Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) →is all that fuss really about reading "sheep" in brackets as individual sheep?: That would be blatant vote-stacking and just lead to a WP:MR dispute. |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) →Discussion: Some alt. names would be fine (and in some of these cases should be plural). |
||
Line 203:
**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)
****An alternative name would be perfectly fine. To address an example you used somewhere in your duplicative posts of this sort in multiple RMs: In cases where "Something Bantam" and "Something Somethingelse" are both covered at "Something chicken" (and you'd prefer "Something (chicken)") the correct name would actually be "Something chickens" since the article is covering two, not one, varieties of related chickens. This is standard operating procedure across wikipedia (see, e.g., [[Cue sports]] which is plural because it covers more than one related sport. To get back to bantam breeds, are there any that are not bantam variants of larger breeds? If not, use plural "chickens" for any cases where the bantam and larger variant are both in the same article. <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> 06:18, 26 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)
| |||