Talk:Anglo-Nubian goat

Merged

Article merged: See old talk-page here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 September 2007‎ (UC)

Merger and major clean up

This page was full of redundancies, POV, arguments about the proper name of the breed, and even more American Dairy Goat Association stuff than it has now. For the record, I'm an American and an ADGA member, but I world-wide name for this breed is Anglo-Nubian. Thus I have merged Nubian_goat into Anglo-Nubian and placed a {{disambiguation}} on Nubian (which is about the ethnic group of that name). I've gotten rid of most of the redundancies, some of which were repeated more than twice after the merger.

I've also removed the following from the page:

[[Image:Anglo-Nubian.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Anglo-Nubian Goat]]

which someone else has challenged for copyright at Image:Anglo-Nubian.jpg, if it lives beyond the 28th of September, then someone can put it back.

If you don't like my changes, let's please talk about it before we undo, so we can end up with a good result.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Propose we Move to more precise title Anglo-Nubian goat

Several other pages also should be altered in the same way for clarity, so there's no hurry, but an article about any breed of goat should have the word goat in its title. I don't mind waiting for comment as there are plenty of other ways to improve this article. I tagged one bit for citation, but several other points need citations too. I'll try to help with this myself. duff 08:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following is a closed 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: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below, although there does seem to be consensus for new hatnotes where appropriate. Dekimasuよ! 22:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

---

• Anglo-Nubian → Anglo-Nubian goat
• Indo-Brazilian → Indo-Brazilian cattle
• British White → British White cattle
• Brown Carpathian → Brown Carpathian cattle
• Brown Caucasian → Brown Caucasian cattle
• Brown Swiss → Brown Swiss cattle
• Anatolian Black → Anatolian Black cattle
• Argentine Criollo → Argentine Criollo cattle
• Welsh Black → Welsh Black cattle
• Florida White → Florida White rabbit
• Messinese → Messinese goat
• Nicastrese → Nicastrese goat
• Uzbek Black → Uzbek Black goat
• Algerian Arab → Algerian Arab sheep
• Australian White → Australian White sheep
• Red Maasai → Red Maasai sheep

– Original names are too naturally ambiguous and will be interpreted by many readers as ethnicities or human populations (many of them are real ones, while some just sound like real ones, e.g. the real Black Dutch (of either sort) and Black Irish aren't any more probable than the "Brown Swiss" or "Brown Carpathians"). NB: Some of the renames in this group have been proposed (without formal RM process but without opposition) since at least 2011. See recently concluded requested moves of the same broader sort of confusing title: Australian Pit Game -> Australian Pit Game fowl, and West African Dwarf -> West African Dwarf goat, and many other similar cases of natural ambiguity, e.g. White Park cattle, San Clemente Island goat, Black Pied Dairy cattle, Australian Game fowl, Plymouth Rock chicken, Continental Giant rabbit, Gulf Coast Native sheep, Nigerian Dwarf goat, Australian Draught horse. Note that the added species common name at the end ("cattle", "rabbit", etc.) is not capitalized, because it's not part of the formal name of the breed; the species is capitalized only in the few cases when it is invariably part of the name, as in American Quarter Horse, Norwegian Forest Cat, Bernese Mountain Dog. Disambiguation is non-parenthetic, per WP:NATURAL policy, and per the vast majority of animal breed article names.(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≼  13:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing status quo ante RM discussion at Talk:Teeswater sheep that raises the same WP:NATURAL issue, but it's not a discussion on the merits, but about whether to revert to parenthetical disambiguation pending such a discussion, and thus has no impact on this RM. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Some (e.g. Algerian Arab) need a hatlink to that type of human. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe most of them do. E.g. Certainly someone will want information on the African-descended populations of Wales, Switzerland, Anatolia, and even Uzbekistan, and of white colonization of Australian and Florida, and so on; since plurals of such things redirect to singulars almost always, we can confidently predict "Welsh Blacks" and "Welsh Black", etc., to be genuinely intended search terms for these topics. That being the point of the RM. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support most of these should be disambiguation pages, if there is a ethnic article about the subject. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: SMC, you do well know the reactions to your unreflected moves. Take Talk:Teeswater_sheep#Requested_move_25_August_2014 as a reminder. The Names of the Breeds are well citated from different breeding associations and some national governmental organisations, that are repoting to the FAO, who is using this names as well. And again, there is a difference between a Flamish Giant rabbit (as in any Giant rabbit of Flamish origin or any Flamish rabbit of a Giant breed) and a Flamish Giant, that is the name of the breed.

