This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
Text or other creative content from this version of Goat was copied or moved into Goat farming with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Isn't that just the word "goat" with a totally different meaning, not related to the actual animal? As the hat-note says, "This article is about the domesticated species of goat... For other uses, see Goat (disambiguation)." DMacks (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion
@Remsense: It seems plausible IMO, the goat emoji has its own mention and img in the linked article. I feel like most people typing that into the searchbar, due to the emoji's slang sense, are going to be looking for the GOAT abbreviation. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 06:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Remsense: Any response? :3 I think adding it back is not unreasonable looking at the possibility of it being typed into the search bar in order to find its meaning + it is mentioned at the target article which ofc makes it a stronger case. We use hatnotes like that one if the meaning of a redirect is ambiguous as is evidently the case of 🐐︎. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 01:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
No one would put the emoji into the search bar and expect to get to that article. It's pointless clutter at the top of an article. Remsense‥论01:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Right, because it was visible at the top of a high-traffic article, not because it was where they originally wanted to go. Even if not, 1 view/day is quite low, given we already have a disambiguation page also. Remsense‥论02:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
There is no disambig for 🐐︎ though, which only has two meanings. I agree the page views are low, but is there any guideline/policy that hints at a limited page view requirement for a disambig hatnote? Otherwise, I see no actual reason to exclude it. @Remsense:❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 18:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The etymology in this article isn't the same as the etymology in the Wiktionary article on "goat", which says that the Proto-Germanic cannot go back to a PIE form. How can this be reconciled? I think that the etymology listed here should be changed to agree with the information presented in Wiktionary. DdeWylvyn (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.png){kind=small}
