Talk:Sheep/Archive 1

message: Anyone interested in improving the content of the agricultural information on Wikipedia, here is your opportunity.  Livestock has been nominated as a Collaboration of the Week. H2O 23:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial message

message: Rams will regularly fight even when there are no females about. Their fights are usually fairly determined occasionally involving up to three rams and will last one of them quits. I have not seen sheep blindfolded because of their behaviour. In Australasia the "rut" is not used and is known as joining or mating. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breeding behavior 

message: Could somebody please add Wensleydale cheese in the list of well known sheep cheeses?
an informative link would be http://www.wensleydale.co.uk/ewesmilkwensley.html
Many thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewebcat (talk • contribs) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well known to whom?  There are very few Wensleydale breeders in the US and even less Wensleydale cheese makers.  The link is to a commericial site which would be biased.  Any links to third-party sites would be beneficial to your statement.  --BlindEagletalk~contribs 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food 

message: What is the average life expectancy of sheep? Can someone add that?
65.29.40.220 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life Expectancy? 

message: The introductory paragraph gives the urial as the most likely ancestor.  The subsequent paragraph on "Domestication of sheep" says this is unlikely, giving the moufflon as the ancestor.  Can anyone resolve the contradiction? 
Ferdinand Pienaar 08:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  moufflon or urial? 

message: In Pakistan there's a common domestic animal called a "fat-tailed sheep", which has, I believe, a different name in Urdu than an ordinary sheep.  I think also varieties of sheep cultivated by early inhabitants of South Africa (already there when Dutch colonists arrived) were said to be "fat-tailed".  What's the history of these animals?
Ferdinand Pienaar 08:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Information on this breed is now available on Fat-tailed_sheep  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverGreg (talk • contribs) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fat-tailed sheep? 

message: From article:
:"A ram or wether lamb, after being weaned, is called a hog, or hoggitt, tag, or pug, throughout the first year, or until it renew two teeth; the ewe, a ewe-lamb, ewe-tag, or pug. In the second year the wether takes the name of shear-hog, and has his first two renewed or broad teeth, or he is called a two-toothed tag or pug; the ewe is called a thaive, or two-toothed ewe tag, or pug. In the third year, a shear hog or four-toothed wether, a four-toothed ewe or thaive. The fourth year, a six-toothed wether or ewe. The fifth year, having eight broad teeth, they are said to be full-mouthed sheep. Their age also, particularly of the rams, is reckoned by the number of times they have been shorn, the first shearing taking place in the second year; a shearing, or one-shear, two-shear, &c. The term pug is, I believe, nearly become obsolete. In the north and in Scotland, ewe hogs are called dimonts, and in the west of England ram lambs are called pur lambs.
:The ancient term tup, for a ram, is in full use. Crone still signifies an old ewe. Of crock, I know nothing of the etymology, and little more of the signification, only that the London butchers of the old school, and some few of the present, call Wiltshire sheep horned crocks. I believe crock mutton is a term of inferiority." 
What is the source of this? I am suspicious of the strange first person statements. How many of this names are still in use and where? I have a suspicion that these are mainly British and Irish terms. Rmhermen 19:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
:It's from http://gutenberg.teleglobe.net/1/0/0/7/10074/10074-8.txt  Others have already asked this contributor to credit the source.  I've also been slowly integrating the contributor's cut&paste from public domain texts into the article proper and crediting sources (e.g. snake and James Wolfe).  Samw 22:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard sheep being called woolies (or one wooly), in reference to the number of sheep to be shorn in one go (eg. "We have 5000 woolies for you this year") but not sure it's useful to the article. Donama 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: This is the best definition ever. I think this is what I will now forever call sheep. — —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure 'ruminant quadrepeds' is lifted from some book or other but I can't remember... --Kiand 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: woolly ruminant quadrupeds

message: What causes the black sheeps color to be black? Is the skin of black sheep a different colour or is it just the wool? Any idea of the ratio of white sheep to black sheep? Rusty2005 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just the wool, just like hair on people. There are black, reddish, grey or brown sheep in some breeds. Commercial production relies on sheep carefully bred to minimize the occurance of colored genes as the colored wool cannot be mixed into the normal product stream for white wool. So in commercial wool flocks the incidence will be virtually zero. Even meat flocks sell wool as a secondary product so colored wool is very rare. Specialty and heritage flocks will preserve the color variances in the breed but the wool is used in smaller (and separated) product streams, often using the natural colors and unusual breeds as selling points. Jacob sheep are a breed with multi-colored coats while Shetland sheep, perhaps have the widest range of colors. Rmhermen 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black sheep 

message: Would a sheep's wool keep growing if it's not sheared? How to keep it warm after shearing?
:Yes it does keep growing. A ram that evaded the annual muster in central Australia for more than four years had wool 24cm long. As you can imagine he'd have gotten pretty hot a lot of the time and had it pretty tough. They thought it was pretty amazing he was alive. In South Australia, shearing is normally done in September, October or November so the sheep don't have to worry so much about how to keep cool! — Donama
When a ruminant feels cold, its starts eating more, because the digestion makes a lot of temperature. So, after shearing, you should make sure, that your sheep has enough to eat. More dangerous is, that the sheep are getting to hot, so they stop eating at all.
::While it may seem backward, some sheep do wear coats - but they wear them before shearing to keep the wool cleaner, not after shearing to keep warm. Rmhermen 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also done as part of the bioclip (http://au.merial.com/bioclip/) system so that you can take the fleece off in one piece --Peripitus (Talk) 03:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheep Wool 

