Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture/Archive 4

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

Contents

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mastitis in dairy cattle

Hello. I just made Mastitis in dairy cattle but I have no idea what I'm doing. Should it be "dairy cows" or "dairy cattle"? Mooooooooo Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Good start. I think that title is fine, although of course mastitis is rather uncommon in bulls and steers... Richard New Forest (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that we need to merge Mastitis (domestic animals) and that somehow. My preference would be to merge Mastitis (domestic animals) with Mastitis (as a section) and then put a See also link to the new dairy cattle article in that section. Thoughts? Objections? Steven Walling 20:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


Perhaps if you don't know what to call a cow it may also be true that you aren't qualified to write this entry. I'm just sayin...Yoscratch (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AgroEurasia

Your project's input is solicited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Resignation

You know what. I just wanted help with this one artice. Most of the time, I edit articles about Japanese video games and old NASCAR races. I don't have time to edit bee-related articles as well. Please accept my resignation from your Wiki Project. GVnayR (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter
An overview
Quark structure proton.svg
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Agriculture articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 23:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 23:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing agriculture topics

Iäve updated my list of missing agriculture topics - Skysmith (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My husband and I have in our basement an International Harvester Freezer. My father brought it from the farm and it ran until about 10 years ago. I know it has to be about 60 yrs old. It's very heavy. I'm wondering do you want an antique. (marge C.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.112.77 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Goat article naming convention?

Is there one? What is the general naming convention for goat articles, if anyone knows, and where is it specified? On List of goat breeds, it appears to be random (some are Xbreed (goat), some are Xbreed, some are Xbreed Goat, etc. I'd like to see them standardized, but it's not high priority, I suppose. To me, Xbreed goat (lower-case g and no parenthesis) makes simple sense as a naming convention, with the other variations redirected to those standard names, but there seemed to be some contrasting thought in the review to try to move Oberhasli (goat) to Oberhasli goat, (one of the page's current redirects). Apparently that was the wrong venue for that proposal anyway, as it was speedily closed as 'wrong forum,' but the responses received there seem to indicate that there is already a naming convention in place for goats. Comments? duff 10:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The way I think it's supposed to work for breeds generally is that if the name of the breed is "X", we say "X", or if there are other things called "X", then "X (goat)" (or whatever). If the name of the breed is the "X Goat", we'd call it that. Breed names usually have capital initials.
For example, there is a breed of sheep called the Shetland: if you listed it amongst other sheep breeds you'd say "Suffolk, Shetland, Hebridean". There is also a cattle breed called the Shetland ("Suffolk Dun, Shetland, Highland"). We can't call either article "Shetland", because of confusion with each other and with Shetland itself. The articles are therefore Shetland (sheep) and Shetland (cattle).
On the other hand the American Quarter Horse is always called that, not the "American Quarter": you'd list "Clydesdale, Thoroughbred, Suffolk Punch, American Quarter Horse, British Spotted Pony, Shire" etc. (Not every article is correctly named according to this...) Richard New Forest (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agriculture vs Industry

Is Agriculture an Industry? Often today there are many activities that are described as "industry" that do not conform to my idea of what industry really is. I fear this creates a distortion of understanding, and is often used either to downgrade the importance of an economic activity (such as agriculture), or to suggest a different legitimacy than is really possessed (e.g. the meat industry). I see from various definitions elsewhere [1] [[2]] that my understanding of "industry" is a narrow one, and the economics context is what is taking over. This makes the word much less useful or even a meaningless addendum (for example, the financial services industry, or the tourism industry, where "sector" would be more appropriate). I think my understanding is best reflected by my (false, but more valid!) memory of the four statues on Holborn Viaduct: Industry; Commerce, Agriculture, and Academia. (In fact [[3]], the statues represent: Agriculture, Commerce, Science and Fine Art!) Nevertheless, the statues do raise Agriculture to one of four major categories of (Victorian) activity, and so emphasise its importance to our well being, and, indeed, to all our civilisations. If we start thinking of agriculture and agricultural activities as industrial, we are lumping it in with all sorts of more recent activities, and risk bringing industrial mindsets to an activity that seems to me to have fundamental uniquenesses (e.g. living creatures and plants, food, weather and soil dependence) which, if more clearly understood, would likely enhance our lives. So I suggest that WikiProject Agriculture adopts a policy of using the word industry only in its narrow sense (diligence, or manufacture of things) and adopts agriculture as a preferred term. David Hirst 12:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicpricing (talkcontribs)

Ear tag, Earmark, livestock identification

Please see discussion at Talk:Ear tag#Article content and title about merging some of these. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Livestock Unit, Animal unit, Dry Sheep Equivalent etc

Please see discussion at Talk:Livestock Unit#Rename and merge about merging these very similar articles to Livestock Unit (which is the fullest). We also need a suitable name for the merged article. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Associated Milk Producers Inc.

Do folks think this article is notable per WP:ORG? It was speedily deleted in July and recreated in August. I'm not sure how notable co-ops are, and I can't find much in the way of independent sources. Perhaps someone associated with this project knows more about this. Otherwise, I can bring it to AfD. Thanks, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 17:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and PRODed the article. DePROD or take it to AfD if you think that is more appropriate. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 18:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Agriculture articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Agriculture articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Reticulum

Could someone here please clean up the content fork Reticulum (anatomy) and Reticulum (stomach)? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reactivation of WikiProject Veterinary Medicine

I am interested in re-activating WikiProject Veterinary Medicine, particularly when I saw another user recently post this same idea on the project page. If you're interested and/or you have a great idea for jump-starting the revitalization, stop by here. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Underpopulated categories

I found the following categories in Category:Underpopulated categories, and members of this WikiProject might be able to populate them.

(I am adding this talk page to my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
Wavelength (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Information about plant quarantines

Per a topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine#Grape questions (related to a FAC), I was wondering if anyone knew of a good article that discusses quarantine standards in regards to propagation and distribution restrictions. There is a stub, Plant quarantine, that I just flagged as being part of WP:PLANT, but I was wondering if you guys knew of something better. This is for the Thomcord FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Good/best livestock articles?

I'm working on the goat article, trying to beef it up from an ag perspective. Is there a particular livestock animal article that other ag project editors find well-done, that would be good to use as a framework (subjects included, order of topics, ect)? Kerani (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The sheep article is Featured quality, but it may not be a perfect model for expanding the goat article. Let me know if you want any specific help. Steven Walling 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Task: Solution to Breed Lists

As this is a listed task: my proposed solution is to divide the breed lists by utility. (Meat, fiber, work, milk, egg, etc.) And then possibly sub-divisions (nation of origin, other species specific characteristic). While not a perfect solution, I do see that this has been started in several breed lists already. I think this division will emphasize the 'livestock' characteristic of each animal - ie, that these agriculturally important animals were selected for specific use, and not randomly created. Kerani (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also pretty easy to divide them by country of origin (I did both on list of chicken breeds), and that tends to be less ambiguous. I find that very strict lines between say, dairy and beef cattle breeds, tend to be overemphasized due to our systemic bias towards Western views, rather than those of the developing world. Steven Walling 04:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sheet Mulching Disadvantage - Indirect Cause of Pollution

Looks like this is the talk page for Wikipedia Sheet Mulching [[4]] The article has Advantages and Disadvantages. I found an informative page explaining how sheet mulching or lasagna gardening can cause pollution and a spike in oil use, by not recycling. In certain urban areas.

