Talk:Veld

message: *Veld Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete for the same reasons Lekker was deleted. .Angela. 01:55, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

message: These are terms that keep cropping up in Africa articles. Anyone able to explain these terms beyond the obvious? --Derek Andrews (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  bushveld and thornveld 

message: Would love to have a section on a veld fire. Rauterkus (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veld fire 

message: Someone arbitrarily removed an entry on the correct spelling of veld on the curious justification: "removed language that would only be of interest to south africans". This unsupported claim is illogical anyway; many people interested enough to refer to the article might well want to know how to spell it and why, as long as there is an incorrect usage peculiar to the subject matter. Such foreign terms for regional concepts are of intrinsic interest to large classes of persons, so just because one editor is uninterested, is no justification for its removal. Compare say, "Chaparral", "Prairie", "Pampas", "Fynbos" and other words where the etymology is of interest. One's personal uninterest is no justification for deletion of relevant matter. Unless someone can strongly justify this apparently arbitrary deletion of material and historic information, I shall reinstate it within a few days. I have left a similar note at the address from which the deletion was done.JonRichfield (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Veld/Veldt

message: G'day. Just noticed the image subtitled 'Springboks in the burned veld; Etosha National Park, Namibia' on this article. It is inappropriate for this article. The emphasis is on the springbok's not the veldt, further the colors have been altered with the entire image being black and white except the animals. It gives us no further understanding or explanation of what a veldt is, besides showing us some springbok's and some black and white scrub and, as I said, is just totally inappropriate an illustration and if anything would confuse a viewer who knows nothing about the subject into thinking that that is possibly what a veldt looks like after a veldt fire or some such, or assume that the photo isn't a manipulation and that is actually what it looks like. For this reason I ask that the editors of this article remove it, and hopefully find something more appropriate. Whilst it may sound daft, remember that not everyone understands things as well as you do, that and we have kids using Wiki to learn, so both of those demographics may be stupid enough to make the aforementioned assumptions, which to you and I may seem silly, but really isn't. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right mate, I take your point. However it is not as obvious what to do about it as it might seem. I was just having a look to see whether to remove it as suggested and what to put in its place, when I realised that veldfires are hardly mentioned and they deserve to be. So far so simple. So I thought that I might have a crack at it. Oopsie! It is quite a subject! Material on conservation and burning is pretty badly scattered and fragmented in WP and not much of what I found was very relevant to veld. I was wondering whether to leave this article as is, with mostly a few links, or whether to insert a section on veldfires or start a new article on veldfires. At the moment I am contemplation the second option of the three, which should meet your objections, and at least I could concentrate on getting the context right. I am just worried that the resulting article might be a bit top-heavy. Any remarks? JonRichfield (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I have been away and not able to do much about the article myself. However I wandered by on other business and added another pic. It seems to me that the paired pics have something to say about a certain kind of veld that a single photo does not. Whether the black-and-white editing is important is a debatable point; it is not (to my eye anyway) obtrusive or misleading, though I would not have edited it myself. Meanwhile, I'll keep an eye open for photo-opportunities of veld so that I can add some material to WM commons. (Slavery! That's what it is! <mttr mttr>) JonRichfield (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Removal Request 

message: Am I the only one to wonder why "Yorkshiremen" is so much more acceptable than "Someone from Yorkshire"? Am I supposed to feel offended if someone calls me "South African" rather than "Someone from South Africa"? What sort of POV is either mode of expression supposed to push? Or didn't I notice when the powers that be added PC to the POV pillars of WP? JonRichfield (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this deep loathing for Yorkshiremen?

message: I've called for a couple of reference checks for offline sources. 
The first if for the claim that "veldt" is anachronistic. Specifically, I would like to see a quote of the section that says that the word is currently regarded as anachronistic in English. As noted above, the word is still in common use in English language publications and dictionaries, and appears based on a Google search to be the more commonly used form outside southern Africa. I suspect that the source actually says that the word is anachronistic in Afrikaaans, but since his is English Wikipedia that would make it highly misleading to say that it is anachronistic in the lede.
The second is for the claim that "A typical authoritative dictionary will devote columns, or even pages to the subject". I find this claim to be highly doubtful. I suspect that the reference itself may devote pages to the subject and sees itself as an authoritative dictionary, but that doesn't mean that a typical authoritative dictionary does so. I would like to see a translated quote of where the source makes this claim.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference checks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Veld. 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/20120511224120/http://www.ecotravel.co.za/Guides/Reserves/KNP/EcoZones/Thorn_Veld.htm to http://www.ecotravel.co.za/Guides/Reserves/KNP/EcoZones/Thorn_Veld.htm
*Added  tag to http://agriculture.kzntl.gov.za/publications/production_guidelines/veld_in_natal/veld_4.8.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.arc.agric.za/limpopo/pdf/basin_profile_part1c.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915124212/http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/botswana/botswana.htm to http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/Botswana/botswana.htm
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) 04:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)