Wikipedia

Talk:Asturian Mountain cattle

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Requested moves edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion

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: consensus to move Asturian Mountain to Asturian Mountain cattle, per the large percentage of comments in the discussion below concerning that case in particular; no consensus in the other cases, although it appears that one or more of these (esp. Dorset Down) might show consensus for a move if discussed individually or if a new discussion were initiated now that most of the associated move requests have closed. Dekimasuよ! 22:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

– Original names are too naturally ambiguous and will be misinterpreted by many readers as places or geographical features. New names will be consistent with Asturian Valley cattle, Forest Mountain pig, etc. See recently concluded requested moves of the same sort: 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.) PS: If Finnish Ayrshire doesn't sound imaginable to you, please see Welsh Patagonia, Dutch West Indies, American Samoa, etc., and consider that lots of school kids with very poor geography knowledge use Wikipedia. "Dorset Down" in particular is doubly ambiguous, as it can also be interpreted as poultry down from Dorset.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

See also Talk:Canadian Speckle Park#Requested move.
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Dorset Downs is a location in Dorset, and "Dorset Down" should redirect there. There are mountains in Asturias, so "Astruian Mountain" should redirect to Asturias#Geography_and_climate; the steppe in Ukraine occupied by the Cossacks as opposed to Tartars etc, are "white" -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • 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) 19:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • You're not presenting an argument that is relevant in any way to this RM, just a fallacy ad hominem and other distractions.
Same response here as at your other copy-pasted comments of this sort at Talk:Anglo-Nubian & the other RMs...

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 naming, and capitalization in particular. And finally, you're sorely confusing, well, everything, as you did in earlier discussions. Flemish Giant 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. Next, your concern that the breed name itself is being misrepresented isn't correct either, which would be the case with Flemish Giant 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 policy.

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support I don't know is this discuss finished or not, but I support the opinion of the user "70.51.46.146". BTW, in a similar case, Asturian Valley redirects to Asturian Valley cattle. Asturkian (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • 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)Reply
    • @Bermicourt: WP:COMMONNAME is independent of WP:NATURAL disambiguation. COMMONNAME only tells us what (e.g. "Asturian Mountain") goes before the disambiguation ("cattle"). And "Bombay Duck" and "Ford" are not places or likely to be misconstrued as such, and thus aren't relevant to this RM and its rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose as proposed. Fundamentally flawed proposal, based on false premises. 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 (mostly 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:American Sable (3 rabbit and goat breeds)
  5. Talk:Dutch Landrace (8 pig and goat breeds)
  6. Talk:Russian Black Pied (4 cattle breeds) – closed as no no consensus
  7. Talk:Black Hereford (hybrid) (one cattle breed, one hybrid) - closed as not moved
  8. Talk:Blue Grey (2 cattle breeds, 1 cattle hybrid, 1 goat)
  9. Talk:Harz Red mountain cattle (one breed)
  10. Talk:Romeldale/CVM (one sheep breed)
  11. Talk:Merino
  • In general, the present titles are unique, and satisfy the five WP:CRITERIA of recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency, and there's no reason to change them
  • Specifically, the Dorset Down is a world-famous breed, and there is no realistic possibility that anyone would confuse it with the Dorset Downs (which are invariably plural); a Google search shows that the sheep is indisputably the primary topic
  • I agree that Asturian Mountain could at first sight seem confusing, but as with any other article with an obscure or confusing title, a glance at the page will end all doubt. However: there's no mountain called "Asturian Mountain"; the title is "a name ... that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize"; Google shows it to be the primary topic, though not so definitively as the Dorset Down. A case could be made for moving it, to Asturian Mountain Cattle, to Asturian Mountain (cattle), to Asturian Mountain cattle or to Asturiana de la Montaña; given the large number of academic sources in this search, I favour the last. But it seems pointless to discuss here which of those is preferable in relation to a single page until the larger move is decided; the decision should in any case be left to the editors who do the research and the work on the article.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per nom: Natural disambiguation let's us know it is cattle and not a mountain. Otr500 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources regularly use natural disambiguation for these breeds edit

Of course, reliable sources (even when they mostly use just the breed name by itself when there's no ambiguity) regularly and predictably use precisely the kind of natural disambiguation as proposed here, when they need to be clear what species they mean (as WP always needs to; we can never presume that any given reader already knows that an article is about cattle or pigs or whatever before going to the article, as one might in a paper about cattle (etc.), and even those often use natural disambiguation anyway). Natural disambiguation is a natural feature of the English language (that's why it's called natural disambiguation, after all).

Full marks to SMcCandlish for posting some sources. As expected, these convincingly show that there is no one fixed way of writing or using animal breed names. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Except they don't show that at all. They convincingly show that breeds have formal names ("Asturian Mountain", " Asturian Valley", "Finnish Ayrshire", "Dorset Down", etc.) to which capitalized species ("Cattle", "Pig", "Sheep" etc. are usually not appended, yet that they are regularly WP:NATURALly disambiguated by reliable sources in the real world, by appending lower-case species. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I can show that this is the case for everything in the mess at Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested moves as well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
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.

Further sources for article improvement edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asturian Mountain cattle. 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:

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) 10:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asturian_Mountain_cattle&oldid=1195403726"