User talk:Richard New Forest/Archive 2010

This page is archived discussion from User talk:Richard New Forest. It covers 2010.

Criollo cattle

Hi Richard. I have been repairing incoming links to the dab page Criollo and there is a mess concerning the various criollo breeds of cattle. Also two separate entries on the dab page, neither one going to an article specifically about criollo cattle. Would you like to have a go at straightening out the articles? Perhaps Wikipedia needs a new article that explains about criollo breeds in different Spanish colonies being distinct breeds? Criollo (cow) has a bunch of incoming links that illustrate the problem. --Una Smith (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't know much about non-British cattle, but I'll take a look – thanks! Richard New Forest (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Steven Walling took care of. --Una Smith (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wolf

Hi. I think I will re-write the article to encompass both (and tone down the genetics), then merge them.Mariomassone (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Slough (wetland)

Wish I had known about the discussion related to this article. I do not think it should have been removed. I maintain articles about the Everglades, of which sloughs are a major part. The talk page is no longer available. There is worth in keeping this article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

All covered quite well in the discussion I think, which is indeed still available at Talk:Slough (wetland)#Dictionary definitions. "Slough" is a word used for numerous different wetlands, so we cannot have one WP article for them all; each WP article must be about one thing.

However, I can see no reason not to have an article about one of the meanings: perhaps "Slough (Everglades)" or some such – if it was different enough from other wetlands and it was notable enough. Remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary – articles are about things not words. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, but words are things, and sloughs, like hammocks and pine rocklands are words, too. So, I wrote the Everglades article and Geography and ecology of the Everglades, Everglades National Park, Draining and development of the Everglades, Restoration of the Everglades, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, Richard F. Coe, and I'm constructing a list about invasive species in the Everglades. Does this mean I must now construct the Slough (Everglades) article? I tripped over the Everglades article when it was 9 paragraphs and simply hideous, so I rewrote it. I don't understand why the Slough article was removed. Someone (like you?), someday--hopefully--will come along and improve it, making it more comprehensive. Would that not benefit the encyclopedia more than removing the article? --Moni3 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Standing up

My understanding is that sheep will do it to get at food (they'd do anything for food, really), but that the general behavioral rule is that they are less apt to climb than goats are. As for fences, I've seen sheep push and rub against them plenty, but not much climbing on hind legs unless they're really testing a fence line (that will definitely vary with breed and temperament). Goats also butt heads by rearing up on their hind legs (like this), while sheep just charge with their heads down. Basically, yes they will do it, but not nearly as much as goats. Steven Walling 20:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about standing freely on hind legs, front legs tucked up under the belly, all weight balanced on the hind feet in true bipedal fashion – which I know goats can do. Our sheep will readily climb up things, standing with one or both front feet on a fence or stump – but I've never seen them balance on the hind feet. Have you seen evidence for that? I think it would only be physically possible in the lighter breeds (which ours are).

Interestingly, at least some horses can do it, though they generally don't. When browsing, they never do (as far as I know) – for example, the tree browse line throughout the New Forest is a bit over 6 feet high, which is what a hungry 12 hh New Forest pony can reach off all fours. However, we once put our mare to a stallion whose technique was spectacular, if a little unsubtle – he would stand on his hind legs (which as he was 16.2 hh made him about 11 feet tall), then at a range of 20 feet or so he'd run towards the mare, bipedally, sighting down his fully prepared implement. As she'd never met a stallion before, her first reaction to this apparition was to head for the next county at speed! Richard New Forest (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that was your meaning, I'd have to say no. I hate to say that they'd be theoretically incapable, but in my experience sheep don't do that. Steven Walling 06:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, do keep entertaining us all with your adventures in animal land. Never a dull moment, is there? =:-O  — [Unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 11:10, 13 February 2010.]