By the way, what is the benefit of doing some RMs through out multiple different talk pages[1], rather than in one special place, where they all belong to, like the WikiProject Agriculture?

The "many similar cases" moved by you without reliable references are now used to make a point, your point? --PigeonIP (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• You're not presenting an argument that is relevant in any way to this RM, just a fallacy ad hominem and other distractions. You're also confusing a status quo ante discussion at Talk:Teeswater sheep (a discussion about whether to revert undiscussed moves in the interim before discussing the merits of the moves) with a discussion of the merits of the moves; they're unrelated. You're also evidencing serious difficulty with English spelling and capitalization, and getting proper names correct; I don't mean that in a snide way, it's just a matter of WP:COMPETENCE, as this is a nuanced discussion about spelling, proper names, and capitalization in particular. And finally, you're sorely confusing, well, everything, as you did in earlier discussions. Flemish Giant (to continue with your off-topic example) is the breed name. No one contests this. For reasons already covered at a previous near-identical RM, this name doesn't work here, and needs to be Flemish Giant rabbit for disambiguation and recognizability reasons. That does not at all imply any of the confused ideas you suggested, which would be implied by Flemish giant rabbit, lower-cased. Finally, your concern that the breed name itself is being misrepresented isn't correct either, which would be the case with Flemish Giant Rabbit (not upper-case "Rabbit"). Oh, the case you didn't mention here but did in all the other discussions: No, it shouldn't be Flemish Giant (rabbit), per WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE policies.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  RMs are usually discussed on article talk pages; wikiprojects, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, are simply editors agreeing to collaborate, nothing more. They do not have special WP:OWN authority over articles they claim within their scope. WP:RM itself lists, in a centralized location, all ongoing requested moves. There is no reason to host them on a wikiproject page; doing so would be highly irregular, and to many it would look like an attempt to actively canvass the project's editors to gang-vote. Your continued personal-aspersion casting, I will address that on your talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about Flemish Giant rabbit, the subject of a totally different RM.

