Talk:Nose ring (animal)

Claim of Bias

I believe this article could be viewed as being biased- there's no need to explain how dangerous a bull can be; all that really needs to be said is that it's used to control the bull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.140.57 (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Response Perhaps it would put this in perspective if you considered why only bulls, not cows, are nose-ringed. I do not believe that a direct statement of why you need to nose-ring a bull (i.e., because it is too powerful and dangerous to be controlled by halters, bridles or mere herding of unrestrained animals, as cows are commonly herded) is in any way indicative of bias. To the contrary, I wonder about the sensibility that suggests this as an implication of bias.Elcajonfarms 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

I'm also unconvinced that it most of this would work. What's to stop the bull running forwards, nose, ring, string, lying down or driving the staff into you? As for the tractor story who would drive down the paddock with an angry bull at your back and then have to release him or whatever. Sounds like another April Fools Day joke! Even bull fighting or feral bulls don't have geier hitches or nose rings applied when captured and believe me they can be agro. Cgoodwin (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are injecting an incredible amount of POV into this discussion--evidently you prefer your own undocumented experience with your own techniques (for which I see no citations whatsoever in your edits) to the documented and extensively cited recommendations of veterinarian guides, published show society rules and farm equipment manufacturers that have been added in the footnotes and sources for this article, most of whom recommend the use of a bull staff in combination with a rope or halter or alone. Not to mention the efforts of farm families to control bulls by other means, recounted in a number of published memoirs that have also been cited in the text, which you seem to want to deny ever occurred for undisclosed POV reasons of your own. elcajonfarms 15:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcajonfarms (talk • contribs)

I must weigh in here. From my Ynakee perspective, let me reassure you that Cgoodwin is still a relatively new user, but is very knowledgable about agricultural practices in Australia, and while the use of footnotes needs to be improved, this user's statements "ring" as credible. Expertise in the field doesn't always translate to mastery of wiki markup language for footnotes, so I would hope that you could reach an effective compromise here. Also note that "bull staff" in the USA is, in reality, more often an electric cattle prod! Some of what is going on here are just regional differences in handling practices. Montanabw^(talk) 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only bovines?

I thought pigs are often nose ringed for control of boars and to discourage rooting? VanTucky 03:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a section on pigs – I've described it as done in the New Forest, but it perhaps needs a wider perspective. --Richard New Forest (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camels usually have them. --Una Smith (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bull handling

I'm beginning to wonder if we've got bogged down in a lot of excessive detail about bull handling. This article is about nose rings, not primarily about bull handling – we really only need enough about that to explain the need for rings. Would this material be better in an article specifically about it: Bull handling, or Bull management? Perhaps most of the last two sections...? --Richard New Forest (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cows

In Canada cows caused 33% of livestock injuries to handlers and 16% were killed. See: http://www.cfa-fca.ca/upload/casw_livestock.pdf

Some Serious Cattle-lnflicted Injuries Reported in North Dakota in a One-Year Period http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/farm_safety/cow.html

Many serious cattle handling injuries are caused by a single agitated steer or cow, which can be very dangerous. http://www.grandin.com/behaviour/principles/principles.html

Cattle were likely cause for death of dog walker http://archive.westerntelegraph.co.uk/2006/2/1/9049.html

In OZ, too, cows and steers have caused many injuries and deaths.Cgoodwin (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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 no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. I have changed the redirect at Nose-ring to point to Nose ring. Dekimasuよ! 06:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nose ring (animals) → Nose ring — 202.0.51.210 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not primary use. The use in humans for decorative purposes is the primary use. While our articles have other names, in common use it is called a nose ring. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is an agricultural article and should remain the same.Cgoodwin (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "nose ring" is not, as such, an agricultural term. When searched, the general term "nose ring" should return all uses, not just "human decoration", which is only a "primary use" in some circles, not all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcajonfarms (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 December 2009

Support. Several points here:

The current Nose ring is a redirect to Nose ring (animals). However, Nose-ring (with a hyphen) redirects instead to Nose piercing. It is unsatisfactory and confusing to have two redirects pointing in different directions when they differ by only a hyphen.
Human nose rings are covered by Nose piercing, and so are clearly not the primary use for the term "nose ring").
The epithet "animals" implies that there is some other article called Nose ring (or Nose ring (something else)). There is no such article, and so there is no reason for an epithet, and Nose ring (animals) is unsupportable as per WP:PRECISION.
I disagree with Elcajonfarms' statement that the general term "nose ring" should return all uses (which I think is suggesting a disambiguation page at Nose ring). There is no challenge to the animal use as the primary one, and the alternative use for humans can be dealt with by a hatnote ("for human nose rings see...").

