Talk:Water buffalo
 | Water buffalo has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 27, 2025. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Aboriginal Australians who first saw herds of water buffalo intepreted the new animals as a manifestation of their dreaming? | |||||||||
| This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
'Were re-surfaced'
edit'Indigenous Australian art depicting these water buffalo were resurfaced in a cave within a site named Djarrng near Gunbalanya in 1979.'
What does this mean? 'Was found/discovered'? First of all, 'art' is in the singular, so it should be 'was resurfaced'. Next, the meaning of 'resurface' in Wiktionary that comes closest to this would be 'to make something reappear', but this meaning is listed as 'rare', and it does indeed sound odd here, IMO. The intransitive usage 'art ... resurfaced' ('to come once again to the surface'; 'to surface again'; 'to reappear') seems more normal. Next, those who found it were presumably Australians of European origins, and they had never known it before, so it didn't re-surface from their POV. (As for Indigenous Australians, I wonder if we even know that they had lost the knowledge about its existence.) Also, the presumed date of the art should be stated. 62.73.72.101 (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- That text was added by an IP here. I'm not sure what "re-surfaced" is meant to convey here either, and other parts might not fully align with that source too. CMD (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)