Template talk:Infobox dog breed/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Test case

Test case here: Template:Infobox dog breed/testcases. Elf | Talk 22:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion moved from dog breeds project

Thoughts

OK, now that I'm seeing it really in action:

  • This is strange, the template does have a "none" in it, that is confusing to me. We'll have to take a look at it.
  • I think that the alternative names should come before country of origin; they serve usually as an alternative to listing all the names in the text at the beginning of the article (although that's also sometimes done) and with some hot political issues, I don't think we want to place too much emphasis on the country.
  • I agree, I've fixed that. One nice thing about the template, the order does not matter in the articles - only the order in the template matters.
  • If stds link is missing, we shd have some standard text to fill in (a) because it's required or the whole kennel club line doesn't show up and (b) we ought to be consistent. Maybe just a "?"? (See the 08:22, 3 January 2006 version of Affenpinscher.) (Or, hmm, maybe define a macro to insert, so e.g.:
  |ckcstd={{dogstdmissing}}
  • Sadly, i think your question mark idea is the best one. The code is too limited, as you aren't supposed to use things like if defined....
  • And how about a nested template also for the standard AKC FSS text to go in the notes section, something like:
  |notes={{akcfss}}  (can find text in many breed tables--is usually consistent but not always)
  • That's a good idea, but i think it might be nice to treat it like the notrecongized keyword, we can have an akcfss keyword, it will drop in the boilerplate text in the apropos section. This way we don't have to trying to parse the notes tag if we need to make bot-related changes later. Besides, I am told that they don't like you if you use templates that use templates.

Otherwise, this is looking so good! That's all for now-- Elf | Talk 08:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, keep the comments coming! I'm in the process of writing a converter. But it's manual. I pipe the old breed table into it, and it gives me the template. I paste, preview, and then fix any irregularities in the script. I am very sad to that there is so much variance in the breed tables - they are ALL OVER THE PLACE in syntax. I figure by the time I get to "C" it will be good enough to automate, but maybe not even then. - Trysha (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've done an overhaul of this template to make all data points optional. Here is the usage: 

{{Infobox Dogbreed 
<!-- Put article text AFTER this infobox markup. See: -->
<!-- Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/Templates for more info.-->
|name= ...
|image= ...
|image_caption= ...
|altname= ... <br> ... <br>
|nickname= ... <br> ... <br>
|country= ...
|fcigroup= ... 
|fcisection= ... 
|fcinum= ...
|fcistd= ...
|akcgroup= ...
|akcstd= ...
|ankcgroup= ...
|ankcstd= ...
|ckcgroup= ... 
|ckcstd= ...
|kcukgroup= ...
|kcukstd= ...
|nzkcgroup= ...
|nzkcstd= ...
|ukcgroup= ...
|ukcstd= ...
|notrecognized= ...
|akcfss= ...
|akcmisc= ...
|ckcmisc= ...
|extinct= ...
|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.

- Trysha (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Cool stuff! I'm excited about maybe actually getting this implemented--. I see that currently for each kennel club, comments say that all fields are req'd--so what happens if you know that it's registered for, e.g., FCI (because it's in a list) but you can't find a copy of the stds to link to? Could we have some standard text to insert instead like "link needed" (too long--need no more than 3-4 chars probably). Thanks! Elf | Talk 00:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I think your solution of inserting a ? is the best thing that we can do for now. it doesn't break the table, I am told that they don't like us using if defined and other server intensive processes templates, so this is a good hack to make this work. I wonder if Netaholic can make a suggestion here? - Trysha (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Alignment of kennel club names

I liked the kennel club names (FCI etc.) left-aligned with each other rather than centered in the column as they are now. Don't you think so? Elf | Talk 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I've fixed it - I also centered the notes section. - Trysha (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


AKC FSS text

I'm still trying to think of a way to add standard AKC FSS text, namely "The AKC Foundation Stock Service is for beeds working towards full recognition". Could we just add one more item like the notrecognized, like akcfss=foo, where you just have to specify anything and it inserts the correct text in the Notes box? Elf | Talk 19:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty much trivial, and I just did it :) Simply add an "akcfss" = STUFF. If you do this, it will add a "FSS entry" to the breed table (and a link to the FSS section of the AKC site), as well as a description of what the FSS is in the notes section. Not sure I am happy with the implementation though, as hiddenStructure won't let you do an OR - so the NOTES titlebar won't appear automatically, it will be in the notes section if it is there, and if it is not there - it will be at the bottom of the breed and classification section. Should we put it at the bottom of the breed/classification table to be consistent? - Trysha (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is an example of an FSS breed that has no note. Appenzeller_Sennenhund . - Trysha (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Because AKC does in fact have individual breed pages for FSS dogs (e.g., http://www.akc.org/breeds/appenzeller_sennenhunde/index.cfm), I think we shd just plan on including those as usual with akcstd. Hence I added the link to the "FSS" explanatory text in the template--but you did this clever thing where making it FSS automatically overrides the ackstd setting and I didn't want to undo that without discussing it first. However--adding akcstd when the group is set to FSS ends up giving you two?? entries to AKC in the table (see current Appenzeller Sennenhund), so there's another reason for not doing it the clever way. You're getting good at this template thing! :-)

