Talk:Swedish Blue

message: *Let's get this discussed properly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: APA: No: It says that the Swedish duck, on which we have no article, is a breed, and that the blue  is just a color variety of it (an idea supported by redlinks I've seen elsewhere to a supposed Swedish Yellow duck - see "what links here" at that redlink, if you care - and perhaps others).  The last sentence in the lead falsifies what this source actually says.  PCGB: Maybe; I'd bet good money that they do not actually bother to distinguish between breeds and landraces; few poultry associations seem to bother, but it matters encyclopedically.  Regardless, the changes to the article open the question enough that, yes, I agree that the move request is now no longer uncontroversial, but this became true only after PigeonIP and Justlettersandnumbers substantively changed the article, to erase any suggestion that the variety is a landrace rather than a breed.  As the article stood at the time, the move suggestion was perfectly appropriate under MOS:LIFE, since it said clearly in the lead that it was a landrace. I didn't put that there; I only edited the article to be consistent on this point.  As it stands now, the article may  be wrong, as the Swedish [B|b]lue may simply be a color variant, like a lilac-point Siamese cat, in which case we don't need a separate article on it, just like we don't have lilac Siamese cat or lilac-point Siamese cat or Siamese lilac-point), but we should have a broader Swedish duck article.  Regardless, the pile of WP:DRAMA that Justlettersandnumbers launched at ANI over this was pointless and unjustifiable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Note also for the record that after PigeonIP removed the information from the article about the duck being a landrace, the same editor posted to its talk page a source saying it's a landrace.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Great start.  How do the other color variants fit in?   PS: Your numbered points 2 and 3 above appear to be equivalent; were they meant to convey something different from each other?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:LIFE refers to taxa  to any general type or classification, including landraces. Including, actually, everything but formal breeds (I'm surprised it doesn't include them explicitly by now, but it's not any kind of goal I've had myself).I would agree, if this is also your idea, that in cases where sources refer to an old landrace and a modern breed developed from it, that they be treated in the same article, with care, where this is reasonable.  It is not actually always reasonable.  In cases where one landrace gave rise to multiple breeds (or multiple landraces produced one breed) the landrace and the breeds are likely to be independently notable, and could be awkward to cover in a merged article, unless the landrace is nearly forgotten. (By way of analogy, the snooker sport article mentions it derivation from some old pool games like life pool and black pool, but we don't have articles on them and may never, because they're no longer played by anyone and have no historical significance other than having been fused into snooker.)  In cases where the relationship between the landrace and the breed(s) is unclear or disputed, they probably also need to be treated separately (this is the case with Van cat and Turkish Van). Technically, it wouldn't necessarily have to be in separate articles; separate sections with clear sourcing would suffice, and should do fine for the Swedish ducks at issue.  In cases where the landrace is very clearly independently notable, all other considerations aside, it should have its own article (that's the case with the extinct St. John's water dog, the forerunner of the retrievers and several other formal dog breeds).  Where they are treated in one article, it probably makes most sense to write it essentially as a breed article (and title it as such), addressing the landrace in a "History" section or the like.  An exception might be addressing a failed, extinct breed (there are many) that had been developed from a landrace.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

text: And I have yet to see anything produced on-wiki that approaches an official definition of where to draw the line between a landrace and a breed anyway.  Montanabw(talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This really isn't the best place for such a discussion, for which see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Organisms#Distinguishing formal breeds from landraces.  In short: The Breed article is quite clear:  The Landrace article is also clear on what the difference is: A breed has selective breeding for specific traits, with pedigrees tracked by some organization, while a landrace does not, and has any more-or-less distinctive characteristics mostly or entirely because of a limited geographical gene pool with limited if any selective breeding.    All breed registries, across all species, understand this distinction.  