Jump to content

Talk:American Pekin/Archive 1

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

Untitled

  • Removed reference to this being the "only duck to use" in the Peking duck dish, I did combination searches of Pekin Duck and Peking Duck with north china, bred, history, originated - I couldn't find any support for it. See the Peking duck article, Preparation, second para for it's definition. Alf melmac 23:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Male Pekin's not quacking

I have a male Pekin drake at home who is able to quack. It is true that their quack's sound quite different. My experience is that drakes quack much more, but much softer than their female companions. (They are still quite audible, even from quite a distance, the difference is you'll hear the females from a few hundred metres away.) Tank 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The duck in the firts picture is NOT a Pekin!!remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.14.0 (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

funny maths

1000g => 1 Kg => 35.7 oz which is greater than 6 oz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nutritional Information

I removed the passage stating the nutritional information of Pekin duck meat because it was blatantly wrong and poorly written. Foods do not contain nutrition, they contain nutrients. Also, stating that duck meat does not contain fat or protein is ludicrous. If someone feels obliged to add the correct information, you can obtain it from http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/poultry-products/938/2, but please quote it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.73.18 (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

American?

Pekin Duck (European breed)
American Pekin Ducks

Pekin duck redirects here. The article uses that term systematically, and doesn't explicitly call it "American" anywhere; should it be moved to the more general title? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

no. This Article describes the breed "American Pekin Duck". There is a European (different) breed, the "German Pekin Duck", as well. see g-e-h.de, vieh-ev.de (German)--PigeonIP (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
A quick poke around suggests that the APD name is very rare, while the shorter "Pekin Duck" is widely used. It would seem clearer to leave this article at Pekin Duck and have a hatnote for the other article as and when it exists; the way things are, the article suggests the proper name is "American Pekin Duck", and this doesn't seem to be the case. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
In Europe it is: have a look at the Listing Breed and Colour in the EE Standard by the Section for Poultry of the European Association of Poultry-, Pigeon- and Rabbit breeders (the American isn't even recognised in GB, there Pekin Duck refers to the German or European Pekin Duck. And this WP-article describes the American Pekin breed, not the European or British one.
see also poultryclub.org --> Pekin (and have a look at the picture - that is not a duck as described on the front page)
so if the proper name of the APD is Pekin Duck, it is the proper name of the BPD/EPD/GPD as well. --PigeonIP (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

breed?

So is this a breed of domestic duck? This article has the scientific name as "Anas platyrhynchos domestica", while domestic duck article has it as "Anas platyrhynchos domesticus". That would mean different supspecies of platyrhynchos. Of the sources [2] & [3] which are claimed to have "domestica", first is a book which I do not have, and second gave "Page not found". And strangely, fi-wiki article of domestic duck has domestica, though there are no sources for that. 82.141.117.117 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Pekin

I have a pair of 1 year old Pekin ducks that I raised from day olds. They are land based and never swim in my pond. Do I have to teach them to swim as they were reared without parents on site? Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.180.153.242 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Phrasing

In 1873 twenty-five ducks were exported from China. Only nine survived the trip to Long Island, New York in the United States, while half were sent to the McGrath family in New York. But unfortunately, they didn't make the journey as they were eaten before they were finally at the McGraths' farm.'

What happened to the other 4 1/2 ducks? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Pekin duck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Read your sources!!

"Tryptophan is the chemical that causes the well-known drowsiness in humans who consume turkey meat.[3]"

Except the cited source explicitly says this is a myth. I've removed the paragraph. The cite was http://www.hsibaltimore<dot>com/ealerts/ea200211/ea20021127.html 64.132.221.211 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Had to change the link as it triggered the edit filter (while trying to restore a messed up archiving). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow

I don't know the procedure for this, because I've never participated in editing wikipedia articles, but this article is absolutely awful. Somebody please fix it. Particularly the "pets" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.110.229.140 (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC) no habitat, WHY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.21.106 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The whole article would benefit from an overhaul: it currently resembles a "how-to" guide for amateur pet owners. Hopefully, someone out there has knowledge of the subject and understands how, stylistically, Wikipedia articles should be written ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I would definately agree. I am working on it myself whenever I have time. EditSafe (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2017

