Template talk:Infobox dog breed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New location parameter 

message: This template is still emitting short description even in presence of an explicit  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)
replies: text: Please link to an example article. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description issue 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 , 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)

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

text: LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before but it's worth revisiting. But, yes, the discussion should be centralized.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  “Males and females“ or “dogs and bitches”? 

message: Change "dogs" and "bitches" for "males" and "females". 92.177.63.37 (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Lightoil (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2023 

message: As it appears to me, this topic is far from being "" 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  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)
replies: text: LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before but it's worth revisiting. But, yes, the discussion should be centralized.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Revert of change to "males" and "females"