Talk:Sheep/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Breeding behavior

Rams will regularly fight even when there are no females about. Their fights are usually fairly determined occasionally involving up to three rams and will last one of them quits. I have not seen sheep blindfolded because of their behaviour. In Australasia the "rut" is not used and is known as joining or mating. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Could somebody please add Wensleydale cheese in the list of well known sheep cheeses?

an informative link would be Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewebcat (talkcontribs) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well known to whom? There are very few Wensleydale breeders in the US and even less Wensleydale cheese makers. The link is to a commericial site which would be biased. Any links to third-party sites would be beneficial to your statement. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Life Expectancy?

What is the average life expectancy of sheep? Can someone add that? 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

moufflon or urial?

The introductory paragraph gives the urial as the most likely ancestor. The subsequent paragraph on "Domestication of sheep" says this is unlikely, giving the moufflon as the ancestor. Can anyone resolve the contradiction?

Ferdinand Pienaar 08:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fat-tailed sheep?

In Pakistan there's a common domestic animal called a "fat-tailed sheep", which has, I believe, a different name in Urdu than an ordinary sheep. I think also varieties of sheep cultivated by early inhabitants of South Africa (already there when Dutch colonists arrived) were said to be "fat-tailed". What's the history of these animals?

Ferdinand Pienaar 08:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Information on this breed is now available on Fat-tailed_sheep —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverGreg (talkcontribs) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


From article:

"A ram or wether lamb, after being weaned, is called a hog, or hoggitt, tag, or pug, throughout the first year, or until it renew two teeth; the ewe, a ewe-lamb, ewe-tag, or pug. In the second year the wether takes the name of shear-hog, and has his first two renewed or broad teeth, or he is called a two-toothed tag or pug; the ewe is called a thaive, or two-toothed ewe tag, or pug. In the third year, a shear hog or four-toothed wether, a four-toothed ewe or thaive. The fourth year, a six-toothed wether or ewe. The fifth year, having eight broad teeth, they are said to be full-mouthed sheep. Their age also, particularly of the rams, is reckoned by the number of times they have been shorn, the first shearing taking place in the second year; a shearing, or one-shear, two-shear, &c. The term pug is, I believe, nearly become obsolete. In the north and in Scotland, ewe hogs are called dimonts, and in the west of England ram lambs are called pur lambs.
The ancient term tup, for a ram, is in full use. Crone still signifies an old ewe. Of crock, I know nothing of the etymology, and little more of the signification, only that the London butchers of the old school, and some few of the present, call Wiltshire sheep horned crocks. I believe crock mutton is a term of inferiority."

What is the source of this? I am suspicious of the strange first person statements. How many of this names are still in use and where? I have a suspicion that these are mainly British and Irish terms. Rmhermen 19:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

It's from Others have already asked this contributor to credit the source. I've also been slowly integrating the contributor's cut&paste from public domain texts into the article proper and crediting sources (e.g. snake and James Wolfe). Samw 22:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could we talk about sheep as "wollies"? The singular being "wooly". They are so soft and cuddly! ~

I've heard sheep being called woolies (or one wooly), in reference to the number of sheep to be shorn in one go (eg. "We have 5000 woolies for you this year") but not sure it's useful to the article. Donama 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

woolly ruminant quadrupeds

This is the best definition ever. I think this is what I will now forever call sheep. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure 'ruminant quadrepeds' is lifted from some book or other but I can't remember... --Kiand 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Closest thing I found to a book was a website called "," which cited in its page about sheep, or "Woolly ruminant quadrupeds." 05:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

This should be a case of the ordinary meaning receiving the priority to the common name. In fact, the disambiguation page, Sheep (disambiguation) already exists. But now hundreds of incoming links go to a disambiguation page instead of to the correct article.----

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. Turn this page into redirect to sheep, move disambiguation text onto existing disambiguation page. Rmhermen 04:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose (changed mind based on Jimfbleak's rationale) Donama 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, reversion of move inconsistent and unscientific, see my reasons below. jimfbleak 05:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A move to inconsistency would be a bad thing in this case, but I do feel that 1) the sheep article could be improved by highlighting more strongly that it's not about domestic sheep (and that there is a difference), and 2) some sections in domestic sheep need to be moved to the parent article. The current arrangement works for me. -- Iantalk 07:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


