User talk:Richard New Forest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Richard New Forest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

I can see you've been a registered user for a while, but I thought that the welcome message might still be useful. Thanks for the style corrections on Gharial. Enuja 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References in Pollarding

Dieter -

You just tried to do something to the references section I'd added to Pollarding, then undid it again. I'm new to making references work, so I'm not at all sure I'd done it right -- but what were you trying to do, and what didn't work? Richard New Forest 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I was trying to bring your "References" item "Oxford English Dictionary Compact Edition 1971...", up to the first line of the page when you click the ref no. (No 1 in this case) thinking your (although quite correct) way wasn't working, but my shorter method didn't work any better either. The References section is still at the bottom of the page when you click it. I apologise as have already done in the summary. Normally, when you click the link number the reference appears as first line right at the top, so anybody trying to identify what is being linked can see it straight away. See section "Origin and usage of term" in "Pollarding" article.
I am transferring this conversation to your own user talk:page. Dieter Simon 22:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Dieter – I think I've found what's happening. It's because the text with the reference link is very near the foot of the page, and there is hardly any page below the references section. If the view is already as low as it can go when you click on the ref link, it can move no lower, so your click seems to have been ignored. However, if the refs are off the foot of the screen, the view does move, and if the window is small enough (only a few lines deep), the refs will land at the top as you'd expected – so I think all is as it should be.
Incidentally, why did you move this conversation to my user page? Should I have put it here in the first place – and if so, how would you have seen it? Richard New Forest 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finching

Hi Richard, do you agree that your "finching" article should be merged with "cattle"? Tractorboy60 14:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tractorboy — see my comment on Cattle talk page about this. I think there needs to be either a section on coat colours and patterns on the Cattle page, or a separate coat colours page, into either of which Finching (and a similar one I did for Colour-sided) could go. My reason for making pages on their own was so links could point to them – but links could instead point to a place on a more general page (though not quite sure how to do that...).--Richard New Forest 17:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Richard, my name is Tom. Tractorboy60 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Collie

Thanks for your work on the collie article; I've given up several times over the last couple of years on what exactly to say there. Note that quotation marks don't belong around the breed names even if they don't reflect the actual probable origins of the breeds. Those are the official breed names and there are no quotes in the official breed names. So you can take 'em out again or I will. :-) Elf | Talk 01:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have a tremendous amount of history with dog-related articles in wikipedia, although I try very hard these days to stay away, or I get sucked in like I did today when I just came here to look up one little thing... So if you have any general questions or want to draw my attention to something in particular, you can leave a note on my talk page and I'll see it eventually, but who knows when. OR you can go to my user page and click E-mail this user in the left-side toolbox if you want a faster response.

Also, I'm a Border Collie owner, too. :-) Elf | Talk 02:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Elf –
I'm not sure it's important to have the types with their exact breed names here – this is a list with comments and interpretation, not a simple list, where I agree that quotes would not be right. My feeling is that without the quotes it would be easy to miss the anomalies, and think for example that there were five Australian types listed (which of course there are, including the German one...). The quotes gently draw attention to this, without the need for overt comment. Take them out though if you feel strongly about it.
Nice dog. Am I right that he's called Sweep...? Two of my dogs (Welsh Sheepdogs) are in the list too, though I left the third out as his name is not a traditional one (Tig – Kelpie cross). I'll put a pic of one of my others on the Welsh Sheepdog page when I get around to it.--Richard New Forest 10:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the place to address anomalies is in the text and that putting quotes around the breed names is misleading, implying that those are perhaps not the breed names. Nope, my dog's not Sweep--but a bit of browsing among herding dogs indicates that it's a more common name than we see in agility dogs. Probably for "sweeping" around herds or "sweeping" them in. There's a very cool online database of working border collie info (ISDS) that has stuff like this in it: http://home-l2.tiscali.nl/~palado/bcdb/dognames.htm -- maybe we should use that, pick the top 20 names or something, and then we can cite that as a reference. (That was one of the sources I used to be sure that my dog's name--Boost--was not commonly used. ;-) There are SO many BCs working in agility and competitive herding around here & I wanted to be unique.) Looking forward to seeing more Welsh Sheepdog photos. Elf | Talk 16:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with no quotes – those ought not to be the proper names, but I suppose they're now stuck... Good idea about the database for names – however, they are the commonest names, not necessarily the traditional ones, and so some very traditional ones get pushed rather low (Rex, Flash, Tip, Judy). How could you not have Flash? (Also, Sam is at 21, and we can't leave him out...). Useful database though.
Lots of Welsh Sheepdog photos at http://www.welsh-sheepdogs.co.uk/ (select Gallery) --Richard New Forest 16:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this discussion to Talk:Collie; we should probably continue any further discussion there. (If you want to, you could delete the text from here and just put a note under this heading about "moved to Talk:Collie". Or whatever. it's your talk pg. :-) Elf | Talk 18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Agriculture

Hi Richard, I was wondering if you knew about this and if so whether you would like to join? If so look at User:Doug/WikiProject Agriculture.Cheers. Tom 08:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Richard! Take a look at the priorities and thoughts we've put on the Project Page and feel free to add, adjust, or discuss on the talk page. I think we will move from my userspace to Wikispace soon.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Corgis...

