Jump to content

Talk:Calf (animal)

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

Twin calf fertility

[edit]

What would be the percentage of twin calves that are fertile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopats92 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 March 2007

60% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.24.25 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 May 2007
Presumably this question is about where a heifer calf who is twin to a bull is often an infertile partial intersex called a freemartin. I've heard various figures for fertile twin-to-bull females, ranging from 10% to 15% – 60% is surely far too high. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content of article

[edit]

I'm a bit confused about the content of this article. At present much of it seems to be about a range of animals for which the word "calf" is used. This makes the article largely about a word, not a thing, and so makes it look like a dictionary entry (see WP:DICT). Doesn't it need to have a more clearly defined subject that does not depend on word usage? I suggest limiting it to domestic cattle calves, and keeping other species to a brief mention in a terminology section. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No comments, so I have changed the article to limit it to cattle calves. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a disambiguation page is needed here, and surely the primary topic of "calf" is the human calf. So let's move this article to Calf (bovine) and make Calf a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not at all. That's as unnecessary as making London a disambig. This is what the generic "otheruses" dablink is for ... you know: Calf (disambiguation). And the dab here already sends people to the muscle. Besides, there are almost a billion cows in the world. If one wants to add a list of how many animal young are also called "calves," I see no real harm in it, but I also don't care all that deeply. Montanabw(talk) 19:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sad, but I had to think really hard to remember what a "human calf" is – I was picturing baby Minotaurs or something. Perhaps comes of pulling too many bovine calves recently.... Perhaps that is a primary topic, but I suspect that the bovine and leg meanings are quite closely balanced, and so I think it should probably be the dab that gets "calf" alone.
As for other animals' calves... They could be dealt with but listing on a dab, but that would be quite a long list. I think having a brief para as at present covers it quite well. If it does, I think there aren't enough meanings to justify a dab. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long discussion over whether article titles should go to the primary topic or to a dab page. See, e.g. Weymouth, which is a dab, versus York, which goes to the primary topic. Many other articles simply have the search go to the first article that was created and everything else goes to the dab. I certainly see no reason to change this article. As for other animals, yeah, I agree with that, I looked at the para and all I could think to add was [{elk]], so I did. Montanabw(talk) 22:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has been recently edited to make it less accurate. Many different animals young are called calves, but now this article only deals with domestic cattle. If there is a consensus that this should be the sole focus of the article, it definitely should be moved to a new title more descriptive of this narrow scope. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I missed that it is now a short paragraph at the end. That could work, but the lead needs to be changed, currently it states that a calf is only the young of domestic cattle, when this is manifestly untrue. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beeblebrox. The point I made above under "Content of article" was not disputed, and was the reason I changed the lead to exclude non-cattle calves. It is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "Calf" is a word used in English for many different things which have little else in common, and so an article about all of them is actually an article about an English word – a dictionary article. If we are to have an article called "calf" it must be restricted to one thing. It's incorrect to say that excluding other calves makes the article "less accurate" – in fact while it does make it a less accurate dictionary article, it makes it a more accurate encyclopaedia article. I have restored the changes for the moment, pending further discussion.
