Jump to content

Talk:Farmer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exclusion of livestock and poultry farmers

[edit]

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)[reply]


I came to the talk page first, so haven't yet read the article to see if you've already made that change, but I tend to agree. Were they excluded or omitted? I'll go read it. Also, some people are farming coat hangers, chairs, and art!: arborsculpture. Uh-oh. Duff (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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) 22:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this article?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Damage repaired but translation was never part of it. Rmhermen (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Mc1123: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Alternative "farming group" image for future reference

[edit]

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 an alternative option. —Luis (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why just female percentage?

[edit]

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)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer vs Farmworker

[edit]

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)[reply]