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)

::My view is that mass moves should be taken to the project pages, not individual breed articles, particularly where there is more than one animal involved; for example, people working on cattle articles may not be watchlisting sheep, yet these RMs affect both projects. There are many more of these out there, and they affect multiple projects. [[User:Montanabw|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#006600;">Montanabw</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:Montanabw|<fontsup colorstyle="color:purple;">(talk)</fontsup>]]} 18:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

::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)

*'''Comment''' I really don't want to be involved in this messy business but I will point out to SMc where he questions why Fowl is only used on some chicken breeds - Fowl exclusively refers to birds within the poultry fancy with Game in their name (i.e.: [[Gamecock|Gamefowl]]). We don't have Rhode Island Red fowl, but Old English Game fowl is acceptable. Shamo fowl would make no sense because no Game in the name. You really have to take things by case by case. No one system is going to work. [[User:JTdale|<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">'''JTdale'''</fontspan>]] [[User talk:JTdale|^{<fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">'''Talk'''</fontspan>}]] 11:00, 17 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)

*'''Comment 2''': SMC's ongoing page move and titling disputes, combined with a penchant for rather vicious personal attacks while simultaneously [[psychological projection|accusing others of attacking him]] (see, e.g. [[Talk:Kiger Mustang]] are really getting out of hand and I am wondering if it time to discuss how to stop this endless drama. [[User:Montanabw|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#006600;">Montanabw</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:Montanabw|<fontsup colorstyle="color:purple;">(talk)</fontsup>]]} 21:32, 17 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)

*****:::::* I agree with Montanabw here. I can't even be bothered to contribute to this discussion because its such a mess, but all you seem to do SMc is throw accusations and policy links at people, half the time citing yourself. I've seen you start a discussion by accusing someone of disrupting Wikipedia simply because you disagreed with their interpretation of rules or their style of writing instead of discussing it sensibly or letting the person explain their changes. For gods sake start acting in a reasonable manner. [[User:JTdale|<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">'''JTdale'''</fontspan>]] [[User talk:JTdale|^{<fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">'''Talk'''</fontspan>}]] 11:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

====Comment referingreferring to chicken====

:::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)

{{od}}And that's the tip of the iceberg of move requests, there are at least six across multiple articles. May want to consolidate all of these at WP:Agriculture. JMO. [[User:Montanabw|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#006600;">Montanabw</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:Montanabw|<fontsup colorstyle="color:purple;">(talk)</fontsup>]]} 03:46, 25 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)