Talk:Domestic guineafowl

Does this really need a separate article? It seemed more at home as a section on Guineafowl. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 06:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The content was heavily repeated at Helmeted Guineafowl. If you look at talk:guineafowl you will see that there is a lot of history to this surprisingly contentious article, and this was agreed as the best solution. jimfbleak 07:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I was just concerned as it dramatically shortens the Guineafowl article, which didn't seem long enough to merit a split on that criterion. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 07:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, there is enough information available on guineafowl, so in the end the articles will grow. I plan to contribute a large part, I only need to find some time.eboy 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The GFBA.org also concurs that a seperate heading for "domesticated guinefowl" may be appropriate.   There is a tremendous undercurrent in the poultry research community to further the research of the species for more agressive domestication for purposes of food production.   There is also a tremendously large group of individuals who are very eccentric about these most endearing wild creatures.  The guineafowl characteristics and adaptabilties make it most well suited for many backyard poultry enthusiasts....like myself!  Where possible the GFBA will make meaningful contributions both here and upon the lead articles as needed.   Hopefully our contributions will be simultaneously material and educational.   Kudos to JimfBleak for his efforts and to Eboy for similar efforts and ideas.   Also did you know that the feathers of guineafowl are highly sought after by flyfishermen for tying flies??   Bigbigbird 23:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems we have persons who wish to challenge the ethics of edits. For someone to emphasize each facet of copied links on a website that duplicates another website and then to ALSO downgrade/shrink a competing link?  Come on!  Doing that could get you banned!  AND I PROPOSE JUST THAT ...hint hint Jimfbleak.... BTW, The GFBA is still the recognized original authority and everyone in the domesticated guineafowl arena already knows that except for the 'band of pirates' on this GFiA  What the vagabond poster wants to see is for folks exploring the guineafowl for the first time will believe that they (the GFiA) are somehow title owners to all that is guineafowl.   When in fact they themselves ALL learned of guineafowl thru their personal contact with the GFBA first!   This whole charade really equates to an attempt at a massive identity theftBigbigbird  —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC).


 * I think most can see through the protest above, and I will allow the incorrect statement in the GFBA link to stand in an effort to keep the peace. The truth will be evident when the sites are visited.  The GFIA is not interested in battling for recognition.  The desire is to provide information and assistance to anyone interested in raising guinea fowl.  Removal of a false statement in a link description is not grounds for banning, but I propose that removal of truthful statements in a link description (as has been done repeatedly by Bigbigbird in the past as well as in this incident) should be.  No one organization can claim that they are "title owners to all that is guineafowl." The GFIA certainly recognizes the GFBA as a group worthy of recognition in the field of guinea fowl promotion. Birdsarecool (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a recurring problem with someone (I think it's obvious to everyone who that someone is) tampering with the link to the GFIA website. In the past, the link was deleted, but now the title and the URL are being replaced with the GFBA URL and title but leaving the description of the GFIA website in tact. Is there some way to ban this persistent tamperer from the Wikipedia site? The GFIA does not blame the GFBA for this problem. We believe it is being done by a person who no longer has ties with the GFBA but continues to hold a grudge against the GFIA. I will revert the edit, but I have no doubt this tampering will continue. Birdsarecool (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Deletions of the GFIA link continue, four times in the past month. If all parties agree, I think it would be best to just provide the name of each linked organization or website and refrain from any additional description so as to possibly curtail the tampering.  People will find out what the website is all about when they follow the link, and nobody can say there is an attempt to hog the attention away from anyone else.  I think there is value in providing additional information about a link, but due to the continued childish vandalism, I think it would be better for all involved if we followed another route with the links.  Anyone else agree?

Birdsarecool (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanksgiving
Hi. In the article Thanksgiving, I found this "Most of the U.S. aspects of Thanksgiving (such as the turkey or what were called guineafowls originating from Madagascar), were incorporated when United Empire Loyalists began to flee from the United States during the American Revolution and settled in Canada". Does anyone have an idea as to what animal they are talking about when they say "what were called guinea fowls from Madagascar"? Thanks. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC) [[Category:

Domesticated vs Domestic
We are presently having a discussion at WikiProject Poultry Talk Page on a standard usage of domestic vs domesticated in poultry article names. If you would like to contribute to this discussion please visit the link. JTdale  Talk 07:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)