Talk:Russian Black Pied/Archive 1

This is an current talk page
.

Requested moves

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: no consensus so no moves. Number 5 7 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Russian Black Pied → Russian Black Pied cattle

German black pied (cattle) → German Black Pied cattle

German Red Pied → German Red Pied cattle

Chinese black pied → Chinese Black Pied cattle

– Consistency with

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, thus a few capitalization fixes in these renames. If some object to this practice generally, 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≼ 13:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Replaced hyphenated example because it was objected to as not quite applicable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

✍♪
16:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Manx (cat). The reliable sources support this, too; there's probably no breed on the planet for which one cannot readily find piles of "Breedname species" format references in RS, e.g. "State of Russian Black Pied cattle breeding in Vologda region"[1], etc., etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢
≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Support as easy case of consistency, precision, and recognizability aligned with our normal preference for natural terms over parenthetical disambiguators. Dicklyon (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I see that the nominator suggested not to talk about it, but doesn't the uppercasing run afoul of
WP:NCFAUNA? We just went through and lowercased all the bird names, and now we're going to uppercase the cattle? —BarrelProof (talk
) 19:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- @
  WP:BIRDCON. I don't think we need to have it any time soon, just because BIRDCON was strife enough for one year. My interest here is cleaning up the unbelievably chaotic mess in animal breed articles in the interim so we can even have meaningful discussion about how to tweak their names en masse if necessary. Right now, there's nothing consistent about them at all, even in the same category much less between cattle and sheep and cats categories. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢
  ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  - That's good enough for me. Thanks for the response. Incidentally, I think I ran across the breed-versus-species capitalization question at least once before – at Talk:Rhode Island Red, where I initially filed an RM and then didn't find myself comfortable with continuing to suggest the lowercase. I also checked a few dog breed names, and the ones I checked are uppercased. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Support as per nom. Thanks also for taking the time in explanation. The information/perspective presented is greatly appreciated :).

I also thought that it might be of note that a search on: "russian black pied" gave very consistently capitalised results. Unless the "Russian Black Pied" is an exception to some rule my guess is that this may be because the farmed breeds are considered commodities. At the moment

✍♪

11:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I also suggest that any further cattle related moves can be made directly without need to use the RM procedure.

✍♪

12:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:FILIBUSTER fire. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ho hum, I'd like to think that rational and reasoned moves that bring clarity and consistency in titling according to formats that have been approved in previous RMs are not controversial.

✍♪

03:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I usually proceed on that basis, too. I have moved hundreds of articles, and gotten only 3 or 4 comments and no real opposition, in recent months, but somehow didn't pick up a stalker like SMcCandlish did. Such is wikilife. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as proposed. The proposal is fundamentally flawed for several reasons:

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 OP well knows, since it involves the reversal of some hundreds of undiscussed page moves made by him.
Small Black pig, cited above as an example for consistency, was moved without discussion to its present title by the OP, and will be reverted if that move proceeds.
Siberian Black Pied pig, cited above as an example for consistency, was moved without discussion
to its present title by the OP, and will be reverted if that move proceeds.

Northern European short-tailed sheep, cited above as an example for consistency, is not a breed at all, but a group of breeds, and thus completely irrelevant to these articles.
Black Pied Dairy cattle
, cited above as an example for consistency, has been moved six times in just over three years.

If consistency is what we are after, it would be just as consistent to propose, say, this:

Ennstal Mountain Pied cattle → Ennstal Mountain Pied

German black pied (cattle) → German Black Pied

Chinese black pied → Chinese Black Pied

Siberian Black Pied pig → Siberian Black Pied

and so on, in line with

Siberian Black Pied (pig), were before the OP moved them – and indeed in line with almost every other article in Wikipedia. But it's pointless to discuss that here in relation to a handful of pages until the larger move is decided. Justlettersandnumbers (talk

) 09:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The issues and pseudo-issues Justlettersandnumbers (Jlan, hereafter) raised are not "fundamental flaws" as suggested; none of them are either of these things (other than one example needed replacement, which was a flaw but a trivial one).