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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: Page Moved to 'American Pekin Duck. EditSafe (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Pekin (duck) → Pekin Duck – Grammar (non-admin closure) NON-ADMIN CLOSURE EditSafe (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary title change. Pekin (duck) follows normal naming conventions. -- Dane talk 03:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @EditSafe and Dane: To many people "Pekin" by itself is an old name of Beijing in China, except when those people are already specifically talking about domestic ducks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I made this move late at night, and thought better of it during the night in view of the existing discussion here. I was planning to undo it it this morning, but now this has been started so I can't. We should have two articles, one on the American Pekin and one on the German Pekin, the European version of this duck. I suggest moving this page to American Pekin. An alternative would be to have them at Pekin (American duck breed) and Pekin (German duck breed), but it seems unnecessarily cumbersome. "Peking duck" is a culinary dish; whatever title is chosen should not resemble that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I support Justlettersandnumbers, "alternative" suggestion in the above section. But both ideas would work ok for me. I know a bit about the subject but my Wikipedia skills are sadly lacking. Wingman1 20:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingman1 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: I think that having two articles (one for the American Pekin and one for the German Pekin would be a good idea. Also, for the 'Pekin Duck' vs. 'Pekin (duck)', since pekin is a type of duck, and the dish is spelled differently (peking duck), naming the article as 'Pekin Duck' would make sense. We could also have the same 'For the chinese dish...' redirect at the top of the page so that people would not get confused. EditSafe (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your support of this suggestion (which really isn't mine, it comes from PigeonIP who knows 100 times more than I do about this stuff). I've therefore gone ahead and created German Pekin. In doing so, I've found a number of new sources, which can be accessed from that article. Based on them, I'm now sure that this page should be moved to American Pekin. I'll propose that below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, if that's not a good suggestion, per WP:TITLECHANGES, change back to "American Pekin duck". Seems that more improvement and research are needed before the title can be revisted. George Ho (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: American Pekin

Pekin (duck) → American Pekin

I moved this page to Pekin (duck) so that it would cover all kinds of Pekin Duck; that was a mistake, and I apologise for it – I was wrong, but also careless. I didn't pay enough attention to the section American? higher up this page, where PigeonIP clearly explains that the American and European Pekin breeds are different. Sources such as this and this make it quite clear that they are two separate breeds, with separate history and different genetic make-up. I've now created German Pekin for the European breed. It remains to move this page to American Pekin, and copy-edit accordingly. Ping Andrew Gray, who initiated that discussion in 2013. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.

