large groups of people

• Bob the Railway Dog a loyal traveller and drivers companion on the South Australian Railways in the late 19th century.
• Gelert is the name of a legendary dog associated with the village of Beddgelert.

Comments

Some of these aren't really famous for being faithful so much as heroic. I moved Saihu and Wang Wang to "Rescue Dogs." The Village Dog and the workplace dog were famous for sticking to a whole community. Chrisrus (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Rule:

In order to qualify for inclusion, a dog can:

1. Have a cited article we can link to on Wikipedia about him/her, or
2. Have a cited article section we can link to on Wikipedia about him/her or
3. Have a cited article section subsection that we can link to about the dog or
4. Be cited here.
   1. Dogs that have linkable Wikipedia articles, sections, or subsections DO NOT NEED CITATIONS SO DON'T PUT "CITATION NEEDED"
   2. Linkless dogs should have citation or a defender who is trying to find a citation and is asking us to wait.
   3. Linkless dogs must be cited to a book or article or some such about the dog, or which has a section or subsection about the dog. And that should meet some reasonable, to-be-discussed-when-in-doubt standard of famousness.

And that's it. NO OTHER DOGS.

Chrisrus (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Dachshunds"

The right term is "Dachshunde" not "Dachshunds". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.89.66 (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to "List of individual dogs": looks like the favorite option. DrKiernan (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

---

List of dogs → List of famous dogs – Current title is ambiguous... it could be confused with List of dog breeds (Poodle, Pit Bull, Pomeranian, etc.) and List of dog types (Companion dog, Guard Dog, Working dog, etc.). While we normally don't add adjectives like "notable", "famous", "well known", etc. I think this is a case where doing so would clarify the article topic and aid searching. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• What about List of individual dogs? Powers ^T 14:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support The most important thing about an article title is that it clearly indicate what the article is about and distinguish it from other articles. I could support adding "notable", "famous", or "individual" or maybe some other ideas. More importantly, however, the guidelines should be changed so that they clarify when this should and should not be done, which is more important than just list of dogs. If also applies to list of trees and several others. Chrisrus (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I've been thinking about which adjective we should request it be moved to so that we can specify what the move requst we are making is. Let's look at the choices:

"List of individual dogs" is a good idea, but I suppose it might needlessly exclude any notable packs, pairs, teams such as a sled team, or other groups of two or more dogs that we might want to add. What if a conjoined twin dog is born tomorrow? It could happen, and then "individual" might not turn out to have been the best choice.

"List of notable dogs" and "list of famous dogs" seem to be good choices. What difference, if any, might there be? Is "notable" a higher bar than "famous"? On Wikipedia, "Notablity" might imply that there should be a full article on each dog, because every notable thing in the world should have an article on Wikipedia. It might be harder to prove "notablity" than simply "fame". All you have to do to establish fame is to show that a large number of people have heard of the dog, while "notablability" might be somehow harder to prove. Many lists exist in order to accomodate items which aren't notable enough to merit their own articles, but still famous or important enough to improve a list. So based on this thinking, I favor moving it to "List of famous dogs". What do you all think? Chrisrus (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support; looks like a perfectly good way to avoid reader confusion. (I could live with variations such as "list of notable dogs"). bobrayner (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support moving this somewhere and making present title a disambiguation page pbp 20:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is a listing of notable dogs, not every single dog on the planet. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 01:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• rename to List of individual dogs like how other animal lists of famous individual animals are named; which also clarifies that this is a list of individual dogs and not dog breeds. Wikipedia's notability requirements will cull any dog on the list that isn't notable enough. The current title should be disambiguated to the various lists. -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support As per the category naming last year, I support renaming to List of individual dogs. Miyagawa (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support List of individual dogs. I once argued as Hillcrest does, but see WP:LIST#List naming. Words like "famous" and "notable" should be avoided in these titles when there's a suitable alternative, and in this case, there is. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support List of individual dogs; Strongly oppose use of "famous" or "notable." If a list is titled famous, we would need a source for each list member saying that the list member is famous; otherwise to (implicitly) call the list member famous is original research. Same goes for "notable." That is why the WP:SAL guideline says what it does, and there is strong consensus against use of "famous" or "notable" in list titles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please everyone hear me out because I hope to convince you all that "List of famous dogs" is the best choice:

• "List of individual dogs" isn't as good because it doesn't describe list items such as Lucky and Flo, who are not an individual.
• "List of notable dogs" isn't as good because it might imply WP:NOTABILITY, a standard which list items such as Maui and Blondi can't meet.
• "List of famous dogs" describes the nature and scope of the article and distinguishes it from other lists the best of all the choices.
• "List of dogs" doesn't describe the nature and scope of the article or distinguish it from other lists, as per WP:ARTICLETITLE. Chrisrus (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"List of individual dogs" doesn't exclude pairs. Lucky and Flo are each individual dogs, and they'd both be listed. It's not a problem if they're on the same bullet point. And while I agree "List of notable dogs" is a bad choice, it's not for the reasons you state. If dogs on this list don't meet WP:GNG, they shouldn't be on here, should they? (What's so special about Maui and Blondi?) --BDD (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Pairs, groups, teams, and packs of dogs are clearly not individuals, but if they are famous they are included on this list. List of individual dogs is a pretty good name and much better than simply List of dogs, but it doesn't explain well the criteria for inclusion as well as List of famous dogs. List of famous dogs describes this list better than List of individual dogs" does.

And no, the criteria for inclusion on lists isn't as high as that for articles. For example, there is the List of minor Star Wars characters, or List of minor planets. Lists may also contain things which are worthy of mention, only, and why they must be notable in a generic way, they don't have to be specifically WP:NOTABLE.

About Maui and Blondi, I don't know because I don't edit that section, but if you check on it and find that they are not famous, they should be removed. But apparently, there is this famous supermodel who is well known for going everywhere with her two dogs, and so her fame has rubbed off on them. When a famous person takes her dogs with her wherever she goes and has her picture taken over and over with the dogs and so the dogs magazine covers with the model and go on TV talk shows with her, the dogs become famous and should be included on a list of famous dogs. If you would please check up on the facts of that case and if it doesn't turn out to be the case, they should be removed as not really famous dogs. Looking at it now, this section of dogs famous for being owned by famous people should probably be looked over because some of them might not be famous in their own rights, but if it's true that Maui and Blondi aren't really famous than they should be removed because only famous dogs should be on this list. Chrisrus (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support moving to List of individual dogs, for consistency with Category:Individual dogs, noting that the category also contains "multi-dog" articles such as Lucky and Flo. Don't support moving to List of famous dogs or List of notable dogs because some of the dogs in the list aren't famous or notable in their own right (they just belong(ed) to famous/notable people). DH85868993 (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a list of famous dogs, only. If there are some dogs on the list which are not famous, they should be removed. The title being "famous dogs" will help us enforce this. If we leave it as only "individual", it will not help us remove any unfamous dogs. The word "famous" will help us improve the article. The word "individual"; not so much. Chrisrus (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Borf! Borf! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The word "famous" is really subjective. Can we avoid that at all costs? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

But a list of famous dogs is what this is. I'm not sure if it's a list of truely WP:NOTABLE dogs, because that means they are all worthy of independant articles. A pack of 75 dogs is not an individual, and a list of individual dogs doesn't really describe this list nearly as well. And I don't see why "notable" is any less subjective, there's still plenty of gray area there. Changing it to a list of notable dogs would mean Wikipedia wouldn't know anything about many of these dogs, such as Spot or La China. Wouldn't that fundamentally change the nature of the list, and not in a good way? I don't know how literally you meant it when you said "at all costs", but surely there are costs that too high. Is it really less objective than notable? Chrisrus (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of move request to also Move "List of Dogs" to "List of dogs (disambiguation)"

As mentioned earlier, please also in addition to moving this article to "List of famous dogs", let's also move "List of dogs" to "List of dogs (disambiguation)". At the title "List of dogs" there should be links to all the lists of dogs we have on Wikipedia, including this one. It will be a list of lists! Chrisrus (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not necessary. We already have articles such as List of lists of women, so List of lists of dogs can be created. (Be bold!) List of dogs (disambiguation) could redirect there, but it doesn't strike me as a particularly likely search term. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that works, too. So scratch that last bit and we go with this: First we do the above move of this page to "List of famous dogs", and then also make "List of dogs" into a redirect to List of lists of dogs, where we house all the lists of dogs. Chrisrus (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems over the top, frankly. The disambiguation page should be sufficient. DrKiernan (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Famous "for" or "as a result of" being owned by a famous person?

