Talk:Gävle goat

The Gävle goat burning in the film, blackjack

In this film an alcoholic gets drunk and burns the goat with a lighter and a can of petrol. This should be a cultural ref. Blackjack is a colin nutley film about a dance band that tours sweden. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099142/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl

The best line in it is "Jag var bara ett knull for dig, jag vet" hot stuff from that actress! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.65.158 (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yule goat survival table updated

I've updated the table to show a summary of the timeline above it. I couldn't reconcile the existing one to any source. I've ignored the Southern Merchant/Natural Science split as this was confusing and excluded the goat built for the Black Jack film. The goats with an "unknown fate" have been included in the total built but not in the survival percentage. "Unknown fate" also includes the current (2013) goat. Survival percentage has been calculated as (19 / 53) * 100. The 53 is the total number of goats built (57) less four with fate unknown. Please feel free to challenge these figures or the calculation.

BurmeseCatMan (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

as your " reconcilliation problem" indicates, the table is WP:OR violation amongst many other problems such as Wikipedia turning the event into a scorecard contest about whether the goat survives or not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you actually understand what I've changed. The table is a summary of data sourced from the Gävle Tourist Board here. It isn't original research, it's data summarised in table form. It's also highly relevant to the article as a big reason for notability is whether or not it gets burnt down. The data in the old table could not be reconciled back to a source; my updated one can. On that basis, I'm putting the table back in. BurmeseCatMan (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh good grief TRPoD, please at least try and add something positive to this page. Arbitrarily reverting every edit is not constructive. I'm not sure that you understand the subject matter and why it is notable. At least try and engage with me and perhaps we can make the article better. BurmeseCatMan (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:Comment on the content, not the contributor. Commenting on users' actions or inactions by values like positive and negative goes close to a personal attack. Nobody is required to add anything to be able to remove, and nobody is entitled to require that; WP:Ownership of articles. TRPoD has reasoned almost every single edit and often with a reference to rules and guidelines users are wished to be acquainted with. You have simply reverted the changes with arguments to be avoided; "Table is ... relevant.", "not sure that you understand ... why it is notable", or with no reasoning at all. It doesn't help a case that some information is sourced, it can still be promotional or editorializing content. Editorializing means a tone of writing that makes a subject seem more dramatic or interesting than the simple stated facts or events. In this instance, emphasizing the statistics seems like a score card. Whether or not it gets burnt down is speculation, and therefore original research, as has been claimed. If an edit gets reverted, it very likely means it's unfit for the article. If a user makes an assertion, please try to see how they are correct. Not denying it by how they don't understand. Your assertions to how your edits are relevant are unfortunately not sufficient to make them stand, by reasons stated in the links I provided. Please read them through. ~ Nelg (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nelg. I explained my reasoning for the table above and referenced the source for the figures. That the goat gets destroyed (usually by fire) two thirds of the time is why it is notable. That TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom has now deleted the entire timeline makes the summary table more relevant. Look, I can't be bothered to get into a dick-swinging competition about an article on a giant straw goat on the internet. I was only trying to do something positive with it - note WP:BITE and WP:GF. Goodbye. BurmeseCatMan (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You did provide the source for the events on each year, but the source page doesn't take any part in probabilities or survival rate. You'd need to provide a source for that calculation, or some necessary credentials to show that it's an accurate probability analysis, proof that the number is correct. Before that, it's a number only you provided. That is the reason for the Original Research. I'm not assuming anything but good faith from your edits, but editors just cannot operate on each others' words. But assuming good faith extends also to other editors; I can't talk for TRPoD, but at his first edit you just blamed him for disruption, even given his explanation. If you wish, the matter can be arbitrated in Dispute resolution, as I thought to do first thing. But first I wanted to try to discuss. I'm sorry if my message seemed harsh. I do not wish you gone, and I can speak for a lot of editors. Every one might be valuable. Your first contribution just maybe didn't belong to the scope of Wikipedia. Please don't take that value judgment personally. I wish instead that you could learn from it to make better articles. ~ Nelg (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for ruining this fun, informative little article, TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. Nice way to keep people away from Wikipedia in frustration. Pedantic, troll-like, mission accomplished., I suppose. Cowicide (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear Cowicide BurmeseCatMan (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear from me too. Formerly great article spoiled by humourless pedant, overlooking the sole reason why this straw goat is noteworthy at all.