Previous and current revisions

Edits done by mostly Justlettersandnumbers were changed to the version done by mostly by EditSafe. Recently, I recovered the sources to fix errors. Back to this, to those primarily contributing this article, can anyone here explain the edits and changes? I don't know which version is better, to be honest. --George Ho (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm in no doubt which version was better, George Ho! In response to the complaints in the sections Wow and Incorrect / Unsourced Information higher up this page, I added about ten new refs, removed some unreliable ones, removed irrelevant generic content that is not in any way specific to this breed and so on – well, you can see from the edit summaries what I did. The changes were reverted by EditSafe; I've still to understand why, and am still hoping for some explanation and/or discussion. I see that Diannaa has, quite correctly, removed some unreferenced stuff (thanks, Diannaa!). However, some of that content was only unreferenced because EditSafe had removed the references from it; why exactly was that, EditSafe?
If there's consensus here, I propose (1) reverting to this revision, (2) incorporating any subsequent helpful edits, and then (3) rewriting in places to make this specifically about the American Pekin breed, for which I would use a couple of the sources from German Pekin. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
So, no answer. Unless there's any reasonable objection voiced here in the interim, I plan to go ahead with that tomorrow morning. If anyone disagrees with that, please say so! Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Which I have not done, as EditSafe is editing the article. What about trying to reach agreement here before you do too much more, EditSafe? If you've time to edit the page you probably have time to discuss and/or explain your edits. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
What are you saying that you have not done Justlettersandnumbers? Also, check my edit summaries and discussion posts if you want to know my reasons for editing. EditSafe (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
If you read this section from the top down, EditSafe, you will discover what it is in your edits here that needs explanation (and is not in any way explained by your edit summaries); then, a little lower down, you will find my proposal for removing the unreliable sources and irrelevant content, restoring the referenced and relevant material, and then making the changes necessary to make this page specifically about the American Pekin. Since you did not trouble to comment in this thread, I was planning to make those changes without your input; however, you made edits to the article, so I held back in order for more discussion to take place here. Perhaps we could start with this:
  • What makes you think that www.metzerfarms.com is a reliable source?
  • What makes you think that www.duckhealth.com is a reliable source?
  • Why do you think that generic content about hatching duck eggs belongs in this article, which is about a specific breed? Do the sources you cite specify that this material applies only to the American Pekin?
  • Same question, but for chick sexing
  • Same question again, but for the WP:HOWTO content about raising ducklings – none of that stuff is about this particular duck; it might have some relevance at Domestic duck, but it has none here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
For the content about hatching eggs and chick sexing, this content I consider to be good because it gives information about the duck and how it is used. I am okay with the 'How to' content being removed - and have removed a lot of it myself - as long as none of the information that is important about the bird is removed. Some of this information may not be applicable only for the American Pekin, but it applies to this breed. As for metzerfarms and duckhealth, these sources do research about ducks and have a database with information about the American Pekin Duck. EditSafe (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@EditSafe and Justlettersandnumbers: Have you considered going to WP:RSN yet? They can evaluate the sources and determine their reliabilities. George Ho (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
So, several weeks have passed, and EditSafe has not troubled to reply to my questions above. Discussion should be the way forward here, but for that to work editors have to actually be prepared to discuss. Meanwhile the article just gets worse and worse.
Once again, I propose (1) reverting to this revision, (2) incorporating any subsequent helpful edits, and then (3) rewriting where necessary to make this specifically about the American Pekin breed, for which I would use a couple of useful (and reliable!) sources from German Pekin. Ping PigeonIP and GeorgeHo, the only people other than EditSafe who seem to have taken any interest in the actual content of the page (if I missed someone, please remedy my oversight). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, that should have read George Ho. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers:: I think this article is overdue to be rewritten based on reliable sources. Please note that it is even questionable that the ducks shipped to New York really were of the same breed as the ducks shiped directly to Europe. It is also not known if these Pekin ducks realy are breeds/ducks from Beijing (like the Hamburghs, that are not breeds from Hamburgh, but shiped to Great Britain via Hamburgh harbour). It is commonly believed that they were, but it is not a known fact. (but it is a fact the Hamburghs genetically may be two breeds ;) The only known thing is that both were (upright) white chinese ducks, both shiped in the same year from a harbour of Beijing. (I did not know about the shi-chin-ya-tze before. The authors I read were just hesitant to say that both were of the same breed/origin. --PigeonIP (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC))
I noted that you used GEH and VIEH-pages for the article about the German Pekin (the PCGB simply refers to it as "Pekin" as the American Association does to the American Pekin). If you want to use articles from "the" German expert for duck breeds use Amerikanische Pekingente and Deutsche Pekingente. The other authors do refer to P.-E. Oswald and his work.
@George Ho: You asked: which version is better? It is this on. The other one has terrible mistakes! --PigeonIP (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@EditSafe: Comments? George Ho (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Yes. I think that the article could definitely use a rewriting, although the last time it was rewritten (by Justlettersandnumbers) a lot of good and sourced content was removed, and the article was completely changed, making it about both the American and German breeds. If this time the article is rewritten with the good information about the american pekin being kept, that would be good. EditSafe (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
EditSafe, I asked you higher up this page to specify what "important information" was lost when I cleaned up the page before, but you didn't answer. So let me ask you again: what good sourced content did I remove? I'm curious, because what I thought I was removing was (as I said higher up): "a mass irrelevant or generic content, much of it either unreferenced or referenced to sources that do not meet our definition of a reliable source, such as www.metzerfarms.com". Since I'm repeating myself so much, I might as well repeat that I did that in response to a specific request here, on this page, from three editors – of which you were one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers Here is some of the good content that you removed:

"The Pekin duck is the most popular commercial duck breed in the United States,[1] after a small number were imported to Long Island from China in 1873 by James Palmer of Stonington, Connecticut.[2]"

"Pekin ducks bear a superficial resemblance to a British duck breed, the Aylesbury. Pekins can be distinguished from Aylesbury Ducks by their larger overall size, bright orange-yellow beaks and more upright posture."

