Talk:List of donkey breeds

Naming

I know this is an old issue, but I'd like to suggest that the chart be organized with English name first, then the name in the breed's native land's language, where that is not English. It seems absurd to have so many entries in the "As", for example. I know the table can be sorted, but that's something only people who have been around wikipedia for awhile know. Just putting this out here as a useful suggestion, particularly per WP:USEENGLISH. Montanabw^(talk) 23:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a point. It would result in an almost empty first column, as very, very few of these breeds have established English names. And of course all the Ânes and Asini and Asnos would still show up under A, but in the second column. The present arrangement is mostly based on what is reported to DAD-IS, with English-language or transboundary names noted where relevant. Obviously we don't have to stick slavishly to that, but as far as I know it's the only comprehensive worldwide database we have for this, so perhaps it makes some sense to be guided by it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem making obvious translations where there is no "established English name" ... I don't see it as a WP:OR issue. I mean, we already have Âne de Provence -->Provence donkey. Is it any kind of stretch to have Asino Ragusano --> Ragusano donkey (or Ragusa Ass, if more appropriate). Obviously, some of the entries will not work this way, but it is equally odd to have multiple "Asino" entries. I'd be willing to get the column order swapped if those who understand the language (nodding your way) could do translations. It's not a moral issue, just seems more user-friendly. Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I'd like to suggest that the English names go in the first column and the other be relabeled "Name in nation of origin" (or something like that) and made the second column. That or at least remove "Asa" from the native names so we don't have 10 kazillion in the "A" column. (which is what is actually bugging me the most). Also, I'd like to suggest that we aren't really using the DAD-IS as the only source, as the DAD-IS often lists the same breed a half-dozen times in different nations every time the spelling changes - The change in the lead is helpful, but the earlier narrative bit was also helpful, I suggest keeping a version of both. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minis

My understanding of American donkey breeds is that they are not particularly purebred, but rather something of a mishmash of various European breeds imported at various times. The minis are clearly descended from the Mediterranean minis, but other than those in a purebred registry documented as such, I cannot say with certainty that the American Miniature is identical to the Mediterranean Miniature and hence two entries seems appropriate. I think this original list came from the DAD-IS, which is rather notorious for taking nation reports at face value - note the number of entries that are clearly just that nation's native word for "ass" or "donkey." Always open to further research. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table edit

Sorry, I accidentally marked my last edit as "minor" when it should not be minor. Tidying up table. It's still a bit of a mess (for example, many entries are not in alphabetical order). Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The table is (or should be) sortable, be sure you don't mess up the sort parameter. Also, the tidying up of the national stuff may exceed what the source material says. JLAN should look over your changes to see if they are OK. @Justlettersandnumbers: Montanabw ^(talk) 22:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix any mistakes I may have introduced, but I'm pretty confident they're all improvements. There were empty cells causing entire columns to sort incorrectly; there's also no reason why we should say "United States of America" in one cell and "USA" in another. And for the record, JLAN doesn't own this article. Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a suggestion that the lead editor of the article (You know, the person who did all the actual work) should look at your changes and offer comment. By the way, whenever someone raises "OWN", I generally lose respect for that editor because it usually means they are not improving the article, they are just mad because their edits were reverted, which is nothing but ownership in reverse. So like I say, your fixes may or may not have been helpful, but it will take the more experienced editor to tell at a glance if there were errors made. Show a little respect for other editors who put in the hard work of creating content, please. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, I assumed that you hadn't read WP:OWN and didn't know that there is no such thing as a "lead editor".

You've first told me that my edits should probably not be allowed unless okayed by the owner, and then suggested that you've lost all respect for me and that you regard my edits as tantamount to "ownership in reverse"—I'm sorry, but this is all really uncalled for, and nothing to do with the substance of my edits.