message: OK, someone's added a section on how to have sex with sheep. I'm going to remove it but if anyone wants to include it they should probably put it in a different section (rather than right below the opening paragraph). --163.1.223.30 11:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technique 

message: How big are sheep? I know they have a weight range, but what's an average weight or size? Horses are incredibly variable, from miniatures being two feet or less at the shoulder to giant types like Percherons. I assume there's some of the same variability in any animal domesticated for a long time, but still, there's nothing here that indicates how big they are, that I saw, at least. Deirdre 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Horse has a section called "Biology of the Horse" and cattle has a section called just "Biology". I may work on it latter today - but it is not as variable as horses. Rmhermen 22:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  physical characteristics 

message: How long does it take for a sheep to give birth? my kids would like to know. many thanks
:"Sheep gestation usually runs from 145 to 153 days." or about 5 months. Rmhermen 19:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking that is true.  However, due to different breeds coming into heat at different times of the late summer and well into winter, sheep do give birth from winter well into late spring.  --BlindEagletalk~contribs 09:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  gestation 

message: not sure if this is the right article, but something should be mentioned about sheep sexuality and ongoing research about it. --71.240.184.133 04:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, please remember to sign all talk posts with four tildes or the signature button. Second, Wikipedia is not censored, for taste or otherwise. Per Wikipedia' obvious disclaimers and adult content, children should not read it unmonitored. This is the plain and simple truth, and if you think you're going to change this, go ahead and try to delete Anal sex or Pearl necklace. It isn't gonna fly. To allude to homosexuality as "aberrant" is not exactly a neutral or civil thing. Consistent slurs about homosexuality may violate our policies on personal attacks and civility. I don't know what you're talking about with the bestiality nonsense, but the article has never contained a mention of it. However, treatment of the sexuality of sheep and any impact this may have on culture is relevant. VanTucky Talk 04:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sexuality

message: Does anyone belive this is a word?  Should or shouldn't it be removed from here? Rboesen 15:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shoop

message: Are sheep neotenised animals? I was given to understand that most domesticated animals are. --62.136.24.91 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neoteny

message: I cleaned up the images in this article, it had far too many and often crowded things. I moved the merino pic to the economic importance section bc it seemed to fit as the largest commercial flock breed. Also, in cultural significance I added a pic of sheep near the Damascus gate of Jerusalem per the importance of sheep and shepherds in Judeo-christian texts. VanTucky 05:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: I have two sheep sounds - I don't know if we want to use them so I'm sticking them here. Secretlondon 15:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sounds

message: Something keeps me awake at night: I wonder if sheep can get moths?
I do know that some species of moths eats wool, (or rather their larvaes) but do they also lay their eggs in the sheep's wool when the wool is still on the sheep?
:Some flies lay eggs on sheep, the larva burrow into the skin and flesh of the sheep. This illness is called myiasis. The Common Clothes Moth however, may not find the wool on a live sheep to be all that hospitable. The egg will first have to hatch, then the larva will eat for two months, then it will spend two more months in a cocoon. That's 4-5 months hanging on to an animal that walks and rolls around, are exposed to sunlight, changing temperatures and moisture and get their wool cut once a year. The moths' egg is securely fastened, but the larvae is adapted to dark, safe and non-moving surroundings, quite unlike that of a sheep. This is probably the reason why moth attacks are not one of the many illnesses of sheep. EverGreg (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  moths 

message: Should not the title of this article be 'domesticated sheep'?   'Domestic sheep' implies those kept as pets, perhaps.  (Or at least the distinction should be made.) quota 20:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I'm not going to continue with this, but if anyone interested in the accuracy of the article cares to pick up from the various bits of material block-reverted by Van Tucky, many not discussed above, the diff is here  Johnbod (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did think I'd covered all the points under dispute (and I was using that diff) – which ones do you think have been left out? --Richard New Forest (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Van Tucky reverts diff