Right now I am fairly neutral beccause the person who moved most of "Sheep" to "Domestic Sheep" didn't detail the reasons but I assumed it is more correct scientifically to write about all sheep in "Sheep" and just the sheep as livestock in "Domestic sheep". I did quite a few manual relinking in pages directing to "Sheep" instead of "Domestic Sheep" already, but there are literally hundreds remaining and it would need bots to do the job properly. Donama 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The scientific rationale for the move is obvious; the article I moved was almost entirely about the domestic sheep, with other species being mentioned only in the context of listing relatives, and the ancestry of the domesticated form. The taxobox and conservation status was for one species, the domesticated form, not the sheep genus Ovis. I would agree that the genus article needs expanding, but that doesn't nullify the move.
Although the "common name" principle is a good one, ie sheep rather than Ovis, in cases like this overapplication leads to wooly (LOL) thinking. If you go to goat, turkey, pig, peafowl etc you get the genus article, with domestic goat, domesticated turkey, domestic pig, Indian Peafowl etc as links. AFAIK all the main domesticated animals have articles titled as domestic rabbit etc, unless they have unique names eg chicken, silkworm, honeybee.
There is also a difference in emphasis between what might be called the "biological" articles, and the "agricultural" one. For example, in the case of Turkey, the more scientific information on the two species of wild bird would sit uneasily with details on the domesticated form, especially of the Thanksgiving dinner variety.
I fixed a lot of the links, but the same problem arises there. Some, like the economy of... ones are clearly domestic sheep, others like ewe and the bluetongue disease articles are generic to sheep or bovids, and I left those pointing correctly to sheep.
I wont get into an edit war if these changes are reversed, but I do think that reverting will be inconsistent with other domestication-related articles, and an unecessary dumbing down, leading to confusion. At the very least a taxobox for sheep should be for the genus.
I suppose that the alternative would be to have the genus article at Ovis, rather than sheep, but this is against the common name principle and would also lead to much relinking. I don't know that if I were searching for information about sheep in general that I would start at Ovis, rather than Sheep?
jimfbleak 05:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I find the precedent set by the other Wikipedia article's to be the most compelling consideration. Note, however, that there are still dozens of "economy of x", "y cheese" and sheep product articles that need the links changing (including any about wool and lamb (food)). Do you know how to make a bot to fix these? Donama 11:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm an IT moron - I'm not sure in any case that a bot could distinguish whether a particular item should go to sheep or domestic sheep, although I suppose it would be simpler to change them all to the latter, and fix the relatively few links to the generic article manually. Thanks for for your help with link-fixing, I know there are a lot left to do, but I don't want to invest lots of time in them at present until this issue is resolved. jimfbleak 12:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Removed notice as no consensus was reached to move it. Donama 23:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Black sheep

What causes the black sheeps color to be black? Is the skin of black sheep a different colour or is it just the wool? Any idea of the ratio of white sheep to black sheep? Rusty2005 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the race, there are just black or brown sheeps in some races. Other races prefer the white ones, because you can color the wool better, but they are always some black ones in every white flock, because its nature you are dealing with. There are, I think, also races with black and white spots like a black HF-cow!

It's just the wool, just like hair on people. There are black, reddish, grey or brown sheep in some breeds. Commercial production relies on sheep carefully bred to minimize the occurance of colored genes as the colored wool cannot be mixed into the normal product stream for white wool. So in commercial wool flocks the incidence will be virtually zero. Even meat flocks sell wool as a secondary product so colored wool is very rare. Specialty and heritage flocks will preserve the color variances in the breed but the wool is used in smaller (and separated) product streams, often using the natural colors and unusual breeds as selling points. Jacob sheep are a breed with multi-colored coats while Shetland sheep, perhaps have the widest range of colors. Rmhermen 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The skin is black under the black spot in wool, too, even on a mainly white Merino.Cgoodwin (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sheep Wool

Would a sheep's wool keep growing if it's not sheared? How to keep it warm after shearing?

Yes it does keep growing. A ram that evaded the annual muster in central Australia for more than four years had wool 24cm long. As you can imagine he'd have gotten pretty hot a lot of the time and had it pretty tough. They thought it was pretty amazing he was alive. In South Australia, shearing is normally done in September, October or November so the sheep don't have to worry so much about how to keep cool! — Donama

When a ruminant feels cold, its starts eating more, because the digestion makes a lot of temperature. So, after shearing, you should make sure, that your sheep has enough to eat. More dangerous is, that the sheep are getting to hot, so they stop eating at all.

While it may seem backward, some sheep do wear coats - but they wear them before shearing to keep the wool cleaner, not after shearing to keep warm. Rmhermen 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Also done as part of the bioclip ( system so that you can take the fleece off in one piece --Peripitus (Talk) 03:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


OK, someone's added a section on how to have sex with sheep. I'm going to remove it but if anyone wants to include it they should probably put it in a different section (rather than right below the opening paragraph). -- 11:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more than appropriate to skip that part. If anybody really want to include it, it should be in an article about whatever that sexual attraction is named.

physical characteristics

How big are sheep? I know they have a weight range, but what's an average weight or size? Horses are incredibly variable, from miniatures being two feet or less at the shoulder to giant types like Percherons. I assume there's some of the same variability in any animal domesticated for a long time, but still, there's nothing here that indicates how big they are, that I saw, at least. Deirdre 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Horse has a section called "Biology of the Horse" and cattle has a section called just "Biology". I may work on it latter today - but it is not as variable as horses. Rmhermen 22:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


How long does it take for a sheep to give birth? my kids would like to know. many thanks

"Sheep gestation usually runs from 145 to 153 days."[1] or about 5 months. Rmhermen 19:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do they only give birth in spring? Kisch 04:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking that is true. However, due to different breeds coming into heat at different times of the late summer and well into winter, sheep do give birth from winter well into late spring. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 09:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


not sure if this is the right article, but something should be mentioned about sheep sexuality and ongoing research about it. -- 04:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the additions about the OHSU controversy bc it has been an international scandal. and I added the cites about the occurence of homosexuality in sheep, not bc I think we need to go around mentioning it in every of the hundreds of animals it has been observed in, but bc it has been closely studied in sheep. VanTucky 17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is to present information in a responsible and non-offensive scholastic form rather than espousing an agenda or exciting irrelevant controversy. Children are exposed to posted information for the benefit of education in this case fundamental attributes of sheep. A forum to disgust debatable behavior; aberrant behavior and sexual behavior amongst humans or sheep is inappropriate in this arena. Let the sheep be the center of attention in such fields as Wikipedia online talk about "sheep" and not irrelevant and inappropriate sexual suppositions. The dispute is not about the information but rather the wisdom of posting such information in this forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellahvalley (talkcontribs) 04:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First, please remember to sign all talk posts with four tildes or the signature button. Second, Wikipedia is not censored, for taste or otherwise. Per Wikipedia' obvious disclaimers and adult content, children should not read it unmonitored. This is the plain and simple truth, and if you think you're going to change this, go ahead and try to delete Anal sex or Pearl necklace. It isn't gonna fly. To allude to homosexuality as "aberrant" is not exactly a neutral or civil thing. Consistent slurs about homosexuality may violate our policies on personal attacks and civility. I don't know what you're talking about with the bestiality nonsense, but the article has never contained a mention of it. However, treatment of the sexuality of sheep and any impact this may have on culture is relevant. VanTucky Talk 04:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone belive this is a word? Should or shouldn't it be removed from here? Rboesen 15:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Are sheep neotenised animals? I was given to understand that most domesticated animals are. -- 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. VanTucky 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


