Talk:American Sable rabbit

Requested moves

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: general consensus to move the pages, per the discussion below; the possibility of confusion is apparent from the discussion, and the new titles are significantly less ambiguous. Dekimasuよ! 17:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

---

• American Sable → American Sable rabbit
• Silver Marten → Silver Marten rabbit
• Belgian Fawn → Belgian Fawn goat

– Original names are too naturally ambiguous and will be interpreted by many readers as species of completely different genera. See recently concluded requested moves of the same sort: Australian Pit Game -> Australian Pit Game fowl, and West African Dwarf -> West African Dwarf goat, and many other similar cases of natural ambiguity, e.g. White Park 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", "rabbit", etc.) 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. 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. 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:44, 15 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support not about sables, martens, or fawns -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• 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. And again, there is a difference between a Flamish Giant rabbit (as in any Giant rabbit of Flamish origin or any Flamish rabbit of a Giant breed) and a Flamish Giant, that is the name of the breed.

By the way, what is the benefit of doing some RMs through out multiple different talk pages[1], rather than in one special place, where they all belong to, like the WikiProject Agriculture?

The "many similar cases" moved by you without reliable references are now used to make a point, your point? --PigeonIP (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• You're not presenting an argument that is relevant in any way to this RM, just a fallacy ad hominem and other distractions.

Same response here as at your other copy-pasted comments of this sort at Talk:Anglo-Nubian & the other RMs...

You're also confusing a status quo ante discussion at Talk:Teeswater sheep (a discussion about whether to revert undiscussed moves in the interim before discussing the merits of the moves) with a discussion of the merits of the moves; they're unrelated. You're also evidencing serious difficulty with English spelling and capitalization, and getting proper names correct; I don't mean that in a snide way, it's just a matter of WP:COMPETENCE, as this is a nuanced discussion about spelling, proper naming, and capitalization in particular. And finally, you're sorely confusing, well, everything, as you did in earlier discussions. Flemish Giant is the breed name. No one contests this. For reasons already covered at a previous near-identical RM, this name doesn't work here, and needs to be Flemish Giant rabbit for disambiguation and recognizability reasons. That does not at all imply any of the confused ideas you suggested, which would be implied by Flemish giant rabbit. Next, your concern that the breed name itself is being misrepresented isn't correct either, which would be the case with Flemish Giant Rabbit. Oh, the case you didn't mention here but did in all the other discussions: No, it shouldn't be Flemish Giant (rabbit), per WP:NATURAL policy. RMs are usually discussed on article talk pages; wikiprojects, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, are simply editors agreeing to collaborate, nothing more. They do not have special WP:OWN authority over articles they claim within their scope. WP:RM itself lists, in a centralized location, all ongoing requested moves. There is no reason to host them on a wikiproject page; doing so would be highly irregular, and to many it would look like an attempt to actively canvass the project's editors to gang-vote.

Your continued personal aspersion casting, I will address that on your talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• @PigeonIP: I have seen your unreflected moves comment repeated a few times and am beginning to take exception on the basis of WP:CIVIL. There needs to be a standard of etiquette here and if I were you I would withdraw or strike the comments. Debate the point at hand and reason through your arguments.

I would assume American Sable as a brush, Silver Marten as a bird and Belgian Fawn as a colour of chocolate as most likely meanings. Please don't sabotage efforts at clarification. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A do recommend to read WP:NC. If American Sable, would be a brush and would have to be to distinguished from a rabbit, it would be American Sable (brush). Everything else has to be written down in the article. --PigeonIP (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The primary meaning of "sable" is sable, from which both this usage and the brush derive. PigeonIP, almost every interpretation of WP:AT/WP:NC that you present in any of these related RMs is demonstrably faulty. I've covered why elsewhere. I really hope that one person closes all of these RMs, and sees that your arguments have been dissected elsewhere already, many times over.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

additional comment: regarding every rabbit-RM done September, 15th: on Talk:Flemish_Giant#Requested_moves

