Talk:Black Hereford (crossbreed)

Subject of article[edit]

I have just reverted changes made by User:SwallowFork. These changed the subject of the article from a British hybrid cattle type to an American colour-type of pure(ish) Hereford cattle.

If the American breed exists and is notable, I see no reason why it should not have an article, but it should not overwrite a perfectly good existing article: if there are two things called "Black Hereford", then what we need is two articles. I shall therefore rename this one Black Hereford (hybrid), and create a new one based on SwallowFork's version called Black Hereford (breed). Richard New Forest (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[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. Number 5 7 17:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– "Hybrid" is incorrect, and these are both mixed breeds distinguished primarily by region. The subject presently at Black Hereford (hybrid) is not a hybrid animal (a mix of wild and domestic stock) at all, it's a new domestic breed developed by crossing two earlier domestic breeds. And so is the other one, presently at Black Hereford (breed). Even if the former were a hybrid, the extant title would fail WP:DAB and WP:RECOGNIZABLE; there's no point in a disambiguation that is itself ambiguous ("hybrid what?"). We would still use "cattle" as a disambiguator, since cattle hybrids are treated as cattle, not as some strange new category of creature, in reliable sources, and this treatment is consistent, on- and off-wiki, with that of hybrid dogs (classified as dogs, e.g. the wolfdog), cats (classified as domestic cats, e.g. the Bengal cat), etc. Both of the current titles also fail WP:NATURAL policy by using parenthetical disambiguation when natural disambiguation is available. Alternative names Black Hereford (British breed) and Black Hereford (American breed) could also be used in theory, but fail for one of the same reasons "(hybrid)" does, as they beg the question "breed of what?", and do not help the reader at all. 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~move but would prefer~~ Black Hereford (British breed) / Black Hereford (American breed), as the stated alternatives are more specific. The difference is in physiology not just nationality the offspring of breeds are not necessarily tied to their location of origin. Also support: Black Hereford cattle (British breed) or Black Hereford (British cattle breed) etc.

Part of this is admittedly POV pushing in anything supportive of national credit, patriotism, in place of nationalism in all things - even with cattle. An individual cow, bull or herd might still be justifiably defined as British or American etc. You might tell the difference in their accents :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregkaye: I don't think you or anyone else is POV pushing; it really is principally a geographic distinction, not just in origin but in actual population as far as we can tell from sources cited so far. A problem with Black Hereford (British breed) is that it's a disambiguation that doesn't disambiguate (i.e., it fails the interplay of WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE): "a breed of what?", the mind automatically demands. I can't find any other articles on the system disambiguated this way with "(breed)" or "(something breed)" (if there are, they should arguably be renamed). Three problems with Black Hereford cattle (British breed) is that it fails WP:CONCISE (Black Hereford cattle (British) is shorter), WP:PRECISE (it's unnecessarily over-precise, because there is no [[:Black Hereford cattle (British something else)]] from which to distinguish it), and it fails WP:CONSISTENT, because none of the other breed articles are named this way. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hereford (British breed)" was your suggestion and I have argued similar points elsewhere. Cattle don't have nationality. Breeds do. "Category:Cattle breeds" does not currently include any parenthesis based disambiguation by "nationality". Nationality is only mentioned if it is an intrisic part of the title. A currently used article title format is represented by Black Hereford (breed). Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose to Black Hereford (hybrid) → Black Hereford cattle (British) as per http://triplelblackherefords.com/black-hereford-breed/ which states:

"Black Hereford Breed

The Black Hereford name originated in the British Isles ..."

A singular "Black Hereford Breed" is mentioned with a "US Black Hereford Line" being mentioned later in the text. Is it possible to make the move:

Black Hereford (hybrid) → Black Hereford cattle, or

Black Hereford (breed) → Black Hereford cattle and then merge the two articles?

There a many breeders involved in many locations. They are all working towards the development of black varieties of Hereford (cattle) all of which can interbreed.

also querying possibility of use of:

Black Hereford (hybrid) → Black Hereford cattle (British line)

Black Hereford (breed) → Black Hereford cattle (American line)

Black Hereford (breed) → Black Hereford cattle (US line)

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sorry, but the "reason" "Hybrid" is incorrect, and these are both mixed breeds distinguished primarily by region. The subject presently at Black Hereford (hybrid) is not a hybrid animal (a mix of wild and domestic stock) at all, it's a new domestic breed developed by crossing two earlier domestic breeds. is plain wrong.
1. Most modern commercial "breeds" are hybrids, that are not maintained from generation to generation. That is why laying hens are so good at laying eggs and why broilers do produce so much meat. Their offspring would not, not as good as their parents (thanks to 4 multinational companies, that do control the market). A "hybrid" is not a mix of wild and domestic stock per definition. But a mix of wild and domestic stock is a hybrid, everytime.
2. The Black Hereford (hybrid) is a hybrid: Black Herefords are not usually maintained from generation to generation, but are constantly produced as a byproduct of dairy farming as a terminal cross. (read: every new baby cow is a hybrid of a dairy cow and a meat bull)
3. The Black Hereford (breed) is a registered breed. Crossbreeding, is how new breeds are developed.
4. as far as WP:DAB and WP:RECOGNIZABLE are concerned: The ambiguous title at hand is Black Herford or cattle, not hybrid or breed (from what title should it be disambiguated?)
5. WP:CONCISE: The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

Black Hereford cattle (British) is longer and less precise on top. Which one was the recognised breed?