If people are only here to make a fan page and not an encyclopedia, there is no great loss to the encyclopedia if they leave. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The time line WOULD NOT be better in prose.122.210.63.96 (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed – it's much clearer and more readable as it is. Any objection to removing the template? Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

As I just stated elsewhere in these comments, I prefer the current bullet point list. So my vote is for removing the template. Stuart mcmillen (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

People have in fact stated their desire for trivia easy to read timelines as opposed to encyclopedic coverage in prose, but there is no policy basis for that, in fact the contrary WP:USEPROSE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"The burning of the Gävle Goat is not officially welcomed by the citizens of Gävle."

This is quite the controversial claim. I'd say it's weasel words, because it's completely unverifiable. The source that was noted does not appear to relate to that and is a dead link, so I moved it to source the previous sentence, where at least the title makes more sense. Not sure what to do about dead links, hopefully someone else knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limbero (talk • contribs) 01:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

we will just remove it until an actual source appears-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, will these sources: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article18065246.ab http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/bocken-i-gavle-har-brunnit-ned/ http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt/gavledala/bockkommitten-vi-ar-jatteledsna qualify for adding back the section I wrote to the lede? With the modification that it has been burned at least 24 times as per the first source. The second source cites the fact that there are people who think the burning of the goat is good PR for Gävle, and the third source is very similar, perhaps even redundant, but slightly more reputable. I really do think the situation needs a more objetive description in the lede than an 8 word sentence reducing a complex issue to arson. Limbero (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC) EDIT: And also this, https://www.facebook.com/expressen/posts/10151908187560345 is a good example of how seriously some news media takes it.

[1] appears to address the question of whether the burning is good publicity - however it needs to be framed appropriately because the person making the analysis is related to the creators (if my google translate is correct). Also, I do not know swedish newspapers - is it a standard news paper or is it a sensationalistic tabloid or fluff entertainment? (if there is something in the audio of the flim clip, please provide a translation)

• [2] appears to be a pretty much word for word copy. Are the two papers related? is TT a wire service? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Timeline: List is better as prose"

That sounds like opinion. Cite your source please for asserting this.

A definitions or an ordered list would have better semantics than an unordered one, or some other way of showing a linear progression, but I suspect a block of prose would be very, very painful to parse.

And besides, as a list, you get the comic Swamp Castle effect. Martinb9999 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

As above – I agree. Much clearer as a list (and hat-tip for the Monty Python reference – I knew it reminded me of something). Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, we are not a score card or a monty python joke reference. the history should be presented as prose. ( thats why we have a tag for "this should be converted to prose" and not one for "this prose should be chopped up and presented as a timeline because readers may have the attention span of a fruit fly") contents should default be in prose with timelines being an addition where sequences of events are important. WP:TIMELINE "Timelines describe the events that occurred before another event, leading up to it, causing it, and also those that occurred right afterward that were attributable to it." this is about a structure that is built every year. many years it is vandalised. some years multiple groups compete for the building. no sequence relevance at all . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, articles should avoid having "long and sprawling lists of statistics" - the reader is just going to glaze over and assume that each year's entry is some variation of "either burned down in some way or didn't burn down", will find it hard to pick out the interesting stories, and will have to do a lot of close reading to even get a rough sense of how often the goat burns down.

If there are significant events in the goat's history, pull them out into a few paragraphs with as much dramatic burned-down-and-sank-into-a-swamp progression as you like. (It looks as if the existing "History" section is already partly there.) There's clearly some great material here, and a curious arms race going on between builders and arsonists, but this is more or less lost in the current bulleted list. --McGeddon (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree entirely, I find that the current list format does a far better job of "storytelling," as it were, than prose could possibly do. That it is so terse and episodic only adds to the charm - there's nothing wrong with an encyclopedia article on humorous subject matter being written in a way that enhances the humor. 96.231.153.5 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there is -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The tone of that list is *exceedingly* formal. That's the reason it's so enjoyable. I see nothing on that page that indicates that anything that might cause a smirk should be excised, especially when the humor is due largely to the subject matter. 96.231.153.5 (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that the current bullet-point list is excellent, and gives a great sense of what happened to the goat every year. I can use it to chart the 'arms race' between the vandals and the authorities. This would be lost if changed to purely prose paragraphs. Stuart mcmillen (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a simple, sortable table of events (year, survival date - red for destroyed and green for survived, new security measure, method of destruction) would be best here? The reader shouldn't have to sit down and "chart" the goat's history for themselves, working from dense text-only year descriptions, in order to get a feel for how the arms race has been going. --McGeddon (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Better as a table?

