Talk:American Pekin

message: A lot of the information on this wikipedia page is unsourced and likely incorrect. I think it would be a good idea for us to work on filtering out or correcting the incorrect information. EditSafe (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there was a mass of irrelevant or generic content, much of it either unreferenced or referenced to sources that do not meet our definition of a reliable source such as www.metzerfarms.com. In response to this request, I added nine or ten reliable sources, removed the dubious content and added some sourced material.  has put all the garbage back in the article. Since that was done without any vestige of an edit summary, I'm at a loss to understand why. Can you explain, EditSafe? I suggest reverting to  unless anyone can give any good reason not to. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the information you removed had reliable sources backing it. Also, with the mass removal of information some important information was lost. EditSafe (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, ? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect / Unsourced Information 

message: So,  has added three "scientific" names to the page, with proper sources to support them: Anas pekin, Anas peking and Anas platyrhynchos domesticus. Neither of the first two are even listed in the NCBI taxonomy database or in the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, while the third is listed by both (NCBI, ITIS) as a synonym of Anas platyrhynchos. So the question is: should we include these apparently spurious names in our article, and if so, how? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... correction. Two of them were present before my adding the inline refs and an extra term. By the way, I see other refs previously used before removal. I reinserted one of them. George Ho (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, . I'd already removed them once. I suggest doing so again. The systematic name of all domestic ducks derived from the Mallard, including this one, is Anas platyrhynchos. We habitually put that in the infobox. There's no need for specific discussion of it in this page, because it is generic to (almost) all duck breeds. The place to discuss the synonym Anas platyrhynchos domesticus would, I believe, be our page on the domestic duck; the other two names have no standing, and I see no reason to include them at all – we're not here to perpetuate other people's mistakes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay... which names shall I remove, and which other names shall I keep? George Ho (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . Why don't we wait to see if agreement can be reached on the main content issue, and then deal with this detail once that is sorted out? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Un)scientific names? 

message: The article went undergoing changes done by Justlettersandnumbers. Somehow, the changes were reverted by EditSafe, leading to endless discussions about how to present the article subject, American Pekin. (See #Previous and current revisions and DRN case for more) As a stopgap, should the article revert back to Justlettersandnumbers's version or retain the current version done by other editors? Either version would be fine, though the article may be improved based on whichever version is preferred. --George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The below comment is too rushed and brief. Wrote the above comment for better understanding. --George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Note: The above comment (in this original diff)was restored by me, after I deleted it while trying to restore the premature archiving --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you again, Lemongirl. What about Talk:American Pekin/Archive 1? Should it be speedily deleted? George Ho (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

text: See #Previous and current revisions, Andrew. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But what is proposed here? If it were proposed to revert to a specific previous version, that would be a valid RfC, yes. But this is not, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  ....May I remove the RFC tag then? I'll do the fresher RFC soon if the tag is removed. George Ho (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to just ignore it for the moment, and discuss specific content issues as needed. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Okay George Ho, you can rewrite it if you want. I just wrote it quickly and not very carefully. I am archiving old discussions that have not been edited in a while because this talk page is getting too clogged to be easily navigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs) 
 The RfC is here so that other non-involved editors can supply their opinions on whether keeping and editing the current version of the article or starting over is better. EditSafe (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Don't archive yet. The talk page is not yet big for archiving. George Ho (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Added my description to push down OP by EditSafe. George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: That seems at odds with everyone else, who see it as a choice between this version and the current version (the latter variously interpretted!). Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Make that four,  – I've added my support above. Procedurally, it might be advisable to ask at WP:AN for an independent admin to close this muddled RfC. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC Previous and Current Revisions 

message: *Edit Current Version. Editing the current version would be better than starting over. EditSafe (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions 

message: EditSafe, the OP you made was less clear and too brief. May I or Justlettersandnumbers please help you rewrite it? Also, why archiving the threads? Previous version and Current version. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The above comment (in this original diff)was restored by me, after I deleted it while trying to restore the premature archiving --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you again, Lemongirl. What about Talk:American Pekin/Archive 1? Should it be speedily deleted? George Ho (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

text: See #Previous and current revisions, Andrew. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But what is proposed here? If it were proposed to revert to a specific previous version, that would be a valid RfC, yes. But this is not, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  ....May I remove the RFC tag then? I'll do the fresher RFC soon if the tag is removed. George Ho (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to just ignore it for the moment, and discuss specific content issues as needed. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Okay George Ho, you can rewrite it if you want. I just wrote it quickly and not very carefully. I am archiving old discussions that have not been edited in a while because this talk page is getting too clogged to be easily navigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs) 
 The RfC is here so that other non-involved editors can supply their opinions on whether keeping and editing the current version of the article or starting over is better. EditSafe (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Don't archive yet. The talk page is not yet big for archiving. George Ho (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Added my description to push down OP by EditSafe. George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: That seems at odds with everyone else, who see it as a choice between this version and the current version (the latter variously interpretted!). Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Make that four,  – I've added my support above. Procedurally, it might be advisable to ask at WP:AN for an independent admin to close this muddled RfC. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Note, the talk page was prematurely and messily archived by EditSafe. I have reverted it and restored the content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the archive for now. I agree automated archiving will be more helpful, if archiving is required at all at this point. Huon (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premature archiving 

