Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive T

Color of breed tables

(Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk 04:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that this WikiProject uses the same color as animals in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life taxobox. I would like to suggest changing it (even to a different shade of pink) so that each color is used in only one table. Since there are undoubtedly many more animal tables than dog breed ones, it would be easier to change these than those. I will do the change myself if no one else wants to (though tell me what color you want, or I'll just pick one). See Wikipedia:Taxobox. Tuf-Kat 03:38, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

That was a deliberate choice. mav suggested we use the same colour for dogs as animals in the Tree of Life project (dogs being animals an' all) and that seemed like a good idea. The discussion is on User talk:Maveric149/archive 10. We were originally using bright green and considered using 11 different colours, one for each FIC class and one for uncategorized. I don't particularly object to a change, although linking the colours did work well for Dingo, where the taxobox and the breed infobox were linked up. What do you think? -- sannse 11:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm now inclined to think that the colors don't matter. There's already a lot of repetition, and that will likely only grow worse over time. Tuf-Kat 17:51, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Then perhaps we can leave it as pink for now and see how things go. Let me know if you think differently as things progress over at Wikipedia talk:Infobox ;) -- sannse 18:26, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Common Nickname

(Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk 04:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a "Common nickname" section to the table. Seems that almost every breed has one or maybe 2 that dog people in-the-know would recognize but that outsiders wouldn't. Have been finding or putting many of those in the article. I think it belongs in the table. Thoughts? Elf | Talk 20:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me -- sannse (talk) 21:49, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nickname Vs Alternative name: Does anyone other than me see a significant difference in the two? For example, look at the Samoyed, they have and "official" or formal alternate name of "Samoiedskaпa Sobaka" whilst they also have the informal nickename of "the smiley dog" (or as i have known them, "smiling sammy") Almost every breed table i have seen has a "Alternate names" section but no "common nickname" section Would it be better to put both under the one "alternate" section or create a "nickname" section when needed?

Or am i just being a picky, raving sod? Tekana 21:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Bah, let me just stick my foot in my mouth. just had a quick look through the breeds and discovered that a few DO have both "alternate names" and "common nicknames" (such as the Airdale Terrier and the American Eskimo Dog). I suppose this means im free to add the "common nicknames" section to the breeds i know nicknames for :) . toodles Tekana 22:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"No image yet" photo link

(Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk 04:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My latest wiki discovery is this very-seldom-used page: File:No image yet. It suggests (as does the Wikipedia:Requested pictures page) using a link to it from any page where we know a photo is wanted. This seems like it might be an excellent idea on the dog breed pages where there is no photo for the infobox. To see what it looks like, I implemented it at American Water Spaniel. It might encourage folks to provide photos. Thoughts? Elf | Talk 16:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to sound discouraging again - but it just looks like a broken image to me. Maybe if it were some sort of image in itself? -- sannse (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

i have uploaded sannse's idea: Image:NO IMAGE YET.png, . Badanedwa 22:22, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

or this version, Image:NO IMAGE YET square.png, . Badanedwa 22:44, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

US registries

(Moved from User talk:Elf/Archive dogs. Elf | Talk 20:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

Hi Elf, was it the United Kennel Club that you thought we should include on the tables? I know little about the US registries so just went for the AKC. I've also found pages for the Continental Kennel Club, the National Kennel Club and the Dog Registry of America. I don't think we should have all of them in the table, but am not sure which are important enough to include. Are there others too? Regards -- sannse (talk) 19:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, huh, I've never heard of the others you mentioned but UKC is probably 2nd to AKC. Yeah, AKC is the most major one, so I agree let's not add the others to the table after all. I'll see what I can find out about the various ones & maybe come up with some standard verbiage. Elf | Talk 05:06, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So you think we should include just the UKC, leaving out the rest? Or just stick with the AKC? (I'm looking at a breed only recognised by the UKC and I'm not sure which part of the table to add it to yet) -- sannse (talk) 09:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What I've found out so far: UKC respected as a registry & definitely a legit organization, although there's some suspicion why people with AKC-recognized breeds would register w/UKC. Some excellent reasons; some bad reasons. National Dog Registry is for tattoos. Continental Kennel Club and National Kennel Club are "for puppy mills". Elf | Talk 20:34, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, sounds like we should include the UKC and ignore the others. Thanks Elf -- sannse (talk) 19:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dog Registries

(Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk 04:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this while reviewing recent edits to the goldendoodle article. The United Kennel Club Int'l has been listed in the breed table.

The Continental Kennel Club and the United Kennel Club Int'l are, at best, minor registries. The website of the CKC does not even describe its organization. According to the website of the UKCI, it is a private family business. I am therefore questioning the inclusion of minor registries in the breed tables. In essence, that would mean that the breed table points to an outside link to a small business, and I thought that Wikipedia didn't do that? This is not meant to cast aspersions, as there is nothing wrong with small family businesses, just to point out that as far as I can tell, our other outside links point to breed or kennel clubs.

