Template talk:Infobox cat breed

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

Cats

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats articles

Origin

The "Origin" line needs clarification. Most cat breeds were developed in the UK or US, and have little if any relation to the places they're named after. This is usually clear, but a problem arises, as in the case of the Turkish Van, when a breed is developed entirely from founding stock picked from a local landrace (in this case Van cats from Turkey), but is developed entirely in another place (the United Kingdom, here). We need to clarify the wording or something. I'd suggest a new |stock= parameter for founding stock (e.g. |stock=[[Van cat]] ([[Turkey]]), and to limit the origin field to place of initial breeding program, and to change its output to something like "First bred in:" to avoid any ambiguity. This is not an idle concern. The issue has led to hostilities at Talk:Turkish Van, for example. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated

Added LOOF (France) registry. Also checked all the various URLs and updated them (quite a few had changed). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

I've overhauled this to support:

Providing notes about registry categorization (provisional, etc.)
Classifying feline hybrids
Indicating foundation stock
Adding "other" registries that we don't use enough to give them their own parameters.

Also updated the documentation with:

Warnings about unreliable-source "kitten mill" bogus registries
Instructions to avoid adding redundant regional or single-breed registries
Normalization of the documentation, to an extent, with that of Template:Infobox dog breed, though the templates differ in key ways, like the fact that there is a larger array of legit cat registries than dog registries, and the "mill" problem is much greater in the dog-breeding world.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering of organizations

Please see Template talk:Infobox dog breed#FCI listing near top is inappropriate., for a discussion of alphabetical versus other registry ordering, which has implication for how this template is done, too. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should use of “country” parameter be deprecated and replaced strictly with “origin”?

It seems as though the origin parameter should be used primarily instead of the alias country. They’re synonymous in the template code, and synonymous in the documentation, but the line that strikes me as most interesting and most agreeable is that cats don’t have allegiance to a country. And as the docs allude to as well, some breeds may have come from regions and not countries.

So should the country parameter be deprecated and eventually removed from the template entirely? It feels odd to keep it around.

I would be happy to do any template work and article updating as well to bring things in line.

– Pedantical (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]