Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Domestic pigeon task force/Archive 2

Archiving of discussion

How does anyone feel about archiving conversation on this talk page older than say 1 month? Just curious what the feeling would be. It's not as if we've got a mountain of discussion here so there's no rush to decide but I thought I'd start a discussion of this issue.--Onorio (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Archiving this talk page is a good idea. Do you want to set up a bot to do it?--Sting Buzz Me... 09:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This link might help User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. Cheers,--Sting Buzz Me... 10:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sting. I'm a little behind in my replies. I'll take a look at that link you provided and get the archiving going.--Onorio (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sting. As I said before so far it looks like you and me are the task force. Since we both agreed to archiving, I set up the archiving bot to archive this page every 2 months. I don't anticipate such high volumes of traffic that we'll need it archived more often but adjust it if you feel it's appropriate. You have a lot more experience with WP than I do.--Onorio (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pigeon equivalent of taxoboxes

I was thinking that it might be worth our while to work on creating template infoboxes akin to the taxoboxes for certain common pieces of information for the various breed articles. For instance a nicely formatted box something like this maybe:

Origin of Breed	India
Breed Group	Fancy

Obviously this would be done as a template and dressed up a bit but I hope my point is apparent. And, of course, the content of the box would likely be more than just area of origin and breed group.

What's everyone's opinion?--Onorio (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been wondering about info boxes for the breed articles? Perhaps something along similar lines to the dog breed articles. Example here Koolie. The infobox template is at Template:Infobox which gives:

Test Infobox

Caption for example.png
Header defined alone
Data defined alone
All three defined (header)
Label and data defined (label)	Label and data defined (data)
Below text

{{Infobox |name = Infobox/doc |title = Test Infobox |image = [[File:Bad Title Example.png|200px]] |caption = Caption for example.png |headerstyle = background:#ccf; |labelstyle = background:#ddf; |header1 = Header defined alone |label1 = |data1 = |header2 = |label2 = Label defined alone |data2 = |header3 = |label3 = |data3 = Data defined alone |header4 = All three defined (header) |label4 = All three defined (label) |data4 = All three defined (data) |header5 = |label5 = Label and data defined (label) |data5 = Label and data defined (data) |belowstyle = background:#ddf; |below = Below text }} So could adapt what we need from that template.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, sorry--a bit behind in my replies. I think that infobox you pointed at (the Koolie infobox) would be a great place to start. Are there any sort of color guidelines or layout guidelines that the parent Birds Wikiproject uses for taxoboxes? I'm assuming that we should follow their general color scheme or formatting scheme (fonts etc.) unless there's a strong reason not to.--Onorio (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about colour guidelines? I think the bird "taxobox" won't suit individual pigeon breeds? I think Template:Infobox is the better one to use. Probably not much use putting an info box on a stub article in any case. The info box takes up too much of the article space on a stub sized article. I've seen pages get created with just an infobox! They look terrible and are put up for AfD real quick. Probably better to only use an infobox on an article once it gets expanded. I plan to start expanding some articles eventually, but it wont happen overnight. If you want to try putting an infobox on a breed article then do so. I'll see how it looks once you're done.--Sting Buzz Me... 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just been searching through the breed articles and I found one that has an infobox of sorts. It's at German Colored Tail Owl. Pretty untidy looking code though. But it could give us some ideas?--Sting Buzz Me... 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I think this would be a good starting point. I'll look at the code more closely when I can.--Onorio (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

New breed articles

I took some pictures at a recent show so I'm in the process of uploading to commons and then creating article stubs. Anyone please feel free to expand these articles as they are only going to be pretty basic clones at first. New ones are Ice Pigeon and King (pigeon). Also added a picture to the Birmingham Roller article.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Task force name

To be consistent with other task forces and the name of the Wikipedia article (Domestic Pigeon) and the Wikipedia category (Category:Domestic pigeons), this task force should be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Domestic Pigeon task force. GregManninLB (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Domesticated pigeon task force? I agree with the move. Any objections?--Sting Buzz Me... 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have registered my objection sooner. I wish I would have had time to comment on this. Looks as if I'm too late.

1. Actually as far as I'm concerned the article and the category should have been renamed--not the task force. "Domestic" can mean an animal native to a certain area--while "domesticated" has no such secondary meaning. Hence a passenger pigeon was a pigeon that was domestic to North America but it was never a domesticated pigeon. A Bruce's Green-Pigeon is a pigeon that is domestic to certain parts of Africa but as far as I know is not domesticated. I trust that the distinction is apparent.