There are long and involved processes to go through to establish a breed of any kind of animal, and they are either a) controlled, pedigreed breeding to fix, further develop and breed-true some traits found in a landrace population, or b) controlled, pedigreed breeding to develop, fix and breed-true some trait(s) desired for aesthetic or practical reasons using specimens from diverse populations (modern genetic tampering with highly-controlled varieties like lab rats also falls under the latter). Labeling landraces "breeds" is a WP:NOR problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: PCGB, APA, EE and FAO do have a WP:NOR-problem? That is nonsense, we are done here. --PigeonIP (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That comments makes absolutely no sense, and isn't responsive to anything anyone said in that discussion. This is fairly par for the course with PigeonIP in these discussions, and it seems to be an English-skills matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Which facts appear to you unsourced, ? – apart, of course, from the standard Mendelian distribution of colours in blue breeds, for which I'll add a reference as soon as I sign this. It seems adequately sourced to me – indeed, better than many of our articles. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that back – I went to add that one ref and found a number of problems, including a mini-copyvio. I think it's closer to OK now, but if you see other lacunae please point them out. I really can't make head or tail of the conversation above, which appears to be an exercise in miscomprehension between a user who is extremely knowledgeable but not a proficient speaker of English, and one who is extremely proficient in English but ... well, not so well-informed. I see some mention of the Swedish Yellow or Svensk Gul Anka; for the avoidance of doubt, that is a distinct and separate breed, listed and reported as such: it's rather unlikely we'll ever have an article on it, though – it doesn't have the international distribution of the Blue Swedish. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See the older thread with PigeonIP; he removed sourced, relevant info about the landrace.  As I said up there, I just chose to walk away from this and similar disputes, but it doesn't make the underlying issue go away.  I think we have a PoV problem of over-focus, even obsessive focus, on standardized breeds in some of these articles [not poultry in particular]. Many of them are recent and are of less historical relevance/importance that the landrace population.  And some editors do not even understand that there's a difference (or worse yet, have some sort of personal or political reason to try to hide difference). Some of the "breeds" are are also bogus, including as still-ongoing attempts to create a standardized breed out of a local landrace, or labeling a subpopulation as a "breed" by one country for political reasons when the exact same cattle or whatever also live in the surrounding three countries and are called something else, classified differently. It's not really an editing sphere I feel like getting back into in any depth at this point in time, because the drama haze is still in the air, but I haven't and won't just forget about it. More to the point, even if all of us on this page suddenly blinked out of existence, the cleanup should happen anyway by someone else so the encyclopedic content is better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Sorry, I have not seen the request by SMcCandish befor, 
but as you can see in Swedish Blue duck#References it IS a breed: 
* PCGB: Blue Swedish 
* APA: Swedish, Blue p.19
--PigeonIP (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: APA: No: It says that the Swedish duck, on which we have no article, is a breed, and that the blue  is just a color variety of it (an idea supported by redlinks I've seen elsewhere to a supposed Swedish Yellow duck - see "what links here" at that redlink, if you care - and perhaps others).  The last sentence in the lead falsifies what this source actually says.  PCGB: Maybe; I'd bet good money that they do not actually bother to distinguish between breeds and landraces; few poultry associations seem to bother, but it matters encyclopedically.  Regardless, the changes to the article open the question enough that, yes, I agree that the move request is now no longer uncontroversial, but this became true only after PigeonIP and Justlettersandnumbers substantively changed the article, to erase any suggestion that the variety is a landrace rather than a breed.  As the article stood at the time, the move suggestion was perfectly appropriate under MOS:LIFE, since it said clearly in the lead that it was a landrace. I didn't put that there; I only edited the article to be consistent on this point.  As it stands now, the article may  be wrong, as the Swedish [B|b]lue may simply be a color variant, like a lilac-point Siamese cat, in which case we don't need a separate article on it, just like we don't have lilac Siamese cat or lilac-point Siamese cat or Siamese lilac-point), but we should have a broader Swedish duck article.  Regardless, the pile of WP:DRAMA that Justlettersandnumbers launched at ANI over this was pointless and unjustifiable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Note also for the record that after PigeonIP removed the information from the article about the duck being a landrace, the same editor posted to its talk page a source saying it's a landrace.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion transferred from [[User talk:Anthony Appleyard]]

message: #The (british) Swedish Blue is a breed. The breed Swedish Blue is derived from a landrace, maybe the Swedish blue.
#The (british) Swedish Blue is the same as the (american) Swedish, that comes in only one colour: blue. 
#The (british) Swedish Blue and the (american) blue Swedish are identical. 