Quill 00:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was intending to ask your opinion on this Quill, so I'm glad you've raised the issue. I spent some time yesterday reading the UKCI website and various criticisms of them. It seems to me that these registries (and I refrain from adding quotes there) are more about advertising puppies than anything else. And links to such adverts are generally considered a bad thing on Wikipedia. Certainly I am not convinced they have a place in the table, even if they are the only registry available. I think we should stick to the breed and kennel clubs we have been using -- sannse (talk) 16:46, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems from recent edits at goldendoodle and terrier that we will probably need to discuss this and come to a consensus. Can we have some opinions from other project members? Quill 00:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, let's not confuse the United Kennel Club (UKC) [1] with the Universal Kennel Club International (UKCI) [2]. The former is listed on the Kennel Club article, the latter is (rightfully) not. I mention this because you twice referred to the UKCI as "United Kennel Club Int'l".

Yep, duly noted. Quill 23:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the links to the CKC and UKCI should be removed (I suspect many of the UKCI "breeders" are puppy mills), but, if you think the larger, older kennel clubs aren't businesses, you're fooling yourselves <grin>.Wcrowe 17:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is so deluded. Some of us may even have issues with the major registries; I'll be the first one to say that I have. I just think that there are dog welfare components at work in the biggies that are missing from the johnnie-come-latelies. Quill 23:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Glad we got that cleared up. Now, as someone else pointed out (don't know what happened to that edit), the UKCI seems to be nothing more than a clearing house for, um, "breeders" to sell dogs. I think they'll register anything that breathes. Really, when you get right down to it, there is nothing to prevent anyone from starting a kennel club and registering litters.Wcrowe 15:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I got sent over this way after posting some comments on the Jack Russell entries. The question is how or where to discuss the individual breed registries - and particularly those that oppose recognition by the all-breed registries, and why.

In the case of the JRT, to treat the AKC as the authority on the breed when the AKC recognized the JRT in direct opposition to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the JRT owners and breeders, and when far more JRTs are bred and registered under JRTCA auspices than AKC, is simply not going to leave the reader with a correct impression of the breed.

And the JRT is not the only breed that's been hijacked by the AKC - a similar fight is ongoing with Border Collies and a number of other popular working breeds.

The simple truth is that the AKC's standards are poorly suited for maintaining the working qualities of a breed. And the owners of working dogs know this. There's a reason that agility competitions are dominated by JRTs in the lower height classes and by Border Collies in the taller - neither breed has been crippled by decades of breeding to AKC standards.

But where should a discussion of these issues belong? Where should the JRTCA be referenced?

Proposal for "wildcard" breed authorities in Template

Maybe this isn't the best place, but I've seen so many places where the subject has been canvassed (sort of) that this looks as good as any: how about an additional entry in the infobox template for "wildcard" breed authorities, to cater for (especially) working breeds like e.g.: Kelpies, where the primary authority is the WKC rather than the ANKC or FCI? This addresses the schisms which, sadly, arise because some people consider cosmetic conformity more important than working ability and then proceed to impose that opinion on the rest of the world. Sorry, I get a bit worked up on this subject...

I suggest that such a "wildcard" be placed above the FCI entry, possibly in a separate section, and be titled "Primary Breed Authority". Gordon | Talk, 22 June 2006 @12:10 UTC

I'm not sure that "primary breed authority" is the right phrase--it's awfully POV. And in any case there'd be more than one (different countries, different working organizations, whatever). Which circles back around to the real challenge of this (can decide on name later): How do we determine what legitimately belongs in this group? Any clubs affiliated with the all-breed clubs probably don't belong (because they're already covered by the all-breed KC links--but they'd also certainly consider themselves "primary breed authority"). How about those NOT covered by all-breed affiliation--list them ALL? Argh. This has been the biggest challenge as I see it to figuring out what to call it and what org's to include. Elf | Talk 15:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm just thinking aloud here... As I said, we're looking at "working" dogs, eg: Springer Spaniels, Poodles, Collies etc. OTH, most dogs can be considered "working" in some way, but we won't include eg: "companion" dogs like Malteses. But we're still left with Bulldogs, Bull Terriers, Rhodesian Ridgebacks... What defines a working "working" dog apart from a (not really) "working" dog? Oh deity. This is hairy.

Back to "primary breed authority" -- not all breeds would need it. I suppose that mostly they would be (if I can coin a term) minor-stream breeds, probably geographically localised, although often enjoying international recognition, like the Rhodesian Ridgeback for example. I don't think anybody would consider the FCI as a primary breed authority for these! Gordon | Talk, 12 July 2006 @14:17 UTC

Return to discussion

I've looked around, and I'd say that the breed club entry is where this might best go. Currently, it suggests that these fall into two categories only - those that maintain their own registries while lobbying for the acceptance of a breed by the all-breed clubs and those that act as social clubs for the owners while letting the all-breed clubs run the registry.

An additional paragraph pointing out that some breed clubs are adamantly opposed to recognition by all-breed clubs - and are fighting against involuntary takeovers of the breeds by the all-breed clubs - would certainly seem apropos.

--jdege 21:26, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Good question where the matter(s) are best addressed. You're right, breed club could be one; breed registry (hmm, doesn't exist yet--thought it did--someone better create it cuz there are a lot of pages pointing to it! and more in a minute when I get done disambig'ing) could be another; somewhere out there there's a discussion about open vs closed stud books (selective breeding? Yup, there it is.). Some parts of the discussion might go in all places, or maybe all the related discussions should be gathered in one place--I don't have a perfect answer for ya. So you're probably safe in any of those places. As we often say on Wikipedia, Be bold! Elf | Talk 02:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and just found more at purebred and dog breeding.

