Talk:Teeswater sheep: Difference between revisions

{{MaTalk|class=stubWikiProject Agriculture|importance=low|livestock=yes}}

* '''Oppose''' –  the existing titles appear to be mostly better, which I presume was SMcCandlish's intent in moving them (I'm not so much a fan of his point 2 that applies to a few, but I agree on the rest). The rationale for these proposed moves is unclear; it seems to be just that they were previously moved by SMcCandlish. If there are specific ones that share a rationale, they should be proposed as a smaller set so the point can be discussed. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 21:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

#{{tq|"I don't see that another discussion is necessarily required for most of these"}} &ndash; Of course it is. Neither of the prior discussions Justlettersandnumbers referenced, about unrelated articles, are particularly relevant. The first was about reverting to ''status quo ante'' due to moves being undiscussed, and whether the names comported with [[WT:AT]] policy was not the subject of the discussion, which was about addressing a process matter. I fully expect we'll be revisiting many of those dog article names in more narrowly defined, small groups, soon enough. We've already agreed that reverting to ''status quo ante'' in this case would be pointless if we're immediately (and now, already) going to get into discussion of the merits of different naming proposals. So it's essentially totally senselesspointless to bring up the dogs reversion at all. The second was about a factual matter to do with capitalization in one particular horse breed case, which has nothing to do with the natural vs. parenthetical disambiguation matter at issue now. {{tq|"Both ended with restoration of the ''status quo ante''"}} &ndash; That's because it's what happens when a dispute arises over a move, until the dispute is resolved on the merits of the arguments (and it's not {{em|required}} that it be done, just common; [[WP:BRD]] is an optional process, not a policy.) In that case there had been no agreement to defer a ''status quo ante'' move until discussion on the merits, and that discussion still hasn't happened about those articles. In this case, there was such an agreement, and that discussion is happening in the [[#Poll]] section. Not comparable cases.<p>That said, I think we do have something like a consensus, at least among editors spending much time on animal breeds, that (provided we continue capitalizing breed names, an idea that [[WP:BIRDCON]] suggests may be more controversial than most breed editors think it is), we should capitalize the species name when it is almost invariably included in the breed name, e.g. [[Norwegian Forest Cat]]. In some cases, such as [[American Paint Horse]] whether this is the case is open to dispute (plenty of reliable sources can be found that refer to the American Paint as such, so the case for WP itself insisting that the name "is" American Paint Horse may be an [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NPOV]] problem, in which case it should be at [[American Paint horse]] per [[MOS:CAPS]] and [[WP:NATURAL]]. It's not a case I would care to argue about in detail here, as it's just a distraction. It has no impact on the list of moves contemplated here, in which Justlettersandnumbers wants to {{em|prevent}} inclusion of the breed name entirely unless it's in the form of parenthetical disambiguation, for reasons that aren't very clear.</p>

::Fair enough. I'll just <s>rescind</s> collapse-box the entire thing, rather than pick at the details, since it's probably not constructive anyway. Other than to note "This is now a regular move discussion for all the animals in the above list. It is a proposal (by [[User:Justlettersandnumbers]]) to put all of them back to their original titles", per EdJohnson, so I'm not the only one observing that this RM was in fact listed as a pointless mass-move request despite that being what we were going to {{em|not}} do. [[WP:NOCONSENSUS]] applies when there's a legitimate dispute. "Oppose everything SMcCandlish does no matter what it is" isn't one, meanwhile the names have stood with no troubles of any kind arising from them for months now (=new consensus, I'd say), and we all already had an agreement that we'd be forgoing the ''status quo ante'' reversion stuff as liable to be counterproductive. It's therefore disruptive and [[WP:LAME]] to have a huge pile of demanded ''status quo ante'' reverts here. I {{em|hope}} that the analysis and grouping of them I've done is enough that this mess can proceed in an orderly fashion. Meanwhile, I'm proceeding with other RMs, while avoiding any that would move "Foo (bar)" breed names to "Foo bar" ones, pending the outcome of this one. The upcoming ones I'm about to list are of a different nature, and properly grouped into separate multi-page RMs that focus on moves of the same exact kind. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 12:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