"Pekin hatchlings have bright yellow plumage with an orange bill, shanks, and feet."

You changed the article from a multiple paragraph article to one that is just a few sentances long. EditSafe (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, EditSafe. I think you can read the following essays, which can help you collect your thoughts: Wikipedia:Truth, Wikipedia:Truth matters, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I'm unsure whether you want to read a humorous piece, Wikipedia:Truth is irrelevant. Also, you can read the policy, WP:V. --George Ho (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
George Ho You just posted opinion essays about not using your opinion, what is your point with those? EditSafe (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Well... sorry if I wasn't clear earlier. I will rephrase: I think I will abide to Justlettersandnumbers's revision. Even when the his/her version is small, the version is very cleaner and well verified. All of the sources are reliable. This version suffers from issues, even when there may be... "truth" about the ducks. I don't know whether you want the article to be truthful. However, in the case of this article, quality is more important than... trying to tell the facts about the ducks. Can you, EditSafe, let me change the article back to Justlettersandnumbers's version, please, so we can move on? George Ho (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC); un-struck. 11:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: The version by Justlettersandnumbers is not much better quality than the current one. It talks mainly about Chinese duck breeders, and says very little about the American Pekin Duck. Unless you are talking about a different version than [[1]] I think that reverting to the previous version rather than editing the current one would be a bad mistake. EditSafe (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... I may not know much about the ducks, and I may be uncertain whether either version is correct or clean or whatever. However, I hope the discussion is still productive. If it becomes unproductive, then I think one of dispute resolution methods, like a WP:DRN, would resolve content disputes. George Ho (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

EditSafe has listed three items of "good sourced content" that I am supposed to have removed from the article when I rewrote it. The first of those was not removed but expanded and rewritten for encyclopaedic tone, with new sources, to read "In 1872, at the request of a businessman named McGrath, fifteen white ducks hatched in Peking were loaded at Shanghai by James E. Palmer, of Stonington, Connecticut, for shipment to the United States. Nine birds – six ducks and three drakes – survived the voyage, which took 124 days and reached New York City in March 1873. ... It was soon in widespread use for production of birds for slaughter." The other two are without any reference at all, and are clearly marked "citation needed". Did I remove any other valid content? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Poultry Breeds - Pekin Duck". Department of Animal Science - Oklahoma State University. Oklahoma State University. Archived from the original on May 27, 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "Pekin Ducks". The Pet Stock Pigeon and Poultry Bulletin. 10 (11). New York: 1. Feb 1880.
@Justlettersandnumbers: Here is one of Wikipedia's guidelines: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. ..." You have in your previous edits removed a lot of content that with some editing can be brought up to Wikipedia's standards. I agree that this article needs a lot of work, but just deleting 4/5 of it does not improve it. EditSafe (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. About four-fifths of it (maybe a little less) needs to be removed immediately. That includes the non-reliable sources, all the material about hatching and so on that is generic to all ducks and not just this breed, and the remaining unreferenced stuff. On that topic, please read this part of our policy on verifiability:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. However, while verifiability is required for including something, it is not a reason for inclusion. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

Please excuse the long quotation, but it's important for you to understand how a Wikipedia article is supposed to be written. Unfortunately, the present version of this page is a long way from that ideal. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
After reverts by EditSafe, now I must support Justlettersandnumbers's version. George Ho (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: @George Ho: Seeing as this discussion has been going on for a while, and consensus has not been reached, I have submitted this discussion to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am not sure how good it is as I have never used it before, but hopefully this will help us reach consensus. You can find the submission here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:American_Pekin_Duck#Previous_and_current_revisions EditSafe (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The DRN case is closed as suggesting to turn back to this talk page. Should we do the RfC right away? Pinging Justlettersandnumbers, EditSafe, PigeonIP. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Yes. Just going back to the same discussion is not going to work out any better this time. EditSafe (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested Move

