Talk:Australian Pit Game fowl

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Australian Pit Game → Australian Pit Game fowl – Ridiculously ambiguous. No one but a poultry expert would expect the current article to refer to anything but a game (i.e. boardgame, video game, sport). The majority of domestic animal breed names with ambiguous names like this have already long since been moved (or were wisely created at) non-ambiguous names, using natural not parenthetical disambiguation: Australian Game fowl, Plymouth Rock chicken, Continental Giant rabbit, Gulf Coast Native sheep, Nigerian Dwarf goat, Australian Draught horse, Himalayan cat. Note that the added species common name at the end ("fowl") is not capitalized, because it's not part of the formal name of the breed; the species is capitalized only when it is invariably part of the name, as in American Quarter Horse, Norwegian Forest Cat, Bernese Mountain Dog. (I'm going on the assumption that we want to capitalize breed names at all, as we're mostly presently doing. If some object to this, I would suggest that this RM is not the place for that discussion, so please don't cloud the RM by injecting arguments relating to that other topic.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I had the same reaction, that this referred to some kind of sport. bd2412 T 14:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-RM revertwarring

I don't find this cascade of reverts entirely appropriate, nor the edit summary of the first of them acceptable from a civility perspective.

Substantively: While an argument can be made that the shorter, more "official" breed name should be used in the article prose (I think a strong counter argument can be made against this idea in the lead sentence and maybe the infobox, but for it the rest of the prose and in navboxes, but this should be a broader RfC, as it has nothing to do with this breed in particular), no such argument can be made for using a WP:SUBMARINE link in the disambiguation hatnote. The purpose of such hatnotes is to identify what topics are covered at what article titles; fudging the article title directly subverts that purpose, and hatnotes are not part of article content, but are metadata. That changes in particular is a WP:NPOV issue, as well as a WP:NOT (one (soapbox, advocacy), and is WP:POINTy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it is WP:POINTy at all. It's a simple disagreement on style between you two, not disrupting WikiPedia. Other than that, I don't really care which is used. It's just as simple to go by either, so you two please sort it out between yourselves. JTdale ^Talk

JTdale, it's not actually a style dispute, though, but a WP:AT one. Anyway, I think it's sorted out at this point, at least for now, at this page, in not applying the change to the lead (content, not title), but applying it to the hatnote (title). I'm not sure an RfC would agree not to apply it to the body content, because we don't like leads that don't agree with titles, but I kind of WP:DGAF as long as the article titles aren't being obscured in the hatnotes any longer to just thwart the RM decision. PS: The enormous amount of energy and invective being invested by a few domestic animal wikiproject editors in resisting attempts to improve the naming of "their" animal breed articles so these at least kinda-sorta comply with WP:AT basics is definitely disruptive. See, e.g., the same editor's unbelievable mess of a mass RM nomination at Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, seeking a status quo ante blanket revert, in many cases self-contradictorily, of different kinds of changes to every animal breed article title the editor can find that I touched, simply because I was involved. After several hours of work on it, I was able to parse that mess into clearly distinguished groups of related proposed renames so that they can be addressed on the policy questions raised by each, such that people are actually responding to the RM, and it might be salvageable as a consensus-gauge. Maybe. Some admin may just close it as hopelessly confused anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care about prefixes on titles, its a silly thing to argue about (especially to leave Wikipedia over as quite a few members of WikiProject Birds did y), but we all need to stick to our area of expertise when doing the actual moves or else we end up with mistakes (this article and Australian Game are a great example). JTdale ^Talk 12:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)