Jump to content

Talk:Calf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 2009

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Leave plain calf as the young of cattle Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calf (disambiguation) → Calf – When I read "calf" I see part of a human leg. WikiProject Anatomy is pretty much inactive; otherwise Wikipedia of course would have an article about the human calf, since the human calf logically is the primary topic for Calf. But it is more egalitarian to "share" the page name with other senses of "calf", in the form of a disambiguation page. See also Talk:Calf#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. To most people a calf is a baby cow, primarily. This page should not even exist, at least as a dab page, since none of the article titles listed could be confused with "calf", with the possible exception of calf muscle, which might qualify for a hatnote on calf. This page, if retained, should be renamed something like List of animals whose offspring are calves. Station1 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Station1, have you looked at Calf (disambiguation)? Not all calves are baby animals. --Una Smith (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Station1's suggestion for a "list of..." page is a good one, and is a better place for non-cattle baby calves – it would for example allow some discussion and explanation. However, I think there are too many non-baby calves to be dealt with by hatnotes – there is a need for a dab for those. Richard New Forest (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed I have looked at Calf (disambiguation). That's why I said it shouldn't exist (it didn't exist until yesterday). It doesn't follow the guidelines for a dab page. The only item that should be there is calf muscle. Dab pages are not indiscriminate lists or search indices. The only part of the page that has any value is the list of animals that have calves, but that is not a dab page because it does not disambiguate article titles; it should either be incorporated into the article "Calf" or made into a separate list referenced from "Calf". My guess is that the rest was added by searching for the word "calf" and adding every article in which the word appears, but others can do the same as easily. A dab page is only useful for navigating among articles that could have the same title. Ask yourself Could this article reasonably be titled "Calf"?; if yes, it belongs on the dab page, otherwise not. In my opinion someone searching for or linking to the word calf would expect to wind up either at the current Calf or, less likely, at calf muscle, and not at any other article currently on WP (esp. such as Ascot (1904 automobile)). But even if one or two other entries are borderline and a dab page is needed, the article Calf -- whether about cattle alone or all the other mammals as well -- is clearly the primary use of the title, and in fact currently the only use of the title; and that is the main point. Station1 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that the list of animals that have calves can go on a list page, but I expect the list page will be an orphan apart from the dab page linking to it, so it seems to me we might as well leave the list on the dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Surely the outcome of this discussion depends entirely on the outcome of the parallel discussion at Talk:Calf: we can't move this page to there unless that page is itself moved. I suggest that all discussion is moved there. Richard New Forest (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever happens here, no biggie for me. I see the page has been expanded a great deal; I only created the disambig to try and resolve the spat at calf, but if this isn't the right way to solve it, we can do whatever. I do understand that wikipedia isn't a dictionary or thesaurus and Station1 makes a good point. No skin off my nose if this page becomes something else as long as calf goes to the article on baby cattle! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 22:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RMCDbot thinks this move is still open. To try and fix that, I have reclosed the discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calf (disambiguation) → Calf – Per reason given at Talk:Calf (animal)#Move to "calf (animal)", calf is now free for the disambiguation page – Paradoctor (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradoctor, Johnbod, and Jenks24:This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furious opposition to this. It was never likely to be uncontroversial Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
? The move discussion you refer to was about "calf" -> "calf (cattle)". This request is about "calf (disambiguation)" -> "calf" after "calf" has already been moved to "calf (animal)". Please also note that the previous discussion lacked the information I provided, and there is no reason to believe that this wouldn't have changed the outcome. Paradoctor (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If even one good faith user has objected, it is not uncontroversial and needs to go through a full RM. Johnbod has made a clear opposition here so this move will not be proceeding as a technical request. I'd recommend starting a proper RM at the talk page; if you leave this discussion here it will get moved there wholesale and serve as the RM nomination, which is probably something you don't want, considering your original nomination statement is no longer correct. Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain something to me: Is Johnbod's opposition against the move, or against the request? It is not clear which one is objected to here. If the latter, then there no objection to the move, and this section is the right place for discussion of whether this is a technical request. I. e. whether the actual move, as opposed to the request for it, is likely to incur opposition. Or am I mistaken about the organization of this page?
