This article was nominated for deletion on May 24, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: no move: no consensus in 58 days, last message was 14 days ago Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Teeswater sheep → Teeswater (sheep) – Revert undiscussed move, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847 #Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish. I'd hoped someone else might deal with this, but it seems not. There are a lot of these (this is just a first instalment), so please excuse (and ignore) any listings that are for any reason incorrect. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
<ins>...</ins>
insertion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers, while SMcCandlish is currently banned from making undiscussed moves (as of July 15) these moves were done prior to his ban. Would you object to having a centralized move discussion for all the sheep articles? It looks to me that some editors might support these moves. It's a lot of work for an admin to do a mass revert and then have to move all the articles back later per discussion, if that turns out to be the result. Why not have the discussion first? The issues in this set of articles don't even involve capitalization (as in Talk:American Paint Horse#Requested moves). It's only a question of natural versus parenthesized disambiguation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, EdJohnston and Jenks24, for your comments. Points in order:
List of observations about this RM
|
---|
((hatnote: On item on this list was wrong - Justlettersandnumbers (Jlan) didn't list this mass, mess RM here personally, but only at RM; it was moved here administratively as a relisting of a contested "noncontroversial" proposal. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)))
|
Comment. As must be obvious from the initial remarks in this discussion, this was not originally intended to be a move request; if it had been so intended it would have been formulated very differently, and posted at WT:WikiProject Agriculture. Some points:
Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.
Itemized response. I doubt anyone actually wants to read this stuff, so I'll just collapse-box it again so people can skip it easily. Justlettersandnumbers should probably do the same with the above text-wall.
|
---|
|
There is no "my way" that I'm insisting on. We have clear article title policies, and I've made moves that conform to them, accepted some criticism for doing so without discussion, and now we're having that very discussion, which seems to be going the way I suggested anyway, since it's the way based on policy, not "my way" or "Montanbw's way". Other moves I've requested, on a policy basis not some random personal preference mind you, almost invariably also are accepted (see SMcCandlish/Logs/My RMs, July–August 2014 for just one month's stats, in which my RM actions are over 95% accurate in predicting move or don't-move outcome). Montanabw is conflating a) their previous, unrelated article-titling personal disputes with me (in some of which they were correct about that content, while I was in others), b) an ANI resolved over two months ago about move process (not content) in which Montanabw was involved, and b) the substance (content, not process) of the moves in question now. These are three different topics. Montanabw muddying the waters of the ongoing proceeding (and doing so again, in ways that demonstrate they don't understand how RM works, at WP:AN) on the basis of my alleged personality is the fallacy ad hominem, and a sterling example of a WP:NPA violation again. Montanabw has already had way more than enough warnings in that regard. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
(refering to Listing of European Poultry Breeds and Colours, PCGB breed gallery, breed classification of the PCGB, APA recognised breeds and varieties)
PS: Why not move them back? Because it was already agreed, even by Jlan, over a month ago that a status quo ante revert would be a waste of time. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"Sebright chicken" -Wikipedia"Sebright+chicken"+-Wikipedia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8. Everyone, everywhere, all the time disambiguates breed names by appending the species (e.g. "chicken") or a synonym of it (e.g. "fowl") after the breed name whenever writing or speaking about a breed to people who are not necessarily going to be certain what they're referring to. This is universal, across all domestic animals, in English and I'd bet good money most other languages. WP:PRECISION is perfectly satisfied by this natural disambiguation. We've already been over this, and I've demonstrated this many times. You're confusing the idea "someone familiar with the subject would never use it in a context in which what they meant was already clear, e.g. in a chicken-related publication or forum" with the very different and easily, already disproven idea "someone familiar with the subject would never use it in any context, ever". And again, no one is making the case that the formal breed name include the species; that would be Sebright Chicken. No one's making thta claim about any breeds of any kind except those where the inclusion of the species in the breed name is reliably sourced as essentially universal (e.g. American Quarter Horse, Norwegian Forest Cat. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Sebright Bantams
; Sebright (chicken)
is better, on this one (WP:PRECISE) --PigeonIP (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
--PigeonIP (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
More pig-relatet RMs are at Talk:Asturian Mountain and Talk:Dutch Landrace#Requested moves. The Ukrainian Spotted Steppe (FAO) and Ukrainian White Steppe (FAO) don't have to be distinguished. On Talk:Dutch Landrace#Requested moves are some "Landrace moves" requested. If they have to be distinguished (like the Dutch Landrace), that shall be through a parenthetical disambiguation. Names like Dutch Landrace goat are very uncommon.[15] --PigeonIP (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course, reliable sources (even when they mostly use just the breed name by itself when there's no ambiguity) regularly and predictably use precisely the kind of natural disambiguation as proposed here, when they need to be clear what species they mean (as WP always needs to; we can never presume that any given reader already knows that an article is about cattle or pigs or whatever before going to the article, as one might in a paper about cattle (etc.), and even those often use natural disambiguation anyway). Natural disambiguation is a natural feature of the English language (that's why it's called natural disambiguation, after all). I did this sorucing for a different RM (see Talk:Asturian Mountain#Requested moves) but it's equally applicable here, and similar source can be found for the entries on the RM list up top:
autochthonous races of cattle such as the Asturian mountain cattle – Ratina and Casina – and Tudanca cattle.