Read: http://www.mdvaden.com/lasagna_gardening.shtml

The points are all valid. There are a lot of websites, some municipal, affirming that pollution increases and oil use increases if cardboard is not recycled. So the question is what is the best way to list this disadvantage to the Wikipedia article? The expert's page won't work for a reference. But municipal or related Wikipedia pages should be fine. Which paper or cardboard sites do others recommend for a reference? Here is one example, a most-basic page: https://utahrecycles.org/cardboard.php

Just search for cardboard recycling plus the keywords and sulphur dioxide and oil. Those should give search results to choose from. Some pages have longer explanations. It may take several references for this.

The tree expert's page referenced the Wikipedia articles on sulphur dioxide [[5]] and on paper recycling [[6]]. So its pretty factual.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789|jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):


  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}


Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

American Livestock Breeds Conservancy

Hi everyone! I've been working on American Livestock Breeds Conservancy and have managed to get it up to GA status. I would like to take it to FAC at some point soon, and am trying to gather comments from as many editors as possible beforehand. I'm especially interested in any projects or studies that they've done that I'm missing, but comments on any aspect of the article would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I have just created {{Infobox sheep breed}} (based on {{Infobox chicken breed}}). It probably needs further work - I don't know what breed standards and so on might apply. However, please feel free to make use of it now, as I have done on Dorper (sheep). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto {{Infobox goat breed}}, in use on Bagot goat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
And {{Infobox pig breed}}, in use on Cumberland Pig. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
And {{Infobox cow breed}}; now on Ayrshire cattle. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Just used your sheep breed infobox on Hog Island sheep, thanks! Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Broadcast seeder

I have been informed that I should seek permission to add your banner to an article. Should Broadcast seeder be tagged with WP Agriculture? 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Russian Grain Deal, 1973

Right now we have a 2 sentence NPOV stub, Great grain robbery, with loads of cites and references. Should we rename to Russian Grain Deal, 1973? Should all the grain deals with Russia be in one article? This article badly needs help from experts. Trilliumz (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors interested in crop plants

Hi WikiProject Plants members! The United States Education Program is working with a class for the current term on Geography of Crop Plants, and we're looking for some experienced Wikipedians with an interest in the subject area to support the class as Online Ambassadors. If you're interested, apply now!.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've signed up to be an ambassador for this class, but we could still use more experienced editors helping out! Dana boomer (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Dana!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Poultry

I would like to notify WikiProject Agriculture that a proposal for a WikiProject Poultry has been made, since many poultry articles are marked as falling under WikiProject Agriculture. If anyone would be interested in this project being created, go to the link given and please add a comment showing your support, or giving any reasons that the project should not be created. Anjwalker (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hog Island sheep

I have adopted the Hog Island sheep as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011 and have nominated it for peer review. As the article falls within the scope of this WikiProject as well, I think that perhaps someone from this project might be interested in giving it a look over and pointing out any flaws or areas for potential improvement. Thanks in advance—Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change Infobox chicken breed to Infobox poultry breed

Please see the talk page for Infobox chickenbreed, to view the proposal that Infobox chicken breed be changed to Infobox poultry breed, allowing for the use of the infobox on domestic turkey and duck pages. Your comments on this proposal would be appreciated. Anjwalker Talk 08:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Index of agriculture topics

Please fix it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 11:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Agriculture and Agronomy Portal

Could we please just rename the portal to "The Agriculture Portal"? AgGuy (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Hey everyone. Please take a look at User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help the National Archives ExtravaSCANza. My hope is that the success of this event will ensure that others will be organized in the future, even without Dominic as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, so we all benefit from the high-quality, formerly non-digitized media uploaded to the Commons. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

List of chicken breeds spam

I have noticed an increasing problem with the List of chicken breeds article, which falls under both Wikiproject Agriculture and Wikiproject Birds; many of the breeds on the list which have red links, have them for a good reason. They don't exist! - I can find no mention of many of the breeds on these breeds anywhere on the net, or in my poultry books and the various poultry standards. I have removed some of the problem fake breeds already, but there appears to be a large amount of them and going through them all is a job that would take more time than I have. It would be helpful if some other people would help me track down this problem and stop this continued spamming of the list. Anjwalker Talk 10:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I failed to notice this earlier. It seems to be vaguely connected with my post below. In the last couple of days, a large proportion of the world's chicken breeds has been removed from that list. The only criterion seems to have been whether they were red-linked, as referenced breeds such as the Svrljig Kokos were eliminated as well as those without references. I don't know the intended purpose of that list. But if it is meant to be a list of chicken breeds with articles in Wikipedia, or a list of chicken breeds recognised by some particular organisation, perhaps it should be moved to a title that reflects that purpose? Meanwhile, where and how should all the other breeds be listed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It must have been a mistake if a red-linked breed with a reference was deleted. I believe the editor who did that believed the best way to fix the problem was to remove all red-linked ones that did not have refs. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#List of chicken breeds spam. Anjwalker Talk 07:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox poultry breed

I've asked here for a change to this infobox, in order to remove the current limitation to poultry breeds recognised by the APA. There appears to be no technical obstacle, so all that's lacking is some sort of editor consensus that such a change is desirable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Bailing hook

Does anyone have one of these kicking around the barn? We need a snapshot. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I know it's a longshoreman thing, but I just thought it might be a barn thing too. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Exists as Longshoreman's hook. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a couple, use them for slinging bales of hay. Do you need a photo? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes please. We only have one image in this category, it seems. And, it's not the hay kind. Many thanks. (Tell the cows I say "mooooooooooooo") :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Two bale hooks (together with baling twine)
Hmm, are you sure that "bailing hook" (with 'i') is a correct spelling, not "baling hook" instead? I'm asking because "bailing", "bailer", and "bail" are common misspellings in regard to the agricultural things relevant here (hay/straw baling/baler/bale). --:bdk: 01:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, baling hook. I actually had it right, then changed it. Many thanks for the pic. I've added it to Longshoreman's hook and Hay buck. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
you're welcome --:bdk: 04:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I reverted to leave the bailing hook redirect. It's a plausible misspelling, and redirects are cheap. No offence intended. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There was a little sun today. I hope one or more of these may be of use. I don't know what you think, but it seems to me that these and that posted by :bdk: may be sufficiently different in both form and function from the longshoreman's tool to merit their own tiny page?

