Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Proposal for {{farming}} template change

I was recently working on sheep, and I found that the {{farming}} template was too large to keep in the article and still have the amount of images I wanted. Seriously, it's a big template. Would anyone be opposed to adding a hide/show function like {{Buddhism}}? It would make me more inclined to add it. VanTucky talk 04:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Great Idea! I can't stand the template, we've discussed getting rid of it, portalizing it, making it a horizontal bottom of the page template, etc. but no progress. A hide/show function would an excellent solution.--Doug.(talk contribs) 01:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

List of missing topics

Greetings. I wonder if anyone of you could check my updated list of missing topics related to agriculture? Thank you. - Skysmith (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you move it to a subpage here or link to it from our main page? It looks good on a first glance but if you linked to our main project page others could help you out with it more easily - and take a more detailed look over time.--Doug.(talk contribs) 17:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added the link to the project page - Skysmith (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Livestock Task Force?

Any thoughts on a WP:WikiProjec Agriculture/Livestock task force? If there is interest it seems like it would be good to get it started and incorporated into our banner for tagging purposes.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


I've generated a category tree of Category:Agriculture at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture/Categories. I need assistance turning it into a list of categories that are fully within our scope and not within the scope of a subproject. We can then submit this to User:SatyrBot in order to auto tag talk pages. Some of this is subjective. Example: Category:Fences is in Category:Agriculture, but every article in Category:Fences is not within the scope of this Project so we don't want to include that Cat. Some categories like Category:Land-grant universities and colleges are questionable, some of them are pretty insignificant to Ag, others like Texas A&M are very important; again, it's a judgment call whether the cat is entirely within our project's scope. --Doug.(talk contribs) 20:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My own pet project, I know, but I would argue that Farm Tractors need to separated from the generic Tractor category (which can include things like road trains and heavy trucks). That's something that would also include the Truck project, but shouldn't be too difficult unless the number of articles drastically increases.
Also, is there a better way to put motorized farm implements together? I'd argue for one category including power equipment, to then be subcategorized with headings like farm tractors, combine harvesters, windrowers, sprayers, etc.
Feel free to tell me at any point if I'm totally nuts, of course. Duncan1800 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Food plant statistics

Each food plant article should include:

  • total annual production/harvest worldwide
  • top ten country production figures
  • annual consumption per capita in various countries
  • import/export flows
  • wholesale and retail prices
  • production per acre
  • inputs: labor, water, fertilizer, weed killer, insecticide per acre and per kilo of food production
  • environmental/sustainability aspects
  • history of domestication; current split between formal vs. subsistence production/consumption

Until we incorporate such information into the articles, what are the best external sources of such information?

This seems like a good global data resource:

- (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

New template

I just created (and applied) the {{goat-stub}}, similar in type and usage to {{sheep-stub}}. VanTucky 03:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You've been doing great work and this is excellent, my only concern is that I don't see it proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, did I miss it? If not, we should do that or it will get speedy deleted. Thanks.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, Wikiprojects are coordination tools, not administration. I did something bold and useful, and going through wikiproject bureaucracy is not something required by any policy or guideline that I've seen. VanTucky 21:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree but there is a guideline at WP:STUB that says you should (and they seem to almost mean must) propose new stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals - although I don't think they can actually be deleted for the reason that they weren't proposed, it really helps to have the cat link to the discussion so if someone nominates it for deletion they can see that it was discussed and approved for creation. It also should be added to the lists of stubs. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with all of your hard work, just that we might want to check these boxes so that others don't give us grief later. I fully support this stub's existence - though Proposals might argue that it should be upmerged rather than having it's own cat based on the number of articles that qualify.--Doug.(talk contribs) 06:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lithuanian Black-Headed sheep. VanTucky 00:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Soil sterilization using steam?

This seemed like the most appropriate place to bring this up... A photo I found on Commons, and added to the Boiler article, has started a discussion about the use of steam for soil conditioning. Our initial interest was, of course, from the POV of the older boiler equipment used to create the steam (modified, redundant traction engines, for example), but a current lead has been found, showing that the practice is alive-and-well in organic farming.

Is there already an article about this practice? ('Steam' is not mentioned in organic farming). If not, you may care to add it to your list of 'wanted articles' (and add it to Category:Steam power when you get that far!)

Any further light that you can shed on the matter will be gratefully received at Talk:Boiler.

Thanks -- EdJogg (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll start Soil steam sterilization. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that could be regarded as a 'result'! Thank you.
We'd still be grateful for anyone who can shed further light on the types of boiler used, etc, (see boiler). Thanks
EdJogg (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Beekeeping into a task force?

