Talk:American Pekin: Difference between revisions
Extended confirmed users 698 edits |
→Incorrect / Unsourced Information: for example? |
||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
:Indeed, there was a mass of irrelevant or generic content, much of it either unreferenced or referenced to sources that do not meet our definition of a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] such as www.metzerfarms.com. In response to this request, I added nine or ten reliable sources, removed the dubious content and added some sourced material. {{u|EditSafe}} has put all the garbage back in the article. Since that was done without any vestige of an edit summary, I'm at a loss to understand why. Can you explain, EditSafe? I suggest reverting to {{oldid|Pekin (duck)|765178252|this revision}} unless anyone can give any good reason not to. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 09:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |
:Indeed, there was a mass of irrelevant or generic content, much of it either unreferenced or referenced to sources that do not meet our definition of a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] such as www.metzerfarms.com. In response to this request, I added nine or ten reliable sources, removed the dubious content and added some sourced material. {{u|EditSafe}} has put all the garbage back in the article. Since that was done without any vestige of an edit summary, I'm at a loss to understand why. Can you explain, EditSafe? I suggest reverting to {{oldid|Pekin (duck)|765178252|this revision}} unless anyone can give any good reason not to. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 09:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
::A lot of the information you removed had reliable sources backing it. Also, with the mass removal of information some important information was lost. [[User:EditSafe|EditSafe]] ([[User talk:EditSafe|talk]]) 20:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |
::A lot of the information you removed had reliable sources backing it. Also, with the mass removal of information some important information was lost. [[User:EditSafe|EditSafe]] ([[User talk:EditSafe|talk]]) 20:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::For example, {{u|EditSafe}}? [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 23:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move 13 February 2017 == |
== Requested move 13 February 2017 == |
Revision as of 23:31, 13 February 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
United States Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Untitled
- Removed reference to this being the "only duck to use" in the Peking duck dish, I did combination searches of Pekin Duck and Peking Duck with north china, bred, history, originated - I couldn't find any support for it. See the Peking duck article, Preparation, second para for it's definition. Alf melmac 23:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Afd
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 September 2005. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
Male Pekin's not quacking
I have a male Pekin drake at home who is able to quack. It is true that their quack's sound quite different. My experience is that drakes quack much more, but much softer than their female companions. (They are still quite audible, even from quite a distance, the difference is you'll hear the females from a few hundred metres away.) Tank 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The duck in the firts picture is NOT a Pekin!!remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.14.0 (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Read your sources!!
"Tryptophan is the chemical that causes the well-known drowsiness in humans who consume turkey meat.[3]"
Except the cited source explicitly says this is a myth. I've removed the paragraph. The cite was http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ealerts/ea200211/ea20021127.html 64.132.221.211 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
funny maths
1000g => 1 Kg => 35.7 oz which is greater than 6 oz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Nutritional Information
I removed the passage stating the nutritional information of Pekin duck meat because it was blatantly wrong and poorly written. Foods do not contain nutrition, they contain nutrients. Also, stating that duck meat does not contain fat or protein is ludicrous. If someone feels obliged to add the correct information, you can obtain it from http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/poultry-products/938/2, but please quote it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.73.18 (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
American?
Pekin duck redirects here. The article uses that term systematically, and doesn't explicitly call it "American" anywhere; should it be moved to the more general title? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- no. This Article describes the breed "American Pekin Duck". There is a European (different) breed, the "German Pekin Duck", as well. see g-e-h.de, vieh-ev.de (German)--PigeonIP (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)]
- A quick poke around suggests that the APD name is very rare, while the shorter "Pekin Duck" is widely used. It would seem clearer to leave this article at Pekin Duck and have a hatnote for the other article as and when it exists; the way things are, the article suggests the proper name is "American Pekin Duck", and this doesn't seem to be the case. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- In Europe it is: have a look at the Listing Breed and Colour in the EE Standard by the Section for Poultry of the European Association of Poultry-, Pigeon- and Rabbit breeders (the American isn't even recognised in GB, there Pekin Duck refers to the German or European Pekin Duck. And this WP-article describes the American Pekin breed, not the European or British one.
- see also poultryclub.org --> Pekin (and have a look at the picture - that is not a duck as described on the front page)
- so if the proper name of the APD is Pekin Duck, it is the proper name of the BPD/EPD/GPD as well. --PigeonIP (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
breed?
So is this a breed of domestic duck? This article has the scientific name as "Anas platyrhynchos domestica", while domestic duck article has it as "Anas platyrhynchos domesticus". That would mean different supspecies of platyrhynchos. Of the sources [2] & [3] which are claimed to have "domestica", first is a book which I do not have, and second gave "Page not found". And strangely, fi-wiki article of domestic duck has domestica, though there are no sources for that. 82.141.117.117 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Pekin
I have a pair of 1 year old Pekin ducks that I raised from day olds. They are land based and never swim in my pond. Do I have to teach them to swim as they were reared without parents on site? Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.180.153.242 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Phrasing
In 1873 twenty-five ducks were exported from China. Only nine survived the trip to Long Island, New York in the United States, while half were sent to the McGrath family in New York. But unfortunately, they didn't make the journey as they were eaten before they were finally at the McGraths' farm.'
What happened to the other 4 1/2 ducks? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow
I don't know the procedure for this, because I've never participated in editing wikipedia articles, but this article is absolutely awful. Somebody please fix it. Particularly the "pets" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.110.229.140 (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC) no habitat, WHY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.21.106 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The whole article would benefit from an overhaul: it currently resembles a "how-to" guide for amateur pet owners. Hopefully, someone out there has knowledge of the subject and understands how, stylistically, Wikipedia articles should be written ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would definately agree. I am working on it myself whenever I have time. EditSafe (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527045700/http://www.ansi.okstate.edu:80/breeds/poultry/ducks/pekin/index.htm to http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/poultry/ducks/pekin/index.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203201002/http://www.cosleyzoo.org/species/white_pekin_duck.htm to http://www.cosleyzoo.org/species/white_pekin_duck.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
{{source check
- 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) 11:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect / Unsourced Information
A lot of the information on this wikipedia page is unsourced and likely incorrect. I think it would be a good idea for us to work on filtering out or correcting the incorrect information. EditSafe (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, there was a mass of irrelevant or generic content, much of it either unreferenced or referenced to sources that do not meet our definition of a reliable source such as www.metzerfarms.com. In response to this request, I added nine or ten reliable sources, removed the dubious content and added some sourced material. EditSafe has put all the garbage back in the article. Since that was done without any vestige of an edit summary, I'm at a loss to understand why. Can you explain, EditSafe? I suggest reverting to this revision unless anyone can give any good reason not to. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)]
- A lot of the information you removed had reliable sources backing it. Also, with the mass removal of information some important information was lost. EditSafe (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- For example, EditSafe? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- A lot of the information you removed had reliable sources backing it. Also, with the mass removal of information some important information was lost. EditSafe (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 13 February 2017
It has been proposed in this section that American Pekin be renamed and moved to Pekin Duck. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Pekin (duck) → Pekin Duck – Grammar EditSafe (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Unnecessary title change. Pekin (duck) follows normal naming conventions. -- Dane talk 03:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- @EditSafe and Dane: To many people "Pekin" by itself is an old name of Beijing in China, except when those people are already specifically talking about domestic ducks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. I made this move late at night, and thought better of it during the night in view of the existing discussion here. I was planning to undo it it this morning, but now this has been started so I can't. We should have two articles, one on the American Pekin and one on the German Pekin, the European version of this duck. I suggest moving this page to American Pekin. An alternative would be to have them at Pekin (American duck breed) and Pekin (German duck breed), but it seems unnecessarily cumbersome. "Peking duck" is a culinary dish; whatever title is chosen should not resemble that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I think that having two articles (one for the American Pekin and one for the German Pekin would be a good idea. Also, for the 'Pekin Duck' vs. 'Pekin (duck)', since pekin is a type of duck, and the dish is spelled differently (peking duck), naming the article as 'Pekin Duck' would make sense. We could also have the same 'For the chinese dish...' redirect at the top of the page so that people would not get confused. EditSafe (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose move, or restore to American Pekin Duck. Actually @Justlettersandnumbers: your move was a good call. But without American "Pekin Duck" only immediately suggests the dish. Pekin is French for Peking/Beijing but also occurs in older English culinary sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)]