User talk:Wa.railfan

September 2025

Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to Bull Arab. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of working dog associations moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to List of working dog associations. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Boar hunting with dogs (October 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by WeirdNAnnoyed were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Boar hunting with dogs instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I'm having a hard time seeing what this article adds that isn't already present at Boar hunting#Methods, besides a lot of trivia and barely-on-topic references. The "controversies and animal welfare concerns" section might possibly (not guaranteed) be worthy of an article, but here it's almost a digression.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Boar hunting with dogs and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WeirdNAnnoyed,

Thank you for reviewing my draft. I appreciate the feedback and understand the concerns, but I would like to clarify why I believe the draft is both notable and distinct, and why it merits a standalone article.

Coverage beyond existing content: The draft focuses specifically on hunting boar with dogs, which is only briefly mentioned at Boar hunting#Methods, in a poorly sourced section that only contains one in-line citation with no verifiable evidence for the rest of the information stated. In contrast, the article provides

- The global history of boar hunting with dogs.
- Regional practices and the roles of bay, catch, and mixed dog breeds.
- Breed-specific usage and cultural context in Australia, the USA, and Europe.
- Ethical, welfare, and legal controversies unique to pig-dogging.

None of which is addressed in any meaningful or properly sourced way on the original sub-section at Boar hunting#Methods.

References and reliability: The draft cites numerous reliable, secondary sources, including peer-reviewed studies, academic publications, and reputable news outlets. While some references are primary (breed registries, hobbyist magazines framed around perspective rather than factual evidence, references to activist pages etc), these are clearly balanced by independent coverage, satisfying WP:RS.

The reviewer’s statement that the draft’s references are “barely on-topic” does not accurately reflect the sources used. Nearly all cited works explicitly address pig-dogging, boar hunting, or related dog-assisted hunting methods. Examples include:

Orr et al. (2019) and Keil (2021) on the welfare, cultural practices, and sensory environments of pig-hunting dogs in Australia.
Perri (2016) on the historical ecological role of hunting dogs in early human societies.
Caley & Ottley (1955) and Bengsen & Sparkes (2016) on the ecological management implications of pig hunting.
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension and Centre for Invasive Species Solutions on contemporary management strategies involving dogs.

These are not tangential mentions—they are directly relevant, secondary, and reliable sources as defined by WP:RS and WP:NOR. Each reference substantiates a factual claim about hunting boars with dogs, which is the article’s exact focus.

Notability: Boar hunting with dogs is a well-documented and notable practice with historical, cultural, and ecological significance across multiple countries, especially in Australia. Independent sources highlight ongoing debates around animal welfare, legal regulation, and pest management effectiveness, meeting WP:N criteria.

On-topic scope: Contrary to the review comment, the content is directly on-topic: it details the methods, breeds, history, and controversies of hunting boar specifically with dogs. It does not digress from the subject, and every section contributes to a comprehensive understanding of this practice, consistent with

Justification for a separate article: While Boar hunting#Methods mentions hunting with dogs briefly, this subtopic has sufficient independent coverage, scientific/ecological significance and relevance to warrant a standalone article (WP:SPLITTING). This ensures readers can access a detailed, well-sourced account without overloading the parent article, which itself is poorly-sourced in terms of content for this subject.

In conclusion, this draft is not merely trivia or barely-on-topic; it is a well-sourced, notable, and substantial expansion on an inadequately covered yet very politically and culturally relevant aspect of boar hunting that can not be adequately addressed in a minor sub-category with poor sourcing. I respectfully request reconsideration of the submission.

Thank you for your time and feedback. Wa.railfan (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wa.railfan! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]