I've started using Auto-Wiki Browser and the first task I took on was tagging articles in category livestock. Along the way I ran across WP:WikiProject Beekeeping which is tagged as inactive. Suggest we merge it here as a task force. Thoughts?--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to ask any listed members there if they'd agree to such a merger, but otherwise I can't see any real objections. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

More about Breed Lists

I've posted a question about this at: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Lists_of_Breeds, this is a follow up from the discussion above at #Breed lists. I'm hoping to get some further discussion because I'd like to simply change the breed lists for cattle and sheep to Cattle breeds and Sheep breeds respectively and set up a standard for livestock if there is consensus to that effect. I didn't move on this above as there was so little discussion and I had other stuff to work on. Back to it now.--Doug.(talk contribs) 01:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anybody want to add peer review parameters and maybe a Livestock workgroup or task force parameter to our banner? I really don't have the template skill to do that sort of thing. Thanks?--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly wouldn't have any objections, but I get the impression that there might be other projects such a livestock group might relate to. If the beekeeping merger is accomplished, that would be proximate basis for creating such a group, but it might be beneficial to list it as a proposal first and see what interest there might be in it. But, if you think it would be a good idea to adjust the banner right away, give me a day or two and I'll add it. I'll try to add the peer review content now. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Material for a livestock group is currently included as well. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger with WikiProject Beekeeping

It has been suggested that the above project, which has been tagged as inactive, be merged into this project. I would support such a merger, although I would be interested in receiving comments regarding whether to merge it as a task force or simply merging it in directly. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It makes a great deal of sense to mearge them. Beekeeping is one of the oldest and most integral parts of agriculture.--Agrofe (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree that a merger makes sense. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. OptimistBen (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've merged it in. I'm now working on the project banner and categories, and we should be able to replace the Beekeeping banner with an Agriculture banner shortly. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles

I noticed that Cheese, Black Pepper, and Shrimp farm aren't up to FA standards. They have a lack of sourcing, especially Cheese, and I think it would be good to start a collaboration or something of the like to improve them. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I highly suspect someone just tagged them for WP:AG and then copied over the assessments that were already there from WP:FOOD or whatever. I question whether Black Pepper is very important to this project. Cheese on the other hand. Feel free to reduce the assessments by the way while we consider improvements. Maybe we should consider collaborations of the month and start with Cheese.--Doug.(talk contribs) 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple Oxidation

I'm engaged in a deletion debate for Apple Oxidation. Whatever your opinion, check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple Oxidation. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sustainable eating

This article has been redirected to sustainable agriculture and the content of the redirected article was not moved to "sustainable agriculture". I created the article "Sustainable eating" and I oppose this redirect as it was done without prior discussion or warning. I ask that this redirect be reverted and that the article be reestablished as it was originally. Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability in eating makes no sense except in as much as it refers to sustainable agriculture, so I redirected to that; which is also a far better article. Further, content that claims "sustainable eating" refers to free range is nonsense. Free range relates to animal liberation or naturalism or other things, but not to sustainability. Sustainability is about not destroying resources and free range can destroy the environment. Both free range and factory farming methods can be environmentally destructive or be made not environmentally destructive depending on the details of their implementation. On my talk page we seem to have agreed to let this project arbitrate our disagreement. So we would very much appreciate it if you guys would look into this or ask questions or whatever and in the end come to a decision on this (to redirect or not to redirect, that is the question). Thanks. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've never heard of this before but some of the sources look pretty weighty. Can either of you point me to specific online (and reliable) sources that refer to "sustainable eating" in precisely those words? I see WAS's point but at the same time I question whether anyone would ever put in this search term when they're looking for sustainable agriculture. I would be more in favor of cleaning up a stub on this and keeping it as a separate article OR deleting it as not notable - depending on the sources. Unlikely redirects only confuse people who come across them by accident. (for the record - we can't arbitrate only WP:ArbCom can do that) but we'd be glad to give you a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. opinion ;-)).--Doug.(talk contribs) 13:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So without sufficient noteability for the specific term "sustainable eating", the article should go to AFD. Good point. Some content may be usefully moved to other articles, perhaps. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Phenylalanine: This source refers to "sustainable eating": "". The other sources indicated in the article don't use that exact term but they deal with the same dietary concept. The article could be renamed "sustainable food" or "sustainable diet", if those designations are used more frequently. This concept is broader than sustainable agriculture as it deals with the food production system as a whole, including the transportation and distribution of goods (green-house gases and energy use). The references and external links presented in the article discuss this matter in detail. --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"Agriculture" includes "the food production system as a whole, including the transportation and distribution of goods" far more than "eating". WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Phenylalanine: "Agriculture is the production of food, feed, fiber and other goods by the systematic growing/harvesting of plants, animals and other life forms."(Agriculture). To eat in a sustainable manner, one must take into account not only agriculture as it is define above, but also the transportation and distribution of food, the disposal of food, etc. One must be aware of all these aspects of the food system to eat in an enivronmentally sustainable way. --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