I'm not so sure about the picture of moose calves, pretty as they are. The "other calves" section is arguably too long already, and perhaps we don't need it at all. I've removed it too for the moment – we need a good justification for a pic of something that is not the subject of the article. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to restore Beeblebrox's version, though I have to say I have no problem with it whatsoever. Their changes to the lead are fine and continue to maintain the focus on baby cows, and I have no problem with the picture either. WP is not paper, and the picture illustrates the point--the point being also that other baby mammals are called "calf" too. I don't really accept the dictionary vs. encyclopedia argument presented above. If it were a dictionary article, it would explain the other meanings of the word, such as the baby Minotaurs you referred to earlier--the muscle, that is. I think this (in my opinion) arbitrary limitation placed on the concept of a calf as a baby mammal--not any mammal, mind you--is too constraining. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that a full dictionary article about the word "calf" would cover still further meanings of the word, but unfortunately limiting it to "baby mammals called calves" doesn't stop it being a dict def – it's just a dictionary entry which misses out some meanings. One trick I find helpful is to consider whether the article subject would work in any language (as an encyclopaedia article ought to), or does it rely on (in this case) the meaning of "calf" in English. To include the young of seals, whales, camels, reindeer etc in Calf relies on the usage of the word in English to describe them. Similarly the exclusion of the young of horses, zebras, llamas and fallow deer is simply because their young have other names in English. What if hippos were called "river-horse" in English (not, as they are, in Greek)? They would then have "river-horse foals" not "hippo calves", and would fall outside this article as land-horse foals do. I can think of no definition of "calf" that includes or excludes those various particular animals but does not rely on the use of the word in English. It seems very clear that extension of the article beyond cattle calves does falls foul of WP:DICT. Essentially it is a definition determined arbitrarily by usage in English. On the other hand limiting it to cattle calves is not in fact arbitrary, it is determined by the existence of a baby-cattle thing – and that article could be translated into any language without changing its scope. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I frankly don't see that as a valid concern at all. We are on the English Wikipedia, our task is to create articles for readers familiar with the English language. The English language is full of such vagaries and contradictions of course, but how is it up to us to suddenly declare all uses outside of domestic cattle invalid? I also don't understand at all why we "need good justification" for the photo. If we are going to have a section on other uses of the word, the article is improved not harmed, by having an image that illustrates one of those other uses. If there is an actual consensus that the article should only cover cattle, then I renew my objection to the current title, and if the section on other uses is to be kept, then it should be briefly discussed in the lead. In short we need to settle what the scope of the article is and make sure the title reflects that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how that overcomes WP:DICT? Or are you planning to try to change that? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I tried to make several points there, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "that." Actually I'm not even sure what to say to to your question that I didn't already say in my last post. If it's not going to cover other animals, then the title should be changed, if it is, I feel it should be briefly mentioned in the lead in order to make it clear that it isn't just about cows, and readers will be more likely to notice that there is a section dealing with other uses. I fail to see how that contradicts WP:DICT, and I utterly fail to see what the definition of "calf" in any language other than English has to do with this article at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant, how does what you say overcome the consensus guidance WP:DICT, or are you planning to get the consensus changed? The point is that "calf" is an English word with several meanings, and a word is only a word, not a thing. The calf of a cow is a real thing, which has names in many languages. The first is an appropriate subject for a dictionary article, the second is a subject for an encyclopaedia, and in the English wiki "calf" is a good name for it. I think WP:DICT does explain this quite well. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see any reason that a simple {{otheruses}} tag can't be used. This is an utter and complete non-issue. There are something like 900 million + head of cattle in the world, they ARE the most common creature that goes by this term. Other than the human muscle, which has a scientific name and "calf" is merely a simple term, we are talking about baby animals. Without objection, I'm just going to create the disambig and hope this way we can be done with the issue. Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to World population, there are over 6 billion head of humans in the world, and most of them have two calves and little interest in cattle. --Una Smith (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2009)

