Jump to content

Talk:Speckle Park

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

Title of article

[edit]

This article is currently called Canadian Speckle Park. However, as far as I can see the name of the breed is actually just "Speckle Park". For example, that is the name used throughout the web pages of the Canadian Speckle Park Association itself, as well as by breeders in Canada and other parts of the world. Most (though not quite all) of Google hits on the phrase "Canadian Speckle Park" are for the Canadian Speckle Park Association, not for the breed as such. The phrase "Speckle Park" on its own has very many more hits.

I suggest that the article is renamed Speckle Park. Any thoughts? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

[edit]
The following is a closed 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. There does appear to be consensus that "Canadian" should be removed from the title, but not on whether "cattle" should be added. Number 57 12:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– Drop "Canadian" per WP:COMMONNAME because the breed itself is not normally referred to with the "Canadian" prefix (see previous discussion on this talk page); rather, the national breed association is named the Canadian Speckle Park Association, and most "Canadian Speckle Park" hits are for the organization not the breed. Add "cattle" because "Speckle Park" is hopelessly naturally ambiguous and will be interpreted by almost all readers as a place. Will be consistent with White Park cattle. See recently concluded requested moves of the same sort of Australian Pit Game -> Australian Pit Game fowl, and West African Dwarf -> West African Dwarf goat, and many other similar cases, e.g. Asturian Valley cattle, San Clemente Island goat, Black Pied Dairy cattle, Australian Game fowl, Plymouth Rock chicken, Continental Giant rabbit, Gulf Coast Native sheep, Nigerian Dwarf goat, Australian Draught horse. 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. (I'm going on the assumption that we want to capitalize breed names at all, as we're mostly presently doing. If some object to this, 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≼  12:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hat-tip to Richard New Forest for catching the "Canadian" problem.
See also Talk:Asturian Mountain#Requested move.
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≼  00:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revised: Sourcing below indicates that White Park cattle is a viable, shorter name for American White Park, which seems to be a Canadianism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, but prefer the much more common White Park cattle. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It should surely be just Speckle Park. As far as I can see there is nothing else called "speckle park" with which it could be confused, and so no disambiguating epithet is needed. I doubt if many will think "Speckle Park" is a place anyway, because they will generally have found the term in context – and if they are interested enough to come to this article, it'll very soon be obvious what it is. (Arguably most of those other examples don't need the species either, or only to disambiguate from Gulf Coast, Plymouth Rock, San Clemente Island etc, in which case they really ought to be in the form "Plymouth Rock (chicken)".)
If WP had to disambiguate from all possible alternative uses of terms instead of only actual ones, almost every title would be a long description! Is this not covered quite clearly though by WP:PRECISE, which states that article titles should be "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". Richard New Forest (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: SMC, you do well know the reactions to your unreflected moves. Take Talk:Teeswater_sheep#Requested_move_25_August_2014 as a reminder. The Names of the Breeds are well citated from different breeding associations and some national governmental organisations, that are repoting to the FAO, who is using this names as well.
The "many similar cases" moved by you without reliable references are now used to make a point, your point?
Btw the FAO cites the White Park as American White Park in Canada, and White Park in the US--PigeonIP (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PigeonIP, I am getting tired of seeing your cut and paste slurs regarding supposedly "unreflected moves". As far as I can work out your reflected objections fail to look past any deeply specialist knowledge that you may personally have. Please look beyond and give consideration to the generalist reader of this encyclopedia. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
reply as stated below --PigeonIP (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A book or n-gram search will show you that "American White Park" is quite a rare term, while "White Park cattle" is not. Of course "White Park" alone hits these and many more uses; it's too ambiguous. Dicklyon (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have checked. White Park cattle would be preferable, per WP:CONCISE. Didn't realize "American White Park cattle" was a Canadianism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some points:
  • As already mentioned by PigeonIP, there is a mass move request regarding animal breed articles, the outcome of which could affect any decision here, at Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, as the nominator well knows, since it involves the reversal of some hundreds of undiscussed page moves made by him
  • Nigerian Dwarf goat, cited above as an example for consistency, was moved without discussion to its present title by the nominator, and will be reverted if that move proceeds
  • White Park cattle, which Dicklyon seems concerned about, was moved without discussion to its present title by the nominator, and may well be reverted if that move proceeds
  • Black Pied Dairy cattle, cited above as an example for consistency, has been moved six times in just over three years
  • The nominator has decided, without reference to relevant WikiProjects or other interested editors, how he wants domestic animal breed articles to be named, and is apparently on a one-man crusade to impose that decision on the community; an attempt to gain support for it here was not successful
So: Support the alternative proposal of Richard New Forest to move:
Canadian Speckle Park → Speckle Park
and Oppose any move of American White Park which is already at a clear and unambiguous title found in reliable sources (e.g., this), and should be left alone; if it ain't broke ...