<<<<Your use of terminology is non-standard. We have a Department of Agriculture, not a department of eating. We have Agriculture Policy and Diet Guidelines, not Eating policy.

An example of the breadth and types of agriculture policy concerns can be found in the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics article Agricultural Economies of Australia and New Zealand which says that the major challenges and issues faced by their industrial agriculture industry are:

  • marketing challenges and consumer tastes
  • international trading environment (world market conditions, barriers to trade, quarantine and technical barriers, maintenance of global competitiveness and market image, and management of biosecurity issues affecting imports and the disease status of exports)
  • biosecurity (pests and diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza, foot and mouth disease, citrus canker, and sugarcane smut)
  • infrastructure (such as transport, ports, telecommunications, energy and irrigation facilities)
  • management skills and labor supply (With increasing requirements for business planning, enhanced market awareness, the use of modern technology such as computers and global positioning systems and better agronomic management, modern farm managers will need to become increasingly skilled. Examples: training of skilled workers, the development of labor hire systems that provide continuity of work in industries with strong seasonal peaks, modern communication tools, investigating market opportunities, researching customer requirements, business planning including financial management, researching the latest farming techniques, risk management skills)
  • coordination (a more consistent national strategic agenda for agricultural research and development; more active involvement of research investors in collaboration with research providers developing programs of work; greater coordination of research activities across industries, research organisations and issues; and investment in human capital to ensure a skilled pool of research personnel in the future.)
  • technology (research, adoption, productivity, genetically modified (GM) crops, investments)
  • water (access rights, water trade, providing water for environmental outcomes, assignment of risk in response to reallocation of water from consumptive to environmental use, accounting for the sourcing and allocation of water)
  • resource access issues (management of native vegetation, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, sustainability of productive agricultural resources, landholder responsibilities)[1]

WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Phenylalanine:If you'd rather the article was called "sustainable diet", I have no problem with that. I see no mention of "fishing", in the list you present. Also, "Sustainable agriculture refers to the ability of a farm to produce food indefinitely, without causing irreversible damage to ecosystem health. Two key issues are biophysical (the long-term effects of various practices on soil properties and processes essential for crop productivity) and socio-economic (the long-term ability of farmers to obtain inputs and manage resources such as labor)." (sustainable agriculture) I don't see any mention of food transportation, distribution and disposal in this definition. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a non-dispute. WAS is saying the topic is part of Agriculture and the terminology is non-standard, Phenylalanine is saying it's distinct and a recognized concept (but may be unsure of the most appropriate title). So far you're both throwing around broad concepts and a few non-specific sources. It doesn't matter what WAS or I or you would rather the article was called, we need reliable third party sources and then we can determine if this concept is recognized and if there is a common name or term by which we can describe it. I can't research the article in detail now, nor do I have a particular interest in doing so any time soon - it sounds interesting but I've got a lot of other stuff on my plate here and IRL. The rule on Wikipedia is if you want to include something you must provide reliable third party sources, preferably accessible ones (best if at least some are online and in English - gov't and int'l studies are ideal). If you want this article to be here and to have any particular name, please provide specific sources that reference this concept. If you have them, the article pretty much must exist regardless of how non-standard WAS thinks the terminology. If you cannot provide them, I suspect nobody else is going to try in the foreseeable future and therefore the topic is non-notable and non-verifiable and must not exist. Provide the sources - preferably with specific page numbers or section of an html page - and the matter will resolve itself without any argument. --Doug.(talk contribs) 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Phenylalanine: I propose that the article be titled either: [edited]
(The full-text is provided, so the terms can be located by using the search function.) --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Phenylalanine, what needs to happen is to gather sources and then write the article from sources that use the article title. I moved sustainable eating to Sustainable food system so the content you created is in the history in case you want to use some of it (but that is not best practice; you should google the article title and use those sources and their content to avoid violating WP:NOR). I also created Sustainable diet as a redirect to Sustainable agriculture, for now. If you wish to fill out any of these redirects as articles sourced from reliable published sources that provide claims/facts about the article's subject (using the article's title in its terminology), then feel free to. Both "Sustainable food system" and "Sustainable diet" appear to have plenty of reliable sources. And both, while similar to each other and similar to Sustainable agriculture, seem different enough that separate articles could be written for them. We have a lot of articles in the category sustainable and it is definitely a hot issue for the world's economies, cultures, and businesses. Happy editing! WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you and I consider this matter closed. In the meantime, the reliable sources listed in the former article "sustainable eating" could be used in the article "sustainable agriculture", either as sources for information provided in the body of the article, or as sources for the "Further reading" section. An article like "Sustainable food system" would make a great article in terms of providing a general overview of many food and sustainability-related concepts that are described in numerous Wikipedia articles. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

