Talk:Strasser pigeon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested moves[edit]

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: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– to fit WP:NC. Below is a detailed list of reasons. I first mentioned that RM-list as an example on Talk:Teeswater sheep. I hope I did not miss any breed of domestic pigeon. PigeonIP (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

list of reasons

(as first completely mentioned with this edit on Talk:Blue Grey)

As I understood, there are five criteria a title of an article shall fulfil:

  1. Recognizability – Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources
    Modena pigeon, for example, is ambiguous and inaccurate. (for explanations see in detail)
  2. Naturalness says If natural disambiguation is not possible, [because, it may have other meanings] add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name.
    The article on the Modena (for example) shall be at Modena (pigeon) to disambiguate it from the Italian city. (The same way Turkey (bird) disambiguates from the country.)
  3. Precision – Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.
    Modena (pigeon) does that.
  4. Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. and The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area.
    something like "UK" or "English breed" would be inaccurate and is not necessary, cause the "Modena" is the breed from the UK.
  5. Consistency – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.
    If necessary, other pigeon breeds shall be named with brackets as well, as written down in detail in the following scheme:

The naming scheme for domestic pigeons shall be this:

  1. Pigeon ("Pigeon" is part of the breeds name)
  2. (pigeon) (Breeds, that don't include "Pigeon" in the name)
  3. pigeon (pigeons that do have something in common, rather than belonging to a breed)
  4. not in that list: individuals (I personally fail to see the necessity of that cause WP:PRECISE: precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article)
in detail
  • I want Modena pigeon to be Modena (pigeon) because "Modena" is the name of the breed, that is known within the EE with the number 205. "Modena Pigeon" is not the name of the breed neither in Europe nor in the US "Modena pigeon" also refers to the German Modena (no 206) and the Triganino Modena (no 207). It also refers to the landrace or original Flying pigeons of the Italian city Modena the 3 modern breeds are derived from.
  • is a Strasser pigeon is true for: the original landrace or utility pigeon, the modern breeds Strasser (pigeon) and Moravian Strasser and at least one non-standard-breed, the Bavarian Strasser or Bavarian Giant Strasser. Schütte also mentions a "Farmers Strasser", that was popular after WWII (my first entry on that: is here)
  • is a Barb pigeon is true for: Barb (pigeon), Spanish Barb (=Flamenquilla), German Barb (and Saxon Barb, the French Barb (=Pigeon Polonais), the Polish Barb (=Brodawczak Polski) and Chinese Barbs. The Praque Barb is extinct)
  • English Carrier is the American name of the breed. In Europe it is the Carrier (pigeon). Carrier pigeons are pigeons, that carry messages
  • is a Fantail pigeon is true for multiple breeds. One of them the Fantail (pigeon). Others are mentioned above (see the scheme)
  • Helmet pigeon: there are not only other "Helmet"-pigeon breeds. There are also Helmet-varieties of other breeds (mostly tumblers). All are a "Helmet pigeon"
  • Lahore pigeon: the Lahore even is not a breed from Lahore, it is an European breed.
  • ...
Sources for the breeds names, I used
--PigeonIP (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record I have to say that a large amount of that is totally irrelevant to this requested move, and WP:RM process is not a naming convention drafting and proposal process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The general convention that I have perceived in regard to domestic breeds, especially in relation to birds, is to capitalise everything. This is demonstrated in both the Coburg Lark suggestion and the NPA reference quoted: Breeds of the NPA Standard. See NPA listing for: Hungarian Giant House Pigeon;.. Polish Cere Pigeon;.. Field Color Pigeon;.. Ice Pigeon; Clean & Muffed;.. Pheasant Pigeon; Saxon Breast Pigeon; Saxon Field Color Pigeon;.. Catalonian Flying Pigeon; Chinese Flying Pigeon. Parenthesis is not used.
The "Ark Royal" has been described as an "English Carrier" (despite "British" ownership being by the UK) "Ark Royal" "English Carrier".
I think it would be better for search engine listings to read: "English Carrier Pigeon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" rather than presenting a less descriptive: "English Carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is not going in the direct opposite direction of conventions. It is to restore the conventions, that were in place before SMC did his undiscussed moves against the well-founded naming conventions for pigeons.
  • Selective Reading is not helping here. Breeds of NPA Standard are also the Antwerp and the Archangel. Parenthesis are not used, because they are not necessary. The NPA is not about the city Antwerp or a religious Archangel.
  • For capitalisations see no 1 of the naming scheme ("Pigeon" is part of the breeds name):
  • Species and Breeds
    • the Pheasant is Pheasant, only[1]. It is a colour pigeon and not to be mixed up with the species Pheasant pigeon. (Another reason, why the natural disambiguation is misleading here in many cases)