message: As the intro is supposed to be a "concise overview" (see WP:LEAD), I do not think it is appropriate to include more specific terms used for sheep. Hogget and weaner are not terms often heard outside the industry/farm, and will only confuse readers without an in-depth explanation (which would be inappropriate in an overview). This is why the Glossary of sheep husbandry is linked in the article, and the fact that innumerable other terms exist is made clear. Also, lamb, ewe and ram are universally used terms. Hogget and weaner are not. You almost never hear people in the States say hogget, and it's not used in U.S. sheep literature either - five major books I read published in the 21st century and Sheep! magazine do not use it with any regularity at all. I could be wrong here, but I doubt the everyday Briton or Australian would know the term w/o explanation as well. VanTucky talk 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that including the term is not an appropriate part of the contents of the lead section, which is supposed to be a concise overview of the article. This is why there is a link to the glossary. If you want to add a definition of hogget somewhere in the body with the referenced idea that hogget wool is the most valuable, that's perfectly fine with me. But including every term for sheep at a specific life stage in the lead is not in line with style guidelines in my view. VanTucky talk 18:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Points in the hogget issue to consider are:
1 Australia and New Zealand are the world’s biggest producers of sheep and wool except for China.
2 China already has its own Wikipedia.
3 Hogget meat is sold in Australasia, ie that is Australia and New Zealand.
4 Hogget wool is the finest and most valuable wool.
5. I noticed that you have used the term tup at the same location. This term was not included in any of my extensive collection of books on sheep and wool production. Nor could I find it in EB, World Book or the Australian or NZ Encyclopedias. A web search yielded Tupperware and an assortment of articles unrelated to sheep, plus several that seem to indicate that the term is only used in IRE & ENG.
6. The existing sheep article did not contain or link to hoggets.
7. Five references to hogget were also provided for your information. 
8. "Hogget" is commonly used in A'asia, but it is a very large industry with links to many nations. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: First off, I must have missed tup in the lead in my hurry, that should be removed even more than hogget (you're absolutely right, it is a UK/Ireland specific term). But you seem to have completely ignored my primary reason for removing hogget and weaner from the lead, as well as not even addressing the inclusion of weaner. I already knew hogget was an important term, so you don't need to provide a bunch of refs. But having references is not an instant gateway to inclusion. There are also more detailed policies and guidelines than just WP:V and WP:RS. The section in which you want the word is the lead (or intro). The Manual of Style guidelines on the lead define it as a concise overview of the article, not an overview of the subject. A concise overview should not include a multiple word list for every specific term for young sheep. Lamb is far and away the most common internationally used term for young sheep, and should be the primary one included in an overview. Hogget is by comparison not a universally used term, and is used nowhere in the body of the article. If the term isn't used in the article it doesn't need definition, and if it isn't a good fit per lead guidelines, then it doesn't belong. Hogget is defined in the Glossary of sheep husbandry (or should be), and that suffices. VanTucky talk 07:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You haven't responded, but I'll elaborate in a more simple way. If we include very specific terms like hogget and weaner, there is no logical argument for preventing the inclusion of a full list of similar terms. To say hogget and weaner are more important than shearling, gimmer, gummer, teg, and other terms is not supported by evidence. So for the sake of brevity, which is a requirement of lead sections, only the single most common names for female, male and infant sheep can be included. It's a slippery slope otherwise. VanTucky talk 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed terminology in lead 

message: At 72 kb, it may be time to split one section out into a separate article or simply place it in another. According to WP:SIZE, 60 kb is where an article should "probably" be split, and 100 is "almost certainly". I'm considering putting Flock management into Sheep husbandry, as the section doesn't actually speak on sheep. It's about how sheep are kept: i.e. sheep husbandry. Any objection?  VanTucky talk 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't worry, have alook at vampire...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still glad I moved it. It was off-topic a little bit, and the article is growing again. VanTucky talk 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: Erm, odd - why not singular all through lead? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking why sheep is used in both its plural and singular sense? Because that's how you use the word. There's no other way. It makes for odd reading to write a lead that refers to all sheep collectively at times and stay in singular form all the time as well. However, if you have an alternate version of the lead you want to propose, be my guest. The maxim is "be bold" for a reason. VanTucky talk 05:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, tricky come to think of it. Yes I am often bold but I can see this is an oeuvre in progress....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Needs some form of etymology section...remember everything in lead needs to be in body somehwerecheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help Calisber. The etymology stuff is covered in the In Europe subsection of History. I'd normally make it a separate section, but there isn't that much and the article is already 71 KiB long. VanTucky talk 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: Forgot to add the article is looking pretty darn good and romping home to FAC sometime soon I take it...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead singular/plural 

message: I just found this image of a seven legged lamb on Flickr! None of the sources I've read speak at length on genetic mutations such as this. Does anyone have anymore info? VanTucky talk 23:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a case of an underdeveloped Siamese twin, or simply a genetic defect causing duplication of the limbs (though I'd wager the former is the more common case). -- 62.143.139.233 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polydactl sheep? 

message: Gosh - need to mention these in cultural depictions....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? There is "baa baa black sheep" and a mention of the term black sheep and its definition. VanTucky 20:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I just expanded the explanation of the term in Cultural significance. Also note that there is a mention of colored sheep in the second paragraph of Description. VanTucky 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, good. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Sheep? 

message: See discussion on this at Talk:Sheep husbandry--Richard New Forest (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   Query flushing before conception increasing birth weight. 

message: Storey's Guide, sitting right in front of me, says that a minority of sheep producers use alt medicine methods and find them effective. They cite everything from anecdote from producers to a University of North Carolina comparative study. If you dispute whether the treatments are truly effective, that's fine. I think adding a second bit about how the pubmed study found it to be ineffective is a good idea. But removing all mention of alt medicine for sheep in unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to discount the experience of real world sheep producers using these methods, as evidenced in the source material. It's a part of sheep health care that is notable enough to deserve mention in multiple sheep books, and in this article too. VanTucky 07:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What treatments are these? I can understand that perhaps some herbalist might stumble across an effective treatment from time to time, but homeopathy? That one stretches the imagination a bit far. I think the problem in the article right now is its lack of specificity makes it seem like any of the mentioned treatments are possibly effective when, most likely, controlled studies would find few are. This is a wording issue more than anything. I trust VanTucky's sources, so I ask him: is a strong statement on the efficacy of alt med treatments really that important for the article? I put an alternative wording in for your consideration. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The book lumps all three together in their phrasing, which is why I did. The one that was the subject of the UNC study that showed a statistical significance was herbalism and TCM but not homeopathy. VanTucky 07:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. But VanTucky's book is probably good for saying what sheepists believe. I'm providing a compromise rewrite to see if that flies. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I love the word you just invented SP. "Sheepists" sounds vaguely evil :) I just revised it , and I added the cite you provided Adam. Check it out and let me know what you think, VanTucky 07:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked it over. It looked a bit too specific to me. The basic idea is that there is anecdotal evidence from the sheepists and skepticism from the journals. Wikipedia:Summary style and all. It's best not to get too hung up on holding fast-and-tight to individual sources lest we fall prey to WP:NPOV violations. The general idea is one I think we can all agree upon. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is skepticism from one journal source provided so far. Unless you can provide multiple journal articles that have the same opinion, I don't think relying on the opinion of one article is enough to make that generalization. Plus, saying what the facts are (anecdote and observation vs. randomized trial) rather than simply opinion is better. Saying no trial has confirmed it is a  lot more damning than the opinion of one article in a journal. VanTucky 07:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam's cite is only one example: it's not the definitive final word (as no journal article ever is). I'm sure we can drum up a lot of other citations. Perhaps entire books if you'd like, but I'm not sure that this is really all that necessary. Alt med is, obviously, a controversial subject and your books themselves admit to these methods being met with skepticism. The real issue I have is that the specificity about the trials lacks some of the subtlety that a scientist will immediately recognize but most others will completely miss. Since we really can't go on in an article about sheep explaining the problems with looking at observational studies versus randomized control studies, I think this kind of discussion is probably best excised. See below for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheep and alternative medicine 

message: Okay, so Adam's cite says that there have been a few (that's a carefully chosen word -- it means not very many) favorable observational studies but no randomized controlled studies on homeopathy. The problem with wording the article to say that there is positive evidence for efficacy from observation studies is that observational studies are statistically poor since priors and controls cannot be accounted for. Positive observational studies are seen everywhere. There was a study done where two different placeboes were tested in observational studies and it was found that you could get "encouraging" results no matter which one you chose to be the "effective" one. So, using this as a support for alt med is a bit misleading and not at all what I think the authors intended.
Besides this, the point is way too specific. The cite is only about homeopathy and not the other alt med techniques and really goes into detail that no reader is likely going to find useful. I can't imagine the guy who is going to come around saying, "Observational studies but not randomized control studies: imagine that!" It's just way to technical and iteratively irrelevant for an article on domestic sheep. I tend to like my summarizing statement better. It succinctly states the sheepist perspective and the scientific perspective without bogging us down in conceptual details beyond the scope of this article.
What say ye?
ScienceApologist (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me. I can see why the current version is best. Thanks for your input! VanTucky 08:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue with specificity to Adam's cite

message: There are many traditional treatments for sheep ailments – largely discredited, but interesting historically, and no doubt still used in many parts of the world.  If we can have killing sheep with homeopathy, why not with eye-of-toad, wing-of-bat?  I'm afraid I don't know of any sources though.  --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I'll look through my sources again, but I do distinctly remember a passage in Far From the Madding Crowd where a shepherd using some kind of bizarre device to relieve bloat. It's probably bogus, but it might be interesting nonetheless. VanTucky 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Traditional sheep medicine

message: I'm having trouble opening this pdf, can anyone else give it a try? A broken ref isn't so great if we ever take this to FAC. Scratch that, it's just big so it takes a long time to load. VanTucky 19:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref 25 in the Predation section

message: I don't really think this page needs to be protected. I looked at it history and there was only a little bit of vandilism and some blankings. Just wondering!Excitinginterception7 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. The page is often protected because it is a regular target of vandalism, even if it's not concentrated. VanTucky 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection 

message: :Image:AUD2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AUD2.jpg

message: This article is a mile too long. For example, let's look at cattle. the information on the cattle (cow) page is directly related to the beast itself and has a separate article on beef as food. even though lamb has a separate article on the meat of sheep, the sub-article in sheep "as food" should be merged into "lamb and mutton" or simply deleted. these are the first steps to shortening the page. any objections? Destroyer000 (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: length

message: The following links need a disambig:afro-caribbeanbrowsingfaroesefermentationhomogenoushypoxiaitch mitelamb chopsmigratorynative americanoverheadtunisianRandomblue (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no applicable disambig for itch mite. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the exact species. VanTucky 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What about the other links? Randomblue (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation 

message: How could Robert Bakewell (farmer), who died in 1795, be "influenced by the work of Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin"?? AnonMoos (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not say that. It's the exact opposite: Mendel and Darwin were influenced by Bakewell. I wonder what bozo (not you) switched that around in the FAC, several sources make the chronology quite plain... VanTucky 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronological problem

