WikiProject Birds/Poultry task force 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
I was wondering what peoples opinions on the state of categorisation of poultry articles is presently. It strikes me as a confused mess. It's probably going to take quite a few merge and move discussions to clean it up, but as you can see by the categories box on this projects main page, the ones that appear at the top level are a bit confused. Anyone got any thoughts before I dig in and begin proposing changes? JTdaleTalk14:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking a good way to set up the top level categories might be;
Poultry
Chickens
Chicken breeds
Ducks
Duck breeds
Turkeys
Turkey breeds
Gamebirds
Poultry organisations
Poultry standards
Poultry stubs
WikiProject Poultry
Poultry diseases
Poultry farming
Poultry farming by country
Poultry in food (rename from Poultry Dishes)
Eggs in food (rename from Eggs (food)
Chicken dishes
Turkey dishes
Duck dishes
Fast-food poultry restaurants
Brand name poultry meat (renamed from Brand name poultry*)
Due to brand name hybrids causing confusion
Hallo JTdale, I do the same work at de-wp and did not find the best conclusion, yet ;) Please be carefull with my "names". I am not a native english person...
There may be 4to5 groups of "Poultry" or "captive birds" (?):
domestic poultry (The "real" domesticated one, with all the show and (former) utility breeds) or only poltry with standards for fancying
Agreed on poultry organisations. It is a confusing mess. I will go and fix that up now and make a Poultry companies category to stick all the rest in. The rest of these suggestions I'll have to go through more intently but good ideas from a quick gaze. JTdaleTalk15:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did change domestic and fancy poultry. Maybe fancy and commercial are subcategories of "domestic", but I'd prefer to keep a flat tree.
I'll give it a read. By the way, in that big name-title move on chicken articles you managed to extremely stuff up the Australian Game redirects; Australian Pit Game is different breed. JTdaleTalk11:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Breeds and names
My English is not up to a "writing articles"-standard --> I won't write them. But I my mention here what comes to mind:
Appenzeller chicken --> The Appezeller is not a breed with two variations, the Appenzeller Spitzhauben (pl)/Appenzeller Spitzhaube (sing) and the Appenzeller Barthühner/Appenzeller Barthuhn are two seperate breeds. There is no breed "Appenzeller Huhn" ("Appenzeller chicken")
If you are not shure which breed-name to choose, or which translation: please have a look at www.entente-ee.com/deutsch/sparten/gefluegel/dateien/2013/Verzeichnis%20R%20F%2028042013.xls (all breeds, colours and variations that do have a standard within the European Association) I do use it for categorisation on Commons.
In the english speaking world at least, we group them as one breed. The english world has done similar with Belgian Bantams, which I don't believe are considered one breed in their home country. Interesting to note that ... and I'm not sure on the best procedure there. Might be worth splitting the article and having Appenzeller chicken be dab? On Schweizer, I am not familiar with the breed but google brings up this. JTdaleTalk16:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Than please go with "Swiss Chicken" with redirect from Schweizerhuhn and don't mix languages. (for me, it is strange)
Appenzeller: At least in the UK, they should know both breeds [1] (as breeds, not varieties). Some day, they shall use the EE-standard, only. First conclusion may be two passages in that article. But to create interwikis with wikidata may become a problem, someday.
The problem is in the west, we do mix languages ALOT in naming things. Some things we translate like Malay Game, others we do not, like Ayam Cemani (literally "black chicken") and who knows why. It appears Schweizer is generally accepted as the right name. JTdaleTalk21:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Schweizer" is fine, as well as Schweizer (chicken). I do have a problem with the de-en-mix. "Ayam Cemani", "Shamo"... all the same in German ;) (this are mostly the last/newly accepted breeds with no need for translation)--PigeonIP (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but in English that happens. English as a language has never had much care for what its steals, mixes and messes up from other languages. JTdaleTalk05:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but as long as there is no "official" english name of the breed, I'd choose the original language ("Schweizer" or "Schweizerhuhn") over a private(?, who is raising-chickens.org) translation. And raising-chickens.org also names it Swiss Chicken. I hate it, when WP is used to establish a name. (that problem may be more significant with companies and promotion, but applies here as well - or I am too much of a purist.)
Maybe my initial problem is
Is "chicken" (or "pigeon", "bantam", "fowl", ...) a part of the breeds (official) name?
Last year I tried to sort this out while moving pigeon breeds, where "pigeon" is part of the breeds name, like the Ice Pigeon to a Pigeon-article name. And breeds without "pigeon" in the name to (pigeon)-article names, like Jacobin (pigeon). That left pigeon-article-names to be checked, whether "pigeon" is part of the breeds name or "pigeon" is not part of it. I thougt it worked well. Nevertheless, all that work went to hell, as you can see in Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds.