The mare did eventually get the idea, and we had a very fine foal out of the pairing, though sadly she was the horse of ours that died last November, aged 12. Her younger sister's going strong (from another stallion) and so is the original mare, 27 this year. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Chile Powder

Just wanted to pop by and say thanks for the rewrite. That was on my todo list, and you did a great job Vertigo Acid (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Richard New Forest (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

DAB and NVC article

Hello. You reverted out the info I added to the DAB page for NVC. I understand your point and of course I know DAB usage. But sometimes info is put in to remind an editor about an as yet unwritten article when research has been done. But it hardly matters to discuss it. Thanks anyway and best wishes. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, sorry to dump the work you had done. I see what you mean, but I think what I'd have done is put the info in a hidden comment, or indeed into a stub of the article itself. Then it's available for anyone starting an article in the future, but does not clutter the "public" dab in the meantime. Also, I think it's a good idea to make the name of the future article into a link – a red-link will give an idea of what the future article might be called. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Richard. Thanks for your kindest thoughts. You're spot on. But sometimes the "new article" has to be adjudicated to be worthy of WP which is a process. I guess it's best to put the info elsewhere until the article is written, if ever. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's worthy of an article, then it deserves a stub – but if not, then not, and nor would it need a dab entry. Be bold and start it, and you'll soon find out if the subject deserves one. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Richard. Yes, one tries to be bold, but after over 8000 edits, I try to call the shots carefully on starting a new article. Controversies are not usually productive. Will look into it, though. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Yoke

In all seriousness- humans are used as beasts of burden in many parts of the world, including India, China, SE Asia, South America and Africa- including to pull a plough- especially if a landless peasant cannot afford to rent a buffalo to till the fields. What are your thoughts on inclusion or differentiation?Peeweebee (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that humans are used as motive power (have been known to do it myself...). However, not using a yoke, but some other mechanism. It seems to me that an ox yoke and a human yoke are different things which happen to share a name. For example, an ox yoke is attached to an animal at each end, and to the load in the middle; a human yoke is the reverse. Different uses too: an ox yoke is used for pulling things, a human one for lifting things. Isn't the only similarity that they are each a bar with shaped wooden pieces somewhere on them? I do think we need an article for the human yoke, unless it can be incorporated into a more general article about tools for carrying things. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks....

...for your help with the article Domesticated silver fox! Chrisrus (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

IPA

Hi,

Per chamois, actually, unstressed vowels are long all the time. Have a look at Vowel reduction in English. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Unstressed vowels are long all the time"...? Is that really what you meant to say? The article you mention actually says that unstressed vowels are commonly reduced, but not in all cases. It gives a list of examples which are not, which includes both long and short vowels (such as "enlist" and "unknown"). (I did not put it well in my edit summary, where I said that the vowel is not long because it is unstressed; I ought to have said it is not long and it is unstressed.)

I've certainly never heard "chamois" said in the UK with a long final vowel – the pronunciation here approximates the French one, which also has a short vowel there. Taking a couple of the examples in that article: is the final vowel of "chamois" really as long as those of "manatee" or "outlaw"? Surely not in standard English. Isn't it more similar in length to those of "pony" or "happy"? Richard New Forest (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Synonym field

In case you are not aware of it, there is a long chain of mails on the Taxacom list to browse ! Shyamal (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks – very interesting. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Article check

Richard, at my request, I had Pitke import and translate an article from Swedish Wiki: British Spotted Pony. We have a few references to this breed in some other articles, so seems legit enough to add here. Would you kindly trot over and take a peek at it? We didn't do any independent sourcing, Pitke just translated the Swedish version and I did some copyediting and cleanup. We both think there is some dubious stuff in there, but no time to do a real thorough analysis. Any help or further cleanup appreciated! Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 22:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, will do – does need some attention. Thanks. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Merci

Thank you for being bold and converting the Saddleback pig article to a dab. It was created as part of an article creation contest and should definitely not be a lengthy overview like that. Cheers, Steven Walling 23:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of sheep breeds edit

Hi! I noticed a recent edit where you de-capitalized several words such as Milk, Wool to Milk, wool for various breeds. I was just wondering why only those breeds? The pattern within the list was capitalization of all words within that column. However, if there is a policy or guideline that I'm not following, I would be open to reformatting the text. I would like for it to be consistent within the column, if appropriate. Thank you for your time. BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think I did those only because they were the ones I happened to notice when editing nearby – I'd probably have done them all if I'd had time. WP:CAPITAL advises avoidance of unnecessary capitalisation, which I think this is, certainly with the comma there to make it a sentence fragment. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I read WP:CAPITAL and noted when capitalization is to be used here. I will edit the list and change the case of the secnod and following words in the list for the Purpose column. Regards, BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

MOSDAB "only one link per entry"

I scanned over WP:MOSDAB looking for the applying style guide you're citing with this edit, and I wasn't able to find it.

