Talk:Associazione Nazionale della Pastorizia

Number of breeds this authority maintains

I made recent good faith edits to several Italian goat breed articles and one (Ciavenasca goat) was reverted with an edit summary "(Undid revision 634515714 by Otr500 (talk) no, you've miscounted them)". I used information from this article (the authority) that states "...and also maintains less stringent herdbooks for forty-two autochthonous sheep breeds and thirty-three goat breeds of limited distribution.".

An editor sent me a message on my talk page informing me of my error because there were in fact forty-three breeds the Association maintains and provided a reference here as evidence requiring a count of the breeds listed. The content in this article does not need to be "counted" it is plainly stated so someone present me a valid argument to refute this or is it in error?

There needs to be a reckoning because even the list provided appears to be in error. One breed on the list Orobica shows to be the same breed as Valgerola. "Orobica" is listed as one of the "eight autochthonous Italian goat breeds for which a genealogical herdbook is kept", and "Valgerola" is listed in the section that would be considered "goat breeds of limited distribution". Ciavenasca goat states "It is not among the forty-three autochthonous Italian goat breeds of limited distribution for which a herdbook is kept.." There "MUST" be a differentiation between goats with high diffusion (the list of eight) and goats with low diffusion (all others on the registry that would be "limited distribution"). This is an important addition so that Wikipedia does not look retarded.

If Orobica and Valgerola are the same there are only forty-two breeds the authority maintains records on. If that is correct then the reverted edit on Ciavenasca goat, and any others listing forty-three breeds, no less correct now than ever. "IF" they are not the same then we have an article that is not accurate thus creating other problems. AT ANY RATE there is a conflict with content and references that need to be solved. WP:BURDEN is clear on contested content and references ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.") so please enter this discussion before making edits or reverts on affected articles, especially when the content is clear and accurate with the authority that is listed as responsible for the listing. If the information offered in this article is accurate, and the information in the reference, we are obligated (lacking other clarifications) to present the errors. Otr500 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up; clearly there is a discrepancy here, and clearly, since I am the only person to have edited the text of the article, it's my mistake. What is more, you are right about the reported identity of the Orobica and the Valgerola (which I have followed in the Orobica page). That is a complete mystery to me, however: they are separately reported to DAD-IS and separately listed by Mipaaf.

Not only was the number of goat breeds wrong here, the number of sheep breeds was also incorrect. I've now added a further reference, corrected the numbers, and dealt with the Orobica/Valgerola anomaly in a note. Any better? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome and yes it is better so thanks for the corrections as the article now does not have conflicting information. I would like to see some edit to the Orobica article (note etc...) to reflect the same information. This will explain the two breeds being listed separately.

I am still poking around the breeds so please if you see any edits where you have questions or issues let me know. I have to use a translator and there is room for error with that. So you will know, I try to expand articles to at least a base start rating and if you would review any of these for a rating upgrade I would appreciate it.

There is still the issue of the other "bunch" of articles that still have errors so I trust as soon as you have time (if you are not already doing this) that you will be able to make the needed corrections. I ran across some interesting information for the Valdostana breed and if you can start there I would appreciate it also. If you don't mind please include in the summary "Corrections per discussion at Talk:Associazione Nazionale della Pastorizia".

I was going to add an inline link like "Autochthon (nature)|autochthonous" to reflect indigenous as opposed to heterochthonous but for some reason Autochthon (nature) has been redirected to Landrace and the reasoning escapes me. The long article does not offer what is needed to satisfy an actual meaning or definition. As close as it gets is in the terminology section that states "These terms are most often applied to plants, with animals more often being referred to as indigenous or native." and "within the agricultural system in which it is found is referred to as an autochthonous landrace". That seems to me it would be like stating "Landrace Landrace".

• Again, thank you for your help, Otr500 (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Associazione Nazionale della Pastorizia. 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/*/http://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeAttachment.php/L/IT/D/1%252Ff%252F9%252FD.8551668d49c199df1401/P/BLOB%3AID%3D2023 to http://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeAttachment.php/L/IT/D/1%252Ff%252F9%252FD.8551668d49c199df1401/P/BLOB%3AID%3D2023

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 19:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)