Template talk:Infobox poultry breed

Infobox chickenbreed - make it Infobox poultrybreed?

Currently infobox chickenbreed is a bit narrow in its usage. I'd like to propose it be changed to infobox poultrybreed, with the appropriate pagename and template name changes. The change would allow the use of this infobox on domestic duck and domestic turkey pages without any major alteration. I find this to be a better idea than creating seperate turkey and duck breed infoboxes. Please let me know if this change is possible and your opinion on the proposal. Anjwalker ^Talk 08:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Can you envision an easy way to link to "Duck" or "Turkey" instead of "Chicken" (on last line of the infobox)? MeegsC | Talk 14:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

While not against the proposal, I think you need to be clear about the scope of the proposed infobox. Would you include other birds with domesticated breeds raised for meat or egg production, such as quail and geese? Maias (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What about Domesticated guineafowl? Snowman (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine, as long as its scope is clearly limited to articles specific to domesticated forms. Domestic goose exists, obviously not appropriate for quail unless someone writes domesticated quail or the like. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the ducks, turkey and geese are titled "domestic", although two of the three articles start with Domsticated, and the guineafowl is titled "domesticated". Seems to me that there is room for some consistency in the style of naming the articles, and then using the agreed style in the text too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with generalizing this to poultry, but I think the fields of Skin Color, Egg Color, and Comb Type would have to be done away or generalized, since turkeys aren't known for their eggs and ducks don't have combs. :-) And Jimfbleak: yeah, it's pretty up in the air about whether to include domesticated in the title. I personally prefer it in order to differentiate species (there are many sheep for instance, and only one domesticated sheep species). Steven Walling • talk 17:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with generalizing or removing the Comb Type field, but Skin Colour and Egg Colour fields would still remain; Turkey's still lay eggs, even if they aren't kept for it and Geese, Ducks, Pigeons, Guinea Fowl, Chickens and Turkey's still have varying skin colours. To address the question of what this infobox would apply to: I think that it would be for all types of domestic bird with breed fancy standards (I.e. types included in the American Standard of Perfection) - That is domestic ducks, turkey’s, pigeons, geese, guinea fowl and chickens. There are no standards for the other varieties of poultry: Quail, Swans, Emu, Ostrich, Pheasant and Rhea, that I know of. Anjwalker ^Talk 04:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That application sounds logical to me. Go for it! :) Steven Walling • talk 21:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well. I have done the updates as suggested. Anjwalker ^Talk 06:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In doing so, you've removed the species name and broken the embedded 'species' microformat. You've also switched a more generic category. I object to these changes, which should be remedied by inserting "switch" code, such that the relevant species and category are emitted, dependent on a value entered by an editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to fix these problems. I didn't see anyone else doing what was proposed, so I had to do it myself with guesswork. So if you know how to do it properly, fix it. Anjwalker ^Talk 02:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If I knew how to do so; I would have done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Regional perspective?