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Calf → Calf (cattle) — The discussion above calls for resolution via WP:RM. The article content is about cattle calves, not any other kind of calf. Per articles in Category:Cattle, especially in Category:Cattle breeds, the usual qualifier is "(cattle)". --Una Smith (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also proposed to move Calf (disambiguation) to Calf. --Una Smith (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two points under discussion: what this article should contain, and, having decided that, what the article should be called. Doesn't the req move depend on the outcome of the first discussion? Richard New Forest (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Station1, are you saying that cattle calves are the primary topic? Do you have any evidence to support that? --Una Smith (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the article title "Calf" is not being used by any other article on Wikipedia, so there's no need to disambiguate article titles and therefore no need for a parenthetical qualifier. More than being the primary use, it's the only use as an article title. As an aside, I mentioned the article calf muscle, but even if hypothetically someone wanted to rename that article "calf", this article would in that case be primary use, based not only on common English usage but also getting twice the page views. Station1 (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calf is being used by another article: Calf (of leg). --Una Smith (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't mention that's because you created it one day after I wrote the above, but OK. Baby cows are still the primary usage. Station1 (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the burden of proof usually upon the person who wants to make a change? Dekimasuよ! 01:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as far as I can tell, only one person actually wants the change. Montanabw(talk) 18:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it looks like at least two people support the moving. --Una Smith (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no unambiguous "support" other than the proposer. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, one more. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a fine idea, the new dab page created by Montana could be moved here, and these issues will all be settled, and this article can just be about cattle calves. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox, do you agree with the idea as such, or just see it as a solution to the discussion on the content of the article? If the latter, surely we need a consensus on that first – as I said above. Renaming an article should not change its content. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone in the world lives in cattle country. Where I live, it more commonly used to refer to the young of wild animals. I don't see what the harm is in disambiguating the title to make it clear that, although this is a very common use of this term, it is not the only one. That you see other uses as "challengers" is a bit odd to me, this isn't a contest to see what is the superior usage of the word "calf" but rather an attempt to make Wikipedia easier to use for readers. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The human calf and calf muscle are not synonyms. --Una Smith (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not quite synonyms, but do they really deserve separate articles? Richard New Forest (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia already has hundreds of articles on individual muscles, individual nerves, etc. They are linked to by articles on muscle groups, on functional systems, and on body parts. Category:Muscles of the lower limb includes 10 pages and 4 subcategories. Category:Calf muscles includes 12 pages. It is kind of bizarre to have a category of calf muscles without any article describing the calf. And no, Calf muscle does not suffice. They not only deserve but also require separate articles. --Una Smith (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I created the disambig in an attempt to settle things down, sorry if that didn't work. If someone wants to make it into a list instead of a disabig, whatever, I don't care. However, the muscle or the leg part isn't really a "calf," it's got a scientific name if we must discuss what things "really" are to be named. And for god's sake, it's utterly ridiculous to create separate articles on the leg part and the muscle. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we have too many stubs as it is. Really, may I say, this didn't itch, why scratch it??? Calves are the young of cattle, and other animals that get called "calves" while young are such because they somehow have a resemblance in the human mind to the bovine version... the term used for other animals is thus, in a sense, a spinoff. Hence the article is fine as is and its silly to create a piped link that will require endless disambig work by bots (or people with time on their hands) when there is no need to waste bandwidth on the matter. What ELSE is really called a " calf" other than the muscle?? Nothing much. Most dictionaries I can access list calf the animal first, then calf the muscle. Montanabw(talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal was only made three days ago, there's nor rush either way... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not have consensus. --Una Smith (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support [Proposer]. I have been gradually checking the incoming links to Calf, and there are a lot that do not intend to link to an article about baby cattle. That is clear proof that the disambiguation page should occupy the page name Calf. --Una Smith (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I am sure there are a lot that do. That is not "proof," that is simply evidence in support of a particular viewpoint. Montanabw(talk) 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] No, that would not be proof, just some evidence to support the idea. In fact all the links I could find on a quick check do refer to cattle and so the evidence from that source actually looks quite solidly against the case for a move. Even Weight training was heading here... Can you give some examples of misdirected links? Richard New Forest (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some links to Calf that I fixed (check their edit histories). --Una Smith (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are those the ones you meant to list? Four of the seven were correctly directed to this article, which until recently included non-cattle calves. Only three referred to anatomical calves. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I read the talk page above, about the scope of the article being baby cattle, not all baby animals called "calf", and started disambiguating the incoming links to remove the non-cattle links. When you all defined the scope of the article as excluding non-cattle, those 4 links became incorrect. --Una Smith (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A disambig page that then links to the many meaning of calf is what is needed. I do not think of cows when some one says my calf hurts. Calf is an anatomical location of the human body much like arm or chest.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of us is expected to be oblivious to context clues. If someone says they saw a calf in a field, do you think they mean part of a leg? I mean, I agree that a dab page is a fine idea, but the fact that "my calf hurts" makes you think of a leg is no more relevant than the fact that "saw a calf in a field" makes me think of a young bovid. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT There IS a disambig page. See Calf (disambiguation). (Yes, I created it to try and resolve this spat) It is the express purpose of the {{otheruses}} tag, to fix things like this. And the article does note the baby animals of other species that are called calves... we can maybe work on where that fits stylistically, but that's a different issue. And, it appears now that there is even a dispute over whether the anatomical term "calf" means the leg part of the underlying musculature, as now there are two articles there, (one created just a few days ago by the same editor who is pushing this disambiguation issue here) though I have no interest in arguing about that and could not care less. The real issue here is just the eternal battle over at wikiproject disambiguation of whether a word should lead to the primary topic (or perhaps *a* primary topic), or to a disambig page. A disambig page exists here, the only real question is if a disambig page can just stay as is -- named "disambiguation" -- or if it should be renamed "calf" and the calf animal article given a parenthetical rename that will constantly have to be piped. (And there is another issue of whether there even needs to be a disambig page at all or just hatnotes here and frankly I don't care on that one either) It is absolutely silly to even be arguing over something this minor, except that if we don't, the next thing you know, London will go to a disambiguation because a lot of people live in London, Ontario and are insisting upon it!. If we look at the nomenclature of this word, I suppose someone can survey more dictionaries, but the ones I have looked at all list "calf" the baby bovine first. Maybe others don't. But the bottom line is that this whole issue is disruptive and unnecessary. Montanabw(talk) 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue here is just the eternal battle over at wikiproject disambiguation of whether a word should lead to the primary topic (or perhaps *a* primary topic), or to a disambig page. Um, no. The issue here is: is there a primary topic? The answer looks to be no, there is not. Therefore, the Wikipedia convention is clear: the disambiguation page should take the page name Calf. --Una Smith (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming. There are two clear issues being discussed together, that should be separated. The first issue is whether or not the calf article relating to animals should include non-cattle. That is a completely separate issue from this rename proposal, and should not be discussed in this proposal. Essentially, the renaming issue comes down to answering the question, "Is there a primary topic for the word 'calf?'" (from Wikipedia:Disambiguation). If there is a clear primary topic, then that article should be at calf. If there is no primary topic, then calf should be a disambiguation page. The current problem is that the animal people say a calf is an animal, and the medical people say a calf is a body part. It seems as though the medical people agree that the term is ambiguous, and think there should be a disambig page. The animal people recognize that the calf as a body part exists, but think that the only common use of calf is an animal...so calf should be about the animal. Of course people in their own fields are going to think that their usage is the more common usage. That is even more reason to disambiguate the term. What is needed is opinions of people who are not interested in animals or anatomy. We are not trying to find out the most common term, but rather if there is a single primary use of the term. Given this discussion, I would say that there is not; thus, a disambiguation page is required at calf. (A third issue is how exactly calf is defined medically - which should not need to be discussed here. I'll probably start that discussion at WT:MED.) --Scott Alter 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis started off beautifully, and I agree fully until you got to "The current problem is...". I am neither an "animal person" nor a "medical person". If anything, I might be a naming convention nerd. But I do kind of resent being classified based on my opinion, though I recognize you did so in all good faith. Anyway, you are absolutely correct that we are trying to find if there is single primary use, the criteria being at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As I pointed out earlier, the fact that Calf gets twice the page views of Calf muscle is one good indication, as is the fact that, as another editor points out, dictionaries list baby cattle as the first meaning. Based on those objective facts, and I hope not on personal bias, I came to a different conclusion than you as to where most (by no means all) readers and editors expect to land when they type "calf" into Wikipedia. Station1 (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dictionaries list baby cattle as the first meaning That is true, but irrelevant. Dictionaries conventionally list first the sense with the oldest etymology. "Calf" in English has two etymologies; see Wiktionary or Hans Kurath (1959). Middle English dictionary. University of Michigan Press. p. 128. ISBN 047201031X., page 20. --Una Smith (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calf gets twice the page views of Calf muscle Good point. This is very strong evidence that baby cattle are not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, since baby cattle are only one of ... how many now? ... 