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Yes, I should have reverted the page, not adding a speedy deletion tag. I did not view the history of the page. Sorry, it was my mistake. Thanks for pointing this out to me!! --Siva1979Talk to me 02:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ring Ouzel

Hi Richard, please note that it is an agreed Wikipedia convention that bird species are fully capitalised, so it's Blackbird and Ring Ousel. Thanks, Jimfbleak 12:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

note the following in the naming fauna article: Editors involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds have agreed to use the official recommendations of ornithological societies, for example Peregrine Falcon (not duck hawk, Falco peregrinus, etc.) Jimfbleak 12:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird names and article titles Jimfbleak 12:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I was not aware of that. Looks very messy and amateur to me, but I'm happy to go along with the convention (as I thought I was already...). Do you think there needs to be a note of it in the policy I linked (Wikipedia:Capitalisation#Animals, plants, and other organisms)?--Richard New Forest 12:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Pigeon

There is some discussion of your article fork, which I support, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds Jimfbleak 15:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Why no discussion on Rock Pigeon page I wonder, despite complaint about absence of discussion? I see fait has been accomplied anyway...--Richard New Forest 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harness and driving

Just a quick thanks for your contributions, but a heads up to keep the general driving and harness articles balanced between the draft horse stuff and the light horse harness material, we have a lot of separate articles floating around out there (many of which need help) that can be seen at Category:Horse driving and related links. Montanabw(talk) 00:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks – I'll have a look around. You're right to raise that balance. So much overlaps, but then a lot is different – and then how do we incorporate other traditions, such as the Russian style with a hoop over the shafts, never mind how they do it in Asia etc – and where does "horse-drawn" stop and more general "draught" start?--Richard New Forest 09:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well Driving (horse) is pretty clearly about equids, as is horse harness, so not an issue there. There is room for more articles, of course! Draft horse is pretty light on content, and harness is light on different types, certainly more articles could be created. There is an article on Yoke I believe. And I have tossed in my two bits at Cattle, my interest there is more the beef cattle side, so I haven't a lot to contribute on the oxen issue. As for the different types in other cultures, maybe take a look at Saddle, which, though far from a perfect article, at least takes a shot at it. I have no problem with a section farther down the page titled "Harness variations" or "History" or whatever. By the way, you have probably already discovered that there are about 10 gazillion articles on various types of carriages and carts, I am not even going to TRY and wade into those! =:-O Montanabw(talk) 17:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cattle race

Good one there, I couldn't do anything with that red link :)--Tallard 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It was my redlink in the first place, so I ought to have done it before...--Richard New Forest 20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tap er light!

"Tap 'er light" is actually an extremely localized expression that was used in the major mining operations of the American west, most notably Butte, Montana. Anyone who says it pretty much labels themselves as having roots within about a 100-200 mile radius of Butte. (I'm not from Butte, but had family that grew up within that radius) It literally means, "take it easy," or "be careful and have a good day." It comes from the practice of setting explosives in the mines, they had to pack in certain types of explosive charges by carefully tapping them in with a hammer. Hit the charge too hard, or miss and strike a spark off of rock, and ka-BOOM! (grin) Lots of cowboys in the local area who supplied beef cattle to the miners picked up the saying, so it spread amongst cattlemen too. FYI, I quit WIkiProject Agriculture after a bunch of assorted stuff that happened today, feel free to ask me any horse/cowboy/lingo questions over on my talk page, but I'm not going to be watching that project any more. Other fish to fry. Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fish to fry" – I know that one... I saw you'd withdrawn from the Agri project – a shame, as in my view you've been making useful contributions. I must say I don't really understand what it was all about, & have taken care to keep out of it. Sounds as if "Tap 'er light" might need an article... Round here "100-200 mile radius" covers half the country, and is hardly "extremely localised"! There are whole dialects (and indeed languages) in Britain which occupy that sort of area. Once when I lived in a small town on the south coast of England, I knew an old chap who told me he was local, but said his wife was "not from round here at all". It turned out she was from the next village, 3 miles away. That's what I call localised...--Richard New Forest 08:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL! And while we think that Montana has wide open spaces, the Aussies have US beat; in the Outback, 500 miles to them is no big deal! I just did a little jaunt for work, 200 miles up and back within 24 hours. Passed more cows than people! (Well, more deer, anyway, it's hunting season and the rut! Major road hazard!) As for Ag, something I thought was a tongue in cheek way to diffuse what I thought was a silly and unproductive debate blew up in my face, which reminded me why I don't particularly care for wikiprojects generally, finding them places where people tend to go on and on about nothing and accomplish very little. So I bailed, but shall remain available for questions if anyone wants to drop me a line on my talk page. Oh, do you think we can now move Oddbald to "TriColoured" or whatever you folks over there on that side of the pond call a bay pinto? Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carriages

Thanks for creating the disambiguation page for "carriage" and for your other edits of this article, which improve the text and make it less ponderous. I am looking at the various carriage articles, adding details, checking links and making the collection more coherent.

I plan to modify the "Types of horse-drawn carriages" section by briefly annotating each name (as disambiguation pages do) and rearranging the lot by listing together types of buggy, chaise, chariot, coach and gig. Those not readily classified would remain in alphabetical order. I think this would be more helpful to the users than the existing list of names. But does this approach violate any Wikipedia conventions?

However, I was putting together a group of terms (not yet finished) that associate carriages with other parts of the culture, such as carriage dog, carriage horse, carriage folk, carriage trade, carriage starter and carriage port. Since carriages played such a significant part in 19th century society, it would help to include them in an article about carriages. If not here, than where? You can see what I have in mind by looking at the "coach" article (which I hope you won't change before explaining why).

