Talk:Alpaca/Archive 1

Vandalism

Hi, don't usually edit on wikipedia but I saw a blatant piece of vandalism and deleted it. I hope this doesn't conflict with Wikipedia editing procedure. Regards - JBenton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.159.135 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Alpaca Fiber

Summary in this article amended to accord with the recently cited update on the Alpaca Fiber page. Hosaymerino (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

patrick is in scienceclass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.44.98 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Breeding

A lot has happened to alpacadom since 1911. There is now a large and fast-growing worldwide breeding program to meet the increased demand for fiber. Alpacas are bred in climates from tropical Florida through the Canadian plains. Australia has an especially active program, where alpacas are preferred to sheep because of the overbuilt wool industry.

For more information on the American industry, see www.aoba.org (the Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association website).

Commentary

Guys, I added some commentary because the Alpaca is amazing and I can't help but say so. Holy crap, can you really read about this without gasping and saying awesome a couple of times? Please don't mark my changes as vandalism. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.238.85.143 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for trying to help the article, but that sort of commentary is inappropriate and has been removed. Perhaps you could look into adding some cited material to the article? We could always use more help. --Eyrian 07:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes on Alpaca Lies article published. A conflict of interest exists:

1. UC Davis - lost contract on DNA Registration for the Alpaca Registry in 2003.
2. Land O Lakes Feed produced tainted feed that killed 100+ alpacas in 2003 See [1]
3. Paper commissioned and funded by AG MRC as noted on the paper.
4. Land of Lakes VP of Public Relations also member of AG MRC Advisory council. [2]
5. Paper issued in Jan 06 prior to Land O Lakes lawsuit went to trial.
6. Paper introduced during the trial as justification of lower value.

-- User:65.77.168.170 13:44, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I can see how you would feel there is a conflict here. However, the paper that is referenced is not reporting anything extraordinary or is not otherwise common knowledge. Unless there is a better source, I think the reference and thus the paragraph on the Speculative Bubble should stay. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why then, was the edit containing substantiated facts removed?

Land O Lakes effectively won the case in terms of the lower value. If there had been any suggestion that the US Davis study was somehow tainted and unreliable, by dint of the apparent connections referred to, I am sure it would have been discredited in the judgement. The link to the US Davis report should be re-instated, being a rare non-breeder's view of the prospects for alpaca breeding. Hosaymerino (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Camels

This page says alpacas are Lama pacos, "derived from the wild guanaco" (Lama guanicoe), yet Camel mentions Lama glama pacos, which I'd credit as llamas, subspecies alpacas, how's that?

YOU ALSO NEED TO WRITE: What does it eat? How many "crias" does it get in each pregnancy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rasmus1967 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look at adding that soon... but please feel free to research the topics and update the article. Phaedrus86 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Alpaca Classification Change

In 2001 the alpaca genus classification changed from Lama Pacos to Vicugna Pacos following the presentation of a paper on work by Dr. Jane Wheeler et al on alpaca DNA to the Royal Society showing that the alpaca is descended from the vicuña, not the guanaco. The abstract of the paper and access to the full paper Genetic analysis reveals the wild ancestors of the llama and the alpaca is available here at the Royal Society site.

Another reference is Dr Eric Hoffman's book The Complete Alpaca Book, Bonny Doon Press, California, 2003.

The relationship between alpacas and vicuñas was disputed for many years, but Wheeler's DNA work proved it. However many academic sites have not caught up with this, so it is something well known to alpaca breeders who have read Dr Hoffman's book, and to Royal Society members who have access to the current classification data, but not more widely known.

Providing proof of the reclassification at present is difficult. Proof is necessary when so many university sites still show the old classification, so I will continue to research so that when I make the change to the classification on the main page, I will have the necessary ammunition.

User:phaedrus86

• If you're sure of this, you should change it in the article, as well as anywhere else it appears [i.e., in other related articles]...just because a bunch of other sites show incorrect information doesn't mean WP is required to do so. In the interest of reducing confusion, perhaps you could also write up a new section for the article called something like Scientific classification using and expanding upon the information you bring forward above. Cheers, Tomer ^TALK 01:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I second Tomer's statement Phaedrus. Wikipedia is not just allowed to be correct, but OUGHT to be correct! Donama 06:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the expertise to come down on one side or the other but If one looks at the wikipedia entries for llama and alpaca they do not come down on the same side of any "lump it" or "divide em" debate about how different they are taxonomically one from the other. (I haven't even looked at the vicuna & guanaco pages.) Wikikd 21:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