I reverted two changes including yours (and in doing so, corrected an inaccuracy and restored a bullet you removed with your edit) with this edit. If I'm out of line, please let me know. 70.91.178.186 (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries, where it states (emphasis as in the guidance):

• Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line.

Then, for piping:

• The article title should appear in full; the link should not be piped except to apply formatting

Also see the message that appears when editing all dabs:

• Generally only one navigable link (blue link) belongs in each bulleted entry.
• The full article name should be visible; do not pipe entry names.

I've edited the page back again. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Fences stuff

Discussion moved to Talk:Vinyl fence#Article title. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bull/proposed article

Hi. I'm putting together on article at Bull/proposed article to supplant the existing disambig page, which is a magnet for links intended to point at an article on the male of cattle. Since you did quite a bit of work on Cattle and Ox, I thought you might be able to help quickly punch this up to full-blown article status. Any assistance would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. Wasn't sure at first that there's definitely enough material to separate it from Cattle, but I think there is. There's quite a bit about handling (bull rings, bull poles, bull masks, bull pens etc), AI, safety, stud farms etc. Also cultural things such as bull fighting, bull running, heraldry, bull beef etc.

I've done a little on the descriptive part. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! My goal is to have something for Bull that is roughly equivalent to what the article Stallion is for horses. bd2412 T 16:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I popped over with a couple of ideas. I was a major contributor on the stallion article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's really just ridiculous how much we were able to do in less than 48 hours. My faith in the power of the Wiki is redoubled! bd2412 T 01:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pigs

I don't think putting all that stuff about pig farming is necessary in an article about the domestic pig. Originally the article redirected from pig farming to domestic pig. Theya re entirely different. I know, I keep pigs. There is an article on pig farming already. Why fill up the 'domestic pig' page with irrelevant stuff about farming. The current articles on pigs are: Pig, Pigs - redirects to pig, Domestic pig, Pig farming, Intensive pig farming, hog, List of domestic pig breeds etc. With so many articles we can afford to be more selective.

We should keep this article about domestic pigs only and leave other sections for other articles. Now you have reverted it, this article continues to be duplicating, confusing and superfluous. Can you please help WP with all the pig articles and put everything in its right context - and in the right place? Thanks. 117.201.48.170 (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Above comment copied to Talk:Domestic pig#Content of article, repetition of other articles, and answered there. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted your merges on Chili powder and chile powder

If you do not want to listen to the discussion and the links I provided then so be it but the issue remains these are NOT the same ingredients. They are different and leave that way. If you want to argue about fine but the simple fact one is powdered chilies and the other is a mixture of said chilies and other spices. I use Alton Brown because guess what he the best when it comes to finding out about ingredients and foods. No other chef out there has actually taken the time to explain the difference. Mihsfbstadium (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is a very old discussion... As you are well aware I did listen to your arguments and address them in some detail, and you were unable to provide evidence that came close to meeting WP's requirements for reliable sources (as I recall it was only one source, not "links") (And of course there could be a good reason why only Alton Brown has bothered to claim there's a difference...) Without searching particularly hard I was able to provide several good sources contrary to your view. I only made the merge after repeated prompting for further evidence, which was not forthcoming, and I'm afraid I took your continued silence as acquiescence in the face of overwhelming evidence.

We are still waiting for evidence to support your view, and I'm very surprised that you feel able to split the article without providing it. I'll revert your changes for the moment, then I suggest you do find evidence to support your view and reopen the discussion properly before splitting the article, if editors can come to a consensus to do so. I would be very happy to be proved wrong on this. Further discussion at Talk:Chili powder please. Thanks. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I did provide other links in a post above it. You guys just refuse to believe it. Thats fine and your can say whatever you want. The simple fact is one is a SPICE MIX and one is a SPICE. There you can debate all you want but its the same for Seasoning Salt and Salt. One is a SPICE MIX and one is a spice. Another one is Garlic Powder and Garlic Salt. One is a SPICE and one is SPICE MIX. I can list more if you want but the simple fact is Chili Powder and Chile Powder are two diffrent items and to make this site better off I took it upon myself to correct it. If you dont like it fine but take it up to the mods then. I wont because I have spent enough time on this and dont feel like I need to argue with people who will not listen. Mihsfbstadium (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Above discussion copied to Talk:Chili powder and your point answered there. Please don't discuss any more here. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pig

