Oppose I don't think we can have a VI of this type of domesticated animal with all the possibilities of cross-breeding etc. Charles (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Charlesjsharp: I don't consider that a valid reason. For one thing, this is a fully recognized breed in multiple countries. For another, there are other VIs of domesticated species, setting ample precedent. PumpkinSkytalk09:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy for other opinions, though yours is not best image of tricolour beagle and has completely different colouring (see Wikipedia article). I checked a couple of dog breeds and there are no VIs. Charles (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But there are VIs of cats: Category:Felis_silvestris_catus# (only the second category of cats I checked); and chickens: Category:Chickens#. So you're saying we can have VIs of cats but not dogs? Of course the color pattern is different among various beagle individuals, the color pattern of Beagles varies widely; this should be a non-issue anyway. If you think another tricolor Beagle, (and whatever subscope, male full body or whatever), is better, then say so and kindly link to it. That would be a valid reason. But saying we can't have VIs at all of a major animal (Canine familiaris) just doesn't wash, especially when there are VIs of cats and chickens. PumpkinSkytalk11:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have rejected the tortoiseshell cat VI had I been monitoring the candidate. It should never have got through. But we're talking dogs here, not cats. Just wait for others to give their opinion. (ps I assume you have the full pedigree going back 5 generations otherwise there's really no debate) Charles (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's plenty of room for debate. That you'd have rejected the cat photo is a non issue. We're talking your inexplicable desire to ban whole categories of animals from VI here. Generational pedigree has no bearing here. Where's the requirement for that? Do you have pedigrees for all those butterflies and other insects you photograph? This is nothing but your effort to inject your idea of rules that don't actually exist into the VI ruleset. Where does it say we can't have VIs on dogs? Show me. Oh wait, newsflash it doesn't exist. This isn't the first time you've tried to do this sort of thing at VI either. You didn't look too hard for dog VIs, see Category:Dogs#; click for VI and you'll find several. I checked the scope of one and it was "Lycaon pictus pictus (African wild dog) head". I wonder if the supporter checked the pedigree for that photo? The scope of another was "Sarplaninac with Herd". Was that pedigree checked? Doubt it because such as rule DOES NOT EXIST. If you're looking for a solo photo of a breed that's VI, see File:Greenland dog upernavik 2007-06-02 sample.jpg. VI REALLY needs to get some consistency in what is and isn't required and reviewers REALLY need to stop trying to add rules that don't exist. PumpkinSkytalk19:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Steady on. Don't get all personal. I know there is room for debate, which is why I said I am happy for other opinions. Charles (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not well informed about dogs, but I don't see why we shouldn't value their photos. I would support it, but I think its POV is not descriptive enough. I guess I would have prefered something like this one: . -- Mathieu MD (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those type of poses certainly have their place, but what I don't like about them is that they have the dog in an overly posed stance vice a natural one and you can only see half of their face. Just my 2 cents. PumpkinSkytalk14:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