I haven't decided how I feel about whether it shd still go below the notes or in the breed stds. Maybe other people have a preference? Elf | Talk 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, i didn't especially like it, but I'm not nearly clever enough yet :) - I took out the double AKC link, so adding akcfss variable just the boilerplate text at the bottom - maybe we can just have people put "FSS" into the "akcgroup" line (FSS Hounds). I'm tempted to drag out the conditional templates, but they may set me on fire if I did that. So far, i've done all the "A" dogs except for a new problem - Trysha (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

New Problem - CKC Misc Class

So, now we have the CKC misc class, there is no group number. I really like having the group number as a variable. Maybe we can have a separate variable for now such as (ckcmisc ckcmiscstd), and sort it out later with a bot. That would be pretty easy once all the breeds are templated. We could even set ckcmisc to have a note in the notes section at the end like the akcfss does. - Trysha (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rather than having separate variables, how about just inventing a group number? We could call it "8" or how about "M"? Elf | Talk 00:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep I like M because no one will ever use that. I've implemented the switch statment to take this into account. Now waiting to hear if this is a terrible thing, and we should do it some other way. - Trysha (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

multi-standards for a given dog

I was looking at the daschund changes, and thinking about it last night, for dogs that have more than one standard, but only are in one group we could do something like this for each of the kennel clubs:

| akcstd2 = URLTOWIREHARE | akcstddesc2 = Wirehaired Niffler | akcstd3 = URLTOLONGHAIR | akcstddesc3 = Long Hair Niffler

Of course, that's kind of ugly in the template but can be nice on the dog page, looking like what we had before.

I cannot imagine more than 4 variants, so we could setup variants for each of the kennel clubs, so it wouldn't expand /that/ much, but I wonder if there is a nice way to do that without having a ton of cut and paste code. - Trysha (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a very rare occurrence--I think it happens on only 2 breed pages, dachshund and I can't remember which other one at the moment. Is it worth it to clutter up the template for those? Maybe there's a better way to do it--move multiple breed variants into separate tables and instead of a URL in the main table say "see xxx table" or some such? We could think about it while you work on all the normal cases and leave those til last to see how many there really are and what the requirements are. Elf | Talk 19:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Jack Russell Terrier is another with multiple links, but I'd really like to try separating them, since the goal I *think* was to eventually make them separate pages... maybe I'll go dink with that now. Elf | Talk 22:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Never mind on the JRTs; they had already been separated but not very well. Sort of like in real life (e.g., I think that UKC's "russell" and "jack russell" are = AKC's "jack russell" and "parson russel", yes in that order. hmph. Elf | Talk 23:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Terrier Group links

Hey, while I'm thinking of ways for you to spend your time so that you can't do what you really want to be doing ;-), is there a way to automatically include links to the FCI Terrier Group when it's group 3 and Terrier Group when others are Terrier or Terriers? As I've added to, for example, Australian Terrier. Elf | Talk

It seems that you can do this sort of thing automatically like this, check out the last edit, that's how you can automatically set the group link - I wonder if using the switch template is considered bad (cpu usage) - Trysha (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Guess we should find out what's evil before we plan on using this everywhere, huh? Elf | Talk 23:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I would ask User:Netaholic but it looks like he got blocked - So I'll ask on the village pump. I have to go home now, so I'll do that in a bit. - Trysha (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That would be User:Netoholic. I don't see anything on user's talk page about being blocked...? Elf | Talk 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC
There was some sort of strangeness going on there where he got blocked then unblocked - oh well, maybe i've misread - i've asked on his page. I'd really like to be able to use the {{switch}} statement, that will make standardizing those links much much easier, and will eliminate a lot of variables. - Trysha (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help, but let me ask a question or two. In checking out the specifics of this, I couldn't help but think that the article on FCI Terrier Group didn't really strike me as necessary. Essentially, it just recapitulates FCI's definition and content here on WP. Wouldn't it be better to just merge FCI Terrier Group into Terrier Group and present it that way? -- Netoholic @ 00:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That was just one question, not "or two". ;-) This question has been hashed before. See Talk:Terrier and probably continue the discussion there after reading the history linked from there, if you really want to. But that's something that we could also decide on later and adjust the template accordingly, right? Elf | Talk 02:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The other questions depended on the answer to the first ;). Due to the WP:AUM policy, we're actively trying to get rid of any "template within a template", that includes the {{switch}}. My suggestion for the time being would be to setup "fcigroup" just like "akcgroup" and in the individual Terrier articles define "| fcigroup = [[FCI Terrior Group|3]]". -- Netoholic @ 03:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, i guess the big question is this - if we cannot use {{switch}}, then we have to drop group numbers for the ckc and nzkc, and hope and prey that people put the entries in correctly. Are there no legal ways to do conditionals? An alternate hiddenStructure that took two arguments would be a very nice thing to have, (one with an and and one with an or). Fortunantly, it is pretty easy to write a bot to do that once things are all templated. - Trysha (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, having a simple bot replace "fcigroup = 3" with "fcigroup = [[FCI Terrior Group|3]]" and the like would be quite easy, as would just opening up the articles in a tabbed browser and running quickly through them. Doing them would probably take one run-through every couple months. A more complex bot could do the maintenance as well. -- Netoholic @ 08:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


Another template to-do question

OK, I got my FSS and Misc Group text mixed up. So I fixed the FSS text. But is there a way, if akcgroup= "Miscellaneous" to insert the text "The AKC Miscellaneous class is for breeds working towards full recognition." , likewise if ckcgroup="Miscellaneous", to insert "The CKC Miscellaneous..." etc? Or do we need 2 more variables like akcmisc=yes and ckcmisc=yes? Elf | Talk 20:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

We could do this by adding an "akcmisc" variable like the akcfss variable, I think we should also have a ckcmisc variable as well. It is sad that we cannot add boilerplate text in any other way than a throwaway variable like that. I wish we could do tests on a variable's contents - but that is too much server load. - Trysha (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I added the ckcmisc and akcmisc variables - maybe you can come up with a better wording? - Trysha (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Elf | Talk 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

extinct dogs

I added an extinct tag to the dogbreed template when converting the Extinct Dog Breeds category. - Trysha (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. Good one. Elf | Talk 17:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we move akcfss/akcmisc/cksmisc under the group?