"something you don't want" ... "original nomination statement is no longer correct" I'm not sure what you're shoving into my face here. Surely you don't talk about misrepresenting me by making a request in my name?!? I suggest you take a little time to read what I actually did, and how it and Johnbod's reaction relate to the request here. Paradoctor (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, I'm honestly trying to help you here. Whether Johnbod has objected to moving the pages, or he has simply objected to it being done without giving people a reasonable time to discuss it is irrelevant (although yes, it would be nice if his reasoning was a bit clearer) – the fact is it has been objected to and no admin monitoring this page will move it. So what will happen now is either you can start a RM (instructions are at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves) or if you leave this discussion here the next admin to come along will start a RM for you by clicking the "discuss" link in your proposal (you can try this yourself just to see what happens if you want). If they do this your nomination rationale here will just get copied to that new discussion, that's the standard practice. Unfortunately in this case, your nomination rationale, which was correct at the time, is no longer so, i.e. "calf is now free for the disambiguation page" is no longer correct because the animal article is now back at calf. If this happens, it is likely that people will oppose the move simply because the nomination rationale is incorrect and it doesn't properly show that you want to move two articles, i.e. calf → calf (animal) and calf (disambiguation) to calf. You are much more likely to achieve the outcome you want if you start the RM yourself and make a more persuasive argument, e.g. by citing the page view stats and the relevant guideline. Apologies if you didn't get this from my original comment here, I sometimes forget that not everyone is used to this obscure little corner of the project. Jenks24 (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"citing the page view stats and the relevant guideline" Now that's embarassing. Why didn't you read the talk page section linked to in my request? The very first sentence contains links to the view stats as well as well as the applicable policy. Also note that that particular move is not the one being discussed here.
Johnbod is not opposed to the move from "calf" to "calf (animal)", by his own words. And while he has not said explicitly so, nothing he said indicates that he would be opposed to subsequently moving "calf (disambiguation)" to the then-orphaned "calf". He solely opposed doing the latter move as an uncontroversial technical move. That, and only that, is what is contested. He pointed to a six year old move discussion as evidence that the move from "calf" to "calf (animal)" would be contested. Which is
a) besides the point, because my request is about "calf (disambiguation)" to "calf", not "calf" to "calf (animal)", and
b) fails on its own, because the old move discussion was conducted in an orderly fashion, and there is no reason to believe that the participants wouldn't have agreed unanimously to a move, had they had the information available now. A.suming otherwise would violate WP:AGF, if you ask me.
In short, no one has objected to the facts motivating the moves, and the only oppose to performing the second move as technical misses the mark on two counts.
On a personal aside, the lecture you gave above is patronizing to the point of being condescending. Especially to a contributor with 8k+ edits, who has been around a few years longer than you. And I've been to RM before, both with my account and as an IP. Believe it or not, you're not the only one who knows his way around.
"I'm honestly trying to help you here" I appreciate the sentiment. Paradoctor (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're wasting your time here. It should never have been claimed to be "uncontroversial", and is now contested. This is not the place to argue the case. Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have given reasons to believe otherwise, and I don't see you arguing your case. Paradoctor (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My case was clearly stated - this was never going to be uncontroversial, & you were wrong to propose it as uncontroversial. I now see there have been 2 previous discussions where these moves were rejected. I don't have a view about calves, but I really dislike inappropriate "uncontroversial" proposals that deny the community the chance to discuss things, especially when the proposer gets all antsy afterwards. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 19 September 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– No primary topic, Calf (leg) has 10,807 views and The Calf has 98 compared with only 5,254[[1]] for the animal. Google returns the leg article first and most of the other results are for the leg. Images also returns slightly more results for the leg but Books mainly returns the animal. Calf (cattle) and Calf (young animal) are possibilities but with respect to the 1st the term is used for other animals and with respect to the 2nd it may be unnecessarily specific as the leg term only appears to be used to refer to humans on the other hand the "animal" disambiguator may still be ambiguous with human leg parts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calf&oldid=1256434214"