I cleaned up the images in this article, it had far too many and often crowded things. I moved the merino pic to the economic importance section bc it seemed to fit as the largest commercial flock breed. Also, in cultural significance I added a pic of sheep near the Damascus gate of Jerusalem per the importance of sheep and shepherds in Judeo-christian texts. VanTucky 05:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I have two sheep sounds - I don't know if we want to use them so I'm sticking them here. Secretlondon 15:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Gender Name List

Can someone please add the Gender Name List I can remember that a female Sheep is a Ewe but the rest I can't find nor remember(JOBNED1 not currently loged in)


Something keeps me awake at night: I wonder if sheep can get moths? I do know that some species of moths eats wool, (or rather their larvaes) but do they also lay their eggs in the sheep's wool when the wool is still on the sheep?

Some flies lay eggs on sheep, the larva burrow into the skin and flesh of the sheep. This illness is called myiasis. The Common Clothes Moth however, may not find the wool on a live sheep to be all that hospitable. The egg will first have to hatch, then the larva will eat for two months, then it will spend two more months in a cocoon. That's 4-5 months hanging on to an animal that walks and rolls around, are exposed to sunlight, changing temperatures and moisture and get their wool cut once a year. The moths' egg is securely fastened, but the larvae is adapted to dark, safe and non-moving surroundings, quite unlike that of a sheep. This is probably the reason why moth attacks are not one of the many illnesses of sheep. EverGreg (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Should not the title of this article be 'domesticated sheep'? 'Domestic sheep' implies those kept as pets, perhaps. (Or at least the distinction should be made.) quota 20:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


I propose we move the glossary to Sheep husbandry. About half the terms are husbandry terms anyway, and it's an uncited eyesore here. I'm looking to get this article at least to GA-class, so I think both topically and practically-speaking it should be moved. VanTucky talk 00:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Many of the terms are indeed husbandry ones, but then again, many are more to do with the animal itself. If it was in sheep husbandry, would we not just have the same problem in the opposite direction. What about breaking it out into a separate article? As a separate article, the two other articles would have some basic terminology, with "Main article" tags. "Sheep terminology"?
I have reservations about some of the changes to the body of the terminology section. Dealing with each:
  • Repeats of definitions given elsewhere. I see the logic for an ordinary section. However a glossary section ends up being complete – except for the most common and important terms (for example it would include the local term yow, but miss out the standard term ewe). If this was an ordinary section, I would agree with leaving out repeats, but my feeling is that in this case a complete glossary is more important than avoiding minor repetition. The repeated definitions do mostly include further information. I've restored them for the moment. User:Richard New Forest 23:19, 25 November 2007
Most of the other issues I can deal with, but retaining definitions given elsewhere, especially those that have their own articles, is not under any circumstances acceptable. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and articles are not meant to have define every special term they use. That is what links are for. Sheepdog and shepherd (for example) are terms that have their own article, and linking to those within the regular text is sufficient. Repeating terms, such as ewe, which are not esoteric and are clearly defined beforehand in the article is just clutter. This is the only major livestock article that has such a glossary, and there's good reason for it. What this article needs is more comprehensive, informative prose and less rambling lists. I will be removing the duplicate terms. VanTucky talk 02:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Forgot one point you made. Breaking off into a separate article would be fine, and thus including terms like those I objected to above wouldn't be an issue (obviously). Of course, my honest feeling is that such an article might be deleted as a violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY by someone. I think it might be defensible though, considering there really is a large and unique glossary of terms only referring to sheep. VanTucky talk 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I do understand the argument about repeats, and I won't change it back without discussion. However, where does "not under any circumstances acceptable" come from? Is that WP style? If so, where is it explained? You have explained your reasoning, but I don't think you have yet shown that it overcomes the contrary. My concern is for people who have not necessarily read the whole of the article (or indeed all other related articles). How are they going to know that there is an article on herding dogs, and that it also covers sheepdogs? (Incidentally, "sheepdog" is not mentioned or linked elsewhere in the article.) How many people interested in sheep-related terms are really going to notice the only other link to shepherd – buried in the Old Testament bit of the Cultural Significance section? The way I see it is that the definitions in the first paragraph are a summary of what comes later – as they are for "lamb" and "mutton", which are defined again in the food section. In that case, leave out mutton from the intro and it is an incomplete summary, leave it out from the food section and it's thoroughly confusing. I think it works the same for the terminology section. Having said all that, if there is an agreed policy on the point I am of course happy to go along with it – but I'd like to read it first.
Pronunciation of "yow". Without including the rhyme, someone unfamiliar with IPA either has to go and look it up, or may go away thinking it rhymes with "low". Is this not exactly what Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)#Other transcription systems is talking about?
Quite right on the quotes/emphasis point. I've corrected one more.
Glossary pages appear to be well established (see Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists), and even have their own category (Glossaries), with glossaries for such esoteric subjects as contract bridge and bagpipes (the latter is astonishingly long). A close parallel to sheep is Glossary of nautical terms.--Richard New Forest (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I was saying that that is my opinion. Sorry for any confusion. The thing is, articles simply cannot take the time to make each section complete and independent. That would require an absurd amount of linking, as well as a lot of other repetition. If a word or subject isn't linked in that section (as to the sheepdog thing, I will definitely include it in my upcoming expansion) then we put enough trust in readers that they can search for it. Making each article stand alone when it comes to definitions of terms and subjects is not a goal of the project. The goal is to weave the web between subjects. But for the specifics within the article, the intro wouldn't be a summary if it included every major term. I just don't want to include words in the glossary that are either complete separate article topics (dogs, for instance, which isn't really a term referring to Ovis aries anyway. it's a sheep industry term) or words that are pretty commonplace and are defined before (ram, ewe). As to the glossary article issue...good research. It seems a new sheep glossary article would be in order. VanTucky talk 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's do that then.--Richard New Forest (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What do we call it? Just Sheep terminology? --Richard New Forest 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This section copied to Talk:Glossary of sheep husbandry. --Richard New Forest 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by Johnbod

