Talk:Dachshund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A Question[edit]

Is the fact that dachshunds came before hot dogs important enough to be in this article? Just checking before I add it. FrenchDachshund (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I put it, just tell me if there is a problem. FrenchDachshund (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's way too trivia to be mentioned here. It's better handled at hot dog. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.52.187 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Good article! I suggest for that! 178.223.239.50 (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

redirect doxine[edit]

could we redirect the search term doxine to this article. I always thought it was doxine. it would help alot since most people think its doxine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.215.109 (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My Dachshund's back[edit]

It's so sad that when I got my dog that It had skin problems on his back and he has no hair on his back, even though he is a long-haired. It's certainly interesting to see. And he's like this because the humane society rescued him when he had every kind of bug and vermine on his back.. Jellyman64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

Is there any relationship to this breed and urinating in the house? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.87.251 (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Rough Hair Dachshund[edit]

Rough Hair Dachshund are the best! Go Oscar

Previous conversation[edit]

However, I don't agree with these fchanges. Before and now - [1]. Most dog articles are small and undeveloped. I think these huge, long info-boxed infoboxes cover up half of the articles. It distorts the layout and messes up everything. Hafspajen (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


They do, but there is an alternative. Take a look at the Pendine Museum of Speed for instance. Eric Corbett 22:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Collapse!! Hafspajen (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


  • I think I've fixed a couple of them? Eric, would we have to do all of them individually or can it be done on the main template somehow? {{Template:Infobox dog breed}} For some bizarre reason, it looks as if it knocks the 'Country of origin' out of line though? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    I think you'd have to do each of them individually, but RexxS might be a better person to ask. Eric Corbett 13:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Only that is still as long as it was almost... And what is that grey template doing in the beginning of the articles - reinfoboxed by this editor, like Korean Jindo - Dog (Canis lupus familiaris) - Now we have crappy articles with yards of infoboxes. How fun. Jagdterrier Hafspajen (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Eric. Hafs, I've had a go at fixing Korean Jindo; as well as putting "collapsed infoxbox section end" you have to put "collapsed infobox section begin" - or it shifts the lower box bit over to the start of the article. [Now, wasn't that clever of me to work that out by myself? I won't give my secret away by saying I copied what Eric had done] SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

MMmm... Hafspajen (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


I don't understand this kind of editing. I am now collapsing those unnecessary infoboxes to avoid more vandalism. This editor decided to update the links in infoboxes on dog articles, - even if they apparently don't have a clue about dogs. Lately he decided to add not only links but lengthy descriptions and humorous alt captions - too. And all that stuff in them almost always the target for vandals to do sneaky changes to weights, heights etc, as stated. So now we have to run after and collapse. Hafspajen (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: because some editors are prone to sneaky vandalism, we're now going to hide the text away so the vandalism is less likely to get detected? I don't see how that helps at all. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs - why would an editor edit just dog articles - if they don't know about dogs. Hafspajen (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sagaciousphil, hope you don't mind - moved discussion here, but I get reverted all the time. Probably should be moved to dog task force too. Hafspajen (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note, Sagaciousphil, and myself are mostly the active editors at the WikiProject Dogs, since several years. And User:C.Fred, you broke the three revert rule, with your reverts. Hafspajen (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Some discussion that doesn't fit anywhere[edit]

MOVE here then discussion. Hafspajen (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I did explained now. I know by experience that there is a regular vandalism wave on dog articles, [2] -[3] Some get an account but get blocked. And now even Ips of all kinds go around and change weight and heights. It happens time to time. Sometime it goes undiscovered because editors have to have special knowledge to recognize it is wrong. And it comes up as no change in the history. This is a rather sneaky way of vandalize pages, and it gives us a lot of trouble. Hafspajen (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
As you can notice, I tried to do it here to. I really don't think it is bad code at all, actually it is quite good. Hafspajen (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Don't be against me. I was working a lot with this article. Vandalism will still be visible in the history, but the possibility of it decrease. Hafspajen (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


YES; I left a comment, but I removed it too! It was not that version you reverted later, but the corrected one. Hafspajen (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Forced collapse of infobox?[edit]

Why are we forcing a collapse of the traits and specifications sections into a collapse box? I don't see what's gained in formatting by hiding this data. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel it's a problem to collapse the lower sections of info boxes especially those that have recently had quite a number of the info box parameters filled in (height, weight etc) making the boxes unwieldy and in some cases longer than the text of the article. Could you let me know what you feel is wrong with the code as I see you refer to it as "bad code"? SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
My big concern with the first edit was what looked like a comment was left in the collapse heading.
My other concern is that this sort of double-collapse should not be done by hard-coding templates. If we want to be able to have collapsed the default state for the traits section, and/or for the standards section, that should be added to the functionality of the infobox. Then, rather than hard code, just add the collapse_traits=1 parameter to the infobox, and it gets hidden by default automatically. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure the comment being inserted in the first edit was a genuine mistake - it looks as if it was a copy of the edit summary included in error. As you can see in the discussion from my talk page (now below) I asked whether it could be coded into the template itself as these technicalities are well outside of my capabilities. If it is possible I would suggest it would make things much easier - this Dachshund article could end up with infobox(s) monopolising it, which I feel has now happened at the Poodle article. I also agree with Hafspajen that while it will not completely prevent heights, weights, etc being chopped and changed it may help reduce the amount of it thereby cutting down the amount of time wasted verifying the correct information. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Moved that back. No, I think as a long time dog editor - that I just might stop being a long time dog editor. The articles are in overall poor shape, lots and lots of vandalism that just takes time to fix - weird edits that just starting to fix links - all over the place - that's the only thing happening. As stated, most of the articles are in a pretty poor state but no, they have to fix links and mess about with info boxes. And make double as much work - or would have made. If anybody would care anymore. I start unwatching the dog articles, because I had enough. I don't care if this is all that comes out of it. Remove now all dog articles from my watch-list. I removed this already. Drmies, you take over from now. Hafspajen (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Haf, I'm not taking over any dog articles--I got enough on my plate. This is a minor dispute that can be worked out, I am sure. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyone who thinks they can do it better can take over, I don't care anymore. We were two editors here who regularly worked with it, because the others quit. Well, I quit now. Phil - she is not in the state off doing any good at the moment, and I am not going to make all this extra work because she is not here, because the info-boxes getting longer and sillier every day - and because I got reverted three times just because I was trying to do something we agreed on. And I am not going to do everything and get kicked in the as for it too, Drmies - sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, what you agreed on was in a private talk. It had never gotten public scrutiny at this article (since the change was at the article level) or, as far as I could see, at the template or project level. And while that's fine, there's still the issue of, if there's not broader acceptance, it needs broader discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I can only say what I said before - there are no long time regular editors with a broad knowledge about dogs, who regularly patrol dog all articles, revert vandalism, watch dog articles and write content in dog articles. We did that all. If it have been more, we would know about it - watching the recent changes. There was one more, Tikuko. She is not here anymore. We were the only editors who bothered to keep articles in shape. That would have been one of the main point - because there are so few watchers - to reduce the potential amount of vandalism we were reverting daily and hourly. And --- now they are None. Hafspajen (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Waldi, Olympic logo 1972.png[edit]

The non-free use of this file in Dachsund#Symbol of Germany is currently being discussed at WP:NFCR#File:Waldi, Olympic logo 1972.png. All interested editors are welcome to participate. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)