--> no valid reason to move the pages. --PigeonIP (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. A really, really bad proposal. Reasons:

The nominator is apparently unable to distinguish between: a breed such as the Black Hereford (breed) or, say, the Leonberger, created by cross-breeding two or more other breeds to produce stock that will breed true from then on; and a hybrid such as the Black Hereford (hybrid) or the Lurcher, produced by mating animals of different breeds to produce offspring that benefit from hybrid vigour, but do not breed true or transmit that vigour to the next generation (as already explained in detail and with exemplary patience by PigeonIP above) – this is one of the most basic principles of animal breeding
The nominator, apparently not content with attempting to impose one particular style of disambiguation on this project (stating: "the added species common name at the end ("cattle") 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"), is now suggesting titles that use a mish-mash of two disparate types of disambiguation, "natural" and parenthetic, together; is it not glaringly obvious to all that any article title will use no more than one of the three possible styles of disambiguation? do we really have to get a clause to that effect that added to WP:AT?
The proposed titles do not satisfy any of our criteria for article titling except that they are unique: specifically, they aren't concise, they aren't precise, they aren't consistent and they most certainly are not recognisable. The present titles, on the other hand, satisfy all those criteria.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Appears to be invented names, not used by actual practitioners. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, can you give any support to your: "Appears to be invented names". The description "Black Hereford cattle" seems to be used by widely used by a number authoritive groups who might otherwise use terms like "Black Hereford Bull" or "Black Hereford Cow". The qualifying word is frequently capitalized. Despite all this the average Wikipedia reader will gain from the additional information. Breed of what? Hybrid of what? Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either title is an "invented name". There are certainly few published sources for the UK term, but I think this is just because published material tends to concern pure-bred livestock. Here's one though in a sale catalogue, which makes it clear that the writer expects a farming readership to understand the term without explanation: http://www.meadowq.co.uk/Lib/Doc/non_MembersMarketReports/23%2009%2013%20Non%20Members%20Livestock%20Report.pdf. And isn't the breed name established by the existence of the breed society? Richard New Forest (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the proposals are problematic; to call one a "breed" and the other a "hybrid" - where "crossbred" is more accurate wording (these are not Beefalo) is a problem, to identify them by national origin is a problem (foundation animals are all UK breeds, are they not - or are we also discussing the Holstein crosses too??) But my further comments below. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The UK "black Hereford" is not a breed maintained from generation to generation, but is created afresh each generation from a cross of two other breeds, the Hereford and the Holstein (or the closely related Friesian). As Pigeon IP says, "hybrid" is not a term limited to inter-specific hybrids, but is widely understood as including a cross between two breeds. The title "black Hereford cattle (hybrid)" is therefore perfectly meaningful.

Conversely, as I understand it the American type known as "Black Hereford" has an established breed society (the American Black Hereford Association) and is maintained from generation to generation as a uniform beef type. It is therefore a breed, despite (like a large proportion of breeds) being of hybrid origin. Incidentally, both its parent breeds are beef breeds (Hereford and Angus), whereas the hybrid type is a cross of beef and dairy breeds.

The two types are different in origin and use, and the articles should certainly not be merged. If the term "hybrid" is considered confusing, then another term such as "cross" or "cross-breed" could be used, but otherwise I think the current situation with these two articles is a good one.

The proposed names are problematic. For a start, they're geographically inaccurate: "American" should either be "North American" or "US", and "British" should be "UK" or more probably "British Isles" (as the type is also widespread in Ireland). More importantly, the two types are not distinguished by the country they happen to be in, but by their origin and use. A Hereford-Holstein cross in North America (or indeed South America, India or China) would be within the scope of the Black Hereford (hybrid) article. Conversely, pedigree Black Herefords exported from the US to the UK (or India, or China) would remain within the scope of that article, just as Hereford (cattle) is not limited to animals in Herefordshire. Using geographical locations for disambiguation is therefore not appropriate.

There is certainly overlap between Black Hereford (breed) and a third article, Black Baldy, which covers a similar type which originates from the same two breeds but which is not formally maintained as a breed (I suspect in fact that the Black Hereford has simply been formalised from animals of Black Baldy origin). These two articles could be merged, but they could equally well remain as they are. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's my actual issue: These are basically designer crossbreds; in the USA, someone is trying to cash in by creating a breed registry almost 20 years ago, but there are just crossbreds - in the USA, the "black baldy" is sometimes called a "black white-face." I'd favor merging them, the fact that there are two articles is kind of content forking. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:22, 25 September 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.