Template talk:Agriculture

Corporations
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)
 * Only the largest ones. That list is actually quite short. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with SlimVirgin. She did a wonderful job in creating this template. The globalization aspect is an essential aspect to modern farming. WAS 4.250 23:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you going to start up here now, with the mindless reverting, adding stuff without researching it, spurious arguments, WP:POINT? Again?
 * Do not add companies that are only subsidiaries. This list is for the largest farming corporations, the owners, not the daughter companies they operate (because that list would stretch to thousands). SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about Kraft. I was still in the middle of improving the list.
 * This list does NOT include the largest farming corporations. That needs to be rectified.
 * Is it your standard practice to revert entire sequences of edits when you only disagree with one minor aspect? I know you've habitually done this on the "factory farming" page, but considering the rave reviews you have from other editors, I thought you'd at least temper this behavior under certain circumstances.  Jav43 20:13, 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)
 * The vertical integration of the agricultural industry is a major aspect of farming. WAS 4.250 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, as usual with Jav) Then remove the businesses that reliable sources show don't own or operate farms. Monsanto does both. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Monsanto's "farming" practices are limited to seed production, and are negligible compared to their other venues. How does that make Monsanto qualify as one of the largest "farming" corporations?
 * Oh, and perhaps if you weren't so ready to assume bad faith and auto-revert, we wouldn't wind up in edit conflicts. Jav43 20:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jav43, please control yourself better. We are all human. We all have limitations. Trust me when I tell you that Slim is doing the best she can and that she is a tremendous asset to wikipedia. WAS 4.250 23:34, 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)
 * The concentration of farm ownership is a major issue within the industry and for consumers. It definitely belongs here. We can limit the list to the 10 largest if you want, using whatever definition reliable sources use (which, in the case of animal farming, is usually number of animals killed each year and percentage of market). SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The globalization of food is extremely important. Exactly how we deal with that fact is up for debate. The fact that global food corporations are major players is not up for debate. They not only embody modern agriculture, they also lobby for changes to laws that help create modern agriculture. WAS 4.250 03:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Picaroon; I don't see how this is relevant to the template. It may be relevant to the farming article or other subarticles, but placing a list of corporations in the template doesn't make much sense to me - particularly since these corporations don't dominate the food industry to the extent that, say, a very few auto companies dominate the automotive industry.  Jav43 21:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agriculture is a big globalized industrialized corporatized category of human activity. It is not limited to actual farms. Would moving the template from the title of "farming" to "agriculture" make you happy? WAS 4.250 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Agricultural" could be correct.
 * I do think the best solution is to remove this category, but I don't remove contributions unless I believe they are fatally flawed, so I won't be doing that at this time. Jav43 02:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Template move to "Agriculture"
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)
 * I agree. WAS 4.250 17:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jav43 15:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As the change is unopposed after a week, I've gone and moved the template. Kurieeto 22:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal, list, template
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)

This box is way, way, way too big
For the love of God, someone shrink it. Hesperian 04:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition
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)

Let's get rid of this altogether
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)

Template talk:Agriculture/workspace
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)
 * I concur with this solution. Note that Sustainable Development's template was recently portalized by TfD for getting too big.  Although I have advocated such a solution to this one previously, I see the value in a substantially reduced footer style template.  Based on the TfD, we've got to make this less obtrusive or risk it being killed by others.  Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for template change
VanTucky at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture says:
 * I was recently working on sheep, and I found that the farming template was too large to keep in the article and still have the amount of images I wanted. Seriously, it's a big template. Would anyone be opposed to adding a hide/show function like the Buddhism template? It would make me more inclined to add it. VanTucky talk 04:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture, if anyone has a comment. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing the look
I have changed the looks slightly and made the template narrower. The content remains the same.--SasiSasi (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the image, I'm proposing to change it to file:Farming-on-Indonesia.jpg (from File:Rice Field2.jpg), since the latter is tagged with ]]. Bennylin (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the current image better, since it's not as closely tied to a single current civilisation. if we do go with a new one, we should absolutely not use 'thumb' to create an artificial frame around it.  thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Duplication
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)