Herds of the endangered Casina cattle or Asturian mountain cattle are to be found in Redes
((cite web))
: Check date values in: |date=
(help)Aberdeen Angus cattle ... Asturian Mountain cattle, Asturian Valley cattle ... Finnish Ayrshire cattle ... Zavot cattle, Znamensk cattle ...
((cite web))
: External link in |quote=
(help)health traits in Finnish Ayrshire dairy cattle
((cite journal))
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)clinical mastitis in Finnish Ayrshire cattle
((cite book))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)"Australian Yorkshire and Duroc pigs were imported.... Offspring boars sired by Australian Yorkshire and Duroc pigs.... All male offspring of imported Australian Yorkshire pigs had...
((cite book))
: |editor1-first=
has generic name (help)Ukrainian Spotted Steppe pig
breeds such as the Black Pied cattle or the Ukrainian Spotted Steppe and Russian Black Pied pigs
((cite book))
: |work=
ignored (help); Missing or empty |title=
(help) Also on p. 150 in 1995 edition."Red Steppe cattle and Red cattle ... Black-and-White cattle ... Red Steppe cattle ... Angler cattle ... Brown Calpack cattle ... Grey Ukraine cattle ... Wolynik cattle ... the White Ukraine Steppe Pig, the Mielgoroda Steppe Pig ...
((cite journal))
: |chapter=
ignored (help); Missing or empty |title=
(help) (It's unclear why, in a handful of cases, the authors capitalized the species name, but it's not very significant, since most sources do not. The document shows a large number of "scannos" – OCR errors – so this may explain it.)((cite journal))
: External link in |work=
(help)Dorset Down sheep were exported around the world.
((cite book))
: |work=
ignored (help); Missing or empty |title=
(help) (Source typically uses just the breed names, e.g. "Dorset Down", but regularly also uses the longer constructions (e.g. "Dorset Down sheep"), and lower-cases the species name when doing so.)((cite web))
: Check date values in: |date=
(help) (Source typically uses just the breed names, e.g. "Dorset Down", but regularly also uses the longer constructions (e.g. "Dorset Down [S|s]heep"), but usually in headings that are title-cased.)This convincingly shows that breeds have formal names ("Asturian Mountain", " Asturian Valley", "Finnish Ayrshire", "Dorset Down", etc.) to which capitalized species ("Cattle", "Pig", "Sheep" etc. are usually not appended, yet that they are regularly WP:NATURALly disambiguated by reliable sources in the real world, by appending lower-case species. This proves beyond any shadow of doubt that such a practice is not weird here, "a made up name", unnatural, etc. Natural disambiguation is a natural feature of the English language. THat's why it's called that. There is abosolutely no case make here for using unnatural, parenthetical disambiguation. Closing this RM, against prior agreement to not do a status quo ante revert, with a result that leads to just such a status quo ante revert, is simply going to lead in turn to a large number of renewed on-the-merits RM requests to put the articles at naturally disambiguated names, since both policy and reliable sources support this, and no argument backed by either can be or has been made for parenthetical. I'm prepared to make an RS list like the above for every single case on this list if that's what it takes to put a stop to this "let's make up random rules as we go along that are different for geese and for guineapigs and for ferrets". Enough of that nonsense. We have an article titles policy for a reason. WP:AT + WP:RS > WP:ILIKEIT, and there's no way around that, so let's stop stalling. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
// as implied with that edit// later added by PigeonIP (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC) so what does (sheep) mean?
I'd love to see the policy on "how to read a bracket".
--PigeonIP (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)