Therefore I support the proposal as follows: rename Nose ring (animals) to Nose ring, make Nose-ring a redirect to Nose ring, and give Nose ring and Nose piercing hatnotes drawing attention to each other. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the in bound links for Nose ring the only ones that are for articles are all about the human nose ring. And the number there is not much smaller then the number of articles that point to Nose ring (animals). Given that and the fact that nose ring is the common name for the human one, why is anything else considered as the primary use? If you have any questions do a Google search on nose ring and you get about 460,000. How many of the top 25 are for the animal nose ring? One! This article. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the nominator also changed the dab page to a redirect when this was nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that makes sense – but... Discussion about primary use is always in the context of disambiguating articles, not for meanings in general. Human nose rings are covered under another name. "Nose ring" is not in use for any other articles, so it is vacant for use by animal nose rings. I can't really see a way around that – WP:PRECISION is perfectly clear about it. Your arguments do provide support for changing Nose piercing to Nose ring, but I can't see that they support keeping the epithet for Nose ring (animals). Richard New Forest (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you ignore Principle of least astonishment. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that Nose ring (animals) had a total number of page view in November of 1872. While Nose piercing had 24,872 and Nose ring had 408. Clearly one article is more popular then the other. The redirect from Nose ring makes up for almost 25% of the hits for the animal one and when you consider the facts that many of these are about the human version as noted above, there is no question about what should be the target of the redirect. What we can not easily calculate is the number of links to Nose ring have needed to be changed over time, but I'd hazard a guess that this is rather significant. So I think you can see that the current redirect does much more harm then good and this data clearly shows that it should be change to Nose piercing rather then having the wrong article moved over the redirect. The fact that an article has a different name does not mean that you ignore it in deciding the target for a redirect or the need to not move an article. I think I have presented a very strong case and now it is supported by real numbers. If you would like, I could probably write an article on nose rings to make the case even stronger. I believe that part of your objection is based your opinion that we are keeping 'the epithet for Nose ring (animals)'. The only meaning that I can see you referring to is 'An abusive or contemptuous word or phrase'. How is that when it the form of the current article is the stand form used in the entire encyclopedia to disambiguate like named terms per well accepted guidelines? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Nose ring now is a disambiguation page and I think it should stay that way. Human wearing of nose rings is of two very distinct kinds: tradition, where the nose ring is extremely conventional; and fashion, where the point is to be individual, unconventional, and exercise personal choice. The two are worlds apart. Only one of those kinds of nose rings has an article on Wikipedia, but once the other article exists, will either of them be the primary topic? I think not. --Una Smith (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The disambiguation clearly works as is. Steven Walling 08:46, 5 December 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.

Sneck

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sneck The definition of a sneck is both of latching/locking onto something and it also means the nose. Therefore a sneck latches onto the animals nose. This is the agricultural definition.
Colinmotox11 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, neither of those defs are for a nose-ring as such. Do you have a ref for that meaning? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Above discussion moved from User talk:Richard New Forest#Sneck, following insertion of "sneck" as an alternative name for this item. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate links

I have removed several links from the article that have been part of a recent edit war. If one is going to tag this article with the animal rights template, then the article must contain something about animal rights (with due weight and suitably sourced with reliable sources). If one simply wants to identify this as a topic of interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights, then the appropriate action is to tag this Talk page with {{WikiProject Animal rights}}. That is all that needs to be done.

Relevent policies/guidelines include:

From Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates:
- The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
- The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
- Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.
From Wikipedia:Navigation template:
- every article listed on a particular navigation template generally has the template placed on its page.
- They [navigation templates] should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value.
- If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them.
From MOS:SEEALSO:
- The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic.

Some animal rights advocates, editing in Wikipedia, have inappropriately mass-tagged hundreds (thousands?) of articles in Wikipedia with the Template:Animal rights navigation template which has over 350 entries on it, which is very oversized for a horizontal navbar. The topic of nose rings isn't in the template, and animal rights isn't mentioned in the article on nose rings. However, this argument applies to all of the many articles tagged with Template:Animal rights which are not also listed in the template and where animal rights hasn't been mentioned in the article. The same arguments apply to tagging "see also", "categories" and "templates" all together at the same time (advocacy spam), and also includes the subjects of Animal rights, Animal welfare and Cruelty to animals. WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS may also apply in this situation.

Platonk (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit

This article was a mess and was predominantly being used to describe how and why bulls are dangerous (which belongs in the Bull article). Also, there were duplicate citations; the lead was too verbose; there were too many low quality or simply decorative images, and not enough informative photos (I added 3); too much information about bulls, dangers of bulls, management of bulls, deaths by bulls, and not enough direct information about NOSE RINGS. I reorganized the page by animal/use and what seemed logical. I did not remove all the old content, but it's likely not in the same old place. Sorry, but the diff will be gobbledegook. I doubt I even touched the pig section. I didn't read all the citations, but did read many of them, and discarded several sub-par or tangential ones in favor of the better ones that were already there, or some I found and added. Some of the older citations I updated with newer URLs from their websites, and I found some links to citations that didn't have any. The result is more streamlined and a lot more on-topic. Platonk (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]