Two hay hooks with scale 2.JPG
Two hay hooks with scale 1.JPG
Two hay hooks 2.JPG
Two hay hooks 1.JPG
Hay hook 2.JPG
Hay hook 1.JPG

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done, many thanks @ Justlettersandnumbers. Your photos are all much better than the one I found :-)
Hmm, these tools – like many other hand tools – appear slightly different depending on specific use, on their size, handle shape, age, used material(s), manufacturer, whatever, but there's only one general hook layout we're talking about, so one article should be sufficient imo. I'm unsure about its naming, though – dunno which name would make the best lemma (the overall most common term, presumably; Longshoreman's hook seems a bit too specific). Isn't there anything like "hand-held material lifting hook" or so? Maybe cargo hook is better. --:bdk:


The pictures are lovely. This is my favourite because it's the closest, containing both, and has the measure.
Yes, maybe a catch-all article title would be best, with longshoreman's hook a section within.
I'm always delighted when someone gets out the camera and takes a shot of something in their region. I'm in China, so, if there's an image you'd like, just say. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Great, that one would be my choice, too. :-)
Hmm, agriculture in China could need more and/or other images. For example, the first image is nice, of course, but it also conveys the 'old' assumption that China is still an overall underdeveloped country (which is undifferentiated and wrong afaik). And commons:Category:Agriculture in China has very few good images, compared to the sheer size of (and the huge diversity within) the country, so nearly every image is welcome! Perhaps there's an opportunity for you to take pictures of harvest in China, of tractors in China (either two-wheel or four-wheel), and especially of modern agricultural practice/equipment and of typical as well as of special tools/machines. --:bdk: 05:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your point about the lead image in Agriculture in China. Then again, I've never really seen a modern farm here. They all seem to be small operations. Maybe big operations are elsewhere in the country.
Some photos will be difficult. I live downtown Haikou. But, it's small, and I get out to the countryside fairly often. Tractors are easy to take pics of. People, especially peasants, are not so easy. They are not happy about being poor, and don't much like their state caught on film. They also sometimes object to people taking photos of things they own. I suspect that it's related to low socio-economic status, and yelling "no" is more powerful than "yes".
Fuel cylinder cart 02.jpg
I took a photo of this old woman. She never knew. Then I tried to take a picture of her coal. She went insane and chased me down the street trying to touch me with the soles of her shoes (pictured.). The locals thought it was hysterically funny. A minute later, I snuck back and took a close up of the coal. The locals thought that was even funnier.
So, crops, tractors and equipment, no problem, people, maybe a problem. I will do my best.
Oh, and see Talk:Longshoreman's hook#Page move. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Cereal crop merger

I'm currently advocating for a merger between multiple articles that describe cereal growth stage scales, viz. Zadoks scale, Feekes scale, and BBCH-scale (cereals). I would appreciate any suggestions or comments you have to add to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusillanimous (talkcontribs) 21:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no wikipedia article specifically for "small grains" that don't include maize (e.g. wheat, barley), I've added BBCH-scale (maize) to the list of proposed articles to be merged. --Pusillanimous 20:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
Wavelength (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new group on human-animal interaction

I have proposed a new group to work on the broad topic of human-animal interaction. It can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Human-animal interaction. Any input would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Navbox conflict

Hi gang, I have noticed that we now have virtually identical navboxes, one for the bottom {{Agriculture footer}} and one down the side {{Agriculture}}. Seems to me we need one or the other, but not both, and once we decide, maybe to merge them via bot or something. Help? Thoughts?Montanabw(talk) 17:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

addition to gender roles in agriculture

Hi all I want to add a section "women and agriculture in Sub Saharan Africa" to the article 'gender roles in agriculture' and also improve the introduction of the article. Any comments or suggestions are most welcome. Thanks Diksha41 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


Fair trade commodities

Hello all! I'm interested in editing the "Fair trade" article to include examples of specific commodities like coffee, cocoa, and clothing and textiles. I want to look at the differences in labor practices for these commodities and see how (or whether) fair trade companies actually promote sustainability and fair labor practices. I will also edit the rest of the article to correct for criticisms that the article is not neutral throughout. I will draw sources from journals such as Journal of Business Ethics, Research in Economic Anthropology, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, and World Development. Any and all suggestions are welcome as I attempt to make the "Fair trade" page more comprehensive. Allisonshields (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agriculture by region/state

Does anyone else think we need article on Agriculture in Foo, where Foo is regions or states with high importance in agriculture? California is the one I am thinking of mostly, but there are definitely others, that are smaller than the national level.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Nah, I think that should go under the article for the Foo in question. If the Foo doesn't have a section on economic agriculture activity, it should be easy enough to add one. And then, if it gets too unweildy, split it off into its own article. Kerani (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Change Poultry Template

Hi All! I am proposing a change to the Poulty template. Please look at and leave comments on the talk page for {{Poultry}}.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Rice, baby!

This may be relevant to the interests of any and all rice and plant-breeding enthusiasts here.

null comment to date section for archiving. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Organic food

Much to my surprise, sources for the article Organic food have to satisfy WP:MEDRS. Recently I added a some text, based on a agricultural journal, only to see it removed due to it not being indexed by Medline. The guy doing this operates quite aggressive, so I need more people to check this article, as I think it is not neutral and hijacked. Your input please here: Talk:Organic food#WP:MEDRS The Banner talk 18:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There is some weird stuff being tagged for MEDRS. I've run into one of the editors involved in your article at Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy#Other_comments with similar issues--an obsesssion with MEDRS when it is inapplicable. Brace yourself for a month of dramah and get some other folks who understand the topic to pop over there and weigh in, but if you so also be aware that meatpuppets may suddenly appear. I know I'm being a wuss not to pop over there and help, but I just wrapped a DN on a dramahz of my own with another user with an obsesison and I'm tired at the moment. But if you need ammo that you have a problematic editor, hope this helps. Montanabw(talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

any policy wonks?

Are there any Development / Policy wonks who would know about the writings of Arthur T. Mosher? I have one source that talks about an influential three volume series that he wrote, but does not name it. And then I have other sources talking about his "influential" "Getting Agriculture Moving:" but that source calls it a small book, which doesnt mesh with the description of 3 volume work. Can anyone shed some light? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This might help: http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Arthur+T.+Mosher Montanabw(talk) 04:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thank you, i used it to add some content to the biblography and just removed the claim about "3 volumes" because I could not figure out what they might be referring to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Palm oil information

Hello, I am reaching out here on behalf of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC), which I have been helping improve Wikipedia articles on palm oil related topics. I have prepared two revisions to update the Social and environmental impact of palm oil article and am looking for editors to review these changes, which I suggested on the talk page last week. The revisions introduce new information and supporting references, and suggest the replacement of out of date information.

As my requests are on behalf of the MPOC, I will not make the additions myself and hope that someone here will look at them for me.

Although it appears that this talk page is not very active, I am hopeful that a knowledgeable editor might see this request and be interested in taking a look at the full request on the talk page. I'll be checking this page as well as the article talk page for any questions. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Organic Milk

Request for comments at Talk:Organic_milk#RFC The Banner talk 03:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Our same "friends?" Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Just for 2/3, but same issues. Face-smile.svg The Banner talk 03:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger for North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture

See Talk:North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture WhisperToMe (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Hello,
Please note that Energy crop, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
(From the TAFI team)

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Hello,
Please note that Agribusiness, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
(From the TAFI team)

Polled Dorset

I'm a student at NC State and I would like to create a page on the polled dorset breed that was developed here. The dorsets page mentions it, but I think they deserve their own page. Is this something that I could do?Rebaduck (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to start on the section in the existing article and expand the bit on them there. Once you see how much you have, if it winds up being sustantial, you may then choose to do a "spinoff" into a completely new article, leaving behind a paragraph summary and a link. Montanabw(talk) 18:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a substantial amount of information. The new article has more information than the Australian breed, and I can add a paragraph summary to the existing page and add a link to the new page--SJRick (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Have you already started the new article? Can you provide a link? Montanabw(talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

CFIA-ACIA heraldic emblem.jpg

file:CFIA-ACIA heraldic emblem.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Beet

The usage of Beet is under discussion, see talk:Beet -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"Modern Farmer" (website)

Members of WikiProject Agriculture might find this website to be a useful source of information.