Not sure if this thread is still current or stale, but since I have been looking for the best place within Wikipedia to start contributing under some sort of a dog "registry OR club" heading, I like to suggest that there should be category for "breed-clubs" that could link to dogs, cats, horses, etc., AND all of their related breeding, registry, and training clubs/organizations, which is an absolute jungle that no single person can know completely. The North-American dog-registry-club-environment is relatively simple, compared to the International dog-registry-club-environment, which I tried to penetrate a few years ago (as can be seen on this page).

BTW, I found that two registry articles Breed registry AND registry do excist now, but nothing for Hundezucht. And I think that there needs to be a corrolation between the German and the English registry articles, because the international environment is so much more complicated and most of the reliable info of it will likely come from German sorces. --Rgsd 20:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Format of images in tables

(Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk 04:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? Personally I much prefer the "thumb" version - partly for the aesthetics of the thing, but mostly because readers are not likely to know that there is a larger version of the image available. The expand icon is vital for the full effect of the images to be appreciated -- sannse (talk) 16:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean a smaller version of the picture that when you move the cursor over it it's obvious that you can click to enlarge? I like this too. Overly-large pictures dominate the article and take ages to load. Quill 07:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's the difference between:

This

and

This This

Recently all the images in the dog infoboxes has been changed to the latter; still the same size image, but without the border or the expand icon. It also makes it more difficult to add a caption (without using more complicated tables as I did above). I think it's an all round bad idea, but wanted to see if others felt the same -- sannse (talk) 11:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I like the pictures with the border and expand icon better. I'm going to leave ChicXulub a message on their talk page to see why they changed all of our images (they apparently did it in other categories too). [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 13:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh. I got back after 3 days off, checked my watchlist in chronological order, and just went to work fixing most of the images before I ever went to Chic's talk page or looked here--I figured that if he/she had looked here, the changes wouldn't have been made. So... see *my* note on User talk:ChicXulub. Elf | Talk 06:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I probably should have been bold and done the same. Thanks Elf -- sannse (talk) 17:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dog-stub template

(Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk 04:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I know there's some disagreement about categorizing stubs, but when I started changed all the stubs to animal-stubs, it occurred to me that creating a dog-stub would provide an opportunity to give users a link to a list of suggested info for dog articles. So I finally got around to creating one. See English Setter for an example; also check out the suggestions for information to add. Comments/thoughts before I go willy-nilly through all the billions & billions of dog articles & change to dog-stub? Elf | Talk 20:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Love it, moi, and made some changes to the bit about suggestions (rather than writing about them here and then you have to read it and go do it yourself, if you don't like it &c.)

One suggestion I don't know how to fix hich is important if we want to use this stub on all our dog articles, is that the stub msg template itself be changed so that the last sentence reads [emphasis added]] If this is a stub about a dog breed, see suggestions....

Finally, can we use both {{dog-stub}}

and

{{animal-stub}}

on the same stub? I was very interested in a discussion that was taking place re stub messages, but as usual, I have no idea where it was....

Okay, that wasn't really 'finally'; finally I should note that your picture is much better than the one one the animal stub which is too dark and cut off and I think that's a wolf but at first I thought it was a horse and who could tell and now I'm done.

Quill 05:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on stubs: I'm not going to try to find it/them again because I'm afraid they'll be in the midst of deciding that the proliferation of templates is more harmful than helpful and I'd rather do the ostrich bit. I think you might be able to change the template yourself-- try simply searching for Template:Dog and see whether it lets you. I have no objection to your suggestion. As for the horse in the regular animal stub--at least it's no longer a lizard! Elf | Talk 06:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removing dog stubs

(Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk 04:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a suggestion afoot that dog stub be dumped in favour of pet-stub. Can all who would respond here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#dog-stub.3D.3E pet-stub.3F? (I can't make this blasted section link, it's No. 29. Thanks. Quill 04:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Elf | Talk 19:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

silly. dog breed button

(Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk 04:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the little buttons but that people have in their babel boxes and, there are buttons for everything so I made a dog breed project breed button.

If people like it, feel free to add it to your user page by adding the following to their user page:

{{User dogproject-en}}

Or, inside your babel box by increasing the number by one and adding: "dogproject-en".

If people want to thwap me for being silly, or want to make changes - feel free :)

Oh yes, and the button is:

This user is a contributor to the
dog breeds task force.

- Trysha ^(talk) 23:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, cool! I'm a sucker for this kind of stuff. So if anyone else wants an example, you can look at my user page. Elf | Talk 01:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy on Registries in table is POV

(Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk

The blanket policy to restrict which registries to include in table to the major all-breed registries is clearly a POV and as such is incompatible with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. While this policy may give the right answer in many cases, there are specific breeds where it clearly distorts the facts. There are several breeds where another registry, usually a single-breed registry, is far more important to the breed than any all-breed registry. Specific examples include the Jack Russell Terrier, Border Collie, and Australian Shepherd. Preventing the single-breed registries for these breeds from being included in the table gives the first impression that the AKC/UKC are the only legitimate registries for these dogs, which is in some cases the opposite of the truth. One might argue that these "alternate" (see the pov) registries be included in the list of external links or in a paragraph in the text. Clearly that is not presenting a balanced picture. By including only ACK/UKC in the box the single-breed registries are behind from the beginning.