The section on dogs famous for belonging to notable people needs cleanup. Many are unannotated or underannotated. Many are uncited and/or unlinked. This is a list of famous dogs. One way that a dog can become famous is by hanging out in public with a famous person. If Schfamous McNotable never goes anywhere without a poodle named Charlie, then Charlie might appear on the cover of notable magazines or sit in a chair next to him on lots of TV talk shows or other things that would cause Charlie to become famous. It is not clear looking at this that this is the case with many of these dogs. It seems some contributors might have misunderstood and if they learned that some moviestar had a dog named Rover, added Rover to the list. Rover isn't famous because the moviestar leaves him at home and doesn't bring him on The Tonight Show. Should all dogs that are not famous even though they belong to famous people be removed from the list? Should the section title be reworded? Chrisrus (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hatnotes and lead sentence

It's odd. I'll say that. The hats take up a lot of space with the double spacing thing, plus they should be at the top, but shouldn't be at the top:

Possible solutions:

• Wait till the article is renamed. Then some may not be needed.
• Make the hats manually so we can customize them into one line or maybe one sentence.
• Lose the hats, and incorporate the info into a larger lead.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no need to wait, please try to fix them into one line or sentence or incorporate them into a longer lead, or anything else you might think of. Chrisrus (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Mascots

We need to clarify the inclusion criteria in relation to mascots. My understanding is that the dogs listed have to be (or have been) real living canines.

In most cases, the mascots listed are appropriate... there is (or was historically) an actual living canine that was the mascot (in some cases, the mascot was a series of canines... all given the same name). Yale university's bulldog, Handsome Dan, is a good example of this. The original Handsome Dan was an actual bulldog.

However, we need to be careful, because in a few cases this is not the case... For example: the Calgary Flames' mascot Harvey the Hound was always just a guy dressed up in a dog costume - never a real live canine. I think it inappropriate to include Harvey on the list (I have removed him). Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Keep it up. You might want to consider adding a annotation at the top of the section explaining the nature and scope of that section.

By the way, Handsome Dan is a famous dog, but not an individual dog, further recommending another move to "List of famous dogs". There have been many Handsome Dans. Chrisrus (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

They also need to be famous, right now the list contains a lot of mascots that are nothing special - there are lots of dogs who are mascots. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Legendary dogs

What should we do with Legendary dogs? Put them on the list of fictional dogs, keep them here, or both? Or should they have their own list? Chrisrus (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditto, with Mythological dogs –e.g. Argos (dog). Perhaps a 'Legendary and Mythological dogs' section? How many are there? Note: "legendary" may or may not be "real", -e.g.: Gelert. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think they should be included in a separate section. They do resonate as a meme, and provide a synergy with the rest of the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Dog "testifying" about death of owner?

I know, WP:truth, WP:Verifiable, WP:OR, WP:Synth and WP:RS. But I am concerned about this edit. I don't read Chinese, so I don't have an opinion about the source or what it says. * Heihei (黑黑), a black dog gave evidence to police to identify the killer of his old mistress. He was buried with her then. "义犬护主悲壮斗劫匪" (in Chinese). Shanxi Science and Technology News. Retrieved March 10, 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) I am WP:AGF. But I am concerned about the statement of fact. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Xena?

Just seeking opinion: Does a dog such as Xena deserve a Wikipedia article, and following that, inclusion on this list? I would not even consider her for the list unless there was a consensus for an article about her. (If this is not the place to ask this, please inform me.) Possible references:

• WXIA-TV 11 Atlanta
• NBC Today show
• Huffington Post
• Medical Daily
• Daily Mail (London)
• Yahoo! News
• The Animal Rescue Site
• Atlanta Journal Constitution

This was just a quick search for sources; if an article is warranted, I will seek out more. Thank you kindly.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)