I am still working on the carriage and related articles. Please check back in about a week. Fbarw 11:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope I didn't tread on your toes – I saw you'd more to do, and tried to keep it minimal. I'm no authority on Wiki rules, so not sure about your proposal. I did wonder about a separate terminology page for carriage and coach, or perhaps for both together? Don't see why the various things shouldn't be classified. I'll have a look at carriage once you've sorted it out, and discuss any significant changes first for Coach (carriage) (I did notice in Wiki style that bold is supposed to be kept for the first instance of the headword only, with italics used elsewhere, though this doesn't seem to be kept to very well). As it happens, I was brought up in an old coachhouse in Surrey – the definition is a bit broader in Britain, usually including stables and accommodation for the coachman or other servants. In our case, this was effectively a four-room cottage above the coachroom and stables, with no windows on the side towards what had been the big house, so the staff couldn't spy on the gentry. My room was in the hayloft. (Is that original research though...?) --Richard New Forest 19:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
(1) Can you point me to the Wiki guideline about bolding? All I could find was this: "The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface, including its abbreviation in parentheses, if given. Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface. Highlighted items are not linked, and boldface is not used subsequently in the first paragraph." This seems to refer only to the first paragraph of an article, without guidance as to what should happen afterwards. Meanwhile, my self-made rule is to bold the first appearance of any example of the main subject (e.g. stagecoach and turnout in the "coach" article) and terms derived from the main topic (coaching, coach coat) while parts (perch, splinter bar) are italicized. (2) I hope you will give further thought to including mention of persons (coachman), animals (coach horse) and things (coachwhip, hammercloth) associated with the main topic. Their inclusion places the subject in a broader context. (3) Your upbringing so near a stable gives your comments more than a whiff of authenticity — nay, even sanctity. In consequence, I have broadened the description of coaching inn; now it "served coach travelers and offered stabling for the horses of stagecoaches". This comes from a Website I just discovered: English Heritage Online thesaurus -- http://thesaurus.english-heritage.org.uk. Now back to the job. Fbarw 21:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I was at least partly wrong about bolding... In WP:Style#Italics it says bolding is not normally used for emphasis – I think this is what I remembered incorrectly as "don't use it ever". However, in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface (and also on the same page under Emphasis) it explains more fully the circumstances for using it. It confirms not for emphasis, but says it can be used for definition lists, which what caught my eye in Coach (carriage). I think definitions in the text have to count as emphasis, not a list, and so ought to be italics.
It was not a coaching inn but a coach-house that I was brought up in. I've changed the text for that too.
Sanctity? Sanctimonious, perhaps...--Richard New Forest 21:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The bold/italics distinction is a matter of perception; I would count definitions in the text as closer in function to a list (albeit in paragraph form) than to emphasis, and here I illustrate what I regard as emphasis. However, I don't deny your alternative perception, and I would not object to any changes you make accordingly. But I think I shall suggest that the style manual be made more precise to resolve this issue.
To make a clearer distinction between "coach house" and "coaching inn" in the coach (carriage) article, I have added a phrase from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006). Does this correspond to your understanding of the term? I note that you have access to the Oxford English Dictionary, which I lack, though the Concise Oxford defines "coaching house" as "an inn along a route followed by horse-drawn coaches, at which horses could be changed".
But now for something more important. My comment (2) above, about the carriage article, was triggered by my belief that you had intentionally deleted references to "carriage horse", "carriage dog", "carriage trade", "carriage starter" and "carriage porch", since they were no longer in the final article. But then I noticed that they were still on the edit page, along with other disappeared text. Apparently, one of your reference insertions cause them to vanish. I tried to figure out how to correct this but was flummoxed. The trouble seems to lie in the paragraph beginning:
The word carriage is from Old Northern French cariage, to carry in a vehicle[1].
Can you help?
By the way, how many indents can we use before we fall off the right margin? Fbarw 04:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, but I just put in 16 colons to find out! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to drop back to the indent where I started (& stay there). The lost text problem was because I'd missed a "/" from the repeated reference, and so everything from there to the next "/ref" was swallowed by it and thus hidden. Sorry, I ought to have noticed.
The contempt of familiarity... What I'd not remembered about coach house is that of course a "coach" house is really for a private carriage. I've corrected this in the coach article – perhaps coach house should go in Carriage as well? The additional definition was spot on by the way.
A lot of this stuff really ought to be on the talk pages of coach and carriage – any objection if I copy relevant bits there?
My copy of the OED is a 2-vol photo-reduced edition, published in 1979 but actually a facsimile of the 1933 ed. It was an introductory book club offer, and at about a quid was an excellent investment – and you don't need 2 metres of reinforced shelf space for it. The only trouble is that nowadays the text (about 3 point) is only legible with a lens... Let me know if there's anything I can look up in it ‐ it really is extremely comprehensive for words in existence before about 1880 to 1930 (depending on where in the alphabet).--Richard New Forest 12:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. And you know what? The article looks cleaner debolded. Yes, I'll include coach house in the carriage article. I'm in no position to object to reproducing this exchange elsewhere, since in Wikipedia we relinquish all rights.
I think I'll turn next to the article on brothels, in the hope of meeting somebody who was brought up in one. Fbarw 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This is going to take more than the week I promised earlier, since I can't get to it every day. I'm adding to the introductory part piecemeal while working offline on the annotated list of carriages. I'll let you know here when each of these two phases is complete. 72.227.137.35 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (That's me, forgot to log in.)
I have pretty much finished editing the introductory part of "Carriage", though I may still make minor changes. I continue work offline on the annotated list of carriage types, which I shall dump into the article when it is ready. At the same time I am checking links and adding or editing them where desirable. Will let you know. Fbarw 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Herdwick sheep

First off, thanks for taking a look at the article. It's nice to see someone else there. However, I do object to some of your edits, I have made a talk explanation to address them. Thanks again, VanTucky Talk 05:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just checking in to make sure that you're satisfied with the current version of the article, I made some additional edits and comments. VanTucky Talk 23:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, not had a chance to look properly – OK on quick glance. Will look properly over next couple of days when I have time.--Richard New Forest (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] polled Park cattle

Hi Richard,

Just got your message in regard to my additions to the British White cattle wikipedia entry. There are major errors in the original presentation, and I have endeavored to correct them. The breed is an ancient one and to suppose that there is not speculation in what is fast becoming the 'gospel' of the history of the breed (as well as it's sister breed, the horned White Park) is to suppose in error. I raise British White cattle and well know what they look like. I've visited every major herd in the UK as well, and again well know what they look like, what their significant traits are.

