Talk:Dutch Landrace goat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested moves (September 2014)[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages, per the discussion below, with the exception of Swedish Landrace goat, moved because of a conflict with the existing article Swedish Landrace pig. Other moves might be advisable or gain consensus as new articles are created or in the event of a new discussion now that the other semi-associated move requests have been closed, but the current discussion has become stale. Dekimasuよ! 17:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Original names are too naturally ambiguous and could refer to any kind of domesticated animal at all (not all breeds have articles yet, so at least some of these are likely to conflict with real breeds of other species). New names will be consistent with the other articles of this sort, e.g. Swedish Landrace pig, Danish Landrace pig, etc. See recently concluded requested moves of the same sort: Australian Pit Game -> Australian Pit Game fowl, and West African Dwarf -> West African Dwarf goat, and many other similar cases of natural ambiguity, e.g. White Park cattle, San Clemente Island goat, Black Pied Dairy cattle, Australian Game fowl, Plymouth Rock chicken, Continental Giant rabbit, Gulf Coast Native sheep, Nigerian Dwarf goat, Australian Draught horse. Note that the added species common name at the end ("cattle", "rabbit", etc.) is not capitalized, because it's not part of the formal name of the breed; the species is capitalized only in the few cases when it is invariably part of the name, as in American Quarter Horse, Norwegian Forest Cat, Bernese Mountain Dog. Disambiguation is non-parenthetic, per WP:NATURAL policy, and per the vast majority of animal breed article names. (I'm going on the assumption that we want to capitalize breed names at all, as we're mostly presently doing. If some object to this, I would suggest that this RM is not the place for that discussion, so please don't cloud the RM by injecting arguments relating to that other topic.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing status quo ante RM discussion at Talk:Teeswater sheep that raises the same WP:NATURAL issue, but it's not a discussion on the merits, but about whether to revert to parenthetical disambiguation pending such a discussion, and thus has no impact on this RM. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suport landrace is not disambiguatory, these should be disambiguation pages -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: SMC, you do well know the reactions to your unreflected moves. Take Talk:Teeswater_sheep#Requested_move_25_August_2014 as a reminder. The Names of the Breeds are well citated from different breeding associations and some national governmental organisations, that are repoting to the FAO, who is using this names as well. And again, there is a difference between a Flamish Giant rabbit (as in any Giant rabbit of Flamish origin or any Flamish rabbit of a Giant breed) and a Flamish Giant, that is the name of the breed.
By the way, what is the benefit of doing some RMs through out multiple different talk pages[1], rather than in one special place, where they all belong to, like the WikiProject Agriculture?
The "many similar cases" moved by you without reliable references are now used to make a point, your point? --PigeonIP (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe his point is that it makes sense to group together only those moves that involve exactly the same issue; quite unlike the mess at Talk:Teeswater_sheep#Requested_move_25_August_2014. This gives you the opportunity say whether you agree or disagree with various specific issues, rather than attack the proposer and his moves as "unreflected". I've followed his moves and other style edits for a while, and it's clear (to me at least) that he reflects carefully on these things. So focus on the question(s), not the person, if you have reason to disagree with the way he thinks about it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do focus on the subject, not self-piced Wiki-rules (having in mind WP:PRECISE as well and don't intend some funny names). --PigeonIP (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can only parse about half of that. If you have a personal issue to raise with me, please use User talk:SMcCandlish, and try to do so calmly so that your concerns can be understood.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with you, I have an issue with the RM's presented by you, piking one of fife WP:NCs, ignoring the others. --PigeonIP (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PigeonIP, you're not presenting an argument that is relevant in any way to this RM, just a fallacy ad hominem and other distractions.
Same response here as at your other copy-pasted comments of this sort at Talk:Anglo-Nubian & the other RMs...

You're also confusing a status quo ante discussion at Talk:Teeswater sheep (a discussion about whether to revert undiscussed moves in the interim before discussing the merits of the moves) with a discussion of the merits of the moves; they're unrelated. You're also evidencing serious difficulty with English spelling and capitalization, and getting proper names correct; I don't mean that in a snide way, it's just a matter of WP:COMPETENCE, as this is a nuanced discussion about spelling, proper naming, and capitalization in particular. And finally, you're sorely confusing, well, everything, as you did in earlier discussions. Flemish Giant is the breed name. No one contests this. For reasons already covered at a previous near-identical RM, this name doesn't work here, and needs to be Flemish Giant rabbit for disambiguation and recognizability reasons. That does not at all imply any of the confused ideas you suggested, which would be implied by Flemish giant rabbit. Next, your concern that the breed name itself is being misrepresented isn't correct either, which would be the case with Flemish Giant Rabbit. Oh, the case you didn't mention here but did in all the other discussions: No, it shouldn't be Flemish Giant (rabbit), per WP:NATURAL policy.

