![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Is there a need for a list of agribusiness corporations in this template? It seems that the list would be quite long. Jav43 19:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, these are agribusiness corporations, not farming corporations. For example, Monsanto and Cargill don't actually farm. And Cargill is perhaps the only one here that deserves the term "largest". Jav43 20:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of removing the "Large agribusiness corporations" part of the template for two reasons: One, how is "large" defined? Arbitraily choosing a cutoff, such as amount of revenue, or assets, or whatever, would seem to constitute original research. Two, will the readers find these links useful? As someone who just happened across the template while reading an article, I wondered what the point was, and came here to bring up removing them. It seems Jav43 would agree with me on that point. Picaroon (Talk) 00:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could we move this template to Template:Agriculture? There is no " farming" article, farming redirects to agriculture. It's better for consistency and clarity if we match the names of things as per article names, category names ( Category:Agriculture), and template names. Kurieeto 16:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
While on the one hand I disagree with this edit; on the other hand, it would make sense to figure out which articles are best put on the template, which on the list, and which on the portal. Further, I think the list should be on the template but maybe being on the portal would be enough. WAS 4.250 02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
For the love of God, someone shrink it. Hesperian 04:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if the article heirloom plant should be added to the 'particular' section, and/or if the template should be added to the article? Right now, the heirloom plant seems to focus on private growers, but it is a growing commercial agriculture sector. Anchoress 22:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This should be deprecated in favor of simply a link to the Portal:Agropedia, it is far too large.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Due to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture, I am creating Template talk:Agriculture/workspace for all interested people to work on re-creating this template as a navigation footer template and several topic specific top of the page navigation templates. WAS 4.250 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
VanTucky at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture says:
Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture, if anyone has a comment. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 10:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the looks slightly and made the template narrower. The content remains the same.-- SasiSasi ( talk) 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The Agriculture footer seems sufficient for the job of navigation. We don't need a sidebox as well to do the same job. The obvious problem, apart from the prodigal consumption of screen space, is the fact that articles often relate to multiple topic areas. While multiple footers are fine, multiple sideboxes are not. Perhaps it's time for the sidebox to go. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Is there a need for a list of agribusiness corporations in this template? It seems that the list would be quite long. Jav43 19:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, these are agribusiness corporations, not farming corporations. For example, Monsanto and Cargill don't actually farm. And Cargill is perhaps the only one here that deserves the term "largest". Jav43 20:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of removing the "Large agribusiness corporations" part of the template for two reasons: One, how is "large" defined? Arbitraily choosing a cutoff, such as amount of revenue, or assets, or whatever, would seem to constitute original research. Two, will the readers find these links useful? As someone who just happened across the template while reading an article, I wondered what the point was, and came here to bring up removing them. It seems Jav43 would agree with me on that point. Picaroon (Talk) 00:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could we move this template to Template:Agriculture? There is no " farming" article, farming redirects to agriculture. It's better for consistency and clarity if we match the names of things as per article names, category names ( Category:Agriculture), and template names. Kurieeto 16:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
While on the one hand I disagree with this edit; on the other hand, it would make sense to figure out which articles are best put on the template, which on the list, and which on the portal. Further, I think the list should be on the template but maybe being on the portal would be enough. WAS 4.250 02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
For the love of God, someone shrink it. Hesperian 04:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if the article heirloom plant should be added to the 'particular' section, and/or if the template should be added to the article? Right now, the heirloom plant seems to focus on private growers, but it is a growing commercial agriculture sector. Anchoress 22:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This should be deprecated in favor of simply a link to the Portal:Agropedia, it is far too large.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Due to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture, I am creating Template talk:Agriculture/workspace for all interested people to work on re-creating this template as a navigation footer template and several topic specific top of the page navigation templates. WAS 4.250 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
VanTucky at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture says:
Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture, if anyone has a comment. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 10:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the looks slightly and made the template narrower. The content remains the same.-- SasiSasi ( talk) 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The Agriculture footer seems sufficient for the job of navigation. We don't need a sidebox as well to do the same job. The obvious problem, apart from the prodigal consumption of screen space, is the fact that articles often relate to multiple topic areas. While multiple footers are fine, multiple sideboxes are not. Perhaps it's time for the sidebox to go. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)