  • the "Ark Royal" is a ship. Within the description(!) English appeals to the ownership or heritage and Carrier the type of ship. so what is the point? If English Carrier is not a good enough name (natural disambiguation was intended here), than it is Carrier (pigeon), as the EE calls it. (as described above.)
  • what is left? an oppose in favour of a descriptive ambiguous and incorrect title (English Carrier Pigeon) that goes against WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:NATURAL, WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE.
--PigeonIP (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment "English Carrier" may be ambiguous, so might be a disambiguation page. The British Flag Carrier British Airways, and Royal Navy aircraft carriers, and Royal Mail mailmen , and UK division of Carrier Corporation could be possible uses. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE the Coburg lark is not a Lark, so Coburg lark pigeon or somesuch would be better -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose Both "English Carrier" and "Coburg Lark" should not be treated as part of this multimove request, as their requests are fundamentally different from moving "pigeon" to "(pigeon)" -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose all for differing reasons. This is badly malformed, reactive mess of a mass RM.
    1. Procedural speedy close, because this overlaps the RM at Talk:Teeswater sheep to move piles of "Foo bar" breed names to "Foo (bar)"; it will almost certainly close as no consensus (or at worst as a temporary status quo ante move, though that option was already agreed to be avoided by the major participants before it started, and then likely reversed to "Foo bar" after discussion on the merits of the names). Nominator here has made the same case here as there (and in many other concurrent RMs, e.g. on pigs and sheep and other topics), and numerous problems with nom's views have been raised and remain unaddressed at the other RMs where nom is generating the same huge "what I want" lists. The basic issue is that nom's core reason, 'I want Modena pigeon to be Modena (pigeon) because "Modena" is the name of the breed', gives us no reason at all to abandon natural for parenthetical disambiguation.
    2. Oppose on the merits all the "Foo bar" to "Foo (bar)" moves, as they violate WP:NATURAL policy; we do not use parenthetic disambiguation when we can avoid it. See nom's point #2: "Naturalness says If natural disambiguation is not possible, [because, it may have other meanings] add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name.". Nom has inserted his own wording to completely invert of the meaning of the policy. Natural disambiguation is used when the title may have other meanings; it isn't made "not possible" when it may have other meanings. All of nom's pseudo-conventions for naming in all of these RMs falls off the same cliff, jumping forth from this same error. Furthermore, the nom doesn't get to dictate what pigeon articles "shall" be named; WP:Article titles policy does not permit wikiprojects (much less lone editors from wikiprojects) to make up their own rules on the fly, and neither does the more generalized WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy. There is no Wikipedia naming convention for pigeons, and nom's claim that I somehow violated one is therefore a falsehood. The claim that the proposed names would be in keeping with WP:NC is clearly false.
      • It's absolutely normal, across all categories of domesticated animals, to naturally disambiguate (in writing or in speech) using the form "Foo bar" (e.g. "English Carrier pigeon") in any context where the reader/listener cannot be guaranteed to be certain that what the topic is (e.g. pigeons). Hint: Wikipedia is always such an uncertain context when it comes to article names. No one would ever say "I have an English Carrier" outside of a pigeon context, but "I have an English Carrier pigeon", and this has no implications at all for what the official, formal breed name is.
      • This stuff is not difficult. In this context, "Foo bar" means a breed (or landrace or other population) named "Foo" of the species "bar"; whether it's formal breed or not is matter for sourcing in the article, not movewarring about. "Foo Bar" means a breed in which the species name is universally included in the formal breed name; this is rare, but examples are Norwegian Forest Cat and American Quarter Horse, and Ice Pigeon looks like it qualifies (I already looked at some sources on that), for the same hyper-ambiguity reason. The nomination fails to reflect the difference between these styles, and is treating them as equivalent. They're not (nor should they be per WP:DIFFCAPS and per WP:V/WP:RS). The entire source of his nom's multi-page campaigning on this issue appears to be the misunderstanding that "Foo bar" is a "made up name"; it is not, but is a sourced name, "Foo", followed by a natural disambiguation per WP:NATURAL. "Foo Bar" would be a made up name, when it does not qualify in the way that American Quarter Horse does. I've covered this, with the same editor, half a dozen times already, and he just ignores it without ever countering it. "Foo bars" (plural) is an article covering more than one type of "bar" called "Foo" in general; that's permissible but should usually be split. Finally, "Foo (bar)" is an individual notable animal of the species "bar" (or it could be something else, e.g. "Feather (pigeon)" would presumably be an article about pigeon feathers; parenthetical disambiguation is already used for too many things, and forcing breed names to be handled this way too, against WP:NATURAL, would be a terrible, terrible idea.