RMs are usually discussed on article talk pages; wikiprojects, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, are simply editors agreeing to collaborate, nothing more. They do not have special WP:OWN authority over articles they claim within their scope. WP:RM itself lists, in a centralized location, all ongoing requested moves. There is no reason to host them on a wikiproject page; doing so would be highly irregular, and to many it would look like an attempt to actively canvass the project's editors to gang-vote.

Your continued personal aspersion casting, I will address that on your talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Technically, the oppose comments about how "pig" etc. are not part of the proper name are 100% correct. This is backed up by numerous sources such as Mason's World Dictionary of Livestock, Breeds, Types and Varieties or The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds. However, I support the idea that common sense dictates that the names are naturally ambiguous for the general reader. Sources that are most reliable make it contextually obvious to the reader that everything refers to animals, while on Wikipedia (such as on Search) this is not necessarily the case. Steven Walling • talk 03:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steven Walling: If the "pig" etc. parts were part of the formal breed name, the proposed names would be Dutch Landrace Pig, etc., with upper case. I thought the RM itself already covered this; is there a way to make it clearer?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as in parallel with comments on similarly themed articles, if I saw this list of "landrace" articles I would most likely imagine a multinational set of landrace type events. The untrained reader is faced with nonsensical titles without a qualifying explanation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is the reason a reader shall read articles not stand alone titles. That is, why google provides a short text. That is why WikidataSearch at least gives you the description of the dataset at hand. --PigeonIP (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I'd favour coherent titles precede coherent articles. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move: No ambiguity exists, if there are other animals with these names, they should be raised on a case by case basis. SMC has at least six or seven of these discussions going simultaneously across multiple individual animal articles, without having notified any of the projects involved nor WP Ag. This appears to be gaming the system. Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per rm nom: See comments in section below. Otr500 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed. Fundamentally flawed proposal, ill thought out and based on false premises. A few points:
  • There is already a mass move request regarding animal breed articles, the outcome of which would affect any decision here, at Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, as the nominator well knows, since it involves the reversal of some hundreds of undiscussed page moves made by him
  • White Park cattle, cited above as an example for consistency, was moved without discussion to its present title by the nominator, and will be reverted if that move proceeds
  • Nigerian Dwarf goat, cited above as an example for consistency, was moved without discussion to its present title by the nominator, and will be reverted if that move proceeds
  • Black Pied Dairy cattle, cited above as an example for consistency, has been moved six times in just over three years
  • The nominator has decided, without reference to relevant WikiProjects or other interested editors, how he wants domestic animal breed articles to be named, and is apparently on a one-man crusade to impose that decision on the community; other moves proposed (mostly with copy-pasted move rationale) by the same editor are at:
  1. Talk:Flemish Giant (rabbit, cattle and sheep breeds)
  2. Talk:Corsican Cattle (21 cattle, sheep, goat and rabbit breeds)
  3. Talk:Canadian Speckle Park (2 cattle breeds)
  4. Talk:American Sable (3 rabbit and goat breeds)
  5. Talk:Russian Black Pied (4 cattle breeds) – closed as no no consensus
  6. Talk:Black Hereford (hybrid) (one cattle breed, one hybrid) - closed as not moved
  7. Talk:Blue Grey (2 cattle breeds, 1 cattle hybrid, 1 goat)
  8. Talk:Harz Red mountain cattle (one breed)
  9. Talk:Asturian Mountain (6 cattle, sheep and pig breeds)
  10. Talk:Romeldale/CVM (one sheep breed)
  11. Talk:Merino
  • The current titles are short, precise, unique and recognisable, and incidentally also consistent with the titles of all Wikipedia articles for which disambiguation is not required; there's no reason to move them. And even if there was, we wouldn't move them to titles that change case half-way through.
  • The Hungarian Improved apparently does not exist, and possibly never did. It isn't reported to DAD-IS. The only source in the article is OSU, not reliable by our standards; in this case it seems to have copied from Mason, who gives as the Magyar for "Hungarian Improved": "Magyar kecske", or "Hungarian Goat". It should probably – if anyone can be found with the necessary knowledge – become an overview article at, say, Hungarian goats. Until then, I suggest redirecting it to the List of goat breeds, as has already been done with many similar stubs created by the same user.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Landrace breeds[edit]

Most breeds named "Landrace" are swine, with the exception of 4 well known goats and two sheep. If they have to be distinguished (like the Dutch Landrace), that shall be through a parenthetical disambiguation. Names like Dutch Landrace goat and Dutch Landrace sheep are very uncommon and unlikely to use.[2][3]. Same goes for Finnish Landrace goat and Finnish Landrace Swine/Finnish Landrace pig. Danish Landrace pig/Danish Landrace swine and Finnish Landrace sheep are better known, the Finnsheep even better as such. Therefore I request:

  1. Danish Landrace goat → Danish Landrace (goat)
  2. Danish Landrace sheep → Danish Landrace (sheep)
  3. Danish Landrace pig → Danish Landrace (pig)
  4. Dutch Landrace → Dutch Landrace (goat)
  5. Dutch Landrace (pig) (yet not created)
  6. Finnish Landrace goat → Finnish Landrace (goat)
  7. Finnish Landrace of sheep is Finnsheep, it shall not be moved
  8. Finnish Landrace (pig) (yet not created)
  9. Swedish Landrace → Swedish Landrace (goat)
  10. Swedish Landrace pig → Swedish Landrace (pig)

--> Danish Landrace and Finnish Landrace are disambiguations. Swedish Landrace and Dutch Landrace shall become one.

the following are some of many pigs. It is unlikely, that they have to be distinguished. They shall stay at the already clear title found in reliable sources (FAO and Oklahoma State University):