I am wondering, should we move the akcfss/akcmisc boilerplate text underneath the akc table, rather than as notes at the end? Maybe something like this:—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trysha (talk • contribs)

Classification and breed standards
AKC: FSS (hound) Stds
The AKC Foundation Stock Service (FSS) is an optional recording service for purebred dogs that are not yet eligible for AKC registration.
CKC: Dogs with big Noses Stds

I was actually starting to think along those lines myself, but hadn't quite gotten there yet. I like it, now that I see it executed. And I want to see what dogs are in the Big Nose group. Elf | Talk 00:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The big nose group would have basset hounds and bloodhounds [1].  :) I converted the akcfss part of the tabel. You can check it on Norwegian Buhund (as a random one). - Trysha (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I moved the akcmisc, akcfss, and ckcmisc underneath the proper breed standard. Trysha (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Format of photos

We've been over this in the past and I don't know where the discussions were. SOmeone has once again removed the thumb format and put some other format onto it. I put it back to thumb because this wasn't someone who's done anything in the dog breeds area. However, I know that some people think the thumb is an unclean look. Can people please express their preferences? Here are some options...

  • Option 1 is what other user changed it to briefly
  • Option 2 is what it was yesterday, and now, and for most of dog-breed-project history
  • Option 3 is what the "official" template on the dog-breed-project page was listed as; another outside-the-project change that no one seemed to use

Note only the format of the photo within the outer frame and the caption. Elf | Talk 18:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Brittany (option 1)
Brittany puppy
Brittany puppy
Alternative names
Altname


Brittany (option 2, thumb, current)
File:BrittanySpanielMrwill.jpg
Brittany puppy
Alternative names
Altname


Brittany (option 3; old semiofficial)
alt text
Brittany puppy
Alternative names
Alternative name
Alternative name


  • option 2. I like the thumb because users get the icon they can click to see a larger version of the photo, which isn't obvious at all in nonthumb formats. Elf | Talk 17:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • option 2. I'm with you. I like option 2 for the same reasons you do.The Dogfather 02:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - non-computer geeks get it. Also like the caption look. Quill 08:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Number 2 - I like the current style. - Trysha (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Remove the thumb, standarize per Taxobox template. Joelito 20:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Thumbnail border looks foolish in a table. Percy Snoodle 12:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just made that choice a whole lot easier. I removed the |thumb| from the coding. Thumbnailed images inside an infobox just don't look right. Besides, the |250px| code covers it.--KrossTalk 22:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You can't just remove the |thumb| without redoing the table somewhat - you lose all those captions - besdies, we had 4 votes for number 2 (caption) and two for number 3 (as you changed edited it - so it seems that consensus was the other way) - if you are gonna change it, you should at least continue the discussion here. - Trysha (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor modification to the template (consensus needed)

I'd like to remove the categorisation under Category:Dog breeds from the template. This category has become badly overpopulated and I'm trying to make the navigation more user-friendly by moving existing categories of grouped dog breeds (Category:Hounds, Category:Companion dogs, Category:Herding dogs, etc.) under Category:Dog breeds, so that a user going there can find the dogs by group first. When this process is done, all dog breeds that are placed in any more specific category will be in the category tree under Category:Dog breeds. As long as the template automatically adds each dog-breed page to the top-level category, though, the benefits of grouping are negated.

I don't want to be presumptuous and just modify the template without any input, so I'm calling out to see if there are any objections. --7Kim 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

The ANKC link is badly broken: <http://www.ankc.aust.com/breed_list.html> does not work.

Use this: <http://www.ankc.org.au/home/default.asp> or some variation instead.

122.200.166.113 (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Patronage

The heading "Patronage": is that there, or not there? If it is there, then could we see it in the Blank Template; or, if it's not, then could it be removed from the Info-box at the top of the Template page? 122.200.166.113 (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It is out there and I suggest you read the Statutes of the FCI, and also realize that FCI data go into the Template:Infobox Dog breed, everything is covered. Thanks for the notice. -- Imbris (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

RSCE removal

I removed the RSCE from the classification section in the documentation. It wasn't actually part of the template, and if you look at its official list of breeds, you'll see that it links to the FCI and uses the exact same groups.