Insofar as their history, please do read my very in-depth exploration of the breed at http://www.jwest.biz/britishwhitehistory.htm . Even more important, please do read the link I've added to Jessica Hemmings' research of the breed. If there ever was an unbiased approach and conclusion in regard to their place in history, this is it.

Insofar as using the terms 'I believe' etc... you must take into consideration that I am one of the few current researchers of the history and significance of this breed, and I will be pulling together a book on the history of the Park cattle, both polled and horned, in an effort to balance the current direction of what is becoming historical lore that is inaccurate.

The false claims in regard to the polled Park Cattle in the writings of Lawrence Alderson are easily disproved from the UK's own genetic database. Just because he is published, does not make him an authority. All authors that published before him are in complete disagreement as to many, many aspects of the breed, horned or polled. Please read Hemmings' research, contact her as well, and then help me prevent the loss of this very special breed's place in history.

Best Regards,

Jimmie West www.jwest.biz —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirleySue (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Above copied to User talk:ShirleySue & discussion continued there. --Richard New Forest (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I really like your changes, and I made some very minor ones this evening. I answered back your last comments, but as I am not at all up to par with the way this whole 'talk' works, you may not have gotten my last response to your comments that I posted to ShirleySue -- I like using my Mom's name btw, and she was always quite dogged about her stance on things that meant a lot to her. Jimmie —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirleySue (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Above copied to User talk:ShirleySue.--Richard New Forest (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheep

Hey Richard, thanks for contributing to the sheep work I've been doing. Glad to have someone to copyedit when I'm done, as it's all to easy to get stuck on certain facts (that may not always be 100% applicable to sheep in general) when you're slogging through tons of reading material. Anyway, I don't mean to pry if you want to stay private, but I'm from the States. Thus, a lot of the material easily available to me is rather U.S.-centric on the history side of things. If you're from elsewhere in the world, it would be a great help to me if you could try and fill in some of the blanks as I expand the history section in the next few days. Thanks again, VanTucky talk 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Van Tucky - New Forest is the clue... I live in Hampshire in southern England – brought up in Surrey, but I've also lived in Wales, where I worked on sheep farms for a while (mostly Welsh mountain and Speckled-face). Otherwise I wouldn't consider myself any kind of expert on sheep (I'm a cattle farmer, among other things), but I'll do what I can. Actually, we are thinking of getting sheep soon – either Herdwick, Welsh mountain, or one of the primitives – Shetland or Hebridean.--Richard New Forest (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating, I'm totally jealous. My hometown is not much for sheep farming (like the rest of the US), but we do have one of the highest per capita densities of horses of any county in the world. Mostly I've only seen farm flocks of Suffolks around. But Oregon (I live in Portland) does have a few large range bands of Katahdins and the like. Oregonians are big on grass-fed products right now. I'd love to hear what you decide on. Best regards, VanTucky talk 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] agriculture and oil

That section is utter nonsense. Create a section on ENERGY prices and agriculture if you wish, but as a source of raw material, coal can be used for anything oil can be used for. It is original research - unsourced nonsense that no reliable source will support. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(Replied on User talk:WAS 4.250. --Richard New Forest (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Ownership of strips in the open fields

You recently edited the enclosure article. I'm hoping that we can agree some compromise. Anyway, I'll post something on the talk page and let's see if we can hammer out an agreed text. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References in Enclosure

Thanks for the tips. I'm afraid I wasn't planning to do much with the existing references (at least for the moment). Mainly I'm planning to make a few edits and provide new references for them. Regards, Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PS I've now had a quick look to see if I could do something with the text to produce in-line citations. Unfortunately, in most cases, I don't recognise the work being alluded to. I suspect from the tone, that they are Marxist historians that I have never read. I fear that getting this article to a state I would feel happy with will be a long term project. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, great one of UK agricultural terms

Now that the "Oddbald" crisis is over and we seem to have momentarily cleaned up the various fence articles, I have new problems with UK/USA animal terminology. Actually a couple.

  1. I need the correct UK word for Horse trailer to go into that article, maybe with some appropriate redirects. Can you help?
  2. In the USA, a female donkey is a "Jenny," and the medieval ambling Spanish horse from which a lot of American horse breeds derived was the "Jennet," but the article titled Jennet claims that this is also the female term for donkey in the UK; the problem is that "Jennet" is also a type of Medieval horse and, in fact, "Spanish Jennet" redirects to "Jennet," here, and the historical use of the term is quite clear. So if indeed female donkeys in the UK ARE Jennets, well, interesting word origin (going back perhaps to the days of the Armada or Henry VIII's dislike of small horses? An insult, maybe?) and I need to know for sure one way or the other. Anyway, clearing up the Jennet/Jenny thing would be much appreciated. Take a peek at the article and either fix it if it's easy to do so, or go to the talk page there if it's more complicated and we'll figure it out.