This template appears to provide only for the breed standards of either, both, or neither of two American associations to be shown. What if other countries or associations have breed standards that are relevant, different, or regionally appropriate? Why the exclusive reliance on the APA and ABA? I suggest that the infobox be redesigned to allow editors to select which breed standards to display, along the lines of, say, Template:Infobox horse breed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no technical reasons why this couldn't be implemented. Just run up a list of the required new attributes and when I'm modernising this template's codebase I'll add them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The only one that I see that could be added is the Poultry Club of Great Britain. The American Poultry Association covers Canada, and none of the other english speaking nations have overseeing poultry bodies. Although Australia has a poultry standard, it was stitched together by every single one of the hundreds of poultry bodies in Australia, and although I can find every vague references to a New Zealand poultry standard, I can't seem to pin it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjwalker (talk • contribs) 10:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So how would one add the breed standard of a poultry breed not recognised by the APA? I don't have $88 to spare, so I can't see whether, say, the Mugellese has a page in the standard of perfection, but I'm guessing that since its recognition is still in process in its home country, it possibly does not. How could one add the very detailed French standard for the Leghorn, which distinguishes between four quite different types, of which the American variation is just one? Chris, what is needed here? Should I make a RfC or what? All that's needed in terms of code is to add some user-definable organisation and standard fields, say 4 pairs, just as in the horse breed infobox. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You can check if a bird is in the standard by going to the APA website, they have a list under a page titled something like "breed classification". I believe the same is true for the Poultry Club of Great Britain. However, I don't think you can use the French standard unless their happens to be a version of it written in english. Anjwalker ^Talk 08:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I assume you mean this useful list? However, that appears to have only a few tens of breeds listed, though there are many colour varieties. The FAO currently lists 2313 chicken breeds worldwide. It is I think a little optimistic to hope that all of those will have a standard written in English (or indeed that all of them will eventually have a page in Wikipedia). Why should standards in other languages not be added, and translated as necessary in the article text? I'm aware that, other things being equal, English-language sources are preferred; unfortunately, other things often are not equal. I'm sorry, but I see both the limitation to the APA and (if I've understood you correctly) the limitation to English-language breed standards as examples of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever said anything about it being confined to the APA, I even mentioned the Poultry Club of Great Britain. However, the APA, the ABA, and the PCGB are the only English speaking major poultry bodies in existence. The PCGB covers Ireland and the United Kingdom, while the APA and ABA cover Canada and the USA, but none of the other English speaking nations have national poultry bodies. Australia does have a poultry standard, but not a national poultry body. And if people are able to translate the standards of none-English speaking nations, then they would make a great resource. However, not everyone is multilingual. Anjwalker ^Talk 07:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If making such modifications, please note my comment in the preceding section, about the need for a switch for species names and categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've done some fiddling about, from which I have learned that I'm well out of my depth in the syntax of these boxes. Here's my best effort so far. If, and only if, something like that seems acceptable to others, I would ask if someone who unlike me actually knows what they are doing (like, say, Chris or Andy) would implement it. My idea was that the box should appear unchanged wherever it is in use, until and unless some of the extra fields are filled. It'd be still better if there was also a language input option for languages other than English, so that instead of "NHDB", the Dutch standard would read "NHDB (in Dutch)". I tried without success to make that work. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that not all breed standards are on the internet. Most are strictly held under copyright, and copies of them are not available on the web. Anjwalker ^Talk 06:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) As such, providing URL's for each of them isn't going to be possible. Anjwalker ^Talk 06:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is inconvenient, I agree. I don't myself see it as a reason not to add those that are available, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverting

I propose to revert this template to its pre-December 2011 version; and to undo the recent move, until the above issues are resolved in a sandbox. I'm mentioning it here first in case it's used on any on-chicken articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you mean by the last part of this statement. What do you mean by "in case it's used on any on-chicken articles."? It is currently in use on nearly all chicken articles. Anjwalker ^Talk 02:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I read that as a typo for "non-chicken" ... the only one I can see at a quick glance is Rouen duck. I did not come here to make waves, but if others agree, I would suggest that reverting this infobox to deal with chickens only, and cloning/modifying it to create Template:Infobox duck breed, Template:Infobox goose breed, Template:Infobox turkey breed and perhaps Template:Infobox guinea-fowl breed would in the end lead to greater flexibility, though it would still leave the likes of the Ostrich, the Cassowary and the Tinamou up in the air. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes; that was a typo; I meant "non-chicken articles". I've removed the instance from Rouen duck and reverted as I proposed above. Now, we can either undo the move and make forked templates as Justlettersandnumbers proposes; or add switches for non-chicken types, as I suggested. I'm ambivalent as to which would be best. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

IMHO: switches for non-chicken types, like es/fr/de did: fr:Modèle:Infobox Race (but it is hard to put cats or horses and poultry into one infobox; with rabbits there is the problem of different standards in weight, at least EE - GB)

{{Infobox pigeon breed}} Pigeons do have a good one, that includes ee-standard (next to austrialian and american) --PigeonIP (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

ABA standard not working?

I just tried filling the ABA standard in the infobox for Andalusian chicken and instead of giving the link to the standard and description, it just takes the "yes" for the infobox. Is this how it's supposed to work right now or a bug? Kat (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not very good at this, but I saw what looked like a mistake and fixed it. I think the infobox in that article is working; now it remains to be seen if I've broken something else. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Seems to be working now. Kat (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone with experience able to work this template out?

First off, I think I messed a few things up when I moved this 2 years ago in my silliness. Anywho, the issue is presently this is useless to use on things other than chickens because it sticks Gallus Gallus Domesticus into the template. I tried muddling through a guide but I suck at this. I know how to stop it including that in it, but I might break everything else in the process. I'd also like to see a field for Poultry Club of Great britain added along side the ABA and APA fields but I can't work out how to do it. JTdale ^Talk 19:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe important to know, if you like to have a GB-field:

first:

• American Pekin Duck is well known in America, but not in GB
• European or German Pekin Duck is known in GB but not in America
• both do have an EE-Standard

second:

• breeds within Central Europe may be "variations" of a breed in the English-speaking-world (don't know, if in Australia as well)

Example: Padovana chicken, a breed in Europe, but a variation of Polish chicken within the en-world.