Its corrected.Triplespy (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerning closures

I just wanted to note that the close done by Born2cycle is not an isolated incident, a very similar but more obviously close against consensus just happened at Deniliquin. the clear majority of editors were against the move but it was moved anyways. --Kevmin § 17:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Born2Cycle also recently closed a move proposal at Razorback, in my view prematurely, when things seemed to be progressing towards a consensus. The reason given was just that the proposal had been open for two weeks. (Actually I hadn't realised it was the same editor until I checked back). Richard New Forest (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A similar close against the consensus of editors at Stockman, moved to Stockman (Australia). Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just so we don't get double counting, that's where Kevmin came in. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. By the way, Hi Kev! Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Yes, thank you for removing the Popular Culture section of the Smilodon article. I hate these sections (outside of popular culture articles) anyway, and this one in particular was a magnet for countless nonsensical edits.

And also thank you for your persistent good work and watchfulness on many, many animal articles, which I've noticed and admired for some time. Cheers. --Seduisant (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hectares

Well, you have to be impressed by his single minded ability to ignore anything and everything that doesn't support his own point of view! What's that quote? "There are none so blind as those who will not look." I'm afraid I can only shake my head in wonder!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And so prolific... How could mere humans keep up (as opposed to mice!) Richard New Forest (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and your polite understatement. Fortunately, I'm generally much more civil, and I generally have my brain engaged when typing. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries – and your apology was gracefully done. Richard New Forest (talk)

Thank you!
(My god I'm bored with doing the income tax returns for the family. Seriously, given a choice, I think I might prefer to watch paint dry.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

J. H. Christ!!!

Well, I said I was bored with income tax! Pdfpdf (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll go off to http://xkcd.com/ - it can't be any more random than what's going on here ... Pdfpdf (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Good luck! (However ... )

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the article Wild pig (disambiguation). Users will be helped! Chrisrus (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A proposal

I'd like to end the debate on my talk page. I suggest that we go to mosnum and try to find some guidance. Would you like to propose some wording? Lightmouse (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like you to address the arguments put to you. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The debate has gone on for so long and so much has been said already. I'd like to move forward rather than repeat everything that's already been said. Do you have a form of words that you'd like to see as Wikipedia guidance for all editors, not just you or me? Lightmouse (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want you to repeat anything: I would like you to address the arguments put to you. If that still gets nowhere, then yes, by all means let's go to MOSNUM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard New Forest (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 October 2010

Stars & Stripes 87

Thanks for your advice: 'The simplest solution would be just to move the code from the user page to Stars & Stripes 87.' This I did and the page seems to be up and is linked to from to the main Stars & Stripes (yacht) page. However, my user page now redirects to the article page, and I am not sure how to dissociate the two. Any help untangling this would be appreciated. Thanks again. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think it's my fault for not being clear. What I meant was to copy and paste the text, but what you seem to have done is use the move button to rename the page (as had been proposed). This automatically creates a new page at the old name with a redirect to the new name.

All you need to do is edit your user page and delete the redirect code. Then you can put what you like there – or nothing if you prefer. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and to get to your user page, attempt to click on it, follow the redirect, then you'll see a note at the top of the target page saying "redirected from": click on that and it will take you back without redirecting again. Richard New Forest (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks so much! Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I see what's happened. Because the move request was posted at movreq as non-controversial, an admin (User:Anthony Appleyard) did the move as requested. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. It all worked out. Thanks again. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation of species names