**#'''Crucially''' (and possibly indicative of [[WP:OWN]] issues), {{em|no one}} has moved that, or any other of these articles, back. Jlan seems to think that the mass RM that Jlan agreed to back away from, an agreement now clearly being reneged on, is the only BRD revert anyone could have made. But that's patent nonsense; any one of these renames could have been reverted, without any RM process, without even a discussion, just a demand for a discussion, by any editor at any time before this more substantive discussion launched, yet it {{em|didn't happen}}. Every word of Wikipedia is written by changing a page here and seeing if it sticks. When it sticks, we move on and build on it, we don't raise histrionic, confused, [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]ing and [[WP:POINT]]y, mile-long piles of process to wallow in. See [[WP:FILIBUSTER]], [[WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY]], and [[WP:WIKILAWYER]], and [[signal-to-noise ratio]] for that matter.

#'''Also crucially''', there demonstrably is no controversy here, other than the one Jlan is personally manufacturing and perpetuating. Over two months of no controversy about the actual content of the current article names from anyone but Jlan personally is a pretty obvious indication that a new consensus has been formed. (It may be a clear indication of a few other things, too, but editor behavior issues are not an RM matter.) While silence is not the strongest consensus, between the mass RM filing, two ANI cases (one rejected as frivolous, the other resolved and followed without incident), and a number of related but properly formed RMs running concurrently and calmly, there is more than enough "advertising" of this issue that interested parties can comment. As of this writing, they're entirely against Jlan's proposed names. [Update: PigeonIP has also sided with Jlan, but raises no new arguments, and seems to have a confused view of capitalization in English.]

#The fact they were actual former names at one point doesn't make them any less {{em|proposed}} names now; too much time has passed, with too much {{em|explicit agreement}} to not reflexively revert. It's already progressed to a substantive onediscussion about the article titles' relative merits, in many cases, and in others, multiple commenters observe that the cases are particular and need to be the subject of their own individual RMs. The idea that discussion on the merits of what the names should be has to proceed from what the names used to be, the names Jlan prefers, is transparently farcical at this late date. Jlan is proceeding from a false basis that there's some kind of popularity contest to [[WP:WINNING|"win"]], based on some article titles equivalent of pole position, as if the current name of a page has special imprimatur or seniority, like an incumbent politician up for re-election, or someone relying upon squatter's rights to a domain name. As noted above, Jlan already agreed, upon admin advice, that reverting to the old names was not necessary to discuss whether the new ones were better, so this is yet another hand wave. #See Jlan's opening statement {{tq|1="I'd hoped someone else might deal with this, but it seems not."}}, and later {{tq|1="I'm truly sorry about the amount of work involved, for everyone, whatever happens. I suppose that is more or less a definition of [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]] editing."}} The first indicates that Jlan acknowledged over a month ago that there wasn't any actual controversy about the content of the moves (and Jlan knows the procedural controversy about the process by which they were arrived at was resovled at ANI, since Jlan cited that ANI case one sentence earlier). The second of these quoted statements indicates that Jlan also acknowledges the disruptiveness inherent the approach taken by this editor, who did it anyway, and is now trying to go back to that method despite the discussion having moved past it.

#Finally, I'm not sure why Jlan, except as another [[fallacy ad hominem|fallacy ''ad homimem'']], re-mentions old move discussions that aren't relevant to these cases, after it's already been pointed out why they're not relevant &ndash; [[American Paint Horse]] raised a debate about whether in that individual special case the species name was formally a part of the breed name, a question not raised about any of the articles at issue here, and the dog one was a pure ''status quo ante'' revert that, unlike the extant discussion as it has moved on now, did not address what the names should actually be, but only the process followed. Most of us understand that such arguments will not magically become relevant just because one repeatrepeats oneself. So, it's yet another, very clear, indication of a IDHT problem. The fact that Jlan's entire mass listing and repeated rehash arguments about it fails to discern even that the article names resulting from of the horse and dog cases, like around half of the renames youJlan'res mass-mess-RM proposes, directly contradict each other, is highly indicative of what the problem here is.

