Talk:Hungarian Grey

Reclassified as stub
The WikiProject classification for Hungarian Grey cattle was. It has been reclassified as  per request. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarian Grey. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021000345/http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/genetics/documents/AH473e01.pdf to http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/genetics/documents/AH473e01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

edit conflict
@Justlettersandnumbers, I reverted due to an edit conflict, but open to fixing whatever. I was hoping to fix the unknown-redlinks by finding something someone knew for actual links? valereee (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's what the source says: "The lot of the long-horned gray Hungarian cattle, which once were driven westward for sale by the Hortobagy-Puszta-based Heyducks, was (etc.)" valereee (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , that statement does not support the text you've placed in the article. The cattle were/are (mostly) in the Puszta of Hortobágy, which is in Hungary; they can't be "driven to Hungary" from there (apparently they were driven westwards into the Austrian part of the empire). Anyway, I strongly suggest that a cookbook is not a reliable source for the history of a cattle breed. There's good but brief scientific coverage here; another useful and informative academic source is this. That author is very clear that both the origin of the cattle and the date of their arrival in Hungary are a complete mystery, so a claim that they functioned as currency 1000 years ago is implausible to say the least; I note that the first mention of these cattle is from the sixteenth century. In my view it doesn't help that we don't have a proper article on the Puszta. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Justlettersandnumbers, it's not a cookbook, although it does contain recipes too. It's a book about Hungarian culinary history and traditions. I'm fine with correcting any misinterpretation I made. Let me see if I can figure out how to do that. valereee (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

combining refs
@Justlettersandnumbers, I have no idea how to combine the refs or even work with them. There are two cites to Aniko Gergely, and when I try to combine them I see and I have zero idea what that means. Can you fix? The entire discussion in that source is p26-27. valereee (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , my apologies, I added those templates to make things easier, not more difficult (the documentation is here). I've added 26 as the page number in both instances. We don't really need to state that the cattle are robust (it would be most surprising, and so worth mentioning, if they were not); if the word 'heyduck' is on p.27 then that should be changed (just say the word!). Further to my comment above, I have de-redirected Puszta and started to expand it – any help, even sourced to a 'cookbook', is welcome! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JLaN. It's not a cookbook. It's a history. When we write culinary histories, it's not unusual that we include recipes. Re: robust. That was already in the article, unsourced. I added a source. And yes, the word heyduck is on p26. And that documentation, like so much documentation of templates on WP, is opaque to me. No worries, I'll just add the source in the way I know how, and I'm sure some kind contributor in the future will go, "Oh! This well-intentioned contributor didn't understand how to combine these two separate ref templates! I can helpfully do that!" valereee (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I feel like my grumpiness was aimed at you when it should have been aimed at why VisEd can't play nice with other reference styles. I like the interface for the ease with which I can just enter a doi or ISBN and get a nearly-complete reference, so I often switch to vis ed for adding citations, but honestly it's got so many frustrating features. Like no way to name a ref anything that gives information. When I first saw those ":0" refnames I wondered why in the world ANYONE would ever use such a stupid refname lol...then I discovered that, oh, it's coded that way. The only way to name a ref is to switch to source and name it before you use the ref for the second time. I find this infuriating. valereee (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have no idea what the Visual Editor is or why anyone would use it, but I'm sorry to hear that it's causing you frustration. I keep seeing those infernal ":0" refnames and wondering what error might have caused them – now I know. I'm busy in rl at the moment but will try to make a serious start on the history of the breed in the next few days – it's something I've been meaning to do for years. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

color, age of color change
@Justlettersandnumbers, the previous (unsourced) description was that the calves were born wheat-colored and changed to grey at 3 months. valereee (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes,, that is what usually happens in grey cattle (article needed!) – see for example the (sourced) text I added some years ago at Podolica. Here the solid scientific sources seem to support a slightly different account – the one you added to the page (reddish/six months). The difference is probably not significant; here's a source about another grey cattle breed (one I happen to be familiar with) that says they're born red wheat-coloured and change after four months. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)