Talk:Chicken

Dispersal source
Hello, i bumped into this source while reading on mobile.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46093-2 Yug (talk)  🐲 19:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, we certainly shouldn't be trying to chase every primary research paper, it's not our function, nor is it even possible. This paper however makes an attempt to review past work and to explain why dating has been difficult, so it's more relevant than many. I've added a note about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2024
under "domestication" section of this article. Remove falsely cited graphic. Map titled "chicken domestication and dispersal" is cited as being from citation [42] DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12915-020-0738-1. If you read the cited article, two things become apparent: 1. the map is not from the article, only created using some information from the article. Clearly, this graphic is not from a peer-reviewed source seeing as it lists the "AD" after the year, not before. And 2. some of the information in the graphic is from an un-cited source. the cited article makes no mention of domestication dates in the Americas. Needs proper citation (and grammar). Generally Bassariscus (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Graphic is stated on Commons to be a standard world map, with the addition of data from cited source. It is not asserted that the map is from the source, indeed if it was it would be in copyright. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not all of the information in the graphic is cited in the source. some of the information--dates in the Americas--are without citation. it is misleading. additional citation needed if America domestication dates are going to be kept. Alternatively, the America dates could be removed from the graphic. Generally Bassariscus (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The data and citations are already in the article as you well know, so there is nothing at all misleading about it. I've repeated the refs in the caption for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * k. I see you added the Borrell source and the Storey source. thank you! Generally Bassariscus (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Cockerel age
The article currently defines a cockerel as "a young male chicken less than a year old," and cites to reference.com (sketchy?), which no longer includes the time restriction, and even in the archived page, it was wishy-washy. Many dictionaries don't include a specific age constraint, and the current entry in the OED notes the less than a year old factor, but then goes on to say there is a wider definition of "any age," and that the wider sense prevails in popular use. I'm not sure how much "popular use" there is of the word cockerel, but in any case, I don't think it's appropriate define it in such absolute terms on this page. I have tagged it dubious. (Also not sure about the use of reference.com). jhawkinson (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, let's ditch it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it remains current in Indian English; not sure exactly what it conveys there. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , can you say that without using pronouns ("it")? I cannot tell what you mean. I don't quite know what relevance Indian English has to the English Wikipedia, but regardless of that, the point is not that the definition of "less than a year old" is wrong — the point is that that is one of two definitions, and the other definition is more general. Even if the more general definition were not more widespread (which it appears to be), it would problematic for this article to use the more specific definition only. jhawkinson (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow you here - "it" means "use of cockerel". If you "don't quite know what relevance Indian English has to the English Wikipedia" I suggest you read WP:ENGVAR and other core policies. We cover the English language in all its major varieties, and have many millions of readers in South Asia. Then you seem to start arguing with something I didn't say. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Johnbod. Since I couldn't tell what you meant, I took my best guess and gave you my reaction. Sorry that it turns out I was wrong ("something [you] didn't say"); it's not surprising since, like I said, I could not tell what you meant. I'm afraid I don't see how WP:ENGVAR matters to the question at hand — perhaps the important thing to be looking at is WP:NOTDICT. In this case, this article defined "cockeril," and offered a more-specific definition that is less common than general definition, and that more-specific definition is out of favor according to the English language authorities that I checked. (That is not to say it is wrong or that it is not "current" — currency is a totally different concept!) If it were, hypothetically the case, that Indian English prefers the more-specific definition to the general definition, in conflict with my understanding of British English and American English, that would not justify leaving the more-specific definition in this article without explanation. That is why I do not understand the relevance.
 * You used "it" twice in your sentence, and I am further confused. If I substitute your provided antecedent for for either the first or for both, I still don't understand your points: (1) "I think use of cockerel remains current in Indian English; not sure exactly what it conveys there."; or (2) "I think use of cockerel remains current in Indian English; not sure exactly what use of cockerel conveys there." Neither of those seem to make much sense. If you're saying the word is used in Indian English but you don't know what it means in Indian English, well, I don't see how that's information that is particularly useful in deciding how to define the word in this article. Sorry I couldn't make this shorter. jhawkinson (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the definition with 'young' is sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)