Haven't gone back to this since July, but I was thinking the list might look better as a table. Something like:

Year	Security additions	Date of destruction	Destroyed by	Notes
1966	?	31st December	Fire
1967	Fence added.	Survived	—
1968	?	Survived	—
1969	Inside of goat protected by chicken-wire netting.	31st December	Fire
1970	?	Six hours after construction	Fire blamed on two drunk teenagers	With help from several financial contributors the goat was reassembled out of lake reed.
1971	?	?	?	The Southern Merchants got tired of their goats being burned and stopped building the goat. The Natural Science Club (Naturvetenskapliga Föreningen:NF) from the School of Vasa (Vasaskolan) took over.
1972	?	?	Collapse

References

What do people think? --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, undue ephasis to the "sport" and not enough to what it means and its relevance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just trying to present the data. We've currently got an unskimmable list of years with varyingly written descriptions (sometimes saying "Burnt down" as the first two words, sometimes stringing out the dramatic tension for a paragraph) - if we're keeping that list, it needs cleaning up. We could merge the "security additions" and "notes" columns if you think the arms race aspect is undue. --McGeddon (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Any further opinions on this, with December coming up? --McGeddon (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I think it's a great idea to present the data in the way you've suggested. The idiot, pedant troll who did their utmost to ruin the article no longer edits Wikipedia, so there's less of a chance that your hard work gets deleted based on some perceived policy slight. Your proposal is a pretty common way to present and summarise data in Wikipedia and not controversial at all. BurmeseCatMan (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I fully support the addition of the table. Much of the attention surrounding this subject is its inevitable destruction and the table is much easier on the eyes than the current "Timeline" we have now.LM2000 (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. If this content is going to be included it is better to have it in a table than in a point list. Lappspira (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I've now changed the section into a table. The table (and original text list) is occasionally a bit unclear on which goats burned and survived each year, though, as since 1986 there have been two each year, and the Southern Merchants didn't build any between 1971 and 1985. Maybe it's worth a separate column for each (and combining date/method into a single cell), although I'm not sure we have the sources to be sure which goat survived each year. --McGeddon (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gävle goat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708053041/http://merjuligavle.blogspot.com/2011/01/mandag-3-januari-vi-ses-nasta-ar-see.html to http://merjuligavle.blogspot.com/2011/01/mandag-3-januari-vi-ses-nasta-ar-see.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Image sizes

MOS:IMGSIZE cautions us to "balance the need to reveal detail against the danger of overwhelming surrounding article text" and advises that "Lead images should usually use upright=1.35 at most.", but User:Beyond My Ken thinks we should ignore this and go to 1.6. Is there a detail I'm missing in the lede image that only becomes clear at 160% magnification? If there is, could we serve the reader better by cropping the photo? --McGeddon (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of background detail, it's simply that the image is not sufficient visibile at the lesser size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? Sufficient for what? --McGeddon (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sufficient for the viewer to see the friggin' goat, how it's constructed, what it actually looks like. In any case, I have solved the problem, my perceived problem, in a different way. I have replaced three of the images with cropped versions that focus on the goat, and reduced their size to 1.35. The fourth image I have restored to a larger size because of the goat in the background on the left side of the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, cropping looks like the best way to go there.

Why does the background Southern Merchants goat merit a 170% magnification of the Natural Science Club goat image? The background goat is still distinguishable from the surrounding buildings at standard thumbnail size, and the extreme perspective makes any size comparison between the two figures meaningless. --McGeddon (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not to my eye. I really only saw the background goat after I first pushed the size - that's when I added the information about it being there to the caption. At standard thumbnail size I did not see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You've never edited this caption, I added the mention of the other goat last month. If a detail is visible at regular thumb size, is explicitly mentioned in the caption and doesn't add much beyond "thing exists within shot", we don't need to give the reader a 170% zoom to let them find it from scratch. --McGeddon (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, I was looking at the wrong caption when I examined the article's history (although I did make adjustments to the image to make it more visible [3]), but, yes, we do need to give the reader a chance to see what's in the caption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The 220px image under discussion

