This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
picture caption in second section of article
Although a minor issue, the picture on the left currently states "wild bison and calf" when it is plain to someone who can identify sex that the two bison in question are an adult male, and and adult female bison.
I reverted these changes. I believe that the bison–buffalo name distinction was already covered pretty well in the Etymology section, and the new wording in the lead section didn't properly summarize that later text. The new wording also seemed to take a prescriptive approach to usage of the word "buffalo", and Wikipedia tends to avoid that. Also, it is very much a case of "commonly", not "sometimes". The cn link isn't really desirable, either; it's one of those easily verifiable, sky-is-blue assertions (one has only to check some dictionaries) that somehow doesn't lend itself to secondary sourcing. RivertorchFIREWATER 12:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I prefer to say "commonly, and incorrectly" when referring to bison as buffalo. Just because dictionaries have added the term "American buffalo" does not make it correct. Brian T. McDaniel(tAlk) 17:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
You're free to call it incorrect, but Wikipedia articles don't take prescriptive stances on word usage. So we can't say, in Wikipedia's voice, that it's incorrect. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I propose adding a simple sentence in Range and population acknowledging that Bison have been reintroduced successfully for several years now bringing the total up to 10. Anything along the lines of: Bison have been reintroduced to Central Ohio; would be fine. Thanks -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if that's particularly noteworthy. Ten bison? There are way more than that in lots of places. The article doesn't even suggest it's significant. "Just in time for Mother's Day"? It looks like a space-filler story to me. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Just a thought I had once I came across the mention that 23 bison have been reintroduced to Indiana as explained in cite note 45. The more detailed references would be more biased sources from park service websites so I tend to look for local papers. I'm not loosing sleep over the issue of Ohio being in the American Bison article though. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)