I have reverted these edits for several reasons. I will go through each specifically.

  1. You link to lamb of god instead of sacrificial lamb. Sacrificial lamb is its own article, and there is no reason to link to lamb of god when the identical link of agnus dei exists in the article.
Check your links - they are different articles. My links are the right ones.
Which do you mean are different? Because Angus Dei and lamb of god are the same. Even if they weren't the same link, they mean the same thing. Sacrificial lamb has a different, secular meaning as outlined in its article. It should be linked. VanTucky talk 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
They are different articles on different topics - have you acrtually loooked at them? If you want to write something relevant to sacrificial lamb, then by all means link to it.
Oh, they are technically different articles. The reason I confused them is that they have virtually identical content. Sacrificial lamb imo begs more linking, but I'm willing to let it go. VanTucky talk 09:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
One is about a specific prayer, and the other about the theological concept (capable of much expansion). They seem pretty different to me, & clearly here should link to Lamb of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talkcontribs) 10:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. You made a controversial claim about sheep behavior in Wales with a reliable source. Saying "An aspect of the story generally disceetly overlooked in the inevitable wide press coverage" through personal anecdote is not a reliable citation. Such an assertion needs proper verification.
It is not at all "controversial" - it happens rather regularly, as the Independent points out here. The incident I was particularly thinking of (at Betws-y-Coed - I used to keep the cutting) was before the reach of online articles.
Well, if you have a cite, then feel free to add it. I wouldn't have removed it if you had provided a verification in the first place. All you included in the ref tag was a personal statement. The link is not a full article, and there's no mention of sheep culling in the abstract. AGF isn't something that stretches to factual accuracy. You need to provide a source that clearly supports the claim you inserted. VanTucky talk 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Add a cite tag then. Perhaps someone who actually knows about sheep will happen on the article.
Please do not be rude. The rule of thumb as laid out in policy (can't remember whether it's RS or V) says that fact tagging is for info without cites that is unlikely to cause harm. Making a very controversial claim about the culling practices of shepherds without a supporting cite is not okay to leave in. If it's verifiable, then I'm more than glad to include it. But saying sheep are killed in that way without supporting evidence is unacceptable. VanTucky talk 09:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
What is "controversial", that they do it or that they get slaughtered early? Why should either be so? Is the Yorkshire case really likely to be a unique case? If this is what you are saying, that really is controversial. Since the behaviour is learnt within one flock, obviously it would spread to others, especially at market, causing chaos. It is not "shepherds", it is (in the UK) the ministry who insist on this. All sheep in the UK are now effectively raised for meat alone (the wool is sometimes thrown away), as I hope your article says somewhere, so "culling" is hardly the appropriate term.
So far, the only evidence you have provided to prove that this actually happens at all is your own word. I have not heard or read about this in the half-dozen or more extensive sources I've had access to about sheep in rewriting this article, so it sounds dubious to me. If you can provide some kind of verification in reliable, published sources I don't have a problem. But basing it on your personal experience without verification is not acceptable. VanTucky talk 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. You made an assertion about etymology without a specified source. Generally citing all of the OED is not good enough.
Obviously, in reference to a particular word or words, the reference is to the OED entry for that word or words. Normal practice.
Just linking "OED" in a ref is not normal practice in my experience. If you can't provide a clearer verification than that, I'll have to do my own research to confirm what you're asserting etymologically. VanTucky talk 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend looking in the OED.

I'll take that as a no to my request for specific verification then. As you well know, the OED is huge. Combing through it to look for where your claim is verified is not necessary, if you would be so kind as to provide a clear place within the text it is verified. That kind of specification is part of decent citations. VanTucky talk 09:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be an idiot. Per above, for mutton, look under mutton, beef under beef ... get the picture?
  1. You made a claim about meat consumption in a specific region without a reliable source.

In general, inserting personal opinion like that is not okay. Please provide better verification of facts in the future.

