Talk:Teeswater sheep: Difference between revisions

{{oldafdfull|date= May 24, 2008 |result= '''keep''' |page= Teeswater (sheep) }}

 

== Requested move 25 August 2014 ==

:[[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<span style="color:Black"><big>✍</big>♪</span>]] 11:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 

*'''OPPOSE''' '''''TIMES 97''''': OMG!! what a mess. So many want to move articles and nobody to work on them. I '''''oppose a blanket move of 97 articles''''' because it is too much to be fair to the articles.

::I am amazed, appalled, and shocked. I just can not imagine why we would want to take any article name and put a part of it in parenthesis to prove what? It does not enhance the article and it is unnecessary. Make it concise so short but then because it is now vague add a word in parenthesis that otherwise is just fine being included in the name.

 

====Newer discussion====

**Understood. Having a few breeds named "X Game fowl" isn't problematic, any more than having a few pig articles named "X swine" instead of "X pig" because the sources indicate it's conventional. No one has suggested some kind of robotic conformity enforcement that would prevent "fowl" or "swine", though the [[straw man]] position that such ideas are proposed has been common enough in previous related debates. The specific content of these and other ongoing related RMs is actually proof that no such "hyper-conformity" proposals are on the table at all. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

***response to ''No one has suggested some kind of robotic conformity enforcement''. My impression is another one: Sebright and Pekin, that where [[Sebright (chicken)]] and [[Pekin (chicken)]] are at least [[Sebright Bantams]] and [[Pekin Bantam]] or [[Cochin Bantam]] to use a correct, not made up name. <small>([[WP:NATURAL]] says: ''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'')</small> --[[User:PigeonIP|PigeonIP]] ([[User talk:PigeonIP|talk]]) 12:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

*"''with the exception of the two''": There may be others in the two extra lists pointed to hereinabove. And in "Shamo chicken → Shamo (chicken)": a main meaning of "Shamo" by itself is a Chinese name of the [[Gobi Desert]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 12:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

**Yes, there are many of these cases (see the other, more focused RMs I luanched the other day). [[WP:NATURAL]] instructs us to use natural disambiguation in such cases. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

**Except if Teeswater Sheep were the name of the breed it would be capitalized like that, not given as Teeswater sheep. Numerous editors of various different kinds of breed editors have been absolutely adamant about this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

**The utter lack of any form of consistency within almost all breed categories (much less between any of them) is why this ever arose in the first place. The horses category is much more consistent than most, which is a blessing, and I've repeatedly supported you in resisting moves that would thwart it, which you seem to forget. No one is accusing or suggesting that the equine wikiproject is or could be "imposing [their] views on other animal projects". Rather, we have a [[WP:AT]] policies that are being ignored by many articles in most of these categories. There is no provision at [[WP:AT]] policy "that a certain amount of deference should be given to the article writers"; we have that policy, and have elevated it to policy level, specifically to avoid the problems inherent in article writers dictating how "their" articles are named. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

***Before you came around, there was consistency at least within the pigeon category, focusing on parenthetical disambiguation. Same was true for poultry. Thank you very much. --[[User:PigeonIP|PigeonIP]] ([[User talk:PigeonIP|talk]]) 12:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

::::Repeat: "almost all breed categories". Note that "almost all" != "all". The lack of consistency between them is a bigger issue than the exact contents of one of them in particular. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 11:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

**Actually, you just proved my point with another personal attack. Thanks for being so unmistakably clear in this regard. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

****Okay, Montanabw is being {{em|extra}}-clear in admitting that they are "siding with" others against me, not on the merits but to make a point and to attempt to silence me personally. This editor clearly needs to read [[WP:GANG]], [[WP:POINT]], [[WP:HARASS]], and [[WP:ARBATC]], including its prohibition on personalizing article title debates, about which Montanabw was formally notified the day before they posted this. I've already suggested on Montanabw's own talk page to be amenable to [[WP:Dispute resolution]], the proper venue for this stuff. Yet Montanabw just made it unmistakeably certain that this is a personal dispute for them, not a discussion about the merits of these renames, so they are disrupting [[WP:RM]] to pursue a personality conflict, even after it's been pointed out that this is what they're doing. It has to stop.<p>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 {{em|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 {{em|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|fallacy ''ad hominem'']], and a sterling example of a [[WP:NPA]] violation {{em|again}}. Montanabw has already had way more than enough warnings in that regard. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 16:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)</p>

