Jump to content

Talk:Russian Black Pied/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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 57 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


– Consistency with Ennstal Mountain Pied cattle and Black Pied Dairy cattle, Siberian Black Pied pig, plus numerous similar names like Small Black pig, Maine-Anjou cattle, etc. The main problem with these names (other than total inconsistency) is that "pied" is a general animal coat pattern, so these article names beg the question "pied what?" every time they're used in Wikipedia unless the context is already 100% clear what species is meant. Note that 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, as in American Quarter Horse, Norwegian Forest Cat, Bernese Mountain Dog. The "(cattle)" parenthetical disambiguation in one case is contraindicated by WP:NATURAL, and inconsistent with almost all other cattle article names. Disambiguation is non-parenthetic, per 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Replaced hyphenated example because it was objected to as not quite applicable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
See previous, mass-move request at Talk:Alentejana cattle#Requested move, which concluded Ennstal Mountain Pied cattle was the correct name.
Reliable sources abound; a few examples:
  • Pogrebnyak, V. A. (1990). "The dynamics of inbreeding in Russian Black Pied cattle". Zootekhniya (4): 24–26. ISSN 0235-2478.
  • "Russian Black Pied cattle breed (organism)". SNOMED-CT. International Health Terminology Standards Development Organisation (IHTSDO). 2014. See also every other breed in this database, including versions of it hosted elsewhere.
  • Yudin, Nikolay S.; Nefedova, M. V.; Kobzev, V. F.; Romaschenko, A. G.; Voevoda, M. I. (February 2011). "Polymorphism of intron 2 of the SDF1 gene in Galloway, Hereford, and Russian Black Pied cattle". Russian Journal of Genetics. 47 (2): 247–250. doi:10.1134/S1022795411020207.
There are many, many, many of these, and not just for "Pied"-named breeds, but all of them in all species.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Gregkaye, I'm strongly opposed to parenthetical disambiguation in these cases; it's been on the decline in these articles for a long time (and other places where it's not needed), since WP:NATURAL policy tells us not to use it unless we have to, and we certainly don't have to here. I'm strongly in favor of "Breedname cattle" format, not "Breedname (cattle)", in any case like these where there's any potential for confusion. I think Dicklyon prefers to use them across-the-board, for consistency. Regardless, only a small minority of articles on breeds still use parenthetical disambiguation. I'm not sure I'm wild about it in cases like Adaptaur and Brangus (made up names that won't conflict with anything) or Cinta Senese and Wessex Saddleback (where the word combination is odd enough it's not likely to conflict, either, and doesn't raise major ambiguity issues). I'm not 100% opposed to using Adaptaur cattle, just maybe 75%. It is, of course, the natural-language way we all disambiguate breed names in real life anyway, but those ones don't seem to need it. The others I listed today sure do; Asturian Mountain is a terrible article title for an animal breed. PS: I'm not limiting this to cattle; Manx cat is preferable to 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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)
    • @BarrelProof: No, neither WP:NCFAUNA nor (more to the point, since it's where NCFAUNA's style rules come from) MOS:LIFE address the names of formal breeds of domestic animals. That's a discussion that'll be had some day, and I'm not sure how it'll go. The rationales for capitalizing them vs. common names of species aren't actually entirely the same. It won't be the same debate as 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) mainly if not exclusively concerns wild animals. Perhaps this needs amendment or the addition of related content. As has been mentioned perhaps this is a debate for another time but if anyone cared to comment, however briefly, I would find it interesting. SMcCandlish ☺, BarrelProof, Gregkaye ✍♪ 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. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: Justlettersandnumbers, and Montanabw claim that such moves are "controversial" and made an issue of it at WP:ANI, so RM is probably the best course of action, and for me it's the only one for now. See the utter mess of a mass RM filed by Justlettersandnumbers at Talk:Teeswater sheep; the least helpful thing now will be for anyone to engage in animal breed article moves outside of RM process, however obvious they look, because it will just add fuel to the WP:FILIBUSTER fire.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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. Gregkaye ✍♪ 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:
If consistency is what we are after, it would be just as consistent to propose, say, this:
and so on, in line with Russian Black Pied and German Red Pied (which have been stable at their present titles for several years), or indeed moves to Ennstal Mountain Pied (cattle), German Black Pied (cattle), German Red Pied (cattle), etc., as suggested by Gregkaye above, in line with where most of these articles, including Small Black (pig) and 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:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:NATURAL and WP:PRECISION policies support the moves I've proposed; Jlan cites no policy at all in support of their alternative preference, only irrelevant "who wanted what, how long ago" handwaves. The three of these cited WP:CRITERIA together certainly trump 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 Talk:Teeswater sheep discussion has nothing to do with this RM, which is about making four near-identical article titles consistent. If that mess of a mass RM went as Jlan proposed, it would simply be a status-quo-ante revert of some moves just for having been undiscussed, not settle any question of what their names should be, at which point they'll be re-listed at RM for new discussions on the actual 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 "Russian Black Pied (cattle)"-format names, because it conflicts with 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 Northern European short-tailed sheep was a poor example for the technical reason Jlan says it is, it can be replaced with any number of other ones, like 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 Small Black pig will move back to Small Black, etc., is highly unlikely. Names in the form Russian Black Pied could potentially be okay if the consensus were that these shorter names are actually recognizable and precise enough as-is; they just need to be consistent. A problem with this approach, as the nomination noted, is that "pied" can refer to any animal, so it's not a good bet that WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is satisfied; we'd be asking people to intuitively distinguish between a pied-coated animal of indeterminate sort, and a formal breed name, also of an animal of indeterminate sort to almost everyone, and to do so just on the basis of some capital letters, and for no reason, much less one that will help readers. Many breeds have no article yet, so it's unlikely that that all these breed names are unique to begin with, in which case natural disambiguation would result in the same titles being proposed here anyway. SNOMED lists at least 8 "Pied"-named pig breeds, and it may not be exhaustive (it's a medical not pedigree database).

