Jump to content

Talk:English Cocker Spaniel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleEnglish Cocker Spaniel was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 19, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 14, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 11, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
August 13, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 18, 2014Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Delisted good article

English Cocker Spaniel Userbox[edit]

To celebrate the GA status, I've created my first userbox specifically for English Cocker Spaniel owners:

This user is usually being snuggled by their English Cocker Spaniel(s)

{{User:Miyagawa/UBX/English Cocker Spaniel}}

Feel free to use it where ever you like!

Miyagawa (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update to article[edit]

Can someone remind me when the Wikicup is done to come back and overhaul this article. It was the first one I worked up to GA, and when you compare it to even the American Cocker Spaniel article (let alone the King Charles Spaniel article), it's rather lacking and I feel theres a lot the add (the history section is especially poor for such a well known breed). Miyagawa (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures removed[edit]

A black coloured english cocker spaniel

The dog shown on the pictures is very cute, no doubt of that. These picures vere removed only because the composition is very unbalanced and it does not show much of the English Cocker Spaniel dog’s characteristic features, so actually I think you should try to take a better picture to put into the article. Why I think is not a very good picture is because the composition is kind of dislocated, the picture shows the nose of the two dogs and nothing of the breeds other features. The same Editor who took the picture was the same, who also initiated the change, and that would be lobbying for own work and own picture, even if I do understand the creators feelings for liking their own pictures, it’s not a good enough reason. These pictures are not as good pictures as the ones removed , so it was the reason why we remove them time to time, but they keep coming back. The author is putting them back all the time. There is a conflict of interest when promoting one’s own pictures. Even if I do understand the creator’s feelings for liking their own pictures, it’s not a good enough reason. Hafspajen (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

File:Vito Garcia 4.jpg
File:Nino Reyes 14.jpg
Just feels like a monolog, but this picture is not better than the lead picture, it shows a just as much leggs and shoes, as dog, and and in the lead we use standing dogs. Hafspajen (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This last picture, please just do not add that back, please. It doesn't not show anything of the English Cocker Spaniel dog’s characteristic features, one can't see the legs, head, eyes, ears, - well, nothing that is heelpful to describe a dog breed, it shows only the back, from above. We can put it maybe into an other article, but not this one. Hafspajen (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Move it to Bird's-eye view article. Hafspajen (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop adding pictures that are not up to wikipedia standards, please. One can not jump into an article and replace the leading picture in this random way. There is a conflict of interest when promoting one’s own pictures. We chosed that picture and this one is not at all as good as the lead picture, so leave it alone, please. One can't have a sitting dog in the lead.


  • Please notice that your contributions are disruptive. Removing established good quality pictures and replacing them with your own, much lower to lower quality at English Cocker Spaniel, is not helpfull. Stop doing this, you can't remove an established picture from an article to replace it with a much worse, without discussing this, AND you are edit warring. When you see other editors don't agree with your additions, you must discuss that, but no, you just keep adding the same very bad pictures all the time, even when I explain to you why you should stop doing this and why those pictures are not good enough. And unless you have an extraordinarely wonderful picture that is much much better that the lead picture - the lead picture stays where it is.
  • Now he is back for about 5th time and removing the lead picture, replace it with some bad quality picture of his own and refuse to discuss it. Hafspajen (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on English Cocker Spaniel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]