Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force/To do

To-do list organization[edit]

Dont mean to offend anyone who has taken part in this page, and anyone is welcome to give me a good ol' kick up the rear if what i say is out of place *prays nobody has strong legs*. But would it be possible to make the "to do" page a little more organised? at the moment you have to scroll up and down to see what needs doing where. I am more than happy to help with anything that needs doing but this page takes a lot of effort to get your head around.

My personal suggestion would to make tables similar to that on the wikiproject: discworld page. I know it would probably be a lot of work but I am more than willing to do it :) that is, if anyone agrees.

I think that this type of layout would also make it easier to see what needs doing, thus, might encourage people to add info to pages that need it. :)

Again, anyone who thinks im completely stupid and out of place for saying this is more than welcome to inflict pain in any way they see fit ;) Tekana 22:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please have at it! As much as I enjoy inflicting pain on other people, regrettably this isn't a good reason for doing so. You're doing a great job out there in the WP dog world. And anything that gets anyone working on items in the to-do list is A-OK by me. (And since I'm the one who created this page and mostly the one who contributes to it, I'm probably the only one who would care one way or t'other.) Elf | Talk 01:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yay for me :). Here is what i have in mind.

Article	Action required	Adequately Complete
Breed name	Create breed table Need Photos revise/expand: article/section	Yes/no

Im not entirely sure about the "adequately complete" section of the table, so i posted it here to se what you all think. Obviously, its to try and put emphasis on the articles that need a lot of work and get them done ASAP. I would put a note before the table stating that even though an article is considered "complete" on the table, it is still welcome to add any more information to it.

what are your opinions? keep or lose the "complete" section of the table? Also, should I sort the tables into alphebetical order or type of dog? Tekana 12:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see it sorted in the same alpha order as List of dog breeds. A third column might be useful for "comments", maybe, rather than just being one specific yes/no item; what do you think about that? Hmmm, here's another thought, what about columns for the most common needs rather than having it all as text lists (might save vertical space, making it easier to read & easier to ID tasks that people are interested in); for example:

Article	Needs breed table	Needs photo	Needs info	Cleanup	Other	Comments/progress
Breed name 1	X	X	X			Needs appearance & history Current photo is blurry
Breed name 2		X				Current photo is copyrighted; needs free-use image

Hmmm, OK, just in making the sample & trying to get things to line up, that's probably too complicated for people to want to deal with. Want it to be updateable, not just readable. :-) So probably never mind about that idea; your original is simpler. Elf | Talk 16:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all fine with me :) I agree, your version is more visually pleasing, but a little more complicated for people not as advanced with tables. I shall do the "A" list, and you can see you you think. Tekana 18:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, discovereing its a little more complicated than i thought XD. I suppose if someone doesent agree with what i have put, thats what the little "edit" button at the top of thae page is for. :)

Article	Action required	Comments
Affenpinscher	Expand health section Expand History section Needs References	More photos if possible
Afghan Hound	Needs References	More photos if possible
Africanis	Needs Breed table	Needs entire article writing
Aidi	needs photos needs health section	Article needs expansion. Currently a Stub
Airedale Terrier	have "miscellaneous" section if possible Needs References	None

I have just quickly done the firt 5 breeds at the top of the A list. Tell me if im being a litle too strict or too lenient. At the moment, im classing the "minimal amount of pictures" as 3. should this be lowered or hightened you think? Tekana 20:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a big job! Maybe you could start just by converting what's currently on the to-do list and then go back through articles one by one as your time and energy permit.
I fixed some spelling in the example. :-)
Photos: I personally don't think that it's possible to specify a minimum quantity of photos, but rather the subject matter of photos. IMHO a full-body shot shd be in every article. But there are other things-- For example, there are a ton of Australian Shepherd photos but not a single one showing an Aussie herding sheep--that would be an important photo to add. The breed has many color variants; there's currently no red merle photo and that would be useful. By comparison, the American Eskimo Dog comes in only one size and one color and is basically a companion dog--so how many photos do we really need? One good full-body shot, and then anything else is just sweetening the pot, like a straight-on face shot or the dog doing something interesting, but they aren't critical to defining what the breed looks like or does.
Sections: Again, in my opinion:
- the Misc section is optional--applies only if there's Misc info to add! So I wouldn't call it out as missing. Same thing for Ext Links and See Also.
- A missing Appearance section would be the most critical thing.
- Health & History would be of secondary importance but still useful.
- References, yeah, there's been a push to have Ref sections in all articles, so this probably ought to be called out if it's missing.
Nonexistent articles: I'd simply list "Needs article" in the 2nd column and not add any more detail in either the 2nd or 3rd col.

