Talk:Bronze turkey

Requested move

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: not moved, per the discussion below; further discussion might result in some changes, but determinations of scope are not within the purview of move requests. Dekimasuよ! 03:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Bronze turkey → Bronze (turkey) – Pleace move back to the breeds name. There are a lot of other bronze turkeys out there. Not just that one (American) breed. For example:

• Cambridge bronze,
• the European or German bronze, that is also registered in GB
• and the Black winged bronze
• I am not sure, if there are Czech and French bronze varieties of turkey as well

(ref: Listing of Europeen breeds and colours)

1. natural disambiguation is not a valid reason with the matter at hand, because the article it about that one special breed, not any bronze turkey
2. like virtually all other animal breed articles, was wrong before a lot of unreferenced moves as well, like discussed there. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC) PigeonIP (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To be frank I am skeptical of your assertion that there are so many other rare breeds or subtypes of Bronze turkey that are genetically distinct. One source (a spreadsheet in German no less) is not enough to back this up. Steven Walling • talk 03:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The listing of European Breeds and colours? The Bronzepute (= Bronze turkey) is not distinct.

Have a look at the FAO:

• Australian Bronze
• North Caucasian Bronze in Bulgaria und Russia
• Ridley Bronze in Canada
• Batiskan Bronce in Cuba
• Broad Breast Bronze
• Bronzeputen (Bronze)
• American Bronze
• Mammoth Bronze in the Republic of Korea
• Broad Breasted Bronz(e), Cambridge Bronze, Norfolk Bronze, Standard Bronze (or American Bronze) and American Mammoth Bronze alone in the United Kingdom
• .... --PigeonIP (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The DAD makes separate statistics pages on a country basis because that is how the stats are collected. That doesn't verify that, for instance, the Broad Breasted Bronze in the U.S., England, and Australia are actually genetically distinct enough to merit separate articles. Sub-strains with peculiar names may merit mention in this article or stubs of their own, but that still doesn't verify that this article should be American-specific. Steven Walling • talk 22:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ähm, I am not talking about the Broad Breasted Bronze in different states. I am talking about different breeds. 5 of them in the UK alone... --PigeonIP (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment the proposed title would be ambiguous per the nominator's own rationale. Bronze (American turkey breed) would then be the needed title. "Bronze turkey" and "Bronze (turkey)" would then become set indices -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

American Bronze, would do as well[1][2][3] if you like to stay with WP:NATURAL and WP:PRECISE. --PigeonIP (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be potentially ambiguous with bronze metal from the U.S.A., American bronze artwork, U.S. bronze medals in sports, the U.S. military bronze star, things called "Bronze" from America -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL So, you are voting for the Bronze (turkey) again and not any Bronze turkey? Fine for me. Back to the status quo. --PigeonIP (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my first comment? It clearly states that is not it. It states that that should be a set index. It also clearly shows a redlinked title Bronze (American turkey breed). Where did you ever get the idea I was voting for either Bronze (turkey) or Bronze turkey ? My first comment clearly shows why it's bad, my second comment clearly shows why "American Bronze" is bad. (My IP address has rotated) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment let's wikt:talk turkey. There are a variety of formats that can be used as shown in the parallel situations of: Friesian chicken, Frizzle chicken (breed) and Schweizer (chicken). A consistently used format should be adopted. Pinging @SMcCandlish: @Dicklyon: because I don't have a clue. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Frizzle chicken (breed) is a disambiguation from Frizzle (chicken plumage) (if I say "I have a frizzle chicken" that can mean "I have a chicken with frizzle feathers" or "I have a chicken of the 'Frizzle' standardized breed"). The dispute (to the extent it is a real one) is between "Friesian chicken" and "Friesian (chicken)". The latter fails WP:NATURAL, and everyone seems to understand that but PigeonIP and Jlan.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comments. Steven Walling makes a good point: the various bronze turkeys reported to DAD-IS are not necessarily all genetically distinct – a turkey reported as "American Bronze" by Guyana has a good chance of being just that, not a separate breed; nevertheless, there are a lot of them. Steven, that German spreadsheet is from the Entente Européenne (on which, shockingly, we still have no article), which is a pan-European confederation of national poultry associations and is trying to rationalise some of this stuff; it's a difficult source to use but I believe it to be totally reliable.