proposed deletion

I've proposed that Chick slaughtering be deleted as an overlapping article with both Culling and Chicken. There's no reason we need a separate article on the culling of chicks. VanTucky 02:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed, let us know if it ends up at AFD. Don't be afraid to boldly merge such unlikely titles when necessary too.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • DGG removed the prod, so I'm proposing it be merged in to culling instead, despite the fact that the content is probably too specific about chicks to be useful for any article, even culling. VanTucky 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with VanTucky. --Iwilleditu (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding FFA to Governmental Bodies and NGO's & Ag. Support Organizations

I personaly think FFA should be added under Governmental Bodies and NGO's & Ag. Support Organizations beacuse FFA is a Govementrun organization. "In 1950, the 81st Congress of the United States, recognizing the importance of the FFA as an integral part of the program of vocational agriculture, granted a Federal Charter to the FFA. In 1998, the 105th Congress of the United States reviewed and passed technical amendments. This shows through the revisions as Public Law 105-225." 1 So by education the public it Shoud go under Ag Support but since its is funded by the Govement should it go under Governmental Bodies and NGO's.

Citations FFA History --Iwilleditu (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about this, a Federal Charter doesn't necessarily mean that it receives gov't funding. The VFW the American Legion, etc. have Federal Charters but are not federally funded (in fact they have lobbying wings).--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Ag-Ed Taskforce

I proposed the Ag-Ed wikiproject. But it was brought to my atttion that it should be a task force under WikiProject Agriculture. So YAY or NAY.



  • This project as a whole doesn't have enough activity to warrant splitting in to taskforces. VanTucky 23:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


  • What would be the topic? Ag-ed doesn't say much about it. VanTucky 23:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • oh sorry, The topic will Be Agricultural education. Like Agricultural School`s wikipage, FFA wikipage, 4-H wikipage, Ect. --IwilledituHi :) 23:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This was a response to a comment I made at WP:COUNCIL/P that this would be preferable to a stand alone project. I think I mentioned there, however, that it still needs to get more than one interested member before doing anything. If I didn't, I am now. ;-)--Doug.(talk contribs) 01:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Back

Hi All,

WOW! Has this grown! I've been kind of busy, but back at the editing now, Just thought I'd let you all know (sorry if this doesn't go here, feel free to delete) ChristianH158 (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Great to have you here again.--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Doug! Glad to be back! ChristianH158 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Cheese has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Sustainable Agriculture

This article raised a few flags. From what I've read, it basically only covers using N-fixing (legumes) crops, to break up the nitrogen cycle. "Sustainable agriculture" is a much larger topic when we talk about it as farmers. Using zero, or minimum till, Phosphorous inoculants, responsible uses of fertilizers, and chemicals, inter-row cropping, livestock production without hormones, etc. etc.

My question is, should I re-write this article, or do we leave as-is? ChristianH158 (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

By all means, if you have knowledge of the subject, and (even better!) sources available which you can cite on it, work on a re-write that expands on the information currently provided. Zharmad (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

New footer template

In response to the above thread, I created {{Agriculture footer}}:

I have not added it to any articles. Please feel free to use it as desired or to delete it. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It's much better than the side bar infobox thing.--Doug.(talk contribs) 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging Equipment

I've been tagging several farming equipment related articles this evening. I noticed that some that are very significant, e.g. Tractor hadn't been tagged at all yet. In your travels through wikipedia, if you see an agriculture or agricultural history related article, WP:Bold and put {{WPFarm}} up on the talk page. The more articles we have tagged the sooner we can start assessing them and get a task-force going to improve them! Zharmad (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Navigation Banner

