Talk:Blue Grey cattle

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: consensus to move Blue Grey to Blue Grey cattle and Mishima beef to Mishima cattle per the comments that relate to these two articles, with Blue Grey redirecting to the disambiguation page, and no consensus to move Hexi Cashmere or Hays Converter at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 01:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

– Original names are too naturally ambiguous, badly fail WP:RECOGNIZABLE for almost everyone, and will be misinterpreted by most readers as something completely different from a domestic animal breed: Blue Grey is a color (and WP:DIFFCAPS isn't much use here, because many people are unclear on what is or is not a proper noun (days of the week yes, seasons no, etc.); Mishima beef is meat (see also Black Pied Dairy cattle, Estonian Bacon pig); cashmere is type of wool that comes from Cashmere goats (not "Cashmeres" except when both speaker and audience are already in the context of goats); and a Hays Converter sounds like a device. 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. Thus the change of Mishima beef to Mishima Beef. If some object to this general pattern, 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≼  13:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Blue Grey → Blue Grey cattle
 * Mishima beef → Mishima Beef cattle
 * Hexi Cashmere → Hexi Cashmere goat
 * Hays Converter → Hays Converter cattle
 * Revised: Mishima beef should move to Mishima cattle, per sources cited below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support and top points to nominator. They are all recognisable names - perhaps for many things.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  16:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose all but beef, which I'm neutral on. WP:DIFFCAPS is as of much use here as anywhere. How does this differ from Red Meat? Red Slash 02:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The sheer number of rancorous disputes about animals and capitalization, on and off Wikipedia, is concrete proof that WP:DIFFCAPS cannot be applied in this topic area at all. I'm further making a case that WP:RECOGNIZABILITY in these cases is more important than DIFFCAPS would be, even if the latter were applicable; DIFFCAPS is grounded in nohting but WP:CONCISE (the next-to-weakest of the WP:CRITERIA, stronger only than consistency), and a desire to honor trademarks and work titles when doing so isn't a problem (and that doesn't apply here). Recognizability may well be the most important of the naming criteria.  The second-most, WP:PRECISION is also implicated in both Blue Grey (especially because not everyone knows not to capitalize color names, and many artists and designers do in fact capitalize them as a matter of jargon) and Mishima beef which virtually no one would ever interpret as anything but food. Hays Converter is a weird case that, while passing WP:PRECISION, it's unrecognizable to anyone as a breed name other than someone already deeply familiar with cattle breeds, and this is not Expertpedia. It's a problem for article prose to use blatantly misdirecting article titles. "She owns over 200 Hays Converters" in a bio article will imply something technical, not something agricultural, to almost all readers; most editors, with a sense for writing for the readership, not the cattle-husbandry geek, would do this as , so why not just move it to the article that will be most useful for both readers and editors?  Most ambiguous/confusing animal breed article names have long since moved.  I'm normally firmly on the side of WP:CONCISE, and accepting of WP:DIFFCAPS arguments, but not with animal breed names.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support "Blue Grey" is highly ambiguous per The Blue and the Gray (disambiguation), and should be pointed there, or to the colour article. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed. Carelessly assembled mish-mash of different issues. 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, as the nominator well knows, since it involves the reversal of some hundreds of undiscussed page moves made by him
 * The nominator has, 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
 * White Park cattle, cited above as an example for consistency, was 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 to its present title by the nominator, and will be reverted if that move proceeds
 * Estonian Bacon pig, cited above as an example for consistency, was to its present title by the nominator; it may or may not be reverted if that move proceeds, as valid objections to the previous title have been raised
 * Black Pied Dairy cattle, cited above as an example for consistency, has been moved six times in just over three years
 * The Blue Grey is not a cattle breed but a hybrid, so none of the comparisons above anyway have much or any relevance; I agree with the reasoning for a move, and suggest:
 * Blue Grey → Blue Grey (hybrid)
 * consistent with, e.g., Black Hereford (hybrid); I'd have no objection to Blue Grey (cattle hybrid) if others prefer
 * As the nominator says, Mishima beef is a luxury type of Japanese meat (see Google); the breed is reported to DAD-IS as "Mishima"; it could be moved to Mishima (cattle), Mishima cattle or Mishima Cattle with consistency with at least some other cattle breed articles; it seems pointless to discuss here which of those is preferable in relation to a single page until the larger move is decided
 * Hays Converter and Hexi Cashmere are already at clear and unambiguous titles found in reliable sources (e.g., this and this), and should be left alone; if it ain't broke ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE will just have us compress Blue Grey (cattle hybrid) to Blue Grey (cattle), and WP:NATURAL would further compress this to Blue Grey cattle, which is what I proposed to begin with. The distinction between a breed and a hybrid is what is of no relevance here; there is no difference in the naming pattern, and we categorize the hybrids as breeds. If you want to recategorize them, that's out of scope for WP:RM. Anyway, Black Hereford (hybrid) fails WP:DAB and WP:RECOGNIZABLE; there's no point in a disambiguation that is itself ambiguous.  Hybrid ? (Also failed WP:NATURAL.) Just checked, and the name is wrong anyway. It's not a hybrid at all, it's just a new mixed breed, derived from two earlier domestic breeds. Listing that for RM separately. If Mishima Beef is not really the name of the breed, then the article needs to be rewritten. Who moved what, when has nothing to do with the substance of the question of what the article titles should be.  You're well aware that is a silly ad hominem debate tactic.  Also, you're not in a position to declare your own objections to something "valid"; consensus does that. Finally, the huge RM you launched is just a status quo ante discussion, and won't determine anything substantive.  The implication that it will affect the substantive discussion at this and other RMs is incorrect, as they are discussions of WP:NATURAL and other WP:AT policy application, not what to do with a contested move in the interim. And I'm sure you know this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:PRECISE
