Talk:Bullocky

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Bullocky is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles

Bullocky term

It's rather pointless to add {{Globalize}} when this a clearly just a term used in Australia. Wikipedia does have centric articles just about one country take a look at Cattle drives in the United States, Drover (Australian) and Bushranger, for example, which are centric to their own countries. {{Globalize}} is and should be used on articles such as Fire fighters were the term is used in all countries in the World. For the US term of 'Bullocky' which is Bullwhacker then I can't see why someone just can't add a section (If it's too short) or create an article for the term. Bidgee (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullocky is just an Australian term for the exact same occupation as what Americans or Canadians mean by Teamster. The two articles should be merged in to one global article, since the content is virtually the same. Steven Walling (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not okay for articles to be based only on one dialect or country when the subject is applicable to many countries and terms in English. What you call a bullocky in Australia is the same as drivers, teamsters and drovers in the U.S., Canada and other countries. Since drover means something different in Australia, and bullocky is unknown outside your country, I propose we merge Bullocky and Teamster together in to one article in the interest of staying global, with the title of Teamster. What do you think? Steven Walling (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)"

A bullocky handles only bullock teams, NO other teams. An OZ drover does not have anything to do with teams. They should be kept separate.Cgoodwin (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they're still essentially the same occupation, someone who drives a hitched team of draught animals. Having a separate article for each type of national jargon is both confusing and unfair to readers. Steven Walling (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The strength of Wikipedia is the diversity of its articles. This article about the Australian 'bullocky' includes rich and interesting information & is well on the way to becoming a well-structured & informative article. The proposal to subsume this article into the Teamster article is not logical. Bullock-drivers and their teams have an important place in Australian cultural history. Judging by the quality of the Teamster article the cultural importance of bullock- and horse-teams in the US does not have the same degree of cultural resonance that it does in Australia, despite the fact that they would have served a similar function in both countries in areas not served by railways. The 'Teamster' article has a link to 'Bullocky' and vice versa. That somebody feels the need to merge the two is perplexing, especially as it would be to the detriment of the better quality article. Ikeshut (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]