Bullet list of reasons why...

Perpetual reliance by Jlan on "this is how it was three months ago before someone I have a personal dispute with made some changes" as their reasoning in these discussions has nothing to do with
WP:AT
or WP procedure. All ideas and proposals come from someone; the fact that someone proposed something and it's different isn't a rationale for opposing it.
WP:CONCISE
(which Jlan doesn't actually cite, but seems to be the basis, vaguely, of their argument); we do not use the shortest possible name if it can be confusing or awkward, as is the case here.
Also, the
WP:CRITERIA
merits. I've tried to convert that mess into an actual discussion on the merits, but the origianl RM was so malformed it may be closed as hopeless, without further input that helps clearly establish a consensus on the different proposals interent in it, which have now been enumerated clearly.
Jlan already agreed these on-the-merits discussions should happen, after an admin strongly suggested we all agree to not do a status-quo-ante revert because too many of the names Jlan opposed are actually likely to be retained by consensus. Yet Jlan's right back at it, calling for status-quo-ante reverts they already agreed not to call for, and now making more RM arguments based on the idea that those s-q-a reverts will actually happen and will represent anything other than process wonkery.
Most of Jlan's response is personalized anti-SMcCandlish finger-pointing, a
fallacy ad hominem that relies on Jlan's feelings about and characterization of my approach to renaming articles, in place of policy-based or common-sense rationales regarding choosing good article titles. I've suggested WP:Dispute resolution
multiple times with this editor.

The lamest possible outcome would be leaving these "pied" titles as is, with three conflicting naming styles. The second lamest would be moving them all to "

WP:NATURAL

policy and will just lead to another RM to get rid of the parentheses later. Most animal breed articles were not at "Breed Name (species)" names; it's been a totally confused mixture of styles, even inside the same categories in many cases, much less between categories, and there's been virtually no opposition to using natural disambiguation except from Jlan and a dog-breeds editor. The equine project is strongly against parenthetical disambiguation, policy says not to use it unless necessary, and no one else is agitating for it.

Oh, while

Chistopolian High-flying pigeon

. It not only doesn't matter, its replaceability in seconds proves the point better than the example by itself did, which is that the pattern works, and is already used without controversy, for other "Regional Adjective species" cases, even when the adjective is complicated, e.g. hyphenated.

Jlan is also making a "per Gregkaye" argument, but after I explained why the "Russian Black Pied (cattle)" format was contraindicated, Gregkaye suggested that these and related proposed moves were so uncontroversial they should just be performed without RM. So, Gregkay is not taking the stand Jlan thinks he is. Jlan is very late to the party, despite having engineered it with repeated, vexatious ANI actions that make RMs necessary for procedural reasons in these cases when they really should not be.
Jlan's suggestion that using parenthetical naming would be "indeed in line with almost every other article in Wikipedia" is severely out of touch with reality. We have an explicit policy, at
WP:NATURAL, against ever using it except when there's no alternative! The most common case for using parenthetical titling is disambiguation of published works and trademarked devices that share the same name and for which we have no other way to distinguish them (see, e.g., virtually every entry at Beast (disambiguation)
). That rationale is emphatically not applicable here. It's entirely natural to simply append the species name, and reliable sources do it.

Jlan's suggestion that

WP:FILIBUSTER wiki-litigation about what move should be done by which process in whose favor before this other one can be considered on what basis, blah blah blah. That's not why we're here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Opposed as proposed. Same reasons Justlettersandnumbers has. --PigeonIP (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

as for the

Chistopolian High-flying Pigeon or Chistopolian Highflyer. Chistopolian High-flying pigeon is totally wrong. The breeds name is not Christopolian High-flying. --PigeonIP (talk

) 08:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But Justlettersandnumbers's reasons aren't valid, though. What are your reasons? Your responses on this whole series of RMs have taken the "per Jlan" form without adding anything applicable to any of them.