Befor SMcCandlish showed up, there was a handable system:
Ice Pigeon: "pigeon" is part of the name of the breed.
Some belated followup: "Befor SMcCandlish showed up, there was a handable system"? That doesn't even mean anything in English. I think it's meant to suggest that there was a working system, but what's described, 1-2-3, by PigeonIP above is actually a train wreck, especially the nonsensical third point that we would create a special class of article title that's a secret "we have no idea, and did do the research yet" signal. We just do not, ever, do anything like that. I have no idea what might happen at German Wikipedia, and I really don't care. Nor does anyone else at this site. "Jacobin (pigeon)" implies an individual pigeon named Jacobin. This disambiguation pattern is consistently, unvaryingly, used for individual animals (except where something even more specific must be employed, like "Foo (racehorse)" when "Foo (horse)" is itself ambiguous). The natural disambiguation system for breeds ("Jacobin pigeon", or "Jacobin Pigeon" if the standardized breed name includes "Pigeon") was already used for around 95% of disambiguated breed articles, across all species, and I moved the remaining stragglers to comply with it, per WP:CONSISTENCY. PigeonIP and two others fought like mad against this (one even explicitly declared they agreed with the idea but were opposing it because it was my idea and they didn't like me, I kid you not). Consensus went with consistency, of course, and we now have a stable and sensible system that's worked without any problems at all for four years or so. You're welcome. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I can't do it. The infobox poultry is messed up and will only be usable with chickens right now ... going to try and work out what is wrong there. JTdaleTalk19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done that, now possible after my fiddling about with the infobox. Now there's just the question of the content there to deal with. I thought at first it was copied from somewhere, but I've come to think it's someone's school essay. In any case, it is nothing like an encyclopaedic article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that standardization would be an improvement. To my mind, the term "domesticated" implies that the process has finished. Of course it has not, because we are continuing to artificially select our animals. For this reason alone, I would support "Domestic" (however, I would not argue for this strongly).__DrChrissy (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FAO can be reaaally unreliable as most of the time governments tend to just write in names without actual understanding. Generally I've actually seen the 3rd world countries taking more care with it. But anyway I agree with the merger proposal. Cornish game hen as its own article is pretty useless. JTdaleTalk12:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When they are so closely related, with no real notability for Cornish Game hen to be given its own article, a merge would be appropriate in my opinion. JTdaleTalk06:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts about this? As far as I can see, it's someone's registered brand name for both some rather expensive brown eggs and some rather expensive brown hens. There's been some successful marketing, but I don't see why we need to be part of that. I can't see any evidence that it should be considered a chicken breed. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
they are hybrids, no breeds [2][3], maybe there are better sources out there. I would like it, if the article could get more critical and could correct some trade-mark-commercial-fairytales. Maybe that would make the marketing a little less successful? More so than deleting the article? --PigeonIP (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in that DAD FAO page which asserts that this is a distinct Buff breed from the one also present in the U.S. and Australia. The DAD makes separate statistics pages for each country, even if the breed is spread across countries. Steven Walling • talk22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, that is, why I asked for someone who knows his turkeys. I never told anyone, the "Buff" in the UK, US, Australia and Ireland are different breeds. (especially that the Irish is different from British is highly unlikely) But it is a possibility you have to look for. (remember: the Pekin of the APA is another duck breed than the Pekin of the PCGB) --PigeonIP (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Poultry Standard doesn't define turkey varieties as breeds. It lists all of them under one "Turkey" breed as colours. Buff standard is as follows;
"Male and female: Plumage: a deep cinnamon brown, free from cream. Primaries and secondarieS: white, free of buff markings. Beak: Light horn. Eyes: iris dark hazel, pupil blue-black. Legs and feet: pink and flesh." JTdaleTalk05:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The German has 1 breed in 12 varieties, with differences in weight and plumage (3 heavy, 3 middle, 6 light) [8] The Buff is a light one.
"The Buff is named for the rich cinnamon colour of its body feathers. The breed was recognized by the American Poultry Association in 1874 but very few now exist in America and there is no longer a standard for it there. [...]
"The Buff is a historic variety [..] it was accepted by the American Poultry Association in 1874 and used in the development of the Bourbon Red variety in the late 1800s."