If I find more assorted disasters, I'll let you know. Oh, by the way, take a look at hay. would you? USA and Aussie perspectives are in there, but nothing much on UK or Europe generally, plus need a bit more info on feeding hay to cows and sheep, etc. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 06:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi –
OK, do what I can. Starting with "momentarily". In Britain, this means "for a moment" (that is, just for a short while, now stopped), whereas I think you mean "for the moment" (starting then, continuing till now, but maybe not for much longer). I think the latter meaning was used formerly, and may still be in some areas (Scotland?).
"Horse trailer" would be understood, but most commonly it's called a "horse box". "Horse trailer" tends to be used when distinguishing from a horse lorry, which is also a horse box. Very large trailers are not usually used on private vehicles in Europe, probably because of having smaller tow vehicles, not quite such cheap fuel, narrower roads & gates, and also I think more restrictive driving and loading legislation. So horse trailers usually take only two horses, and any more go in a lorry ("truck"). Likewise cattle – a one ton 12 ft trailer with four or five cattle takes me close to the trailer limit for a Land Rover Defender 110, which is the biggest tow vehicle most people have either commercially or privately. So the gooseneck-style trailer is virtually unknown here, and wouldn't go through many gateways anyway – never seen a horse one. An artic ("semi-trailer") horsebox would only be used by the biggest racing yards – I might have seen one or two ever. Rigid-chassis lorry horseboxes are not uncommon though.
I'll look up jenny/jennet. I know the term jenny for a donkey, but not sure about jennet. Will also look again at hay. --Richard New Forest (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Reassured that you use "jenny." If that is consistent, we should remove any donkey references from the Jennet article and do a word search for other refs. I can help with that. Montanabw(talk) 20:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Checked the OED for "jenny". It says it can be any female animal, but especially a jenny-ass – also "Jenny" Wren (same species as your Winter Wren), which was regarded (probably jocularly) as the female of the Robin Redbreast (nothing to do with the American Robin). Under "jennet" it talks about the horse, and about soldiers mounted on such a horse, but nothing about asses. I suspect that if "jennet" is ever used for female donkeys, it's a mistake for jenny. I've put "fact" tags in Jennet – the refs currently given there appear very unreliable (if they say donkeys are measured to the "hightest" part of the withers, they are not much of a ref for language...) You'll see my comment on the talk page.--Richard New Forest (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Answered on Talk:Jennet. I agree with you. Tossed all donkey refs there, created Jenny (donkey). (if anyone cares, they can whine; I doubt anyone cares) May want to add your info there. Also check donkey for any errors, I think I tossed all Jennet references in that article. Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 19:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem on sheep

Hi Richard, just wanted to give you a head's up on Sheep. A user has made some controversial claims without strong references, and has also made a WP:OWN accusation. I'd like to hear from some other voices to get a better group consensus. Thanks, VanTucky talk 09:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Had just seen the exchange, which seems to have got a bit heated. Will chip in soon. --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Crested Newt

Regardless of the fact that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 does not cover Northern Ireland, it is still an act that was passed by the Parliament of the UK and the link is correct. Moreover internal links in Wikipedia articles are not meant to link to disambiguation pages; they're meant to link to relevant articles. You may examine the relevant guideline here. There is currently a project underway to eliminate links to disambiguation pages. You can find out about it here. If you still dispute the disambiguation, you're welcome to relink in any way you like, including delinking entirely, so long as you don't link to Britain. Doing that will only cause Great Crested Newt to appear on a list of pages needing disambiguation, resulting in another visit by myself or another editor to fix the link. Please avoid creating links to disambiguation pages.

Thank you for your kind attention and happy editing.

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course the link should not be to a disambig page, and I ought to have checked that. UK is not however correct – the Act does not cover the UK, so it is not a UK Act in that sense – Great Britain would have been better (though does this include the Scottish islands?). I've changed it anyway to say England, Wales and Scotland – see what you think. --Richard New Forest (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section move

Thanks for your comments Richard, I appreciate your involvement. However, I remind you that we are admonished to be bold on Wikipedia. As moving a large section might be controversial, I took the 24 hours to be courteous of other contributors. But suggesting changes beforehand on talk at all is not required by any guideline or policy. I struggle to maintain the utmost courtesy for others right to have an opinion on article content. But if you aren't present to comment, then there is nothing that should stop contributors from being bold and getting things done. You can always protest after changes have been made, and nothing is set in stone. VanTucky talk 00:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral view?

Hey Richard, VanTucky and I seem to be having a minor creative difference of opinion over the lead photo at horse. He changed the lead image (which has been a very stable image, I think for well over a year) and I reverted it back. The two images in question are on the talk page with the public part of the discussion, finishing up a discussion started over on our respective talk pages where we both made comments were perceived as a little too snarky by the recipient and thus we apparently managed to piss each other off. So, would you be so kind as to take a glance at the discussion at Talk:Horse and if you feel like weighing in, to weigh in with an unbiased view? Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 09:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I think we are over it. Montanabw(talk) 09:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to WikiProject Equine

This is the official word: WikiProject Equine was quietly created by someone while the rest of us were endlessly discussing a WikiProject Horse. We have an official project! So let's go with it, and I am officially inviting you to formally join! Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine, add your name to the list and see what you can contribute. If you haven't already joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds or one of the other "child" or "affiliated" wikiprojects at WikiProject Equine, please feel free to do so. Just trying to tag articles with the new templates has awakened me to the fact that there are over 1000 equine articles in Wikipedia! (My watchlist alone is now at something like 700+) There's much to do and plenty for everyone! Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 09:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chilworth, Surrey

I liked the picture SuzanneKn (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Suzanne – I can't take credit for the photo itself (though I have taken some from almost the same spot) – I only corrected the caption, which said it was taken from the Downs. I think the photographer thought that the Chantries is Chalk, not Greensand – you can't see Chilworth from the downs.

[edit] British Hunter

I don't see a loop. The redirect looks perfectly correct to me. Corvus cornixtalk 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. What I saw (or at least thought I saw) was an actual redirect (not a note of one) – either there was a hiccup in the template at that moment, or more likely it was late and I saw something which was not there. I'd also not yet seen the disambig page you'd done, so I was trying to do it as without one. All looks good now – thanks. --Richard New Forest (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Query flushing before conception increasing birth weight.