I've embedded the image at standard 220px thumbnail size here. You don't think the reader can see the goat in the distance, if the caption points it out to them? I appreciate it's easy to miss if you're not expecting it, but it's plainly recognisable as the same goat that's been pictured three times already in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that there is a thing there, and, having read the caption, I can take it for granted that it's the other goat, but I cannot see that for myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there are monitor or eyesight issues at play here, the 220px image seems clear enough to me. Shall we get a WP:THIRDOPINION? --McGeddon (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of 3O, which is much too random for my taste, just as I'm not a fan of following MOS guidelines as if they were mandatory rules, which they most decidedly are not, simply "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense." I'd ask any 30 commenter to judge on the basis of what works best in the article, and what best serves the reader, and I'd ask you not to resort to ad hominem remarks about my eyesight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

No offence intended, I'm just trying to establish why we might be seeing this image so differently. 3O might give us a new perspective, so I'll raise the flag. --McGeddon (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Gävle goat and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I think it's more important to show the subject clearly than it is to follow MOS:IMGSIZE. Comparing the two versions, I prefer the current one as the pictures are both a bit bigger and zoomed in a little more. And my eyesight is fine too. ;) Bradv 20:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bradv: Thanks for the fresh eyes! There are actually three sizes being discussed here - I was only embedding the 220px one to show that I thought the background goat was fine even at standard thumbnail size. Do you think the image should be upright=1.35 (135% normal size, as seen here) or upright=1.6 (160%, as currently in the article)? --McGeddon (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Usually when I comment at 3O requests I don't actually have to choose between two sides - usually I just encourage the two sides to communicate better or compromise. But since you're specifically asking for my preference...

In this case, I would say there is no problem with the bigger size (I certainly like that it's zoomed in a little more than in the one I saw earlier). On the other hand, I see no compelling reason to ignore the manual of style, as most people can simply click the picture and see it full screen.

And yes, the default size on Wikipedia needs to change, but that probably needs to go a different forum (this is about a picture of a goat). Bradv 20:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've no strong objection to a 135% zoom here, I just can't see any informative benefit in pushing that even further to 160%. It's a great photo and I'd happily hang an even larger version on my wall, but it's job here is just to show us what a burnt goat looked like. --McGeddon (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If you really think that's the case, then I'll just crop it so the goat in the background is not there, then it will be "doing it's job". I don't want to do that, because I think it can perform multiple functions, showing the burnt goat and at the same time showing that goat's physical replationship to the main goat. The 1.7 version does that, the 1.35 version and 220px version do not, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I would leave it as is for now. It's really not a big deal if it's a bit bigger than the MOS specifies. Cropping the image does more harm to the article than leaving it slightly oversized. Bradv 21:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gävle goat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217093233/http://hem.passagen.se/nf1/bock/bock.htm to http://hem.passagen.se/nf1/bock/bock.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001236/http://www.arbetarbladet.se/local_article.php?id=350410&avdelning_1=101&avdelning_2=0 to http://www.arbetarbladet.se/local_article.php?id=350410&avdelning_1=101&avdelning_2=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070125212523/http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0%2C2789%2C567577%2C00.html to http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,567577,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070126105654/http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0%2C2789%2C944925%2C00.html to http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,944925,00.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/53159.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117124224/http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/12/santa_torched_t.php to http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/12/santa_torched_t.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gävle goat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208053819/http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2620 to http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2620
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070128225108/http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/debatt/story/0,2789,406509,00.html to http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/debatt/story/0,2789,406509,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040517000016/http://wwwb.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,404850,00.html to http://wwwb.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,404850,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001214/http://www.arbetarbladet.se/local_article.php?id=476327&avdelning_1=101&avdelning_2=101 to http://www.arbetarbladet.se/local_article.php?id=476327&avdelning_1=101&avdelning_2=101

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Local sentiment?

I came to the page having read a news article, and it strikes me that there's nothing here about local opinion on the phenomenon, which is what I came looking for, and what I imagine a lot of people will also come looking for. 79.70.180.218 (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever is added to the article it needs to be relevant and reliably sourced. I see forward any additions. –Lappspira (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

National Science Club goat in the table

Should there be two extra columns in the table, stating what happened to the National Science Club's each year that it has existed? I notice some of the 'date/method of destruction' entries refer to that goat and not the larger goat. 101.173.33.208 (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Height and record

IP editor added a {{dubious}} tag to the text "1985 their Yule Goat made it into the Guinness Book of Records with an official height of 12.5 metres" with the reason "doesn't fit with 1966 goat being 13 m.; one must be wrong". Beyond My Ken reverted with the comment "where does the article say that about the 1966 goat?"