message: "More modern shepherds used guns, traps, and poisons to kill predators, causing significant decreases in predator populations. In the wake of the environmental and conservation movements, the use of these methods now usually falls under the purview of specially designated government agencies, rather than sheep producers."
Meseems it bears mentioning somewhere here that in many areas, local or (in the US) state law gives special provision for owners of animals considered "livestock", such as sheep, cows, chickens, et cetera, whether they be kept as livestock or not (for example, pygmy goats or bantom chickens raised as pets rather than livestock, but given that designation nevertheless due to the species they belong to), to kill any predator, no matter how endangered, if and only if the individual predatory animal in question represents a clear and obvious threat to the "livestock" population (such as a cougar that lives near stalks about a herd of cattle, or has already killed members of the heard).  It shouldn't be too difficult to find a reference for that.
Though the reason for this has traditionally been to protect the livelihood of the livestock owner, one would think (though I'd imagine this would be much more difficult to find a reference for) that allowing predators to gorge themselves on pets and livestock would exert unwanted selective pressure on the predators in question, making them more specialized for and therefore to at least some degree dependent upon domestic prey and therefore human beings themselves, with potentially devistating effects on natural eco-systems.  By contrast (and again, this would probably be difficult to find a reference for) killing only those individual predators (as opposed to whole populations or even species of predators, as was practiced in the past) that pose a significant threat to humans or domestic animals (I needn't remind anyone that human civilization is an invention of humans themselves, and that modern humans, having not been domesticated by some other species, must therefore be regarded as entirely wild animals and therefore an exception to the rule that only domestic animals be accorded such protection) should theoretically reduce the risk of such specialization and select for greater independence from human presence, despite what small, and if this sort of selective pressure affects aforesaid behavioral or mayhap even morphological (de-)specialization, temporary negative impact this might have on the size of wild populations.
Now I realize this is a lot of very general information probably belonging in another article entirely, but relevent enough that an abreviated summary and a link or two to (a) page(s) with more detailed information is, I think, warrented.  --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]:  Hammer of Thor talk 10:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I found in the source material. Generally speaking, U.S. laws forbid killing of protected predators except when the animals are caught in the act of attacking livestock. Mere proximity isn't enough cause for a non-governmental agent to use deadly force against protected species. Remember the article is supposed to be a general overview, but there's a reason the passage says "now usually". There are always exceptions to a rule, and sheep producers may simply ignore the law. VanTucky 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predation and protection 

message: A trivia perhaps, but the article states the oldest sheep as being 20, while E. Straiton display a supposedly 27 year old ewe on page 89 of "Sheep ailments, recognition and treatment"  But of course, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. EverGreg (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what year was the book published in? I ask because many older sheep books have glaring inaccuracies in them. Anyway, 20 is really meant to be the reasonable average top age. There have been a handful of people who lived until their 120's, but the article supposed to speak in general about sheep. I'll look around and see if I can corroborate some 20+ sheep. VanTucky 20:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was published in 2001 (7th edition) but could have been carried on from earlier editions of course. In any case, there's probably no official guinness record for oldest sheep. Well-documented cases at best. EverGreg (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oldest sheep

message: Over the past 2 days, this page has been vandalized or otherwise burdened with incorrect edits by anonymous users many times. The entire time, it's had a semi-protected mark on it, which says that editing by IP users is prevented. What's going on? Dvd Avins (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently there was a cartoon posted on the internet that caused fans to recreate what occured for laughs.  Said cartoon is at http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/Gravy/ --Techokami (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Does semi-protection actually do anything?

message: Please add the link , just been awarded --Panotxa (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: Having read "The practice of mulesing, in which skin is cut away from an animal's perineal area without anesthesia to prevent cases of flystrike, has been condemned widely as painful and unnecessary.[93] In response, a program of phasing out mulesing is currently being implemented,[94] New Zealand has already phased out the procedure.[95]" I personally feel that this is not 100% NPOV. There is no explanation of what exactly mulesing is, yet it is quick to say its painful (which I agree with, in a way) and "unnecessary" (have you ever seen a flyblown sheep, its not pretty). I believe that a quick explanation of why mulesing is necessary, beyond a passing mention. There should at least be a mention of why it's done.
220.240.36.206 (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a wikilink to mulesing which explains this pretty well. I don't disagree with what you say, but adding a lot more would be a diversion on this page since it is covered elsewhere. Since Australia wool growers have agreed to phase this out in a few years, I don't see how it could be necessary, except economically. Bob98133 (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Australia and Mulesing 

message: A reference presently numbered 76 says: "# ^ a b Pliny the Elder (AD 77), Naturalis Historia, pp. Chapters 72-25, <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137;query=chapter%3D%23397;layout=;loc=8.73>. Retrieved on 29 December 2007". Chapter 72-25 is probably a typo because 72 should come after 25, but what should it be? The url somehow appears only if you copy or edit the text, and it leads to something called "CHAP. 72. (47.)--SHEEP, AND THEIR PROPAGATION." Art LaPella (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a closer look, but if my memory serves me it was meant to be chapters 72 to 75. Steven Walling (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapters 72-25 