The article and the category are named correctly. You can take that from someone with a whole lot more experience on the subject than you. Oh, and I think the word you're looking for is endemic.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Maybe you could wait a little longer for consensus on an issue of this sort next time Sting? Especially considering that the suggestion came from someone not even affiliated with the task force. Maybe this change is easily reverted but it doesn't look like it. As far as I know it's hardly a minor edit and since we all "own" this task force, I would have rather waited for at least one opinion from someone else in the task force before you made the change. I think "be bold in editing" partially implies that the changes that are made are easily reverted and when they're not easily reverted one is a little less bold. --Onorio (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to wait for consensus. The edit is easily, yes easily reverted. But you need to do it as a "move" so history is preserved. I'll only revert back again as the renaming was necessary because you got it wrong in the first place. Don't be worrying about people outside this task force having an input. If I want I can leave this task force (or put it up at AfD) and not bother with running anything by you or anyone else. No one needs to be a member of this task force before working on pigeon articles. This is Wikipedia. The encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did concede that the edit could be easily reversed. The phrase "Maybe this change is easily reverted" may have been somewhat ambiguous, I grant, but I thought it indicated that I understood the change could be easily undone. My objection was the fact that you took it upon yourself to make the change without really waiting for any consensus to build on the subject. That was my objection in a nutshell. And thinking about it a bit more, I suppose I didn't really have much cause to object since the "taskforce" seems to be basically you and me. So I am sorry that I let my mouth run before I properly thought things through and I hope you'll accept my apology for my nasty comments.--Onorio (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but I didn't really take your comments as "nasty". I guess I was just a little angry because I felt that user GregManninLB (who has over 14,000 edits) had a good suggestion. When experienced editors like that give advice it is wise to pay attention. Anyhow, I probably reacted a bit negatively, so please accept my apology also.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I didn't mark the move as a "minor" edit.--Sting Buzz Me... 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh hang on I get you. Still need only small letter "p" though. So Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Domestic pigeon task force look any better?--Sting Buzz Me... 11:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold. Just checking redirects.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New breed articles

I've created a few more article stubs. Need expansion but it gives us a start. Nun (pigeon), Carneau, Ice Pigeon, English short faced tumbler, English long face tumbler, Magpie (pigeon), Turbit, Helmet (pigeon), American Giant Runt, Brunner Pouter I think that's it? I'll do more tomorrow.--Sting Buzz Me... 13:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would make sense in that infobox we're developing to list alternate names for breeds? I've never heard a "Runt" referred to as an "American Giant Runt" before. Not that either name is necessarily correct or incorrect; I think it might be helpful to note that there are other names for breeds. What do you think?--Onorio (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, alternative names can be listed also. The American Giant Runt standard is in the Aussie standards book. It says that, "the Giant Runt was the result of USA breeders seeking a shorter typier bird." I took a picture of one at our recent show, and that is the picture used on the breed article. They are shown as American Giant Runts here and we also have "Roman Runts" but I neglected to get a picture of one of those. Maybe at the National in a couple of months time? Perhaps they only show them over there as "Giant Runts"? The ones here I believe have imported bloodlines, but I'd have to check on that to make sure. It would stand to reason that other areas use different names. The same as different places use alternative names for colors.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox for pigeon articles

Sting came up with a nice prototype for an infobox for pigeon articles. However there is an issue with the fact that fanciers in the US group breeds in one way, fanciers in most of Europe have a different way of grouping the breeds and fanciers in Australia have yet another set of groupings.

I posted a potential modification to the infobox like this:

Here's what I'm sort of thinking of (I'm not the world's best with templates but hopefully this will give you the idea of what I'm thinking of)

{{{name}}}
Conservation Status	{{{status}}}
Other names	{{{altname}}}
Country of origin	{{{country}}}
Nicknames	{{{nickname}}}
Classification Australian Breed Group {{{augroup}}} US Breed Group {{{usgroup}}} EE Breed Group {{{eegroup}}}
Traits

Sting--well, rather than trying to paraphrase Sting's reply, here it is:

No I don't like the three groupings on the infobox Onorio. It just looks way too cluttered that way. But you do have a point with the different systems operating in different countries. I think it's a shame that there is not just one world-wide grouping syste. That is why I was hoping to just use the "arbitrary" grouping system (perhaps tweak it a bit which you did already) we have on the Fancy pigeon article. At least use it for now for simplicity sake. If any particular breed article comes into major problems by using that we can then make individual changes to suit? A US standards book? Wow that must be an old one! Hey you're in the NPA aren't you? Why don't you get together with say Steve StClair and get a new standards book up and printed? We did it here in Australia and it's in loose leaf (ring binder) format so that any additions or changes can just be printed up and added in. The US really does need to adopt a better grouping system than just Fancy, Homing and Utility. That went out with the Ark. Also I probably didn't explain my opposition to the German naming enough to you? It's not that I'm against other countries having their names for breeds in their language. My point was that this wiki we are on now is "English" Wikipedia. There is a seperate German Wikipedia, French Wikipedia etc. We should in fact check to see if they have corresponding articles to what we have here. The german name on the jpeg is irrelevant. If an editor ever happens to not know what a "Pfautaube" is, then I'm sure they can ask on the article talk page. I'm pretty sure they'd be smart enough to equate Pfautaube with Fantail in any case. Anyhow, I'm rambling on and have lots to do today. Not really much time to be online, but I'll see what needs doing on my watch list.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I told Sting that I thought the discussion of the infobox should be moved to this talk page (to help give people background on why certain decisions were made, assuming we ever get anyone else working on this task force besides Sting and me) and that's where it is.

