Talk:Barbu d'Uccle

Chickenbreed Infobox

A new infobox {{Infobox Chickenbreed}} has been created for chicken articles. If you see anywhere it needs improved please contact User:Stepshep. If it meets your criteria it is requested you add it to this article's page for standardization. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mille Fleur

I added in the info written by the other user for the time being, but I'm not sure that it looks proper. Either of you please revert if you feel it looks odd. Iluvfruit (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Belgian Bearded d'Anvers, Barbu de Watermael, Belgian d'Everberg and Belgian Bearded d'Uccle

I would like to propose the merge of these four pages on the very closely related Belgian bantams. I've done a bit of checking, and I can't find a copy of the American Standard of Perfection to check its definition, but from the hard copy of the Australian Poultry Standards I own and the googlebooks preview of the British Poultry Standards, I quote; "There are three main varieties of Belgian Bantams available in Australia. The Barbu d'Anvers (Bearded Antwerp), the Barbu d'Uccle (Bearded Uccle) and the Barbu de Watermael (Bearded Watermael). These long established true bantams have no large counterparts. There are many colour varieties, some very intricately marked and representing an engrossing challenge for the bantam breeder. There are also three other types: Barbu d'Everberg (Rumpess d'Ucccle), Barbu du Grubbe (Rumpless d'Anvers) and the Bosvoorde (Rumpless de Watermael)." (Australian Poultry Standards 2012, page 44)

This seems to clarify that the official viewpoint in Australia is they are considered varieties and not distinct breeds. Now, British Poultry Standards states "The varieties of Belgian Bantam standardised in Britain are Barbu d'Anvers (Bearded Antwerp), Barbu d'Uccle (Bearded Uccle), Barbu de Watermael (Bearded Watermael), Barbu d'Everberg (Rumpless d'Uccle), and Barbu de Grubbe (Rumpless d'Anvers). Barbu de Boitsfort (Rumpless de Watermael) has yet to be accepted to the standards." 1

Is anyone able to reference the American Standard of Perfection for its word on this? Or if you can translate, the Belgian or Dutch poultry standards? JTdale ^Talk 13:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Any input would be good. JTdale ^Talk 13:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I'm against it. I accept that some people in Australia and the UK may treat these as "varieties" rather than breeds; but they are certainly treated as breeds in Belgium and reported to DAD-IS as such. It may be that those people wrote what they wrote more out of ignorance than anything else; I note that they both count six Belgian bantam breeds, while this page lists 20. That's not an official or even necessarily a reliable page as far as I can see. On the other hand, this page, published by the Dutch Nederlandse Bond van Hoender-, Dwerghoender, Sier- en Watervogel houders, does say that the Everbergse Baardkriel is a variant of the Ukkelse Baardkriel and not, in Holland, a separate breed. I like Ilse Köhler-Rollefson's definition of "breed": "A domestic animal population may be regarded as a breed, if the animals fulfil the criteria of (i) being subjected to a common utilization pattern, (ii) sharing a common habitat/distribution area, (iii) representing largely a closed gene pool, and (iv) being regarded as distinct by their breeders". I don't know about the gene bit of it, but I think in general each of these birds meets those requirements. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That page lists 20 breeds seems to list all bantams from Belgium, not just the related and physically similar "Belgian Bantams" (as noted by the name, 'Association for the Promotion of Belgian Poultry Breeds'_. It is most odd how this has varied by country. The Everberg being a variety of the Uccle per that page by the Small Animal Lover's of the Netherlands Group, yet not by the information provided to DAD-IS. It isn't very clear cut then. I will note, Australia also appears to list them as separate breeds when reporting to DAD-IS. However I will note, it lists Belgian d'Anvers twice under different names (Antwerp and d'Anver), and misspells two other breed names, so I'm not sure how much we can rely on it. JTdale ^Talk 01:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm against the merge, or at least the merge of all four. The amount and type of coverage and sourcing between the articles is too dissimilar. Belgian Bearded d'Uccle provides inline citations and a depth of detail that seems reasonable (though far from comprehensive) for a standalone article, while the other three use article-wide citations and range from minimal to medium detail. I'd either leave the articles as is, or create a Belgian bantams article merging the other three articles, along with a summary paragraph about the bearded d'Uccle and a "Main article at..." notice pointing to the stand-alone bearded d'uccle article. The bearded d'Anvers article is nearing the length at which I'd consider stand-alone split.

Regarding the concern of other Belgian bantams beyond the four already mentioned, I'd just cover all of them in the Belgian bantams article (if they're reilably sourced), but if you want to restrict it to popular showbirds, a hatnote at the top of the article could say it only covers the 4 (or however many) Belgian bantams commonly accepted in international poultry shows, and that other Belgian bantams are listed in List of Belgian bantams, or something like that.

I think the question of "variety" versus "breed" shouldn't make a difference, unless the decision hinges on some official "can't have articles on bird varieties" policy. (In fact I'd think that anyway, and would just think the policy was stupid). The breeds are obviously related topics, it's just a matter of how best to cover them, which is usually determined by how much an article says about a topic, with stub articles sometimes merging to a broader topic, and long subtopics sometimes splitting into a separate article.

If you want another source that says they're considered related varieties:

• Moula, N.; Jacquet, M.; Verelst, A.; Antoine-Moussiaux, N.; Farnir, F.; Leroy, P. (2012). "Les races de poules belges" (PDF). Annales de Médecine Vétérinaire (in French). 156: 37–65.

It says "Ce club, tenait deux à trois conférences réservées exclusivement aux races barbues belges, car elles sont quatre à cette époque le Barbu d’Anvers, le Barbu de grubbe, le Barbu d’Uccle et le Barbu d’Everberg. Les trois dernières nommées sont considérées comme des variétés de la première et elles ont toutes les mêmes origines." Translation: "The club held two to three conferences reserved exclusively for bearded Belgian races, there being four at the time, the Bearded d'Anvers, the Bearded de Grubbe, the Bearded d'Uccle and the Bearded d'Everberg. The last three listed are regarded as varieties of the first and they have all the same origins."

--Agyle (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well the thing with varieties is the list can get huge for one breed (Tasseled, Rumpless, Bearded, and then bantam and large of each of those in OEG for example). Hence why it in my opinion probably best to try and govern whether a section or an article are needed by breed vs variety. But your suggestions make sense. JTdale ^Talk 03:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Just found this website, the Belgian Bantam Specialty Club of the Netherlands. Google translate at least seems to indicate they consider them all separate breeds (listing not just the ones known in the english-speaking world but several other varieties). JTdale ^Talk 04:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

To pile on here... I don't think it's appropriate to merge these. As JTdale and others have pointed out, these are all separate breeds. Steven Walling • talk 06:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Some months since this discussion, but to short out the issue I have created a disambiguation page at Belgian bantam. JTdale ^Talk 15:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbu d'Uccle. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130616062803/http://www.entente-ee.com:80/deutsch/sparten/gefluegel/dateien/2013/Verzeichnis%20R%20F%2028042013.xls to http://www.entente-ee.com/deutsch/sparten/gefluegel/dateien/2013/Verzeichnis%20R%20F%2028042013.xls

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)