Talk:Goat/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Yule Goat

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article says: Yule Goat originally denoted the goat that was slaughtered around Yule, but it may also indicate a goat figure made out of straw.

Why don't they admit this goat was used as a -sacrifice-. Why are so many articles worded to hide the truth of the ritualistic sacrifices our ancestors performed for their deities?64.183.42.63 (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Needs editing

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lots of bad grammar and sloppy punctuation. Will the editing ban ever be lifted? 206.130.136.162 (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 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/20120819142105/http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/infant-nourrisson/nut_infant_nourrisson_term-eng.php to http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/infant-nourrisson/nut_infant_nourrisson_term-eng.php#other-2

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} 04:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Goat Milk Arguments

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I added a statement to the nutrition section (right above the tables) saying: "There is much argument on the subject, and many who believe goat milk is healthier claim government agencies are being paid off by large dairy companies to put out false results (indeed there have been many requested edits on the subject)." I am very terrible at citing sources, and would probably break a part of the article if I tried, so this is unsourced, could somebody help out by sourcing it? A quick google search for 'Goat Milk vs Cow Milk' should provide many potential sources (accept for the bit about requested edits). Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Also where did all that stuff below come from? I didn't do it. Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

New page - Goat farming

Latest comment: 7 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion

Please note, a new page, Goat farming has been recently created. This new article started with content from the Goat article, and it it is my intention to move more material over there. Any comments are welcome. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

References

If you copied 7,800 bytes from here to a new article that's a bad thing as it gives Wikipedia de-normalized content in two-places. Content should generally be in WP:SYNC with an explicit main/summary relationship between parts. Unnecessary duplication of content across articles is something you have been warned about at WP:AIN [1]. It may be wise to turning the goat farming article into a plain redirect back here until a sensible kind of content regime can be worked out. Alexbrn (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:, you have not edited this article before. Given our history, it is clear you are now WP:Hounding me. Please stop. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Your thread at Jimbo's page reminded me of your problematic history so I looked at your recent edits, only to see this. I'll leave the fix here to you and the other regulars on this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the content fork. The material was basically a fork of this article and the Goat meat article - although not a direct copy in that case. DrChrissy you need to seek consensus before forking an article, and if you are having to use material from multiple articles in order to create one, it usually means it shouldnt have been forked in the first place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you read this?[2] DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless that contains a magical explanation as to why this wasnt a content fork of this article and goat meat its irrelevant. Except in that when something is nuked due to copyvio, the expectation is that it is rewritten, not copied AGAIN with an addition of duplicated material from another article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The point I was making was that there was consensus for this article. Your edits are against consensus. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha, oh wait you are serious. Well 1. There was little consensus there except that it could be reacreated not emphatic endorsement that it should be, and 2. that was dependant on it being re-written from scratch. Which it wasnt. It was just forked again with the addition of material that is duplicated at goat meat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Coming across this without a prior stake in the evident personal dispute or the article in question. Forking articles is normal editing. Doing so boldly is not itself problematic. Perhaps I'm not reading properly or not taking into consideration some topic ban or something, but I'm not actually seeing any objection to the spinout except that it was a spinout. Did someone mean to say "pov fork"? Could it really have been reverted just because no summary had yet been added? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The relevant part is WP:REDUNDANTFORK. All the material was either substantially copied from this article, or duplicated content from goat meat. Spinout articles are for when the base article is too large or unmanageable. And thats when the material is *not* duplicated. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:REDUNDANTFORK is not about using existing text and/or failing to summarize that text in a timely manner; it's about forking when there's already an article covering that topic (obviously that existing coverage doesn't include the source of the text). I'll also point out that you just linked to a paragraph that includes "Wikipedia's principle of assume good faith should be kept in mind here. If you suspect a content fork, give the creator of a duplicate article the benefit of the doubt." whereas this thread, by contrast, includes "reminded me of your problematic history so I looked at your recent edits".

The question is whether "goat farming" is a distinct, notable subject that is already covered in one or more articles but could have its own article. If the answer is that yes, it could, then starting with text from the existing articles is a pretty typical way to go, assuming attribution via {{Copied}}. The copied content should then be turned into a summary and linked out. If that hadn't yet happened, why not say "you need to summarize this" instead of reverting? That said, if it can't be summarized because it's essential to this article, then a spinout probably isn't justified per WP:NOPAGE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Well given that the entire article was cribbed from two existing articles, then yes it was already covered in existing articles. Secondly no assumption of good faith was needed as DrChrissy was well aware in advance due to the AFD above of the articles already covering the topic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I started to reply to this, but before I continue to interject myself I really need to confirm: @DrChrissy: what was your plan for goat farming prior to OID's redirect? Were you planning to summarize in this article the content you copied over (in a section e.g. "goat farming") and/or substantially add to/rewrite the content you copied? I've been operating under the assumption that you must be, given your participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goat Farming. In other words, I didn't see the article that was deleted, but it would seem strange to !vote TNT if you also intended to just copy content (i.e. why not just add attribution to the original?) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions here. My intentions were two-fold. First, to overcome problems of attribution, and second, to re-write an article that lacked quality. If I have gone about this in a clumsy or inappropriate way, my apologies. I did not know that attributions could be added after the original article had been created - that might have been a better approach. There are several Livestock X farming articles, e.g Sheep farming, Pig farming so it seems only natural for an encyclopaedia to have Goat farming. I believe I was not actually aware of the Goat meat article before this conversation. I certainly have not edited it and it is not on my watchlist. If there is content in Goat farming which copies content from Goat meat, this is probably because I took this from Goat (and supplied appropriate attributions). I have tried to act totally and completely in good faith here - what would I have to gain from "cheating" the system? The motivations of Only and Alexbrn here are clearly not to engage in discussion about a new article and help to build an encyclopaedia. They are here to harass another editor. This needs admin attention. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree it could have its own article, but I don't think you answered my question -- at least not how I intended it. The problem is (I'm intentionally sidestepping personal conflicts) that it copies material from this article without sufficiently building upon it and while leaving the material almost entirely intact here. If you make an article comprised entirely of existing content, that content should in almost all cases be summarized, or significantly built upon (sorta kinda making the original text a summary). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

E/C Oh I see. Yes, my intention was to build on Goat farming using content from both existing WP articles and generate new content. I have created almost 60 articles (listed on my user page) so I am experienced in both starting articles from scratch and developing articles. I also re-iterate that the re-direct was made only 5 hours after Goat farming was published. Furthermore, this was an article that went through the formal submission process because of a previously problematic re-direct. I had begun to remove duplicated content from Goat which is evident in the edit history. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This diff[3] shows I was summarising/removing duplicate material. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok. So we have an article that was deleted for lack of attribution, closed without prejudice to proper recreation. It was then recreated as a draft with attribution in the edit summaries (still needs Template:Copied by the way), and went through AfC. It was approved via AfC and moved into articlespace. A few hours later, the content drawn from this article had not yet been expanded and the section(s) in this article not yet consolidated/summarized, and OID turned it into a redirect. If it had been there for a long period of time, if DrChrissy had no intention of improving it, etc. that's one thing, but in this context a redirect is not called for... especially since attention to the matter stemmed not from good faith editing but from a misplaced (here, at least -- not interested in getting into a discussion of broader behavior) assumption of bad faith. Now that we are clear that DrChrissy will be expanding the article, and it will not remain a duplicate of content from this article, I have reverted the redirect to restore the goat farming article. If the improvements/summaries don't happen, it can always be revisited later, and either redirected or taken to AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please could you tell me where I add Template:Copied. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: On the talk pages of both articles. Check the parameters in the template documentation (requires e.g. diffs and designating either "from" or "to", "from" for this page, "to" for the other). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Just for information, I was previously following the instructions provided at WP:Copying within wikipedia which states At minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page – that is, the page into which the material is copied – stating that content was copied, together with a link to the source (copied-from) page.... I used the following edit summary when I created Goat farming: "(Much of this material has been copied from Goat - please see this article for attributions.)" DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites - I think the attribution concern has now been addressed using the template - many thanks for your guidance and patience through this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. I moved them up to the talk page header. Regarding WP:Copying within Wikipedia, it does mention the template further down the page, but it's true it's not part of "at minimum". Good practice, though, and given the above, I think it would behoove you to take every step/make sure Ts are crossed and whatnot. FWIW — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Good practice, indeed, and I will follow this in the future. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://roosterridgeboergoats.com/articles/choosing-your-4h-boer-goat-doe-guide-4hers
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091222062352/http://www.tsgra.com:80/PDF-files/secogoats.pdf to http://www.tsgra.com/PDF-files/secogoats.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/embroadcast.nsf/vwDiscussionAll/1BDFD19113CFC28C802571D20051E715

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) 14:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Adjective?

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Goat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Goats are actually just people who have done too much cocaine." 129.72.144.20 (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Teeth on cheek-inside

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This edit request to Goat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could somebody please explain what these tooth-like looking things on the inside of the cheeks of goats are? See the Glycerinated goat tongue picture.

Note: This is not an edit request, just a question. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Polled Livestock

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Goat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone please add a link to Polled livestock in the second paragraph of the Anatomy and health section? I'd never heard of such a thing before looking it up.

Specifically, please change the paragraph to read:

Most goats naturally have two horns, of various shapes and sizes depending on the breed.^[1] There have been incidents of polycerate goats (having as many as eight horns), although this is a genetic rarity thought to be inherited. Unlike cattle, goats have not been successfully bred to be reliably polled, as the genes determining sex and those determining horns are closely linked. Breeding together two genetically polled goats results in a high number of intersex individuals among the offspring, which are typically sterile.^[1] Their horns are made of living bone surrounded by keratin and other proteins, and are used for defense, dominance, and territoriality.^[2]

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

goats are the devil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.166.92.24 (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b American Goat Society:Polled Genetics, americangoatsociety.com.
^ Smith, Mary C; Sherman, David M. (1994). Goat Medicine. ISBN 978-0-8121-1478-2.

New section

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why is this article protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:b025:a3b0:29cf:4139:3b3a:65b1 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As you can see here, the article was protected because of persistent vandalism. P.S. In the future, please create a new section if you leave a message on a talk page and sign the message using four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Felida97 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.73.235 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Chhagal" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chhagal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Chhagal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Better image

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This edit request to Goat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, I just found better goat image: File:Smile (115758675).jpeg. 36.80.204.191 (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That is not a goat, it is a sheep. Note that it has a split upper lip, which goats do not, and it has no horns, which goats virtually always have. 2601:191:8500:41A0:B44E:8C5F:E185:616F (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done It is not clear what you are requesting here. The article already contains plenty of images and this one looks purely comical with no particular encyclopedic benefit. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)