I would have asked for input, but since it's only an update to the doc and not the template itself, I assume no one will mind. — anndelion (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking for input on a couple of proposed modifications

I'd appreciate opinions. In case there are a few people who watch this page but not WikiProject Dogs: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Proposed modifications to Template:Infobox Dogbreed — anndelion (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FCI info needs updating

I am not keen to do anything to an infobox, even something simple like updating the parameters explanations, without consensus. But I do think it is important that the information about FCI standards needs to be updated. The link suggested is broken and the fci now has its standards in PDF format at http://www.fci.be/en/Nomenclature/races.aspx Jemmaca (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • FCI re-vamped all of its website a few months ago - changing the links to all breed standards resulting in 404 errors. So far I have fixed all the Gundogs, all the terriers and several others breeds if I was editing them for something else. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That is an incredible amount of work you have done. Well done and thank you. What do you think of changing the bit that currently says

fcistd: The URL to the FCI breed standard. There are several different ways to link to this; start looking here: http://www.fci.be/nomenclature.aspx

http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.fci.be/uploaded_files/243gb99_en.doc http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.fci.be/uploaded_files/243gb99_en.doc&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

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

To something like:

fcistd: The URL to the FCI breed standard. To find a link you can start at http://www.fci.be/en/Nomenclature/races.aspx

example: http://www.fci.be/Nomenclature/Standards/002g07-en.pdf

I don't see a need for more than one example but perhaps I am missing something.Jemmaca (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't see the need for more than one FCI example - this link you quote above, I feel, would be sufficient. I have just updated The Kennel Club link as it also re-vamped all of its website fairly recently. The old KC links don't currently lead readers to a 404 error but they do have to do some hunting to get to the relevant breed standard. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ok, I have been bold and gone and removed the broken example links and updated the one for where to find the FCI breed standard. Jemmaca (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • These things change all the time and need to be audited at least annually; when I did this for {{Infobox cat breed}} in mid-2015, I found that six organizations had changed their sites enough to bollix the links.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Foundation stock, hybrids, and merging Template:Infobox dog crossbreed

The pointless {{Infobox dog crossbreed}} can be safely merged redirected. In Template:Infobox dog breed/testcases#Test of foundation stock parameter (see first test on page) the functionality of a parameter (|stock= or |breeds=) is demonstrated, having been added to Template:Infobox dog breed/sandbox. This will be useful both for just redirecting the crossbreed template to this one, and also adding information on previous breed (and non-breed, e.g. dingo) stock for established breeds.

PS: Since we need to be able to indicate domestic × wild hybrids, this can be done by borrowing the code for this from {{Infobox cat breed}}, also integrated into the sandbox here, and used with |x= to specify the wild stock (second test on the testcases page).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

PPS: The |stock= parameter is also active in {{Infobox cat breed}}; see both parameter in action at once at Bengal cat.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: Finished the merge from Template:Infobox dog crossbreed to Template:Infobox dog breed, and did some code cleanup in the process (removed redundant processing, and stopped generating the standards box if no standards are provided).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

JKC standards

We should add the Japan Kennel Club classifications to our existing list in this template. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it any different from reglar FCI? JKC is member of JKC. Nimdil (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Two suggestions

I can implement them no problem but I want to run it through people first:

  1. We probably should add ACW or Allianz Canine Worldwide. I feel they got enough traction to warrant it and unlike UKC which seems like isolated US organization, ACW is international federation. So classification of breed by ACW seems valid. Nimdil (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. We probably could add something like "dedicated breeding organization" in which we can list breeding organization that are recognizable and dedicated to specific breed: like ISDS for Border Collie and ASCA for Australian Shepherd. Nimdil (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I would say no to both of the above suggestions. ACW is not notable. Adding a parameter for "dedicated breeding organisations" or similar is too vague - it could even be interpreted as being a breed club. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't know about being notable - recently polish member of parliament drafted a law under which pure breed dogs are dogs registered under FCI or ACW. Sounds notable enough to me. As for the other case - maybe it will require better definition, s.t. like idependent notable organisatoin or s.t. like that but I still think ASCA for australian shepherds and ISDS for border colleis should be listed. Nimdil (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

FCI listing near top is inappropriate.

The FCI is not recognized in the United States or United Kingdom, where the American Kennel Club and the American Kennel Club are prominent, of which usually seem to operate similarly. Per this being the English Wikipedia, and having our servers based in the U.S., the FCI should be listed in alphabetical order instead of being placed at the top. R9tgokunks ✡ 05:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with alpha order, though not for the exact reason given. FCI publishes in English as well, and has formal affiliates in various English-speaking countries. An argument could be made to keep it at the top because it is so international compared to other organizations, but I don't think that's compelling. The real issue is that putting FCI at the top is an WP:UNDUE issue, since "registers pedigrees in more jurisdictions" doesn't equate to "is more reliable", especially since it post-dates many of the major national clubs and has very little "buy-in" in some quarters. I'm somewhat responsible/guilty for a similar "loaded" organization order at {{Infobox cat breed}}, and looking at it againt, I realize that by top-loading it with the three explicitly international registries that it makes for confusing output, especially since only someone intimately familiar with these groups will know which ones are interational. That is, top-loading them doesn't signify anything to the average reader and just looks biased.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I too would support a reordering, but per below the FCI should have no more parameters than any other kennel clubs within the template. Cavalryman (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

Patronage parameter

I propose removing the patronage parameter, it is an vaguely defined classification of the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (their explanation) that is not backed up by any reliable secondary sources. Cavalryman (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC).