Wavelength (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

GAR

Christmas tree cultivation, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:infobox tractor

Template:infobox tractor has been rated top-importance for this project, according to its talk page, and it's now nominated at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Infobox_tractor. I didn't see where you were notified, so I'm posting this notice. -PC-XT+ 03:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested Articles

Hi, I am trying to re-work Requested Articles. It was suggested that I get individual WikiProjects involved with their section, which, in the case here, is here All I am asking you to do is to go through the requested articles here, and see if they are worth an article or not. If they are, please feel free to create them and remove them from the list. If they are not, please just remove them from the list with an appropriate comment.

If you have any questions, please just ask on m talk page. Thanks for your help, Matty.007 07:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

GMO recall

Input from this project may be helpful at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Genetically_modified_food_controversies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should Roundup (herbicide) be un-merged from glyphosate?

See Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate?

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Strip till rig.jpg

image:Strip till rig.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Cairns Group member countries}}

Template:Cairns Group member countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

My missing topics pages

Missing topics about Agriculture updated. - Skysmith (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Steven Walling • talk 06:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Could use help with updating a bunch of pages

Since the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy changed its name and website to The Livestock Conservancy, we could use some help updating all the references to the organization's old name and URL. More discussion is here. Thanks! Steven Walling • talk 00:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Classifying images on Commons

There is a group of images here on Commons that needs to be classified according to the breeds of the animals. The category's parent, commons:Category:Unidentified breeds may also be an area you guys could help out in! --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 23:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot... Steven Walling • talk 02:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

History of sheep lede

Would anyone be able to help me with a lede for History of sheep? I'm awful at ledes (I mean, look at Bedlington Terrier for an example) and I'm going to attempt one but it probably won't be up to snuff. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 21:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. To be honest, I kind of objected to splitting it out from sheep to begin with. It leaves that article with no mention of history whatsoever, making it very disjointed. I would rather merge history of sheep then tighten up the entire article for summary style. Steven Walling • talk 04:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
If it was split out without discussion or consensus, then it could subject sheep, which is an FA, to an FAR. I put in a link to the history article for now, but there should be, at a minimum, a brief summary in the main article even with the link. I'm not going to insert myself into a sheep drama (got enough with the equine species) but I think we got a bit of trouble in paradise here. It certainly is reasonable that a history article could be extensive enough to stand alone, but the main article DOES need to have something. Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The old consensus on how to solve the issue was to reinsert a summary of basic evolution/history back in to Sheep, and then link to the full history article. I think this is fair, and it's only not done because I haven't gotten around to it. Steven Walling • talk 00:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Veterinary Science editathon in London, UK

I hope this is of interest to at least some people here: Wikimedia UK and Jisc are running an editathon at the Royal Veterinary College on November 20th. We will focus on common diseases that vets see in everyday practice, but contributions with any relevance to veterinary science are welcome. This is a free event, and in-person and online participation is encouraged. See the event page for more details. Cheers, MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter Jisc: If you're serious about inviting participation and help from WikiProject Agriculture editors, why can't you just put those editathon descriptions here on Wikipedia? Putting stuff on a chapter wiki where most don't edit smacks of the kind of weird bureaucracy Wikimedia groups should be avoiding. WP:EDITATHON shows that the vast majority of editathons, other than those hosted by Wikimedia UK, are being documented on Wikipedia proper. Steven Walling • talk 02:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
@Steven Walling: Hi Steven. I'm happy to if it will actually affect participation, but I don't understand why it matters, so long as they are documented on a Wikimedia public wiki that people can access with the same login. I don't understand why it counts as "weird bureaucracy" to put the information in one public space rather than another. The benefits of having it on the chapter wiki are that it's easier to get an overview of chapter activity, to categorise events by audience, year, geography and so on, using categories and links in the chapter wiki rather than importing that bureaucracy here to Wikipedia. I'm open to being persuaded, but just not seeing the reason yet. I wasn't aware of the list of editathons, so thanks for that link. MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
After further thought, I'll create a Wikipedia page for signup and target articles. I don't like duplicating information, because I'm as averse to bureaucracy as you are, ;) but lowering the barrier slightly for online participation and linking to target articles is worth it. MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
And here it is. Just a placeholder for now, but will expand. MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

IIA Delegates.jpg

image:IIA Delegates.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

{{Hortibox}}

Template:Hortibox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Rural community outreach

Hi for anyone interested - there is a proposal for rual community engagement in Australia - see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Rural_Community_Engagement

Although looking at broader acreage agriculture and communities in grain growing areas and the issues that are related it might be of interest. Please check it out satusuro 00:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Botanical additives

A single-purpose account called User:Nor-Feed created the page Botanical additives. Although the page cites apparently reliable sources on the effects of various herbs added to animal feed, there are no sources to establish the notability of botanical additives as a class, nor to verify some general (not particularly controversial) claims. Editors from this WikiProject may be able to lend a helping hand. (By the way, Nor-feed is apparently the name of a feed supplier specializing in "natural additives".) Cnilep (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably need to apply WP:COI. Montanabw(talk) 01:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Chicken harvester

It's that machine with the giant fluffy car wash rollers and the chickens are the cars. We really need an image of one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Crop calendar

I also see it as cropping calendar. It is the table thing that says when a crop is ready for harvest. I can't find anything at Wikipedia.

I'm interested in starting something about this. Maybe not an article about the idea, but more of an almanac-type thing. I'm talking about actual tables.

But, I have a sneaking suspicion that things are different all over the planet. But maybe there's a way to organize it where it would be immediately usable, and further development would make it more precise. I just don't know.

This UN site has one, but it doesn't work for beans. Let me rephrase that: It doesn't work at all.

Please advise. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the broadest link I could find. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we'd get into WP:HOWTO problems with an "almanac" per se. And article about such things would fly, but not the actual tables. And yes, things ARE different all over the planet (hell, things are different in my home county, depending on elevation and proximity to a rain shadow.) JMO. Montanabw(talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh, right. The ol' WP:HOWTO thing. :) Good point. Then again, it would be data, and Wikipedia does claim to have almanac elements.
So if (and this is a big "if") something were to be put together, are there some global norms, like apples in the fall, and asparagus in the spring? If not, let's forget that.
Another idea is for me to make a crop calendar for Hainan, where I live. I could source it and add it to the appropriate section within the article. Do you think that would be useful to article visitors? I thought this up because here, one fruit after another comes to market. Maybe it would catch on, especially for US states where agriculture is big.
If in lieu of data articles, some sort of coverage on the topic, as you say, would fly, how about a section within Harvest or somewhere? Maybe a freebie image from USDA and a short paragraph? I'm pretty sure I can dig up the image. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────An article on the crop calendar or farmer's calendar seems an excellent idea. I don't know where it would begin, but it would surely include the works on agriculture of Columella, Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus Palladius and Pietro de' Crescenzi, all of which include such calendars. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge suggestion: Sheep shearing vs Shearer vs Shearing shed