I do not understand what you are asking regarding flushing sheep. I read the very interesting article sheep and did not know what it meant by "flushing". So I googled it and learned stuff and added to the article now linked. I learned that the term is used to refer to removal of embryos/eggs and also used to refer to giving some animals (goats, sheep, cattle, deer, and similar) extra nutrition in the two or so weeks prior to conception to increase fertility (number of eggs/offspring) especially, but also to increase birth weight. How long the added nutrition continues, I don't know - I guess it would depend. For example, if flushing were used to create extra eggs and to remove them, there is no need to continue the rich diet after they are removed. I suppose modern factory farms use objective scientific diet formulas for each stage (egg production, womb growth, milk production). One might think extra nutrients would be useful post-birth to help the babies, but modern farming tends to value the milk too high to waste it on non-humans. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, flushing is done before tupping to increase the number of eggs, and so increase the lambing percentage. On the other hand birthweight is controlled mainly by nutrition in the period before lambing (in fact large birthweight is not necessarily desirable, and the aim is to avoid both too-large and too-small lambs). See for example [1] and [2]. Did you find a reference that flushing before tupping can affect birth weight?
Thankfully sheep are not yet factory-farmed... Again, over-rich nutrition after birth may not necessarily be a good thing (see [3], under "overeating disease"). --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources I have specify that flushing can be done before/during mating, during pregnancy, and during lactation. Some choose to only flush during one or none of these periods, but it can and has been commonly done in all of them. VanTucky 03:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"Ewe liveweights were generally on target with less variability than the previous two years as a result of ewes being well-fed right through the lambing period."[4] WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
But does flushing at tupping have an effect on birthweight? Richard New Forest (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Refs then please.--Richard New Forest (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Above copied to Talk:Sheep husbandry – can we continue any discussion there please, as the most relevant place.--Richard New Forest (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Thankfully sheep are not yet factory-farmed"

"Under the intensive sheep production based on a cut and carry system, sheep are kept in pens with grass and concentrate being provided regularly. Some flocks are kept on slatted floors, others on litter beds that are cleaned once or twice a year."[5]

Intensive sheep production in the near east

Section six of this is on intensive sheep systems

WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Madness! I wish I had remained in ignorance, poor things. As sheep are notoriously good at spontaneous dying, I find it hard to believe that they don't take the opportunity in this system. It's bad enough treating cattle that way.
It seems this intensive system is not covered by sheep husbandry. --Richard New Forest (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I started to add it to the article, but the section that seemed best (styles or some such section) appeared to be mere unsourced assertion after unsourced assertion, and probably should be rewritten from scratch using appropriate sources; which I am unmotivated to do; so I copied the above to its talk page. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other sheep

My point with removing this was that these other species are named in English as sheep, but they aren't technically sheep, they are caprids. Only Ovids are scientifically sheep. These others members of different genus' (that are still in Caprinae) are named inaccurately as sheep, scientifically speaking. I thought about talking about this in the article, but I decided it's a little off topic. That would be a better discussion for the main Ovis article in my opinion. VanTucky 03:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah the "true sheep"... What else could you call a Barbary sheep though? It may not be a true sheep, but it's undoubtedly another legitimate use for the word (Ovis is a caprid too though). A musk ox is even less an ox, but it's still called an ox. Not at all sure that there really is a technical definition of "sheep" which is meaningful in this sense. The scientific definition is that of Ovis, but "sheep" is not a scientific word. Hard to find a significant thing which separates sheep (or indeed goats) as any more different from other goat-antelopes than the various goat-antelope genera are from each other. As far as I can see the term sheep is just used for any caprids which appear more sheepy than goaty, irrespective of their scientific relationships. I do agree that it's off-topic for that article... --Richard New Forest (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chaff

Thank you for the clean up on the chaff page. Hardyplants (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Shire Horse/Black horse

Hey Richard, will you check out the discussion going on at User_talk:Montanabw#Black_horse? I basically stumbled across Old English Black, which is a low quality stub, but does appear to be a legitimate predecessor to the Shire horse, but finding reliable, verifiable info is a challenge? Can you lend a hand? (You did such a great job helping on Jenny (donkey), I now believe that you can leap tall buildings with a single bound. And you have a background with draft horses, AND live in the right country, so ... ?? Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 18:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the L in Olney

Why do you think that the L in Olney is not enunciated? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful instruction throughout my childhood... Not being local to there myself, I had understood that everyone said it that way, but see [6], which makes it clear that the L is now often pronounced. My family were originally from there, but several generations ago, so they obviously use the old pronunciation. As it seems it is said both ways, both versions ought to be given. I've changed the page & copied this to the talk page. --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I recently went crazy and moved Polled cattle to Polled livestock, considering that any horned livestock can be polled. I did a basic rewrite accordingly, feel welcome to make some edits. I'm going to add some source material soon. Cheers, VanTucky 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sheep at LWC

Have any idea what breed this sheep is? VanTucky 00:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Must surely be a longwool of some kind: Lincoln, Leicester, Wensleydale or Devon; if one of the first three with wool about half grown. Perhaps not crimped enough for the last three. Or a hybrid of one of these. See [7],[8], [9] and [10]. My guess is Lincoln. I can find various mentions of sheep at the London Wetland Centre ([11]), but not of what they are (nor of whether they're being used for conservation grazing or just for show). They'd probably tell you if you asked them... I once removed the SSSI designation from the LWC when it was a clump of very dull urban reservoirs, but by all accounts it's now an outstanding nature reserve and it was made SSSI again in 2002. --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
From checking out the breed association gallery and such, my guess is Greyface Dartmoor. Thanks Richard! VanTucky 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That does look a good candidate, though the wool coverage doesn't seem entirely consistent – those Greyfaces that have enough wool also seem to have rather more woolly legs, but less wool on the face – but the degree and pattern of woolliness does seem to be variable. The northern and Midland Longwools have much longer faces with a Roman nose, so I agree that it looks like one of those south-western breeds. I can't pin down a solid difference though between Greyface and Devon – and of course being from the same county they are presumably related. Both have the chunky face with dark nose, face free of wool but with longer wool round eyes. Now I think of it, I think Greyfaces have a reputation as conservation grazers, so that could well be more likely if they are being used for that. Perhaps I'll give the LWC a ring in the morning... --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You were right -- Dartmoor Greyface, used for conservation grazing. I rang them just now. Apparently they use Greyfaces because they are hardy and adapted to wet ground. They have some Highland cattle too. --Richard New Forest (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corvus/Raven/Crow