Just because it is unreferenced does not mean it is personal opinion. Which claim do you mean? You have (very lazily) reverted all my changes, without even going to cite tags, including several you can hardly disagree with. I think a reminder of WP:OWN is called for.
First off, we can speak on content with having to make angry accusations right off the bat. If you check the history, several editors other than myself have made significant contributions recently without me reverting, one even at my invitation. That hardly denotes an ownership issue. As to the other accusation, I did read the ref contents you provided, as I address their contents above twice. And I do disagree with some of the changes, which is why I outlined it specifically here. Of course. VanTucky talk 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I notice you don't address my points here at all. What claim are you talking about?
I'm mostly talking about the Welsh issue, that I quote above. That was what you provided as "verification" of the claim. Since it isn't linked to any reliable, published source, I can only assume that that assessment of the situation was your opinion. If it isn't, I'd be happy to include the content if you can provide a published source clearly supporting it.VanTucky talk 09:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You've lost me, I'm afraid. So you don't have a problem with all the other stuff you reverted?
Yes, I do have a problem with the other things, which is why I reverted them. As I say above, feel free to change the linking in Cultural significance like you wanted, you're right there. Other than that, I am not satisfied per the above. VanTucky talk 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Per what above? You reverted a number of points you have not touched on in your "discussion". Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Replies by Johnbod (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If I missed something, please point it out. Still not addressed fully here: your claim about the effective difference between lamb and mutton consumption in the U.K. You have not provided a reference to back that up. Second, the discussion above about citing just "the OED" for etymology without giving specifics in a huge work. Assuming readers know where to look in the OED is not good verification. You and I might, but readers looking for accurate info need specific cites. Lastly, and of the most concern, your additions to the "cattle grid" bit, which you have not supported with a reliable, published source. VanTucky talk 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have addressed the OED point twice in very emphatic terms. I really don't know what more to say. It is you who have not addressed at all several other points - you have just reverted, without yet stating any objections in all these exchanges. You are clearly attached to defending your own version regardless. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you're obviously intractable on the OED thing. So be it. I'll fix it myself with a proper citation. But as to the other two issues I specifically name, I cannot be more clear than this: you have not provided citations to reliable published sources. That's all I'm asking. Please provide sources that clearly verify what you're asserting. You're smart and you're not a newbie. You know that verification is the test for inclusion of material. So, please provide citations for the things you added to the As food section and the bit about sheep rolling over cattle grids. Otherwise they aren't kosher. VanTucky talk 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict - further brief replies. Johnbod (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

and more. Johnbod (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Please can we keep this respectful. It is not helpful or appropriate to say "idiot", or "I've said it ten times", however frustrated we might feel. Makes us look like kids in the playground. We are all on the same side here.

Can we have comments and replies in order, or at least each signed please – I find it hard to disentangle the voices when they're muddled up, and can't keep track of the indents. Perhaps make sub-sections?

Now for my own views on the points raised, for what they are worth.

OED citation: Can't see the problem with a full citation (with edition), and yes, I think the individual entries do have to be listed, as such info is not always under "obvious" entries. As I happen to have a copy of the full OED I'll have a go at this (for a start, if I recall correctly, the origin of "mutton" is Anglo-Norman, not French as such).

Lamb of god etc. Don't know, don't care, I'm afraid. Not my superstition...

Rolling on cattle grids. I have heard of this, in south Wales many years ago. All I've seen for myself is ewes and lambs tippy-toeing across them, and also finding my own bulling heifer on the dual carriageway (three times the same day, though I still don't know how she did it). A friend's cob just jumps them at a gallop... However, I've never seen unequivocal proof of the rolling theory. I note that even the BBC item does not include a photo showing the actual method, and the quote is from an obviously partial person who does not say they've seen it themselves. I suspect it may be an imaginative folk-explanation for something more straightforward. I do know (from speaking to shepherds) that sheep with difficult habits are often drafted out of the flock – perhaps to slaughter, but perhaps more likely to better-fenced land. I'm not quite sure how sheep could learn such habits from each other "at market" – they may be cleverer than their reputation, but I don't think they can talk! And I can't believe the Min of Ag (or whatever they're called this month) would "insist" such a flock was culled – nor am I aware of a law which could allow them to do so. Anyway, very many sheep in Britain are not contained by cattle grids but just by fences, so there's no shortage of other places they could go. Overall I think this remains in the category of possible, but unproven, and so needs citations. Could mention rolling as a theory or story, but not as fact.

Second-year lamb. I don't know about this – I must say I thought most was autumn lamb, but I could easily be wrong, and who knows what the Kiwis send us? Either way I think it does need a citation, which ought not to be too hard if it's true. How about sticking it in with a "fact" tag for the moment?