"[in] the 1940’s. The New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station at Millville initiated a program to develop a small to medium size market turkey. [...] The new buff colored birds, called “Jersey Buffs”, were developed through pedigree breeding and selection from crosses of Black, Bourbon Red and Broad Breasted Bronze varieties. [...} the original Buff was used in developing the Bourbon Red and then in turn the Bourbon Red was used in developing the newer Jersey Buff variety. [...]
Young toms weigh about 21 pounds and mature hens about 12 pounds."
So in my books, the American "Jersey Buff" (fao Jersey Buff/US) is another breed than the British or ancient American Buff (fao Buff/US). And if the "Yellow German turkey" is also called "buff" in Britain, there may be a third breed, that we know of. And I was told, that in the Czech Republic, there is another one... --PigeonIP (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The breeds of the european association show us, that there are many differences between the countries. The German Standard for example, does not know the Norfolk black, the White Holland or the Cambridge bronze. In France, they do know 23 different breeds; in the Netherlands, they know 24 different turkeys; in Belgium, they do know 25 (they also do not know the Royal Palm and the Cambridge bronze[9])
something went wrong with the PCGB-breeds[11][12]: Bourbon RedY, Bronze, NarragansettY, Nebraskan Spotted (missing in the list above), Blue (Lavender)Y, Buff, Pied (Cröllwitzer)Y, Norfolk BlackY, SlateY, WhiteY
Australian Poultry Standard lists 9 varieties. Royal PalmY, SlateY, White, BlueY, BlackY, BronzeY, Buff, NarragansettY and Bourbon RedY. JTdaleTalk07:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you: I tried to match them. There may still be some mistakes.
White can be the Beltsville Small White, White Holland turkey or the British White
Did some research but can't find anywhere any information on the Australian turkeys and which US or British variety they line up with. We don't have a Turkey Club or any such body, (just found a Heritage Turkey Society, but their website is just a pile of Under Construction signs) and I couldn't find any books on the subject. JTdaleTalk03:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 1' - I recommend all present articles in that category be removed from it, and it serve only as a parent category. Instead, all breeds should be categorised only under their relevant "Chicken breeds originating from X" category.
comment on proposal 1: "Chicken breeds originating from X" will get pretty messy, at least in Europe. Do you remember the Polish, the Padovana and the Hollands kuifhoen? their are breeds with varieties of different origin. That category-tree gives you plenty room for nationalism and tiring discussions... I'd like to browse a "Chicken breeds (by name)"-Category and see the multifariousness of chicken breeds. The Lahore, for example is sorted into Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds originating in Pakistan (I am with pigeons again, sorry for that). This breed is totally unknown in Pakistan (and India). It is a European breed (of German/Austrian/English origin), a descendent of 2 or more pigeon breeds: the Sherajee (or sherajee-marked Gola) and Gola. The Gola had unfeathered legs with the typical Lahore-markings, the Indic Sherajee had feathered legs and coloured breast-feathers. There are chicken with an equal problem, for example the Malay, that is not a Malayan breed of chicken, as the name suggests. I'd rather remove these categories, but that would be an impossible request ;)
I have seen the mess with geese: the Pilgrim for example is a light goose within the PCGB, but a medium with the APA. Are "Rare Long Crowers (PCGB)"[13] Hardfeather or Softfeather chicken? The APA does not know Hardfeather and Softfeather[14], the PCGB does not know the American breed Chantecler. How to categorise (to the western world) exotic Asian breeds?
If you like to categorise by type: I'd rather go with Category:Large Fowl and Category:Bantam chicken breeds and take into consideration, that most bantams will be redirects to sections of the "Large Fowl"-article. (but I am the German guy, that is familiar with that (European?) concept and different standards for large fowl and look-a-like-bantams and different numbers of accepted coulour-variations for both.) --PigeonIP (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think for that reason Bantam/Large categories aren't much use. True Bantam is the only type that'll have dedicated articles. I know official classifications can be a problem. I think it'd be excessive to have a categorisation for every standard though, but I really would like a way to narrow down breed catergorisation. As for Originating From X, you can use multiple when its genuinely from two countries. And blatantly stupid categories can be removed. As for only regionally known breeds - there are always going to be breeds that aren't in a particular standard but are in another. No other country has the Australian Pit Game, Australian Game or Australian Langshan in their standards, or the Watervale or Elizabeth ducks.
