Talk:Hog Island sheep

message: Hog Island Sheep is a duplicate topic with unreferenced material until yesterday. I suggest that whether that topic is redirected here or that anything useful is merged here to Hog Island sheep. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly would be the pros/cons of merging that article into this one vs. this one into that one? Hog Island sheep does have already referenced material, but in an ideal situation in the long run, the article that ends up being the main one has far more references and information than either of the articles currently do.  Which capitalization format is more acceptable? I had begun work on Hog Island Sheep because that capitalization scheme appeared to make more sense to me and I assumed the other one would just be a redirect. Is having each word capitalized ("title case") acceptable, or should only the first word be capitalized (sentence case)? Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The pro of merging to Hog Island sheep from Hog Island Sheep is that given none of the material was reference until recently by you the page can simply be changed to a redirect(assuming you agree). The con of merging Hog Island sheep into Hog Island Sheep is that because some of it is referenced it can't just be removed (see WP:PRESERVE) and thus it would be required to merged (WP:MERGETEXT) due to copyright licensing requirement., it's a little more effort to merge rather the redirect, but no big deal either way. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Regarding the capitialisation of the article wording. So far as I can tell there is no firm standard for this article, two guidelines to check are WP:FNAME(covering fauna) and WP:CAPS(covering everything). WP:CAPS recommends lowercase except for proper nouns; I'm assuming 'Hog Island' is a real place and thus that part would be a proper noun. The 'sheep' or 'Sheep' is not covered in WP:FNAME, it's not a species, nor a group of species,nor is there a WikiProject covering sheep to refer to, so basically it's not covered. It could be changed at any stage anyway if there is a consensus for either form of capitailization. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the absence of a definitive convention for the capitalization of sheep breeds, and Hog Island Sheep being not a species but a breed, it seems to me that we would follow whatever convention could be found to emerge from the common usage of breed names; in the absence of that, I would simply say that as both words of Hog Island are capitalized, I would find it more æsthetically agreeable to capitalize Sheep as well, making it look more consistent or visually consonant. I am, however, biased as Hog Island Sheep is the article on which I began working—though my efforts thus far have been no more than a drop in what I hope shall become quite a large bucket. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

text: The most closely related Featured Articles about agricultural animal breeds are of horse breeds, and all have "horse" not capitalized. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your thought on merging one of the articles to the other? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The horse articles I saw make me think that Hog Island Sheep should be merged into Hog Island sheep.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der Elbenkoenig (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: As it appears to me that there are no existing Featured articles on sheep breeds, the next best thing (FAs on breeds of agricultural/related animals) I could find was horse breed FAs: Andalusian horse, Icelandic horse, and Marwari horse. From these I gleaned the section headings "breed characteristics", "history", and "uses" (though the horse breed articles to not all uniformly use these).
These articles also help to answer the question of case (Hog Island Sheep vs. Hog Island sheep) as the horse articles are all titled in sentence case, with horse non-capitalized. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No sheep breed, but Sheep is a featured article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some good articles on sheep breeds. Jacob (sheep), Herdwick. The Jacob article makes me wonder if the breed is called Hog Island rather then Hog Island sheep and thus the article would be Hog Island (sheep)? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources I've seen refer to the breed as the Hog Island sheep, named for the location of Hog Island, Virginia. I was looking at the horse articles because unlike Sheep, they are articles on specific breeds of domesticated animals. I will look at the sheep breed GAs for further ideas on how to build the article. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

text: The name is definitly Hog Island sheep, not just hog island. So the article should be titled Hog Island sheep. I have no preference on whether the s in sheep is capatalized or not.Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks. It seems that the sections that always pop up on those are History and Characteristics, which I've started; The remaining sections I think would end up being one about conservation efforts/research/human intervention and perhaps their uses (which is more or less the opposite of conservation). Are there any other categories of knowledge that might be specific to a feral sheep that I haven't thought of? Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A conservation section is a good idea with a breed like this that has had a lot of conservation work done. See Carolina Marsh Tacky for an example of an article with this section. A uses section is also good, as long as there is enough information to make a solid section. Otherwise, if there are just a couple of sentences, it might be better to add it into either the history or characteristics section (wherever it fits better), as is done in a lot of the smaller breed GAs. I can't think of anything else at the moment. Sometimes things evolve as more source material is found, though! Dana boomer (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template/Format 

message: NAGP does not have its own article, but it does have a section within the article of the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy, so when I wrote the bit mentioning it I linked to that section. I had considered redlinking it, but I reasoned that since it was a program that was a part of the operation of the ALBC, it made sense that it didn't need its own article (there isn't likely much to say about it other than they collect animal sperm for posterity) and therefore doesn't need to be redlinked. Is there some sort of policy/rule of thumb regarding topics that should be linked, but don't have existing articles? I think for readers of this article, the link should be there so people can get a quick look-over of that the NAGP is and then come back to Hog Island sheep. Am I wrong? Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, my understanding is that the NAGP is a USDA program, not a part of the ALBC? I think that would mean it's pretty notable, and it would be confusing to link to a section of the ALBC article. In any case, redlinks are desirable for notable subjects, because we want people to realize Wikipedia is incomplete and needs their help to be comprehensive. It's the wiki way. Steven Walling • talk  05:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the NAGP is a USDA program (see the main page here), they just do a lot of work in conjunction with the ALBC. I agree with Steven that linking the ALBC article would be confusing... At some point, an article needs to be created for the NAGP, but for now a red link is fine. Dana boomer (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, The NAGP is indeed a USDA program and is reasonably deserving of its own article. However,  my biology teacher doesn't think redlinks are good to have in articles, so I suppose I'll create the article. Would it be appropriate to create the article as a stub with just a couple of sentences (citing a reliable source, of course)? Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Animal Germplasm Program