Hi, Because of the recent discussion about the difference of Crows/Ravens (where you made very good points) I've created User:Plcoffey/SandboxCorvus (genus) which is currently a copied version of Crow; I'm hoping we can transition it into something resembling a representation of the entire genus (as per the discussion on Talk:Corvus (genus). My hope is that it would be a more inclusive article that would be a portal to the various species pages, and that it would allow us to eliminate some of the redundancy in the current pages. Any help or suggestions would be very welcome! Plcoffey (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Estuarine/alluvial on Romney Marsh

Hello, Richard re the Romney Sheep article. estuarine vs alluvial. The soils of the Marsh can I think be described either way correctly. Jill Eddison in Romney Marsh, Survival on a Frontier Tempus Publishing 2000 writes in Chapter 2 "The Legacy of the Ice Age" that the chalk of the Downs broke up in freeze-thaw cycles, releasing a slurry of flints carried down the valleys by seasonal flood water to the floor of the English Channel. That is clearly alluvial. She also writes (next page p 31) "indeed silt is still being deposited in the Rother estuary"; that's one in the eye for me. Let's leave it as estuarine unless you are moved to re-describe the soil of the Marsh as both.

It's a pleasure to correspond with someone who says what he or she is doing with Wiki and why.

I breed Romneys in the U.S., have for 25 years. My wife and I and enjoyed a visit to the Marsh in 2001 just before Foot and Mouth hit the fan. I got involved in the Wiki business early last year when planning an article on the breed for a Sheep Festival. Glancing at what wiki had then I thought it did not do justice to this important breed. The only other wiki article I have a personal interest in is the one on the Bradford system.

Have fun choosing a sheep breed for your farm. Keep in touch, cheers,--Sawyer12477 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the critical difference is that estuarine sediments are saline, and alluvial are freshwater – the sediments themselves may both ultimately derive from rivers, but they are chemically and structurally different. You are quite right that massive periglacial sediments from freeze-thaw flowed from the Downs and the Weald into the Channel, but those would mostly be gravels and sands ending up further offshore (with a much lower sea level), rather than the more recent silts which comprise most of Romney Marsh. There are in fact sands, gravels and shingle along the south coast of the Marsh – but those derive from wind (Camber Sands), and longshore drift (Dungeness etc).
Seem to be settling on Shetland sheep at the moment – we need something really tough which can live on heather and will eat scrub readily. --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bridles

Hey Richard, can you drift over to bridle and maybe also bit (horse) and see if you can add stuff on driving bridles and driving bits? We riding people realize that there is a need for the info, but we have insufficient expertise. Montanabw(talk) 06:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I also re-added the surcingle term to the harness article, at least temporarily, many people with light harness show horses around here call the girthing system a "surcingle" here, but I don't know if that is incorrect terminology or regional terminology...if you can give me a chance to check on that point, I'd appreciate it. Certainly the core of a bitting harness is the surcingle...? Montanabw(talk) 06:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I only know a surcingle as a strap for holding on a rug or racing saddle, or for use when lungeing (in what you call a bitting harness). I've never heard it in relation to driving harness – but perhaps that's my ignorance. Will see what I can find. Is your driving surcingle the whole thing, with the same construction (back band, belly band, girth and saddle)? --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You could be right and I could be wrong, take a look at the getup in fine harness and see if it is detailed enough for you to see what's there. If not, I can find some off-wiki photos (unfree images) that show the show ring harnesses seen a lot in the USA. Montanabw(talk) 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Tricky to see on that photo... As far as I can see there is a belly band coming down from the shaft, and something inside that which must be the girth. Then there's another looser narrow strap coming down just behind the leg – not sure what that can be. Looks as if it might stabilise the rear end of the breast collar (which incidentally is ever so narrow – he couldn't pull anything much with it). I'll have a look at a book I've got (unfortunately also not quite out of copyright, or I'd scan the pic for Horse harness). Posh harness in the UK is rather different to this, usually with a lightweight proper collar. The driving style is very different too – we'd not have the hands up round the ears like that. Though perhaps the horse has just jumped forward or something. Really posh driving is done with both reins in the left hand, in the lap, the right hand only being used to take up extra slack on tight turns (either rein). Personally I'm lazy and usually drive with both hands.
Horses are sometimes shown in a special type of harness, but I don't know the terms for that. Look at [12] (in particular[13]). I think I'd call it a posh surcingle. --Richard New Forest (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elastrator

Thanks for changing cows -> cattle at elastrator. Silly me! NTK (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You could try it, but I don't think it would be very easy. A neighbour of ours was running his dairy cows through the parlour for milking one day and had the opposite problem – he was trying to get the cluster on our bull, who'd jumped the fence and come on a visit... --Richard New Forest (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
And I noticed the other day that one of our neighbour's heifers (of about the right age) has the same colour pattern as our bull, so his visit was not wasted... --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Dab at Poll