Re: the pigeon article – There doesn't seem to be any reason that breed name would include the species and others would not. I've replaced the example, with

WP:CONCISE. That all has nothing to do with the "Pied"-named breeds in this RM. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers's reasons are valid. I provided you a detailed list of my personal reasons multiple times. The last are here and there

Re: the pigeon article – there are even results with chistopolian high-flying pigeon. May I give you a reason why? The breed is not well known in the English speaking world. These pages are written by pigeon enthusiast who want to show "their" new found breed or want to share their home breed with the world. Last concern they have: orthography. --PigeonIP (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that some encyclopedic works prefer to always attach the species name to adjectival breed names of this sort, while others prefer to never do that, and some prefer to sometimes do it on an idiosyncratic basis that differs from source to source. What we have here are WP editors with various sensibilities all insisting that their preferred version of such names is "the correct" one. The only thing we can do is apply extant naming policy and reliable sources. Doing so arrives at a pattern of "Foo Bar baz" where "Foo Bar" is a formal breed name and "baz" is the species, when the breed name may be confusing or ambiguous. When it's not, we just have "Foo Bar". When, in rare cases, the species is part of the formal breed name, it's "Foo Bar Baz". There is no case of any kind for "Foo Bar (baz)". It's a total failure under

WP:AT policies. This RM is not about pigeons or that pigeon article in particular. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You raised the pigeon-issue, not me.

Principles are : Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness. Non of them do say, that someone not familiar with the subject area, must be able to say "It is a broom." That is what we are writing articles for. We are writing articles so that people can learn that a "Foo Bar" is a "Baz" and hopefully more about it. --PigeonIP (talk

) 14:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment, the current names: Russian Black Pied, German Red Pied, Chinese black pied are non-sensical to any but specialist readerships. They fail
✍♪
14:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NC

Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

WP:NC Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects Are they to be distinguished? --PigeonIP (talk

) 14:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: per JLAN and PigeonIP. The three without the word "cattle" don't need "cattle" added if there is no amgibuity (unlike, for example, Holstein or Friesian where we must distinguish geography and multiple breeds of different species of animals.) The other, parethetical example needs to be discused separately with the people who work on cattle articles to determine if natural or parenthetical disambiguation is the preferred style and respect shown to the preferences of lead editors on those articles. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Already addressed why their reasoning is faulty.

Five Pillars. Also, as noted in the hatnote up top, reliable soruces can be shown to regularly use the proposed names. Why are we even arguing about this? Oh, wait I remember you telling me, in one of your various personal attack posts: "I am basically siding with people who hold a view opposite from my own preference on titles ... because you are bullying them..."[2]] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly advise that you stop your
WP:BAITing behavior here, SMC; in this case, your request is adding complexity to names where there is no need. The word "cattle" simply is not necessary where there are no competing articles and no need to disambiguate. Montanabw ^(talk)
02:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

ADVISORY NOTE There is a newly opened competing move request at
~~Talk:German black pied (cattle) that conflicts with this one.~~ -- 65.94.171.225 (talk
) 03:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Is closed, thank you. PIP

Support: but please stop the crap. I am sure I saw a "Support" by SMS then an "oppose" that to me cancels the support. I also vehemently disagree with Montanabw's trashing to make a point.

Someone dare Google or Bing

Polish Helmet

if you want a real picture as to why we should add what something is instead of being vague which was referred to as adding complexity. There is no competing article but if you want to know all about helmets (Polish included) take the dare but be advised if you are looking for information on a pigeon you might want to add that.

Extra comments: I dislike mass move requests because many times it trashes individual title "previous consensus", "sometimes" with less editors involved, as well as mass groups articles where one or more might go against what it is called in references. However:

I suggest we start a deletion process for WP:Article titles OR acknowledge that it is needed on Wikipedia and is a part of Wikipedia policies and Guidelines and that changes should reflect Wikipedia-wide consensus. "IF" that is the case then either the lead needs to be changed or followed as much as practical. If Wikipedia really didn't have these policies and guidelines (WP:THERE ARE NO RULES) to be followed by some form of consensus then chaos (state of utter confusion or disorder) follows. This means that when the policy is totally ignored (as opposed to exceptions), we end up with battles all over Wikipedia that does not actually help one bit.