I will not argue against a general policy to include only the major registries. In most cases it probably gives the right answer. But for some breeds, it is clearly necessary to include other registeries in order to present a fair and balanced :-) presentation of the breed. This policy must be modified to permit other breed registries to be included in the box on a case by case basis. To do otherwise is to perpetuate a pernicious point of view. Dsurber 14:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Calm down there, pardner. Members of The Dog Project are in general very sympathetic to the need to include the special requirements of independent dog breeds, particularly working breeds. I don't think the present procedure in incompatible with NPOV policy. The problem has been how to restrict registry listings to legitimate dog breed registries.

I had argued for e.g. Classification: Independent:Supersonic Working Dog Club with a link to the breed standard if there was one. This was being done at first; I see it was changed earlier this year and I haven't had time to chase up when/where the decision was made.

We have to have some way of NOT listing every fly-by-night so-called registry, and every labra-cava-polli-wolli-doodle as having 'registries'. I don't think the current policy is violating NPOV. Perhaps an alternative would be to list the Classification as Independent with an internal link to the section-in-article-that-discusses-independent-registry as opposed to simply listing the registry?

Quill 08:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you just agreed with me that the current policy is violating NPOV and that some change to that policy is requried. Dsurber 12:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

????? Quill 23:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Quill wrote:

I think the current policy as violating NPOV. Perhaps an alternative would be....

That seems to me to say that the current policy violates NPOV and needs to be changed. Did you not mean what you wrote? Dsurber 13:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Quill did not mean what Quill wrote. Quill had a brain fart. Quill protrates Quill's unworthy self at Dsurber's feet and goes back to fix Quill's nonsensical sentence. Quill 23:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a lot. Someday I'll rant at length on my feelings about AKC in reference to border collies and dog agility as a specific case and AKC and its attitudes in general--although I think at least one person has already done so in various talk pages out there.

So I agree in principal that listing only these registries is flawed. But, as Quill said, the challenge becomes how to phrase a policy that clearly defines what else should go into the breed box. I can think of some edit wars in some breed pages where different groups are claiming to be THE ONLY TRUE LEGITIMATE REGISTRY ALL OTHERS ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH DON'T BE TAKEN IN. These are, of course, developing breeds--in which case one might argue that *all* breed registries should be listed, since the major reg's don't recognize them and it's not clear (yet) who will prevail, but one might also argue that NONE of them should be listed for exactly the same reasons and we don't want to give an air of legitimacy to what currently amounts to a hobby for a small number of breeders. Even for established breeds, let's say that someone claims to be an authority on the breed and says that XYZ club/registry is really more important than any other. But then perhaps the AKC-affiliated club will come along and say that they want equal time, which perhaps they should get, since they certainly have to be of a certain size and certain influence to become recognized. Now, i happen to know that ASCA is an extremely important and influential registry for Aussies in the U.S. and that most Aussie owners & breeds put more stock in titles & registry there than with AKC titles and registration. But I don't know how to prove that (in other words, document it somehow so that it's clear that this is a fact and not merely my perspective).

• Yes, like the Rat Terrier for example. Go ahead and get a consensus about which is THE ONE, THE ONLY Santa Claus...er...Rat Terrer. Go on, I dare ya. Here's another case: the Australian Bulldog is being worked on really hard and fast, breed-under-development, but a few years does not a breed make, although of course how some breeds get recognized so fast is a matter of conjecture. Then we have the legitimate breeds that are only recognized in their own countries--fair enough, we could list that country's national club--but then what of breeds, as Elf says, that are recognized by ONE registry within a country, not necessarily the even the national club. We must have a way of separating the Miniature Fox Terrier from the La Schnoodle, for Pity's sake. And what of the Koolie which is a breed of longer standing than the Aussie, but where the breed club has not been around for as long as that of the Aussie and is not as advanced? No, I'm afraid our current system is rather like Democracy, a rotten system that doesn't work, but we haven't been able to come up with anything better.... Quill 23:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Heyyyy, wait a minuuuute, are you saying democracy doesn't work? Sure it does, look, we elected Reagan--er, I mean, G Bush--er, I mean Clinton--er, I mean GW Bush-- er, can I start over? Elf | Talk 23:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• hahahahahahaha-ouch! [the sound of Quill rolling off chair laughing] Quill 22:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

So... suggestions on how to implement a change are welcome; I don't know how to do it in an NPOV manner. Elf | Talk 18:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

new dog breed table template - ready to go

(Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk 04:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

Here is a nearly finalized template syntax, all it really needs is consensus from everyone.

You can see this in action here User:Trysha/Sandbox/Basset and here Template:Infobox dog breed/testcases.

Before switching, I suggest that the following usage information be moved to a sub page of the main dog project page first like the tree of life people have, probably here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/infobox_usage We should put a link up from the main dog breed information page rather than the template information that is there now.

It won't be a lot of work for people to convert this, as I am going to write a script that will convert the existing dog breed pages in one big lump (Don't worry, I'll get approval and It will be safe).

Suggestions for improvement, hates, likes, changes to the documentation, etc... are all more than welcome.