• breeds of the English speaking world may be variations somewhere else (or groups of breeds)... (A/N: this is crasy with pigeons... turkeys are mixed up as well)

third:

maybe it is better to refer to EE than only GB (more breeds, wider significance) --PigeonIP (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that's exactly the reason why it's important to list all the standards of the en-speaking worlds rather than just the American standards. The EE-Standard on its own is not canonical over any others, from what I understand (keeping in mind that my knowledge of showing poultry is somewhat basic), and it does not cover all breeds. For example, there is a GB standard for Norfolk Grey, but no EE-Standard. Kat (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Trying to track down the standards is hard but I do know there is an Australian Standard, a GB Standard, two US standards and a New Zealand standard in the EN world. I don't know anything about the last one however, NZ poultry clubs seem to rarely have websites. JTdale ^Talk 22:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kat: The Norfolk Grey has no EE-Standard at the moment, that is right. But it is part of the Listing of European Poultry Breeds and Colours and therefor is allowed to be shown in (All-)European-Shows. And there are a lot of European breeds without an PCGB- or APA-standard. The question is: do you want to provide this information, or not? --PigeonIP (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

trinominal_name

I do have a problem with this field:

A) Domesticated turkey: Meleagris gallopavo f. domestica is no longer an official binomial name.

B) Chicken IZCN says Gallus domesticus (Gmelin, 1789, p. 737) [1]

C) Ducks: Anas platyrhynchos domesticus or Cairina moschata momelanotus (may be an easy one)

D) Geese: Anser anser domesticus or Anser cygnoides (besides IZCN, there are a lot of mixed breeds where no one knows ...)

I'd like to withdraw this field. With breeds in general that shall not be important. Important is the domesticated species not the latin name (and given the historical latin names for some breeds this may get a mess) --PigeonIP (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If there is consensus the changes you list should be applied. The field should not be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, rightly or wrongly, I have made the species name and systematic names into manual-entry data fields, so that the infobox can be used for all types of poultry. Following that change, I've experimentally deployed it at Orpington Duck. It seems to work, except that I had to comment out the automatic addition of Category:Chicken breeds, as I am nowhere near smart enough to automate that. If Andy can see better ways of doing any of this I will be delighted. I think the Species/Latin name combinations should usually be something like:

• Chicken, Gallus gallus domesticus
• Duck, Anas platyrhynchos domesticus
• Muscovy Duck, Cairina moschata momelanotus
• Domestic Duck/Muscovy Duck, Anas platyrhynchos domesticus/Cairina moschata momelanotus
• Goose, Anser anser domesticus
• Chinese Goose, Anser cygnoides
• Turkey, Meleagris gallopavo

but share PigeonIP's misgivings - how do we deal with a hybrid-type goose? If we could agree on these, I'd add them to the template documentation.

I've also added fields for the EE and the PCGB classification. However, I'm not quite sure what might be put in the EE field, as it doesn't classify breeds into arbitrary categories as some other bodies do; should it simply be a Yes/No? Or Large/Bantam/Large and Bantam? There's room to add more fields if anyone wants them (Australia?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If there needs to be manual entry, there should be a set of defaults, which it overrides. Alternativelly, the taxonomic name could just be imported from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for Expansion of Parameters in Infobox Poultry Breed

I wanted to bring to attention the potential benefits of expanding the parameters within the Infobox Poultry Breed template on Wikipedia. Currently, the infobox lacks crucial details that could significantly enhance the comprehensiveness of poultry breed entries.

Firstly, the inclusion of egg weight for respective bird breeds could be highly informative. Egg weight is a fundamental characteristic that aids in understanding the productivity and utility of various poultry breeds. Incorporating this information into the infobox would offer users a clearer insight into the breed's potential.

Additionally, considering the ancestor of each domesticated poultry breed is an essential aspect for historical and genealogical understanding. Including a field dedicated to documenting the breed's ancestral origins would greatly enrich the provided information.

Expanding these parameters within the infobox aligns with Wikipedia's objective of providing comprehensive and accurate data. I believe this enhancement would significantly benefit users seeking in-depth knowledge about various poultry breeds.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Hjemt (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)