Elf | Talk 22:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All noted :) Me, being as impatient as i am, have already done half of the letter A. Surprisingly, it doesent take much time at all once you get used to it. must have taken me quarter of an hour at most :) To be honest, im more than happy to do it. Im the kind of person that -Needs- something to do. and the dogs can only take so much play before theyre completely knackered. XD hard to believe i know! Tekana 23:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can borrow MY dogs and see how long it takes! ;-) Elf | Talk 23:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hee. yeah, i could try ;) Mine are a Springer spaniel and labrador *supposedly* two of the most energetic breeds! Anyhoo, going to try and finnish the A list today sometime, should have it up soon :) Ill put it streight up into the main article when im done. Tekana 13:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on new tables[edit]

Added the A list. I have missed some things off like "australian jack russel terrier" as that simply links to the normal JRT page. I have put all of the A list as one table, instead of splitting it into two like on LODB, if you think it would be better off in two sections leave a note and ill change it.... or you could do it yourself ;)

Obviously there will be some things i have missed. And if anyone disagrees whith whats in the box, youre more than welcome to change. Tekana 14:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belgians[edit]

On the "B" table, i have left out the belgian sheperd dogs for the moment. Should I put them under the variety name or the breed name,(ie. "Belgian shepherd dog (Groenendael)". or, simply "Gronendael" under the G table)?

I suggest using breed names only (not groups, e.g. Belgian Shepherd, Collie, etc.) as their main entry appears in List of dog breeds, which should also be the title of the article--hence, under B as Belgian Shepherd Dog (Groenendael). Elf | Talk 22:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, But I have hit a bump in the road. Obviously, each section has or requests a "temperment" "health" and "history" sections. but these, for the four BSD breeds, is already described in detail on the main BSD page. Would they really be needed on each of the four pages? Tekana 11:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Rum-tum-tiddle-iddle-um, tiddle-um, rum-tum-tiddle-iddle-um. (That's a little tune on a record for children that Pooh sings while you're supposed to be turning the page of a book, but it's good for a pause to gather my thoughts and come up with a brilliant response. Which is--) Duh...I dunno. No, I would't repeat them on each page but we should make sure that each states clearly where you *can* get that info. (And, BTW, that's temperAment :-) .) Elf | Talk 15:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what? it is? aw dang! i never was the best at spelling. Tekana 16:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about template template[edit]

It looks okay to me, but then again, I usually leave breed boxes to others... Quill 23:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me for being ignorant about templates :) I've played around with the dogbox a while ago, and found that missing information (missing kennel club recognition, missing nicknames, etc) break the template. The taxonomoy folks seem to get around this by using a multiple template system. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/taxobox_usage. It seems like a bit of pain to maintain a larger number of templates, but i don't see another way to handle this sort of thing - should we be converting to the taxobox style of template? I'm willing to create such a set of boxes modeled on the taxobox, or do more research into complex templates if requested. - Trysha 02:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't answer right away. I'd be delighted to have someone take this on. I came to the same conclusion that you did about multiple templates. I keep meaning to get back to this and start researching and tweaking, but I just never get there. And every day that we delay, there are just that many more tables that will need to be converted. (Actually I'm thinking that we might be able to recruit someone to create a bot to do it--I have no idea how to go about that--but it would sure beat trying to do it by hand.) So have at it. I've done some poking around in the template how-to areas already and have sort of figured out some things but not others. So if you do take this on, I'll be glad to try to answer questions or maybe help to puzzle things out if needed. Elf | Talk 16:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty cool - I think that a bot would be pretty easy to do, I already wrote one that pulls down all the raw dog pages to let me know which ones had spam attached - (from the mywhateverdogsite spam earlier) - the data seems non-standard enough that it isn't fully automatable, but it doesn't seem to hard to extend the idea to "puller" out the template and save the code in a file that I can post back up with a tiny bit of manual tweaking. i'll start looking at doing the templates based on taxoboxes and then look at doing a conversion bot afterward. - Trysha 19:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, awesome. I'll bet that a lot of the conversion could be automated with some creative conditional checks (does image exist, does FCI exist...). For sure there'll be some variants, but I think not a lot. Hmmm, guess I should check my theory--