Sheep offal. Lamb's liver "considered inferior to calf's"? Who considers it? This is an opinion which is likely to vary person to person and culturally, and so needs clarification and citation (I prefer ox-liver myself). The charcuterie stuff seems uncontroversial though. --Richard New Forest (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A)Anglo-Norman is not a langauge "as such"; the OED for "Mutton" 1 says "Old French" (first Middle English use 1090, "Beef" 1 the same, first use ca. 1300.
B) The Betws-y-Coed incident (North Wales) was widely reported at the time, just like the Yorkshire one; but I don't have a reference - it could well be 20 years ago.
C) Your taste in liver must be very handy as ox-liver is about 1/10 the price of calves liver, as most people disagree, although I expect many cats share your view. I imagine you have trouble finding it in restaurants though? Johnbod (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That all sounds reasonable Richard. And thanks for the offer to work on the OED cite. But the problem I have with fact tagging of dubious additions is that it is so often a semi-permanent solution when it is supposed to be temporary. I'm considering nominating this for GA, and maybe eventually FA. Fact tags are a huge barrier to passing either of those, and I can't remedy them if they don't come from source material available to me. They may end up being requested to be removed anyway. I'd prefer to see things, especially the assertion of opinion (like you mention above as to offal), cited as soon as possible. Perhaps a short period with a fact tag can be agreed upon, and if someone doesn't present proper refs by then, then it shall be removed? VanTucky talk 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a lot of background with sheep (raised a bottle lamb once, that's it), but as for this little edit war, my two bits is that the OED stuff is worth researching, as the mutton/sheep, beef/cattle, pork/hog thing is a genuine tidbit of historic interest. Not that I have time to do it. The rest of the controversial edits sound like unsourced POV to me, however, and I am a great believer that footnotes settle many an edit war. Sometimes a Fact tag that is monitored for a few days by the tagger is a more diplomatic way to go, and going for GA or FA is usually a process that takes a week or two, the average reviewer will put it on hold if there are objectionable bits. (Only GA nomination I ever had quick-failed happened to be quick failed by YOU, me laddie, but no hard feelings... (grin). Anyway, I think that VT and Richard are on the right track, and as a reader who wants to learn more about sheep, I really could not care less about what sheep in Wales allegedly do to escape confinement, unless sheep everywhere do it, which can be sourced. Given that I also don't care much for liver at all, I really don't care if sheep liver is inferior, either (grin)... Montanabw(talk) 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Language. Old French, then, not French as such; Old Norman (including Anglo-Norman) was a dialect of this. Included in article.
Betws-y-Coed etc. "Widely reported" does not mean it happened, only that lots of people said it did. The same applies to British big cats, Nessie, flying saucers and whatnot. Rolling sheep may be a bit more likely than those, but until it's got solid evidence it doesn't matter how many people say they've heard of it. In fact I think one of the refs may actually be a counter-ref – the Independent article is saying it's a "silly season" story, and I think the implication is that it'd be reported whether (wether..?) it happened or not. My trouble with the rolling thing is that it doesn't seem to fit with sheep psychology or agility. If sheep are trying to get somewhere, they go head-first, placing their feet carefully. If they're lying down, the first thing they do is get up, clumsily (or sometimes not at all). I can't imagine a sheep lying down deliberately in order to go somewhere, nor being able to roll over reliably in the right direction without either getting beached as a riggwelter, or getting legs stuck in the grid. Also, I'm not sure that half a sheep's circumference would get them right across – I think they'd have to do more than one roll – and then what happens to their legs in the middle? All very doubtful, though admittedly an amusing image. I suspect that in fact these sheep were prosaically walking across (like the ones I've seen myself), but they did it when no-one was looking, and rolling makes a much better story for the silly season. Actually the ones I saw did not exactly walk, but scampered, lambs and all.

As a sheep breeder I feel compelled to comment on the stock grid crossings. I have seen sheep jump them and also walk across the sides, but it would be unfeasable for them to roll across as they would become stuck. I have on occasions removed sheep from grids because they were incapable of getting out by themselves. This inclusion of this piece destroys credibility of much of the well written article. The financial supporters of Wikipedia deserve better. Cgoodwin (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, my ox-liver comes from my own oxen, or at any rate steers. The way our butchering works, I can't sell the offal with the rest of the animal, so it's a free treat for us (or a disappointment if the carcase comes back with the liver condemned from fluke). Tastes even better when it's your own steer, though I say it as oughtn't.
Tag with "fact", wait a week or two, then remove if not referenced. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? What's the rush?
--Richard New Forest (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Van Tucky reverts diff

I'm not going to continue with this, but if anyone interested in the accuracy of the article cares to pick up from the various bits of material block-reverted by Van Tucky, many not discussed above, the diff is here Johnbod (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I did think I'd covered all the points under dispute (and I was using that diff) – which ones do you think have been left out? --Richard New Forest (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Detailed terminology in lead

As the intro is supposed to be a "concise overview" (see WP:LEAD), I do not think it is appropriate to include more specific terms used for sheep. Hogget and weaner are not terms often heard outside the industry/farm, and will only confuse readers without an in-depth explanation (which would be inappropriate in an overview). This is why the Glossary of sheep husbandry is linked in the article, and the fact that innumerable other terms exist is made clear. Also, lamb, ewe and ram are universally used terms. Hogget and weaner are not. You almost never hear people in the States say hogget, and it's not used in U.S. sheep literature either - five major books I read published in the 21st century and Sheep! magazine do not use it with any regularity at all. I could be wrong here, but I doubt the everyday Briton or Australian would know the term w/o explanation as well. VanTucky talk 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm astounded that hogget was removed from the article, especially as the article redirects from there. The wool from these sheep is the most valuable wool available and is used in the highest quality suiting.

"Hogget wool comes from sheep twelve to fourteen months old that have not been previously shorn. The fibre is fine, soft resilient, and mature, and has tapered ends. Hogget wool is a very desirable grade of wool and, because of its strength, is used primarily for the warp yarns of fabrics." see

The point is that including the term is not an appropriate part of the contents of the lead section, which is supposed to be a concise overview of the article. This is why there is a link to the glossary. If you want to add a definition of hogget somewhere in the body with the referenced idea that hogget wool is the most valuable, that's perfectly fine with me. But including every term for sheep at a specific life stage in the lead is not in line with style guidelines in my view. VanTucky talk 18:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Cgoodwin (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Points in the hogget issue to consider are:

1 Australia and New Zealand are the world’s biggest producers of sheep and wool except for China.

2 China already has its own Wikipedia.

3 Hogget meat is sold in Australasia, ie that is Australia and New Zealand.

4 Hogget wool is the finest and most valuable wool.

5. I noticed that you have used the term tup at the same location. This term was not included in any of my extensive collection of books on sheep and wool production. Nor could I find it in EB, World Book or the Australian or NZ Encyclopedias. A web search yielded Tupperware and an assortment of articles unrelated to sheep, plus several that seem to indicate that the term is only used in IRE & ENG.

