Talk:Saddleback (pig)

Disambiguation or article?

User:BD2412 began to change this page from a disambiguation page to an article, and I have reverted these changes for the moment. I thought I would explain my thinking more fully here. (In fact the page was an article previously, for several months after creation, and I previously converted it into a dab a few months ago.)

There are several pig breeds whose name includes "saddleback", and there are also other breeds with similar colouration, but which are not actually called "saddleback" (those I can think of offhand are the Hampshire and Essex).

Some of these pig breeds are related to the Wessex Saddleback; others are not. There is also at least one other breed similarly related to the Wessex which does not share the pattern (the Large Black).

WP articles must be about one thing. If we include several different things just because they share a name, we then have an article based on this word, not on a thing: it is dictionaries which have articles about words, not encyclopaedias. WP:DICTDEF covers this point more fully.

WP articles must also not duplicate others: see WP:Duplicate articles.

So, is there one thing which can be covered by the term "saddleback"? Is there a group of pig breeds which share characteristics including this colouration? This would be similar to the situation, for example, with terriers in dogs, where we say that a Yorkshire terrier or a fox terrier are both kinds of terrier. If this were the case, we would also have to include any breeds which do not share the name, but which are nevertheless part of the group.

Alternatively, do we have several breeds which share a name, but which have little else in common? If this were the case, an article including them would be a dictionary article.

Another possibility is that we could have an article about the colour pattern itself, as we do for example with Chestnut (coat). Is the saddleback pattern notable enough to warrant an article? Is there any published material about it?

I have seen nothing that indicates that the breeds called "saddleback" form a meaningful grouping. I don't think there are books about "the saddleback", and lists of pig breeds don't include this as a subdivision. Is there any evidence for such a grouping? If there is, what breeds does it include?

I doubt if the pattern itself is notable, but I may be wrong.

If the only connection between these breeds is that they are derived from the Wessex, then I think the place for the material is in Wessex Saddleback (where in fact most or all of it is already).

Any comments? Richard New Forest (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be a dab. It appears the article was expanded for a bacon/pig-related article creation contest, so there was an external incentive to create new articles... Steven Walling 21:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Following comment copied from User talk:Richard New Forest:

Please note our recently enacted policy at WP:CONCEPTDAB. If a topic covers multiple related phenomena that are capable of being described generally, then the topic is merely broad, and not "ambiguous". In this case, a person might reasonably refer to "Saddleback pigs" generally as a broad conceptual category of types of pigs. Please note also that, per WP:INCOMPDAB, this title is an incomplete disambiguation, a problem that we have an entire project dedicated to eliminating. If it does not redirect to a specific article, then it must either be deleted altogether or redirect to Saddleback, possibly as a section redirect to that page. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So my question remains: is there a category of pigs which is called "saddleback", or are there just several pig breeds which happen to share the name? I can't see any evidence of the former.

I do agree about your second point: there is no justification to having a dab at Saddleback (pig) in addition to one at Saddleback, and so on present evidence this page should redirect there. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is not whether there is a "category" of pigs called Saddleback, but whether the phrase "Saddleback (pig)" is ambiguous, or is merely a concept that describes a group of related things. If someone were to say "I am interested in Mercuries" or "I am interested in George Smiths" he would of necessity be either speaking unintelligably, or intentionally referring to things understood to be unrelated but sharing the same name. If someone were to say "I am interested in Saddleback pigs" it would be understood that he might be intelligibly referring to the three types collectively, as in "I like the Wessex Saddleback and its derivations". However, I see redirecting to Saddleback as an equally viable option, though not a preferable option because I do think that someone might have a general interest in the broader concept of the Wessex-plus-derivations. In that case, maybe this title should redirect to Wessex Saddleback, since the other kinds either are or should be discussed in that article. bd2412 T 20:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think someone saying "I am interested in Saddleback pigs" would at all likely to be talking about the three types collectively, but of one of the breeds, with its identity being obvious in the context. So it seems clear to me that "Saddleback" is ambiguous: it's a term that can be used to refer to one of three different breeds, but not all three together. So I think a redirect to Saddleback is looking by far the strongest option at the moment. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can go along with that. bd2412 T 02:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well then. Redirected to Saddleback. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)