OK, I pulled up 2 at random, Beagle and Rottweiler. Beagle falls into this basic standard format:

{| border=1 cellspacing=0 align=right cellpadding=2
|- align=center bgcolor=pink 
!breename
|- align=center
|[[Image:imagename|250px|thumb|none|caption]]
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Alternative names
|-
|
{| align=center
|-
|altname1
|}
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Country of origin
|- align=center
|[[country]]
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Common nicknames
|- align=center
|nicknamelist
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Classification
|-
|
{| align=center
|[[Fédération Cynologique Internationale|FCI]]: ||Group fcigroup Section fcisection #fcinum
|-
|[[American Kennel Club|AKC]]: ||akcgroup
|-
|[[Australian National Kennel Council|ANKC]]: ||Group ankcgroupnum (ankcgroupname)
|-
|[[Canadian Kennel Club|CKC]]: ||Group ckcgroupnum - ckcgroupname
|-
|[[Kennel Club (UK)|KC(UK)]]: ||kcgroupname
|-
|[[New Zealand Kennel Club|NZKC]]: ||nzkcgroupname
|-
|[[United Kennel Club|UKC]]: || ukcgroupname
|-
|}
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Breed standards (external links)
|- align=center
|[fcilink FCI], [akclink AKC], [ankclink ANKC]<br>[kclink KC(UK)], [nzkclink NZKC], [ukclink UKC]
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Notes
|- align=center
|notetext
|}<!-- end of breed table -->

Rottweiler's basically the same except that it has the newer format with the links combined on the same line as the club name, hence this goes away:

|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Breed standards (external links)
|- align=center
|[fcilink FCI], [akclink AKC], [ankclink ANKC]<br>[kclink KC(UK)], [nzkclink NZKC], [ukclink UKC]

and the earlier section starts like this:

!Classification and breed standards
|-
|
{| align=center
|[[Fédération Cynologique Internationale|FCI]]: || Group fcigroup Section fcisection #fcinum
|[fcilink Stds]
|-
|[[American Kennel Club|AKC]]: || akcgroup
|[akclink Stds]

The typical variations are:

might not have an image. If there is one, it might not have a caption. (Actually this is probably the most variable in terms of formatting applied in what order--but we could probably disregard everythinge xcept the image name & caption.)
might not have alternative names. And for some reason sometimes it's just "Alternative name" instead of "...names".
might not have "Common nicknames" section. Ditto on plural. And this section sometimes appears earlier in the table & sometimes later. I think that the list of nicknames is usually a single line separated by commas.
Not all breeds have all 6 kennel clubs listed (because they're not recognized by others). Not all have links for the ones they do list.
In rare cases, the classification section doesn't exist at all (breeds not recog by ANY major KCs).
FCI number isn't always present.
Might/not have a Notes section. If so, might have multiple lines of text.

So I think it's largely automatable. Says here. Elf | Talk 21:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution[edit]

I all of these technical issues have been resolved and conversion is now underway! - Trysha ^(talk) 06:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Braque Francais (Pyrenean Type)[edit]

I started a article for the Braque Francais (Pyrenean Type) i have several breed books here at home and gathered up some info and wrote the article out in my own words.. i am not an expert at creating articles so if it needs cleaning feel free.. i couldn't find info regarding health of this breed. Also, i couldn't figure out how to link the fci standard directly to the fci website because the file is .doc .. so if anyone can help in that department i would appreciate it..

Thanks --Ltshears (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additions[edit]

This page hasn't had attention in a while. But, I am adding more breed articles to the table. If they are left blank... then I didn't get enough time to fill in what is needed, etc... But I'm adding all the breeds, no matter if they need fixed up or not... cReep (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]