i think you just must take one reference i work on the camelidae cytogenetic and systematic and i use as reference the wilson and reeder http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/msw/

or Nowak "mammal species of the world" you can't change the name on the basis of ONE article yes it's debating but not concluded but when you said a name always said witch classification you use

ps sory for my bad english

jean Mercier jean

Firstly, the nmnhgoph.si.edu reference isn't much use - it doesn't include pacos at all, whether lama pacos or vicugna pacos. Secondly, it is just a list, it doesn't provide any other information on why species are classified the way they are. Thirdly, a debate needs more than one party - correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can see, Wheeler's Royal Society paper is the only one on the table. Phaedrus86 14:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see I am only partly right - I see an enquiry on the common name alpaca at http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/cgi-bin/wdb/msw/common/form yields the scientific name 'Lama pacos'...with references dated 1990 and 1991. Considering the state of alpaca DNA research in 1991, I think it is ludicrous to compare this with Wheeler's paper. I'm sticking with Vicugna pacos. Phaedrus86 01:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikispecies also classifies alpacas as Vicugna pacos, see http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vicugna_pacos, based on another of Wheeler's publications. Phaedrus86 11:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Origins of Alpaca Classification by Jane C Wheeler 9/1/2005 published in Camelid Quarterly at http://www.llamas-alpacas.com/CCQ/Editorialndx.asp?Category=Alpacas#. Camelid Quarterly appears to be a fairly authoritative source, and I could see no opposition there to the alpaca classification as Vicugna pacos. Phaedrus86 11:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll not lose sleep over this but I think the article should accept that the classification is in question. The Royal Society is not the authority on the subject neither is Jane Wheeler (although I think her case will win in the end). The definitive authority (AFAIK) is the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, see http://www.zoobank.org/query.htm but that's not much help as it lists both forms as current classifications. As an experiment I've just searched ScienceDirect through the university where I work for peer reviewed articles, published in 2007 that contain both Alpaca and pacos in the abstract. Out of 8 articles from well established journals seven used Lama Pacos but only one used the Vicugna form. For what it's worth, Britannica and Encarta online also both use the Lama form. As an Alpaca breeder in Australia, I'd prefer a definitive decision in favour of the Vicugna form, but it's not there yet... --Kentcoast (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The article in its current form has a paragraph taken directly from this discussion, which includes this phrase: "well known to alpaca breeders who have read Dr Hoffman's book," without telling us what Dr. Hoffman's book is. The paragraph certainly belongs in this discussion, but not in the main article. I'm removing it. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I cleaned the section up a bit, but I have one more thing to say. I'm not sure if it's important to mention Dr. Wheeler in the article. Her work definitely belongs in the reference section, but it would probably suffice to replace the entire sentence with something like this: "DNA studies have since shown that the alpaca is descended from the vicuña, not the guanaco," and include the reference to Dr. Wheeler's paper. Any thoughts? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

360,000 dollars?

Really? --Rakista 20:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I know 100,000 has been done..... for "stud" males. Young 'uns generally go for $600 I believe. --PopUpPirate 22:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

360,000 dollars?

Yes. The current high seller was Snowmass Invincible who sold for $580,000 last February. What you are thinking of in the $600 range would be gelded males which are typically kept for fiber production and companionship with other animals. I would say the average selling price of a breeding female would be about $25,000.

User:cbutlerjr The Snowmass auction of 2010 produced a sale of $675,000. ````R. Shroyer--205.175.225.22 (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Revert of Genus change 27 Dec 2005

The paper quoted in the History of the Scientific Name section provides convincing evidence that the alpaca belongs to the Vicugna genus, not the Lama. If you want to change this, please provide some reasons, don't just rely on out of date textbooks.

User:phaedrus86

Prices in US dollars?

Presumably the prices quoted are US dollars and refer to the US breeding industry - perhaps this could be clearer? I imagine the minimum price might get a little lower elsewhere in the world!

Wurzeller 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

US Prices

The US closed their alpaca registry to imports in 1999. This appears to have had the effect of boosting prices of local stock, probably because of the lack of cheaper imported competitors. See http://www.alpacas.com/AlpacaLibrary/Ship.aspx for some discussion about it, and for price statistics on the US market. Prices in Australia are certainly substantially lower than this.

User:phaedrus86 12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Speciation, or the lack thereof?

If these animals (llamas, alpacas, vicuñas, guanacos) can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring, how can they be separate species, let alone genera ?
Juicy 23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: the definition of things being members of the same species is that they can produce fertile offspring. Therefore, either:

there is only one species (with four subspecies) OR the offspring (hybrids) are not fertile OR they cannot breed together at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.151.150 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to have Alpaca wool article

I think it is important that information about the wool -- and the associated industry go at Alpaca wool. It would be great to draw info from this article for it, because that article would be about a textile and animal product, not about an animal. — Донама 02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes to External Links

Please add the National Association, Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association (AOBA) link: www.AlpacaInfo.com

I removed a link http://www.bonnydoonalpacas.org/ from the External Links section because it looked like it was just advertising an individual breeder's site. Then I discovered the site was actually that of Eric Hoffman, see the link to his book in References. Dr Hoffman is considered to have contributed a great deal to knowledge of alpacas, so warrants inclusion. To make amends I changed the reference to his book to add links to the book web page. I discovered that bonnydoonalpacas and Bonny Doon Press are the same thing. I thought about restoring the link in External Links, but it seems a bit redundant since it is already in References.
Phaedrus86 00:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove citation for $2400 per Kg wool

The newspaper article referred to was for sheep's wool, not alpaca! Not very relevant in an article about alpacas unless it is provided for comparison. Here it just seems like a non-sequitur.
Phaedrus86 12:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove link to commercial alpaca stud

Wikipedia is not an advertising facility for commercial operations. The external link to Hunter Valley Alpacas has been added and removed a couple of times. Please don't add links to individual alpaca studs.
Phaedrus86 01:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Raising Alpacas

It would be nice to have some more information on the limitations of what an alpaca needs to live, breed, and produce good wool, and some information on alpaca husbandry.

Suri

We have a suri at home, I will try and get a good photo (all the current ones arent much good because he kept on trying to eat my camera). Viridae^Talk 03:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reproduction

Please rework this section so as to make it less sexy; as it stands, it is entirely inappropriate. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babylicious2 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

diet

we should have somthing about their diets

Alpacas' primary diet is foreage, pastures or hay at 10-14% is ideal. Many breeders supplement their diet with peleted feed to add weight, or to supply nutrients that may be lacking in their hay. A powdered free-choice mineral supplement is also normally used. Is that what you had in mind, or more? AllAmericanAlpacas 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

US Price instability

It would be interesting to know where the prices of Alpacas are now compared to what they were in the late 90s. Also, what is the cost of Alpacas in South America and Australia? I have been told that Alpacas are now selling geldings for the same price as Llamas. Is this true? I know breeder female Alpacas are still quite high. But, with the artificial market produced by the lack of imports in the US, the prices will be this way for a while? Where have the prices been and where are they now? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Poisonous to Alpacas

I do think this section should be moved into the section talking about the life and hygiene and whatever of the Alpacas. I did change it some for readability last night, but it still seems awkward, and doesn't fit in the section it is in, and I don't know how to move it. Witchzenka 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know there are some very specific plants that are deadly to Alpacas and Llamas. Perhaps they could be listed with thier affects, cures, etc. Moving the section makes sense. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this something unique to the american camelids? Or are these plants that are commonly poisonous? It doesn't seem particularly noteworthy that alpacas can be poisoned by oleander. I don't know much about plants, but if these plants are poisonous to a wide variety of animals, then I'm not sure it's worth mentioning them. Are alpacas vulnerable to an unusually wide variety of plants? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

pictures

i have several pictures including the mating position of alpacas and the prcess of the animal being born, as well as some really cute pics of babies

i dont want to create an account on wikipedia

is there another way to upload an image?

signed from australia 24/4/2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.189.192.95 (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

some recent vandalism

Trying to remove the Einstein stuff. That Colbert, what can you do.

We need to lock this page down as soon as possible.

