Jump to content

Talk:Rooster

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

Move last paragraph elsewhere?

[edit]

Should the last paragraph in this article, about a person named Rooster, be here? It's not about the bird per se. Wouldn't this be better on its own page with a disambiguation link? Rooster613 21:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

Maybe the author could tell me where the place in the Talmud is, where people talk about the rooster?

thanks!!

Etymology

[edit]

Like many English words, "cock" comes from the French "coq" (pronounced similarly). As for "cockerel", it comes from the French "coquelet" which describes a young cock. We also have "capon" in French to describe a spayed cock. When the French invaded the British Isles in 1066, they brought along with them many words, in particular culinary ones. Examples: "sheep" in French is "mouton" --> "mutton". "Ox" is "boeuf" --> "beef". The list goes on. In the US, I've heard most people use the word "rooster". However, farmers will oftentimes say "cock". Ditto at the butchery shop. I've never heard my butcher say "rooster", and in his shop, roosters are labeled "cock" or "cockerel" if they're younger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Spayed cock" is the epitome of gendered misnomer...Spayed refers to female sterilization. By very definition, a cock CANNOT be spayed. 71.226.227.121 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Cock (chicken) → cockerel – unparenthesised disambiguation is preferred. Jooler 11:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments

Such a move would be American English centric and unrepresentative of the global English-speaking population. - Gilgamesh 03:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I am American, and we say cock or more commonly rooster, not cockerel. I was assuming that cockerel was common elsewhere. -- Reinyday, 05:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • comment to above comment I'm also an American and I'm familiar with the term cockerel as a young male bird, but then, I raise chickens <g>. Rooster613 21:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]
      • comment The problem is that a cockerel is a young cock.[2] Moving this article to "cockerel" is like moving "male" to "boy", or "tomcat" to "kitten", etc. If you want to refer to an adult male bird, you say "cock". Also, cock (chicken) is more than appropriate as this article refers specifically to male chickens, and not male birds in general. In fact, the article isn't too clear on that—I'll edit it now. - Gilgamesh 07:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A Chicken is a young bird[3] adults are Hens[4] and Cocks or Roosters[5]. As Cock has more than one meaning and is used to describe the male in more than one species of bird (eg "who shot cock robin?") I suggest using "Rooster" as the article is about poultry and redirects take care of those who do not know that a Rooster is a poultry cock. Philip Baird Shearer 18:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In common American usage, a "chick" is a baby bird (either sex) not yet feathered out, and a "chicken" refers to the species in general. If someone makes chicken soup, it is not necessarily from a young bird! In fact, older hens are often boiled for soup, being too tough to fry or bake. Ditto for older cocks. But nobody I know of calls it "hen" or "cock" soup. Rooster613 21:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

Only Americans, Canadians, and English-speakers who are totally unfamiliar with chickens would make this mistake. Internationally, a male chicken is a "cock", and "rooster" as an adult cock is locale-specific. - Gilgamesh 06:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's just nonsense, if it is a mistake then it is one I've been making for most of my life. Cockerel is just as common as cock in Britain. Jooler 06:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about "rooster", not "cockerel". - Gilgamesh 10:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right at the top you said "Such a move would be American English centric and unrepresentative" - referring to moving this to cockerel (although cockerel is not commonly used in the USA). Later you say "Only Americans, Canadians, and English-speakers who are totally unfamiliar with chickens would make this mistake." not quite sure what mistake you are referring to now. Jooler 10:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In urban and suburban parts of the United States, rooster is by far the most common term for an adult male of this species. Cock is known but rarely used because of the association with sexual slang. Cockerel may be spoken vocabulary for people who actually raise these birds, but elsewhere in this country it's strictly reading vocabulary: never heard, seldom read, and not universally understood. User:Gilgamesh has some odd ideas about North American English. Please make specific comments. Like User:Jooler, I'm unsure what the second supposed mistake implies. Question: is there any English speaking country where rooster is uncommon? Durova 06:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply. The United Kingdom, home of English, for one. I have rarely heard rooster used outside of American programmes and films, and when I have heard it used in conversation it has often been frowned upon. The preferred noun here is Cock(erel). Dan 21:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cock is a good old world, but here in Australia, Edna Everage and euphemism rule. If you say "cock" people are embarrassed. Hey-ho! Victorian values prevail.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Discision