message: EditSafe, now that the article is reverted back to User:Justlettersandnumbers' version, would you please comply to the results and then not make one edit to the article? --George Ho (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you disagree, contact the one who performed the closure. Again, I don't think it'll change the closer's mind. You're not gonna do another RfC again, are you? --George Ho (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Now that the bot performed the task, you're right. --George Ho (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text: You have no more right to edit this article than I do. See WP:OWN. EditSafe (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry for the tone. Still... I'm a little concerned. George Ho (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  Hmm... are you sure that the source is reliable? George Ho (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to previous version 

message: The characteristics section mentions a little bit about how the ducks look, but does not mention anything about other characteristics such as sounds made, swimming, etc. I think that we should work on adding more to it. What do you guys think? EditSafe (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Which aspects of the sounds or behaviour of the American Pekin are sufficiently different from those of other domestic duck breeds to deserve mention here, and what sources discuss them? Generic content about domestic ducks in general belongs in our page on the Domestic duck, not here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which info is unchallenging enough to be included? The essay Wikipedia:When to cite can explain that. What about the eggs? --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics 

message: Hey again, Justlettersandnumbers. In the desktop view, the images are below the infobox when aligned to the right. They are also at the right side of the References section if viewed in the "220px" standard; at "400px", the images push a lot of space between the "References" header and the list of references. Well, I'm using a widescreen monitor. However, I didn't think about mobile readers when I changed the layout of the images, which was reverted. I guess the images belong to their own positions for mobile readers. However, on desktop, the images appear but not on their intended positions. If moving the images to Gallery section is not the best way, why not aligning the images to the left for desktop and mobile readers? --George Ho (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, George Ho! I can't reproduce every kind of screen, so my experience may be different from yours. I read on a laptop, and images on the left tend to squeeze the text into a thin line of toothpaste down the middle of the page. At the moment the images display correctly on my 13" screen and correctly on my telephone (except that, as with all portrait-format infobox images, only a strip across the centre is displayed). The gallery tag reduces the thumbnail size below the limit of usefulness and I try to avoid it where possible. Does adding a  after the body text help the display for you? An alternative would be to remove the duckling image – it doesn't really add much. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well... I tested the clearing thing out in the my sandbox, and I will be fine with the clearing (though I am not thrilled much about it). Alternatively, feel free to remove the duckling image if you want, especially per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. However, I'm unsure whether others would agree with the removal. Off-topic, but the "External links" or "Sister projects" heading should be added between the list of references and the link to Wikimedia Commons for easier navigation, shouldn't it? --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout of images 

message: Archiving everything is too soon, including reducing the page to just one thread. Is that necessary? If so, why? --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot I have set up does not archive everything. It archives all pages that have gone ~8 months without a response. The talk page is getting filled up with old irrelevant discussions so archiving the old ones (a lot of which are closed) is helpful. EditSafe (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can specify which threads you think are old and irrelevant, that would be great. Even so, they also help serve readers to have second thoughts before discussing something that's already been raised. Therefore, similar issues don't have to be repeated. I'm unsure whether the argument that users can look into archives holds water. --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything from "Incorrect / Unsourced Information" through "(Un)scientific names" is referring to the previous revision, not this revision.  EDIT: I mean to say that they are referring to the version of the article before the "overhaul" EditSafe (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is archiving those threads necessary? Either way, three is too small, and archiving those three threads is not a good or sufficient reason to add (or modify) the archiving bot, which you added. I would rather have the archive bot config removed. Also, I'd rather leave those threads alone at this time. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that leaving the bot alone and as-is would be a good compromise. EditSafe (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  If someone else agrees that removing the bot is better than leaving it alone, then there is a majority or a vote. Indeed, I lack energy to try to edit-war over the bot. --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

text:  At least we agree to not re-configure it. --George Ho (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Bot archival is a poor idea on obscure topics' talk pages, and in mainspace talk should be reserved for articles that get a high volume of low-grade talk churn. On pages like this, it's better done manually, with an eye to what has and has not been resolved. I know from direct experience at breed pages that serious WP:CCPOL issues can get filibustered at them for 3+ years. Readers who look at talk pages, and any incoming editors, need to be aware – without having to dig in archives which nearly 0 will ever do – about any dispute that remain unresolved, other than interpersonal crap that belonged in userspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method of archiving 

message: :"Southeast Asia, particularly southern China, is the major center of duck domestication, with records indicating duck farming in the region dating at least 2,000 years . . ."
:"In the absence of archaeological evidence, the exact timing of domestication and the time of meat and egg type ducks split remains unknown, with the first written records of domestic ducks in central China shortly after 500 BC" 
:.." we modeled population demographics and found strong support for a single domestication event roughly 2,200 years ago, with the rapid subsequent selection for separate meat and egg/dual-purpose breeds roughly 100 generations later." - 
:Domesticated in Southeast Asia. Single domestication event. Thus introduced to central China (and everywhere else that is not Southeast Asia), where the first (Han) Chinese written records of domestic ducks appear in 500 BC.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were introduced to China (which is in southeast Asia), where were they introduced from, and which source(s) document that introduction? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Central China (which is not in Southeast Asia), which is where the actual Chinese were during the period the ducks were domesticated.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification