Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:35, 14 June 2005

Why in the world are there so many images in this article? This is overkill in the extreme. Unless there is a good argument for keeping them I will turn many of them into media links that are linked to the main image's description page. Just because there are many images of cows doesn't mean we have to use all of them. Also, what about people on dial-up modem? This page will take way too long to download with so many images. --mav

It does, indeed. And in my browser the top right image is overlapping the table. -- isis 23:40 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

Moving them sounds good. I'm against deleting them altogether, because as a digital encyclopedia we should have a lot of multimedia content and I'm conservative about deletion. But as an Internet encylopedia we should be open to dial-up users and users with small screens. --Ellmist Saturday, September 21st 2002

OK then. Which image should stay and which should be moved? --mav

BTW, I've had this same problem come up with a few articles--I have several images & feel I shouldn't display all of them, even if I want to. dragonfly has two and probably shouldn't; Spanish moss has 3 but shows only one. The other two are linked from the image description page of the first. Maybe we should suggest a policy on this one way or the other. --KQ 23:50 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

I think what you have done is perhaps the optimal solution. To improve upon it I would simply add a very short statement under the image saying "Larger and alternate images" and have that be a link to the image description page where the images are linked. --mav

I vote for "cow with calf" or "calves grazing" (the one beside it). --KQ

I vote for "calves grazing" too. --mav

Could you move some of them to pages illustrating the different breeds, please? I'd like to be able to see pictures to go with the names. -- isis 23:53 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

I'd like to move them to Images of cattle rather than on the :Image page that they're on now, because I think this is more in line with wikipedia:image use policy. comments? Martin

Make a Sounds of cattle, too. Thodin 16:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article namespace is not appropriate for such an image gallery. We should tweak the policy instead to allow this use of image description pages so long as the article from which the page is linked (in this case cattle) has explicit text indicating to the user that the page they are going to has alternate images of the subject. Cattle already complies with this. In this case common practice is not reflected in the policy and the policy needs to be updated. If no images whatsoever were allowed to be displayed on image description pages then the developers would write one line of code to prevent this. --mav

There seem to be a couple of views - some people seem to agree with the policy (eg BigFatBuddha) and some people don't. Both sides have good arguments, I think. I'll raise it there... tomorrow! :) Martin

Small correction the difference between a cow and a heifer is a cow is a female that has produced offspring, and heifer has not produced offspring.

Not necessarily. Many producers, veterinarians, and others in the industry will refer to a "first calf heifer"--that is, a female that has borne a calf but not yet weaned it. For dairy cattle, they are often called heifers when they first join the milking herd, and called cows some time later, towards the end of their first lactation. Like many ag terms, usage varies from one region to another. Kat 21:51 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

alert vandalism in article

Titles for breed articles?

Hey, anyone--I see that breed pages are titled in one of three ways: Breedname (cattle), Breedname cattle, or simply Breedname. One might think we ought to be consistent. Thoughts on which is the best? (I'm inclined to go for one of the first 2, and use the 3rd as a redirect...? E.g., "holstein" would link to or redirect to Holstein cattle." Elf | Talk 01:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Livestock - Collaboration of the Week

Anyone interested in improving the content of the agricultural information on Misplaced Pages, here is your opportunity. Livestock has been nominated as a Collaboration of the Week. H2O 23:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll keep it in mind but dog stuff tends to keep me pretty busy except when I'm slumming. :-) Elf | Talk 00:13, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Name

Here is small list of links where cattle is called Bos primigenius taurus. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Regards.--Wiglaf 11:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neat vs Meat

Maybe this will prevent others from making the mistake I just made: Neat really is an archaic word for cattle, not Meat. Elf | Talk 20:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh Well

I thought the Guatemalan Cow of Paradise being listed in the livestock was funny. If you clicked on it it forwarded to The Far Side.

Whats wrong with a little tribute to Gary Larson? I think it should stay.

Watusi

If anybody wants to create an article about Watusi cattle, following are some links. Watusi look awesome. Unfortunately there is already a "watusi" article in wikipedia but it is just a redirect. http://www.watusicattle.com/news.shtml http://www.crazyforcows.com/fow/fow16.shtml http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/ankolewatusi/

Obsolete terminology?

Where I live, the term "beeves" (multiple beef cattle) and its singular "beef" are still used by ranchers and people in the processing business. While I agree that they're uncommon, and falling out of favor, they're not gone yet, and I'm not sure it's appropriate to leave "beeves" out and mark "beef" as completely obsolete. I didn't change this in the main article, though, as I'd like to hear some other opinions. And, as a side note, the word "heifer" absolutely means "female that hasn't given birth to its first calf" around here. I see that Kat disagrees, but doesn't this at least rate a parenthetical? Gary D Robson 16:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds

I suggest we place sounds of cattle in the article; maybe that showing the sounds of the different cattle kinds (i.e. american cows vs. brahman). Thodin 02:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Top Front Teeth of cattle.

Someone please include the fact that they have none in more objective or scientific terms than I possess. =)Yeago 06:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)