      • Some wikiprojects (FWIW), like WP:EQUINE are already strongly on record against nom's proposed, unnecessary parenthetic disambiguation in "their own" categories (I make no WP:OWN implication here), and most animal breed article names are not disambiguated parenthetically, even before I moved some of them to be consistent with the rest in June and July to comply with WP:NATURAL and the rest of the article names. The pigeons category somewhat consistently with itself (but inconsistently with other categories) used parenthetic disambiguation, but reliance on that would be an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS pseudo-argument, as well as a mostly one-editor WP:FAITACCOMPLI problem, because WP:AT doesn't let projects make up their own rules. Our policies apply across articles and categories, and neither categories nor wikiprojects are sovereign fiefdoms.
    3. Oppose capitalization of species name: Sources appear, in the above mess, to have been cherry-picked to show what these names "really" are; in reality, there's no certain, off-Wikipedia consensus in most cases whether "Pigeon" is formally part of the breed names of most pigeon breeds (and this mirrors the situation in many other domestic animal breeds of other types); when there isn't uniformity in the sources, use lower case per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, and MOS:LIFE (see also the WP:BIRDCON RfC; if we don't capitalize bird species names we wouldn't capitalize other, even less specific bird group names like "pigeon" either). A good rule of thumb is that if an encyclopedic listing of breeds omits almost all species names from breed names, but includes them in a few rare cases, and other, similar sources do the same thing with regard to the same few breeds, then and only then do we have evidence that those are valid exceptions to the "don't capitalize the species name" rule. Relatedly, WP doesn't care if some particular variant of pigeon is classified as a "carrier" or "barb" or whatever type, except as a matter to be properly sourced in article text. It has nothing to do with naming and disambiguation in our article titles.
    4. Make English Carrier a disambiguation page, per reasoning already given by 65.94.171.225.
    5. Move Coburg lark to Coburg Lark pigeon; it is not a lark. The "Lark" part should be capitalized here because it's part of the formal breed name. Nom's claim that it's conventional to "capitalize everything" in domestic bird names is patently false; the species name is almost never included in the capitalization (except in titles, headings, and other instances of title case), as is the case with other domesticated animal species. But here, "Lark" is in fact part of the capitalized breed name. Note that nom is making a big fuss about what the names really are and how they're capitalized, but this one and a notable amount of the rest of them don't even get it right in the article text.
    6. Disambiguate Pheasant (pigeon) if that ever exists from the species Pheasant pigeon as Pheasant pigeon (breed) and Pheasant pigeon (species), and handle any similar cases the same way. (This has already been done with at least one horse or cattle breed somewhere.)
    7. Theoretically support alternative names, e.g. Ark Royal instead of English Carrier pigeon, but only where each case is proven to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, a discussion for individual WP:RMs at those specific articles' talk pages. The fact that almost none of these alt. names even exist yet as redirects here is considerable evidence that this series of RM maneuvers is a mountain being made of a mole-hill.
    8. RM is not a naming conventions proposal process. Without implying any motives, the effect of this mess would be misuse RM to establish and enforce a Wikipedia naming convention for pigeons, that contradicts several of WP:AT policy's WP:CRITERIA, without any discussion and consensus building process, nor a formal proposal to vet, nor any real input from anyone but a single editor. This seems to be exactly what the nom has been outlining above at "The naming scheme for domestic pigeons shall be this". I say the community gets to decide what it "shall" be, and that absent any very special reason to deviate, we already have that consensus in the form of WP:CRITERIA. And there is no reason at all we'd have a completely different convention for pigeons than other poultry and other domesticated animals more generally; nom's idea already directly conflicts with horse article naming, for one. A very strong case would have be made for such inconsistency, and its' not being made here. All of nom's #1–#5 analyses of the WP:CRITERIA, above, are faulty, as I've addressed elsewhere in similar RMs. While non-controversial RM cases sometimes lead to naming conventions, RM is never a substitute for resolving controversy, by brute force, in one side's favor. It's beyond irregular to use RM to actually try to install a spelled-out naming convention as nom is doing here.
I think that just about covers it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all per WP:NATURAL, everything else just not ringing true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 1 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strasser_pigeon&oldid=1201977313"