I had a quick look at this: there seem to be two distinct breeds, the Broad Breasted Bronze which is so frontally over-endowed that it can no longer reproduce naturally, and the Standard Bronze which more normally shaped, and still can. They are reported separately by both the United States and the UK (links on request). I suggest splitting the article on those lines, to those titles.

This page is not part of the mass revert request at Talk:Teeswater sheep, as it was moved to its present title by Sphilbrick, who might perhaps like to comment?

I do a fair number of page moves, mainly ones that are asserted to be non-controversial. I did not do a thorough review in this case, and subsequently saw that there is some controversy involving naming of animal breeds. I did not undertake a through review of the issue, and would defer to the subject matter experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, the first two of the three pages you mention were moved from their previous titles by SMcCandlish, the second to a title that manages to muddle two different types of disambiguation in three words. Both will be restored to ordinary parenthetical disambiguation if the mass revert request at Talk:Teeswater sheep goes ahead.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Get your facts right. Frizzle chicken (breed) doesn't "muddle" anything, it disambiguates Frizzle (chicken) which has two meanings.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I should repeat my contribution to that page:

"Weak oppose (here as well) (of all replacement) of parenthesis as unnecessary and in contravention to presentation of similar terms in other locations ... and yet disambiguation is still provided so the presence of brackets or not may, arguably, be that big of a deal. A sheep is still a sheep whether or not it has been placed in a pen. I think consideration may also be given to the writers of the articles."

I also stick to view that I presented above: "A consistently used format should be adopted". My opposition here is dependent on the Talk:Teeswater sheep result.

Ultimately search engine listings that read "Xx turkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" do not differ greatly from listings that read "Xx (turkey) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: If the reflexive status quo ante revert (which Justlettersandnumbers already had agreed to not pursue, but is pursing anyway), were to proceed, it's just a putting back of the names to what they were before, on general principle, then leading directly to an on-the-merits discussion of what the names should be (and policy does not support unnatural, parenthetic disambiguation here). We need to avoid confusing an on-the-merits discussion like this one with a status-quo-ante one like that mess at Talk:Teeswater sheep. The latter is simply a postponement of the consensus discussion, not the consensus discussion itself. More like discussions themselves; many of the proposed status quo ante moves are directly contradictory and violate other WP:CRITERIA, and thus would need to be addressed one-by-one. That alone is a good reason not to revert them to the old names; it would be a big WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:POINT problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment, I will personally stick with "weak oppose" here despite broadly agreeing with arguments below. It is also worth commenting that the article may need to be updated to give reference to the various Bronze turkeys including mentioned by PigeonIP above. (I have also previously objected to the use of the reference source as being to a very specialist organisation and not really of relevance to an encyclopedia). General usage is of more relevance as demonstrated through Web and other internet searches: ("Bronze turkey") OR ("Bronze" "turkey"). The words "Bronze" and "turkey" are not always butted together but when they are they are typically given the treatment as either "Bronze Turkey" or "bronze turkey". If there are other bronze turkey breeds in existence then perhaps a title like Bronze Turkey (traditional breed), Bronze (traditional turkey breed) or Bronze Turkey (US breed) might suit. The nom states that "There are a lot of other bronze turkeys out there". I would support turning "Bronze Turkey" into a WP:CONCEPTDAB or regular disambiguation so as to link to more specific breeds and varieties. However, comment can be fairly made to the opening sentence of the article lead which reads: "The Bronze is a breed of domestic turkey." While actuality seems to indicate more than one breed of bronze turkey, the article text demonstrates "Bronze", in current edit, as a stand alone term.

For me the strongest argument is that of consistency both with outside sources (other sources typically don't use parenthesis) and internally - the multi RM Talk:Teeswater sheep discussion is ongoing and I would have thought that this discussion could either have been presented as a bolt on to that discussion or could have made reference to that discussion in the opening text or could have waited for that discussion to run its course before presenting parallel arguments here. While some useful issues have been raised as an indirect consequence of this discussion, a lot of it seems to be a waste of time. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Move would violate WP:NATURAL policy, and the nomination doesn't even make sense: "There are a lot of other bronze turkeys out there." That's a reason to disambiguate at all or further, not to disambiguate parenthetically in particular, rather than naturally. Nom's suggested move would solve nothing at all, only make the title two character longer and twice as awkward. Nom doesn't seem to think that natural disambiguation is disambiguation, seem to be the problem; see other screeds and proposals by same editor in all of these related RMs, where the incorrect idea is put forth that "Brozen turkey" (etc.) is a "made up name". It's not; its the reliable sourced breed name, "Bronze" followed by natural disambiguation, the same we all always use in real life (no would ever say/write "I check on my Bronze twice a day" without adding "turkey", unless they were 100% certain that the listeners/readers would always already understand one meant a turkey. WP is a context in which 100% of the time we must make the assumption with our article titles that some (probably supermajority) percentage of readers will not understand it. "Bronze Turkey", capitalizing "Turkey" as part of the formal/"official" breed name would be a "made up name" and it's not being proposed here by anyone.

