Content deleted Content added
→Discussion: 2 more responses |
|||
Line 185:
*'''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|<font color="maroon">'''JTdale'''</font>]] [[User talk:JTdale|<sup><font color="green">'''Talk'''</font></sup>]] 11:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
**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|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </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|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Line 193 ⟶ 194:
*'''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|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </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)
*'''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|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 21:32, 17 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|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
|