Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force/General
Standards
[edit]I've been looking at including a table similar in format to those on some of the other Wikiprojects. There is a nonsense version on User:Sannse/Sandbox. What do you think?
- I think the table looks good and is a good idea. matt
- Probably a good idea, but there are many breeds these days outside the historical AKC/CKC/FCI/KC breed lists, and many independent registries. We need an "Other" class to accommodate those breeds. Also, folks, "Classification" has two S's (misspelt in the Sannse/Sandbox tables and below). Ditkoofseppala 00:06 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, we certainly do need an "other" group. I have a list of 356 dogs recognised by the FCI or other major listings, and another 160 breeds not recognised by them (and I will have missed a few of course). So far I haven't listed those 160 on the list of dog breeds, I thought it better to work on the 356 first and then go through looking more closely at the rest.
- The "clasification" was my silly mistake :) I corrected it in most places a while back - I missed my sandbox and here. Thanks for catching that, I'll go fix it now. -- sannse 11:45 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Also, I think the Federation Cynologique Internationale (FIC) classifications will be most useful. They seem to cover more types of dog than any others and although the UK, US and Canadian Kennel Clubs aren't members 80 other countries are. Eventually we could split the List of dog breeds into the ten groups as well as having an overall alphabetical list.
For reference the FCI groups are:
- Group 1: Sheepdogs and Cattle Dogs (except Swiss Cattle Dogs)
- Group 2: Pinscher and Schanuzer - Molossoid breeds - Swiss Mountain and Cattle Dogs and other breeds
- Group 3: Terriers
- Group 4: Dachshunds
- Group 5: Spitz and primitive types
- Group 6: Scenthounds and related breeds
- Group 7: Pointing Dogs
- Group 8: Retrievers - Flushing Dogs - Water Dogs
- Group 9: Companion and Toy Dogs
- Group 10: Sighthounds
The US groups are:
- Sporting Group
- Hound Group
- Working Group
- Terrier Group
- Toy Group
- Non-Sporting Group
- Herding Group
- Miscellaneous
The UK groups are
- Hound
- Working
- Terrier
- Gundog
- Pastoral
- Utility
- Toy
Subdividing dog groups
[edit]What I'm realizing as I work on various breeds and groups of dogs is that we can't really rely on a specific small set of categories--we have to anticipate what people will be looking for and create the appropriate dog-category, redirect, or disambig pages all the way through.
For example, Hunting dog is a general category of dogs, which can be divided into Hounds and Gun dogs (for example), and people will (and already have) made references to all those terms in text. Furthermore, people will also refer to Sight hounds and Scent hounds among hounds (which are category pages that describe the general characteristics of this group and then list the individual breeds that are members of the group, and Spaniels, Retrievers, etc. .... and then at almost the bottom level we'll have something more like disambig pages, such as Welsh Corgi, Springer Spaniel, Cocker Spaniel...
So I'm doing the best I can as I go, using the various organizations' categories as starting points. Elf 16:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
BTW, hierarchical organization of some of these pages might look something like this:
Where do the breed tables go
[edit]Is the idea to have the table itself on the general breed page or to have one of these table on each breeds page? I hope it is the latter as the former would seem to make the breedlist page far to big. --Steven jones 12:17, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- One per breed. (Whew!) Dog breed names are interesting because they're sooooo variable, too. So, for example, there is a table for Welsh Corgi (Pembroke) and Welsh Corgi (Cardigan) but not for Welsh Corgi, which is more of a disambiguation page, and Corgi just redirects back to Welsh Corgi. Elf 15:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Article consistency
[edit]Hey, I've been to several of the individual dog breed pages and while most a good they don't follow the same pattern. Shouldn't each page have the same format? For example, the article should start out with a brief intro then a paragraph on appearance, then temperament, then history, trivia, etc. Do you think we should do this? What should the categories be? Bremen 20:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, do you want to hear from me again? I'm sure others will chime in to say whether they agree or think I'm full of it. I like the idea of consistency in article structure. We have a set of suggested topics on the main project page. The challenge is that random people come along and create an article with a couple of paragraphs and go away, and one of us who notices attempts to stick in some reasonable headings, and there it sits. So--if you'd like to propose a standard outline, do it--this is probably a reasonable place for the proposal and discussion, given how disorganized this project's subpages & talk pages have gotten (e.g., this discussion--most of tthese--should really be on the talk page). Then, when people have had a few days to comment on it (not everyone logs in every day. Not even me :-) ), anyone who wants to start working their way through the List of dog breeds existing articles and start applying the standard outline will probably be absolutely worshipped by the rest of the team. :-) And all of us would probably try to use the agreed-on outline whenever we went in to clean up an article. Any volunteers? ;-) Elf | Talk 23:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and a couple more thoughts--(1)it's hard to come up with a complete, all-encompassing list of subheadings; e.g., Australian Shepherd seemed to call for 2 sections on its history, whereas most breeds are lucky to have a sentence on their origin. Dobermann had so much on its appearance that it was broken into sub-subsections on Tail, Ears, and so on. But if we could come up with just the basic top-level heading organization, that would be helpful. The other thought is--I've been thinking for a long time that we could really use either an addition to the breed table for basic quantitative info (height, weight, whatever--although that would make a long table even longer), or a standard subtable that we could stick into the appearance section. What do other people think?