 * Blue Grey → Blue Grey (hybrid), if the move is necessary
 * Mishima beef; the breeds name is Mishima, Mishima beef is meat of cattel from the breed Mishima (not from any cattle that can be found in Mishima)
 * Hexi Cashmere is the name of the breed (another one is Hexirong Cashmere)
 * Hays Converter is the name of the breed
 * --PigeonIP (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See response to Jlan, above. No one has made a case that Hexi Cashmere and Hays Converter are not the names of the breeds. The case is that by themselves, in our context, they fail WP:RECOGNIZABLE, as too easily confused with something else.  You're making the same argument you made elsewhere about pigeons.  You want Modena pigeon to be at Modena (pigeon), on the assumption that the former implies that's the official breed name. But it doesn't; Modena Pigeon would do that.  Modena pigeon is simply natural naming, and is required by WP:NATURAL policy, over the unnecessarily parenthetical Modena (pigeon). Even if Hexi Cashmere is okay for now (how long until the article at Cashmere wool addresses Hexi Cashmere wool as a subtopic that should link there?), WP:NATURAL still indicates Blue Grey cattle not "Blue Grey (something parenthetical)".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again: I want Modena pigeon to be Modena (pigeon) because "Modena" is the name of the breed, that is known within the EE with the number 205. "Modena Pigeon" is not the name of the breed neihter in Europe nor in the US "Modena pigeon" also refers to the German Modena (no 206) and the Triganino Modena (no 207). It also refers to the landrace, the 3 modern breeds are derived from. Why do have to tell you that again, and again and again?
 * WP:NATURAL says If natural disambiguation is not possible, [because, it may have other meanings] add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name.
 * The article on the Modena shall be at Modena (pigeon) to disambiguate it from the Italian city. (The same way Turkey (bird) disambiguates from the country.)
 * WP:RECOGNIZABLE says Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources
 * Modena pigeon, for example, is ambiguous and inaccurate. (as specified in the beginning of that essay)
 * WP:PRECISE says Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.
 * Modena (pigeon) does that.
 * WP:CONCISE says The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area.
 * ("Pigeon" is part of the breeds name)
 * Ice Pigeon, Mallorca Giant Pigeon (mostly Colour and Form pigeons, with some exotic exceptions like the Russian Seldschuk Pigeon (Seldschuken within the NPA), the Agaran Pigeon (or Aragan), the Syrian Karakand Pigeon (also known as Syrian Kara-Kand Tumbler or Karakand Fantail), or the Serbian Nis Standard Pigeon, that is also known as Nis Standard Tumbler)
 * (Breeds, that don't include "Pigeon" in the name)
 * Fantail (pigeon) (a Fantail pigeon are also the Hungarian Fantail, the Garden Fantail, the Indian Fantail, Java, Japanese, Thai, Russian, Syrian and others. Even the Seldschuk, maybe the American Fantasy, descended from an Indian Fantail and a Jacobin)
 * Strasser (pigeon)
 * Carrier (pigeon): a breed, but "pigeon" is not part of the breeds name. (=English Carrier in the US)
 * (pigeons that do have something in common, rather than belonging to a breed)
 * Carrier pigeon: a pigeon that is used to carry messages;
 * War pigeon: a pigeon that is used to carry messages at war
 * not in that list: individuals (I fail to see the necessity of that cause WP:PRECISE: precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article)
 * Martha (pigeon), the last passenger pigeon could be put back to Martha (passanger pigeon)
 * all the war pigeons in Category:Individual domesticated pigeons awarded the Dickin Medal, could be
 * --PigeonIP (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * PigeonIP I fail to see any advantage of Blue Grey (hybrid) over Blue Grey cattle or Blue Grey cattle (hybrid), Blue Grey (cattle) or Blue Grey (cattle hybrid). At the moment the article is titled Blue Grey.  I would have thought that the addition of basic info should come first.  A distinction between hybrid and breed isn't even mentioned in the actual article content.  My only presumption is that it goes "moo" rather than "baa". I'm certainly not convinced of the relevance of more specific info.
 * you seem to be advocating the titles White Park, Nigerian Dwarf, Estonian Bacon even though these titles make no coherent sense. These ridiculous names have no place anywhere other than specialist listings.  Some of us want more than letters and numbers and need a help with explanation.  Pat on the back equivalent  for changes made.
 * Please let article titles, category groupings and other listings make sense. I have personally always been an advocate of the importance of WP:Criteria consistency.  As far as WP:PRECISE is concerned I can look at the name Mother Theresa and know that the name refers to a person.  I can look at many of the titles of cattle related articles and would not know what the f**k they are about. Please edit with the reader in mind.  Its an encyclopaedia, providing information for potentially non specialist readers "in the cycle of a child".  Please don't sabotage efforts towards self explanatory contents.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  13:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hallo Gregkaye, maybe a fail to see, that someone looking for "Nigerian Dwarf" does not know, that this is a goat. Or that is the information someone is looking for. So why don't let him have a look at the article to learn, that the Nigerian Dwarf is a miniature dairy goat breed of West African ancestry?
 * How are people looking for informations? Mostly via Google. The first thing google shows are pics of small little cute goats. The second is the link to the WP-article with the snippet The Nigerian Dwarf goat is a miniature dairy goat breed of West African ancestry. Originally brought to the United States on ships as food for large cats such as.... That is all Information someone is locking for, not knowing if the Nigerian Dwarf goes "moo" rather than "baa".
 * One very small advantage of Blue Grey (hybrid) over Blue Grey cattle is: it is easyer to write articles and link to these breeds. Within the context of these articles it is mostly clear, that the Blue Grey "moo"s and the author only has to write  rather than the longer   to get a link to the Blue Grey. To think about that also, is rather obliging, cause it is not true, that the "sexy" work is therefore done. There are a lot of breed articles still missing. Others do not have any more information than "BREED is a breed of fancy pigeon developed over many years of selective breeding. BREED, along with other varieties of domesticated pigeons, are all descendants from the Rock Pigeon (Columba livia)." Therefore it is essential to make it clear, if an article is about the Fantail (pigeon) or any Fantail pigeon (or the Angus (cattle) or any Angus cattle, including the original form, the modern Angus (cattle), the Red Angus (that is a separate breed in the US and some other countries) and the German Angus). --PigeonIP (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