Suggestion: The pages Sheep shearing, Shearer, and Shearing shed have similar content. All could all be incorporated under the main topic of Sheep shearing, with Shearer and Shearing shed redirected to parts of the main article. Thoughts? --AslanEntropy (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The buildings are one thing, the occupation another, and the actual machinery are iconic parts of Australian agricultural history - and as a consequence, even if they seem similar, there is room for making sure they are linked - but also expanded, rather than merged.
Considering the effort gone into the separate articles I strongly suggest the articles should be further developed rather than in any way merged satusuro 01:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Because the Sheep shearing article explains that the shearing sheds have a use beyond shearing. I see no reason to merge. The shed article just needs some attention. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
[{Shearer]] is basically an annotated dab, so unsuitable for a merge; I suppose you meant Sheep shearer? But I agree, the articles are all comprehensive enough that a merge is not in order, they are neither stubs or content forks. Montanabw(talk) 02:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Disagree Making a better divide between the articles is enough. Perhaps splitting and rearranging: one article about the shed, one article about the shearing itself and one article about the handling of the wool after shearing. The Banner talk 02:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with idea to make a clearer divide between the articles. I agree with The Banner's suggestions(posted immediately above). --AslanEntropy (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Also noting that there is no overview article in the Australian about the Wool Industry per se or other indsutries, if they exist they lack any historical context and suffer from recentism usually - big problem with these sort of suggestions, it simply shows how few 'overview' articles of agricultural industries actually exist, and when they do, they tend to be country specific and ground level. satusuro 01:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep I dont see a reason to merge, what I see is the articles lack a well rounded international perspective, once thats done the issues of sameness will be resolved Gnangarra 07:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Propose merge from Meat market to Butcher

I have proposed that Meat market be merged to Butcher. Discussion is at Talk:Meat market#Merge discussion. Cnilep (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Breed navboxes

Editor Robsinden has been going through a number of breed navboxes such as Template:Horse breeds of France removing redlinks and non-linking text, claiming that his edits are justified by WP:NAVBOX. Most of those navboxes were, I think, created by me. Others including Montanabw, Dana boomer and Steven Walling have at various times contributed to or commented on them. I'd like to know what they and others think of the recent edits.

WP:NAVBOX includes the text "Each link should clearly be identifiable as such to our readers. In general text colors should be consistent with Wikipedia text color defaults, so links should be blue; dead links should be red; and red and blue should not be used for other (non-link) text." (my bolding). Redlinks and non-linking text are clearly contemplated and provided for.

Among the stuff Robsinden has removed from the French horses navbox is the caveat: "These are the horse breeds considered to be wholly or partly of French origin. Many have complex or obscure histories, so inclusion here does not necessarily imply that a breed is predominantly or exclusively French." Given that the origin of animal breeds can be a highly contentious topic, particularly where national boundaries or national identities have changed (as for example in the case of the Lipizzaner), I believe a disclaimer of this sort to be advisable at the very least. What do others think? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDNOT (Red links generally are not included in [...] navigational boxes) and WP:EXISTING (editors are encouraged to write the article first) regarding red links in navboxes. The point of navboxes is that they should not be too large, and with the extraneous information, they increase the size of the navboxes unnecessarily. We don't have "disclaimers" or further information in navboxes, they are to provide navigation between articles, nothing more. There would be nothing to stop you putting a hidden note to that effect in the template though, in case any editor tried to add the unwanted articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
"article series boxes need to be self-evident, while they can't contain much text for definitions or explanations" --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's clear how you are interpreting the various guidelines, reading "not generally" to mean "never" and "[not] much text for definitions or explanations" to mean "no non-linking text". But the text of WP:NAVBOX shows your interpretation to be incorrect, as already pointed out above. As for what we have or do not have, that will be decided by consensus among those interested in topic, I think. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Your cherry-picked section from WP:NAVBOX regarding the colour of the text does not address the issue as to whether redlinked text should or shouldn't be included, just that the colour of text in navboxes should not be changed so as the reader isn't surprised. I once came across a navbox with brown text on a yellow background, and it looked like all the links were broken. The appropriate guideline here regarding redlinks is WP:NOTRED, where it repeats that "these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles", thus it is clear that all the extinct horse redlinks, etc, are not appropriate in these navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the redlinks belong in List of French horse breeds, not in the navbox. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Oh, where to begin? This appears to apply to multiple navboxes, so let's discuss all here. (Deep breath)...Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. Navboxes should "not be too large?" The national horse breed ones are relatively small, you want a "large" or "carbuncle" of a navbox, check out {{Professional gridiron football leagues in North America}} for pete's sake. Or, for that matter, {{Denver Broncos}}. Sheesh. Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. JLAN correctly is stating the guidelines, and they are guidelines, not rules set in stone. Further, there is also plenty of room for WP:IAR, and this is one example. Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. The disclaimer is critical to avoid arguments that there are too many breeds included, not to add more. This is also supported by WikiProject Equine, I've seen nationalistic editing disputes on Lipizzaner, as noted, also on horse breeds of Azerbaijan and Armenia, notably Karabakh horse. All these "shoulds" do not link to any guideline that presents a bright line rule. Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Redlinks generally are not favored in lists, either, both situations are equally vulnerable, no place is an official red link parking lot, but where there are ACTIVE efforts to create articles, they do no harm. Both areas are equally guided by consensus and WP:MOS guidelines. Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. The redlinks belong here, as they are not a random list, but a solid collection of articles to be created, mostly as we are able to translate them, particularly from fr.wiki, where you will note, their navbox is not only complete without redlinks, but larger than this one. See here. Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
My edits are backed up by multiple guidelines - WP:EXISTING, WP:REDNOT, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, WP:NAVBOX, WP:NAVBOXES to name a few, which are all compromised here; what you guys are doing is backed up by none, and there is no justification to WP:IAR. Create the redlinks from the articles, then add them to the navboxes. What you are doing is making these unnecessarily large convoluted navboxes. They are a travesty. Of course, if the articles exist, then a larger navbox is justified, but without a reason other than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, you cannot WP:IAR. Some of these redlinks may never be created and may not be notable - we cannot determine this from a navbox. Only if the article exists has notability been established. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
To answer your points individually:
1. A larger navbox is justified if the articles exist, if they do not, they are just padding. You'll note in your examples (WP:OTHERSTUFF by the way), there aren't any redlinks, but even if there were, there shouldn't be.
2. You need to justify WP:IAR, not just state it.
3. A disclaimer can be added in hidden text, so that any editor trying to add or remove any information will see it at the editing stage. It serves no function within the navbox other than to clutter it.
4. As I stated, this "active" editing can be done from an article, not a navbox. You state they are governed by the MOS guidelines - See WP:REDNOT again, which allows redlinks in articles (where their notability can be sourced), but does NOT in navboxes. Or - why not, as part of this project, or in your sandbox, have a list of "Articles to create", where the redlinks will be preserved? These article titles may not ever be created, or may not even be notable.
5. See 4, and also WP:OTHERSTUFF. What they do on the French Wikipedia is not relevant here.
I think that's covered everything, but I would like to point out that I am often seeing navbox abuse on Wikipedia - what a lot of editors don't seem to realise is that navboxes are not a substitute for articles - they are merely a way of navigation between existing articles. They serve no other purpose than this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh - and what's with the maps and flags?!? Why not have a picture of a chicken or a donkey too? Jeez. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
And - you haven't addressed the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL issue, where broad-topic articles are being linked when it would be unsuitable for the navbox to be transcluded in those articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Like the rest of it, that is a guideline; note in particular the word "normally". It needs to be applied with care and intelligence. To add a navbox to a list that already contains all the links in the navbox appears to demonstrate neither. The point of a navbox is to make it easier to navigate within the encyclopaedia, not to mindlessly enforce a set of rules that are not in fact rules at all, but guidance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
WOW! Your really don't understand WP:BIDIRECTIONAL or how navboxes work at all do you? That's EXACTLY what's supposed to happen - they provide navigation between related existing articles and should be transcluded on ALL articles linked in the navbox, especially the lead article! That's navbox functionality 101 really. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I've noticed a number of these types of navboxes that do not have an article for the subject of the navbox. They should have really (even if they are list artcles), per point 4 at WP:NAVBOX. When you do create those articles, please ensure the relevant navbox is transcluded on them. In fact, maybe create the subject article before you create the navbox? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
And as far as making it easier to navigate, that is exactly why navboxes should be as small as possible and uncluttered with extraneous text, unlinked text or redlinks. How is easier navigation provided by this navbox, when this version provides exactly the same functionality? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Rob, it is YOU who do not understand how navboxes work; there is no guideline or policy that says "navboxes should be as small as possible..." and yada, yada. That is your own opinion and your own interpretation of the MOS. You fail to understand words like "GUIDELINE" , "NORMALLY" and you over-interpret Bidirectionality. I urge you to read WP:DONOTDEMOLISH which is applicable here, and also, please stop edit-warring. Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:Navbox#Disadvantages as to why they should not be excessively large. You both don't seem to grasp the intention of navbox functionality and seem to think that WP:IAR should be implemented here just because you want to. What we end up are these ugly navboxes with pointless information in them. Show me a good reason to WP:IAR. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS states: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Consensus is demonstrated by the guidelines. Why do you think these guidelines do not apply to you? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
And no-one seems to be able to explain the advantage provided by this navbox over this version. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