6. The existing sheep article did not contain or link to hoggets.

7. Five references to hogget were also provided for your information.

8. "Hogget" is commonly used in A'asia, but it is a very large industry with links to many nations. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, I must have missed tup in the lead in my hurry, that should be removed even more than hogget (you're absolutely right, it is a UK/Ireland specific term). But you seem to have completely ignored my primary reason for removing hogget and weaner from the lead, as well as not even addressing the inclusion of weaner. I already knew hogget was an important term, so you don't need to provide a bunch of refs. But having references is not an instant gateway to inclusion. There are also more detailed policies and guidelines than just WP:V and WP:RS. The section in which you want the word is the lead (or intro). The Manual of Style guidelines on the lead define it as a concise overview of the article, not an overview of the subject. A concise overview should not include a multiple word list for every specific term for young sheep. Lamb is far and away the most common internationally used term for young sheep, and should be the primary one included in an overview. Hogget is by comparison not a universally used term, and is used nowhere in the body of the article. If the term isn't used in the article it doesn't need definition, and if it isn't a good fit per lead guidelines, then it doesn't belong. Hogget is defined in the Glossary of sheep husbandry (or should be), and that suffices. VanTucky talk 07:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You haven't responded, but I'll elaborate in a more simple way. If we include very specific terms like hogget and weaner, there is no logical argument for preventing the inclusion of a full list of similar terms. To say hogget and weaner are more important than shearling, gimmer, gummer, teg, and other terms is not supported by evidence. So for the sake of brevity, which is a requirement of lead sections, only the single most common names for female, male and infant sheep can be included. It's a slippery slope otherwise. VanTucky talk 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Article length

At 72 kb, it may be time to split one section out into a separate article or simply place it in another. According to WP:SIZE, 60 kb is where an article should "probably" be split, and 100 is "almost certainly". I'm considering putting Flock management into Sheep husbandry, as the section doesn't actually speak on sheep. It's about how sheep are kept: i.e. sheep husbandry. Any objection? VanTucky talk 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There were no objections made, so I moved the section. This article is no 69 kb of length. VanTucky talk 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry, have alook at vampire...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still glad I moved it. It was off-topic a little bit, and the article is growing again. VanTucky talk 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead singular/plural

Erm, odd - why not singular all through lead? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking why sheep is used in both its plural and singular sense? Because that's how you use the word. There's no other way. It makes for odd reading to write a lead that refers to all sheep collectively at times and stay in singular form all the time as well. However, if you have an alternate version of the lead you want to propose, be my guest. The maxim is "be bold" for a reason. VanTucky talk 05:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, tricky come to think of it. Yes I am often bold but I can see this is an oeuvre in progress....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
PS: Needs some form of etymology section...remember everything in lead needs to be in body somehwerecheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Calisber. The etymology stuff is covered in the In Europe subsection of History. I'd normally make it a separate section, but there isn't that much and the article is already 71 KiB long. VanTucky talk 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
PS: Forgot to add the article is looking pretty darn good and romping home to FAC sometime soon I take it...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Polydactl sheep?

I just found this image of a seven legged lamb on Flickr! None of the sources I've read speak at length on genetic mutations such as this. Does anyone have anymore info? VanTucky talk 23:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be a case of an underdeveloped Siamese twin, or simply a genetic defect causing duplication of the limbs (though I'd wager the former is the more common case). -- (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Overall, this is a great article. It's quite comprehensive, has very appropriate pictures and a ton of citations used correctly, and is very thorough. I'd say this is a GA very close to an A-class article. There were just a few things which don't impede with its GA status but should be fixed:

  • The use of "a.k.a." in the "Breeds" section feels somewhat inappropriate to me. I think it is better rendered without the aka. Also, you have describing lowland in parentheses "(a.k.a. down)." I don't think that properly explains the lowland breed.
  • In the "Breeds" section, I feel the sentence about fat-tailed sheep is better written as: "A sheep may also be of a fat-tailed breed, which is a type of dual-purpose sheep common in Africa and Asia with larger deposits of fat within its tail, or the meat from such a breed."
  • Is it possible to cite the fact about the ban on sheep export to the Americas by Britain?
  • The "Religion and folklore" section needs to have some more citations. For example, perhaps you could cite that fact about the Chinese Zodiac.

Overall, a fine read. bibliomaniac15 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Down is not a definition, it is an alternate name - hence the use of the phrase "also known as". If you can think of a better, just as short way to say aka, be my guest. But otherwise I see the alternative as being too wordy. I'll try and find an appropriate link for it. I'll fix the fat-tailed sentence, that's much better wording. Yes, I can cite the ban. I'll look for a cite for the Chinese zodiac traits and such, but I drew it from their article, not a book at my disposal, so it will take some time. Thanks for the review! VanTucky talk

Black Sheep?

Gosh - need to mention these in cultural depictions....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? There is "baa baa black sheep" and a mention of the term black sheep and its definition. VanTucky 20:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I just expanded the explanation of the term in Cultural significance. Also note that there is a mention of colored sheep in the second paragraph of Description. VanTucky 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, good. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Query flushing before conception increasing birth weight.