::I could go on, but I don't think it would be useful to do so. I'm not angry at Jlan for having personality clashes with me; rather, the arguments presented by this editor to mire or derail this and related RMs are not sustainable under any RM-relevant rationale, and that's all that needs to be shown here.<br />I've suggested that Jlan (and Montanabw and WhatamIdoing) and I shoudl probably engage in a formal [[WP:Dispute resolution]] process; much of this heat vs. light appears to be a personality conflict, not a [[WP:AT]] one, really. <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) Update: Montanabw has pointedly refused dispute resolution.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJustlettersandnumbers&diff=626138806&oldid=626020413] <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 06:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' My personal preference is to use the parens. This makes it much easier for me to find breeds by their name. Again, personal preference. '''Teaswater sheep''' as a title of an article, to me, would imply that is the name of the breed. It is not. The name of the breed is '''Teaswater'''. Of course, to have a name of an article with just such a title would be confusing and thus the parenthetical. Just my $0.02. '''[[user:BlindEagle|<fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">Blind</span>]][[user:BlindEagle|Blind]]</font><fontspan colorstyle="color:blue;">[[user:BlindEagle|Eagle]]</fontspan>]]'''^{<font colorstyle="color:red;">[[User talk:BlindEagle|<span style="color:red;">talk</span>]]~[[Special:Contributions/BlindEagle|<span style="color:red;">contribs]]</fontspan>]]}

**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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">Blind</span>]][[user:BlindEagle|Blind]]</font><fontspan colorstyle="color:blue;">[[user:BlindEagle|Eagle]]</fontspan>]]'''^{<font colorstyle="color:red;">[[User talk:BlindEagle|<span style="color:red;">talk</span>]]~[[Special:Contributions/BlindEagle|<span style="color:red;">contribs]]</fontspan>]]} 19:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

* '''Neutral''' I've written many of these articles. I used the parenthetical because the word "sheep" (or "chicken" or "cow" or "pig") is ''most definitely not'' part of the proper name for these animal breeds. Its purpose is solely for disambiguation. This is quite important, since in most cases sheep are named for places. This editorial policy, at '''[[WP:NCDAB]]''', seems quite clear to me. However, as to whether the parens are necessary or not seems a particularly academic question. As long as we use the disambiguation term where necessary, readers will be well served. I personally prefer to defer to whatever other primary authors in this area, like BlindEagle and Justlettersandnumbers, want to do. <fontspan style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven Walling|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</fontspan> 20:22, 17 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#006600;">Montanabw</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:Montanabw|<fontsup colorstyle="color:purple;">(talk)</fontsup>]]} 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)

***If you don't see how your behavior is coming across to others, then ask yourself why I am basically siding with people who hold a view opposite from my own preference on titles: It is because you are bullying them and in your insistence that your way is the only way, you are rapidly becoming one of the most tendentious and annoying people on wikipedia. That's not an "attack," that's a statement of reality. When you feel picked on, consider that it just might be your own behavior boomeranging back at you. Look in the mirror. [[User:Montanabw|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#006600;">Montanabw</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:Montanabw|<fontsup colorstyle="color:purple;">(talk)</fontsup>]]} 08:26, 19 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 [[User:SMcCandlish/RMLogs/My RMs, July–August log2014]] 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>

*****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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#006600;">Montanabw</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:Montanabw|<fontsup colorstyle="color:purple;">(talk)</fontsup>]]} 04:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks for the detaildetailed level of the response, but this analysis is still missing the fact that [[WP:NATURAL]] rquiresrequires us to use [[:Jacobin pigeon]] not [[:Jacobin (pigeon)]]; there's no rationale for using parenthetical disambiguation here. If in a few cases like [[Ice Pigeon]] the "[p|P]igeon" part is capitalized because it's universally considered part of the breed name, that's surely fine, but lack of this circumstance would not call for using brackets. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 16:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

:::Thanks for missing the fact, that "Fantail pigeon", "Helmet pigeon" and others are refering to groups of spiecial variations of pigeons... --[[User:PigeonIP|PigeonIP]] ([[User talk:PigeonIP|talk]]) 17:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

::Same issueissues as with pigeons, above. There is no case for using parenthetical naming. You're mistaking "Ancona chicken" as an assertion that that string is the name of the breed; but it's "Ancona" followed by natural disambiguation. No case has been made for violating [[WP:NATURAL]] policy and using parenthetical disambiguation to produce an unintuitive name like "Ancona (chicken)", which seems to refer to an individual notable chicken named "Ancona". No one is proposing that the official breed name is "Ancona Chicken", fully captalized like that (as it is for breeds in which the species name really is part of the formal breed name, as in [[:American Quarter Horse]] and [[:Norwegian Forest Cat]].<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 16:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)<p>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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 06:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)