Moved to Talk:Flemish Giant § Requested moves WP:NC Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Flemish Giant Y for someone familiar with the subject area Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. Flemish Giant, Y for a reader searching for Flemish Giant rabbit, Flemisch Giant and even Flemish rabbit Flemish Giant, Y for titel that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Flemish Giant, Y, there is no disambiguation necessary Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Flemish Giant, Y its the breeds name, Flemish Giant rabbit is longer Consistency – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles. not necessary. All 4 criteria do indicate an obvious choice. --PigeonIP (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC) This is wrong page for this discussion; Flemish Giant rabbit is not one of the articles under move discussion here. Please try to stay on topic. Also, the Flemish Giant rabbit type of case has already been decided in favor of moving from names like Flemish Giant to names like Flemish Giant rabbit, in the previous RM at Talk:West African Dwarf goat; the Flemish rabbit one was just listed (not here, but in a different RM entirely) as a purely procedural matter; it probably shoujld have been listed for speedy renaming per WP:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves. Just for completeness sake, or in case your comments here are administratively moved by the closer to the other discussion, I'll adress these bullet points in turn: The WP:RECOGNIZABLE problems are already pointed out in the nomination. There is no evidence at all that someone generally familiar with rabbits will recognize that odd breed. I kept rabbits for over a decade, and am familiar with their breeding and care, but have never heard of that breed until recently. It's very, very unlikely that anyone but an expert in rabbit breeds and their differences, or in agriculture in Flanders, will recognize the string "Flemish Giant" as a rabbit breed. WP:NATURAL is a fail in this case, and the sources prove it: A "Flemish Giant rabbit" -Wikipedia search"Flemish+Giant+rabbit"+-Wikipedia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 demonstrates that what the subject is actually called in English is usually "Flemish Giant rabbit" (with varying capitalization, e.g. "Flemish giant rabbit" and "Flemish Giant Rabbit" frequently attested also); this usage outnumbers "Flemish Giant" used without "rabbit", by almost a 3:1 ratio!"Flemish+Giant"+-"Flemish+Giant+rabbit"+-Wikipedia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Only specialist sources would refer to "Flemish Giant" without qualifying that it's a rabbit breed, for the very reason that this article is up for renaming elsewhere. Your own, WP-internal search tests demonstrate nothing useful at all; the article will be found with either search regardless of the title. WP:PRECISE is a complete and total failure in this case, for reasons covered in detail at that RM nomination, and I'm hardly the only editor to make that point there. "Giant" is taken to refer to a preson (real or legendary) by default, and when preceded by a geonym like Flemish, it's means "very tall person from Flanders". Again, the fact that this is too ambiguous has already been determined by consensus at Talk:West African Dwarf goat, so it need not be re-argued here. You seem to be playing a WP:IDHT game here, in which no matter how many times the precision problem (ambiguity) is pointed out to you, you pretend no one's pointed it out to you. WP:CONCISE is secondary to all of the above WP:CRITERIA. "Flemish Giant" is too concise for reasons already covered, while "Flemish Giant rabbit" is the most concise name that satisfies the above criteria – "Flemish Giant (rabbit)" is two characters longer than "Flemish Giant rabbit", for no benefit to the reader, and is less WP:NATURAL. WP:CONSISTENCY is secondary to all other WP:CRITERIA, but is met by the rename proposal anyway, since most breed names are in the form "Foo baz" or "Foo Bar baz", when "Foo" or "Foo Bar" is ambiguous; there is no policy-based argument that can be made for "Foo Bar (baz)" name formatting in these cases; it directly violates WP:NATURAL and WP:DAB.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Presenting the argument: Recognised (pet/fancy) Breeds shall not be moved to titles like Buzz rabbit. It shall be possible to distinguish them with Buzz (rabbit) or Buzz Rabbit (if "Rabbit" is part of the recognised name) from wild and feral animals as well as from groups of animals, that are named similar, because of similar characteristics. A more detailed scheme is provided on Talk:Strasser pigeon#requested move. --PigeonIP (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC) And addressed as inadequate there. Your "Buzz (rabbit)" idea violates WP:NATURAL. We've been over this already. On, like, 12 pages. No Buzz rabbit article is among the subjects of this RM discussion. There seems to be no such article at all. Also, WP (nor any sources cited to date) recognize any difference between pet/fancy breeds and other breeds (e.g. meat, fur), much less one that would compel us to use a totally different naming scheme for pet/fancy ones. Breeds where "Rabbit" (or whatever the species is) is reliably sourced as part of the formal breed name are already at titles like Buzz Rabbit, and in the few cases where they are not, can be speedily moved to such names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment none of the titles present any clear meaning to the non-knowledgeable reader. They all need the additional word to meet WP:PRECISE. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NC Precision: The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Where are the disambiguations, that indicate, that the titles above are not?

WP:NC Conciseness: The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Anglo-Nubian is.

WP:NC Naturalness: The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. If a reader searches for Anglo-Nubian goat, Anglo-Nubian will show up. Editors of articles about breeds will naturally use [[Anglo-Nubian]] --PigeonIP (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to respond to every !vote with list of recycled points you've already made in the same tedious list format immediately above. Anyway, the ambiguities were already explained in the nomination; please see WP:IDHT. Conciseness is secondary to precision, so your point fails here. The search will work either way, so that point isn't valid, either. There is no reason at all to expect breeds to only be mentioned in breed articles; they'll often be mentioned in articles on a region, on commerce, on agriculture, in biographies, etc., and in virtually all such cases the desired string will be Anglo-Nubian goat, which is also perfectly fine in goat breed articles, too. If in a particular sentence it might read too redundantly (e.g., one listing several goat breeds in a row, in a context where all readers already know they're goat breeds), it can be piped, or the redir Anglo-Nubian can be used. But that is the only possible context in which that shorter string would not be ambiguous, especially given that Anglo-Nubian can be taken for a genuine, mixed human ethnicity, Anglo-Nubian people. See also British diaspora in Africa. The other nominees here present similar problems, and you're totally missing them to re-re-recycle the same pseudo-argument that you really like some other other format better, which you demand "shall not be" deviated from, and assert without evidence or understanding that it must be good, no matter how many times on how many pages the policy failures of that approach are pointed out to you. Why is that?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. Fundamentally flawed proposal, ill thought out and based on false premises. The objections to the present titles range from the sensible (Algerian Arab) to the ridiculous (Brown Swiss is a world-famous American breed, no possibility whatsoever of confusing it with anything else). A few points:

• There is already a mass move request regarding animal breed articles, the outcome of which would affect any decision here, at Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, as the nominator well knows, since it involves the reversal of some hundreds of undiscussed page moves made by him
• White Park cattle, cited above as an example for consistency, was moved without discussion to its present title by the nominator, and will be reverted if that move proceeds
• Nigerian Dwarf goat, cited above as an example for consistency, was moved without discussion to its present title by the nominator, and will be reverted if that move proceeds
• Black Pied Dairy cattle, cited above as an example for consistency, has been moved six times in just over three years
• The nominator has decided, without reference to relevant WikiProjects or other interested editors, how he wants domestic animal breed articles to be named, and is apparently on a one-man crusade to impose that decision on the community; other moves proposed (with copy-pasted move rationale) by the same editor are at:

1. Talk:Flemish Giant (rabbit, cattle and sheep breeds)
2. Talk:Corsican Cattle (21 cattle, sheep, goat and rabbit breeds)
3. Talk:Canadian Speckle Park (2 cattle breeds)
4. Talk:Dutch Landrace (8 goat and pig breeds)
5. Talk:American Sable (3 rabbit and goat breeds)
6. Talk:Russian Black Pied (4 cattle breeds)
7. Talk:Black Hereford (hybrid) (one cattle breed, one hybrid)
8. Talk:Blue Grey (2 cattle breeds, 1 cattle hybrid, 1 goat)
9. Talk:Harz Red mountain cattle (one breed)
10. Talk:Asturian Mountain (6 cattle, sheep and pig breeds)
11. Talk:Romeldale/CVM (one sheep breed)

• Wikipedia just doesn't care what really, really silly people might think the title of an article means, as those people will soon discover their error when they look at the page; thus we do not need or want disambiguation for British White or Australian White or Florida White any more than we do for Willard White or Great White or Resolved White or Titanium White or Bukka White; it just isn't necessary. Of course, if there is Wikipedia-wide consensus to disambiguate all and any article titles that are even remotely open to misinterpretation (for example, all these pages because they might otherwise be mistakenly thought to be kinds of hair-dye, or paint colours or butterflies or ethnicities or qualities of marble), then these pages should conform to it; but that doesn't seem very probable
• With two exceptions, the present titles satisfy the five WP:CRITERIA of recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency, and there's no reason to change them
• Algerian Arab should have a hatnote to Arab-Berber, as Anthony Appleyard says
• Argentine Criollo is much more complex: there are at least three cattle breeds, four goats and three sheep as well as the horse; I'm pretty sure there's a duck as well, but it doesn't seem to be reported to DAD-IS; titling of these, if and when they ever get written, will be complicated, and best left to the editors who do the research and the work

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In your zeal to engage in ad hominem canvassing, you've missed the point. Your examples, of Willard White or Great White or Resolved White or Titanium White or Bukka White – are not related in any way to this RM, as none of them are actual or likely ethnonyms that one may misinterpret as human populations. There's nothing "silly" about the idea that Anglo-Nubians, Welsh Blacks, Florida Whites, etc., are all real human populations about which we may well have articles any day now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. It does not comply with WP:COMMONNAME, is not succinct and if we follow this logic, 90% the articles Wikipedia would need amending because someone might not be familiar with them e.g. "Bombay Duck fish", "Ford car manufacturer" and many more. Bermicourt (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bermicourt:: That's not responsive in any way to this RM. "Bombay Duck" is not an ethnonym, and neither is "Ford".
• Oppose (generally) The decision to move should be based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If the title "Foo bar" covers more than one topic, but there is a clear primary topic, then "Foo bar" is chosen as the title regardless of the fact that it is not entirely precise. (See the example of Energy at WP:PRECISION. It is explicitly stated that "Energy is not precise enough to unambiguously indicate the physical quantity" but nevertheless it is used as the article title.)
  So take the first item on the list, "Anglo-Nubian". I did a Google search and looked at the first 200 results: all were about goats. So the primary topic of "Anglo-Nubian" is the goat and by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the article about the goat breed should be at Anglo-Nubian. If there is ever an article about a group of people called "Anglo-Nubians" then that article will need a disambiguated title, e.g. "Anglo-Nubian (people)".
  Note that my opposition is qualified by "generally" because the primary topic needs to be determined for each case.
  Do I like my conclusion? No. Emotionally I'm with SMcCandlish on this one, because I like consistency. But policy seems quite clear to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And there's another one of these too – see Talk:Merino! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, good faith suggestion, but for the most part these fail WP:COMMONNAME. You'd never refer to a fair-skinned Australian as "Australian white". Hatnotes can and should be used to provide aid to the readers in any situation where the title might possibly be ambiguous. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC).
  • You would however do so for "Algerian Arab" (who are not Algerian Berbers), "Argentine Criollo" (Criollo of Argentina), "Brown Caucasian" is also used to describe Indo-Caucasians (ie. South Asians) and sometimes used to describe Arabs, "Messinese" (of Messina, Italy), "Nicastrese" (of Nicastro, Italy), -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Which is why I suggest the user of hatnotes in cases where it is ambiguous, and I would add, where there is a target article to point to. In the case of "Algerian Arab", I haven't been able to find an article on the topic of the ethnic group "Arabic people from Algeria". We shouldn't disambiguate to a red link, per WP:D3. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC).
      • I suggested Arab-Berber above as a target for that hat-note, Lankiveil. Do you disagree with that suggestion? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
        • @Justlettersandnumbers: It looks like a decent choice, although I have to admit I'm not an expert on that part of the world so I don't know how seriously you should take my endorsement on that point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC).
  • I got to this conversation from the alert posted to WP:AWNB that Australian White was being discussed. Before I followed any links, I wasn't sure whether to expect an article about an ethnic group (White Australians) or a wine style. I read it out to my wife who wondered if it was a pig or a dog. Neither of us guessed we'd be reading about sheep. I have long been a proponent of consistent and precise article naming in preference to case-by-case shortest-possible names so I would vote to support the longer names proposed. Since this is a discussion aiming towards consensus, not an election, I leave my comments for consideration for others who are more invested in the outcome. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom: The rationale is logical also but OMG! There are too many of these so please hold up. I am almost as tired of running across these as I am of the unearthly support to keep titles vague and so simple as to be confusing and boggle the mind.