I'd like to replace our current Welcome introduction with a banner like the one on Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals. It has everything rather neatly organized. In fact, I'd like to change a lot so that the entire page is organized similarly. That means: cutting all shortcuts but WP:AG and WP:FARM, moving Scope to a Subpage, and otherwise modeling it after that fairly clean page. OptimistBen (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

project GA nomination

I just nominated Sebright (chicken) for GA class. Please do take a look at it, and chime in if the review is held for improvements. Best regards, VanTucky 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It passed, so we've got another project GA! VanTucky 03:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article icon

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sex Link chickens

In my recent work on chicken breeds, I discovered our project has three articles sex linked chickens. We've got a general sex link page, a red sex link and a black sex link. As sex links are not breeds (they are never bred to one another in a line, they are always the product of first generation cross breeding), I don't think it's appropriate that there are separate articles on black and red sex links. Much of the content of both those is overlapping, and the differences between black/red sex links are so minute that they can easily be covered in a single paragraph. Also considering that there are other sex link varieties, such as Goldens, I think it's best to merge/redirect red sex link and black sex link in the main sex link article. I was just going to boldly do this, but I wanted to check in at the project first. Thoughts? VanTucky 00:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. On a related note though, there are sex-linked geese (viz. Pilgrim Goose) and they ought to receive some mention as well. Unlike chickens, they breed true.--Doug.(talk contribs) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sexual differentiation, even in the young, is a common trait in all sorts of animals. With the gesse, it's a breed trait. But the proper noun of "Sex Link" refers only to hybrid chickens. VanTucky 23:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up

Wikimedia Vancouver Meetup

Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

This box: view  talk  edit

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I have requested a move of Cockscomb to either Comb (anatomy) or Bird comb here. Please feel free to chime in, VanTucky 00:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Important new stub

Hey y'all. I just created the long-overdue stub for the American Poultry Association. I would really like a DYK for this, so if you can let's expand this well. It's the oldest livestock organization in the States, so it's an important topic. Thanks, VanTucky 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ag-ed userbox

Could i ask that the shade of this userbox be considerably lightened as it it right now very hard to read? Simply south (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Glyphosate and Roundup

Please take part in the discussion. As of now, the latter article is essentially a duplicate of the former, with a potential to become a POV-fork. Colchicum (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Butter has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 09:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1046 articles are assigned to this project, of which 310, or 29.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Input appreciated at AfD -- Frozen bovine semen up for deletion

The article Frozen bovine semen is up for deletion. Input from people familiar with agriculture would be appreciated at the AfD page. Thanks, RayAYang (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Is there no tractor/farm machinery stub? If there is, tag this? FYI, the information in the article is taken from the display plaque on the tractor in the photo...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 07:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rogers Orchards survives

(moved here from User talk:Doug) Hey there, I just wanted to let you know that my new ag article that was under the AfD axe, Rogers Orchards, survived in a Speedy Keep thanks to a group of people who came to its rescue. It is currently up for DYK consideration. More ag stuff to follow. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Update - the article received a DYK honour today! This is third ag-related DYK I've brought in. More to come... Ecoleetage (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This is awesome. You not only saved the article but got a DYK out of it! Many accolades. I'm still waiting for someone to create a "Barn" Star or I'd give you one with special honors (maybe a wreath of hay) (This star should have a special status as the barn star for articles about barns and other agricultural topics!). You definitely deserve one.--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, if there are no barnstars to be presented, I also accept PayPal (Euro and Swiss Franc transactions, if possible). :) Ecoleetage (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S., I just wrote a new article, Bruce McAbee, and put that up for DYK consideration. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Orchard, fruit garden, and meadow orchard

The one-line article Fruit garden has now been merged into the lead paragraph of Orchard and a redirect from Fruit garden to Orchard has been created. While working on Orchard I anglicized the German word Streuobstwiese as meadow orchard (based on German-English Collins Dictionary, see ref). I would appreciate it if people with better knowledge of this topic would look at the section Meadow orchard and see if it could be improved further.

I also have considerable doubts about Jalpaiguri in West Bengal, India as "a town known for its orchards". Tea gardens/plantations, yes, but orchards? Could someone clarify or edit? --Zlerman (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Would any one mind...

If I redid your project page? I have recently redid all of the food related pages and would do the same here.