@JTdale: I personally have no idea what the difference between "Hardfeather" and "Softfeather chicken" is. That is, why this categorisation would not be usable for me and would potentially lead to mistakes by others as well (at least as long as this concept is unknown for a special breed). The only orientation I would have is a standard. I could understand "ornamental breeds", "longtail chicken" (like the Onagadori), "Silkie chicken" ((Large) Silkie, Silkie bantam, Japanese Silkie with black skin, Siamese Silkie with white skin, others?), "game fowl", "true bantams"; even "clean legged" or "rosecomb" (but there are breeds with rosecombs and normal combs, like the Rhode Island Red). The concept of Category:True bantams also works, because of Bantam (poultry)#True bantams. At least there should be an article for every "type"-category on wikipedia, that defines what the category is for.
As for Originating From X, you can use multiple when its genuinely from two countries. And blatantly stupid categories can be removed. It is not that easy. I won't go there. I already did spend too much time on an attempt to adjust "blatantly stupid" things. Do try to explain to a person, that is not familiar with poultry (breeds) that the Malay is not a Malayan chicken... Category:Chicken breeds originating in Malaysia isn't even obviously wrong, ancestors of that breed are from Malaysia... I have no idea, why the Archangel is part of Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds originating in Croatia but I am pretty sure, if I added Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds originating in Germany... or Category:Chicken breeds originating in Germany to the Sebright (The Silver Sebright got "pure white" in Germany, the original Silver Sebright was cream coloured), people would be fast to remove it. (and I could not be angry about that)
If you have references that prove a category is wrong, it should be easy to remove it. If not, then something is seriously wrong. How would Chicken breeds by name work? I doubt rosecomb as a category would work as a lot of breeds have varieties in both single and rose as you say. Same with clean legged (i.e: british vs french marans). We could go with categories like Long Crower, Long Tail, True Bantam, Gamefowl, which are more self explanatory? JTdaleTalk14:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is right, what is wrong with a category named "originating in"... all do go back to domesticated chickens of Indian (?) origin... To most breeds you may be able to add half a dozen categories like that. (my personal problem with them)
More self explanatory categories is a good enough attempt. Even "Long Crower" may get tricky, but let's try it ... .
Asian breeds you certainly can get confusing origins (actually, I'm presently confused on what to put the 4 varieties of Langshan into, given they are directly developed with supposed little change from Chinese birds yet they were 'refined'/'changed' in certain countries) but maybe then a "Chicken breeds of uncertain origin" category would be worthwhile? Japanese bantams would certainly fit into that, despite their names. JTdaleTalk05:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a solution for "my" problem. I am accepting that they are wished for (even as most of them do have just one page). But I would be totally miserable if Category:Chicken breeds is no longer a place for all chicken breeds.
Maybe a "Chicken breeds of uncertain origin" works, or it is understood as "please help us to find its origin" and you may get these unfortunate discussions. Be bold, try it and see what happens... --PigeonIP (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After spending a good deal of time trying to make sure that all chicken breeds (and nothing else) were in Category:Chicken breeds, I'm not too keen on proposal 1. I think it's essential to have a place where you can go to see what you've got, all of it together, in one place, without going through 50 or 60 subfolders. {{Infobox poultry breed}} until recently automatically added the page to the category, but I had to disable that to make it usable for other poultry. As for the bantams, I just don't know - both JTdale and PigeonIP make a reasonable case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care particular much about the point of removing all articles from Category chicken breeds, given as you guys have raised some decent points against that proposal. I don't like proposals 5 or 6 at all; Fancy Chickens isn't really a good parent category. While breeds like the true bantams and long tails are 'fancy', most chicken breeds were bred for a purpose. Cockfighting, meat, eggs, whatever that is. Therefore by definition they aren't 'fancy'. Also I really think if we're going to add categories like Gamefowl, True Bantam, they need to be subcat of Chicken Breeds - as does Chicken breeds by country of origin. Flat hierarchy doesn't work here. JTdaleTalk05:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5 and 6 are out ;)
Hm, "True Bantams" are not a "chicken breed" (Category:Chicken breeds is a Set category) "True Bantams" is a group of chicken breeds. The reason, why I introduced Category:Chickens (don't know a better title) with option 4. "True Bantams" are "Chickens"...
If it is a set-and-topic category: yes, we can. Is it the best possible solution? I don't know. With the stricter definition of "breeds" (True breeding, "hybrid chickens are no breed"), it may not be the best. It depends on the definition of Category:Chicken breeds. --PigeonIP (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well googles definition is noun: breed; plural noun: breeds - "a stock of animals or plants within a species having a distinctive appearance and typically having been developed by deliberate selection." This would therefore kind of cover hybrids I guess, since they were selected for a distinctive appearance and through deliberate selection. If it was talking about breeding true, then they'd fail. See also Breed. JTdaleTalk23:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request comment from other members of the WikiProject on a proposal for a project guideline on notability of poultry breeds. Please see User:JTdale/Notability (poultry breeds) and then leave your thoughts here and tell me what needs editing, adding, removing etc.
