Talk:List of water buffalo breeds

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Breeds or landraces?

Are these actually formal breeds, with pedigree registry organisations and studbooks, or simply landraces? Some of each? The distinction is important. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 17:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANIMALS RELATED 2 BUFFALOS,STARTING WITH S ANTHONY NORRIS (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference system

The references here were changed from list-defined to a complex and afunctional system with this edit by PigeonIP in January 2017. Today Isaidnoway introduced a new (and incomprehensible) referencing system. I've reverted that edit per WP:RETAIN, but fully agree that something needs to be done. I propose restoring the previous system from before the 2017 changes – unless of course there is any reason not to? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the references sections looked like – here, when I came across this article listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. I improved the references section by putting all the citations into one section, as seen – here. I used the Sfn template, which is used on approximately 93,000 pages, and also blue-linked the book, which is heavily relied upon as a reference. The book was not previously readily accessible, as it is now with an online source to make verification of the content easier for our readers. Numerous featured articles and good articles use this style of referencing/references section, and editors are encouraged to use these as examples for writing other articles — List of fruit bats featured list, Halifax Explosion featured article, Crécy campaign featured article, 1937 Fox vault fire featured article, Magna Carta good article...etc.

If editors think the new (and incomprehensible) referencing system is impossible to understand or comprehend; unintelligible, maybe they should take a gander at Help:Referencing for beginners. I maintain my edit was an overall improvement to the references section, and consistent with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. For the reasons outlined above, I oppose restoring the previous system. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]