20 or 30 things called calves. Also, many of the links to Calf are wrong; once I fix them all, Calf will get still fewer hits. Finally, the page Calf gets some hits for precisely the same reason that it should be a disambiguation page: it is an ambiguous word. --Una Smith (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about the order of etymology. However, not at all sure how the logic of your second statement works. Surely if "calf" gets many more views, that's evidence for it being a primary topic, not against...? Richard New Forest (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calf gets only twice as many page views as one of the other articles on the disambiguation page; if it were the primary topic, it should be getting far more than that. Among all the articles on the dab page, Calf does not stand out in number of incoming links, nor in number of page views. So it does not appear baby cattle are the primary topic. --Una Smith (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that many, probably most, dictionaries will list the older homonym first, but in some, such as the Encarta World English Dictionary, the order "broadly reflects usage and frequency". Station1 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to group people into medical or animal based on their response, but based on my previous encounters with several people involved in this discussion, I know that some are involved in animal-related articles, and other in medical-related discussions. I would call myself a medical person who has also done a lot of work on animal-related projects and articles. This discussion is not about which use of "calf" is most popular in the English-speaking world. That is debatable, and different crowds of people will give different responses. To me, primary topic would be more like "is there a single usage of the word that is used almost all of the time?" With calf, even if it is used in cattle for 60% of the time and anatomy 40% of the time (which I am not saying it is), I still would say that the cattle usage was the primary topic. Regarding the page view argument, How do you know that all of the people who ended up at calf muscle did not get there by using the hatnote on calf? The page views directly to calf muscle are people who were definitely looking for that topic. On the other hand, you cannot say that for calf. The only real way to compare page views is if the calf article relating to cattle was disambiguated - so that people going ending up at calf can choose for themselves which topic they were looking for. Another reason that calf muscle may have fewer page views is that the term "calf muscle" is not commonly used. Because there aren't too many people interested in anatomy on Wikipedia, an article on the calf was never created until Una did so recently. The most common use of the word calf relating to anatomy is "the back of the leg," rather than "the muscles of the leg." --Scott Alter 01:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To directly answer your question: Even if every single one of the many thousands of viewers of Calf muscle in May got there via the dablink at the top of Calf (I hope you agree that's not likely), Calf would still have slightly more hits. So in the worst possible case 50% of the people looking for "calf" wound up somewhere other than where they expected; if "Calf" were a dab page, 100% would have been in the wrong place. Station1 (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to this week, Calf was getting about 500 page views per day, many presumably due to following links, so by your scenario 250 readers (50%) wound up on the wrong page. Consider my scenario: we move the dab page to Calf and finish disambiguating the incoming links, resulting in no incoming links to the page. 100% of 0 equals 0 readers on the wrong page. By Station1's scenario, putting the dab page at Calf is the clear winner. --Una Smith (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Una, what you say is correct, but surely this is a point about correct links, not about the name of the page? If all links are correct, no incorrect incoming hits, bingo – it doesn't matter if the page is Calf or Calf (cattle). Richard New Forest (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter, because automated discovery of incoming links in need of correction depends on a disambiguation page occupying the ambiguous page name. That is why per this guideline the disambiguation page should occupy the ambiguous page name unless there is a primary topic. Here there is no primary topic, so per guideline Calf (disambiguation) should be moved to Calf. --Una Smith (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it matters only that the disambiguation page has the page name Calf, just as the disambiguation page for "bull" has the page name Bull. The article about cattle calves need not have the page name Calf (cattle); it could have the page name Cattle calf or some other page name that is unambiguous. --Una Smith (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those related articles are part of my reason for moving Calf (disambiguation) to Calf. I still have not finished checking all 158 incoming links to Calf, but I have checked a lot and I have fixed over 50 incoming links. Many links I moved to Calfskin, Veal, Calf liver, calf (Wiktionary, for the animal calves other than cattle calves), and Calf (anatomy). No matter what content occupies Calf, Calf will continue to gain incoming links that are wrong, simply because "calf" is so ambiguous. But fixing those incoming links is significantly easier if the disambiguation page occupies Calf. This is similar to the situation I found on Weymouth, where 40% of the incoming links were wrong. I completely disambiguated 1000 incoming links: 600 to Weymouth, Dorset and 400 among other articles. Now there are about 15 new incoming links to the dab page. Being new links to a dab page, they are almost certainly wrong, but they are not hidden among 1000 other links. Do you see now why putting a dab page at the ambiguous page name is so useful? --Una Smith (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish we had a gizmo that would, for selected articles, force editors creating incoming links to check they are going to the right place! But as far as I can see the correctness of incoming links is not a factor in deciding article titles per the guidelines. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have several such gizmos, all depending on a disambiguation page occupying the ambiguous page name! I am beginning to see that Wikipedia:Disambiguation needs a rewrite. Its focus is too much on what readers see, overlooking what editors (especially what "disambiguous" editors) do. This gizmo shows that Calf (now an article) links to 7 disambiguation pages. Those are 7 links that we know need to be fixed. There are other gizmos that do this, that are more or less dependent on what OS and browser the editor uses. --Una Smith (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we can't be naming pages for the convenience of gizmos...? Why not change the gizmos? Richard New Forest (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't believe that there is going to be a case that there is a primary use here based on the discussions to this point. Add to that the fact the the disambiguation project's tools work best when the dab page is at the primary name and we seem to have ample support for this move and the follow on move of the dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like "ample support" to me – opinions are balanced five/five so far, counting Una once, and assuming Beeblebrox does mean "support" (I've adjusted the bolding to make this clearer). Not that this is a vote or anything... Personally, I am open to persuasion, but I haven't seen good enough arguments for a move yet. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disambiguation