Oh, and, as far as WP:BIDIRECTIONAL goes, JLAN's note that you don't need to link the list if all the articles are also in the navbox is also applicable in the other direction; we don't want over 400 articles in a single navbox when we can simply link to the List of horse breeds. You interpretation becomes a reducto ad absurdum one if you were to take it literally. List articles are not as useful as navboxes for the casual user who wishes to browse breeds, it requires reloading a list page repeatedly, whereas the navbox allows direct browsing from one article to the next. Montanabw(talk) 20:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, you really don't get it - I'm not sure what it takes to get you to understand this. They can co-exist, but the navbox should be present on the list article, and the list article should be linked in the navbox. The list article can contain the redlinks, but the navbox should not need to as it is to provide navigation between existing articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As far as NOTRED goes, two statements there directly contradict your interpretation, Rob: 1: "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created" -- here, as both JLAN and myself are explaining, there WILL be articles created and they are being actively created for the French horse breeds even as we argue this issue. 2. Your continued reversion of Template:National members of the International Federation for Equestrian Sports is also wrong, as a clear exception is: "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set" End of story. Montanabw(talk) 20:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTRED states: Red links generally are not included in [...] navigational boxes, [...] since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. These may or may not be part of a "whole set", but as the template is unsourced, and they are not even mentioned on the article, then we don't know. In any case, a "whole set" would be a list of years or similar. But a navbox is not a useful navigation aid if it contains five active links and about fifty redlinks. That template also includes a LOT of unsuitable links which fail WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Unless the template is present at the destination article, the navbox does not provide a navigational aid. Simply - it doesn't provide you with a way of navigating back to where you are - that is its intended functionality. However, as this template does not fall within the scope of this WikiProject, would suggest that you take that discussion to the correct talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created" refers to Wikipedia in general, it goes on to explain about navboxes just after that. It's now clear that you missed that point. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Montanabw asked me about page protection on my talk page. Right now it looks like there haven't been more than two reverts on the templates (which is still on revert too many) but I'll probably hold off on protecting for now unless the reverting continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've invited a few regulars from WP:TFD to get involved, to avoid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There's nothing to discuss here: Rob Sinden is correct, and those who are wrongly using navboxes as data collections (rather than as navigational aids between articles, which is their purpose) are, well, wrong. This demonstrates one of the most commonly-encountered social problems with Wikipedia, which is that people focus on trivia to the exclusion of everything else: insistence on sticking disclaimers everywhere, and pathological inclusion over focus on the important. All of the detail here belongs in actual articles: the box exists solely to help people flick between similar articles quickly, and anything which gets in the way of that (redlinks, disclaimers, footnotes) diminishes its value. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct, there is nothing to discuss, Rob Sinden is right. Navboxes are not used to collect data, but to navigate between relevant articles. If it is a navigation template, if there is no article for the entry, you cannot navigate to anything, so it adds nothing and helps with nothing. WP:EXISTING, WP:REDNOT, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and WP:NAVBOX apply. STATic message me! 16:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Rob is incorrect in his understanding of the guidelines on redlinks, where there are clearly exceptions to the general suggestions. If they want the disclaimer out, it could become hidden text, but the relinks and obsession with bidirectionality is really quite out of line. As for his other comments about extra material, the template ( {{navbox}} clearly has parameters and examples to allow the addition of color, images, and so on. Were these not permissible, there would be no instructions on how to add them. There is no crime in making a navbox attractive as well as useful. Truly, you want to take on a challenge with navboxes, take a peek at the pile-up at John Elway, which even I consider overkill. Montanabw(talk) 19:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
seems we should consider getting rid of the navboxes altogether per this rationale. Frietjes (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
We at WPEQ were not particularly happy about the "breeds of nation x" categories when they were created (mostly because of a Slovenian nationalist who didn't want us to say that the Lipizzan was from Austria...sigh, the breed also partly claimed by Italy, Hungary and, I think, the Czech Republic). The national breed navboxes were a part of that movement in general terms. However, that "breeds of country X" boat left the dock long ago, and so long as we have the categories, a navbox is logical, and if the navbox is logical, then there is no reason to not keep them in a usable condition; which means redlinking the set. I believe that @Justlettersandnumbers: has a RS for the list of breeds that shows those indigenous to various geographic areas. Montanabw(talk) 22:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grain Storage on Subsistence Farms

Dear agricultural experts: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason for declining the submission was bitey and kind of bogus. The article needs some formatting help, but I think it is worth improving, or possibly merging into something that is already out there, but I wonder if other WP Ag members can offer further suggestions. Montanabw(talk) 07:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I have postponed its deletion for six months to give time for discussion and possible improvement. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Would not an title like "traditional grain storage" work? Subsistence agriculture is largely about well tried traditional methods, however many of the things here are also common to pulses and so it could be more generic like "Storage of agricultural produce" with a traditional methods section. Shyamal (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not an expert in agriculture (although I do have a vegetable garden and one pear tree), but I am surprised to hear that Wikipedia doesn't already have an article about grain storage. It seems like an obvious topic since so much of it goes on all over the world and has an enormous effect on economies and the health of populations. If there really isn't one, maybe this could be a beginning, with a more general title as suggested by Shyamal. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There is granary but not grain storage. Might be worth creating. Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, suppose that I change the above article to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grain storage"? The traditional methods are covered, so it would be a good start. It's a draft right now, so those in the know would have lots of time to add sections about the more modern storage techniques, and it could be moved to mainspace whenever someone thinks it's ready. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Polish chicken

Are you any good with chickens, or do you know anyone into chicken breeds? The Polish chicken is a most weird article. Mostly opinions, I think. Hafspajen (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Hello,
Please note that Rare breed (agriculture), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

List of U.S. state soils

We need some images over there. If you have a camera and a shovel, or one of those new camera-shovels, please help.