  To address nom's specific examples, for which we have no articles anyway, there is no disambiguation problem here; use Cambridge Bronze turkey (though this article suggests they're the same animal, so nom may be engaging in WP:OR), and European Bronze turkey or German Bronze turkey. If the American one is never, ever called American Bronze turkey, then we'd parenthetically disambiguate it as Bronze turkey (American), and have Bronze turkey be a disambiguation page. Black-winged Bronze might not even need any disambiguation at all, since metals don't have wings and other livestock don't seem to be named "Bronze", but WP:CONSISTENT vs. WP:CONCISE is an open question in such a case. If most turkey breed article names have "turkey" in them, it would be just as well to have them all be this way for predictability and clarity (the reason the "concision razor" essay got userspaced was that conciseness above other WP:CRITERIA is not always preferred).

  In reality, we have no rationale at all for moving this article. There is nothing from which to disambiguate it other than the metal, at Bronze; this can and per policy should be done with natural disamibguation, Bronze turkey. All indications are that all the various "Bronze" turkey varieties can be covered at this article, which can be a WP:Set index article if necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: This gets funnier at every instance. If I see a turkey and write "I saw a Bronze turkey" I will not mean the Bronze breed because I didn't state, "I see a Bronze (turkey). I suppose in speech I would have to say "I see a Bronze, parenthesis, turkey, parenthesis. How about simple English being the fact that a bronze turkey would be a particular colored turkey because the color bronze would not be capitalized whereas the breed Bronze turkey would be and there would not be an article on a turkey that was bronze in color. Otr500 (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Otr500:: Indeed, yet this is precisely the kind of naming the same editor is agitating for in a large number of concurrent RM discussions that would affect many hundreds of articles. Sadly, I think many of them are going to conclude as "no consensus" if more eyes are not brought to them, which is just going to necessitate them being individually re-listed one at a time for moving the names that agree with WP:AT and the reliable sources, which clearly show that sources regularly use natural disambiguation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I recommend that it be split into articles for each distinct variety that can be proven to be considered seperate. Arguing about Bronze turkey vs Bronze (turkey) is useless as both are confusing. At the very least there is room for Broad Breasted Bronze Turkey, Cambridge Bronze Turkey, Norfolk Bronze Turkey, American Bronze Turkey and American Mammoth Bronze Turkey (or would it be turkey?). Anyway, thats my two cents. JTdale ^Talk 17:33, 9 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.

@JTdale:

• Standard Bronze = American Bronze US UK Guyana
• Broad Breasted Bronze US UK Egypt Uganda
• Australian Bronze [4]
• Mammoth Bronze Ireland, Korea = American Mammoth, American Mammoth Bronze UK
• Cambridge Bronze
• Norfolk Bronze

FAO: Animal genetic resources of the USSR, 16. Turkeys:

• North Caucasian Bronze Bulgaria Russia
• Azerbaijan Local Bronze
• Moscow Bronze
• Stalingrad Bronze
• Ukrainian Bronze

--PigeonIP (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification regarding a statement in the article

The article states:

Due to their size, they have lost the ability to mate naturally, and Broad Breasted Bronzes in existence today are maintained entirely by artificial insemination. Having retained the ability to reproduce naturally (among other traits), the Standard Bronze is considered to be a variety of heritage turkey.

This seems to contradict itself. If the bird can no longer reproduce without artificial insemination, how has it retained it's ability to reproduce naturally? Heritage turkeys require the ability to mate naturally with no intervention from humans, so the Bronze turkey would not be a heritage turkey under those criteria.108.46.147.132 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)