- Also consider, while thinking about that, whether there's any good way to combine the breed standards external links in the same table as the kennel club name & group name--it's too confusing having FCI, e.g., as an active link in 2 places in the table and have it go to different places. Elf | Talk 23:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ok so here's what I think. The article should start out with a small paragraph summarizing the breed . Then we could have the sub heading, appearance, then tempermant, then history, then trivia/misc. What do you think? Are there other categories we should include? And is this the best order? Tell me what you think. Thanks Bremen 22:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So I've thought a bit more..maybe history should be the last heading?? Bremen 00:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Another idea...maybe instead of temperament we could have attributes. Temperament could still fit under that heading. Or instead of attributes we could put characteristics.
- Most of your changes so far I agree with, but some are iffy--that's the problem with rushing out and doing many changes without waiting for feedback. :-) For example:
- "Temperament and/or characteristics" is really wishy-washy. Yeah, I know that's what it says on the main project page, but what it meant was "choose one heading or both", not all in the same heading. :-) Some breed articles have a section heading of "Uses" or sometimes "Activities" for things that the dog is skilled at doing. Some lumped these with temperament and called the section "Characteristics". I think it's fine to separate temperament out. But what to call the other section--Characteristics, Uses, Activities, or none of the above? Discussion (there really are people other than me out there--really--) might be helpful in resolving that. Meanwhile, I'd leave those headings as is rather than resorting to and/or.
- Ok...you're right, that title is a bit clunky and dumb.Bremen 03:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia convention is leave out headings unless there's actually content for them. However, I think it's fine to insert them and comment them out using standard HTML commenting, as I did in Alaskan Malamute--I consolidated them up onto one line because otherwise there's a whole lot of odd-looking blank space.
- I like "Trivia" for the random assortment of facts that didn't fit elsewhere; good choice (IMHO). You'll find some articles have sections like "(breedname) in the arts" or "(breedname) in the media"; those could possibly be turned into Trivia sections.
- Oh--and most talk/discussion pages proceed chronologicially from top to bottom, so it's confusing to search for new additions in the middle or near the top. Just another convention that most people & pages (not all) use.
