Talk:Foundation stock

Requested move 8 May 2016

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: page moved. Consensus is that "Foundation stock" is the common name. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Foundation bloodstock → Foundation stock – Per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Foundation stock, which redirects here, is synonymous, and "foundation bloodstock" is primarily used in horse breeding (but the shorter term is also used in that subfield – see in-context usage at, e.g., [1], [2], and [3]). The long version is not typically found in breeding-related sources on dogs, cats, goats, etc., etc. The short version (Google: "foundation stock" -"foundation bloodstock" -wikipedia) occurs in a 211:47.5 ratio vs. the long one (Google: "foundation bloodstock" -"foundation stock" -wikipedia), i.e. is over 4 times as common. It appears that the article is at the longer name because it began focused on horse breeding alone, but has since expanded to include dogs, and will continue to expand to include other livestock and pet animals. The long version is such a specialized term that it occurs so infrequently in print that Google N-grams search produces nothing for it, but significant numbers of the shorter term [4]; ergo this is also a WP:RECOGNIZABLE issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Support move. In the horse world, "bloodstock" seems to be used more in Thoroughbreds than in all other breeds. Besides, it's not used in many reference books, even the oldest ones I have (from the 1960s). White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: The term has specific meaning for horse breeding, it is the CORRECT term , and can be used to pipe links to "foundation sire", "foundation dam" and so on in a number of different ways; plus, the Thoroughbred world sets the standard for all other horse breeding. If the issue is inclsusion dogs, just create a new article called Foundation stock and move all the stuff on other critters to that one, frankly I'd be much happier; I wasn't fond of seeing all the other animal stuff land here but was trying to be a good sport and not "own" an article. Montanabw^(talk) 03:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment expanding on the above. ngrams, as shown in the preceding example comparing "bloodstock" and "foundation stock" are not the be-all of everything; more examples, and keep in mind that "stock" and "bloodstock" cannot really be compared; horses are generally classed legally as livestock, but not all livestock is "bloodstock" -- that's a phrase that implies pedigreed bloodlines and such. And really, the examples posted above are things like private mini horse breeder, an article referencing cattle, and one breed association history page. We don't need the waste of bandwidth on an RM, just discuss the issue, create the new article and we have one as a appropriate spinoff of the other, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Montanabw^(talk) 03:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That's a distinction that belongs in the horses section, and has nothing to do with the article title. As WAF points out above, it's not even standard horse terminology, but mostly confined to the Thoroughbred breed. This is a move discussion, not a split discussion, and the latter would not come to a consensus to split, since the conditions for one are not met.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The above oppose by Montanabw has to be taken with a mountain of salt, as she elsewhere clearly states she doesn't actually have an objection to the move, and is instead opposing on the basis that I didn't engage her in a private negotiation about it and is trying to prevent me from using standard WP:RM processes on articles in which she's interested [5]. This WP:POINT disruption of standard RM operating procedure closely mirrors her tendentious campaigning in 2014–2015 against my moves and proposed moves of animal breed articles to use natural disambiguation per WP:NATURAL policy, with Montanabw stating outright that she was !voting against her own preferences simply to get back at me for personality-dispute reasons and to battleground against me in a breed-editors tagteam [6]. These topics are not some kind of private club to which one must be issued a selective membership card (and I am in fact a regular editor of domestic animal breed articles, anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom – the proposed title is a better fit to the article contents. The horse-specialized term "foundation bloodstock" is comparatively very rare in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• I see not reason not to split the article. Does anyone actually object if I were to do so and then close this silly dramafest? Montanabw^(talk) 19:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I object, per WP:CONTENTFORK / WP:POVFORK, and per WP:COMMONNAME. We don't have separate articles on the same thing at different titles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Ermmm.....Guys - are we not missing something here. In 2009, this article was hatted as having no references. That was 7 years ago and still not a single reference! Please provide RS so that us non-horsey/non-doggy folk can follow up on whether the article should be moved, whether it split, or whatever. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, and there are at least three meanings to source (see thread below). But this is essentially irrelevant to the article name question, since sources abound for "foundation stock", used across species: dogs, cats, rabbits, goats, sheep, pigeons, chickens, etc., etc. – including, yes, horses. Meanwhile, "foundation bloodstock" outside the context of horses is virtually unknown [7] (only 234 hits worldwide, and many of them are in fact for horses, because I didn't exclude horse breed names like "Arabian").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support move per SMC. --Izno (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Started by adapting a post on my own talk page, per request by DrChrissy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's look at this practically. The article at hand is only partly about horses (and will be decreasingly about horses as more content is added, since "foundation stock" applies to all animal breeding, including horses, and possibly even including cultivated plant hybridization), so it should not have special horsey naming (actually, it's not even horse-related naming, it's specifically thoroughbred-related naming, as show above, though with some bleed-through to other horse breeds). If someone think its necessary for the thoroughbred term to have its own article, I doubt anyone cares much about such a content fork in the short term, though it doesn't meet the WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPLIT, WP:SPINOUT, WP:DICDEF, and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE criteria, so I expect it would be merged back in later. This is not just a horse-article problem; some other articles started as dog-related and are genericizing over time to include other species, but are misnamed and miscategorized.

Such problems are easily resolved by a) using the generic title per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and WP:CONCISE, b) redirecting species- or breed-specific synonyms to the general article, and c) putting horse, dog, etc., categories on the more specific redirects. Standard operating procedure, regardless of topic area.

What probably needs to happen in the longer run is a glossary article, or more than one (there's no particular reason to commingle horse breeding terms and equestrian sporting terms, for example). We need articles on general notable concepts like foundation stock, not multiple articles at different titles on the same concept just because the terminology slightly differs from subtopic to subtopic. The only reason that would happen is if people from separate wikiprojects are trying to act in a WP:OWN / WP:VESTED manner. We just don't need or want that. Various key articles and some hierarchical glossaries – starting with breeding terms in one and animal sport terms in another, and spawning species-specific, more detailed glossaries for horses, dogs, whatever, on an as-needed basis – is enough to cover all the encyclopedic needs here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Just open up foundation stock already and start moving material. To the extent that some animals are unique, unique articles are created, to the extent they are not (as in stud (animal), the generic works. No need to keep jawing one and on about it, just do it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 16 May 2016 (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.

Meanings

There are multiple uses of "foundation [blood]stock" to consider:

1. The previous populations that were used as the basis of a current breed (or crossbreed, or domestic–wild hybrid).
2. The individual animals used as the basis for a current or in-development breed (or crossbreed or hybrid).
3. The individual animals used as the basis of a new breeder's breeding program within an existing breed (or crossbreed or hybrid).

All of these are easily sourceable, just no one's gotten around to it, probably because terminology material like this is often better in a glossary article. It's difficult to maintain hundreds of terminology articles. This particular topic probably can be developed into a full-scale article, since the different breed registries handle some of these things differently, and this can be documented. There's a limit, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINTE, to the level to which we should document this on WP, however (especially since such details can change over time, leading to a content maintenance problem).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Draftifying?

A little puzzled why this article was draftified rather than just tagged for lack of citations...Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not lacking citations, it has NO CITATIONS = WP:OR. I am working on Jewel's Leo Bars, and intended to add some sources to this article (if possible to match what is said to the sources), but as it stands right now, it is eligible as CSD per NOR, and I did not want that to happen, so I draftified it. Atsme 💬 📧 21:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding - it was tagged for needing sources since 2009, we see where that got us. Atsme 💬 📧 21:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Looks like @Liz: undraftified it, so I'll add in some citations. If other editors have an issue, they can post to my talkpage... that will ping me with an email. Montanabw^(talk) 21:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)