message: : Under breeds section, remove the (passive voice?) "Some of the most valuable sheep were Australian Merino" reference pointing to http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/wool/general/red-hot-national-merino-ram-sale/1256973.aspx . Quote doesn't really belong in a breed overview section unless the absolute maximum price ever paid for a sheep, perhaps, and that's a long way off compared with http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/oct/22/davidward2 for 2002, for example.
: By all means, it might not hurt to have such a section discussing relative "values" of different breeds, pedigree rams, etc., explaining why in detail, but that rather jarred in a FA article when referring to a single sale where prices were demonstrably 10 times higher, 6 years before, in an easily obtained reference for a /different/ breed.
: Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: re. revert; even at a casual glance for merinos only yields http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/livestock/sheep/buying-a-buddy-can-be-expensive/1225788.aspx for AU$20,000 for a half-share which is only the "most expensive ram in theory sold in Victoria so far this year" (double the quoted example). The UK price linked is equiv. to over AU$200,000 in 2002, thus (to reiterate), the sentence extracted is in poor context (and somewhat confusing/misleading) and does not I believe provide any "big picture" that's required in an *all-breeds* overview on a FA article. Cheers. Harami2000 (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't just remove an important section entirely if it's wrong, update it. The point is to state the most valuable sheep, so if what is there is wrong, then fix it. Don't just cut a chunk of important info out of the article. I'll be updating per the link you provided and some from the Farmer's Guardian. Steven Walling (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heya... It's not a particularly "important section" in the context of the WP article, especially if it creates a false impression of "relative value" from the context by being dropped in casually in the middle of a section. I'm not sure there's a particular need to be any "record sale price" in every species overview on WP because that does somewhat border on trivia if added "randomly" rather than explaining in encyclopedic detail /why/ some breeds might be more valuable than others and then quantifying that. Under such circumstances it's easier to excise and discuss for later consideration (as I did). Harami2000 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text: aside: re. the Guardian link and that £101,000 Swaledale: that article doesn't mention the £92,400 for a Texel only a few months earlier in 2002, per http://www.texel.co.uk/sales/2002/scot_national.php . That clearly notes "UK record" rather than worldwide and the good ol' Guinness Book of Records website ain't playing ball with that category to try to update to "worldwide, 2008". (Yes, I was checking elsewhere on-line and noting findings here, fwiw). However, those links are, all-told, pointing to a variety of breeds that /can/ have high $ but are generally found amongst the most "popular" commercial breeds (stating the obvious, but "true"). Harami2000 (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  Heh... I missed the AU$450,000 in /1988/ Merino price on the article just linked, above; http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/livestock/sheep/buying-a-buddy-can-be-expensive/1225788.aspx being quoted as "world record". Since that was published in July 2008, it's probably "good to go" with a note re. "bubble" economy, even, if being encyclopedic (+with that Swaledale and Texel not overly far behind). Harami2000 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoted prices for "(some of the) most valuable" sheep (nebulous) 

message: Since a ruminant, by definition, is a mammal, then isn't it redundant to say "Domestic sheep (Ovis aries) are quadrupedal, ruminant mammals" ?  --Igoldste (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. Ruminants are a type of mammal, and it's in that sense that the phrase is used. It's not redundant in same way that saying "ungulates are hoofed mammals" isn't. It's important to state the obvious, especially in the lead. Steven Walling (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with stating the fact that thay are mammals, but your are wrong, All Ruminants are indeed "Mammals"
E. Theodore Breedlove (Biological Science Technician)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.178.99 (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that was just what Steven did say: "Ruminants are a type of mammal".  Richard New Forest (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all ruminants are mammals - see hoatzinKerani (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The hoatzin is a fore-gut fermenter, but it does not strictly ruminate (it does not cud, it only has one chamber).  In any case we are really using "ruminant" here in its taxonomic sense, which restricts it to artiodactyl ruminants, in the same way as we'd call a panda a carnivore but not a whale.  Richard New Forest (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

text: There's nothing pompous about the use of quadrupedal. It's a perfectly ordinary, widely-understood term, and in any case it's linked. We have a Simple Wikipedia for those who need it.  Maedin\talk 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant? 

message: In total, or per breed: presumably the latter? Neither figure is immediately obvious from the http://www.rbst.org.uk/watch-list/sheep.php link provided, anyhow, which lists 22 (native) breeds at "Minority" or below status. (The only obvious alt. source on http://www.tiho-hannover.de/einricht/zucht/eaap/breedlst/1_4total.htm is both out of date and requires trawling to obtain the actual number of animals, hence easier to ask here first... :) Harami2000 (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 3000 per breed - the definition (per the numbers) can be found here. They've recently updated their listing of breeds from 25 to 22, and it needs to be fixed. Steven Walling (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. :) Harami2000 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Rare Breeds Survival Trust of the UK lists 25 native breeds as having only 3,000 registered animals" 

message: :I can't find anything to say that on the reference provided ( http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=15751 ) beyond future implied worries.
:On the contrary, http://www.meatprocess.com/Industry-markets/Europe-s-sheep-population-declines implies a rebound to 2002 within the UK but it's impossible to reconcile that 24.8 million figure with the FAO's 35.8 million for 2004 currently in the article.
:At present, anyhow, that sentence reads as though the UK industry has "diminished significantly" since the *1700s* (the only other date in the paragraph) which is almost certainly untrue; being pre-Clearances, for a start. Harami2000 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still requiring discussion/resolution on this one, please, per above note. :) Harami2000 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Today, the sheep industry in the UK has diminished significantly" 

message: I was going to copyedit this paragraph for short sentences but since that included extracting the above statement, which I doubt is "unique" to sheep (more so than cattle?), I'd better ask whether there's any evidence to support this first? Harami2000 (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. It's unique to domestic sheep as compared to wild sheep species. Not other livestock, at all. That would be pretty silly to suggest. I'll try and make that clear, someone must have removed the word domestic in there at one point. Steven Walling (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cheers! My copyedit would've resolved that (those are three /short/ sentences at present) even if it lost that extra emphasis required re. domestics vs wild (as with canines, say). As rewritten, however, I'm still unsure in what manner that's "unique" since you're comparing sheep with sheep, in effect. ;) Domestic sheep simply *have* a wider range of colorations (it's not "unique" as such). Harami2000 (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Another trait unique to sheep are (sic.) their wide variation in color" 

message: I noticed from source 9 that the taxonomy was different from what we had. The order is Ungulata, meaning hoofed animals and the sub-order is Artiodactyla.--Blackmage337 (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy 

