Talk:Champ and Major

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

Split or keep together?[edit]

Is it appropriate to discuss both dogs together on one page, or should we have a page for each of them? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously keep together, they are not independently notable. Reywas92Talk 19:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If not independently notable, then this article should be deleted. That would be like having an article called "Joe Smith of Kadoka, SD and Mary Jones of Broome, Western Australia". Neither are notable and combining the two does nothing. CloverdalePainter (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And possibly not notable at all per WP:SIGCOV; they exist, that is about we all see here. William Harris (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
William Harris, there should be zero notability question. I added an NYT ref, but I could've chosen a dozen others, any of which would qualify as significant coverage. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you did, but there is not significant coverage of the topic per WP:SIGCOV - this is not about the number of mentions in newspapers etc. William Harris (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By Wikipedia's definition of significant coverage, the NYT article absolutely counts. If you want to try AfDing this, I predict a swift blizzard. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep together. Cavalryman (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
You may predict all you like; the policy is the policy. William Harris (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sunny and Bo Obama are both split pages. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major problem. Even before seeing this, I was going to post a new section but then saw it is already being discussed. That shows that I have insight. The combined article is wrong. How would you like it if there was a wikipedia article of Kim Jong Un and Joe Biden, not separate article? Just because there is racial discrimination does not mean that denial of individuality is right. Immediate separation of article. If there is only one article, then Major is obviously the most encyclopedic. Let us decide to see what the Wikipedia editors think.

Separate articles - yes?

  • support Major should have a separate article and remove him from this article. CloverdalePainter (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major’s article title would need to be carefully named if we split them, in order to differentiate from FDR’s dog Major, who was also a German Shepard. SecretName101 (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Jill Biden with Champ
Jill Biden with Champ

Created by No Swan So Fine (talk), Doglore (talk), GorillaWarfare (talk), and Sdkb (talk). Nominated by No Swan So Fine (talk) at 17:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Thanks for nominating this, No Swan So Fine! It looks good to me. The one thing that's a little off is that the blurb refers only to Major, whereas the photo is only of Champ, which might be confusing. I don't know how we'd get around it unless we can find a free photo of Major, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right to pick up on this incongruity; I was struggling for an interesting hook! We will have plenty of photos in January. Not sure how to resolve it until then. No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. As pointed out above, the image is unsuitable for use with this hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Are these pictures free use from Jill Biden given? They are not from her former Twitter account that was linked to the government, though. [1] Thank you. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Named after: "Joe Biden's Father"?[edit]

Shouldn't this say.... "Joe Biden, Sr."? Or "Joseph Robinette Biden, Sr."? It's not like Beau Biden is referred to as "Joe Biden's first son" 75.175.105.130 (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biden's father is not independently notable like his son was, though. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truly a linguistic conundrum[edit]

I'm stumped as to how to rewrite the lead now that only Major is alive. It will be interesting to see what we come up with. Moncrief (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be easier if they were separate articles, but not sure if there's enough for individual notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once they get that cat they’ve been talking about, perhaps we expand the article and rename it “Pets of the Biden White House”? SecretName101 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we spin each off, the article title will need to differentiate Major from FDR’s German Shepard of the same name. Biden’s dog is the second presidential pet of his breed to carry that name. SecretName101 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple English Wikipedia article [2] puts the birth dates -- and death date for Champ -- in the usual enclosed-by-parentheses location common in Wiki biographical articles. That's a thought for here too. Then we'd just have to figure out how to handle the verb tenses. Moncrief (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time for an article split. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to oppose a split, especially since one of them won’t be getting much further coverage warranting a separate page… Can be revisited if they get a third pet. Reywas92Talk 18:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

The source attached to Champ's date of birth seems to indicate that he was 12 when he died, but the White House statement states that he was 13. Is the source incorrect? Hydrogenation (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the White House statement again, it doesn't actually say that he was 13 when he died, but that he was a "cherished companion during the last 13 years". As such, I think the statement is implying that he was a member of the Biden family from 2008-2021 (13 years), not that he was 13 when he died. Hydrogenation (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death[edit]