WP:AT policy arguments strongly favor the existing names Jlan doesn't like at Jlan's confused and frequently self-contradictory mass move request at Talk:Teeswater sheep (upon which this one is not actually dependent at all). The extant names in that RM, which are not actually controversial, are the ones that match the proposal here. (There was a process controversy, resolved two months ago, but it's not about the content of the names.) I've already covered above why names like "Russian Black Pied (cattle)" aren't viable.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It's an order of magnitude more important to think about and choose article names that make sense for the encyclopedia and the majority of its readers, than to engage in 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

as for the Chistopolian High-flying pigeon (moved by SMC): the breeds name is 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 Maine-Anjou cattle, in the RM text here, in the interim; the principle still holds. A quick "Chistopolian High-flying" -Wikipedia Google search shows me plenty of sources that use the exact construction "Chistopolian High-flying pigeon", while many that use the fully capitalized "Chistopolian High-flying Pigeon" are doing so in headings, given in title case. This is thus inconclusive sourcing. Others use "Chistopolian High-Flying White Solid Pigeon", etc.; the name being "interruptible" with insertions like that is a strong case against "pigeon" being a formal part of the breed; it would be unusual and awkward to write "a Labrador Canadian-type Retriever", but rather something like "a Canadian-type Labrador Retriever" or "a Labrador Retriever (Canadian type)". If you think you can prove that the breed name always includes "Pigeon" at the end, by all means RM it to Chistopolian High-flying Pigeon, though obviously it should really be Chistopolian Highflyer, per WP:CONCISE. That all has nothing to do with the "Pied"-named breeds in this RM.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You raised the pigeon-issue, not me.
WP:AT says: The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. 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 WP:PRECISION. We know or can guess that Mother Theresa is a person but may be at a loss at the subject of these titles. WP:CRITERIA and consistency then applies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 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. WP:Article titles policy presents consistent rules; they are not optional on a wikiproject-by-wikiproject basis. The very reason we have that policy, and have elevated it to policy level, is to prevent precisely that kind of "I wanna make up my own rules" paradigm. See also WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, which rejects that behavior more categorically. You're mistaking the first-major-contributor rule of WP:CITEVAR (a guideline you ignore, BTW) and WP:ENGVAR (another guideline), for some kind of general principle. The idea that there is one is directly contradicted by WP:OWN policy and by the "mercilessly edited" provision of the 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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)
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.
Deciding on an article title points to five suggested criteria to be used, as much as possible, in conjunction with each other and with 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
for consistency

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

not to be distinguished or moved

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

There's no reason we'd support randomly using German Red Pied cattle in one case but Siberian Black Pied in another. Whether something was at some point "moved without discussion" is irrelevant; this is not a status quo ante revert discussion. It's a discussion on the merits of what the article names should be, not a WP:WIKILAWYERing contest about procedural nitpicks that are already over two months stale. Your Google searches in all these RMs tend to be insufficient evidence of what you think they show; they do not distinguish between use in running prose vs. headings and titles, they do not distinguish general vs. specialist contexts, etc., etc. So, these are kind of suspect, too. We don't care what the non-English names are, per WP:USEENGLISH, only what the names are in reliable English language sources, unless there are none. One source isn't sufficient to establish that some alternative name is the WP:COMMONNAME. Several other problems with your huge lists of nested bullets I have addressed on the other, similar RMs, and I won't repeat them here, except to again observe that your "name of the breed" poitns are off-point; no one is suggesting a move from Chinese black pied to Chinese Black Pied Cattle (note capital-C "Cattle"), which is what we'd use if the species name were part of the breed name formally, as in case like American Quarter Horse and Norwegian Forest Cat. Such cases are rare. Chinese Black Pied cattle is 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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).
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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"