Talk:Shambo

Hinduism Low‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 26, 2012, July 26, 2017, July 26, 2021, and July 26, 2024.

Lead

Lead is way too long, and contains half the references - the lead should summarise the article, not be most of it. Slim, why did you effectively revert those changes, which were in line with MoS? Neil ╦ 09:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead isn't too long. See WP:LEAD. Often it's the only part of an article people read, and as a lot may be coming to read it today, we need a decent-sized introduction.

Which part of the MoS are you referring to? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lead section - "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". Perhaps we could write a summary of the article and move the more meaty text into the body of the article? Neil ╦ 09:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does stand alone as an overview. LEAD recommends 1-4 paragraphs depending on length, so this is well within the range. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and put in a summary, and use the (very good) text there as the main article; it's not a summary of the rest of the article at the moment. Let me know what you think. Neil ╦ 09:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I give up. The article is in the process of being written. Do you realize that it's impossible to do that if you keep reverting? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you remove the latest information from the lead??? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you doing italics, you don't own the article. Do you realize it's impossible to improve an article which will be getting a lot of attention if you keep insisting in dumping half the article in the lead? Read Wikipedia:Summary style. Neil ╦ 10:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very precisely saying I don't own it. You do now. Other people have been working on this for some time. I stayed up late in order to be able to update it, because today was the date given for the killing. But you march in, deciding the lead is too long, and that I have to talk to you here instead of working on the article - and that the lead must not contain information on the latest situation, which is just bizarre. So, you're on your own. Good luck. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the lead should contain information on the latest section. I'm trying to work with you here, Slim, please reconsider - you know plenty about this subject from a point of view I don't. I don't own it either, remember. Neil ╦ 10:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this time the lead refers to a critical appeal that was not mentioned before and does not mention the cow being slaughtered at all. Happy now? 9³ (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gangotri

A have added a new subsection on Gangotri, another cow that was "euthanized". I am not sure if it should be a subsection of "Aftermath", a new section, or a new article. Suggestions are welcome. deeptrivia (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And i've now deleted it, as Gangotri has her own wikticle, which this is essentially a duplicate of. I just made the section into a See also. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 11:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Is it just me or is the artical very biased in favour of the monks? Whilst obviously a very emotive subject i feel a more balanced artical would give a more reliable account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.86.0 (talk • contribs) 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In what way is it biased? It was THEIR cow! Haven't you seen Avatar???124.176.222.19 (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]