I have seen zero news reports that Champ died on June 19. If you see one from a reliable source, please provide it. Normally announcements of this type give date of death, and it's notable this one didn't. We should not assume anything that isn't in a reliable source. Very possible that Champ died in June 18. Moncrief (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into it more, Joe Biden made a tweet stating that he died today (the 19th). Hydrogenation (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plus outlets like NYT are citing today, so we have reliably sourced it Rusted AutoParts 18:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced now. Thanks. Moncrief (talk)

Requested move 19 June 2021[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Split Sahaib3005 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With Champ’s death I think that this article should be split into a Champ page and a Major page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperatorPanda (talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The current title made sense when the two dogs first entered public consciousness as a duo. Now that only one is alive, separate articles make the most sense. That's also in alignment with other articles on presidential pets. Moncrief (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Makes sense since only one is alive, and the article reads awkwardly currently.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I rewrote the intro so the tenses work out, but it would be better to separate them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Since Major is only three, there will likely be more news relating to him in the future, and they likely will be forgotten as a duo. Hydrogenation (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There's enough information about both dogs and it makes more sense anyway. Johndavies837 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Should have been split previously like previous first pets. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said before, if we make Major an independent article, we will need to be sure its title differentiates him from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's dog Major, who was also a presidential pet, and was also a German Sheppard. SecretName101 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's easily enough done. The title would just reflect that reality. We can even vote on a title for that once this RM closes. Edit: I don't see a current Wikipedia article about FDR's dog Major. Not that we still shouldn't have a Biden-specific title for this Major, but just noting there isn't an article now for the other Major. Moncrief (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While we could do something like Major (Biden family dog) or Major Biden, in general we don't use more disambiguation than is needed to distinguish from articles that already exist. Otherwise a lot of (film/book/etc.) articles would have to become (<year> film/book/etc.) because of some obscure work that shares the same name. If the content about Major is split off to Major (dog), I think a hatnote mirroring the current one would work just fine: For Franklin Delano Roosevelt's dog, see United States presidential pets § Franklin D. Roosevelt. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am saying we should avoid a title like "Major (dog)" since there is clearly more than one notable dog named Major. SecretName101 (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, though? As long as we don't have an article on the other Major, we're not doing our readers any favors by adding extraneous disambiguation to the title. And since this is an WP:XY scenario, Major (dog) would still presumably redirect to any other title we go with. There's not much use for a DAB page with two entries, only one of which is the subject of a full article. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that a hatnote would be enough. SecretName101, see WP:HAT. If anything, and you're probably not going to like this, SecretName101, a hatnote might be considered overly trivial for FDR's dog, and instead a mention in the intro of the new Major article that there was a previous presidential dog named Major might be enough. FDR's Major does not seem to have been a particularly notable pet, nothing like Fala (dog). Moncrief (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created Major (Franklin D. Roosevelt's dog), an article on Roosevelt's dog. Looking into it, the dog was notable enough for an article. Pretty notable that a presidential pet bit both a United Senator and a British Prime Minister. SecretName101 (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with Major's article being titled Major (Biden family dog) and with Major (dog) being retargeted to Major (disambiguation)#Other uses (or, better yet, a permanent #dog anchor there). (This would mean two different qualifiers for similar articles, but RS generally refer to this Major as the family's dog, whereas it looks like the other is generally referred to just as FDR's dog.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I appreciate mine is the only dissenting voice here, but this split would turn a tidy C class article into two short start class (at best) articles. Cavalryman (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Oppose They are generally notable together. However, I understand there is a precedent to split them up like other presidents pets. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As this discussion is still open, splitting at this time is inappropriate. --John B123 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split[edit]

With one subject now unfortunately deceased these pages should be split. I plan on doing so soon unless there are any objections. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just above your comments is a requested move to split the article. It should really be voted on, since there is some disagreement about the idea in a comment above that one. One consideration is that the Bidens are due to get a cat soon, so the article could be retitled something like "Pets of the Biden family" at that time. In short, I would recommend waiting, voting above, and reading through this talk page before splitting the article. Moncrief (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Pets of the Biden family" would have include pets that died before his presidency. The question is, what are we covering? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually support a split and will vote accordingly. Moncrief (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Champ_and_Major&oldid=1173618409"