I think the IP is referring to the text in the "History" section: "On 1 December 1966, a 13-metre (43 ft) tall, 7-metre (23 ft) long, 3-tonne goat was erected in the square." He has a point; if the 1966 goat was 13 meters, why did the 1985 goat, half a meter shorter, get the record? TJRC (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, yes, I couldn't find that mention, I've reverted myself. Someone who speaks Swedish needs to do some reaearch and clean up stuff like that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

table width

looking at the source code all the tables for each decade are defined as having exactly the same width, but when looking at the article they all vary, which not only makes it look messy but also harder to quickly glance at information.
Is there a way to make the tables actually the same size? Otherwise I would propose merging them into a single table which would also fix the problem. There arent so many entries that it would be overwhelming, in my opinion
--jonas (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Guarded by taxis

For 1993 the source does indeed say "guarded by taxi and the Home Guard." which is, indeed, unclear. However, in 2018 the source for that year states "a taxi rank has been moved to the square to increase the presence of people in the area." So it appears they have taxis wait to pick people up there in 2018. It's likely a reasonable guess that that that's the same thing that happened in 1993. I'm not sure it would be appropriate to put that conclusion to fulfill the request for clarification in 1993.

Otherwise I was personally confused by "Taxi rank" in 2018 due to not knowing what it is; I've added a link to the wikipedia page on taxi stands which explains what is meant by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumi23 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

'Survived'?

The table currently says the Goat survived this year, and yet the live webcam is still streaming the Goat. It's not taken down yet. So isn't the status still 'Standing'? The goal is not for the Goat to survive into the New Year, it's for it to survive until it's dismantled. 1.158.172.197 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the source cited isn't even an official YouTube channel. Here is the official live-stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF-qsjOlkSk taken from the embed on https://www.gavlebocken.com/ 180.150.120.22 (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I checked the stream on the website and saw the Goat was still unharmed, which reminded me that I'd posted here. Then I come here and find the article updated to say the stream has ended. I'm bewildered and also amused. 1.158.172.197 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

2023 birds

In the notes for the current goat I had added that birds had damaged the goat. This was reverted for two reasons; both I which I believe are incorrect - so I'd like to address it here so can be readded without an edit war.

1. The undo claims Twitter is not a reliable source - however I cited the official Twitter account which is linked from Visit Gavle and is also already used a citation source elsewhere on the page.
2. The undo claims the tweets don't mention damage - however the tweets mention the behaviour of the birds and include pictures which show the damage.

So I believe the note should be readded. 203.30.15.187 (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That interpretation would original research, sorry. EditorInTheRye (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, as a second IP attempted to add back the twitter source, this is going to keep coming back. I've gone out and found something more acceptable for you. EditorInTheRye (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on the chat of one of the live streams of the goat as to what constitutes it being "Destroyed" versus "Damaged" by the daily flocking of jackdaws, and how to quantify that, as well as what the date of "destruction" would be considered to be, taking consideration of the fact that in the recent years that the goat has burned, the frame has survived. I believe clarification and clearly defining the difference would help in preventing further confusion Dendinius (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't the current state of "Destroyed" constitue Original Research? I can't find any reliable external references claiming destruction (yet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.128.174.54 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

does the years the goat burned down being in red and the years it didnt being in green technicaly count as bias?

i dont have much more to say that isnt in the headline above, also i dont edit this site at all but know it likes to keep neutral and noticed its not quite doing that here. 146.199.145.105 (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What "bias" would that be? That arson is considered bad? That allowing one's festive straw goat to be burned down is an unsuccessful outcome for a festive straw goat display? Are we failing to sufficiently respect the views of those who hold the philosophical position that arson is good actually? But seriously, no, that's not what bias is. DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This is why it's important that WP:NPOV isn't a view-from-nowhere, because if so you'd be right. And in fact any time we used a green/red color scheme in a chart it'd be bias.

However, NPOV actually means we follow reliable sources, and reliable sources generally lean towards terminology like the goat "surviving" in years it survives, versus being the victim of "vandalism" or "arson" in years it doesn't, which indicates here that reliable sources consider survival the successful outcome and burning down as a failure state. Contrast with something like Burning Man, where the titular burning is referred to as, well, "burning" and is clearly considered by reliable sources to be the success state, with failures to do so as "cancellations" or "behind schedule". Loki (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

several "collapse"s are included as red in the 1970s 89.242.247.207 (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)