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers For crying out loud. Your link to "this" connects to: "... a communication and information tool for implementing strategies for the management of animal genetic resources. That's hardly a source material for general consumption while "THIS" is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is purposed for the consumption of a general reader. Some of us may well come with assumptions of many things, for example the definition of "Park". There is a clear breakdown in description. Don't disrupt efforts to clarify. Please don't cherry pick selective references. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See your talk page about these repeated personal attacks like "apparently on a one-man crusade". I'm curious why you are so adamant that that community be dissuaded from examining and discussing animal breed article names. RM is a community process. Your copy-pasted attempts, at every single one of these RMs, to confuse people into thinking that the RMs are invalid because they don't comport with what you want to see happen at a status quo ante revert discussion that has nothing to do with the merits of the article titles, is basically a form of canvassing. You keep also pointing to moves from months ago that have been stable and uncontroversial as some kind of evidence of some rationale against the current move proposals, but they're not. The Nigerian Dwarf goat one you're going on about, for example, is already a settled matter because of the West African Dwarf -> West African Dwarf goat RM; it's only being listed here procedurally, but could have been speedied at any time by anyone. The White Park cattle one, you're misunderstanding Dicklyon's post; he's not arguing for your preferred naming pattern at all. How frequently something was moved before has nothing to do with what it's name should be, only with how much people are willing to editwar on an particular page. And so on. I doubt I'm alone in detecting an "oppose just because SMcCandlish is involved" pattern here. Actually, I'll rephrase that; I know I'm not alone because others have already said so in some of these moves debates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose unneeded disambiguation: this is the third one of these RM's filed by SMC that I have found today, on top of at least three or four others elsewhere, including Teeswater sheep. This IS in fact a single editor on a one-person crusade to change articles across multiple projects without consensus or discussion, other than to lamblast anyone who expresses disagreement and accuse them of everything but peeing in the kitchen sink. Enough already. Montanabw(talk) 23:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than three. Others include:
of which the last two are not about disambiguation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Missed a couple:
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, The option of Speckle Park is utterly ridiculous and IN NO WAY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF WP:PRECISE. Persistent objections of this kind are getting perilously close to the point of disruptive editing. In the guidelines we are given the clear example of Mother Theresa - a title that clearly relates to a human person with a positional name. Here we are offered the word "Park". LOOK IT UP: wikt:park! Please, let's call a spade a spade and cattle, cattle. Strongly supported but not signed 'til much later. DOH! Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Park is also the most common korean last name.
You know, if someone is speaking to me about "football", I do understand the game where the ball (not an egg) is kicked around with feet (not hands).
WP:PRECISE: precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article [...] Exceptions to the precision criterion [...] are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects
WP:NATURAL: someone familiar with domestic animals knows, that "white Park" is cattle and would naturally use that name to link to the article.
"White Park cattle" is ambiguous. It refers the breeds: White Park (Oklahoma State University) and American White Park (Oklhoma State University) and even the British White. That is why
White Park cattle → White Park
White Park cattle itself may be a disambiguation. --PigeonIP (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Montanabw: Does that type of ill-founded reasoning ever work? What we don't need on Wikipedia is a bunch of article titles that make sense only to someone that either is a specialist in a certain field or is familiar with a subject. I will give an example that would be clear to a blind man but I have determined someone can lawyer in some justification regardless of common sense. Try Giant Runt on for size. The first observation is that both first letters are capitalized. We can infer this is not about a runt of giant size so that leaves creative imagination or assumption that this is some person with a totally weird name. In not one instance would a person that had never heard of this name be able to do more than take 100 guesses as to what it is referencing. I would be willing to give the first ten guesses for free. Logic, as well as common sense, dictates that any prudent person would not want to tantalize to the point of being so vague as to have senseless article names on Wikipedia, yet here we are. Always assuming good faith I try to envision that those that would argue for just "Giant Runt", and countless others like this, would be simply mistaken or naive and not deliberately deceiving others. I have backed up, drew a mental circle with the choices of adding natural disambiguation v simple naming, and looked with an open mind. It escapes me why we would want to be so vague to the point of laughable. The other suggestions are to be vague and then use parenthetical disambiguation which makes even less sense. If it is a pigeon why name it a very vague "Giant Runt". If I told someone "I bought a Giant Runt today" the next sentence would have a 99.9% probability of being, "what is that?". I guess there are editors that just like to hear those words. It was quoted above concerning Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation which states that article titles should be "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that" and I am wondering how a hint of precise can be realized from titles like "Giant Runt"? Of course! I think we could call it an "American Giant Runt" as that would clarify things. We can now take a persons name out of the equation and can define whatever this "Giant Runt" is as an American something or another. That certainly clears things up right?
The definition of "scope" would be the extent of the area or subject matter that something deals with or to which it is relevant.. " This is clear and simple no matter how fast or slow it is read. Disambiguate "if needed" (which would exclude "Gray parrot parrot") enough to identify the subject matter. That would even be a good addition to WP:Article titles.
If we are going to even attempt to "try" to abide by "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope" it is beyond comprehension (like light years) to argue for anything other than simple and precise natural disambiguation. If something doesn't need disambiguation then it simply doesn't need it. Some editors blow my mind. A park named "Speckle Park" absolutely 100% needs no disambiguation so why in the world would anyone want to rename it as Speckle Park cattle. A mountain named "Asturian Mountain" would be a stupid name as "Asturian Mountain cattle" because then the "subject matter" would be cattle and not the mountain. I could go on but explaining something that actually needs no explaining is so circular. You editors do know there are books for sale, based on Wikipedia articles (that sell for money that makes the world go round), and that would be a more logical reason to argue against any change? Just saying- if I was making money calling cattle a mountain I would not want to change either. Otr500 (talk) 05:13, 9 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Speckle_Park&oldid=1195408851"