[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Cock" instead of "cockerel"

[edit]

I've edited the article to change references of "rooster" and "cockerel" to "cock" unless they refer specifically to the young cock (which is specifically what "cockerel" means[6]). As most of the references are age-indeterminate, I changed most of them to "cock". - Gilgamesh 07:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this -- it is consistent and accurate. Rooster613 21:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

Rooster vs cock

[edit]

Is this some kind of strange prescriptivism? Rooster is *the* word in Australia (cock=penis), and I'm sure in NZ too. Could some English users attest to usage there? Perhaps amongst older generations "cock" retains currency, but I struggle to believe that young Brits say "that's a nice looking cock" with a straight face. I have never heard of "rooster" meaning only "young male chicken". This statement: Only Americans, Canadians, and English-speakers who are totally unfamiliar with chickens would make this mistake. Internationally, a male chicken is a "cock", and "rooster" as an adult cock is locale-specific is quite simply absurd. Google for "year of the rooster" vs "year of the cock" as one evidence of this (10 to 1 in favour of rooster). Stevage 03:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. People in Britain don't say "rooster", and it sounds American to British ears. Your example ("that's a nice looking cock") is a deliberate bit of innuendo. It probably would provoke laughter in some circumstances, but that doesn't mean people in Britain say rooster any more than anyone avoids using the name "Dick". 86.136.1.31 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you were discussing a male chicken, then yes you could definitely say "that's a nice looking cock" because the context would make it clear what you meant. As the previous user stated, it's the same situation with the name Dick, it's perfectly okay to use it as a name even though it has very rude connotations out of context. For example, in his Kitchen Nightmares series the chef Gordon Ramsay frequently refers to confident students as looking as proud as a cock, and it's understood that he's referring to a male chicken.

According to my dictionary, "rooster" is an "adult male chicken"; it doesn't say what country it's used in. I think you're right, it's a case of prescriptivism.--Cuchullain 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to asking google. The query "cock hen -p***y -f**k -porn -xxx chicken" generates 175,000 results. "Rooster hen -p***y -f**k -porn -xxx chicken" generates 717,000 results. I take this as strong evidence that "rooster" is the more widespread term. Claiming otherwise is, well, wrong. When do we rename? Stevage 21:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate to go by total numbers of individuals—English as a language with multiple standards has different speech locales. What about England? What about Ireland? What about Malta? What about Singapore? What about South Africa? What about Guyana? U.S.-Canada should not be dictating international linguistic policy for all the rest of us. Yes, I do live in U.S., but I still say cock with a totally straight face. And 2005 was "Year of the Cock" from January 1 to December 31. Cock cock cock cock cock. It's an easy single syllable, and I say it both in private and in public no matter who is listening, because it's a male chicken first and foremost. Cock and hen. Hen and cock. Cock-a-doodle-doo. Cockfight. "Cocky" means "acting like a cock." To be honest, I had never heard other people saying "cock" as "penis" until I moved here, and even then it was only after I first came online in 1996, and I found it utterly bizarre. I speak English, and I'm not going to start saying "rooster" if it's unnatural to me. - Gilgamesh 05:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm from Australia, and "rooster" is certainly the standard term there. The other argument for changing names is to get rid of the brackets in the main article's name. Wouldn't "rooster" be better than "cock (chicken)"? Particularly as rooster is almost unambiguous. I'm certainly not asking you to change your habits, but ultimately Wikipedia does decide which word it prefers in situations like this. See "eyeglasses" vs "glasses" vs "spectacles", "lift" vs "elevator", "foothpath" vs "sidewalk" etc. Stevage 10:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this should go to RfC? I was wondering this myself when I looked this article up... Cernen Xanthine Katrena 13:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cock is just short for cockerel, cockerel is way more commonly used here (I'm from England, but I don't speak for the whole country) not that people actually need to use either that often, mind, but people are more likely to complain about a cockerel crowing, than a roster crowing. To say that you couldn't talk about a "cock" with a straight face doesn't really change the meaning of the word, and since it is just a shortened version of the full name, the debate should be between cockerel and rooster, neither of which are ambiguous or could cause any alarm.