I find you've violated NPA at Talk:Poll, and hope you'll consider how to remedy that.
--Jerzy•t 06:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry you should think that – it certainly was not intended. I did make it very clear that I considered your edit to be in good-faith, and I thought I had made my other comments in a spirit of friendly discussion – indeed, you generously commented that one para was "good-hearted".
I wonder if you were upset by my latest comment: "I see why you like short DAB entries. It's so you have words left over for arguing about them..."? I do hope not, as this was intended as no more than a mild and slightly teasing joke – I think you'll agree that your replies are even wordier than some of mine, and that this is ironic compared with your desire for short defs. In retrospect perhaps I ought to have made a longer reply, as short sentences are often easy to misinterpret.
Please accept my apologies for anything which caused unintended offence. --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's it, and now i'm sorry, and i think no apology was called for. Standing alone it seemed, earlier, implicit that you thought the wordiness was just intended to ... filibuster, i guess, and deserved no reasoned response. In fact it's not a bad joke, bcz there is "irony" in the contrast, and gosh, i thought i was more teaseable than this. "No excuse, sir", but i am prescribing myself some more sleep. Thanks for responding better than i deserved.
--Jerzy•t 02:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries! --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geier Hitch

Could you please take a look at this article and assess the suitability of it as is? Cgoodwin (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Is this genuine? I suspect an elaborate windup, or a legend not actually used in practice. I'd not risk my bull's future this way... I do notice that all the first hits on Google are WP itself or derivatives. Why not tie his nose to something less delicate, or use the traditional method of a short chain on the nose, so he stands on it when he ducks to snort? And anyway, what's to stop him running forward, nose, ring, string, bollocks and all? Or leaving the whole lot on the fence?
Lucky for us our bulls are all pussycats (it's the cows you've got to watch...). --Richard New Forest (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at the article when it began: [14]. I think the last sentence rather gives it away... Speedy deletion? --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of this hitch here despite a very long association with cattle of various breeds and types and think all of it is nonsense. The article should go. Cgoodwin (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put a request on the talk page for further information – let's see if anything turns up. I agree that it must be nonsense, but there is some chance it's interesting nonsense... --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watershed (word)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Watershed (word), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need your input

Hey Richard, would you care to weigh in at Horses in the Middle Ages. We are weak on the farm stuff there and we are trying to class the article up a bit (Ealdgyth wants to take it to FAC, but it has a ways to go). Need stuff on medieval farming and draught horses, if possible. Thanks for any help, even a read and overall opinion on how we could improve it. Montanabw(talk) 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forage

Thanks for the help with the forage page. I wrote quite a bit of the content, what do you think of it? Gabacho2 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Pigeon

There is absolutely no need to expand on what a domestic pigeon is on the Rock pigeon article. Following the Domestic pigeon link will explain what it is. The Rock pigeon article is rated GA. Please don't stuff it up by going on about differences in colours etc in the article when that information is clearly found at the other articles. Have you actually read the article? See the sections on Domestication and Feral pigeons? Go read them and add info there if you like. A lot of work was put into this article by people who actually know about the subject. The external link section can be done without as that pdf link is unnecessary.--Sting au Buzz Me... 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and what is "irridescece"? It's a new one on me!--Sting au Buzz Me... 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to provide a reliable source for males having more iridescence on the neck? I bet you can't. This is the biggest problem with Wikipedia. People who have absolutely no idea about the subject trying to add information.--Sting au Buzz Me... 11:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see response on Talk:Rock Pigeon --Richard New Forest (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corvus (genus)

I wanted to ask for your continued input over at corvus (genus). Thanks! Plcoffey 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naturmobil

Thanks for reworking the article. Please see Diff, I replaced the reference header. Not sure why you thought they were not references. Jeepday (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. They do look like external links to me... A reference supports a fact or claim in the text (and generally ought to be done as an in-line reference). These links are general information – how do they differ from the Fleethorse link?
I was pleased and fascinated to see this invention. As a schoolboy cycling uphill home from school I used to fantasise about a horse-powered vehicle much like this, though I had neither the drive nor the engineering skills to implement it. Nor a horse, at that time, though the Welsh Cob mare I have now would love it, if it was hard enough work.
It does need some improvements – the harness they are using is attached in the wrong place (not from the breast collar), and it does not look strong enough to cope with heavy braking. What holds the horse in on sharp corners? Also, the idea of putting a horse in a greenhouse is not the best one, and in Iran it's madness; the horse ought to be outdoors, with extra air scoops to keep the animal cool (as humans have in fully faired HPVs). Finally, I don't understand why it needs the drag of a generator and the weight of batteries and motor – if the horse needs a rest, stop for a bit! If you're going to have electric drive, have an electric vehicle charged off the mains and leave half a ton of horse at home... --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
External links can be references. The Fleethorse link is (appears to be) the home page of the Naturmobil, the other links are news articles and write ups that are the source of all the content in the article so that makes them references. I agree that the references should be inline and use correct formatting. These references also speak to the notability of the subject. I was kind of expecting the article to flourish a bit more. There are a number of other interesting facts and details in the references, like the relationship to Palm Islands and I expected the article to grow more in the first 24 hours then it has. My thought was the article would grow then I would go back and insert them as properly formated references and possibly submit it to WP:DYK. Jeepday (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not entirely convinced, but I don't think it makes all that much difference, so leave it be for the moment. --Richard New Forest (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

for your help with the SAMM article. I have yet to figure out how to re-direct it. Thanks also for your comments on the sheep rolling bit. There have been quite a few people who disagree with this rot, but I suspect VT will will again. Cgoodwin (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skid steer

Thanks for asking. Answered on Talk:Skid steer. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Front loader and Loader (equipment)

Do you think the Front loader and Loader (equipment) pages should be merged? Seems to me the latter is a good candidate for merging into the former. What do you think? Care to reply on Talk:Loader (equipment)#Murge with Front loader? --Roger Chrisman (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bog wood

Please go ahead with the merge. Ceoil (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will wait a bit for more comments. Above comment copied to Talk:Bog wood. --Richard New Forest (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There wont be any. Just merge. Ceoil (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)