Hi Richard New Forest. Can I ask for you opinion / knowledge on the best way to format the capitalisation of species names in Wikipedia? (In particular regarding the Great raft spider article but also in general for improving my wiki skills... ) When I had a brief look at a number of different species articles there seemed to be no convention at all, almost each article I looked at had a different format! So I decided, mostly on instinct and the sub-heading capitalisation convention, that having 'Great raft spider' throughout the article was better than some 'Great raft spider', some 'great raft spider', some 'Fen raft spider' etc. which is how the article currently stands. Surely consistency of naming, at least within one article, is better than a hodgepodge of forms? And which form do you think should take precedence? - HelioSmith (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is a perennial issue generating endless arguments, some people insisting that "the" Great Raft Spider is a proper noun, but others that proper nouns only belong to individual things, such as "Fred, the great raft spider". I used to be firmly in the second camp, but I'm wavering (it can be argued that vernacular names of species are like model names for manufactured products, such as "the Ford Focus", where initial caps are well accepted). The primary guidance on capitalisation may be found at WP:MOSCAPS, where the main principle is that WP avoids unnecessary capitalisation. Then under WP:MOSCAPS#Animals, plants, and other organisms, it is suggested that vernacular names of organisms should only be capitalised where they contain a proper noun or adjective. However, exceptions are also mentioned, and links are given to other guidance.

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Common name capitalisation it says that there is no overall convention, but that various project groups have their own conventions. The same thing is explained at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species, with a short list of some groups which go one way or the other – for example birds are very well established as consistently capitalised; as far as I can see spiders do not have a convention one way or the other yet. Note that whichever convention is followed, vernacular names of groups of species always have lower case initials (oak, spider, orb-web spider). Breed names of domesticated animals are generally capitalised, though agreement on this is not wholly universal.

One convention which is universally accepted is that each article (including its title) should be internally consistent. They should either follow initial caps throughout or "sentence case" (caps as they would be for ordinary text in a sentence). This means we must have either "Great Raft Spider" or "great raft spider", but not "Great raft spider" except at the start of a sentence or when standing alone (as in the title or in a list). As this article stands, the article title has sentence case, so we would expect the rest of it to follow. You are right though that we should also be consistent about "fen" and "great": one should be used for the title and throughout the article, and the other mentioned only at the beginning as an alternative name.

Another generally accepted convention (though I can't think where it's written down) is that we don't change from one to the other without a particular reason. Personally I'd not try without starting a discussion on the talk page – and in most cases I wouldn't bother. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your detailed response and links to further information on the topic. I will change the names within the article to follow sentence case, as used in the article title. When I first started working on this article I stated my preference for the use of "great" over "fen" in the talk page and have yet to receive any response from anyone with a preference otherwise. -HelioSmith (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'd not noticed your discussion of "fen" and "great": I'll reply to that there. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Greater Swiss Mountain Dog

You deleted the category "herding dogs". I agree that shouldn't be with the Swissies. Shouldn't "livestock guardians" be deleted, also? I hope I didn't categorize them that way when I almost completely revamped the article!!

Forgot to sign Bettymnz4 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC) (It's been a few months)

Hi. I left that in because it is at least that general type, and I wasn't sure enough to delete it. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Richard,

All of the Senenhunds are general all purpose farm dogs. Like they Bernese Mountain Dog, they can (and do) more than one thing. Maybe one of us should put both back. You could, of course, research the breed . . . 7&6=thirteen(talk) 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Stan

Are you suggesting that this breed can herd livestock? Multi-purpose, perhaps, but a dog can only herd if it has the instinct, and livestock guardians generally do not. (And yes, I did research the point.) Richard New Forest (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sheep

Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Horsehair

You deleted various sections on the Horsehair article, what seems to be the issue? The information provided is correct and from reliable sources and seems to fit nicely as a brief background for uses of the hair. Its for a college class project and the fact that it is being deleted will have an impact on my grade.HIST406-10110425205Brownley (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I did the first revert and rewrite of your edit. Richard did the second one. So I will answer for my part, and this whole discussion actually needs to go to the talk page of the horsehair article. I kept the sourced material and deleted the unsourced. If you want to go in and improve the material, footnote it all, footnote it properly, and if a web link exists so we can verify the material online, provide it. Also do not delete source material already there, and be careful that your edit is not redundant or contradictory to what is already in the artice. I must also note that if your grade depends on an wikipedia edit remaining unchanged and unedited, then your professor doesn't understand wikipedia. If your grade depends on the existence of your edit, you have the article history to prove you did it. If your grade depends on meeting the standards of wikipedia's WP:MOS, WP:V and WP:CITE, then it didn't. You had few if any wikilinks, you did not cite all your material at the places where you inserted it, and much of what you said had previously been stated in the article in a more concise fashion. You should be glad that we kept and incorporated some of your material-- the things that were properly sourced. So I suggest that if you need it to stay in the current article, then you need to insert the material carefully, add a lot more citations to verify your work, and don't remove existing sourced material. Montanabw^(talk) 01:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't add anything to that (though actually all I did was reinstate Montanabw's edit). This discussion copied to Horsehair#December 2010: any further discussion there please. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Pooches

