Talk:Campine chicken

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Campine chicken article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Poultry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of Poultry task force, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PoultryWikipedia:WikiProject PoultryTemplate:WikiProject PoultryPoultry articles

Agriculture: Livestock Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Livestock task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Birds Low‑importance

Campine chicken is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Chickenbreed Infobox

A new infobox {{Infobox Chickenbreed}} has been created for chicken articles. If you see anywhere it needs improved please contact User:Stepshep. If it meets your criteria it is requested you add it to this article's page for standardization. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link added to "Hen feathering in cocks"

Link added to this closely related article. --Cacucho (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Campine (chicken). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701233204/https://www.rbst.org.uk/poultry-breeds-at-risk-2014.pdf to https://www.rbst.org.uk/poultry-breeds-at-risk-2014.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. 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) 21:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 September 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 13:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:NATURALDIS, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles in the category, and the rest of the breed articles (over 1,000). This move is picking off a couple of stragglers missing in previous RM; the rest of the categories are almost totally consistent now. See numerous previous moves, all closing in favor of natural vs. parenthetical disambiguation for all such cases: Talk:Aspromonte goat#Requested move 07 November 2014, Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014 (a large mass-RM), Talk:American Sable rabbit#Requested moves, Talk:Strasser pigeon#Requested moves, Talk:Corsican cattle#Requested moves, Talk:Flemish Giant rabbit#Requested moves, Talk:Dutch Landrace goat#Requested moves, and some individual ones, e.g. Talk:Bronze turkey#Requested move, Talk:West African Dwarf goat#Requested move, Talk:White Park cattle#Requested move, Talk:Australian Pit Game fowl#Requested move, etc. Also, the parenthetical style is primarily used for individual notable animals, e.g. Trigger (horse); its use for breeds is confusing (i.e., a type of disambiguation which introduces another ambiguity, and thus is a failure). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please do not get into disputation about whether the breed names themselves should be capitalized. That's the way the husbandry and livestock sources mostly do it and it's how it's done consistently here, just not capitalizing the species name added as natural disambiguation (except in the rare case it is actually part of the breed name, as is the case with American Quarter Horse and Norwegian Forest Cat). We're all aware that newspapers and such typically do not capitalize breed names. This is just a consistency cleanup RM, it is not an RfC about breed name capitalization. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related group-RMs:

Discussion

Support – These sure do look like nice natural titles. A quick check of one shows it is common enough in sources (though some cap "Dog", too, which we have no reason to do). Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's "Dog" only when the name would be intolerably ambiguously without it, e.g. "Norwegian Forest" without the "Cat" part is going to imply a Scandinavian woodland, and "American Quarter" without "Horse" is a US coin). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per detailed and well-researched nominations. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. We should avoid disambiguators in favour of natural titles whenever we can unless such a change would increase ambiguity, which isn't the case here---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:15, 3 October 2017 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Animal breed article names

Ugh, I hate how these decisions get made by only four people. I don't know anything about chickens, goats, or cattle, but most of these dog breeds aren't commonly known by these exact names. No one says, "I have a Dalmatian dog." They say, "I have a Dalmatian". (For starters: http://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/dalmatian/). Note that some of these pages have already been moved to different titles by User:Dinan Blueje. Zagalejo^^^ 20:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, in most cases these moves were out of order and the parenthetical option is preferable. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Zagalejo, Cavalryman V31, if this is your opinion – as it is mine – then please start a discussion for a wikiproject-wide consensus on this, either at WikiProject Agriculture or at WikiProject Poultry – or indeed at WikiProject Dogs. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Domestic animal breed page names. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

And that discussion closed with consensus against parenthetic disambiguation, on WikiProject Dogs's own turf. The fallacies here are three:

"these dog breeds aren't commonly known by these exact names" – they're much, much, much less commonly known by the exact names "Papillon (dog)", "Armant (dog)", etc. These are both forms of disambiguation (i.e., the actual "exact names" are just "Papillon" and "Armant") but the parenthetic form is a last resort. The natural form is preferred, because it's, well, natural. That is, it can be found with great frequency in everyday English. Just Google it, and you'll see.
'No one says, "I have a Dalmatian dog." They say, "I have a Dalmatian".' Obviously false. Yes, they often say "I have a Dalmatian", when they're talking to other dog people. Otherwise, they clarify that they mean a dog, either when asked "A Dalmatian what?" or, as here, when they can't presume the reader knows, and the reader can't ask. Don't believe me? Just Google it: [1][2]. These newspapers and books are not a figment of anyone's imagination. Interestingly, some of them are even dog-specialist publications, thereby exploding the myth that dog people never say/write something like "Dalmatian dog" with other dog people.
"these decisions get made by only four people" – No, they don't, because RMs do not happen in a magical vacuum. There's years of consistent precedent for natural disambigation of breed names.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree with most of this, but I’m not prepared to write a userspace essay to counter these arguments. I’ve acknowledged elsewhere that the Library of Congress uses the subject heading “Dalmatian dog”, so I know that the phrase exists. But LOC subject headings are often quaint and idiosyncratic (E.g., Great white shark is under “white shark”, which is bizarre.) Zagalejo^^^ 14:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

Well, a now-blocked user just moved a bunch of these (all of the above, I think) and I can't find where there was a consensus to go from natural disambiguation back to parenthetical disambiguation. I restored this particular article and may fix a couple others, but was there a discussion anywhere? This is a pretty longstanding consensus and has been discussed a couple times elsewhere in intervening years, so seems a one-man show. But... calling all previous participants? SMcCandlish, Cavalryman V31, Justlettersandnumbers, Zagalejo. Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that any of these pages were recently moved. Someone moved a bunch of them last fall. In any case, arguing about this stuff tends to turn into a part time job, so I don't plan to get involved any further. Zagalejo^^^ 23:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, recently discovered. Anyone have a problem if I move them back to natural disambiguation? Montanabw^(talk) 16:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this discussion gets linked elsewhere, I want to say this: I still think some of those dog article titles would look silly (especially “Brittany dog”). I just don’t have the endurance to put up a fight. Zagalejo^^^ 22:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the only thing sillier is if we had an article on an individual dog named Brittany! Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not convinced the average reader would interpret it that way. But let’s agree to disagree. Whatever happens will happen. Zagalejo^^^ 02:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a hill to die on. It’s mostly an issue where there are a lot of individual name articles, such as horse breeds, particular where an incividual, such as Furioso (horse), founded a breed, such as Furioso horse. In some cases we can avoid disambiguation drama with alt names Furioso-North Star, but not always. Montanabw^(talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really understand the logic behind these moves. When we have an obscure, or ambiguous, breed title for a dog, the logical disambiguation is to title the article “Breed (dog)”, not “Breed dog”. Right now we have Puli (2015 film) and Puli (car) but Puli dog. If the first two use logical disambig in brackets to specify that ‘Puli’ is a film or a type of car, then the third should use disambig in brackets to specify that it’s a breed of dog. Right now we have a fair few articles sensibly disambiguating using ‘(dog)’ in brackets, yet editors reverting to ‘... dog’, which makes little sense without ‘... film’ or ‘... car’. MapReader (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]