 Done - silly Colbert nonsense :) - Alison ☺ 04:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea as to why the ALPACA entry was locked, however it appears that it was locked by someone who has become semi retired in may of 2007. Not wanting to step on any toes, but is there any reason why this page is so scandalous that should STILL be excluded from the free flowing evolution and improvement that typifies wikipedia? GrinchPeru (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been protected since August '08 because of excessive vandalism. If you want unprotection, please request it at RFPP. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh Alex, (thanks for your quick response!), anyway I had no idea that these lovely little beasties could be so controversial. Would you be able (if for hostory´s sake if nothing else) be able to summarize what type of vandalism was occuring? Being a newbie CONTRIBUTOR (though a long term mooching non contributing USER!!), the RFPP page seems a rather formal process for the grownups, probably requiring that I make a proposed rewrite in its entirety, rather than being given personal access during a defined period of time. GrinchPeru (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You can always press the "History" tab on top and see all the changes done to any page. There is no "personal access". It is open now, for autoconfirmed users. Your account is new, so it normally takes four days and more than 10 edits to become autoconfirmed, then you'll have access to semi-protected pages. As for RFPP, it is very simple to follow the instructions and posting format to state that you want to have a page unprotected, and state your reasoning for it. Same for page protection requests. An Admin will then consider your request, usually on the same day, and respond. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please add to category

I am sorting out Category:Textiles. Please add this to subcat Category:Animal hair products, due to the content describing alpaca wool and fibres. "Animal hair products" is primarily for hair, fur, wool, etc used as textile fibers, and this would sit alongside articles such as Mohair and Fur. Thanks. Bards 18:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Erect neck

The article says "erect neck". Although they are clearly capable of having their necks quite erect, they seem to spend much or most of their time grazing, mouth to the ground, neck going forward and down, not at all erect.-69.87.199.131 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Drinking water

Someone please add information about water requirements, drinking habits, etc.-69.87.199.131 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

infobox image

Hi, just wanted to give people a head's up as to my reasons for changing the image in the infobox. First, and most importantly, it looks to me as if the particular alpaca in the USDA photo is a cria. I may be wrong, but this brings me to the second reason...which is that it is both an odd perspective (from up high a bit) and framed poorly. I just don't think it's that great an image technically and aesthetically. I chose the current image to replace it because the focus is good (negating, imo, the barnyard background), the framing (head to toe, straight on) is better, and your can clearly make out the species' features. Remember that the image in the infobox is there for people who've never seen an alpaca before, and need to have a very clear picture of what it looks like to differentiate it from other camelids. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Balance of article?

We need to go through the article and preserve NPV. This reads like pro-alpaca propoganda!

Okay that was half in jest, but seriously, there is some oddly placed bias in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.76.245 (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Split into two articles?

Angora wool is a separate article from angora rabbit. I suggest for consistency we go to summary style and split off the section about alpaca wool into its own article. Thoughts? Durova^Charge! 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea. I'm not sure it needs to be done just because it's been done somewhere else. Perhaps the Alpaca fiber section could be sourced better or otherwise edited for content and improved before breaking it out? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Durova. In this case, their wool (as a subject) is very similar to sheep's wool, i.e. an important enough commodity to require it's own article. Also, if you break it out, I can gather at least a couple general sources in order to ensure it's status as a separate article. If there's a dog wool article, then there should be an alpaca one too. VanTucky ^talk 23:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep good idea D. Viridae^Talk 01:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate the offer for sources. Textile arts is an underdeveloped area and one of the things I'm working toward doing is getting it more standardized. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For now I've just moved the text and added see also link. Wasn't sure how to summarize it, and some of the unsourced material looks farfetched. I noticed some vandalism attempts today to add plausible nonsense to the article. Any gauge on how much of that section/new article is legit? Durova^Charge! 05:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

When I finally get home net, I will have a look at it (in depth). Untill then, good work with the split, but it does need some work. A collaboration would be fun when I am not editing from work. Viridae^Talk 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

I went through and trimmed down the list of links- since recently this got reverted, here's a link by link reason why I thought they didn't belong:

