Talk:Greater Swiss Mountain Dog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do not use "SWISSY"[edit]

"Swissy" is a common nickname for the breed. Apart from noting this fact in the article, there is no way one can refer to a breed by its (diminutive) nickname when using encyclopedic style. Therefore, please refrain from calling the breed a "Swissy" in this article - it simply does not fit the formal quality of writing that one expects from an encyclopedia article. -- (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

See WikiProject Dog breeds.

I think the measures of the weight and height have to be checked since they aren't realistic and give a false image of this breed: the correct weight should be between 60-70kg(male) and 50-60kg(female) whereas the height at the shoulders is between 65-72cm(male) and 60-68cm(female).

I suspect there may be some factual errors under the "All-breed club recognition" heading, specifically with regards to dates given for some recognitions. It claims that the AKC gave this breed provisional recognition in 1999, yet full recognition in 1995? This seems backwards - anyone who knows the correct dates please fix this. Also, the past tense is used to refer to an event that hasn't yet occurred, or else another wrong date has been given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I pared down the number of images down from five to two. The article is very short, so it does not need more than two images. Also the text was really crowded and unreadable between the images. --Coaster1983 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a gallery of pictures on Commons.

Temperament section[edit]

There is a proposal that Temperament sections be eliminated as they usually contain very similar vague and unreferenced platitudes. Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Temperament sections.--Hafwyn (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health section[edit]

The massive section regarding health problems seems out of place in this article; urinary incontinence, for example, is not specific enough to the breed to warrant an entire subsection. If the breed has relatively few health problems for its size, I don't understand why they're expounded upon in such great detail. Most of that information can be gleaned from the pages belonging to the diseases and disorders themselves.

I feel similarly about the appearance section. In nearly every sentence, there's a citation pointing to the same reference -- is this really necessary? I appreciate how detailed the article is in certain areas, but large chunks of the breed standard don't need to be included.

Also, this image is not at all specific to the breed and doesn't merit inclusion, nor does this one. Anndelion (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried to make the article on the Greater Swiss Mountain Dog as comprehensive as I, as an owner, was looking for when I researched the breed. I don't feel that the health issues are overemphasized.

I counted over 10 references used in the appearance section. The dog anatomy diagram was included to illustrate where various body parts are located; there was no claim it is a diagram of a GWMD. The second illustration shows a dog used as a draft animal; again there is no claim it is a GSMD.. I wasn't able to find a quality photo of a GSMD used as a draft animal.Bettymnz4 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but I still don't feel that images not specific to the breed are really necessary to include. Any breed could make use of the anatomy chart, for example, and any Sennenhund could use the carting image (which would be more reasonable, in my opinion), but I feel like that would be overkill. I think the internal links do a good enough job of explaining these topics further if someone's interested.
Ditto with the health problems -- I think a summary of the issues the breed is known for, with internal links to their individual articles, would do the job just as well. Brief descriptions would be less intimidating and less off-topic than large
Finally, certain subsections in the Appearance section do cite the same reference after almost every sentence -- take a look at "Head" and you'll see what I mean. There are large chunks of the AKC's Swissie standard throughout that are barely reworded. Cutting them down a little bit, rephrasing everything, and removing the excessive references would probably do a lot of good for the section.
By the way, I see references to blue tricolor and rust bicolor Swissies -- I've never seen nor heard of any evidence of this. As far as I've known, the four SMD breeds only come in black tricolor (possibly with the occasional blue eyed dog popping up, although this is very rare and could be the result of outcrossing). Is there any proof of this, other than what that source says? If no images exist, I'm a little bit skeptical... I know they're listed as DQs/acceptable for alternate registration with the AKC, but like I said, I've never seen any evidence these colors really pop up in the breed. Outcrosses, perhaps? I'll try to look for images later today.
It's definitely a good article, one which outshines its fellow Sennenhund :) -- Anndelion (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anndelion, I see that you are focusing on improving dog articles. I almost totally revamped this article after I saw how incomplete it was for my needs. I was writing mostly geology articles, so writing a dog article was new territory for me. Please do go ahead and make the changes you feel would make this article conform with other dog articles. Thank you for your interest and committment to dogs!! Bettymnz4 (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Will do. -- Anndelion (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greater Swiss Mountain Dog. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4 Breeds of Sennenhund[edit]

Hello, I'm a student editor working on the Bernese page. I changed the "Breeds of Sennenhund Dogs" section to look like the other Sennenhund dog pages, which just list their name and common English name. I don't think it needs to say the sizes of other breeds of dog on the GSMD dog. Any feedback is appreciated. SoldBuyChristina (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I’m not sure about the average age. for us our female greater Swiss is coming up on 14 years old, over double the average, maybe we are an outlier but just curious if that’s the case or not. (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue.[edit]

It seems that the majority of appearance has been plagiarised, I'm in the process of confirming which parts are and aren't and removing them. A lot of the article is the same as but it appears that these insertions are older than this book, which means either this book copied from Wikipedia or there is an older version of it and it was republished.

@Justlettersandnumbers I've seen you deal with copyright violation before. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] This site may potentially have either taken content from Wikipedia or content from it was used on the article. Hard to tell given I cannot find a publication date for the website/url. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Happy to look at this, Traumnovelle, but would need to see some examples – GBooks isn't letting me see the pages on this dog in that book. The book is self-published via, so there's at least a possibility that it has copied from us. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so there's definitely a problem here, Traumnovellethis page predates the creation of our article and is dated 1996. There's enough overlap to be cause for concern. Unless you plan to work on it immediately I'll blank some or all of it and list it at WP:CP. In case you do want to deal with it: it won't be enough to remove just the overlapping material, we'll also need to get rid of any that was copied but then copy-edited such that it no longer rings any bells. Anyway, looking further now ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better off just blanking it and reworking on the article a later date I'd say, I don't have time today to work on it which is why I simply removed the plagiarised AKC standard. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the book here's a screenshot., but given it's self published it may just plagiarise Wikipedia instead. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Traumnovelle, will do. I've identified the insertion of content copied from this page with this edit in 2010, and from here with this one by the same editor. At this point I don't think we need worry about the lulu book. Oh, and good catch, by the way! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through practically every source and removed what I found, as well as a lot of "sourced" content that was in reality just OR that someone had stuck random sources onto. I can't find anything else, but if you do find any issues please feel free to remove it as appropriate. As mentioned, the above book is a backwardscopy. Thanks! – Isochrone (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]