Patronage is an undefined term which, in my opinion, implies the last bastion of colonialism. With the FCI, we have the African basenji under the patronage of Britain - one would have thought that the African people who live with them today as they have for centuries would also be providing some form of "patronage". With the ARBA, we have the New Guinea singing dog under the patronage of the US - neglecting to consider the Central Highlands people of New Guinea who live with them today (despite the media myth that these are a "rare" dog). We need to ask ourselves just what value this patronage parameter is adding to a reader of Wikipedia; I suspect that it only provides unnecessary confusion. William Harristalk 09:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I concur it should be removed. I don't recall anyone but FCI using it for dogs, and I don't recall seeing it used in other spheres (cat breeding, etc.), either. FCI's own document says "country of origin", "country of origin/patronage/development", and "country of patronage or development" in succession, and seems to mean the same general thing in each case. The second and the third constructions actually conflict a bit in possible interpretation ("origin/patronage/development" seems to imply "origin AKA patronage AKA development", while "patronage or development" definitely implies "patronage, or if that doesn't apply, this other thing called development" – plus is leave out "origin", the root concept! The document throughout (a translation from French) has various usage that isn't actually idiomatic in English. To the extent we can even be certain this "patronage" is meant to mean "development towards consistent standardization outside the area[s] of the foundation stock's origin[s]", we do not a separate parameter for this, and it's also already covered by the concept of "development". Various other breed infoboxes do not have separate parameters, and |country= means "country/countries of origin and/or further development. E.g., we just do something like |country=Isle of Man; Canada (or if detail is needed, |country=Isle of Man (foundation stock); Canada (additional development)) and then explain in the article body that the foundation stock was from the Isle of Man, but that it was developed as a standardized breed in Canada from Manx stock. In various cases, the exact origins are disputed anyway, so we have to get into it in detail in the body no matter what. (I'm more familiar with feline cases, but it's the same principle regardless of species.)

All that said, we'll need to track down usage of this parameter and merge content from it into |country= at various articles before deleting the parameter. PS: We should also consider massaging the documentation here to be a bit less "FCI, FCI, and more FCI". It's just one organization, and it's not even given much attention in the US, UK, Canada, and other countries with major national kennel clubs that aren't FCI affiliates.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree fully, the FCI and the AKC should be culled to two parameters each, group and standard. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

Imho a parameter more is better than a parameter less. This goes not only for 'FCI' but for every other kennel clubs when they have more parameters than the others. Albert the 1st (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Cavalryman, I'm not entirely convinced this is a good idea. As we've seen at Maltese, patronage can be useful when the supposed country of origin is either apocryphal or no longer verifiable. All it means (as I understand it) is the the FCI has given that country the right to draw up the breed standard.
As for the rest of it, it's absurdly complicated compared with, say, {{Infobox cattle breed}} (compare them in edit mode!). Would it not make sense to derive this too from {{Infobox animal breed}}, adapting as necessary? (please note, I'm not offering!). The documentation is also excessively complicated, and in places actually wrong – there's supposed to be an | otherstd = parameter, but it doesn't produce any result (again, see Maltese).
My take, and in the interests of WP:CSB: the breed standards should be simplified, and should allow for the breed standard of the country of origin (when there is one) to appear in first place. A straightforward syntax widely used elsewhere is | standard = {{ubl|[url1 entity1]|[url2 entity2]|etc}}; is there any reason why that shouldn't work here? {{Ubl}} could with advantage also be used wherever the documentation says something like "To specify more than one name, you must specify them all on one line separated by ,<br />". And so on. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, I agree the template is quite complicated, I have long thought it is too kennel club focused with issues of systemic bias (six kennel clubs from five English speaking countries, as well as the FCI, have their own parameters). I have previously thought about proposing an amendment like you have above, but considered the workload would be too much given the template has 654 transclusions.
I fell if this parameter is retained it should be dropped to below the Classification and standards line and state FCI patronage, I think its current name and location has the potential to confuse the reader into thinking this is something other than a kennel club’s classification. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC).
Perhaps patronage could be relocated under the FCI with its parameters, because that is what it is referring to - the FCI patronage. William Harristalk 08:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@William Harris, SMcCandlish, Albert the 1st, and Justlettersandnumbers: we never actually resolved this. At a minimum I believe the patronage parameter should be moved under the FCI heading and renamed something like "FCI designated patronage". What are other's thoughts? Cavalryman (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC).

  • A change to "FCI patronage" seems fine if people think it necessary. As I've tried to say above, this is about the least serious of the problems this template has. Is there any agreement on, or enthusiasm for, trying to get a mock-up of a clearer and simpler version based on {{infobox animal breed}}? If so I will try to put that in motion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes I support completely, I too have been giving it some thought and was also thinking of creating a new infobox, once we have migrated everything to it we could merge the two. I have only ever created one infobox but would be willing to give it another go or assist you in any way. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC).
I think that's a good idea. You're always welcome to ping me if you get stuck on any of the work in updating the infobox, and I'll do my best to help out. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
To catch up a bit: Where this "patronage" concept can (rarely) be useful to us in explaining things to readers, that is the job of the article text, not an infobox that has become perversely confusing. I agree with Justlettersandnumbers that this template should behave as consistently with other breed boxes as we can re-make it (though it could suggest that some of them need an additional feature or two in the long run; as with the discussions of the breed list articles, when we start comparing them in earnest, they seem to diverge quite a lot and could benefit from some standardization efforts that take into account what everyone has been trying to do with them, and why, and which approaches make the most sense to retain, in what form). Re, "Is there any agreement on, or enthusiasm for, trying to get a mock-up of a clearer and simpler version based on {{infobox animal breed}}?" My answer to "enthusiasm" is "yes", though I can't speak individually as to "agreement" among everyone. :-)