::::::: The fact that you [[WP:IDHT|routinely ignore and dismiss]] disagreement with your views is a major cause of these disputes, their length (both in words and time), and their heatedness. Surely you must realize this by now. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 11:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::It's a mess because of the way it was launched. You're applying extremely selective judgement here. I'm being wordy, but PigeonIP, with his mile-long, repetitive lists is not? I'm "throwing accusations", but Montanabw's direct personal attacks don't count? RM is a [[WP:AT]] policy discussion in almost all respects, but only people other than me are allowed to link to policies? I don't know what discussion ("accusing someone of disrupting") you're vaguely alluding to; doesn't this post of yours constitute exactly the kind of "throwing accusations" you're &lt;ahem&gt; accusing me of? How am I not being sensible? Every single post I've made is grounded in reason, facts, policies; I'm sorry if this comes off as gruffness. When I'm subjected to ''[[ad hominem]]'' after ''ad hominem'', I'm not terribly inclined to be cordial; being critical and distant is not incivility. If you think the debate is noisy, lengthy and noncollegial, why contribute to all three of those problems? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 11:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

 

::* ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATeeswater_sheep&diff=627123893&oldid=627123478 To get back to bantam breeds, are there any that are not bantam variants of larger breeds?]'' – Yes, there are. I pointed you multiple times to the [[Sebright (chicken)]]. There are others as well. There is also large fowl without a corresponding bantam breed.

::* ''"Something chickens"'': SMcCandlish, you moved them all from "Something (chicken)" to "Something chicken", without any expertise. It is common, that, if there is a corresponding bantam breed to large fowl, it is mentioned within the article of the large fowl breed. The bantam breed title redirects there. In most of these cases it is not desirable to have a separate article on the bantam. That is, how writing poultry-articles works, it serves the reader and leads to a better quality of the articles. You don't have to rewrite the informations, that are relevant for both breeds. Those informations, that are interesting for readers not familiar with chicken. --[[User:PigeonIP|PigeonIP]] ([[User talk:PigeonIP|talk]]) 08:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

::::* Okay, then clearly we need "Foo Bantam" for any breed where there is only a bantam form, or for which there is a larger one as well but the bantam form has its own article. I agree that it's generally not desirable to have separate articles in the latter cases, but this is not a merge proposal. This doesn't affect the naming discussion otherwise. If "Foo" is classified as a breed, with two forms, do "Foo chicken" (natural disambiguation). If they're treated as separate breeds, but we want to cover them both in one article, "Foo chickens" (plural). This is not rocket science. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 10:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

 

::[[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 13:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::You seem to have missed the critique of the reasoning by PigeonIP, et al., above. You're also making a bogus [[argument to authority]] and to tenure, in suggesting that "experienced editors in [the topic] area" know more about WP article titling policy that the rest of Wikipedia (see the essay [[WP:Specialist style fallacy]] for an exploration of why that's not reasonable [note: I'm not "citing myself" - it's not a guideline, it's simply a page in which some reasoning has been laid out so it can be referred to without re-re-re-repeating it]). You're next engaging in a [[straw man]]; no one has suggested anything at all like "Harvard university", much less on the irrational basis that "university" is a natural disambiguator; it's a false analogy. Finally, the outcome of this this RM is unlikely to affect other RMs at all, because it's a request for a ''status quo ante'' mass revert of moves from over two months ago, and does not address the merits of any of the names. I've broken them out into groups for discussion on the merits, and most responses to have have been in favor of the moves as they are, or suggestions that each article should be discussed individually. As noted above, there was already an agreement between me, yourself, and the admins most likely to be performing any such moves that we would not be doing a ''status quo ante'' revert, but rather discussion the names on their merits. Why is it that you're now so insistent on ''status quo ante'' reverts you already agreed not to pursue, and avoiding the substantive discussion of the names? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 06:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

:It would be highly irregular to host an RM discussion on the talk page of a wikiproject in which participants are already taking sides in the debate, because every single !vote will trigger watchlist notices for most participants in the project, and this will lead directly to project members dog-piling any comment they don't agree with. It would be blatant vote-stacking and simply lead to a [[WP:MR]] dispute. Multi-article RMs are normally (actually, almost universally) hosted at the talk page of one of the articles proposed for moving, and the RM bot will notify the talk pages of the rest. This is standard operating procedure. It's also SoP to group RMs when the issues raised by them are the same or similar, as I've done with [[:Blue Grey]] and the other small-group RMs noted immediately above. On multiple pages now, you've been venting in an ''[[ad hominem]]'' manner about this RM format as if it's some kind of wrongdoing on my part, but its the normal and expected method.<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 06:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

<hr />