Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:41, 14 February 2014

• WT:AG
• WT:FARM

Agriculture Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Rural community outreach

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

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 Misplaced Pages.

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 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, right. The ol' WP:HOWTO thing. :) Good point. Then again, it would be data, and Misplaced Pages 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)

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 01:55, 16 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)

• Disagree - nothing vs at all - can be seen as parts of the larger wool industry which was a major Australian expeort earner in the past - the articles should be kept separate for possible expansion. Also notified at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board Australian and https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand New Zealand - both of who take their sheep industry seriously.

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)

• Disambiguate - Note that the surname Shearer is a completely different topic, and one presumes out of scope of this discussion about sheep shearers, their sheds and activities. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

] 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 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 " 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages - 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 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 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 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

• Project-Class Agriculture pages
• NA-importance Agriculture pages
• WikiProject Agriculture articles