That said, I don't think the approach taken at Template:Infobox cat breed is bad. It existed before I overhauled it, and was clearly based on this one, but today accounts for every non-trivial feline breed registry I could dig up (besides national affiliates of the international ones), and doesn't give any of them "special" parameters. It does put the broadly international ones at the top, but that might not be a good idea, and is easily undone in favor of a purely alphabetical list. I think that approach has been useful for three things: 1) making it clear that treating some "backyard breeder" or "pet mill" organization as a reliable source isn't going to fly (or at least that the burden of proof of reputability is on the person who would add parameters for that group to the template); 2) suggesting sources to go look for that one might not have known about before; 3) ensuring consistent entry and presentation (e.g. full name of organization and link to their article here, and URL formatted properly that goes directly to their breed standard). I think an improvement would be a means of substituting in a full WP:CS1 citation, since many of these need to be cited in the main article text as well; it might be a simple code tweak to have the parameter check whether it contains a bare URL or something else like a templated citation.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It is my opinion that only the national kennel club from the breed's home country (and possibly FCI recognition) should be included in the infobox. My previous reservations about doing anything bold was the workload that would be required to transition to a new infobox, currently there are 644 transclusions. My current opinion is this is not insurmountable, but that we should reduce the workload as much as possible, therefore I think we should retain as much as possible from the top half of the current infobox and completely rewrite the bottom half, that we we just need to re-enter the kennel club information for each breed. My thoughts are something along the lines of:

Proposed documentation
{{Infobox dog breed 2
| name     = 
| image    = 
| image_alt = 
| image_caption = 
| image2    = 
| image_alt2 = 
| image_caption2 = 
| altname  = 
| nickname = 
| stock = 
| country  = 
<!-----Traits----->
| weight       = 
| maleweight   = 
| femaleweight = 
| height       = 
| maleheight   = 
| femaleheight = 
| coat         = 
| colour        = <!-- or | color =  -->
| litter_size  = 
| life_span    = 
<!-----National kennel club and standards----->
| national_kc = 
| national_kc_std = 
| national_kc2 = <!-- if required for dual-national breeds  -->
| national_kc2_std = 
| fci_recognition =  <!-- y or n -->
| fcinum     = 
| notrecognised = <!-- or | notrecognized =  -->
| landrace   =  <!-- or | cross =  -->
| extinct    = 
<!-----Notes----->
| note = 
}}

You will see above the National kennel club and standard line it is almost identical to the current template (I have removed patronage), I think the Template:Infobox horse breed has one of the best association (breed club) and breed standard links I have seen and would love to replicate that. Yesterday I started playing with the template in my namespace (User:Cavalryman/Infobox dog breed 2), but have not got very far. Comments, suggestions and/or objections on the above would be greatly appreciated, further I welcome input in my user space. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC).

Patronage parameter break

User:Cavalryman/Infobox dog breed 2

Main page: User:Cavalryman/Infobox dog breed 2

@William Harris, SMcCandlish, Albert the 1st, Justlettersandnumbers, and RexxS: (& Atsme), I think I have managed a pretty good start at a revamped infobox, the link above takes you to it. I have retained the top half of the existing infobox (for ease of transition) and rewritten the kennel club recognition section reducing the emphasis on Five Eyes kennel clubs, below: 

<!-----Kennel club recognition----->
| kc_name       = 
| kc_std        = 
| kc2_name      = 
| kc2_std       = 
| kc3_name      = 
| kc3_std       = 
| fcistd        =

I have used the Bloodhound as an example here as both Belgium & the UK claim it as their own. What are everyone's thoughts? Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC).

Good God! Remove kennel club recognition from Anglo-Saxon dominance, are you barking mad, man? Before you know it, Wikipedia will be listing every beast east of Calais!
Excellent work, and something that has needed review for quite some time. The sooner this is implemented the better. William Harristalk 07:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm willing to see how this goes. I have some concerns. The free-form nature of most of the kc* parameters will be misused to insert bogus organizations (promotional, single-breed registries, and things like ARBA, which exists almost entirely to help people advertise their "new breed"). Country of origin is sometimes disputed. Sometimes it's not terribly relevant when it comes to KC and breed-standards matters, in that foundation stock may be from one country (which may lack such an organization), with most breed development taking place in another. And sometimes the vast majority of a breed are in some country that was not the country of origin, thus the other country's leading KC is apt to have more relevance for the nature of the breed as it stands today (because the majority of breeders are using that standard). But, we'll see. Template:Infobox cat breed has taken the opposite approach, and is adding parameters for every national-level registry that appears to be notable and not a "kitten mill" and also not just the national affiliate of FIFe (the cats equivalent of FCI). So, after a few years we should have directly comparable results from the two approaches. PS: the kc_* parameters should have kc1_* aliases, the way |last= has a |last1= alias in the citation templates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I had thought about that, we could possibly list something in the documentation restricting the list to that proposed in WP:Notability (breeds) or something similar. Cavalryman (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC).
That would probably help.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Great work, Cavalryman, this is a big improvement! Suggestions:
  • Change the "Kennel club recognition" header to "Breed standards" – in some countries, dog breeds have recognition at regional or national government level, regardless of what any kennel club does or does not choose to do
  • I still think (as I've said above) we should base this on {{infobox animal breed}}, for simplicity, consistency and ease of making future changes. Without wishing to pre-empt any other comment, ping RexxS to comment easy or difficult such change would be from this point (note to others: that's who did the excellent revamp of {{infobox horse breed}})
  • The breed standard syntax that's in the horse breed infobox is there for historic reasons, for backwards compatibility; we may need to do something similar here
  • As I've said above, a more straightforward syntax is | standard = {{ubl|[url1 entity1]|[url2 entity2]|etc}}, easily activated with infobox animal breed; point well taken about standards from non-notable/non-reliable/non-nationally-recognised kennel clubs creeping in, but really this is no more of a problem in the infobox than anywhere else in the page.
Thanks all round, it looks as if this should now be within reach. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it's quite possible to create this infobox based on {{infobox animal breed}}, but I feel it's more important to go with whatever means a dedicated infobox maintainer wishes to use. Of course, having fewer basic implementations of {{infobox}} aids maintenance, but the reader never sees that and that's who is most important. As long as Cavalryman is keen to maintain the infobox, I would recommend encouraging them to do so without worrying about the underlying implementation too much. It's always something that can be picked up in the future. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers & RexxS, anything that can be done to simplify this infobox is something I would strongly support, if you look at the history you will see there was a lot of me bumbling around then reverting. Some of the parameters are will beyond my merger abilities. I would be very happy to base it on {{infobox animal breed}} I just wish to reduce the volume of work to transition to the new template. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC).
Also, I have amended the "Kennel club recognition" header to "Breed standards", but on reflection I think something like "Kennel club standards" may be better, otherwise breed club standards may be added. Cavalryman (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC).
Sure. The distinction matters, since just a breed club exists for all kinds of things that are non-notable and not recognized as breeds by anyone else. That problem exists also with regard to cats and a few other things, but the issue of inventing "new breeds" for profit-pursuit purposes is a bigger one in dogs than in anything else.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

