Talk:Teeswater sheep: Difference between revisions

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

 

== Requested move 25 August 2014 ==

 

====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)

**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)

**SMcCandlish, thank you for explaining that. I see better where you are coming from, now. However, my preference is still to use the parens. I find it easier to understand. '''[[user:BlindEagle|<span style="color:black;">Blind</span>]][[user:BlindEagle|<span style="color:blue;">Eagle</span>]]'''<sup style="color:red;">[[User talk:BlindEagle|<span style="color:red;">talk</span>]]~[[Special:Contributions/BlindEagle|<span style="color:red;">contribs</span>]]</sup> 19:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

*'''Comment 1''': I favor Steven Walling's comment that a certain amount of deference should be given to the article writers, such as JLAN in this case, with the caveat that titling consistency with a set of articles (dog breeds, horse breeds, sheep breeds, chicken breeds) should be maintained whenever possible (I say this in part because WikiProject Equine takes the opposite position on parenthetical titling for some very thoroughly discussed reasons that are not relevant here, but we have no intent to impose our views on other animal projects that have a different convention for standardization). [[User:Montanabw|<span style="color:#006600;">Montanabw</span>]][[User talk:Montanabw|<sup style="color:purple;">(talk)</sup>]] 21:32, 17 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)

*****Nonsense. I am not trying to "silence" you (hell, I don't read most of this stuff you post, as it's tl;dr), I'm just trying to point out that you ARE being real annoying and obnoxious. It would be nice if you'd stop personalizing everything and make your points in a more concise manner. [[User:Montanabw|<span style="color:#006600;">Montanabw</span>]][[User talk:Montanabw|<sup style="color:purple;">(talk)</sup>]] 04:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::: 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)