Talk:Farmer

message: I believe the page is visually crap due to the abuse of bold tags. I'd much rather see use of italics where bold has been used. An article doesn't have flow and is disjuncted when it uses bold text within a sentence. I'm going to remove them all and replace them with italics until I can be convinced that it belongs like it is.
--lincalinca 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone (perhaps unregistered user 80.47.64.148) has been inserting the (bolded) words "Dennis Slade" and "e.g. Dennis Slade" at various points in the article.  Removed the one I saw today; there are other instances in the article's history.  Athaenara talk 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold text

message: The definition of farmer seems to exclude dairy farmers, poultry farmers etc., by explicitly only including crop farmers. I believe that the word farmer includes those who rear livestock for meat or e.g. eggs or wool. OED says "a person who owns or manages a farm" and defines "farm" as "an area of land and its buildings used for growing crops and rearing animals".
I believe the definition should say that farmers grow crops or raise animals, and then in a subsequent paragraph go on to explain the alternative names for some sort of farmer (e.g. rancher). In fact these alternative names are regional, as the text begins to acknowledge. Rachel Pearce (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusion of livestock and poultry farmers 

message: I thought about this when the article was first nominated for TAFI, but then just decided to run with it anyways. My thing is, do we usually have separate articles for a thing, and then another for the name of the occupation that does that thing? Compare with, for example, Carpentry, which covers both carpentry and carpenter. I haven't checked many examples, so I don't know which one is more common. Either way, I'm not sure how much there is to write about strictly farmers. I may be totally wrong... this isn't my area of specialty. What do we all think about this?--Coin945 (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "farmer" is unique historically.  I would personally call hunting and gathering roles, which would make farming the first occupation.  The importance of the farmer throughout history is immense (look at the United States in the early 20th century) and is an occupation that includes a very different range of people and actions from around the world. Ryan Vesey 13:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we even need 'farmer'? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Farmer. 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/20120502110046/http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/ll/LeopoldLetter20004.pdf to http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/ll/LeopoldLetter20004.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Arvind.m (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  —  IVORK Discuss 09:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2017 

message: The article twice uses labor, once uses labourer, and once uses "specialized labour force".  I didn't notice any "-ise" endings.  Therefore, we're stuck on a mix of en:us and en:gb with Oxford spelling.  I'm putting it on en:us, but you should feel free to put it on en:gb or en:gb with Oxford spelling (don't worry about WP:RETAIN, since it's hardly a big deal in my opinion) as long as you keep it all consistent one way or another.  Nyttend backup (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:ENGVAR 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Farmer. 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/20080807165914/http://www.ifap.org/en/about/aboutifap.html to http://www.ifap.org/en/about/aboutifap.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Agriculture article already contains all of this information in a well-developed, organized, and coherent form. This page is of extremely low quality. The structure is disorganized, there are dozens of grammatical errors, links are missing, and ultimately nothing of value can be found on this page. Anyone who arrives at this page will be tremendously disappointed - it is a stark contrast to the usual quality of Wikipedia. As I feel that this page provides no value and is beyond repair, I think we should remove the article entirely. Mc1123 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone improperly translated this page from Hindi, it used to be better. I think someone with rollback rights might be able to fix it. Runawayangel (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Damage repaired but translation was never part of it. Rmhermen (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what seemed to be the case when I checked the history anyway, that someone had created the Hindi version and then translated that version to English, overwriting the old version. Runawayangel (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Having looked at a lot of career/job pages, this one isn't great but there are many that are far worse. And it is read by about 600 people/day (over 200,000/year), presumably because of things like kids wanting to learn more about farming who don't know to google for "agriculture". So please help pitch in and fix it :) —Luis (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Agreed with others about keeping an article dedicated to farmers. The farmer and farmworker articles seem to have a lot of overlapping scope / redundancy though. Maybe we could at least combine those two? --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need this article? 

message: I put in a somewhat silly but (to me) somewhat charming/fun picture of a farming group. If someone doesn't like it, or if the article is eventually enlarged enough to merit a second picture of this type, here's . —Luis (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative "farming group" image for future reference 

message: In my opinion you don't need to put the female percentage, or should put a male percentage as well. Putting just the female percentage is weird, and out of place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5790:1810:ECF4:5492:5FF5:66AC (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Why just female percentage?

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The farmer and farmworker articles seem to have a lot of overlapping scope. Thoughts on combining the two? Jay.Jarosz (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farmer vs Farmworker