- Elf | Talk 03:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) (again)
- Most of your changes so far I agree with, but some are iffy--that's the problem with rushing out and doing many changes without waiting for feedback. :-) For example:
I feel kind of stupid now for changing so much without waiting. This is supposed to be a collaborative project. You Know it would be nice if others commented. It's just you and me discussing this! I know it's only been a few days since I started changing things...I guess not all parts of wikipedia move fast.Bremen 03:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's not stupid--just means you might have to go back and change some of the headings later. If you don't mind that, and you're chomping at the bit (like you said--you've got time and want to do it now!), I don't think you're doing anything terrible and, as I said, you're doing a good job. 64.166.85.254 05:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) (oops--that was me. Elf | Talk)
- I don't mind changing stuff. Lately it seems I have a lot of time off work to do this.Bremen 18:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have to say I don't like "trivia", but maybe that's a personal taste thing. To me, it makes it sounds as though the information is trivial, and not really worth putting in the article. There have been disputes about the use of "trivia" as a section heading in other areas of Wikipedia as well, with the general view tending to be that it is suitable for a general interest book, but not really an encyclopaedia. I can't really think of a good alternative though, maybe "general"? I don't know. But on the wider issue of introducing more consistency across the section - great! that will make a real difference -- sannse (talk) 12:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yay, someone else is discussing this!!! 18:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)that was me Bremen 18:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have to say I don't like "trivia", but maybe that's a personal taste thing. To me, it makes it sounds as though the information is trivial, and not really worth putting in the article. There have been disputes about the use of "trivia" as a section heading in other areas of Wikipedia as well, with the general view tending to be that it is suitable for a general interest book, but not really an encyclopaedia. I can't really think of a good alternative though, maybe "general"? I don't know. But on the wider issue of introducing more consistency across the section - great! that will make a real difference -- sannse (talk) 12:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Would "Miscellaneous" be any better than "General"? Other than being harder to spell; general to me sounds more like overview than like a collection of info that doesn't fit elsewhere. Elf | Talk 15:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I like miscellaneous better than general and it does sound more fit for an encyclopedia than trivial. Bremen 18:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So I've been going through the list of breeds alphabetically...I came to Australian Cattle Dog and there is a section on activities such as agility etc. Should this be a separate section? Should it go under miscellaneous? Bremen 19:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say such things depend on how large the section is. If it looks right to have it's own heading then do that, we shouldn't be bound by consistency if it doesn't fit the particular article, I would say just use it as a general outline rather than a rule. So in this case, it seems to me to be a detailed enough section to have it's own heading rather than being slotted into "miscellaneous" -- sannse (talk) 20:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm...maybe you're right...what if I put it under history? Would that work...hmmm...maybe I should just leave it the way it is for now. Bremen 22:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Table(s) changes proposal for appearance and so on
[edit]Quill's problem
[edit]Okay, hot shots--not ignoring you--I didn't have this page on my watchlist, so was blissfully drifting along until Elf's note on another page, which was on my watchlist.
Here's my deal--it may only be my problem, so feel free to say so. I cannot find things. I can't remember where articles are, can't remember where our various lists are; I have to go to a page where I know I can find list of dog breeds, and access it from there, then futz around through whatever categories are listed, to find the group or topic or whatever I'm looking for.
Case in point--because I'd worked on the TO DO page; I needed to update Spitz and List of Dogs by country of origin. It would have been lovely if we had a category: Spitz (maybe we do?) but of course I would have still have to have manually added the breed into the Spitz article. Not a prob, but then there was the other list--where was it? Took me ages.
Is it possible for us to build one page with every dog list, topic and category and their subcategories on it? That is, we've got all this info on different pages, can we combine it into one? I'm quite willing to help but don't know where to start.
Now to the case at hand, I've got to run, I solemnly promise to return and read all the new additions to this page and respond as soon as ever I can.
Quill 00:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You just need a new brain with photographic memory (4096 GB preferably). OK, I'll confess that it sometimes take me a while to dig through stuff, too. I have a well-oranized set of bookmarks in my browser, otherwise I'd never get to where I needed to be (oh, and I have memorized "List of dog breeds" and I can get to a lot of places from there; also by clicking the category at the bottom of any article and then going up or down in categories...).
- Sannse's newly revealed page that lists all dog pages (well--actually not even close--but an afternoon spent adding all the pages in all of the dog-related categories to her list would fix that--) is about as good as you're going to get, I think. Although I don't know that it has the various Wikipedia internal pages (like the dog project pgs) on it.
- BTW, everyone not having all the pgs on their watchlists is exactly why I put a note at the top level project talk page. But now you should rush right out and add all of the dog project subpages to your watchlist. Soon you'll be just like me, with "1313 pages on your watchlist (not counting talk pages)". :-) Elf | Talk 00:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, my page has a lot missing still (although it does list the wikiproject pages) I basically added all the dog related pages I was taking off my main watchlist. Having several, subject specific, public watchlists has turned out to be a lot more easy to handle that the massive, mixed one I had before. But, if it's going to be of use to others too, then feel free to add any pages that should be there -- sannse (talk) 12:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Myself, I use the following links to keep a watch on the dog project:
- I have them bookmarked and just go 1,2,3,4 (where four is my own personal watchlist) - maybe i'm strange, but should we come up with an official dogproject watchlist? - Trysha (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
registry tip template proposal
[edit]Another suggestion for something off-the-wall to do for breed registry articles; thoughts welcomed at Talk:Canadian_Kennel_Club#registry limitations. Elf | Talk 22:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)