- Trysha ^(talk) 00:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox usage

(Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk 04:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what the information will look like inside a dog breed article:

{{Infobox Dogbreed 
|name= ...
|image= ...
|image_caption= ...
|altname= ... <br> ... <br>
|nickname= ... <br> ... <br>
|country= ...
|fcigroup= ... 
|fcisection= ... 
|fcinum= ...
|fcistd= ...
|akcgroup= ...
|akcstd= ...
|ankcgroupnum= ...
|ankcgroup= ...
|ankcstd= ...
|ckcgroupnum= ... 
|ckcgroup= ...
|ckcstd= ...
|kcukgroup= ...
|kcukstd= ...
|nzkcgroup= ...
|nzkcstd= ...
|notrecognized= ...
|note= ...
|}}  

• All paramaters are optional except for name
• All paramaters for each kennel club are required if any are used at all.
• If the breed is not recognized by any major kennel club, the notrecognized variable should be set (to anything) else the table will look strange.
• Altnames and nicknames have to be on one line with a bunch of <br> entries separating them.

Infobox variables

(Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk 04:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• name: Breed name as in article title.
• image: The name of the image (leave off Image:)

• Thumbnails of all known dog photos are listed at Album of dog photo thumbnails. Many don't have articles yet.
• If you upload a new photo, make sure that copyright is OK (e.g., GFDL) and add to the album.
• Use the best breed photo available for the infobox image.

• image_caption: A caption that describes the image.

• Include a caption that mentions the coat-color, tail, ear, etc. variation and whether the dog is, for example, a puppy or nonstandard in other ways; Wikipedia standard now seems to be for full sentences, but if it's only a coat color variation I haven't been doing full sentences, just Blue merle Aussie or the like.

• altname: Other names by which the breed is known by English speakers.

• The list of names for the breed in the FCI standards is a good starting point; also can include common breed names from other English-speaking countries and kennel clubs. User:Sannse initially created a useful spreadsheet listing these known about for new articles (can also use Google search for English web sites for the possible breed names).
• To specify more than one name, you must specify them all on one line separated by <br>

• nickname: Common nicknames

• These are shortened names that aren't an official breed name but that are in common use by owners or breeders of these dogs (e.g., "Doxie" for Dachshund; "GSD" for German Shepherd Dog).
• As above, to specify more than one name, you must specify them all on one line separated by <br>

• country: Country of origin

• Also available on the spreadsheet (or see breed's FCI listing - but be aware that the country listed may be the country responsible for the standard and not the true country of origin).

• notes: Notes about the breed recognition or standards.

• Comments such as "Breed is registered under AKC's rare breeds list"...

• Classification and breed standards:

• FCI standards all four options are required.

• fcigroup: The name of the group to which the dog belongs. (Hound, Working, etc..)
• fcisection: The section number of the above group.
• fcinum: The number of the dog breed.
• fcistd: The URL to the FCI breed standard. You can use a couple of different web sites for this.

http://www.dogdomain.com/fcistandards/fci-243.htm

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:qg2Vj_42AdgJ:www.fci.be/uploaded_files/243gb99_en.doc+site:www.fci.be+%22243+/+09.+06.+1999%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.fci.be/uploaded_files/243gb99_en.doc

• AKC standards both options are required

• akcgroup: The name of the group to which the dog belongs. (Hound, Working, etc..)
• akcstd: The URL to the breed standard from http://www.akc.org/breeds/complete_breed_list.cfm

an example for the Alaskan Malamute is: http://www.akc.org/breeds/alaskan_malamute/index.cfm

• ANKC standards all three options are required

• ankcgroup: The name of the group to which the dog belongs. (Hound, Working, etc..)
• ankcgroupnum: The number of the above group.
• ankcstd: The URL to the breed standard.

• CKC standards all three options are required

• ckcgroup: The name of the group to which the dog belongs. (Hound, Working, etc..)
• ckcgroupnum: The number of the above group.
• ckcstd: The URL to the breed standard.

• KC (UK) standards both options are required

• kcukgroup: The name of the group to which the dog belongs. (Hound, Working, etc..)
• kcukstd: The URL to the breed standard.

• NZKC standards both options are required

• nzkcgroup: The name of the group to which the dog belongs. (Hound, Working, etc..)
• nzkcstd: The URL to the breed standard.

Corrections and fixes

(Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds.) Elf | Talk 04:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Discuss template implementation issues here: Template talk:Infobox Dogbreed.

Discussions about what should/shouldn't be in the template should probably continue on this page. Elf | Talk 18:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Table(s) changes proposal for appearance and so on