PigeonIP, have you done a search on Nigerian Dwarf. If you have you will have found it difficult not to notice that all immediate entries are to "Nigerian Dwarf goat/s", "Nigerian Dwarf Goat/s" and "Nigerian Dwarf Dairy Goat/s.."

I would prefer the Wikipedia strapline to read "Nigerian Dwarf goat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" rather than "Nigerian Dwarf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". It would be crazy for this encyclopedia to fly in the face of the commonly used phraseology clearly presented. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  13:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did, there is even the "American Nigerian Dwarf Dairy Goat Association". And it is fine for them. Cause showing up in a (governmental) index for associations it is clear what they are about. There is also no harm done writing in an article about a "Nigerian dwarf goat". Within WP the links to the Nigerian Dwarf are from the List of goat breeds, Zoos a farm and mostly from other goat breeds, where in most cases "Nigerian Dwarf goat" is over-determined. The sources we do use, do speak of the "Nigerian Dwarf breed", "Nigerian Dwarf breed standard", "Nigerian Dwarf Coloring" and "Nigerian Dwarf Registries and Shows".
 * Try it the other way around: leaving out the "Goat" in "Western Goat", "Taihang Mountain Goat", would be wrong. --PigeonIP (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, so PigeonIP has finally noticed that off-WP sources also naturally disambiguate, not just with, e.g., "goat" but even "dairy goat". This upends the editor's objections to this RM.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: why are these names capitalised? Katy Gallaghon (talk) 19:28, 25 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.

Reclassified as stub
The WikiProject classification for Blue Grey cattle was. It has been reclassified as  per request. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Blue Grey cattle. 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/20110909233501/http://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk:80/index/lookingafter/projectwork/limestonecountryproject.htm to http://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/index/lookingafter/projectwork/limestonecountryproject.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010075157/http://www.whitebredshorthorn.com:80/bluegrey/index.html to http://www.whitebredshorthorn.com/bluegrey/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)