  1. American Landrace
  2. Belgian Landrace
  3. British Landrace
  4. Italian Landrace
sources
the two left out breeds
--PigeonIP (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had images of subliminal messages after I read "Therefore I request:" then read "They shall stay", "shall not be moved", "shall become one" and all of a sudden I remembered...... this is a not WP:Article titles but Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Landrace "..is a regional, domestic ecotype, that is, a locally adapted, traditional variety of a domesticated species of animal or plant...". This seems to be the case with six of the eight in this rm. We know the geographical "region" by the first part of each (Dutch, Swedish, Brisish, etc...) but we don't know if it is an animal or plant.
Google search:
I have went through many pages of multiple relevant Google searches (excluding false positives), including those listed above, and adding "pig" or goat gave even more in support. Names like Gloucestershire Old Spots (I stopped at the 4th page) referenced "Gloucestershire Old Spots pig" (or use of swine) more commonly.
There does need to be some consistency to avoid articles like Large White pig or Middle White but this is Wikipedia not Encyclopedia Britannica. The other one uses parenthesis after lots of names but unless there is a plan to combine the two we should not want to model after Britannica just because.
Wait!! We still have the common name (as used in references) we can fall back on. On that note, Hungarian Improved showed up more in the Google search referenced as Hungarian Improved goat but we can invoke WP:OFFICIAL if we want to.
Why not just call it a pig or goat which is the best natural disambiguation in the world. I agree with "I support the idea that common sense dictates that the names are naturally ambiguous for the general reader". I think it better "NOT" to make "rules" to over-complicate everything just for the sake of complication so if it is a pig, horse, cattle, etc... we should call it that in the title "especially" if this agrees with references. Otr500 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does agree with references. It takes only seconds to find reliable sources using natural disambiguation exactly as proposed here. This pretty much puts to bed the idea that WP doing so is "wrong" or "a made up name" or "confusing" or any of the other objections. See this one for example, among innumerable others findable easily with a properly constructed Google search: "[N]ew lines ... making the British Landrace pig unique amongst other Landrace breeds throughout the world". – "The British Landrace: Breed History". BritishPigs.org. British Pig Association. January 15, 2014. We need to just document sourcing like this in all these related RMs (and quickly, because some admins are starting to close them as "no consensus", because someone is drowning the RMs in huge, mostly off-topic lists of FUD and handwaving, when the sourcing matter is actually crystal clear: real-world reliable sources regularly, routinely, predictably use natural disambiguation all the time. It's a natural feature of the English language. That's why the policy here is called WP:NATURAL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to disambiguate where there is no ambiguity. Montanabw(talk)
    • There is no need to add comments when they simply restate things everyone is already taking into consideration.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is need for article titles to describe their topic WP:AT Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree, Gregkaye. What that page says is "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic". It mentions no need or obligation to describe; nor, in practice, do we do so - our article on the Morris Mini-Minor, for example, is at Mini, not at Mini (small British car) or whatever. As I wrote elsewhere, what I'd really like someone to explain (in no more than 50 words) is why this bizarre insistence on adding an explanatory suffix to the article title is being suggested only for domestic animal breeds. If it is necessary (and I don't think it is), then why is it not proposed throughout the project - leading to, say, Mini car, Alabama state and Hoatzin bird? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone just close this thing? Clearly there is no consensus, so the titles stay as is. And I agree that many animal breeds do not require the animal species suffix; there is no article now titled poodle dog (it's a redirect to poodle) or whatever. Montanabw(talk) 09:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1 This is getting pointless. Steven Walling • talk 02:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 18 December 2014[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 18:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Landrace (goat) → Dutch Landrace goat – Per WP:NATURAL, per all other similar articles (Swedish Landrace goat, Dutch Landrace pig, etc.), per our livestock breed article naming pattern more generally (see Category:Goat breeds), per the above previous RM which indicated no consensus to use parenthetical disambiguation against WP:NATURAL policy, and per months of previous similar RMs, every single one of which that closed with consensus closed with a consensus against parenthetical disambiguation of animal breed names (see Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, Talk:Corsican cattle#Requested moves, etc.) This article was placed at Dutch Landrace goat by RM-regular admin Anthony Appleyard after these RMs closed, then moved unilaterally by involved editor PigeonIP to the parenthetic form he's been unsuccessfully arguing for in all these RMs, so I think we can also cite WP:IDHT. Note also that the previous RM on this page concluded to move Swedish Landrace to Swedish Landrace goat, because of a conflict with the existing article Swedish Landrace pig. At the time, Dutch Landrace (which is presently at Dutch Landrace (goat) did not need disambiguation, but now that it does, since the creation of Dutch Landrace pig, the previous RM's rationale clearly applies, and has already indicated that the name should be Dutch Landrace goat.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • While hopefully the discussion here can remain independent of previous move warring, my close would have indicated Dutch Landrace goat were a move necessary, per my comments at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 30. Dekimasuよ! 22:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous discussion and general preference for natural over parenthetical disambiguation. Dicklyon (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't have a problem with parenthetical disambiguation ... however, I don't think this specific parenthetical helps. I would read the current title and assume that the article was about an individual specific goat named "Dutch Landrace" (similar to the way we have an article about an individual specific horse entitled Trigger (horse)). As an alternative suggestion... I would find Dutch Landrace (goat breed) acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Blueboar: That would contradict years of animal breed article naming decisions. Individual notable animals have been disambiguated parenthetically (see, e.g., all the subcategories of Category:Racehorses), which makes sense under WP:NATURAL: No one refers to a racehorse, e.g. Acatenango (horse), as "Acatenango horse"; he's simply Acatenango, so "Acatenango horse" is unnatural disambiguation. It's the same as for people; John Smith (professor) is parenthetically disambiguated because "John Smith professor" is an unnatural phrase in English. By stark contrast, all animal breeds are naturally disambiguated by adding the species[*] any time it's unclear what is being referred to. If we're at a cat show, I can just say "Mya is a Persian" and you know I mean my cat, while in a less obvious context I would say "Mya is a Persian cat" so you don't think I meant my girlfriend or coworker. "Dutch Landrace goat" is a perfectly natural phrase in English, so the parenthetical isn't called for. "Dutch landrace goat breed" (or "Dutch landrace (goat breed)" is unnecessarily wordy disambiguation. [* In a handful of cases an alternative word for the species is used, e.g. "swine", "fowl", "hound", instead of "pig", "chicken", "dog", but whether to do that or not is determined by reference to reliable sources on the breed in question, and it doesn't arise in this case.] The problem with the present article name, Dutch Landrace (goat) is that it is the one that implies that we're talking about an individual goat named "Dutch Landrace".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per SMcCandlish. Blueboar agrees in principle, as the article is not about an individual specific goat named "Dutch Landrace", but the adding of breed to goat (goat breed) would only be necessary if "goat" would be ambiguous. Otr500 (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. That sort of case came up in a cattle-related RM, where a name was shared by a formal breed and by something else, so one is disambiguated with "breed", the other with "hybrid" (though technically the latter is not a hybrid at all, i.e. a domestic–wild mix, but a crossbreed of two domestic breeds, and should be moved to a disambiguation of "crossbreed", something I'll revisit later).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: Per WP:Natural and because of consistency - this looks like the way all the other goat articles went, plus whoever held the opposite position has apparently dropped the issue for goats. That said, I deplore the tactics used to get all the goat articles renamed. For future reference, I urge the nominator to respect the input of others and seek consensus for moves on other animal breed articles rather than flying solo with RMs and RfCs. It is best to have a consensus and joint support for such moves rather than to resort to piecemeal tactics involving individual or small group RMs. Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move requests (and RFCs) are a recognized way to seek "consensus and joint support." Dekimasuよ! 07:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dutch_Landrace_goat&oldid=1212731532"