message: MOS is very clear about images having to be below headings in their relevant sections, which appears obvious, but was reverted when I fixed it. It is nonsensical and simply doesn't look good. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't nonsensical at all. I did it very intentionally to place sufficient space between the images in the article, and the "look good" part is clearly just your opinion. I have disputed this part of MOS at the talk page, as it was added from Accessibility without sufficient discussion, in my opinion. The goal is to clearly illustrate the article, and this hard line adherence to what is designed to be flexible guidelines (not policy) is not helping. Steven Walling (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having an image outside the section it illustrates isn't non-sensical? Where else is that practiced? FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between putting the image markup outside a section in edit view and having it appear outside a section it is meant to illustrate. Clearly an image that actually looks like it's outside a section it's meant to illustrate would be nonsensical. But placing the markup just above a header, and having it appear still within the section in view mode, is not bad for readers. It illustrates a subject as intended, and allows for plenty of space between text and other images. Steven Walling (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a problem is that different people have different screens. For example on a small screen, the image of a Faroese stamp at the bottom would barely even "touch" the text in the "cultural impact" section it is supposed to illustrate (you can experiment with this by resizing your browser window). This wouldn't be an issue at all as long as it was placed just below the heading. Screen size is a problem with large images too. They would make an article unreadable, since the images wouldn't adjust to individual screens while having a fixed size. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When the article was at FAC, I intentionally went on a small screen (I was actually working from a 10 inch screen at the time as well) to check the image placement and tweak it. There's no point in having an image if it's so small you can't properly see what's going on in it. The standard thumb size (which I know I can change, but anon readers can't) is too small to make out a lot of images well. It's frustrating for readers. Steven Walling (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears there's already a discussion about this, I'd wait and see what it ends up with. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images above headings 

message: i have some sources that ovis aries has no subspecies
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/classification/Ovis_aries.html 
http://macro.dokkyomed.ac.jp/mammal/en/species/ovis_aries.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.105.47 (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Taxonomy, which recommends the use of the taxonomy given in Mammal Species of the World (MSW).  This link gives MSW's Ovis aries page, listing the subspecies – on the whole these are treated as species by the sources you mention.  Richard New Forest (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy

message: It's a minor fault, but the Illness heading should start with a capital, at the moment it's just "illness". The page is protected which is why I've put this here, as I can't do it myself. Also should Predation really be a subsection of Illness? It seams to me that they should be separate, as they have nothing to do with each other. 137.205.108.106 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illness section 

message: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+sheep&btnG=Search
--222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A call for ISO standardization ... based on.... 

message: My understanding of the word "raddle" is that it refers to a paint pot that is strapped to the chest of a ram such that when it mounts a ewe, it leaves a paint mark so that the herdsman can tell the ewe may be pregnant.  Thus the raddle is the paint pot, rather than the mark. Marks are also used to distinguish sheep, as well, but the raddle has the specific purpose I have outlined.
The word "raddled" gained a meaning of being painted up indicating sexual availability, possibly in the 18th? century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.41.163 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 June 2009
:"Raddle" really means "ochre" (OED), so the word is equivalent to "paint".  In common usage it's certainly used to mean the mark as well as the marker.  Richard New Forest (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheep image with back marking 

message: In Hinduism
Hindu worshippers consider the Ram as the divine vehicle (Vahana Vahana)of Mangala, the God of MarsMangala. Mangala is one of the Navagrahas Navagrahaconsidered to be influencers in Hindus Astrology. Some people even regard the Ram to be a vehicle of the Fire God, AgniAgni. This does not seem to be correct as various Hindu scriptures regard the Goat to be the correct vehicle of Agni. This is also supported by the fact that in ancient hindu religious functions, goats, rather than sheep, have been the preferred sacrificial offering to Agni.Rajshi (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editsemiprotected request 

message: I deleted the sentence at the beginning of the page after the templates "Weebl invented sheep." This appears to be vandalism, and if it is not, please put it back after saying that it is not. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism. I've applied the appropriate message to the editor's talk page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted 

message: I was looking through this article for info on feral sheep, but could only find very scattered and limited info. I think it would be nice with a section on feral sheep (like in the Wild boar article), or even an article, since the article really doesn't cover them in themselves, only in relation to other things. Then sheep could maybe become a disambihuation page, at the moment it is kind of odd and misleading that it redirects to domestic sheep, when this is not the only kind. Why not rename the Ovis article as sheep instead? This article has some nice info on primitive sheep that could be referenced, by the way: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2718014/pdf/1297-9686-13-4-381.pdf FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is already so long, and has been split before (see the sheep navbox at the bottom), that I think creating a new article would be a good idea. This is especially true, since feral sheep are much less common than any other feral animal, from goats to pigs to horses, so emphasizing it in the main article is not quite as important. I don't think removing the sheep redirect is appropriate at all though, since the overwhelming majority of people searching for sheep mean domestic sheep. That's what the navbox and disambiguation links at the top are for. Steven Walling 20:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Its the green bit below. noq (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thank you for the response noq.  I see what happened now, the box was added to protect the discussion that occurred on this page. I guess I did not pay any attention to what was happening on the talk page of this article and missed my change to comment. Oh-well Hardyplants (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Moved to Sheep.  Consensus is to follow WP:COMMONNAME Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feral sheep section or article 

message: I would like you to add into the history section whare it talks about wool and and spains monopoly on Merino sheep the fallowing fact, the word for wool in spanish is Lana, and Lana also refers to money in spanish.
Wen someone has a large sum it is refered to as "El tiene Mucha Lana!"
translated "He has Lots of Money!"
Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.178.99 (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting, but I don't think we can include every colloquial use of wool-related terms in every language.  Richard New Forest (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish suggestion. 