I've (obviously) performed the requested move, which is better but maybe not best. We have German Pekin and American Pekin Duck...do we have consensus on changing the format of one or the other?  Frank  |  talk  01:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say move 'German Pekin' to 'German Pekin Duck'. This way it is more obvious that this is talking about the animal. EditSafe (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Frank: If with "duck" than "German Pekin duck" and "American Pekin duck" – "Duck" is not part of the name of the breed, while the capitalisation of "Duck" implies that it is. German Pekin and American Pekin are perfectly good as well. All variations of "* Pekin Duck" are not. --PigeonIP (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

How about American Pekin (duck) and German Pekin (duck)?  Frank  |  talk  21:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be the fastet way to get a non-bracket-name. There are authors who are moving all ***(duck), ***(sheep), ***(chicken) - breed-articles. even if it makes no sense and there is no source for it. --PigeonIP (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean by a "non-bracket-name"?  Frank  |  talk  21:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry i meant "article-titels without parentheses" because of WP:NATURAL. Please, have a look at Category:Duck breeds. Once there were some articles with "duck" in parentheses. --PigeonIP (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess in retrospect I prefer American Pekin duck and German Pekin duck.  Frank  |  talk  22:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, I really wanted to keep out of this discussion because it's been such a monumental timesink in the past. But for what it's worth: there isn't, and there never was, any real consensus for titles like "German Pekin duck"; we have a lot of them because of the efforts of just one editor a couple of years ago. There is, of course, nothing remotely natural about having a title that has two words capitalised and one lowercase (New York city?, Chase Manhattan bank?, Pacific Coast highway?). In this case, we don't need to disambiguate with either "duck" or "(duck)", because we only have one American Pekin article so there's nothing to disambiguate from – that is also why I created German Pekin at that title. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I could support (and implement) American Pekin and German Pekin...any takers?  Frank  |  talk  22:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's what I'd suggest, certainly – it was my Alternative proposal in the move discussion. Let's see if anyone agrees … Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
You know I do. i just fear, the next random visitor moving it/them because of "consistency" with the other articles in the duck-breeds-category. (or worse: to "clarify" that it is about ducks, moves them back to "Ducks".) sorry I lost faith in that case, because of that one persistent editor consuming so much time we could have used much better writing articles and creating real content...
Anything is better than American Pekin Duck. American Pekin duck/German Pekin duck would be better, American Pekin/German Pekin the best solution to the "problem". --PigeonIP (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It is done.  Frank  |  talk  01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

And then it is undone, despite the consensus here, by EditSafe. That doesn't seem to be anything like collaborative editing, EditSafe, more like someone trying to enforce their personal preference even if it is against consensus. Frank, I'm sorry to bother you yet again, but could I ask you to do whatever you think necessary here? Might that perhaps include undoing the improper close of the RM above, and re-closing it in accordance with your reading of this? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: There was no consensus here. See the other discussions and edit history. EditSafe (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2017

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: Page moved. Overwhelming consensus for the proposed title. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 17:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


American Pekin Duck → American Pekin – Consistent or inconsistent is not the main matter. What matters is what the consensus said at another discussion. Somehow, the name was reverted back to the present title, i.e. one with "Duck". If the consensus says scrap out "Duck", let's do that then. George Ho (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I note that EditSafe has now been given a very mild warning regarding move warring, see User talk:EditSafe#German Pekin (or this diff if they've again blanked their talk page), and that an uninvolved administrator has restored the German Pekin page to that title. Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2017 (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.