• Alpaca Registry, Inc. This site maintains a database of alpacas and DNA records and manages lists of animals owned or sold by owners, which I don't see as useful for someone who wants more info on alpacas- rather I think this site would be useful for a new owner, which is not the target audience of this article.
• The Alpaca Small Farm Network This site is for a group of alpaca farmers, with no information on alpacas (that I can easily find)- only infor on products they sell.
• Alpaca Ontario (Canada) This website aims to "represent the collective interests of Alpaca Owners in Ontario to actively promote the awareness of the Alpaca and related fibre industry encourage through education the highest quality Alpaca husbandry and breeding practices and foster interaction among its members." Thus they do have some info, however most of it is already in this article.
• Alpacas in Andalucia This site is for a single alpaca farm, yet has more info about alpacas than the previous ones. Still, I don't think it belongs.
• Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association, The Yes, it has some info, but again I think it is more for the owner than the casual reader.
• Australasian Alpaca Breeders Association, The More than average amount of info, but again, more for owners.
• Australian Alpaca Association, The I left this one there because this site has the most info (and not just the general specs that is already in this article) of them all
• International Alpaca Asociation (Peru) In order to get to info about alpacas you have to go through several links. This page, part of their website, does seem to have lots of info- maybe that page should be linked to instead?
• Italian Breeders Association, The So, the page is in Italian, which means I can't judge based on content, but breeders associations in general shouldn't be linked to, I think, as there are so many of them that linking to them all would be impossible, and it is hard to tell what one's website has over another's.
• Pennsylvania Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association (PAOBA) Again, minimal info on alpacas, mainly a networking site for owners.
• Cascade Alpaca Breeders North American Co-op "The goal of this project is to assist member farms in marketing their alpacas, alpaca services and alpaca products. At the same time our group is working hard to advance public awareness of the alpaca industry and assisting new alpaca farms in getting started. We invite the public to contact us for more information about alpacas and what it takes to set up an alpaca farm." - not the average audience, I feel. more for owners, or would be owners.
• Alpaca Association of Western Washington Another breeding association, this time with no actual info on alpacas.
• British Alpaca Society same reason as used before- association's page with little info.
• Health-care programm for Camelids This site baffels me- itappears to be advertising its program, but I see no link to the actual program.
• Research Paper on the Alpaca Cluster in Peru, by the Center for International Development of Harvard University (in Spanish) This got left for the time being, as I can't open the document.
• Alpaca Network- networking site with little info

So, feel free to tell me I'm wrong and there is valuable info in these sites, or whatever. I just thought if I was going to get rid of so many sites I should say why. 79.145.112.74 (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done. As per WP:EL, Wikipedia is not a collection of links and I do not see any problems with removing the ones in your list above. -- Alexf⁴² 12:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's no point in maintaining a link farm. --Victor12 (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree, If you look at other livestock pages you will also see information just like you removed. External links is a way to provide information that could pertain to the subject and the links you removed do provide information. Alpacas are being raised as livestock and the links that were provided do direct the reader to sites of interest and information. I have put the links back as they were. Owners are livestock handlers and can answer questions readers may have. Ifoundit77 (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

These sites fall under several critiera for links normally to be avoided: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.- most of these sites only have as much info as the article itself has now, and the article isn't an FA. 10. Links to social networking sites, discussion forums/groups, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.- Several of these sites appear to be places for the owners to come and discuss alpacas, and network. 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.- This preculudes the sites from just a single farm. 14. Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers. - Boil down many of those sites, and this is what you get.

The fact that other wikipedia pages have issues doesn't mean that this one should, and taking a brief look at other livestock pages, I don't see this. External links is a way to provide information, these sites (in general) provide a minimum of information for a minority of the readers. I never said alpacas weren't being raised as livestock, but just because they are, doesn't mean that the group raising them should be linked to. Owners may be able to answer questions, however the external links section does not exist to direct users to a forum for question asking, especially when one has to register first before asking the question. As there are currently three people who think the links shouldn't be there, to your one, would you please leave them down until we get outvoted? -- 79.145.112.74 (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done on the reversion. Good Lord, that was too many links. Links are for information, not advertising. Redrocket (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this edit summary [3], please bear in mind consensus is not a vote. Although consensus seems to be in favor of paring down the links, that's due to the discussion going on here at the talk page, and not just the number of people "voting" for or against it. Redrocket (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken- thanks for clarifing. 79.145.112.74 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd to me to leave the two you did as one cant be opened and the other is a link to an organization that caters to owners.. Hmmmm wonder why you made that choice. I have no problem leaving the external link section the way it is but the reasons you posted and the choices you made are simply questionable. Look at the sheep page and you will understand a bit more. Where else would information come from other than someone who is raising them? I could understand removing all the links you did IF they were solely marketing something. The links you removed do not require the reader to sign up they can read the forums and blogs and whatever else is on the pages. If they wanted to join in the discussion then yes they need to register just as you do here. My opinion is still the same the removal of these links is not warranted. We are all allowed to have an opinion and that is mine. Good Day.. (Ifoundit77 (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Actually, on the remaining two links, now think that both should be removed. As you pointed out, one is a broken link. The other I think has the most info of all the links that were there (and it does have a reasonable amount of info- several sets of pages) but I don't think this is a great reason to keep it. 79.145.112.74 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)