That article is wrong, which can be established very easily because the Anglo-Saxon word for cock/rooster is cocc. The word cockerel is a diminutive of cock, in other words meaning 'little or young cock'. The word cock also gave rise to compounds such as coxscomb (the red crest on the cock's head), cock-fighting, cockpit (ring for cock-fighting), weathercock, peacock, and even cockney (originally meaning "cock's egg", used in Shakespeare to mean "impudent fellow"). The sexual meaning developed later.Merlin Cox (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Language is inclusive of all dialects. Hijacking a lexicon is not permissible to any strict subset of the general population, even if that subset is a general majority (in whichever way such a "majority" may be measured: Stevage consults Google, others consult dictionaries, etc.). As long as "cock" has relevant encyclopaedic currency wrt to any of its meanings, so it will be described on Wikipedia. IMO Gilgamesh has a supremely legitimate point that English is not just a language of two/three "nations," but a conglomerate of global standards.... Stevage, please give up this argument for the sake of argument (rather, for the sake of peace). 76.181.43.101 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NIV translation of the Bible uses "rooster" in the American version and "cock" in the British version. 86.147.51.197 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment - Cock or Rooster?

[edit]

I've posted a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. I'm not very familiar with the process but hopefully hordes of people will suddenly show up here oozing with common sense and we'll have an answer one way or the other.