message: In North America section, HMS Susan Conant should be HMS Susan Constant ? Scratchmarc (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Amendment done, though it seems the ship belonged to the English Virginia Company, not the Royal Navy, so would not have been an HMS Richard New Forest (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: PASTORAL
It is unbelievable that this article contains the word "pastoral" once, when for millennias sheeps have been bred, and are still largely bred, that way.
 
There are two main classes of sheep breeding: unfenced-pastoral, or fenced-in paddocks ( or partly fenced-partly pastoral) , according to the comparated cost of construction and maintenance of fences, against yhe cost of human work ...  
BEHAVIOUR
The long story of pastoral breeding is probably responsible of the behaviour of this animal, as during millenias shepherds were selecting the animals -on the behaviour- more for their flocking attitude, than for their intelligence. The intelligent sheep, looking permanently an escape way and leading other out of the flock,  is undesirable for this activity. It is easy to understand that their elimination has been an important factor of the evolution of this domestic animal. 
This article is not too long, as the subject is wide. Thanks to contributors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.228.50 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PASTORAL 

message: In March, I split one big section of this article to History of sheep. Now, however, it was merged back in. We need a consensus. Georgia guy (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you were right to do so. At the moment at over 107k it is a very long article the size guide recommends that articles over 100k should "almost certainly" be divided. And the only easy to do so is by splitting out the history section, itself the only section that really suggests a separate article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The article was assessed as Featured with a history section, and without a basic history of the animal the coverage is not comprehensive and thus no longer meets the FA requirements. There have already been several forks out of this article. If you would like to discuss drastically reducing the history sections, that's okay with me in order to preserve being an overview. But the article without any info about where sheep come from in an evolutionary sense and when they were domesticated is woefully incomplete. I will not stand for that. Steven Walling • talk  20:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, please just add a little bit of important info and link History of sheep as the main article. Georgia guy (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

text:  When given it's FA star it was 97k, so below 100k but still long enough that it should have been divided if it makes sense. And it is now even longer. So I would still say breaking out the history section is the most natural way to do this, as described at summary style. I can't see any other way to achieve a size reduction.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Georgia guy: I think that's a good compromise. To be honest I don't care about having all the European, American, or African history detail completely in there, but stuff from the initial section is quite important in my mind. I'll do as you suggested. Steven Walling • talk  21:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Then just add a little bit of info in such a section and link History of Sheep. Georgia guy (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please find a consensus 

message: Seems like this article sorely needs a section on when and where sheep were domesticated, and their wild ancestors. Nareek (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestication 

message: There is little or no information about a sheep's bleat/baa, and the various types of a sheep's vocal sounds and their meanings.
Also, the words 'Baa' and 'Bleat' currently redirect to 'Onomatopaeia', shouldn't they redirect to Sheep?
Pag2006 (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor has added some very good information on sheep vocalisations and I have changed the links to 'Baa' and 'Bleat' to Sheep#vocalisations. DrChrissy (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheep's vocal communication 

message: In the article on cattle and goats, there is mention of the domestication during the neolithic period. Perhaps the article can be improved by addition to cited information on that, as well as how long sheep have been domesticated by humans. Don't know what references to look for, perhaps someone knowledgeable on the subject can help?Wzrd1 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they spun of too much material when they created the History of sheep article, leaving this one without even a pointer to that article (when it should include a brief summary). Rmhermen (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for addition to article 

message: The article incorrectly states that "The abomasum is the only one of the four chambers analogous to the human stomach (being the only one that absorbs nutrients for use as energy)..."  In fact, most of the sheep's useful energy absorption occurs across the rumen wall, in the form of volatile fatty acids.  See, for example, Van Soest's "Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant", Church's "The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition", "Dukes' Physiology of Domestic Animals", and/or other authoritative texts.  There is a considerable body of research evidence on this.  A couple of examples are the paper by Bergman et al. (1965. Biochem. J. 97: 53-58) and the classic paper by Barcroft et al. (1944. J. exp. Biol.  20: 120-129).  Bergman et al. found that volatile fatty acids accounted for about 82 percent of the sheep's energy expenditure, and Barcroft et al. had found that, because of absorption across the [reticulo]rumen wall, and to a lesser extent, across the wall of the omasum, material entering the sheep's abomasum is virtually free of volatile fatty acids.   Schafhirt (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy Absorption

message: Hi,
I would like to add the following to 'External links'.  Thanks!
*View the sheep genome in Ensembl
Gspudich (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I am very hesitant to add new external links to an article but I think this is better than some of the ELs already on the article. If no one objects within 24 hours of your request I will go ahead and add it. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Done Appears non-controversial, added.  — daranz [ t ] 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 6 March 2013 

message: A sentence from this paragraph is "Visual differences between sheep and goats include the beard and divided upper lip of goats."  While it is true that the beard is a characteristic of goats, the divided upper lip is not.  It is a characteristic of sheep.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.119.33 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!__DrChrissy (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheep compared to goats