Talk:Calf (animal)

message: What would be the percentage of twin calves that are fertile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopats92 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 March 2007
:60%  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.24.25 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 May 2007
::Presumably this question is about where a heifer calf who is twin to a bull is often an infertile partial intersex called a freemartin.  I've heard various figures for fertile twin-to-bull females, ranging from 10% to 15% – 60% is surely far too high.  Richard New Forest (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Twin calf fertility

message: I have now disambiguated 158 incoming links from articles to Calf, and 95 links (60%) remain.  The other 63 links (40%) mostly went to Veal, Calfskin, Calf (anatomy) and Birth.  Links concerning animal species other than cattle went to Wiktionary:  , .  Of the above articles, the one with by far the most page views is Veal.  Calfskin and Calf (anatomy) are new articles.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, which details why and how to fix incoming links to dab pages, and lists tools that make this work easier.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links now lists Bull as needing to be disambiguated.  It has over 100 incoming links;  see them here.  Try your hand at fixing them?  --Una Smith (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: The statistics
: Calf: 14729 views in the last 90 days
: Calf (anatomy): 24809 views in the last 90 days
make it clear that the animal is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "calf". Accordingly, I'm boldly moving the page to Calf (animal). Paradoctor (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this change on the grounds that the anatomy article had substantially more views than the article on the animal. CFCF 💌 📧 13:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see no one objecting. Paradoctor (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the first 78 minutes. Right! Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

text: The speedy move request that was filed was converted to a full-up request, which has subsequently been withdrawn. I don't see how this ever could have been a speedy move, due to prior move requests having occurred -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There most certainly appears to have been something unorthodox going on there.  Montanabw(talk) 07:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not, someone just missed the previous discussion. Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, not knowing the exact procedure of filing a request is a minor error. If you see something wrong, just fix it.  CFCF 💌 📧 10:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But this, blanking the other discussion, is a major error. Now reverted. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

text: (e/c)I think the fact that it appears at least 3 editors are saying "Hey! What's going on here?" means the move is controversial.  Why not go back to basics and use Wikipedia:Moving a page - there is no rush, the page is not going anywhere.DrChrissy (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "calf (animal)" 

message: The short section Calf#Other animals now ends
::However, common domestic species tend to have their own specific names, such as foal and lamb.
 You added (approximately) this sentence here.  However, I do not quite follow the logic.  Would you not call e. g. a newborn zebra a foal?  In my experience (both of English and Swedish), specific names for domestic juveniles or for adult domestic animals of a specific sex (such as calf, puppet, kitten cow, bull, mare, and stallion) ordinarily are extended to wild but related animals—sometimes even to fairly unrelated ones.  I therefore cannot understand the But or However in this sentence.
Instead, I think, that not only the article Calf but also other articles should mention the more generic "zoological" usage of such terms.  (In the long run, there also may be reasons for writing separate articles or even sections about such extended meanings, if sufficiently interesting zoological facts are shared for one of these groups, but not others.  For the respective juveniles, this particularly might concern animal developmental biology.) JoergenB (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "But" just means that these animals don't have "calfs". I don't really see the difficulty. puppet????  I can add that most (?) equines have "foals". I don't think I agree with your wider points, but it hardly matters - for example lions and tigers have "cubs", certainly not "kittens". Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cattle vz. other calves - once more 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Calf (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Why is veal desirable compared to beef? Is it more tender, has a better taste, etc etc? This is not discussed or addressed at all. 68.198.91.188 (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for Consumption