Take a look at the Ice Cream WikiProject page to see an example:

Before : WP Ice cream

After : WP Ice cream

I will not use the same color set (I call it Neapolitan), but will use a stock set of colors in blue.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I personally do not like the use of continuous colored areas in WP Ice cream. I find it highly distracting to the reader/viewer. My personal preference is for large white areas interspersed with smaller color highlights -- not continuous color of different shades. --Zlerman (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
As I stated, I would use a single color. I was using the Ice Cream WikiProject because it has the cleanest code because I worked on it last, so I used it as an example. To see what it will look like you can go to the WP:F&D page. For now, how about I do it with white with a blue border? You can undo it if you would like. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Starting with this revision I made the changes I proposed, keeping the standard Wikipedia color palate and adding a little color splashes here and there. I also cleaned up the page a little and moved some information to the new side panel Is it okay? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No particular objection, it's just as functional as the original and a little prettier, I must admit. Not sure I approve of the barn as I think that's used somewhere else. --Doug.(talk contribs) 02:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
To my taste, the use of three different colors in navigational boxes produces a garish effect. The bright red for cherry cultivars is particularly disturbing. I would prefer to have all the navigational boxes in the traditional "lilac", or if variety is desired, then lilac and orange (as in apple cultivars). In short, muted colors, if possible, no strong reds. --Zlerman (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Agriculture

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Need help with an unusual article

I know it seems strange, but Animal ethics and probably Animal rights fall within the scope of this project, nothing in our names says we're the WikiProject Pro-Agriculture and we have an interest in ensuring that all articles within our scope are NPOV. I moved Animal Egalitarianism from another user's userspace because it hadn't been worked on for a year and was up for MFD just for being stale. The history of the article is that it was originally created under a completely made up name and nominated for AfD, while pending the author recreated it under the current name. A combination of misunderstandings, people being upset at the recreation, and the name not being in common use resulted in the consensus to delete per WP:NEO, it was userfied. The citations look significant, though I don't have easy access to them, I'll do some looking though. My thought is that this may belong as a section of Animal rights. So if anyone wants to help make this into a useful article please dig in.--Doug.(talk contribs) 03:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  • In my view, this curiously named piece should be merged into Animal rights (since Animal ethics anyhow redirects to Animal rights). It is well sourced and probably contains important information, but it is a neologism and to justify my recommendation I will simply quote two sentences from the "History" section: "The concept of merging human rights and animal rights has been promoted ... throughout history. ... The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny." So "animal egalitarianism" is basically about animal rights and should be treated as such. I will look in our Agriculture Library for the sources cited in "animal egalitarianism" and will report here if successful.

--Zlerman (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now looked more closely at Animal Egalitarianism and Animal rights. It seems to me that not much is left to merge from "egalitarianism" to "rights". First, the core of the "egalitarianism" piece are two quotations: one from Bentham, another from Paola Cavalieri. The Bentham quotation already appears in full here in Animal rights; the Cavalieri quotation (and the reference to Cavalieri's 2001 book) are missing in Animal rights and should definitely be incorporated. Second, "egalitarianism" lists seven 18th and 19th century references that deal with animal rights. Of these 7, two (Bentham and Gompertz) are already mentioned in Animal rights; the other five are not mentioned and perhaps should be incorporated as a matter of historical record; they could be anchored to one sentence based on the opening paragraph from "Animal Egalitarianism#History". Third, speciesism is already dealt with here in Animal rights and perhaps the opening sentence of "Animal Egalitarianism" should somehow be transported there too. In my opinion, this is all that needs to be done. --Zlerman (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't even notice that Animal Ethics was just a redirect, I was only going off exposure to the topic within ag. Good call on cross-posting, I sort of forgot they existed since I don't deal with them much and this is the first place I go with anything animal unless it's clearly wild. Good work reviewing the matter, too, I didn't really have time to look at it carefully and just didn't want to see info lost.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and work that material in if you want to but I recommend using a merge to do it so the history on the material is preserved and I can safely delete the material on my user subpage.--Doug.(talk contribs) 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


I want to improve this portal but why is this portal named the way it is ? Isn't suppose to be Portal: Agriculture and can we change it ? Bewareofdog 00:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

New user help with Arnold Tremere

A request is sent out to help a new editor Amazona with the article Arnold Tremere a nutritonist then agricultural buiness person with the Government of Canada. SriMesh | talk 03:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agriculture in present-day nations and states

This is a new list (patterned on Demographics of present-day nations and states and Economies of present-day nations and states) that can be used as a checklist for the creation of missing Agriculture in country articles: zillions of them show as red links in the list. --Zlerman (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge progeny testing into animal breeding

Please contribute to this discussion. Regards—G716 <T·C> 19:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics article Agricultural Economies of Australia and New Zealand