RfC Previous and Current Revisions

Unanimous consensus is to return to JLAN's version.Winged Blades Godric 09:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article went undergoing changes done by Justlettersandnumbers. Somehow, the changes were reverted by EditSafe, leading to endless discussions about how to present the article subject, American Pekin. (See #Previous and current revisions and DRN case for more) As a stopgap, should the article revert back to Justlettersandnumbers's version or retain the current version done by other editors? Either version would be fine, though the article may be improved based on whichever version is preferred. --George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The below comment is too rushed and brief. Wrote the above comment for better understanding. --George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Recently tweaked by EditSafe. George Ho (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Should we edit the current version of the page or rewrite the page from scratch? 18:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs)

Opinions

  • Edit Current Version. Editing the current version would be better than starting over. EditSafe (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Change back to Justlettersandnumbers's version - Much cleaner and a better stopgap than the current version. Has better sources. Information may be slim, but it's better presented. --George Ho (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This RFC was confusing, so I'll summarize what I found for the benefit of other people arriving here. The older version is too short, and needs to be built up. There are concerns with sourcing and content in the current longer version, which would need to be trimmed down, in conjunction with new or modified content. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard process was started nearly a month ago, with no meaningful point, and this RFC will take another month. Those two months would_have been/would_be better spent making and discussing edits. The entire RFC appears to be purely procedural - should this be discussed on the basis of "what should be removed" or "what should be re-added". If that is absolutely necessary, I'll say go back to the shorter Justlettersandnumbers's version. There appear to be reasonable concerns with some of the sourcing and content in the longer version. For what it's worth, I suggest that EditSafe withdraw the RFC, and start focusing on which of the content from the longer version should be copied or modified into the shorter version. Leaving the article stalled for a month doesn't help. Alsee (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I like and endorse your edit summary Justlettersandnumbers's version. Suggest withdrawing the RFC an getting back to work now. I suggest that either we confirm that we're talking about this version just to be sure (it is mentioned in the RfC above), and we take a poll on that and then close the RfC, or we just go back to discussing content issues one by one and base our edits on the current version. Andrewa (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support going back before fixing the new version. Fixing tends to be more pernicious than doing it right. I guess we can afford to wait for a more adequate version than the original. JonRichfield (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've not commented here, partly because this is the third round of discussion of the same topic, partly because my opinion is probably pretty obvious. However, I might as well make clear that I do support returning to my earlier version, however imperfect it may be, as a starting-point for improving the page (which I am ready and waiting to do once this is settled). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

EditSafe, the OP you made was less clear and too brief. May I or Justlettersandnumbers please help you rewrite it? Also, why archiving the threads? Previous version and Current version. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: The above comment (in this original diff)was restored by me, after I deleted it while trying to restore the premature archiving --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you again, Lemongirl. What about Talk:American Pekin/Archive 1? Should it be speedily deleted? George Ho (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This RfC seems completely pointless to me. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

See #Previous and current revisions, Andrew. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
But what is proposed here? If it were proposed to revert to a specific previous version, that would be a valid RfC, yes. But this is not, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
....May I remove the RFC tag then? I'll do the fresher RFC soon if the tag is removed. George Ho (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be better to just ignore it for the moment, and discuss specific content issues as needed. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay George Ho, you can rewrite it if you want. I just wrote it quickly and not very carefully. I am archiving old discussions that have not been edited in a while because this talk page is getting too clogged to be easily navigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs)

Andrewa The RfC is here so that other non-involved editors can supply their opinions on whether keeping and editing the current version of the article or starting over is better. EditSafe (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't archive yet. The talk page is not yet big for archiving. George Ho (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC); 03:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Added my description to push down OP by EditSafe. George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
That seems at odds with everyone else, who see it as a choice between this version and the current version (the latter variously interpretted!). Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

EditSafe, seems that three of us favor the previous version. May you please let me revert back? Also, may you consider changing your vote please? Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Make that four, George Ho – I've added my support above. Procedurally, it might be advisable to ask at WP:AN for an independent admin to close this muddled RfC. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I will not change my vote because I still believe that editing the current version is best, however if the administrators think that there is enough consensus they may of course close the discussion. EditSafe (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Premature archiving

Note, the talk page was prematurely and messily archived by EditSafe. I have reverted it and restored the content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As George Ho has observed, it would be good to delete this version of Talk:American Pekin/Archive 1. An archive bot can be setup if required later. But right now, archiving is not really required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

See also this discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the archive for now. I agree automated archiving will be more helpful, if archiving is required at all at this point. Huon (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Back to previous version