[edit]

I have now disambiguated 158 incoming links from articles to Calf, and 95 links (60%) remain. The other 63 links (40%) mostly went to Veal, Calfskin, Calf (anatomy) and Birth. Links concerning animal species other than cattle went to Wiktionary: calf, calves. Of the above articles, the one with by far the most page views is Veal. Calfskin and Calf (anatomy) are new articles. --Una Smith (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, which details why and how to fix incoming links to dab pages, and lists tools that make this work easier. --Una Smith (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links now lists Bull as needing to be disambiguated. It has over 100 incoming links; see them here. Try your hand at fixing them? --Una Smith (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation-- UK and US

[edit]

Richard, in American English, we yanks DO use the short "a" sound, I can't do IPA worth squat but we DO say a short vowel "caff" and "haff", rhyming with "gaff" not "coff," and "hoff" like a "cough" May want to fix the IPA to have both pronunciations. Hope that makes sense. Montanabw(talk) 20:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, fine... I see that's how it's given at wikt:calf. It can be a long /æː/, for example in southern rural English English (think of a "pirate" accent). I'll change it back; not sure if the English dialect is mainstream enough to include, though it's how everyone round here would say it. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pirates? Arrgh, matey! And a fine beefsteak that young'un will make! Arrgh! As for dialect, even putting in the two main variations is fine -- to western American ears, the UK, Au, NZ and even South African dialects ALL sound like you pronounce many words with an "Ah as in caw" sound rather than the more nasal American (including Canadian, most places) "aa as in fat" for lack of a better way to phrase it. The American east coast has two more slightly different variants, north and south, (think the "Boston" accent of the Kennedy family, where all the "r" sounds vanish except where no one else uses them -- "You cahn't pahk your cah in Haaaahvahd yahd"... and we just are NOT going to discuss how this way ANYTHING in Texas! well, I guess George W. Bush...) LOL! Of course, half the time we Americans can't tell Cockney from Oxford and we even think some Aussies sound like Brits! You will be amused, one time I asked a fellow from India how he compared various English accents and he said we Americans sounded kind of like the Irish! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 00:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to say: as an American, never be tempted to try any British accent, even in text! (My fault for mentioning pirates...) There is a long list of dreadful failed attempts which provide endless amusement for Brits, from "Scot"ty in Star Trek to Dick van Dycke in Mary Poppins. Some honourable exceptions, such as Meryl Streep in The French Lieutenant's Woman, and some very near misses such as Rene Zellweger in Bridget Jones's Diary. Don't suppose Brits are any better at American accents either (pardner). How does Hugh Laurie do in that hospital drama thing, House? Sounds perfect to our ears. Or Damien Lewis in Band of Brothers? Richard New Forest (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Adjusting John Wayne hat...) Wull, ya see, we jist think ya Brits alwuz tawk better than uz, so we forgivez ya. But Oh! My childhood is just ruined to discover that Dick Van Dyke didn't do a proper cockney in Mary Poppins! I'm shocked, shocked! (well...maybe not...) But Scotty? OH NOOO! But even that I can manage if you can please explain to me exactly WHAT it is that Sean Connery does these days? Is is Welch, Scottish, or is it that he just has a unique dialect all his own? (LOL). Montanabw(talk) 01:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the note of Brits trying to sound like Americans, my favorite "embarrassingly poorly done American" accent was Paul McCartney's intro to "Rocky Raccoon." And it took me 40 years before I figured out that some of Mick Jagger's vocal twangs and other weirdnesses are because he's trying (and failing) to do a Delta Blues dialect ... I've been trying to avoid television as much as possible, so haven't seen "House." I also haven't seen Band of Brothers, though I should. That said, Emma Thompson ALMOST had a proper American accent in Primary Colors (she blew it with pronunciation of her "r's" though). And Anthony Hopkins was so amazing as Nixon that I almost forgave Oliver Stone for making a three hour movie with him! As for Meryl, well Meryl is a goddess, though how she managed to pull off playing someone my age in "Mamma Mia" even though she's what, 60? has me SOOOOOO jealous. Montanabw(talk) 01:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I've always thought so highly of Emma Thompson's "r"s... I think Sean Connery has reverted in his old age pretty well to his original not-particularly-strong Edinburgh accent; previously he used a more RP version. He also has his own special way of pronouncing "s" as "sh".
There's a long tradition in British pop songs of singing in a fake American accent, to the extent that it has evolved into a kind of weird Mid-Atlantic accent of its own – Macca was really only doing that in speech Macca's effort in speech in that record was not really much worse than that. In fact even now very few British singers use their own proper accent fully – almost all at least use the pop-pronunciation "lurve" and suchlike, mostly unconsciously I think. Scottish and Irish singers don't seem to do it so much, but a proper English accent does stand out – like Lily Allen's (though she actually exaggerates her natural accent quite a bit). Some do a very deliberate extreme American accent, like Duffy (whose natural accent is very Welsh). Yes, Meryl's "r"s too... Richard New Forest (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emma's "r's" are prefectly fine except that they do betray her roots! She actually was so close that only people as anal-retentive as me, and looking for trouble, would probably have noticed! And ** I ** say "crick" for "creek" so it's not like I have any real grounds to complain. (Had a voice instructor once tell me my singing voice actually betrays my Scandanavian heritage because I pronounce "-ing" sounds as "-een" LOL!) And "yesh," I "scheschpected" that Shhhean Connery had shomething going on that wasch uniquely hisch own. LOL! So, who actually DOES speak the "King's English" these days, anyway? Montanabw(talk) 22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I was so pleased with my pun, but of course wasted on a dialect where a donkey is a part of the body... Richard New Forest (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I GET IT NOW! GROAN!) OK, I'm slow. Also the wrong gender to pick up on such things quickly. Oh boy, puns and dialect. You think that one is confusing, keep in mind what your slang for a cigarette means in US English! =:-O Montanabw(talk) 05:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

