Talk:Rotolactor

Update?
Is this mechanism still in use in the USA and elsewhere? Has it been refined? Does it have drawbacks regarding the cows' health and welfare? The page would benefit from an update addressing these and similar issues. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Description inaccurate
The description of operation is inaccurate. It was not: 50 cows on, milk them, stop rotating, 50 cows off. The machine rotated continuously, cows got off and on at one location. Tewapack (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. The original patent description and drawings make it clear that the cows enter by a single point and leave by a single point. Those two points being very close together, with the milking taking place in the bigger arc between them. This is a "progressive" process, rather than a "batch" process. By using progressive techniques you might in theory have 48 cows being (more or less) milked at all times, 24 hours a day, with one cow entering and one cow exiting at any given moment. As opposed to 50 cows being milked for 12.5 minutes, followed by 15 unproductive minutes of several people chasing 100 cows around in a circle trying to keep track of which are already milked and which are not yet milked. The point of the rotation is not to give the cows a relaxing joyride, but rather to give time for the milking process as they are transported from the entry point to the exit point without walking which would make milking impossible. There is a video on YouTube of a similar machine (except the cows have to back out of the stalls in that one) and it is evident how the cows learn the routine and need very little human attention in the process. If I sound slightly exasperated, I am... I brought this up with the original author who introduced the error, and he only insulted me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looked over the references and I do believe you are correct. Copyedited accordingly to show the machine never stops. Since I wasn't familiar with the machine, and have never seen one in operation, that was the way I understood the process. Since there are others more familiar with the process, they will have a better idea exactly how it goes and understand what the references are saying. If you see a sentence that still doesn't look correct, let me know which sentence and I'll check it against the reference.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

See also WP:DCGAR and AN consensus on presumptive deletion. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Question: existence of an item
Is a website that offers reviews of regional tourist attractions, including marketing-type language, considered a reliable source for referencing the existence of an item at the location of the tourist attraction? Or is such a website considered an advert and completely inadmissible as a source for Wikipedia? See for example, this site. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * How is it WP:DUE and not likely to turn into a commercial WP:TRIVIA list unless some other non-commercial source mentions it? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m not picking on anything. Still would like someone to answer my genuine question regarding existence only. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE; how many of them exist? Should there be a list at all or is it promotional trivia? Are there secondary sources ?  The questions can't be answered without that context. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The site linked in the original question here ("Melbourne Playgrounds") says in its "About" link:
 * "Melbourne Playgrounds delivers the most comprehensive directory available for kids activities, products and services in Melbourne and Victoria.
 * We provide a very targeted, high volume traffic web site for businesses operating in Victoria.
 * Please contact us (below) for an advertising rate card.
 * From this I get the very strong impression that (unlike a legitimate newspaper would, for instance) they do not separate the editorial and advertising sides of their business and that the listings they include are, essentially, advertisements, paid for and provided by the businesses they list. So no, not reliable for anything, not even the existence of an attraction. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Description
The article says "The Rotolactor held 50 cows and could produce 26,000 quarts of milk."

What does that mean? It held 50 cows at any one moment? Or it held 50 cows as prisoners forever?

It could produce 26,000 quarts of milk from a single round of 50 cows? Or 26,000 quarts of milk per hour? Per day? Per week? Per month? Per year? Or the machine wore out and needed to be replaced after producing 26,000 quarts of milk?

This is kinda like saying your car can go 60 miles, when you mean it can go 60 miles per hour. Big difference. 2600:1700:B930:7B90:30EC:DD40:2777:6D9E (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It holds 50 cows at any one moment. As a cow departs, another cow enters.Jeff in CA (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)