I have a few thoughts in response to Sting's reply:

1. I really don't think three breed groups is that much more cluttered than is one--especially if it's well identified as to which is which. But I guess that's just an aesthetic disagreement. I don't see where it's significantly more cluttered than the section immediately above it which contains four different values (Conservation Status, Other Names, Country of Origin, and Nicknames) without any sort of separator. And those four values are only tenuously connected at best where as the alternate breed groupings are essentially three facets of the same piece of information.
2. I guess part of the answer as to where this information belongs depends on for whom it is that we're creating and editing these articles. If they're for the general public, then they don't care about breed groups. As far as I know, fanciers don't even care about breed groups except when it comes to picking a champion of the show. On the other hand, not including this information doesn't seem to be as complete as it could be regardless of audience and why not accommodate pigeon fanciers if it can be done without too much additional effort.
3. Sting asked if I am a member of the US NPA. I am not. I had heard some discussions at one point of the US NPA adopting the EE breed groups but I don't know what ever became of that if anything. As far as "Fancy, Flying and Utility" having gone out with the Ark, as far as I know Noah only cared about the flying variety anyway. :-)
4. Also in regards to the US Standards book being "old" . . .again, I'm not completely sure but I think that the standards book is being redone--right now in fact. But that is, of course, no guarantee that the breed groupings would get changed anyway. I look at the breed groupings as simply serving the practical purpose of allowing judges to pick subchampions at a show from smaller groups before picking an overall champion. A lot of the larger shows here in the US, as far as I know, simply don't even bother with picking an overall show champion because there are almost never true utility pigeons shown--who cares what a bird bred to feed people looks like--and true flying pigeons are rarely ever picked as show champions--again, who cares how they look; it's how they fly that matters.
5. I think that it would be equally simple to inline a mini-infobox with the breed groups. Doesn't have to be anything super fancy--just a small template to insure consistency. I think this information is too important to fanciers not to capture and if that means capturing it in a separate infobox in the body of the article then fine. I can certainly understand aesthetic and organizational considerations but ultimately we're working to create a complete store of knowledge and breed groups are a part of that knowledge that we should be capturing.--Onorio (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that I would normally reply to my own comment but this may have some bearing on the discussion of how breed groups should be listed in the infobox. Sting (or anyone else that cares to comment) please take a look at the Beagle article or the Portuguese Water Dog article. Not that we necessarily have to conform to that, but I would say that if we list the various breed groups there is some precedent for that decision. If I'm understanding correctly I think your objection is aesthetic and that's certainly reasonable but I think we can learn something from the way that other animal hobbyists give information regarding the animals they keep.--Onorio (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pigeons for identification

• 1. pigeon at a show for identification; others in the flickr set. Snowman (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to post this one at the WP:PIGEONS talk page, just in case they're not watching this page... MeegsC | Talk 08:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I thought the photograph might be of interested to the pigeon task force when I first saw it. I moved from the general bird talk page to the domesticated pigeon task force talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw the original posting--I do keep a watch on the Birds Project talk page. I just haven't had time to look at the photos beyond a cursory look. It can be just as hard to identify the breed of a domesticated pigeon from a picture as it is to identify the species of any other bird but I'm sure that either Sting or I will get a good look at them and see if there's anything we can use. Thanks for pointing them out Snowman.--Onorio (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Would you like me to put an infobox on every pigeon page that has an image, such as the infobox on the page for "Jacobin (pigeon)"? For most it would mean putting the page heading and the image in the infobox. At least they would have infoboxes and so details can be added later. Snowman (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The only concern I would have about that is the distinction between breeds of domesticated pigeons and other species of pigeons. For example, it wouldn't be appropriate to put the Domesticated Pigeon Breeds infobox on a page like Victoria Crowned Pigeon because that's not a breed of domesticated pigeon. I think you could simply follow links from the List of pigeon breeds article and you shouldn't go astray. And this would be a big help. I'd like to hear Sting's thoughts on this as well because I think Sting has quite a bit more time invested in the domesticated pigeons articles on WP than I do.--Onorio (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just the ones in the Domesticated pigeon categories. Snowman (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The King of Rome

Project members might enjoy an article I wrote recently, The King of Rome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Stralsunder Highflier --> Stralsund Highflier

Hallo, just wondering: isn't Stralsund Highflier the English name of the German Stralsunder Hochflieger? I am refering to the EE-List of pigeon breeds. --84.181.55.190 (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a pigeon guy, but I think that you're probably best asking your question at the main Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds page. This task force appears to be inactive, with no active users currently participating (and it has even been suggested for deletion recently). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Animal breed disambiguation

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant thread elsewhere.

Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Toward a standard for disambiguating titles of articles on domestic animal breeds may be of interest to editors here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting multiple page moves on pigeon breeds

see Talk:Strasser pigeon --PigeonIP (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (breeds)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (breeds) for a draft of a future proposal for a notability guideline on domestic animal breeds. As your wiki-project is involved in this area, I am dropping off an invite to the discussion. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability (breeds). Thanks! JT_dale^Talk~]] 16:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)