New infobox now live

Main page: Template:Infobox dog breed 2

I have migrated the template to main space and have added it to a number of breed articles (Airedale, Bloodhound, Border Collie, English Mastiff, Golden Retriever, Labrador & Staffordshire Bull Terrier), if there are no objections I will amend the documentation page of the original, amend the project's template page and continue the migration. It is a particularly easy process for breeds of the Five Eyes nations. Cavalryman (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC).

Excellent work, I can almost hear the rust falling off WikiProject Dogs.
One point @Cavalryman, SMcCandlish, Albert the 1st, Justlettersandnumbers, RexxS, and Atsme: for consideration. I propose at the bottom of the breed box it simply says Dog (domestic dog), and remove the (Canis lupus familiaris). Two reasons: (1) this is an breed box, not a taxobox, and readers can follow the link to learn about the domestic dog, its current taxonomic classifications, and the debate over them; and (2) being Canis lupus familiaris was disputed at the time Wozencraft classified it in 2005 and it is being even more disputed today - genomics proves that the animal depicted in the Wolf article is not the ancestor of the dog - we should remove ourselves from that debate. How to do this can be found on the Template, section Special Parameters, trinomial. I have used it in the bloodhound example above as a demo. William Harristalk 09:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I support removing it, it’s always felt a little out of place to me, this is an infobox summarising the characteristics of breeds of dogs, the domestic dog article covers the classification. Cavalryman (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC).
  • support removal. Thank you for your excellent work, Cavalryman! My hearing isn't as keen as William's who can hear rust falling, but I'll take his word for it. :-) Atsme Talk 📧 13:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 Done I have made the changes to both {{Infobox dog breed}} & {{Infobox dog breed 2}}. Cavalryman (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I have amended the documentation of {{Infobox dog breed}} and the guidance at the project's template page to the new template. I will now start the migration to the new template. Cavalryman (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC).

Superb. Does this mean individual amendments across each breed article, and if so do you have a strategy for doing this and would you like some assistance, or does the template simply reflect on all of the breeds automatically? William Harristalk 08:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The rough plan is to pick a national navbox and start migrating manually, I figure that way whoever is doing it can have whichever national kennel club’s webpage open to add respective breed standards, today I did {{American dogs}} & {{Canadian dogs}} (two of the easiest as their respective national kennel club standards were already there). Only the recognised breeds need to be transferred, unrecognised and extinct breeds can keep the old, when we merge the templates they’ll still be fine. I am not checking the accuracy of any of the contents, just adding a 2 and copying then pasting parameters and urls. A help would be most welcome, {{Australian dogs}} and {{British dogs}} will be easy ones. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC).
Take a look back at Labrador Retriever - SPORKBOT changed your template edit for some reason.
When do I use box 1 as opposed to box 2?
I shall get started on the Aussie dogs, but will have to leave the dingo - there is a bunch of die-hards on that article who believe it is a special subspecies rather than what it is - a domestic dog that went feral as stated in "Taxonomy of Australian Mammals", Jackson 2015. Perhaps one day a "raid" might be done on it by the WP:DOGS crew to bring it into the 21st century. William Harristalk 09:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I left the old |fcistd = parameter in it, the bot removed the duplicate. And yes I was probably going to skip the dingo. Cavalryman (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC).
That is all the Aussies done, bar Dingo. I will proceed to the Brits shortly. William Harristalk 10:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, many thanks, I have added a tracker below to keep a tab. Cavalryman (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I am working backwards through the UK list, as you appear to have made a start at the front. I am having difficulty with Pembroke Welsh Corgi - see how you go. William Harristalk 22:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I have only done those few listed at the top of this sub-section, I have now fixed the Pembroke Corgi. Some of the infoboxes are in pretty wild order, if you cannot be bothered fishing out all of the old parameters you can simply add the |kc_name = The Kennel Club & |kc_std = parameters and copy the KC standard into the latter, the others disappear from view. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