@ Scott Davis: I asked my wife if she knew what a Giant Runt was and we had a five member (including me) family discussion that was comical. When I informed them it was a pigeon and showed the article page four members agreed that it was confusing to not add pigeon to the article name. Speckle Park would always be understood to be the proper name of a park so why add cattle to the title? The same applies to Asturian Mountain. WAIT! We are not discussing a park or a mountain but cattle! Others with certainly misleading titles include Algerian Arab or Argentine Criollo. One would of course expect to learn all about ethnic Arabs under a title "Algerian Arab". It is established that Criollo is social class of people so "Argentine Criollo" is certainly this class of people in Argentina right? In this RM I would state that possibly "Brown Swiss" could arguably be well known enough to be left as is but the other 15 (including White Australians) are too ambiguous to be recognized by the general reader.

I will highlight some reasoning I used on the RM of "Canadian Speckle Park". It was mentioned there that Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision_and_disambiguation that precision dictates "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that", but was used to support short and confusing names. I fully and 100% support that policy. I feel that the evidence supports that a title that is too short is a travesty as it can not support the criteria unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. The definition of "scope"; the extent of the area or subject matter that something deals with or to which it is relevant. If any are still confused I am sure I can get my nine year old grandson to explain that "topical scope" and "subject matter" mean the same thing.

• Merriam-Webster defines "subject matter" as matter presented for consideration in discussion, thought, or study.
• Britannica uses wording like The topic subject matter is discussed in the following articles:
• Topical scope: Constraining the vocabulary so that it is EXHAUSTIVE enough that any imaginable topic is expressible within the language, while remaining SPECIFIC enough that any particular subjects a user is likely to investigate can be distinguished from others,....

I could go on but it clear to me that supporters of short, ambiguous, or otherwise confusing names are simply mistaken or naive and not deliberately deceiving others because why else would we argue something so simple? Otr500 (talk) 15:25, 9 October 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.

Relevant move discussion

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

This article's title (among others) is under discussion at Talk:British White#Requested moves 19 December 2014.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anglo-Nubian goat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509183659/http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/goats/anglonubian/index.htm to http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/goats/anglonubian/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014182316/http://crowinghillsfarm.com:80/nubiangoats.htm to http://www.crowinghillsfarm.com/nubiangoats.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Outdated or Broken Links

Hello everyone,

I wanted to let someone know that References #1 and 2 have links that no longer work. Both links for #1 are stuck in a seemingly infinite loading loop and #2 does not exist. I can't figure out how to edit references so hopefully someone who knows how can :) 65.113.155.18 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, IP, that's most useful. I've updated refs 1, 2 and 4, but #2 still doesn't work exactly right – I think that's because the FAO site software doesn't handle the ampersand ('&') character well. Thank you for pointing out the problems. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)