Presenting the argument: Recognised (pet/fancy) Breeds shall not be moved to titles like Buzz rabbit. It shall be possible to distinguish them with Buzz (rabbit) or Buzz Rabbit (if "Rabbit" is part of the recognised name) from wild and feral animals as well as from groups of animals, that are named similar, because of similar characteristics. A more detailed scheme is provided on Talk:Strasser pigeon#requested move. --PigeonIP (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural objection: PigeonIP, you've been misusing WP:RM process as if it were a formal WP:PROPOSAL process for naming conventions, throughout all these related RM discussions, and it's the same "shall not" POV you've been pushing at Talk:Strasser pigeon and every other related RM that's ongoing. Your would-be-proposal badly misconstrues almost everything about the WP:CRITERIA, and even turns some of them totally backwards, by you inserting your own contrary wording into them, e.g. "Naturalness says If natural disambiguation is not possible, [because, it may have other meanings] add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name.". That's a complete inversion of the meaning of WP:NATURAL. Natural disambiguation is used when the title may have other meanings; it isn't made "not possible" when it may have other meanings. All of your pseudo-conventions for naming in all of these RMs falls off the same cliff, jumping forth from this same error.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. Fundamentally flawed proposal, ill thought out and based on false premises. A few points:

• There is already a mass move request regarding animal breed articles, the outcome of which would 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
• White Park cattle, 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
• 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
• 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; other moves proposed (mostly with copy-pasted move rationale) by the same editor are at:

1. Talk:Flemish Giant (rabbit, cattle and sheep breeds)
2. Talk:Corsican Cattle (21 cattle, sheep, goat and rabbit breeds)
3. Talk:Canadian Speckle Park (2 cattle breeds)
4. Talk:Dutch Landrace (8 pig and goat breeds)
5. Talk:Russian Black Pied (4 cattle breeds) – closed as no no consensus
6. Talk:Black Hereford (hybrid) (one cattle breed, one hybrid) - closed as not moved
7. Talk:Blue Grey (2 cattle breeds, 1 cattle hybrid, 1 goat)
8. Talk:Harz Red mountain cattle (one breed)
9. Talk:Asturian Mountain (6 cattle, sheep and pig breeds)
10. Talk:Romeldale/CVM (one sheep breed)
11. Talk:Merino

• The present titles are unique, and satisfy the five WP:CRITERIA of recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency, and there's no reason to change them
• If there were (as there are not) species called the American Sable or the Silver Marten, our articles on them would, in accordance with the rules imposed by MOS:LIFE, be at American sable and Silver marten respectively. If there were a colour called "Belgian fawn" our article on it would be so titled (note, just in case it isn't completely obvious to all: the Fawn is not a species).

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom: Why be so short thus vague and confusing.
  • Comment with astonishment: I look at each of these that get listed and look at references. I actually went to MOS:LIFE and even the examples given there, like Przewalski's horse, California condor, and the pigeons that that has the following "Create redirects from alternative capitalization and spelling forms of article titles, and from alternative names, e.g. Adélie Penguin, Adelie penguin, Adelie Penguin and Pygoscelis adeliae should all redirect to Adélie penguin. This does NOT bear out the allusion that the "rules" (policies and guidelines) stipulate, thus we would of course follow, the misleading justification to shorten names to as short as possible, which most times renders them unrecognizable, and confusing. I might suggest that if one is going to point to a policy or guideline in the future it might be a good idea to use a vague one that can be Wikilawyered to fit, this way it will not be so obvious concerning errors.

On October 10, 2014, JLAN changed the title of "Hokkaido pony" (without any discussion), that was changed from "Hokkaido Pony" (removed the capital P), to Dosanko, and I disagree with the short, unrecognizable, and confusing new title. By making accusations of an editor changing names, with stating "without reference to relevant WikiProjects or other interested editors, how he wants domestic animal breed articles to be named", to me is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. Your suggestions and actions are unique, which is not actually one of the five criteria you listed, but fails at least three of those five. You have stated "but as with any other article with an obscure or confusing title, a glance at the page will end all doubt", and "the decision should in any case be left to the editors who do the research and the work on the article.". Your suggestions are unique, which is not actually one of the five criteria you listed, but fails at least three of those five. I am just trying to make rhyme or reason out of some of the comments made here. Otr500 (talk) 08:22, 13 October 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.

Some other moves made pursuant to this consensus: Aachen Lacquer Shield Owl → Aachen Lacquer Shield Owl pigeon; African Owl → African Owl pigeon; Bohemian Fairy Swallow → Bohemian Fairy Swallow pigeon; Chinese Owl → Chinese Owl pigeon; Italian Owl → Italian Owl pigeon; Saxon Fairy Swallow → Saxon Fairy Swallow pigeon; Egyptian Swift → Egyptian Swift pigeon; English Magpie → English Magpie pigeon.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)