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ergot of Rye

Dear agriculture experts: Here's an old Afc submission seems to be about the same topic as Claviceps purpurea. Should "Ergot of rye" be a redirect to the Claviceps purpurea page, and is there any information from this old draft that should be moved to the main article? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with the redirect. Definitely the same thing. There is some material worth possibly moving to the talk page for potential merging, the historical stuff, but none of the scientific material is an improvement. Maybe a little of the "Uses" section, but looking at the claviceps purpurea article, I'd hesitate to add directly, looks like it is trying to be sourced as it goes and I wouldn't want to plop a pile of uncited material there. I'll put the relevant stuff on the article talk page, make a couple plausible redirects and if you want to anything else and then toss the draft, that would be my recommendation. Montanabw(talk) 22:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the old draft is a redirect now, to save attribution of any material that is transferred . —Anne Delong (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arthur Boswell "Boz" Stevens

Dear editors: Here's an old abandoned page that was never submitted at Afc. It's about an agriculturalist. Is this a notable topic, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The article meets GNG in my view. It may need some copyediting, but I think he is sufficiently notable to move into mainspace. Montanabw(talk) 21:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Leaflet For Wikiproject Agriculture At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Poultry

I have proposed the creation of WikiProject Poultry; if you are interested please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Poultry_(proposal_2) JTdale Talk 12:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Of note

Seems to have become a side debate in a much larger discussion. May be of interest to project members here: Talk:American_Paint_Horse#Requested moves. Montanabw(talk) 02:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Agriculture for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 20:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This interview has been published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-10-01/WikiProject_report. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gerdeh (rice cultivar)

Dear agriculture experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable agricultural product? Is the topic covered under some other title? Should the page be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Agricen

Dear agriculture experts: Here's a draft that is under development. Is this a notable topic, and is the article ready to be moved into the main encyclopedia? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that it's a company article, I'd check for copyvio issues, but if it passes that, then it's probably OK, JMO. Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Of interest

Issue at ANI that may be of interest to project members: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed_page_moves_by_SMcCandlish. Montanabw(talk) 18:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Poultry

Of possible interest

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Toward a standard for disambiguating titles of articles on domestic animal breeds which may be of interest to this project. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

FAO stats, the difficulty of maintaining accurate data in wikipedia

Members of this project may wish to comment in the discussion at Talk:Berry#The table from the faostat page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"Right to farm" in Missouri

Missouri is considering a constitutional amendment that would guarantee the "right to farm".

There are implications for the environment and the use of genetically modified crops.
Wavelength (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a bunch of these proposed statutes in several states. Interesting issue. Big Ag versus family farms in some ways, though seldom framed that way. Montanabw(talk) 19:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Of interest

Possibly of interest to project members: Talk:Polled_livestock#Requested_move. Montanabw(talk) 03:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

npp for category tool

Please comment. Gryllida (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Australian Yorkshire

May someone have a second look on that article? I can't find a single Dataset regarding that breed of swine. There is no mention within the FAO nor the Australian Pig Breeders Association Limited. Apart from, that there is the Lage White, that is the Yorshire.

In my books, the source compares Australian pigs of the breeds Yorkshire/Large White and Duroc with breeds, that are familiar in Viet Nam. It does not mention a breed, called "Australian Yorkshire". --PigeonIP (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the source is clear that Australian Yorkshire = Australian Large White. I don't know why they called it that, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"Yorkshire" and "Large White" are synonyms. One is as good as the other. The Australian data sheet for the Large White, says "imported". If it were a local breed, it shall read adopted or indigenous or something like that. I am still not convinced, that the subject of Australian Yorkshire is not the normal Large White pig. --PigeonIP (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiple move requests

Project members should be aware of the following requested moves of assorted farm animal breeds to new titles, often with several articles listed on one page. It appears that one editor is making all these requests. I am not certain if there is some overlap here or not, but if there is no overlap, then we are looking at over 60 move requests, which will have a significant impact o the various affected projects. Montanabw(talk) 05:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. Talk:Flemish_Giant#Requested_moves (appears to be 6-8 rabbit, cattle and sheep breeds)
  2. Talk:Anglo-Nubian#Requested_moves (at least 16 rabbit, goat and cattle breeds)
  3. Talk:Corsican_Cattle (21 articles, cattle, sheep, goats and rabbits)
  4. Talk:Canadian_Speckle_Park (2 breeds)
  5. Talk:Dutch_Landrace 8 goat and pig articles
  6. Talk:American_Sable 3 rabbit and goat articles
  7. Talk:Russian Black Pied 4 cattle breeds
  8. Talk:Black Hereford (hybrid) 2 cattle breeds
  9. Talk:Blue_Grey 4 articles, mostly cattle
  10. Talk:Harz_Red_mountain_cattle (just one here)
  11. Talk:Asturian_Mountain 6 breed articles, cattle, sheep and pigs
Add:
12. Talk:Romeldale/CVM (just that breed)
There's also move request, not about breed naming, from the same editor at Talk:Polled livestock. The editor is the same who has moved hundreds (literally) of domestic animal breed articles, without discussion (that I'm aware of) or reference to this or any other WikiProject, many of them after he had been specifically told that such moves were contentious and that the normal move request process should be used. There's a request for a mass revert of all those to their previous titles at Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Add to that one the RfC to split Kiger Mustang into two articles. Montanabw(talk) 18:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Detailed revert requests and gathered comments are at:
  1. Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014
  2. Talk:Strasser pigeon#Requested move (related to pigeons with the addition of the Coburg Lark)
  3. rabbit breeds (on Talk:Flemish Giant)
  4. disambiguation of "Landrace" breeds (on Talk:Dutch Landrace, related to Talk:Teeswater sheep)
for further information: a list of all affected breeds is on my worksheet /RMs. --PigeonIP (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
JLAN and PIP, are ALL of the RMs you two initiated here in response to the need to fix unilateral moves by the same editor? Montanabw(talk) 18:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't actually initiated any move request. I listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, for reversion as undiscussed moves, the first hundred of (I think) about 250 domestic animal breed articles moved without discussion by that editor after he had been clearly and specifically told by Jenks24 to use the ordinary move request process for such moves. There were (justified!) doubts as to whether the reverts would be without opposition, so it got turned into a rather messy mass move request. If I have understood correctly, if that request ends as no consensus, the articles will be restored to their previous titles. I should of course have notified this and other projects at that time, but ... well, I'd already been accused several times of canvassing.
I think that PigeonIP has made three move requests recently, at Strasser pigeon, White Park cattle and Danish Protest pig. All three pages were moved to their present titles by the same editor, from Strasser (pigeon), White Park, and Danish Protest Pig respectively.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Correct. Strasser (pigeon) is a more technical request for pigeon titles that were moved by SMC without discussion. (one exception: Coburg Lark). White Park cattle is listed to request a disambiguation. Danish Protest Pig to discuss the title (there are up to 8 possible names. "Protest Pig" may be the one with the most telling name, but I fear that that is a literal translation and we are setting standards with that. Stockman/breeders may have choosen "Danish/Husum Protest Swine" or "Husum Red Pied" or "German Red Pied". I cant find a good source, that is not a translation or relays on wikipedia...
I did a comment on German black pied (cattle), that may be indeed the German Black and White or German Black-and-White. The German Black Pied is another breed. Black Pied Dairy cattle is a third one. We will have to have a closer look on that. But I won't start that one, yet. I will list all new discussions here and will point out, if something is more than just a technical request --> #split for discussion. (also for myself, to keep up with that.) --PigeonIP (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC) moved Black Pied Dairy cattle to German Black Pied Dairy, found two references for that. German black pied (cattle) IS the German Black Pied. --PigeonIP (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

split for discussion

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Might be of interest...