Argument for renaming to rooster: is at least as common as 'cock' (and probably much more so), and it avoids having a disambiguation in the title Argument for keeping as cock: "rooster" is seen as American, cock is seen as more correct term. Stevage 20:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC United States responding (urban/suburban, both coasts) - rooster predominates. Durova 06:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Agree that rooster is the more common term used in North America (my place of residence), but that cock would appear as the more appropriate "global" term and would support it's use as the title of this article. Gwyllgi 13:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC I repeated Stevage's search experiment--the rooster query returned 173k results, the cock query 102k results. The best guess is that rooster predominates in English usage, pending further evidence. -- Alan McBeth 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Cock/cockerel is my preferred term. However, I would be perfectly happy with Rooster as the page name and a mention of the (general) Commonwealth English equivalent (Australia is a bit of a peculiarity on that front). Rooster predominates pretty much only in American English (and certainly not where I live). That Cock(erel) returns more google hits is probably because of the general American domination of the internet, not because it is any less prevalent globally. Dan 21:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia is a website, so regardless of the number of people using the word "cock", if the majority of internet users use the word "rooster" than we should reflect that her.--Max Talk (add) • Contribs • 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Cock (chicken) is not as "nice" a title as Rooster (the parenthesis are annoying.) Since rooster doesn't have any awkward associations with it, is very well known, and avoids the parenthesis, why not leave it there?--Max Talk (add) • Contribs • 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, everyone knows what a "rooster" is, but "cock," not so much.--Max Talk (add) • Contribs • 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC I don't buy into the politically correct "American English" centrist crap. Let's add numbers. If every American, Candian, and Ausie uses "rooster", that's a total of 348.6 million people (according to the World Fact book) [7]. If every person in the U.K., South Africa, Ireland, Singapore, the Philippines, and New Zealand (someone even suggested that New Zealand uses "rooster" as well), that's a total of 205.0 million. 41% fewer people use the term "cock" rather than rooster. Even if Canada and Austrailia were among those who prefer "cock" (no pun, really), Americans would still have the majority by about 13%. Not only do more Americans speak English than any other country in the world, but more Americans speak English than all other countries combined. The argument that Americans shouldn't get to decide how the rest of the world speaks English is rather hollow. Of course my numbers aren't exactly accurate, but it doesn't take long to look up English Language and find that 67.2% of the world's English speakers are American. 77.5% are American, Canadian, or Austrailian. If rooster is the predominant term in these three countries, I can't see how anyone can argue against changing the title of the article. --Bayyoc 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your arguement, but let's refrain from labelling others' arguements as "crap."--Max Talk (add) • Contribs • 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I apologize. I was attacking the argument, though, not the person. I hope no one took personal offense. (Meaning Gilgamesh in particular) --Bayyoc 20:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RfC - I concur. - JustinWick 20:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC This New Zealander uses, and has always used, "rooster". Daniel Collins 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Canadians I know use "rooster" also. Since New Zealand and Australia have weighed in on the side of "rooster," there seems to be agreement among the more larger English speaking countries outside the British isles. Since "rooster" also avoids unpleasant connotations, let's make that the name for the article and include a couple of lines about regional variants. Durova 23:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are not out to be Victorian. Unpleasant connotations in some of the dialects is none of my concern, and I don't see how it should be a scholarly work's concern. I still insist on "cock" as most internationally neutral and canonical, as "rooster" is not global, while "cock" is (albeit often not used in some places because of the remnants of Victorian notions of modesty). If you look "cock" in the dictionary, the first definitions are about birds. Even in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the "penis" definition is 7th in the list. - Gilgamesh 13:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe same can be said of rooster. While the first of many definitions of "cock" involve birds, the ONLY definitions of "rooster" involve birds, or comparisons to birds (i.e. a "cocky" human male). I don't know how this debate got started, whether it was about connotations or not. My argument has nothing to do with connotations, but is solely based on numbers. More people use the term "rooster" than "cock", period. I don't know what you mean by internationally neutral. Even in Great Briton, anyone who hears the term "rooster" is going to understand what you mean. "My, that's a huge rooster!" "My, that's a huge cock!" Tell me, which term is more precise (in modern usage)? Given that 77.5% of the English speaking world uses the word "rooster", I can't see how you can claim it isn't "global". Usage determines the definition of a word, not vice-versa. Fagot (or faggot, however you want to spell it) is clear proof of this. Perhaps fourty years ago, cock would have been the prefered term. American influence on everything, including language, has changed things. I suspect that some Brits are a little bitter that Americans have hijacked their proud and noble language and twisted it into something vulgar (there's another word whose meaning has changed) and base. That's not sarcasm, I rather sympathize with such a sentiment. Nevertheless, American usage is the global standard, simply due to shear numbers, including the global distribution of American media.--Bayyoc 19:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply In a previous poll Gilgamesh claimed that "cockerel" is American English, which it isn't. In fact that word usually draws blank stares in the United States. Later Gilgamesh claimed that only North Americans say "rooster." Australian and New Zealander editors have posted to that it's actually the preferred term for them. Other editors have tried the Google test and "rooster" predominates. Gilgamesh's continued insistence that "cock" is "as most internationally neutral and canonical" has worn thin. Durova 01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhile I don't see any harm in the move from Cock(chicken) to Rooster per se, I am a bit disturbed at the implication that number of countries or number of speakers should be the major determinant in word choice. If I understand the working MOS framework that's been used here at wikipedia correctly, in the absence of a clear consensus an article should use the english variant of the first major contributer rather than counting up native speakers or countries using other variants. Moving it on the basis of a numbers argument is just the sort of precedent that could easily lead to moves of Yoghurt to Yogurt or Press up to Push up and I can't imagine why we'd want that happening.Zebulin (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Rooster

[edit]

I'm taking the above discussion as consensus for the move. Obviously nothing is final, and if another 20 people show up and all clamour for Cock (chicken), then someone should move it back. Probably someone else should close the discussion at RfC? Anyway thanks all for the comments.

There are also a few more double redirects [8] to fix (almost all links to cockerel) - redirecting to either cock (chicken) or rooster will at least only create a single redirect. Stevage 21:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed RFC. --James S. 01:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive?

[edit]

"The Talmud refers to learning "courtesy towards one's mate" from the cock. Although some find this offensive."