Further perturbation - the Akita (dog) article, the FCI recognises two standards including one for the American Akita. William Harristalk 22:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I have added a second infobox for the American Akita with the AKC standard & FCI standards, I think that better reflects the differences of the two, the article discusses the separate recognition. I have recently done a similar thing at Landseer (dog) during a rewrite. Cavalryman (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC).
I think that is a very fair solution; well done. William Harristalk 01:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with removing the species; list whichever is best accepted, and leave taxonomic disputation for the main dog article. We also use this infobox for domestic–wild hybrids. At bare minimum, the "Canis lupus familiaris × Canis [whatever] should be emitted for such cases, even if it is suppressed for non-hybrids. This feature is in some other such infoboxes, like the one for cats. (Several established cat breeds are actually trans-specific and even trans-generic hybrids.) Other than this quibble, I'm fine with how this has been progressing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the need for the hybrid entry at all, refer Dingo-dog hybrid. People can go back to each individual canine's article if they have a fascination for the taxonomic classification of each (unlikely). I am not convinced that the entry at Coydog has any taxonomic basis, and even more so my cross-species masterpiece at Eastern coyote. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature tells me that under "1.3. Exclusions - Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names proposed: 1.3.3. for hybrid specimens as such". Hybrids are excluded from the Code, and Wikipedia should follow in the same manner. William Harristalk 08:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
That's citing the wrong authority for the wrong thing. ICZN doesn't catalogue hybrids, and consequently they have nothing to do with how hybrids are denoted, which follows specific conventions. See MOS:ORGANISMS for the use of × and other details. They're just not conventions authored by ICZN. Similarly, the ICN has nothing to do with plant hybrids; that's ICNCP. (By way of analogy, the Roman Catholic Church cannot tell us anything about the appropriate ways to refer to Muhammad or to the Tannaim and Amoraim; those matters are determined outside the Pope's bailiwick, by definition, despite all three religions being Abrahamic and worshiping the same God, and sharing some terminology and doctrinal concepts. If nomenclature as a whole is analogized to Christianity, then ICZN and ICN are the Old Testament – accepted but not inclusive of everything.)

It may be that until the off-site debate about exactly how to taxonomically classify wolves, coyotes, and dogs is settled, that the parameter in this infobox won't have/see much use, due to uncertainty about what to put in there; but we can expect that to settle out eventually. There's no such issue with cats, so it works well, e.g. at Bengal cat, precisely identifying the species used to create the hybrid. While the details are covered well in the main text, having an infobox that just declares something a "hybrid" without being precise about it will be frustrating and potentially confusing, especially because outside of biology circles, the word hybrid is often misapplied to all-domestic crossbreeds. This terminological confusion (like that between feral and wild) is especially common in regards to agricultural livestock, but you can encounter it in dog-related material, too.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, the template retains the trinomial= parameter so if there is a desire, a unique/custom descriptor can be added. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC).
Coolio.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants allows hybrid naming. The The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not. "That's citing the wrong authority for the wrong thing." I disagree, I am citing the only authority on the rules of zoological naming and it excludes hybrids, so I do not know on what basis something can be referred to on Wikipedia as C. latrans x C. lupus. As always: Citation Requested. MOS:ORGANISMS is a draft. I believe that this is not a direction Wikipedia should be heading in. William Harristalk 08:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As you go through these, please check that they are badged WP:DOGS on the Talk page, I just picked up an unbadged Yakutian Laika! William Harristalk 09:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have found a few with redlinked talk pages and have labelled them, but will go into every talk page from now on. Cavalryman (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC).
Nice work dividing Denmark into its territories. William Harristalk 12:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox migration

Great work, everyone! But – without wishing to decant too much cold water on your labour – are we really going about this the right way? Someone's eventually going to have to revisit every one of those pages to remove the "2" from the name of the infobox. Would it not at this point be preferable to move the new infobox into place over the old one, and then go round to fix any remaining inconsistencies? Ping Cavalryman and William Harris who seem to have done most of the work so far. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, my thoughts are we simply redirect {{Infobox dog breed 2}} into {{Infobox dog breed}} and leave the "2"s in place. I have stumbled upon a couple of redirects already, including {{Infobox Dogbreed}} and {{Infobox dogbreed}}. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
Well, yes, a redirect will work of course, but sooner or later we're going to want to eliminate the 2s, are we not? I see that the documentation has been updated. I suggest that we now update the infobox with the revised/improved syntax; Cavalryman, as author of that content, would you like to do that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, I agree, the new template will retain FCI recognition and standards from any breeds using the old parameters and we have already covered all of the ABCANZ countries so their breeds already have their KC standards. I will make the change now. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC).
 Done, let me know if I have broken the project. Cavalryman (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC).

Height & weight parameters

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Consensus was to adopt the correct specific terminology. Cavalryman (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC).

I propose to adopt the terminology dogs and bitches in lieu of males and females for the sex specific height and weight parameters. This is both correct use of the language and it is the terminology used by the world’s major English speaking kennel clubs including the FCI [2], AKC [3], ANKC [4], KC [5] and NZKC [6]. Cavalryman (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC).

Note: A link to this discussion has been included in the WT:WikiProject Dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm in favour of that. I can't point to it now, but there has in the past been agreement to use correct specific terminology in relation to horses; we should do the same for dogs. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_dog_breed/Archive_1&oldid=1179278676"