Your comment on the hybrid dog not-breeds put me in mind of this editorial from one of my favorite blogs: http://fuglyblog.com/?p=2505 Someone even more reticent and shy with their opinions than I am (yeah, right...LOL!) Enjoy! Montanabw^(talk) 02:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. (However do you have the time to read blogs as well as WP...?) Richard New Forest (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Weeellll.. GMT -7, I'm kind of nocturnal. That said, I also try (kind of) to limit my blog-reading to Fugly and to this little gem: http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/policeblotter/ (The area is in the northwest corner of my state, very "Northern Exposure" as you can see. The writer is so funny I cannot consume any beverage while reading lest if come out my nose!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 19:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's delightful. I did used to enjoy Northern Exposure: I don't normally get on with American (TV) humour, but that one hit the spot. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, then you'll love the Blotter! LOL! Real life in the piney woods! Montanabw^(talk) 02:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Irish cattle

I see from your edits to cattle and your user page that you know about cattle. I have just made a page on Big Bertha (cow). She is described in some sources as Droimeann (sometimes spelled Dremon). I can't find out much about this cattle breed apart from it is a native Irish one (other sources say she was a Freisian but she doesn't look like one in the Guardian photo, to my untrained eye). Does Droimeann go by another name and we are simply a few bluelinks missing? Or do we just not have an article about the breed? If the latter, do you fancy taking on the challenge of creating it? Thanks. Stronach (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd never heard of this breed nor seen it mentioned in any sources covering breeds of the British Isles: the three well established Irish breeds I know of are the Irish Moiled, the Kerry and the Dexter (though I think the last had a period of development in Britain). I believe that the White Park also had Irish herds.

It looks to me as if the Droimeann/Drimmon/Dremon is one of those ancient types which have been "discovered" quite recently, like the Kerry Bog Pony, the Eriskay pony, the Cumberland Sheepdog, the Welsh Sheepdog among others. That doesn't mean that these are any less "genuine", just that they do not have a long history of recognition. It does look similar to a Moilie, but with horns (at least sometimes) and more variable: both these features might be expected in an unimproved landrace of similar origin to the Moiled. Moilies have a similar colour-sided pattern, but are consistently red and polled, and I think somewhat more dairy in type. This source says "Drimmon: coloursided variety of Kerry ... extinct". So it might be that instead, or all three may originate from an older landrace. Alternatively another source suggests that it may be "a Longhorn descendant" (though I suspect this may be just because the Longhorn is another colour-sided type: I can see little other similarity).

As to an article... We need some sources. I can find no breed soc, and the only "official" recognition I can find is here, where the Irish government list it as a breed on which research has been done. Alderson (a very well respected source) is quoted as mentioning the Drimmon here.

Hmm, interesting ... thanks for that. I don't feel qualified to create the article but it sounds like there really isn't enough sourced info for one yet anyhow. Thanks for your time and help. Stronach (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you a very pleasant Christmas and a wonderful New Year. Cgoodwin (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too! Richard New Forest (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Old time farm shepherd

You have recommended that the Old-Time Farm Shepherd article be incorporated into the Farm Collie article and as the author of the OTFS article I am getting ready to do that. Would you please help me understand how the process will work? Once I have finished incorporating this into the Farm Collie article, how will I eliminate the OTFS article, I assume I don't have privileges to delete whole articles. Will you be able to help with this? --Palatkwapi (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. All you need to do is edit the Farm collie article to include the material from the other article, then edit the other to replace all its text with a redirect code: there's a button above the edit box labelled "#R", or you can type: #REDIRECT [[Farm collie]]. The talk page should probably be left as a record of past discussion, perhaps with a note directing attention to it from Talk: Farm collie (if it had been empty you could have redirected that too). You don't actually need to delete the article bodily in this situation. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I really appreciate your tutelage. --Palatkwapi (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)