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC - Animal breeds in lower case Ealdgyth - Talk 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OMG< here we go again! Montanabw(talk) 00:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
After that decision with the consequence that it is impossible to identify, if a 3-sentence-stub-article (with outdated 1970s literature) is about a landrace, a breed, an ancient breed or a breedgroup and therefore to link it correctly to commons categories or wikidataitems, I do not see any reason to take part in that discussion. The outcome will be, that it is even impossible to distinguish breeds from species. The incident with the Pheasant pigeon was only a foretaste of what is to come. --PigeonIP (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Arapawa Pig

I'd be grateful if others would take a look at Arapawa Pig, where an editor seems determined to add unreferenced material that looks to me very much like WP:OR. There's only one source in the article, and it states clearly that it's regarded as a breed, so I'm not clear why anyone would edit the page to say that it isn't one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

refering to rarebreeds.co.nz, that may be my fault: Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014#comment on pigs mentioned in the RM.
Arapawa Pigs do have a Standard[7] but are described as feral pigs (or descendants of feral pigs). Are there two types: the Arapawa feral pigs[8] and the "re-domesticated" Arapawa Pigs? --PigeonIP (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
add: in any case it is not a "landrace". Landrace are cultured/groomed by people. They are herded and fed and managed and protected from predators (like foxes, bears, wolfs). Feral animals are not. Feral animals are totally left to life on their own, like wild animals. Without herdsmen, dogs and additional fodder or a stable (at least during winter). --PigeonIP (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

RfD for misleading redirects

May someone delete the misleading redirects

or can fill in a request the "right way"? [9] [10]

That may also be requested for the not used

There are many black pied dairy cattle-breeds out there.

I am unsure about

--PigeonIP (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Check the CSD criteria (criteria for speedy deletion) or the request for deletion of redirects. I think you can just tag them and if the tag is objected to, then nominate them for deletion. I'd live the ones you are not sure about, per WP's weird capitalization syntax in its software. Montanabw(talk) 18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, how to nominate them for deletion... --PigeonIP (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Pig milk

I'm looking for a photo of pig milk. Could someone please go into the stye, extract a little, and take a photo of it? From what I hear, you want to do this when she is sleeping. And you want to be ready to run. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a photo of Porcorino more interesting? --PigeonIP (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Both! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Polycerate

Dear agricultural experts: Here's a new article that could use some improvement. It was pretty rough, and I've done what I could without knowing anything about the subject. Likely the word "animals" for example, can be replace with a more precise term. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Corporate farming

Hi all. I just did some pretty massive edits on the Corporate farming page and wanted to get some opinions on it. I tried to summarize my edits on the talk page (I forgot to do edit summaries). If you do check it out, I preemptively apologize for my mess on the history page. I'm still figuring out the whole editing thing and jumped the gun a few times on the save button...

Thanks! Creigpat (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of this article yet, and I'll admit I was expecting to see much, much worse. It actually looks like a good framework for the article at a cursory glance. I can see a few areas that need a bit more as far as sources, and a big question will always be assigning due weight to terms. I'd have to look at the article and it's source a bit more in-depth to comment on much more, but overall I'd say it looks good. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

RM notice (for livestock taskforce)

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Razorback#Requested move November 2014, which aims to clear up the perpetual Wikipedia confusion between the wild pig or wild boar (article: Wild boar), and feral domesticated pigs (proposed article name Feral pig, presently at Razorback).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit, in which SMcCandlish requests a number of moves of animal breed articles as "Uncontroversial technical requests", may also be of interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Re: your edit summary, "and other moves that he forgot to notify ..." – I did not "forget" anything. Please stop ascribing mental states to me about which you cannot know, unless you recently became an omniscient deity when I wasn't looking. Posting RM notices to wikiprojects is not routine at all, and it would be quite disruptive to notify every wikiproject of possible relevance about every single RM discussion that might be in-scope, especially noncontroversial ones. WP:RM exists as a centralized listing of requested moves specifically so that we don't need to do that. I've drawn attention to the Wild pig move because the issues involved are beyond that of a simple rename discussion, but involve continual editorial and reader confusion, redirects to incorrect articles, articles being incorrectly categorized, and other serious matters affecting the handling of feral and wild pig content, an issue of interest to both WP:AGRICULTURE and WP:MAMMALS (also notified). Was there anything else you wanted to doggedly pursue me across Wikipedia and start pointless fights about? It's quite a list today already.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh great, here we go again. Montanabw(talk) 06:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s/Petit Gulf cotton

Hello. Is anyone here interested in helping me create a page about Petit Gulf cotton? I have started a userpage. I think this could easily become a start, but I am not an expert at all. It seems very historically significant. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

FAR of Marine shrimp farming

I have nominated Marine shrimp farming for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox cattle breeds

Hi. I have created a draft infobox for cattle breeds. Any suggestions/improvements?

{{Infobox cattle breed
| name          = name of cattle breed
| image         = image.ext
| image_size    = image size
| image_alt     = alt text for image; see [[WP:ALT]]
| image_caption = caption
| status        = conservation status (extinct, critical, endangered, etc)
| country       = country of origin
| distribution  = distribution
| use           = e.g., meat or milk
| nickname      = nickname; use {{Unbulleted list}} if more than one
| bull_weight    = male weight
| cow_weight  = female weight
| coatcolor     =  coat color
| note          = extra notes
}}

Thanks!! TheMagikCow (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You might want to compare to {{Infobox horse breed}} or {{Infobox sheep breed}} and match this up. (Probably match to the sheep or goat ones) I would strongly discourage the "image size" parameter, as we need to discourage people from setting fixed sizes except under unusual conditions; the defaults in prefs can be changed by users and fixed sizes can look really bizarre in those cases. I would suggest also adding a link to one or more breed organizations. I am also going to ping @Pigsonthewing: who is an expert on templates, to offer any technical suggestions. Montanabw(talk) 04:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm afraid I don't see any obvious improvement here over the current version of {{Infobox cattle breed}}, or any particular reason for the omission of a number of parameters (including breed standards, as Montanabw notes) nor for the change from "male weight" to "bull weight" (which seems specifically to exclude oxen, but why?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Right... Well that template needs to be on the page and templates. On the todo list was to make a cattle template. I will update the page and take it off. I am now putting that original template on the home page. TheMagikCow (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hm! I didn't think there was one, I glanced at 3-4 cattle breed articles and didn't see one. Ah, another task to do... I think we do have some cattle breed list articles, don't we? Montanabw(talk) 06:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Are there any parameters in the example above, that need to be merged to the existing template? If so, please ping me and I'd be glad to do that for you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
It's my personal taste, but I like the infobox border in {{Infobox cattle breed}} to go around the title, but maybe ask at the talk page before doing it. I don't want to upset anyone over a minor formatting tweak. Other than that, everything is already there. Montanabw(talk) 06:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Mustang or mustang... should we continue to capitalize it?

There is an Rfc on mustang/Mustang capitalization going on at Talk:Mustang#Capitalization_RfC where we would be grateful for input. This project is listed on the article talk page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus, like my view, seems to be small m.TheMagikCow (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
May want to weigh i over there, but I will note that we have most breed articles capitalized. Montanabw(talk) 19:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tractor

{{Infobox tractor}} has been nominated for deletion since December 29, 2014. Please feel free to comment at the discussion, which may be found here. --AussieLegend () 14:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Trade and use of saffron FAR

I have nominated Trade and use of saffron for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)