Jump to content

Talk:Tauros Programme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

How successful is this project expected to be? From what I can gather, this would be equivalent to having the Grey Wolf go extinct, and trying to "recreate" the Grey Wolf by crossing different breeds of dogs. Yes, technically the Grey Wolf and the Dog are the same species, but there are some fundamental differences between the wolf and the dog. How much more difficult would this be by working with different bovines?


With regards to the following passage in the introductory paragraph, "The project largely uses hardy cattle breeds with optic resemblance to the extinct aurochs" Does optic resemblance mean a superficial (i.e. outwardly physical) resemblance? That's a strange way of writing it. If it means something else within the field of work related to TaurOs, is there an explanatory article elsewhere which can shed light on this phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.249.171 (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TaurOs or Tauros?

[edit]

The official website uses the spelling "Tauros", with simple capitalization, rather than the camelcase "TaurOs" (except in one place in the footer). Thnidu (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I've created redirects to cover five alternate name forms:

  • TaurOs Programme
  • TaurOs Program
  • Tauros Project
  • Tauros Programme
  • Tauros Program

--Thnidu (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tauros Programme and Taurus cattle article

[edit]

Dear Invasive Spices,

you reverted most of my edits on the Tauros Programme. I just want to inform you that Justlettersandnumbers deleted entire passages in the Taurus cattle article because he diagnosed a lack of independent reliable sources which are needed for Wikipedia. The problem with the Tauros Programme article is that it relies heavily on press releases from the Stichting Taurus, which is the foundation who runs the project, so not an independent reliable source either. I assume that what is not OK in one article is not OK in the other article as well, or is it? BTW, I don't think the Tauros Programme and Taurus cattle are competing, rather they run parallel and they even made a conference together in 2015. Furthermore, you didn't tell me what exactly suggests (in my edits) that I am in any shape or form affiliated with Taurus cattle. You should ask the same to those who put unreliable information in the Tauros Programme article the same question. Thanks, DFoidl (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to this edit. I do agree that the same procedure should be followed in both pages: {{citation needed}} not immediate removal. Although independent sources are required for most claims, nonindependent sources may still be useful and are always useful for describing an organisation's goals.
I asked about your possible connection because your edits have favoured Tauros Project but cast doubt on Tauros Programme. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree about your second sentence concerning nonindependent sources, but tell that to Justlettersandnumbers ;-). My edits did not "favour" Taurus cattle (which is an umbrella term for certain crossbreeds rather than a project), rather they restored what has been deleted by Justlettersandnumbers. As for my changes in the Tauros Programme article, my intent was not to cast doubt on it, but rather to remove advertisement formulas put forward by, and only by, the responsible project itself, which, in my opinion, has no place on Wikipedia - do you agree on that? DFoidl (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No independent, reliable sources

[edit]

Wikipedia is build on independent, reliable sources. This article is built exclusively on sources connected to the project, such as from the Stichting Taurus (the foundation that runs the project), Rewilding Europe (the partner of the project), or articles written by Ronald Goderie (the project manager of the project). I consider that a big issue and suggest to remove much of the content that is not built on independent, reliable sources, just as in the Taurus cattle article. What do you say, Justlettersandnumbers? DFoidl (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]