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/General. Elf | Talk 20:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, a proposal or two: Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/TemplateTesting. I have done the following: put 3 versions of a separate physical characteristics table--two vertical, one horizontal--into the article (scroll through the article to see all 3 on the left). Moved the Standards links in our normal breed table up with the grouping (I really like this, BTW). This allowed me to add a 4th version of the characteristics tbl at the end of the main table. (The 4 categories I've chosen for this table are arbitrary.) What does anyone think? Other than I'm nuts for considering yet another change-- Elf | Talk 23:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Love love love what you've done. I think it should all be one table. It really isn't that long. The standards links looks beautiful. Now I've got to think about what we should do to standardize the articles. I'll get back in a day or two. Later Bremen 10:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice Elf, especially with the info all in the main table. How would we deal with the variations across the various countries? I can see two possibilities, either we combine them (UK = 24-27 cm, US = 26-28 cm, we list at 24-28) or we list each separately. The problem with the former being confusing people who don't realise it's a combined measurement, and with the latter being a longer table. What do you think? -- 12:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we have that problem already in the text; people are constantly coming in and changing the hts & wts. I think it's a bad idea to list the specific hts/wts from each breed standard; that's why we link to the Stds. :-) I usually do the first thing you mention when I'm looking up breed standards--look at at least a couple or 3 different places for hts/wts and just combine them. Same issue with coat colors; AKC allows chartreuse but FCI doesn't, blah blah. I was hoping that the heading "General breed characteristics" might forestall that, although perhaps it's a forlorn hope. And the more I think about it, the more "coat colors" is probably not a good candidate to include in the table. Maybe "Tail" and "Ears" instead? But then we'd have to try to use std breed terms for these--which aren't always obvious to the casual reader. Hmm. Elf | Talk 15:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add a note? Something like "24-28 cm (varies, see standards)". Might be worth trying out on a few breeds anyway -- sannse (talk) 21:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like this idea. Bremen 22:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Halló! I learned from User:Patrick at User talk:Patrick#Tables how to place space around a table, image, or text.

I could see that the first table at Dobermann/Temp#Appearance will interfear regarding "align=left" with the next following table if you resize the window. This still needs to be solved. You can see this only if you have a very large monitor or you edit the section "Appearance" and make a preview in a large window. Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 04:22, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

If I understand Elf's suggestions, we will just be using the first table, the others are alternative layouts. -- sannse (talk) 23:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was more of a question--do we want an independent floating characteristics table like one of the 3 examples--and if so, which--or do we want to include the stuff at the bottom of the standard breed table instead (example also on that page). I think we're leaning towards including in the standard table, if I'm reading responses correctly. Also, I just incorporated the suggetion about "varies" into the tables at Dobermann/Temp. Elf | Talk 00:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm awake now. Great ideas all round, Elf. My vote is for the smaller appearance table with the green band and grey bands. My reasons are:

1. It does make the breed table too long otherwise. One would have to stop reading the article, read through the breed table, scroll back up and continue the article. Smaller tables don't distract as much, one can in fact read through the whole article first and then use them for quick reference. Alternatively, one can just zoom in on the 411 one wanted, if, for example, you just had to wake up at two in the morning with a burning desire to know how big the Greater Djibuti Spotted Hound was....Sorry, I was a proceduralist in another life....
2. Lessens incidents of other people coming along and messing up the breed tables trying to insert info
3. New stubs can 'look nice' and have the agreed upon format even if the second table is missing or incomplete

Placing the standards next to the external links in the tables was a stroke of genius. (Good luck with moving them all from all existing articles, btw, ha, ha)

Offhand, I would say I preferred Coat colours rather than Tail and Ears, as the overall colours and/or distinctive markings are usually the most striking feature. Maybe insert tail and ears if they're significant--as in Dobes or ETTs e.g. And what if it's another feature causing all the ruckus--like the feet in the MFTe.g.

Bear in mind that not all breed standards describe all attributes the same way, not even within the same kennel club. So whatever layouts we use have to be flexible, some dogs are described by weight rather than height, e.g. or the JRT stipulation that an 'adult male's hands should be able to span the dog's chest'--that's interesting but wouldn't look good in a table.

I think I'll go leave a note for The Dogfather to come join this.

Quill 21:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Input

Starting over so as not to completely destroy the conversation thus far. Of course now I have to remember everything I wanted to address. Here goes:

1. Do not like the idea of adding height, weight, etc. to the existing breed tables. This is not consistently described across dog breeds. I do like the idea of a small table in the Appearance section--we could experiment, perhaps? Either that or utter a mental 'to hell with it' and refer people to the standards.
2. History and Origins are two different things sometimes. My first thought is that origin should come early in the piece.
3. Temperament is included in many breed standards, I think. We should probably use that.

Now I have to go refer to the various articles used as examples before I comment further. More tomorrow. Quill 10:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History and origin are sometimes different, true, but don't you think it would be confusing having both in the articles? I think they can fit together in most cases. Maybe we should call the category origins and history? Bremen 08:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

er...well, yes, actually, I do think it would be confusing....Quill 22:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, it's absolutely awesome to see so many people interested in working on this. Wikipedia is as amazing as it's users. Bremen 08:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, 'Wikipedia is only as amazing as its users'  ;)

The DogProject happens to be one of the nicer places!

