Template talk:Infobox dog breed

Sections of this talk page older than 360 days are automatically archived by MiszaBot.

New location parameter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as no further contributions have been made for over a fortnight, the result of this discussion was no consensus for the proposal. Cavalryman (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose to add a new parameter to specify the geographic location of each breed. I see the fact that that we only have a parameter for the breed's origin very unpractical. Borders have changed many times in history and just having a parameter for their origin can easily provoke disputes. In fact, one of them is the reason why I'm proposing this change, but I'm sure there have been more before. I also think this new parameter should go below the origin parameter in case it is added. Super Ψ Dro 20:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Super Dromaeosaurus, I am skeptical about this, does that mean for a Labrador we have a parameter stating the breed’s origins are in Britain & Canada; then another parameter that states the breed is currently found throughout most of the world? An infobox should reflect the content of an article so if there are complex history the article's body is the place to explain that, the infobox should only very briefly state the country/countries of origin. Cavalryman (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC).

I don't see a problem saying it's found everywhere. There are several ways of briefly stating this, such as "worldwide", "worldwide distribution", "cosmopolitan", etc.. If one breed is found in a certain region where several countries exist, we could say something like "North America", "Central Europe", or something like that. But I don't think only having an origin parameter is appropiate. Super Ψ Dro 14:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose We have 430 articles on internationally recognised breeds with the FCI, and North American breeds with the AKC, plus another 100 that are not recognised by these 2 organisations. There are around 206 sovereign states in the world and nobody is able to ascertain in which country each breed currently exists. We have reliable sources (FCI, AKC) on where breeds originated from based on the modern world, which is all that readers are interested in, and the Category:Dog breeds by country of origin. Telling people that dogs are from "everywhere" is of no value in my opinion. William Harris (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, this proposal has the capacity to become the biggest source of conflict in the entire infobox as every news report of a specific breed being imported into a new country sees additions to the parameter, there is the possibility that as many as 195 entries will be listed (196 could see us say the world). Cavalryman (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Short description issue

This template is still emitting short description even in presence of an explicit {{Short description}} at the top of the article. We probably need a parameter to suppress the template's short descrption completely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Please link to an example article. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

“Males and females“ or “dogs and bitches”?

For most people, a female dog isn’t what comes to mind when they hear the word “bitch”. “Dog” is used to refer to any domestic dog, not just males. “Males and females” is more easily understandable, and not to mention that the word “bitch” means more than just a female dog, and some people don’t even know that it can also mean female dog. “Dogs and bitches” is an old lady way to refer to male and female dogs. On the contrary, “males and females” is clear and easily understandable by most people. I don’t know anyone who uses “dogs and bitches” to refer to male and female dogs, but I’ve seen people use “males and females” a lot. Amogus girl (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope that in 2023 no one uses "Dogs and bitches" to refer male and female. English Wikipedia is going backwards. Could anyone correct it please?. – Anonymous 21:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a great example of American exceptionalism. When I hear 'bitch' used in encyclopaedic matter I think of a dog. >“Males and females” is more easily understandable So should we call steers 'male cows' because cow is more understood than cattle or steer? >and not to mention that the word “bitch” means more than just a female do The main meaning of 'bitch' is a female dog whence the slur.

>I hope that in 2023 no one uses "Dogs and bitches" to refer male and female Why? There are many articles on Wikipedia with the word 'nigger' in it. Which is a more offensive slur and the non-offensive uses of the term are outweighed by the offensive uses. There are also graphic depictions of genitalia and surgery on Wikipedia. If you get offended by proper nomenclature that is due to your own ignorance and I fail to see why Wikipedia should indulge that. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

See below, including a link to a discussion in which there was clear consensus. It's not primarily about slurs. It's primarily about jargon and clarity. Also at that linked discussion, I linked to {{Infobox cattle breed}}, which uses "male" and "female", like all of the other animal infoboxes I could find. Not to mix animal metaphors, but WP:DROPTHESTICK applies here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2023

Change "dogs" and "bitches" for "males" and "females". 92.177.63.37 (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Revert of change to "males" and "females"

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Bitches

@Justlettersandnumbers: As it appears to me, this topic is far from being "discussed ad nauseam" as you've said in your revert's summary, considering that (1) that discussion you linked in your summary only involved two people (one of them is you), (2) the discussion in this very template talk page that implemented the technical terms only involved the same two people, and that (3) in this very template talk page, we have some people arguing and requesting for us to use "males" and "females" instead.

Tackling some of the points of the discussion you linked, the documents cited in your discussions to use the technical terms are so old. The FCI document is from 2002, AKC from 1996, ANKC (archived) from 1994, KC from 1994, and NZKC from 1994. We're in 2023. We also don't use "ass", "pig", or "worm" to refer to either only male or female animals, which is the scope of my change.

What do we gain from not just saying "males" and "females"? Compounding the fact that non-dog-related definition(s) of "bitch" are insulting, the technical definitions of "dog" and "bitch" just mean "male dog" and "female dog", so what gives? Why not the language that doesn't need the technical knowledge of "'dog' = male dog, 'bitch' = female dog" and thus is clearer to a general audience? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

(After writing this, I've become aware of a discussion about this very topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs § Bitches. I might join in later there.) LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before but it's worth revisiting. But, yes, the discussion should be centralized.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This popped up on my watchlist. Came here to suggest switching this from "dogs" and "bitches" to "males" and "females", since "bitches" is vulgar and also jargon to a reader unfamiliar with technical dog terms. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I have restored "males" and "females" as the labels per clear consensus at this discussion, consensus at similar animal infoboxes, and the guideline at MOS:JARGON. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

If disputation about this starts up again, this should just be RfCed, with the RfC "advertised" in pertinent places like WT:DOGS, WT:MOS, WT:ENGLANG, WT:MTAU, WT:JARGON, WT:OM, WT:NOT, WT:MOSINFOBOX, WT:MOSWTW, maybe even WT:LINGUISTICS and WT:GGTF since they have an interest in terminological implications within a large audience.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Should lifespan be used a parameter?

I find this parameter to be more problematic than of any benefit. Life expectancy varies based on a multitude of factors and a simple parameter cannot provide context for the figure that prose can.

I don't see what benefit having this information in the infobox actually does, it's not something a reader would particularly want to gloss over.

The dog breed template is the only one that happens to include it with no other animal breed template including it. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it as a parameter. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

"life_span" parameter not working?

Greetings and felicitations. The "life_span" parameter is not working in "Dobermann", and gives an error during editing. Is this a bug, has the parameter been removed and the documentation not updated, or is the fault in the article's implementation of it? —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed it. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)