This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Domestic Muscovy duck is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of Poultry task force, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PoultryWikipedia:WikiProject PoultryTemplate:WikiProject PoultryPoultry articles
Yes, delete it. Homeopaths dilute everything they can grab and some things the cannot grab: Sunlight, black holes and so on. We should never mention in an article about X that homeopaths dilute it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never? That's not what WP:ONEWAY says. The provision is that independent reliable sources about X mention it "in a serious and prominent way". They rarely do for obvious reasons, so don't worry anyway. :)–Austronesier (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, we all agreed this was a crappy article. I compared it with the section in Muscovy duck, which was (and is) appreciably better cited. Given that the citation standard here was ... not worth speaking about, I boldly redirected. Only to find it un-redirected, i.e. recrappified to its original stinking state. I can't be bothered with it, frankly, but anyone with energy for the task can attempt a merge as we don't need two articles where one will do better. I wish that person luck trying to find anything remotely reusable in the existing text here, but one lives in hope, maybe there's something. Signing off (don't ping me), Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]