See discussion on this at Talk:Sheep husbandry--Richard New Forest (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheep and alternative medicine

Storey's Guide, sitting right in front of me, says that a minority of sheep producers use alt medicine methods and find them effective. They cite everything from anecdote from producers to a University of North Carolina comparative study. If you dispute whether the treatments are truly effective, that's fine. I think adding a second bit about how the pubmed study found it to be ineffective is a good idea. But removing all mention of alt medicine for sheep in unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to discount the experience of real world sheep producers using these methods, as evidenced in the source material. It's a part of sheep health care that is notable enough to deserve mention in multiple sheep books, and in this article too. VanTucky 07:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I just read the pubmed study. It doesn't actually say that the methods are ineffective. It says that "Despite a few encouraging observational studies, the effectiveness of the homeopathic prevention or therapy of infections in veterinary medicine is not sufficiently supported by randomized and controlled trials." In other words, there is weak evidence to suggest it might be effective, but it hasn't been confirmed. That's not the same as saying they are ineffective. VanTucky 07:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What treatments are these? I can understand that perhaps some herbalist might stumble across an effective treatment from time to time, but homeopathy? That one stretches the imagination a bit far. I think the problem in the article right now is its lack of specificity makes it seem like any of the mentioned treatments are possibly effective when, most likely, controlled studies would find few are. This is a wording issue more than anything. I trust VanTucky's sources, so I ask him: is a strong statement on the efficacy of alt med treatments really that important for the article? I put an alternative wording in for your consideration. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The book lumps all three together in their phrasing, which is why I did. The one that was the subject of the UNC study that showed a statistical significance was herbalism and TCM but not homeopathy. VanTucky 07:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This page claims that alternative medicine, specifically naming homeopathy, has been proven to work for certain ailments, citing a book.

However, scientific literature disagrees, e.g. [2]. Now, you do occassionally get the odd study, statistical significance is defined as a 1 in 20 probability that the results happen by chance. So if twenty studies are done, you'd expect one in twenty to come up positive, particularly with low numbers of animals, which most of these studies use.

Publication bias then largely assures that the positive studies will be published somewhere.

This is why you need to check large-scale (with high number of animals), well-controlled, double-blind studies, and look at the literature as a whole. Frankly, I don't think these books have done that. Adam Cuerden talk 07:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. But VanTucky's book is probably good for saying what sheepists believe. I'm providing a compromise rewrite to see if that flies. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to give you an idea of why you need to be skeptical, even when reading pubmed-indexed sources.... Pyramid power! Adam Cuerden talk 07:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, I love the word you just invented SP. "Sheepists" sounds vaguely evil :) I just revised it , and I added the cite you provided Adam. Check it out and let me know what you think, VanTucky 07:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked it over. It looked a bit too specific to me. The basic idea is that there is anecdotal evidence from the sheepists and skepticism from the journals. Wikipedia:Summary style and all. It's best not to get too hung up on holding fast-and-tight to individual sources lest we fall prey to WP:NPOV violations. The general idea is one I think we can all agree upon. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There is skepticism from one journal source provided so far. Unless you can provide multiple journal articles that have the same opinion, I don't think relying on the opinion of one article is enough to make that generalization. Plus, saying what the facts are (anecdote and observation vs. randomized trial) rather than simply opinion is better. Saying no trial has confirmed it is a lot more damning than the opinion of one article in a journal. VanTucky 07:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Adam's cite is only one example: it's not the definitive final word (as no journal article ever is). I'm sure we can drum up a lot of other citations. Perhaps entire books if you'd like, but I'm not sure that this is really all that necessary. Alt med is, obviously, a controversial subject and your books themselves admit to these methods being met with skepticism. The real issue I have is that the specificity about the trials lacks some of the subtlety that a scientist will immediately recognize but most others will completely miss. Since we really can't go on in an article about sheep explaining the problems with looking at observational studies versus randomized control studies, I think this kind of discussion is probably best excised. See below for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue with specificity to Adam's cite

Okay, so Adam's cite says that there have been a few (that's a carefully chosen word -- it means not very many) favorable observational studies but no randomized controlled studies on homeopathy. The problem with wording the article to say that there is positive evidence for efficacy from observation studies is that observational studies are statistically poor since priors and controls cannot be accounted for. Positive observational studies are seen everywhere. There was a study done where two different placeboes were tested in observational studies and it was found that you could get "encouraging" results no matter which one you chose to be the "effective" one. So, using this as a support for alt med is a bit misleading and not at all what I think the authors intended.

Besides this, the point is way too specific. The cite is only about homeopathy and not the other alt med techniques and really goes into detail that no reader is likely going to find useful. I can't imagine the guy who is going to come around saying, "Observational studies but not randomized control studies: imagine that!" It's just way to technical and iteratively irrelevant for an article on domestic sheep. I tend to like my summarizing statement better. It succinctly states the sheepist perspective and the scientific perspective without bogging us down in conceptual details beyond the scope of this article.

What say ye?

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I can see why the current version is best. Thanks for your input! VanTucky 08:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Traditional sheep medicine

There are many traditional treatments for sheep ailments – largely discredited, but interesting historically, and no doubt still used in many parts of the world. If we can have killing sheep with homeopathy, why not with eye-of-toad, wing-of-bat? I'm afraid I don't know of any sources though. --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll look through my sources again, but I do distinctly remember a passage in Far From the Madding Crowd where a shepherd using some kind of bizarre device to relieve bloat. It's probably bogus, but it might be interesting nonetheless. VanTucky 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ref 25 in the Predation section

I'm having trouble opening this pdf, can anyone else give it a try? A broken ref isn't so great if we ever take this to FAC. Scratch that, it's just big so it takes a long time to load. VanTucky 19:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


I don't really think this page needs to be protected. I looked at it history and there was only a little bit of vandilism and some blankings. Just wondering!Excitinginterception7 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. The page is often protected because it is a regular target of vandalism, even if it's not concentrated. VanTucky 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AUD2.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:AUD2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)