Quill 22:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re input further above--green was a syntax error. I've chgd the background colors on the sample tables a bit, labeled them with "example #n" so it's easier to talk about them, started trying to make the first one slightly prettier, but now I have to go. Elf | Talk 22:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shame, I really liked it. As it stands now I vote for example No. 2. Quill 22:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I still like all the info in one table, seems less cluttered but my second choice would be example No. 2.Bremen 19:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Breed table standards

General breed characteristics (varies—see standards) example #2 Height at withers Female: 24 in. (61 cm) Male: 26-27 in. (66-68 cm) Weight Female: 75-80 lbs (34-36 kg) Male: 90 lbs (41 kg) Coat Short Colors Red, black, pink, purple, teal, seafoam green

OK, I have moved the Stds links in the standard breed table (main project page) per the example. Have at it. :-)

Also, for appearance info, after reviewing comments & thinking about how I'd apply it to several breeds, I think it's better in an optional separate table--because different breeds have different ways of specifying things, some don't specify some things, others specify others, plus when creating a new breed table for a new breed article it already takes me 15-20 minutes to put one in just with looking up the breed links & alt names--I don't want to discourage myself by feeling forced to put in the other info, too. So it looks as though the table here is the preferred one.

Any more comments on it? It doesn't have to use pink & gray but I thought I'd be consistent with the main breed table. Elf | Talk 21:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One possible improvement

The only other thing I could think of doing to the main breed table (before modifying all the Stds locations) would be to create a simpler-to-read template that might look (in part) something like this:

{{Infobox Dogbreed | breed_name = Dobermann
|image_dog = Dobermann.jpg
|image_caption= Red Dobermann with [[docking|uncropped]] ears
|alternative_names = Doberman Pinscher<br>name2<br>name3
|country_origin= [[Germany]]
|nicknames= Dobie, name2, name3
|FCIgroup = Group n, Section n, #nnn
|FCI_stds=[[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:TqfgQ0Q7aKYJ:www.fci.be/uploaded_files/143GB2003_en.doc+site:www.fci.be+%22143+/14.+02.+1994%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]
}}

Instead of like this for the same content:

{| border=1 cellspacing=0 align=right cellpadding=2
|- align=center bgcolor=pink 
!Dobermann
|- align=center
|[[Image:Dobermann.jpg|thumb|250px|none|Red Dobermann with [[docking|uncropped]] ears]]
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Alternative names
|-
|
{| align=center
|-
|Doberman Pinscher
|}
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Country of origin
|- align=center
|[[Germany]]
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Common nicknames
|- align=center 
|Dobie
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Classification and breed standards
|-
|
{| align=center
|[[Fédération Cynologique Internationale|FCI]]: ||Group 2 Section 1 #nnn
|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:TqfgQ0Q7aKYJ:www.fci.be/uploaded_files/143GB2003_en.doc+site:www.fci.be+%22143+/14.+02.+1994%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Stds] 
|}
|}

I know Sannse isn't fond of a proliferation of templates, but this seems like a good one for it (and maybe the smaller appearance table, too). One big advantage in something like this (other than it being easier to understand) is that, if we want to tweak the general appearance or colors of the table, or the text of the headings or the order of the sections, we can do it in one place. Elf | Talk 21:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dobermann/Temp

Hi! I invested a lot of time on Dobermann/Temp and was not aware about the deletion of that page. Please restore it, move it to an appropriate namespace as Project:WikiProject Dog breeds/Dobermann/Temp or User:Gangleri/tests/WikiProject Dog breeds/Dobermann/Temp and let a short note on my talk page. Thanks in advance. Best regards Gangleri | Th | T June 29, 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know it had been deleted--that was my working space, too, although I hadn't looked at it in a couple of months. Could've sworn I had it on my watchlist and I certainly would've noticed a vfd notice. I'll see whether I can restore it and add a note to it about future deletions. Elf | Talk 29 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)

It's now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/TemplateTesting

Creating a template template (January 2006)

WikiProject Dogs/Archive T
Traits Height Female: 24 in. (61 cm) Male: 26-27 in. (66-68 cm) Weight Female: 75-80 lbs (34-36 kg) Male: 90 lbs (41 kg)
Dog (domestic dog)

OK, I see now that we did decide that we wanted a nifty little table, but it never got implemented or finally approved anywhere. So first off, I'll try creating a real template for this: Template:Dogbreed details. You can see the result of this test at the left:

{{Dogbreed details
|height=Female: 24 in. (61 cm)<BR>Male: 26-27 in. (66-68 cm)
|weight=Female: 75-80 lbs (34-36 kg)<br>Male: 90 lbs (41 kg)
|colors=Blue merle, sable, pink, orange
|texture=Wire-haired
|ears=Prick
|tail=Bushy, carried high over back
}}

(I know it needs space on the right--call for help at Template talk:Dogbreed details.)

Thoughts, anyone? Elf | Talk 06:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, having a second tall table floating around Feels strange, i'm having- can we integrate this data in with the main infobox? I can see how it would fit in nicely within the existing infobox as follows:

|height=Female: 24 in. (61 cm)<BR>Male: 26-27 in. (66-68 cm)
|weight=Female: 75-80 lbs (34-36 kg)<br>Male: 90 lbs (41 kg)
|colors=Blue merle, sable, pink, orange
|texture=Wire-haired
|ears=Prick

If the breed doesn't have gender specific weight, you can leave off the gender specific inches/pounds/cm/. It will just be centered. If an item is unknown, it's hidden. I would say that we could put this in the existing infobox right above breed standards. But it's easy to move around check out User:Trysha/Sandbox/Basset for this inside an actual breed table - Thoughts? - Trysha ^(talk) 17:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There's already a sample layout with it integrated into the main box at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/TemplateTesting that I think looks a bit better than this; this one's too choppy with all the items separated into 4 columns. But my recollection was that this wasn't a popular idea, although if not, I'm not seeing a lot of discussion above (only a couple of comments about this). Elf | Talk 17:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, tricky, you changed it at the same time I was commenting on it. :-) I still think that, if it's going to be part of the main breed table, we don't want all those extra heading lines, so what you had first was closer in organization, or, again, the one in TemplateTesting.