(Incidentally, I've been a Wikipedian since 2004, so it's not obvious to me that JLAN is the more experienced editor—though perhaps they are. It doesn't matter anyway, since edits should be evaluated on their merits, not ad hominem.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To return to the subject at hand, here's an example of the kind of mess that I was trying to fix in the table: "lstarski rnagarac" (first letter is a lowercase L, but alphabetized under I as in Irish). This is an OCR artefact. I corrected it to "Istarski magarac", having first done a web search to confirm that the latter term really refers to a donkey breed from Istria. "Sudanese" had become "udanese". There's probably more of the same kind to be fixed there. Also, I noticed that at the top of the table there's a comment inviting Wikipedia contributors to add more breeds, which helps explain why some lines make less sense than others—they have presumably been added piecemeal by Wikipedians not necessarily experienced with tables. Hence my hunt through many, many rows for the extraneous cell throwing the columns off. Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well excuuuuuuuuuse me, oh great one. The point here is that JLAN is the expert on rare animal breeds and the creator of this article, and yes, there IS such a thing as a "lead editor" who may not have ownership or a veto, but basic good manners suggests asking people what they think of your changes. You are not in error to correct obvious mistakes and typos, but your tone is obnoxious. Trust me, I've been around here since 2006 and frankly, I am sick and tired of people who call others for "OWNership" while whining and complaining that their OWN edits aren't being worshipped like manna from heaven. All I did originally was suggest that the lead editor be consulted to see if he agreed with your changes. He has not stopped by, so presumably he is not too concerned, but nonetheless now you are off to the races, screaming about ownership, even though your own edit to the article is the most recent. How silly does that make you look? Montanabw ^(talk) 07:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If my tone sounded curt or whatever, it's because I don't have much patience with being patronized. I sincerely hope you don't take the same approach when dealing with newbies. I'm not going to be deterred by language like you're using ("obnoxious", "screaming", "sick and tired", "manna from heaven"—who on earth needs this?), but plenty of other people could be. I'm done with this exchange until you have something to say about the article. Cheers, Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, you did sound "curt or whatever." And patronizing. (And you just were patronizing again with the "newbie" comment) So, my patience with the same is about equal to yours. If you have nothing to say, I guess I don't either, and frankly, if the lead editor hasn't been following this discussion, then I guess monitoring the changes are really his problem. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian Donkey

I've tried to search up information on the "Algerian" donkey breed, listed on the DAD-IS. However, apart from the entry in the DAD-IS and a very short entry in Mason's World Dictionary of Livestock Breeds, Types and Varieties, I can find no other information on this breed of donkey, and I'm wondering if it is really legitimate and should be included on this list? I understand that the list is based on the DAD-IS and states that, but as it is the only list of donkey breeds on Wikipedia it is potentially misleading. As has already been mentioned, many of the "breeds" listed on the DAD-IS are just "Donkey" "Ass" or the equivalent in a country's native language, and are not necessarily 'breeds' as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimestone (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by the references to "goats" – this is a list of donkey breeds. That aside, you certainly have a point: many countries, including the United States, do not have donkey breeds as such (in the sense of a population with recognisable characteristics that breeds true and has a written standard to which it should conform – that is after all a fairly recent Western concept). I believe the FAO takes a looser view, along the lines of : "if the people who raise it call it a breed, then we will too". As for sources, the main languages of Algeria are French, Arabic and Berber, so those would be the best to search for sources. I quickly found this, part of which reads "La race d'âne algérienne est petite mais résistante, et rend de grands services dans les transports. On compte 340 000 animaux dans toute la …"; this search and this one might also help. It should definitely be in the list, for WP:CSB reasons if no other. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh woops, how embarrassing xD My bad, I've just got goats on the brain P: Yeah that's fair enough, I hadn't thought to look in other languages. As for the loose stance the FAO takes; I understand that a breed can be just something defined by a group of people, but I'm wondering how many of these are distinct breeds based on genetics, especially seeing as many are listed just as "Donkey" or "Ass". Although I suppose that's a topic for a different thread.

We tend to be reasonably generous in defining breeds. The alternative is endless edit wars, as there is no real universal standard out there (some nations have standards, but they vary). Personally, I'm usually OK if it's on the FAO list is that's the only RS out there. (Sometimes the FAO list is wrong, but in those cases we have additional sources). Montanabw ^(talk) 01:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Romulus and Remus 2013.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

3- Donkeys of El Affroun.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]