The policy lead reads "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. To a "normal" person, that is neither a scientist (prefers scientific names) or lawyer (especially a Wiki-Lawyer), this means adding necessary words that would normally be used in speech as well as in writing and references.

commonly recognizable names. To use "Conciseness" or "precision" alone, or stating that we should be vague to be precise over natural, or that we should be vague "so that people can learn" by reading the article, means we should consider doing away with the lead as unnecessary? Being more vague and then adding parenthesis totally blows my mind. We use Cooking apple instead of Apple (cooking), or Apple (eating), or Apple (cider) for a reason. I know this is in reference to food but common sense dictates the idea is related concerning naming. If this isn't resolved in a form of some resulting addition to policy this will occur all over Wikipedia at some point (too late) and we can use what as a criteria for consistency? I read where someone stated a pig in a pen is still a pig. Should we rename Pigs in blankets to Pigs (in blankets)? What about Sausage roll to Sausage (roll), or Sausage (bun). How about doing away with page size limits and just put everything under sausage in sub-sections? The answer is of course no. Thank goodness we have common name (as found in references) to fall back on. If it is cattle--- why not call it that---ESPECIALLY if references agree? Otr500 (talk

) 01:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

PigeonIP's extended commentary

step by step

Russian Black Pied → ~~Russian Black Pied cattle~~
- name of the breed per Oklahoma State University and FAO DAD-IS, FAO
German Red Pied
- "German Black Pied cattle" and "German Red Pied cattle" are ambiguous. The first can be a disambiguation with
  Black Pied Dairy cattle
  . All are German breeds, all are black pied (or "black and white"), all are dairy cattle.
- "Black Pied Dairy cattle" is ambiguous as well (same reasons). Shall be moved to disambiguate.
  German Black Pied Dairy --PigeonIP (talk
  ) 13:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

German Red Pied → ~~German Red Pied cattle~~

name of the breed (Oklahoma State University =Rotbuntes Niederungsvieh)

"German Red Pied cattle" is ambiguous. (there are also other German Red Pied cattle breeds)

Chinese black pied → ~~Chinese Black Pied cattle~~ Chinese Black and White

name of the breed. (FAO, Oklhoma)

for consistency

(those breeds are not part of the RM in Talk:Teeswater sheep)

Aksai Black Pied pig → Askai Black Pied
name of the breed, FAO, was titel since July 2007)

it was moved without discussion to its present title by the nominator

Siberian Black Pied pig → Siberian Black Pied

name of the breed FAO

it was moved without discussion to its present title by the nominator

names that could have been alternately used for distinction, when necessary, are Novosibirsk Spotted and Siberian Spotted (many "Pied" swine breeds do have a "Spotted" altname, but not all)

not to be distinguished or moved

Belarus Black Pied
(only breed)

Bentheim Black Pied
(only breed and name)

--PigeonIP (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason we'd support randomly using
WP:NATURAL disambiguation; there is no call to use Chinese Black Pied (cattle) parenthetic disambiguation, and the entire point of the RM is that "Chinese Black Pied" by itself is ambiguous – "pied" can refer to any species of domestic animal. Same goes even more so for "spotted". Next, you don't get to dictate what "shall" be done or what is "not to be"; that's what the RM discussion in total decides. PS: With you striking half your own entries here without explanation, it's unclear what it is you're really advocating, much less why. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢
≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The following comment was merged into this discussion from the closed, duplicate one at
Talk:German black pied (cattle)
.

Note, most results from a search on "German Black and White" relate to photography and print.
✍♪
21:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all for alternative names, but they need to not only pass
WP:COMMONNAME but also be not even worse than the ones we're presently wrestling with. Chinese Black and White has this problem, too. I also suspect that these should be hyphenated, or it'll be very difficult to parse as one thing rather than a Chinese Black and a Chinese White, or even a Chinese Black and a White. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢
≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:22, 26 September 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.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_Black_Pied/Archive_1&oldid=1190233523"~~