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Hi. There is an RfC on Foioe gras which may be of interest to editors on this Project. It relates to whether detailed information on legislation about the production and sale of foie gras should be on the Foie gras page. Your input will be welcomed.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to @Justlettersandnumbers: (when referring to geese), "Livestock breed names are invariably capitalized in Wikipedia [and elsewhere]". I agree in part, but in other literature the word "goose" is not capitalized, except in some article titles, even in breed names, unless "goose" is a proper noun. Even in Wikipedia it is not generally the case that the whole name is capitalized. The part of the article name that is the type of animal (e.g. dog, cattle, shark, whale) is not usually capitalized. If no-one has any objection I intend to continue renaming articles whose names are over-capitalized. Jodosma(talk)20:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I believe our WikiProjects view is breed names are capitalised. That is the part of the name that belongs to the breed. Generally we don't use the species name as an attachment at all except when it can't be helped such as Orpington Duck and Orpington chicken. Wikipedia has had almost all its domestic animal articles modified to include species prefixes however because a small group of editors believed it 'to confusing' and that just calling something a Sebright or an American Game would break the mind of the average reader. Therefore I personally have given up entirely on the argument. If I attempted to weigh in I'd inevitably get so sick of the views of the opposite side I'd quit Wikipedia like so many members of WikiProject Birds did over the same issue and we've already lost enough animal editors to the MOS crusaders. JTdaleTalk~11:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the Orpington Duck article, in the content we see "Orpington duck". Why should there be any problem with the word "duck" not being capitalized? No-one would insist on "President Obama's Home" or "Prime Minister Abbott's House", they would surely accept "President Obama's home" or "Prime Minister Abbott's house", otherwise we should have to capitalize "home" and "house" whenever they were used. I have no objection to the use of Orpington Duck if it were the name of a pub but if it's a breed of duck we are discussing then I don't see any reason to use "Duck" instead of "duck". Jodosma(talk)19:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just drop it, please. As JTdale says, this particular horse has been beaten to death. And then some. No one on either side of this issue has the energy left for round 257,049,103 of the capitalization wars. And we lose good editors every round. The very short answer to your question is that sometimes the species name is part of a breed's "official" name and sometimes it isn't. The real problem is that, probably due to the WP software not understanding that capitals and lower case letters are the same thing, WP tends to prefer sentence case for article titles, which is not the way the rest of the world functions. The real world uses title case for... titles. Wish we did here too, would end much of this nonsense. Sigh. Montanabw(talk)06:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh(!) I'm feeling a little worn out too, and giving up the ghost on this one. I hadn't realized that there were these cosy little enclaves on Wikipedia full of self-important, vainglorious folk with such visceral feelings. I will never darken this doorstep again. Jodosma(talk)09:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you feel that way Jodosma. I personally have no opinion either way anymore, but this battle almost destroyed WikiProject Birds and so most people in the animal areas tend to try and drop it now. JTdaleTalk~12:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is what happens when projects like Wikipedia try to be all things to everyone. They inevitably end up meaning very little to a tiny few and nothing at all to most. Wikipedia's true value is in the cited sources. Jodosma(talk)20:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took 3 photos last Sunday in Wright Park, Tacoma, Washington, U.S., which I'm pretty certain are Ancona ducks, but I'm not exactly a poultry expert. I realize in particular that it can be hard to visually distinguish an Ancona duck from a Magpie duck, but I'm pretty sure the speckling on these is too irregular to be a Magpie duck. I figured I should just put them here rather than in the Ancona duck article until someone can confirm. - Jmabel | Talk22:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After two new-ish editors ended up at WP:ANI in the same week for breeds-related disruptive editing (and one topic-ban was issued), I've expanded a bullet-point list of advice for them into an essay: Wikipedia:Writing about breeds.
It provides a crash course in how to write about breeds the Wikipedia way. It's mostly for new editors, but might be of use to some more experienced ones who have not written about breeds before or thought much about how our WP:P&G apply to the topic area. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 07:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a neutral RfC on a question left unanswered by MOS:LIFE (on purpose in 2012–2014, pending "later discussion"). It is now later, and lack of resolution of the question has held up MOS:ORGANISMS in draft proposal state for 6 years. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, On WP page, I added wikilinks to "Popular pages" (which is now working & runs monthly), and "Quality operations". JoeNMLC (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.png)