The 'offensivness' of this remark isn't really explained. The explanation (calling hens to eat first) seems to be the reason for the Talmud's proscription, not the reason for the offensiveness. If there isn't more explanation for the reason it's offensive, I'd reccomend removing the remark. -- 16:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. I have no idea why this would be offensive or who the "some" are who might consider it so might be. The rooster calling his hens demonstrates that he lets others eat first which is basic courtesy -- and the actual quote in the Talmud says "courtesy from the rooster" without the "toward one's mate" part, which seems to be a paraphrase. The entire quote is: "If the Torah had not been given [to the Jews at Mt. Sinai], we could have learned modesty from the cat, honest labor from the ant, marital fidelity from the dove, and courtesy from the rooster." (Talmud, Eruvin 100b) So, I am going to correct the quote, remove the "offensive" part, and also add the ref for the Talmud quote. Rooster613 17:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]
  • it's offensive to people who are born in the year of the rooster

i added boldness to the word "cock" for emphasis OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdww00 (talk • contribs)

Please don't do that: please read the manual of style for more information on Wikipedia style conventions. -- The Anome 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cockerel (again)

[edit]

In my part of England (the West Midlands) "cockerel" is by far the most common term, and is not only used to refer to young birds. We'd say "at cock-crow", yes, but the bird itself is practically always a "cockerel", not a "cock" or a "rooster". 86.136.250.100 05:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

[edit]

might want to change the wording on this particular line...."(most birds, the cock included, do not possess a penis)." In referring to the (lack of a) penis of the animal it might be best not to use a synonym of penis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.219.134 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Exactly. But why would we change cock if it is the most commonly used word in the article.:D (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture caption

[edit]
A cock relaxing in sunlight.

"Relaxing"?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 07:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a great picture 76.117.247.55 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cock or hen?

[edit]

Rooster, cock or hen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.91.207.30 (talk) 10:17, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Cock-a-doodle-do

[edit]

The sound made by the cock is spelled onomatopœically as "cock-a-doodle-do" in English, but otherwise in some other languages, such as: Arabic kookookoo-koo, Bulgarian кукуригу (kukurigu), Catalan Co-co-ro-co, Chinese goh-geh-goh-goh, Croatian ku-ku-ri-ku Czech kykyrikí, Danish kykeliky, Dutch kukeleku, Esperanto kokeriko, Estonian kukeleegu or kikerikii, Faroese kakkulárakó, Filipino Tik-ti-la-ok, Finnish kukkokiekuu, French cocorico, German kikeriki, Greek kikiriku, Gujarati kuk-de-kuk, Hebrew ku-ku-ri-ku, Hindustani kuk-roo-koon or kuk-roo-kroon, Hungarian kukurikú, Indonesian kukuruyuk, Italian chicchirichì, Japanese ko-ke kokkoh, Korean k'ok'iyo, Lithuanian ka-ka-rie-ku, Latvian ki-ke-ri-gū, Norwegian kykkeliky, Polish kukuryku, Portuguese Có có ró có, Romanian cucurigu, Russian ку-ка-ре-ку (ku-ka-rye-ku), Sanskrit काक (kāka), Serbian ku-ku-ri-ku, Slovak kikirikí,Slovene kikiriki, Spanish qui-qui-ri-qui', Swahili KokoRikoo koo, Swedish kuckeliku, Tamil ko-ka-ra-ko, Thai yeki-yeki-yek, Turkish üü-ürü-üüü, and Vietnamese ò-ó-o-o.

Does this article really need to relate how to say "cock-a-doodle-do" in a couple dozen languages? It really stops the flow of the text. Does the article on pigs have "oink" in every language? Isn't this a bit silly? And is it important to know what the rooster says in Esperanto, a totally made-up language? Is someone going to add Klingonese cock crows?
Agree, it really breaks up the text, especially occurring so early in the article. If it is to be retained, it should at least be moved down into a specific section on rooster calls. Funnyhat (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, all humans hear very similar sounds when the rooster crows, except the anglophones who hear the weird "cock a doodle do"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an English speaker, but I've never heard a rooster actually say "cock-a-doodle-do" - that's just a silly human word for it. Certainly not "onomatopoeia," as the original poster on this topic seemed to claim. I've also never heard a rooster make any sound that even vaguely resembled the letter K at all, so the "ki-ki-ri-ki" type sound I don't think is more accurate either, but probably just spread from one language to another. If I were to try to write out the sound a rooster makes to describe it to someone who had never heard the sound before it would be something like "EER!-ERR-er-EERRRRRRRRRRR!" 78.54.20.210 (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I meant to put it in the edit summary but I hit enter when I was trying to hit shift. That link is barely relevant to an encyclopedic article about roosters, more a thinly veiled advertisement for the art software. Errick 13:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morabito

