Talk:Bulling (cattle)

	Agriculture portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Livestock task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Content of article

The following discussion began on Talk:Cattle, and was initially about whether Bulling (cattle) should be linked in the "See also" section of Cattle. It followed this edit by Xtzou, reverted by this edit by Bob98133, with the summary "revert - linking to an article of which you are the sole editor and which cites only one unreliable commercial reference is not acceptable; pls discuss prior to reverting". [Richard New Forest (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I did not write the article bulling. I merely fixed it up after it was written. Someone else has enlarged and rewritten it and moved to a different name. Please do not jump to faulty conclusion regarding the article. I added it to See also because bulling has to do with the topic of cattle and should be included here. Please read bulling before you dismiss it. Xtzou (Talk) 12:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Xtzou. It was unclear if you were the anonymous editor who created the article. Nonetheless, all edits since the creation and up until yesterday have been by you. The only reference for that article is to a commercial "Breeding for profit" website, which does not meet WP:RS criteria. Based solely on that, the bulling article should be a candidate for speedy deletion. Using an unreliable article as a See Also, seems silly to me. If the bulling article had a real reference, I would have no objection to its inclusion in the cattle article. I see others have been working on that, so perhaps Bulling article will someday have a real ref. Bob98133 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who expanded the article a bit and moved it.

Bob – I think you're probably right that the ref given fails WP:RS, although it does mostly appear quite authorative, and most of the content agrees well with my own knowledge of cattle behaviour and usage of the term. I'm sure there'll be no trouble finding a better ref for it. (I don't think much of the "signal to the bull" theory though: as far as I can see in my own cattle the motivation is sheer sexual desperation, and our bulls don't seem to need any such "signal"! A dairy farmer's theory I think, used to seeing large numbers of cows kept without bulls.)

Notwithstanding all that, I am not yet convinced that there will be enough material for a full article, and it may be that the content would be better as a para in Cattle, or even in Estrous cycle. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no reason for an entire article on a minor side behavior that can be thoroughly covered in the main article. Almost all mammals occasionally do this sort of thing, it's no big deal. A merge will work if deletion doesn't. Montanabw^(talk) 01:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Montanabw. This should just be a few sentences in the main cattle article. Steven Walling 06:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason that this should be kept as a separate article.Cgoodwin (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bulling (cattle). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706104401/http://www.genaust.com.au/Articles/CowBehaviour.aspx to http://www.genaust.com.au/Articles/CowBehaviour.aspx

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) 12:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]