[edit]

I believe that the hatnote for "Dogie" is appropriate, as someone searching for the geographic feature might use the word. Also, I am not certain there is any "rule" or guideline that prohibits more than one hatnote, though if they can be consolidated on one line, that is ideal. Montanabw(talk) 18:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it isn't, the article http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Dogie_Butte gets between 2-10 visits a day. It is WP:UNDUE. CFCF 💌 📧 19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that article should be deleted, it doesn't pass WP:NOTE as per its sources. CFCF 💌 📧 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a legitimate geographic feature, a named, natural feature. WP:GEOLAND explains this. It isn't a matter of page views. Montanabw(talk) 20:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. - From WP:GEOLAND

CFCF 💌 📧 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw I'm sorry, you seem to be misunderstood about the policies, I'm putting it up for deletion so that we can stop this conversation. Also regardless of whether a Wikipedia article exists WP:HATNOTE explains when to use them and that overusing them will be negative to the encyclopaedia. CFCF 💌 📧 20:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No misunderstanding from my side, Dogie Butte is adequately notable in its area, you are engaging in systemic bias against the rural America west. Montanabw(talk) 15:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to policy that article is insufficiently notable as it only holds statistics and an explanation of the name, no bias there. As for a small rural hill it isn't deserving to be linked at the top of a top level article, that isn't bias–it's just being reasonable. We don't plaster articles with hatnotes, see WP:HATNOTE. Also of note is that there is a Dogie mountain in Texas [1], a Dogie creek in Wyoming [2] and in Montana [3] – (three examples from a very rudimentary Google search). One could make the argument that you are engaging i bias in favor of the American West over the Midwest and South. CFCF 💌 📧 11:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then go ahead and do that Montanabw, but this Hatnote is frivolous. WP:HATNOTE says

2. Keep explanations to a minimum; only explain vital information, trusting instead in the article lead to clarify things for the reader.