[edit]

I get no google hits at all for this person (except dentists etc with the same name). This is very strange as the article describes him as infamous. Can anyone with a copy of Bartletts confirm that it does actually mention him or otherwise come up with another reference. Its starting to sound like it is made up to me. SpinningSpark 10:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hits on Google Books either, even though Bartletts is definitely listed there. SpinningSpark 10:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, definitely vandalism, the OP is doing similar stuff to other articles. I'll revert it. SpinningSpark 11:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Greene, Dave. The A-Z Of Snaring Cocks - Trapping And Taming, TG4 Lowtimes Press, 1995

I cannot find any proof of the existence of this book either. Nor of the alleged publisher. Both get zero google hits other than forks and mirrors of Wikipedia. If no-one can confirm it soon, I will delete the reference. SpinningSpark 16:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy

[edit]

I had hoped to find some information about rooster anatomy here--specifically I was looking for the correct name for the feathers on a rooster's head and neck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.32.94 (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Just wondering, why was Image:Rooster04 adjusted.jpg removed from the article? It's a Featured Picture. If it's judged to be not useful for this, then it may need to be delisted. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think an image that hides half of the animal is useful encyclopedically. I tried to use it in Chicken, but even in a larger taxobox image it doesn't show enough of the bird. VanTucky Vote in my weird poll! 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On May 15, 2008 at 20:29, VanTucky said "Yeah, I don't think" As if a head is any better... it hides 95% of the animal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.69.131 (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical references

[edit]

Article needs "Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times." stuff anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.10.176.146 (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone Out There?

[edit]

Can anyone help me? My uncle has just got a Rooster but I don't know what breed of Rooster it is! Although it looks a bit like a Rhode Island Red I don't think it is. Can anyone please either describe different breeds or display pictures of any breeds of Roosters that look like the following:

♦Orange-ish feathers ♦Greenish-black tail feathers ♦Grey legs

If anyone can help please do. B375 (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why a specific page for roosters?

[edit]

Why do Roosters get a specific page but "hen" redirects to the generic "chicken"? Bencoder (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply "merge with hen" to form "chick"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.69.131 (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article really sucks

[edit]

I have been cruisin all day and this is the poorest article I have had the misfortune of stumbling upon. Cocks do not have a dominate foot? Why is this here vandalism?

This article is under the food section seems odd as well. It is poorly organized poorly sourced and poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.34 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the answer is simple: stop whining and rectify it. XLerate (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or vandalize it some more, wikipedia exists for our entertainment!

Shredded alive

[edit]

Maybe in this article some information could be given about the fact, that daily milions of these animals are shredded alive, at the age of one or a few days old, in egg-farms (where they are concidered worthless).--VKing (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe this is a usefull external link: [9]. --VKing (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And an external link to a picture, showing in what circumstances these animals are supposed to find themselves on such a very young age: [10].--VKing (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name in New Zealand

[edit]

The statement only cockerel is used in New Zealand is untrue, and a WP:OR violation - "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience". Mainstream New Zealand news websites show:

Site Rooster Cockerel
NZ Herald 307 25
TVNZ 49 0
Stuff.co.nz 177 11
TV3 54 0

XLerate (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Cockerel' is used, and a significant number of references have been given. You may consider that 'rooster' has some form of seniority ... fine, that is for you to consider. You may not like the word 'Cockerel', however that is not of interest to Wikipedia. What does matter is to demonstrate the word is used, and it is. It is impossible to ignore that 'Cockerel' sees considerable usage in NZ, and references to this have been provided. Please do not remove them.
Please could you also treat other editors politely and courteously: this does not include posting inappropriate warnings about 'edit wars', when any such was started by yourself. Such behaviour is rude and unconstructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.4.25 (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers above have rooster about 94% of the time in the New Zealand mainstream news media, cockerel about 6% of the time. I want to restore New Zealand to "almost always" to accurately reflect the usage statistics. The references you've added don't gauge the usage of either term.
I also feel the number of references for Ireland is excessive, would you be willing to trim it to one or two? I don't think that portion is contentious. XLerate (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
  • Ireland - I have no issue should you reduce the number of references. My only concerns are there should be references and that the usage of 'Cockerel' is recognised.
  • NZ - I can not support the use of words to suggest the seniority of either 'Cockerel' or 'Rooster.' Both terms are in use and therefore both are valid inclusions. The numbers quoted above do not reflect a 94% usage of 'Rooster.' What the above table shows is four references using 'Rooster' more frequently, whereas I have provided four references which use 'Cockerel' exclusively. A neutral statement noting the usage of both seems the most suitable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.4.25 (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland: ok, thanks
Common name in New Zealand: there's no doubt cockerel is used, but rarely according the media statistics. I'm sure you understand the links above go to 587 articles with rooster, and 36 articles with cockerel. Adding the four you've provided doesn't change the percentage significantly. It wouldn't be sensible to add links to 600+ articles, the summary is fine. How do you feel about wording along the lines "In North America, AU & NZ, rooster is almost always used, occasionally cockerel"?. XLerate (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, you seem to be mistaking references found in some online media sources to usage in a whole country. Getting off the subject a little, but it does have some relevance, the NZ Herald routinely refers to NZ'ers of European descent as 'Pakeha', where as there are plenty who find this pejorative and insulating .. although this attitude is softening. Of course I would not include this in any article (and defintely not this one) without suitable reference lest it be deemed original research, I note it here as an example that the language of the media does not necessarily fully represent that of a country.
  • What is very important to note is the skewed statistics of quoting the number of 'hits' for rooster found in NZ media. Many of these hits will be refering to the Australian league club Sydney Roosters and not the poultry. Clearly rugby is of very considerable greater interest to the country's readership than poultry.
  • Just stating both 'Cockerel' and 'Rooster' are used is factual, whereas attempting to define relative usage is reliant on imprecise data, and data that is distorted towards an unrelated subject.
  • Also, I can see no value to the article in trying to rank relative usage when both 'Cockerel' or 'Rooster' are common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.4.25 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a policy on this: WP:UNDUE. You haven't proven rooster and cockerel are both commonly used, the statistics show us rooster is used far more often than cockerel in the news, which both reflects and influences use by the general public. The NZ Herald is the largest newspaper in the country by circulation, it is mainstream news regardless of opinions of it in certain areas. There are a number of hits referring to sport, but this is the case for both terms - for cockerel, as a symbol of France(example). If there is not proof cockerel is used with a similar frequency to rooster, then the article needs to be adjusted to adhere to the NPOV policy, it is unbalanced at the moment. I appreciate if you use cockerel exclusively this may seem off, but the sentence is a broad statement. XLerate (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question about caption for Capon

[edit]

The caption shown makes no sense in English. I don't even know what someone *wants* it to say!

Please make corrections! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed8r (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the picture - it was of poor quality anyways. --NeilN talk to me 17:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comb and wattle

[edit]

Such a long article should explain why a cock has a comb and wattles. That is why I consulted it. — O'Dea (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Rooster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give all the "Religious Significance of Roosters" stuff its own page?

[edit]

Seems out of place to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Delmonte (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

written by first century tannaic sage Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai (Rashbi),

[edit]

who still belive in this nonsense? Within Orthodox Judaism the traditional view that Shimon bar Yochai was the author is prevalent.

R' Menachem Mendel Kasher in a 1958 article in the periodical Sinai argues against the claims of Gershom Scholem that the Zohar was written in the 13th Century by R' Moses De Leon 144.41.3.22 (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rooster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rooster&oldid=1211119332"