Talk:Bill the Goat

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

Goat History[edit]

I am taking out the sentence "The Midshipmen on board were often given the duty of tending the goats, and thus goats became associated with Midshipmen." Unless someone can find a source, this sounds like sheer nonsense. Midshipmen were "young gentlemen," apprentice officers. Tending for livestock was the duty of seamen: Jemmy Ducks was the title of the one assigned to poultry and goats, until Jack Nastyface (cook's mate) got a hold of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VonWoland (talk • contribs) 09:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info about current Bill goats[edit]

I have some info about the current Bill goats and was wondering if this info should be posted on this wiki? Info such as birthdates, weight at birth, eye color (one is blue eyed and other is gold eyed), parents, place of birth, etc.

Or is this just stupid stuff that nobody cares about?

Thanks in advance,

Tredd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tredd (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it. Grayghost01 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Speedy Deletion[edit]

I disagree with the reason for speedy deletion "It is an empty or very short article providing little or no context." Though the article is very short it does have basic context and it some significance. I think that the creator should be given some time to sort out this article. --Ryanl 23:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not aware of a request for speedy deletion, I started the article, but have not seen it. Would be happy to respond, if given the opportunity. Joaquin Murietta 23:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing the history, I see I may have inadvertently removed this tag, db-empty because we were all editing at the same time. In looking at the comment on the history, they were:

23:12, 11 November 2005 Mathwiz2020 m (db, removed too general stub)

I over rode Mathwiz's edits because I thought the db tag referred to a stub. I have since replace his dbtag and now ask that he remove it. Joaquin Murietta 23:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC), modified on 23:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not suitable for speedy deletion, so I've removed the notice. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I was about to leave Wikipedia forever. Go Navy, Beat Army. Joaquin Murietta 00:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
that would have been extreme! You shouldn't get upset at speedies, if they're not obviously right, they get removed. Geez, even I've heard of Bill the Goat. <g>. - Nunh-huh 00:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was KIDDING. (no pun intended)Joaquin Murietta 00:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But it is interesting that the admin User:Mathwiz2020 who placed the tag (is he an admin?) is from Maryland! Joaquin Murietta 00:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At the time that I placed the article for speedy deletion (and no, I am not an admin), the article was:
Bill the Goat is the mascot of the Untied States Naval Academy.
This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

This template will categorize articles that include it into Category:Stubs.

(See this page.) I removed the "stub" category because I have been chastised before for adding articles to too-general stub categories. I did not change it to US-mil-stub because I was not sure if an article about a navy mascot would qualify as a military stub. I then put up the article for speedy deletion because, as stated in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles, the following can be deleted:
Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion.
I thought that yes, the article had very limited content, but when it came to context, it was a big tougher. The context was the naval academy, but, if the article was going to be about the naval academy, it should go as a sub-section in the article United States Naval Academy. I then put the article up for speedy deletion but, foolishly, used "db-empty" when I should have used "db|Delete and merge into United States Naval Academy". I am sorry for any inconvience this may have caused and will think twice in the future before putting articles up for speedy deletion. Thanks again for your feedback. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I do live in MD but I still have not heard of Bill the Goat until today. Odd, isn't it?
Mathwiz, I wasn't finding fault with you - in fact I assumed that the article had changed, and was merely commenting on its present state. You should certainly tag articles for speedy deletion if they fit the requirements at the time. Now I'm wondering why I've heard of Bill the Goat. He must have been featured in one of those Reader's Digest anecdotes or something.... - Nunh-huh 02:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, Mathwiz, I wasn't finding fault with you either. If you look at the time stamps, we were all editing around the same time. I put the placeholder for Bill the Goat because I was editing a University template for the Naval Academy, and it included a space for the mascot. And then I started to add more to the article. -- I do think that this should be a separate article because a. Yale has a separate article for its mascot (and other schools) b. the USNA article is too big right now, and c. Bill the Goat (there is more to say about him) deserves his own topic -- I will add more to this article in the next few days....Joaquin Murietta 02:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 16:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

factual accuracy[edit]

The Pentagon was notified, and the three goats were returned under a policy forged by general officers of the Army and Navy that stipulates that the "kidnapping of cadets, midshipmen or mascots will not be tolerated."

This passage is a pretty good indicator that the facts have not been allowed to get in the way of a 'funny' article. --81.154.236.221 23:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the facts are funny without any help. Apparently AP couldn't pass it up, either. [1]. For the apparent precipitant incident, see [2]. - Nunh-huh 23:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the comments. Bill deserves the very best and most accurate article. Which of these articles would suffice, and should they be included in the article?

Much obliged Joaquin Murietta 01:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bill the Goat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism unnoticed since 2009[edit]

This tweet may be admitting to vandalism of this article over a decade ago, with false information about a gorilla mascot that appears to have spread outside of Wikipedia (such as here, here, and here). The gorilla appear to have been added in May 2009 by an account with no other edits, a little later than the post claims but close enough. (A lot of information in this article seems to be uncited and should probably also be removed until sources can be found, just in case.) --Ringtail Raider (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_the_Goat&oldid=1195396554"