I'm not clear on what happens in your template if you have only one weight for a breed, or only one for either male or female, or only have kg but not lb, etc.? That's why I left the whole thing as one input... Elf | Talk 17:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, I like the other format better - so I've reformatted the table to use your freeform variables and to match the infobox section, this makes the changes really simple. I like this better. What do you think? - Trysha ^(talk) 18:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I moved the testing template out of my sandbox, it is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dog_breeds/InfoboxTestingTemplate. Trysha ^(talk) 19:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

More discussion on template and appearance

... is at Template talk:Infobox Dogbreed. Elf | Talk 15:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

CKC standard links in infobox

I feel that the current link that is provided in the standard infobox (canadasguidetodogs.com) to find CKC standards is inadequate, and should be changed to go to the CKC website. Here is my reasoning: Canada's Guide to Dogs doesn't provide pages on all of the CKC breeds. Thus, occasionally editors who make the infoboxes assume that the breed isn't accepted when in fact it is, just because that breed doesn't have a page on the current link. Out of curiosity, why doesn't it link to the CKC website? --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The link to List of dog-related templates doesn't work in Template:mergefrom on this page because mergefrom apparently automatically inserts the same namespace prefix, hence it's trying to link to "Wikipedia:List of dog-related templates", which doesn't exist.

Anyway, this project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/Templates) has been around for quite a while and is in the project namespace, where I think stuff like this belongs, not in the main article namespace. If I'm wrong and there's now a whole raft of stuff like that out in the main namespace:

• Please provide a link here that indicates that
• Merge from here to there instead of vice-versa, but look for links to this place and fix 'em.

Elf | Talk 03:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the pages and added a redirect from List_of_dog-related_templates. I'll go through and change any links in need of changing. Jerazol 07:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do the templates automatically add the article to Category:Dog breeds?

The reason I ask is that Category:Dog Breeds is large enough to be unwieldy and it would be much better for user navigation for the dogs to be grouped in subcategories, as Category:Hounds (containing Category:Sight hounds and Category:Scent hounds), etc., at least loosely following the conventional categorisations of the major kennel clubs. Thus the general category page will not only help navigation, but also help to inform users on the various groupings of breeds.

As long as the breed articles are automatically added to Category:Dog breeds, this has no benefit. If all of the subcategories appeared on the first page of the category listing, this would not be a problem, but as it is they are scattered through the "next 200" pages with the alphabet. --7Kim 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I withdraw the question; I found the specific template and have put the removal up for discussion there. --7Kim 01:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

New color

Updated according to new Animalia color. See Wikipedia_talk:Taxobox_usage#Another_color_for_animal-taxobox.3F --165.21.154.93 (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

UKC breed standard links all wrong?

Hi. Let me know if this is the right place to address this, but I've noticed that in all the infoboxes I've checked (which I'm sure is a small portion of the whole) clicking on the link to the UKC breed standard immediately pulls up a box asking for a logon and password. The link is some sort of a mailto: address. I changed the link on the American Pit Bull Terrier page to the official breed standard on the UKC website [3]. I'm happy to go along and fix other pages, but if I'm overstepping or fixing something that ain't broke, will someone more involved with WikiProject Dogs let me know. Somerut (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind responding or linking to my talk page where I might notice a response sooner? Somerut (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

reqbreedphoto vs reqphoto

The {{reqbreedphoto}} template adds an article to Category:Wikipedia requested breed photographs. I'd like to propose using instead {{reqphoto|breeds}}, which would add them to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of breeds. The advantage is that dog articles could get {{reqphoto|dog breeds}}, cat articles could get {{reqphoto|cat breeds}}, and so on. Articles for breeds that are specific to a particular continent or country could get additional location tags, e.g. Japanese Terrier could get {{reqphoto|dog breeds|in=Japan}}, which would add the article to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Japan on top of the other categories.

What do you all think? Does anyone object to that idea? Tim Pierce (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

proposed: replace reqbreedphoto with reqphoto

I have proposed replacing {{reqbreedphoto}} with {{reqphoto}} on all existing pages. Please read my proposal at Template talk:Reqbreedphoto and add your opinions. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mastiff Footer

I think it would be a good idea to have a Mastiff footer for the bottom of pages realting to types of mastiff dog. If anyone knows how to I would be happy to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 07bargem (talk • contribs) 09:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What template do we use when....

What template do we use when....

1)...the referent isn't an official dog breed or dog type, but a dog type as with cocker spaniel?

2)...the referent isn't Canis lupus familiaris but Canis lupus dingo, such as the New Guinea Singing Dog?

3)...the dog is Canis lupus familiaris but isn't a recognized breed with classifications and standards, such as the Nureongi?

4)...sources disagree as to whether it's C.l.familiaris or C.l.dingo? Chrisrus (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Article is appearing in dog categories

The article appears to be categorised and is therefore appearing in several irrelevant dog categories. 213.246.84.135 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)