# FAO, APA and PCGB are refering to the "Swedish Blue" as breed. 
#: (FAO says: Description of origin: collected and standardized in 1920's --> breed)
The source saying the swedish blue duck is a landrace, also says, that it was an old landrace, collected in the 19th century, tainted with ducks of unknown origin and (European?) Pekin ducks and that there a is breed: the Swedish Blue (also mentioned: the Pomeranian). VIEH
I may add: VIEH may not be the best source, ever, but good enough to look for more informations about a "real" landrace. --PigeonIP (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great start.  How do the other color variants fit in?   PS: Your numbered points 2 and 3 above appear to be equivalent; were they meant to convey something different from each other?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:LIFE refers to taxa  to any general type or classification, including landraces. Including, actually, everything but formal breeds (I'm surprised it doesn't include them explicitly by now, but it's not any kind of goal I've had myself).I would agree, if this is also your idea, that in cases where sources refer to an old landrace and a modern breed developed from it, that they be treated in the same article, with care, where this is reasonable.  It is not actually always reasonable.  In cases where one landrace gave rise to multiple breeds (or multiple landraces produced one breed) the landrace and the breeds are likely to be independently notable, and could be awkward to cover in a merged article, unless the landrace is nearly forgotten. (By way of analogy, the snooker sport article mentions it derivation from some old pool games like life pool and black pool, but we don't have articles on them and may never, because they're no longer played by anyone and have no historical significance other than having been fused into snooker.)  In cases where the relationship between the landrace and the breed(s) is unclear or disputed, they probably also need to be treated separately (this is the case with Van cat and Turkish Van). Technically, it wouldn't necessarily have to be in separate articles; separate sections with clear sourcing would suffice, and should do fine for the Swedish ducks at issue.  In cases where the landrace is very clearly independently notable, all other considerations aside, it should have its own article (that's the case with the extinct St. John's water dog, the forerunner of the retrievers and several other formal dog breeds).  Where they are treated in one article, it probably makes most sense to write it essentially as a breed article (and title it as such), addressing the landrace in a "History" section or the like.  An exception might be addressing a failed, extinct breed (there are many) that had been developed from a landrace.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

text: And I have yet to see anything produced on-wiki that approaches an official definition of where to draw the line between a landrace and a breed anyway.  Montanabw(talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This really isn't the best place for such a discussion, for which see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Organisms#Distinguishing formal breeds from landraces.  In short: The Breed article is quite clear:  The Landrace article is also clear on what the difference is: A breed has selective breeding for specific traits, with pedigrees tracked by some organization, while a landrace does not, and has any more-or-less distinctive characteristics mostly or entirely because of a limited geographical gene pool with limited if any selective breeding.    All breed registries, across all species, understand this distinction.  There are long and involved processes to go through to establish a breed of any kind of animal, and they are either a) controlled, pedigreed breeding to fix, further develop and breed-true some traits found in a landrace population, or b) controlled, pedigreed breeding to develop, fix and breed-true some trait(s) desired for aesthetic or practical reasons using specimens from diverse populations (modern genetic tampering with highly-controlled varieties like lab rats also falls under the latter). Labeling landraces "breeds" is a WP:NOR problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: PCGB, APA, EE and FAO do have a WP:NOR-problem? That is nonsense, we are done here. --PigeonIP (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That comments makes absolutely no sense, and isn't responsive to anything anyone said in that discussion. This is fairly par for the course with PigeonIP in these discussions, and it seems to be an English-skills matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Which facts appear to you unsourced, ? – apart, of course, from the standard Mendelian distribution of colours in blue breeds, for which I'll add a reference as soon as I sign this. It seems adequately sourced to me – indeed, better than many of our articles. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that back – I went to add that one ref and found a number of problems, including a mini-copyvio. I think it's closer to OK now, but if you see other lacunae please point them out. I really can't make head or tail of the conversation above, which appears to be an exercise in miscomprehension between a user who is extremely knowledgeable but not a proficient speaker of English, and one who is extremely proficient in English but ... well, not so well-informed. I see some mention of the Swedish Yellow or Svensk Gul Anka; for the avoidance of doubt, that is a distinct and separate breed, listed and reported as such: it's rather unlikely we'll ever have an article on it, though – it doesn't have the international distribution of the Blue Swedish. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See the older thread with PigeonIP; he removed sourced, relevant info about the landrace.  As I said up there, I just chose to walk away from this and similar disputes, but it doesn't make the underlying issue go away.  I think we have a PoV problem of over-focus, even obsessive focus, on standardized breeds in some of these articles [not poultry in particular]. Many of them are recent and are of less historical relevance/importance that the landrace population.  And some editors do not even understand that there's a difference (or worse yet, have some sort of personal or political reason to try to hide difference). Some of the "breeds" are are also bogus, including as still-ongoing attempts to create a standardized breed out of a local landrace, or labeling a subpopulation as a "breed" by one country for political reasons when the exact same cattle or whatever also live in the surrounding three countries and are called something else, classified differently. It's not really an editing sphere I feel like getting back into in any depth at this point in time, because the drama haze is still in the air, but I haven't and won't just forget about it. More to the point, even if all of us on this page suddenly blinked out of existence, the cleanup should happen anyway by someone else so the encyclopedic content is better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: New discussion