EditSafe, now that the article is reverted back to User:Justlettersandnumbers' version, would you please comply to the results and then not make one edit to the article? --George Ho (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean... we went through a couple months debating on which version to use, so I hope you accept this version for now. We don't want to drag ourselves into similar situations again and again, like reverting back and re-reverting back. Justlettersandnumbers and some others will take care of it. BTW, there is no need to have the archive bot at the moment. May I remove it please? --George Ho (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Who has decided that there is consensus on this issue? EditSafe (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree, contact the one who performed the closure. Again, I don't think it'll change the closer's mind. You're not gonna do another RfC again, are you? --George Ho (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to remove the archive bot EditSafe (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that the bot performed the task, you're right. --George Ho (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The GOCE request was already performed, EditSafe. Then the other editor expands the version of the article. May you refrain from editing the article please? George Ho (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: You have no more right to edit this article than I do. See WP:OWN. EditSafe (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the tone. Still... I'm a little concerned. George Ho (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... are you sure that the source is reliable? George Ho (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Characteristics

The characteristics section mentions a little bit about how the ducks look, but does not mention anything about other characteristics such as sounds made, swimming, etc. I think that we should work on adding more to it. What do you guys think? EditSafe (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Which aspects of the sounds or behaviour of the American Pekin are sufficiently different from those of other domestic duck breeds to deserve mention here, and what sources discuss them? Generic content about domestic ducks in general belongs in our page on the Domestic duck, not here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Which info is unchallenging enough to be included? The essay Wikipedia:When to cite can explain that. What about the eggs? --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

More sections

I think that we need more sections, for example sections or sub-sections that talk about the different life stages of the american pekin such as the duckling phase, growing phase, and adult phase. What do you guys think of this? EditSafe (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Which aspects of the "life stages" of the American Pekin are sufficiently different from those of other domestic duck breeds to deserve mention here, and what sources discuss them? Certainly the rapid growth rate is one, but that is already covered. Generic content about domestic ducks in general belongs in our page on the Domestic duck, not here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@EditSafe: please read articles that are dedicated to the (American) Pekin and to the Pekin alone. Than have a look at the article in WP, Than compare the informations both texts provide. Is there really something missing that is special to the Pekin?
At the moment I am under the impression, that you are under some presure to add anything. And if it is "Pekin ducks like pink water" you'd go and grap any source to proove it (even if that article says "dogs like pink water, like any other animal" - btw. this was a ref about turkeys).
I like your love to the Pekin, but please learn to differ what is about the breed of American Pekin and what is more general information about ducks or husbandry or anything else. --PigeonIP (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Layout of images

Hey again, Justlettersandnumbers. In the desktop view, the images are below the infobox when aligned to the right. They are also at the right side of the References section if viewed in the "220px" standard; at "400px", the images push a lot of space between the "References" header and the list of references. Well, I'm using a widescreen monitor. However, I didn't think about mobile readers when I changed the layout of the images, which was reverted. I guess the images belong to their own positions for mobile readers. However, on desktop, the images appear but not on their intended positions. If moving the images to Gallery section is not the best way, why not aligning the images to the left for desktop and mobile readers? --George Ho (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, George Ho! I can't reproduce every kind of screen, so my experience may be different from yours. I read on a laptop, and images on the left tend to squeeze the text into a thin line of toothpaste down the middle of the page. At the moment the images display correctly on my 13" screen and correctly on my telephone (except that, as with all portrait-format infobox images, only a strip across the centre is displayed). The gallery tag reduces the thumbnail size below the limit of usefulness and I try to avoid it where possible. Does adding a {{-}} after the body text help the display for you? An alternative would be to remove the duckling image – it doesn't really add much. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Well... I tested the clearing thing out in the my sandbox, and I will be fine with the clearing (though I am not thrilled much about it). Alternatively, feel free to remove the duckling image if you want, especially per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. However, I'm unsure whether others would agree with the removal. Off-topic, but the "External links" or "Sister projects" heading should be added between the list of references and the link to Wikimedia Commons for easier navigation, shouldn't it? --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Pekin/Archive_1&oldid=1092012455"