3. Only mention other topics and articles if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind.


To even imagine that this is the case is ridiculous! CFCF 💌 📧 12:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you ask yourself why it matters so very much? Dogie does redirect to calf. Someone could as easily be searching for the geographic location but only remember that it's named "dogie-something"; we have hills, mountains, buttes, mesas, and so on. They easily could type "dogie" as a standalone search phrase. A hatnote is a helpful way to direct readers to other articles, many, many articles have two hatnotes, and until the other articles on similarly-named places are created (I lack the interest to do so, I don't do the geography stuff much), I see no reason to delete it. Your "frivolous" comment suggests to me a value judgement that the geographic features of the American West are themselves "frivolous" or irrelevant. Trust me, when it is the highest point in 40 miles and a landmark for people in the area, it's quite relevant. Montanabw(talk) 02:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're avoiding this issue. Hatnotes are only to be used when there is a reasonable risk that a reader will find themselves on the wrong article. And equating the importance of minor geographic features of the American West to the article on calves is both frivolous and irrelevant. I do not want to have to start an RfC over such a nonsense issue, please let it go or create the dab yourself.
This is a very important issue because it has to do with the readability of articles. Wikipedia looks very unprofessional indeed if we even contemplate the idea that someone will come to the article on calves looking for a small hill in the country-side. CFCF 💌 📧 09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per reasoning above, no need to have the extra link to Dougie Butte. The current hatnote seems fine. This or the anatomy article are the main topics people will be looking for. If readers are looking for another meaning of calf, they can visit the disambig easily. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • From what I see, the argument turns on the question of whether searching for "dogie" has a reasonable chance of leading the reader to the wrong article. Looking at the page view statistics for "Dogie Butte" and "Dogie", we see that both get about 2 views/day. Keeping in mind that it is unclear how many of the "Dogie" views were actually looking for "Dogie Butte", a hatnote does indeed seem indicated. Paradoctor (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paradoctor - I'm sorry, but you seem to mean it does indeed not seem indicated? 2 views/day is negligible. CFCF 💌 📧 11:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment again. Both meanings are equally rarely viewed. Anyway, I noticed that I overlooked something. From the statistics, it is clear that neither meaning is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, so the only questions is whether to disambiguate with hatnotes or with a separate page. Since the former is contentious, I'll put up a separate page. Give me a sec. Paradoctor (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Paradoctor (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here note that viewing an animal that provides every hamburger in the world is being dismissed as of "negligible" importance? I've commented elsewhere that WP has a clear anti-rural bias, I think an unconscious one, but this is a great example. Montanabw(talk) 22:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fully conscious, and it isn't bias. It's about how likely someone will be looking for that article. Also to your liking a dab was created at Dogie. CFCF 💌 📧 22:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the dab is one solution. I can live with that. I do not agree with your constant arguments about page views and such; phrases like "frivolous" or "negligible" are very condescending and a putdown of those of us who live in areas that are not urban and inhabited by millions of people - and some of the historic words and phrases that are part of our history. Montanabw(talk) 03:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "calf (animal)"

[edit]

The statistics

Calf: 14729 views in the last 90 days
Calf (anatomy): 24809 views in the last 90 days

make it clear that the animal is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "calf". Accordingly, I'm boldly moving the page to Calf (animal). Paradoctor (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change on the grounds that the anatomy article had substantially more views than the article on the animal. CFCF 💌 📧 13:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no one objecting. Paradoctor (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the first 78 minutes. Right! Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this move has been contested and was previously rejected at RM, I've reverted the move. Please feel free to start a RM and, if you do, use the multi-move template to indicate you are also advocating the dab page be moved to this title. Jenks24 (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RM discussion going on at Talk:Calf (disambiguation) without notification here. That's a HUGE problem. You also have failed to notify relevant wikiprojects. Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy move request that was filed was converted to a full-up request, which has subsequently been withdrawn. I don't see how this ever could have been a speedy move, due to prior move requests having occurred -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There most certainly appears to have been something unorthodox going on there. Montanabw(talk) 07:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)B[reply]
Of course not, someone just missed the previous discussion. Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, not knowing the exact procedure of filing a request is a minor error. If you see something wrong, just fix it. CFCF 💌 📧 10:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But this, blanking the other discussion, is a major error. Now reverted. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)I think the fact that it appears at least 3 editors are saying "Hey! What's going on here?" means the move is controversial. Why not go back to basics and use Wikipedia:Moving a page - there is no rush, the page is not going anywhere.DrChrissy (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle vz. other calves - once more

[edit]

The short section Calf#Other animals now ends

However, common domestic species tend to have their own specific names, such as foal and lamb.

@Johnbod: You added (approximately) this sentence here. However, I do not quite follow the logic. Would you not call e. g. a newborn zebra a foal? In my experience (both of English and Swedish), specific names for domestic juveniles or for adult domestic animals of a specific sex (such as calf, puppet, kitten cow, bull, mare, and stallion) ordinarily are extended to wild but related animals—sometimes even to fairly unrelated ones. I therefore cannot understand the But or However in this sentence.

Instead, I think, that not only the article Calf but also other articles should mention the more generic "zoological" usage of such terms. (In the long run, there also may be reasons for writing separate articles or even sections about such extended meanings, if sufficiently interesting zoological facts are shared for one of these groups, but not others. For the respective juveniles, this particularly might concern animal developmental biology.) JoergenB (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"But" just means that these animals don't have "calfs". I don't really see the difficulty. puppet???? I can add that most (?) equines have "foals". I don't think I agree with your wider points, but it hardly matters - for example lions and tigers have "cubs", certainly not "kittens". Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Calf (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Consumption

[edit]

Why is veal desirable compared to beef? Is it more tender, has a better taste, etc etc? This is not discussed or addressed at all. 68.198.91.188 (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calf_(animal)&oldid=1195400170"