Talk:Chicken/Archive 2

Archives
Archive 1

More Chickens in religion

Seems odd that no mention of Voudoun or Santeria is made.

Chickens in Greek religion

Chickens were definitely used for regular sacrifices in Greece, in particular to Aesculap (Asklepios). A rooster was considered the proper sign of gratitude for successful healing. Socrate's last words are reported to have been "We owe a rooster to Asklepios; see that this is done promptly" (according to Plato's account and probably meant to indicate that Socrate considered his death the healing of a long diease). --Sanctacaris 07:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Example is the Minotaur, a creature half-chicken and half-bull.--128.118.173.167 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you'll find that the Minotaur was half-man half-bull.

edit: oops, I misread your statement.

Religion of chickens

What do chickens believe in?

I am quite sure that most chickens are atheistic and become quite violent when engaged in matters relating to religious doctrine. One pecked me when I called it an anti-semite

Thank you for the warning regarding the hostility exhibited by chickens when they are offended by human utterances. Your post may save a life.Obbop 16:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Status

How can a domesticated form of a bird have a conservation status? Shouldn't it be Red Junglefowl that is marked as secure? jimfbleak 7 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)

I would say no since the Red Junglefowl is not the same as a domestic chicken. What you suggest would be like saying we should mark Homo erectus as secure since Man still survives today. SeaFox 20:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe in evolution, but there's hardly any outward difference between this Old English Game Bird (#1) (a chicken), and this Red Jungle Fowl (#2).

http://static.zsl.org/enwiki/static/site/image-library/watermarked/032.jpg

http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/pictures/Red%20jungle%20fowl%20.JPG

(No, these aren't mine and as far as I know are under copyright, so don't use them in the article)

The Editor 2 18:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of the conservation status given to certain breeds of livestock by organisations such as the ALBC (USA) or the RBST (UK). There are different classifications, given according to how rare the breed is.

Increased popularty as Pets

In the UK chickens have started to gain popularty as pets, behind this up-surge in popularty is the advent of the [eglu] it's kind of like the imac of the chicken world. The eglu has recived a resonable amount of press in the UK which has raised a lot of awareness of chickens as pet in the UK.

Does anyone know how many bones are in a chickens body?

Does anyone know what breed is depicted in the immage with the caption "A chicken at the 2005 Royal Melbourne Show"? I have a pet rooster, who i adore and have had for many years, who is very obviously the same breed as the one depicted. (for a long time I considdered him a rhode island red, but this picture calls my judgement into question) Paco 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

To what age do chickes live?

I'm surprised this rather basic information isn't in the article. Outside of the section on 'chickens as food', there doesn't appear to be anything about the life and death of chickens. -- Ec5618 22:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a no-kill flock (as pets and for eggs but not meat) and the lifespans of my birds have averaged 8-10 years. My oldest hen was 12 years old when she died of natural causes. I've had chickens for decades, probably a couple hundred birds in all. This is based only on personal experience, however, and I'm not an expert. Anyone else? Rooster613 19:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

We have several flocks of chickens. I once had a rooster called Norman which lived until 11. Most of our chickens are killed at 5 years, however we have had a few that have lived until around 8 or 9. On experience only I would say they live the same period as whatRooster613 said. I will look it up on the internet though. Kyle sb 05:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Compare to the 42 to 49 days [1] that the modern meat typically gets to live. Femto 14:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Binomial/trinomial name

Currently, Gallus gallus redirects to Red junglefowl, which claims that the domestic chicken is Gallus gallus domesticus. Should this article be changed to reflect that? —Keenan Pepper 03:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in the absence of any response, I'm changing it. —Keenan Pepper 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Chicken Facts

chicken is what you call somneone who backs down without trying

Thats actually quite innacurate. I own quite a few chickens, and considder them to be intellegent in most respects. except for one: judging opponants. I (inadvertently) trained my pet rooster 'Odyssues' to attack my father's black cowboy-boots. even though my father, who is at least 10 times Odysseus's size, often violently kicks him away, Odysseus persists in his attacks. Odysseus's behavior has now begun to include attacking car tires. (Lately, i've had to be very cautious when driving out of my yard) These factors have led me to conclude one of two possabilities: 1: Chickens are either quite stupid (which i've already stated they're not) or 2: Chickens are some of the most suicidally brave animals in existence. Paco 23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Broody

Where is the entire section on chickens going broody their incubation period and general mothering. Was it removed intentionally or lost in the never ending vandalism that occurs on this article? Kyle sb 16:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be a section! Minglex 16:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the Broody and mothering section which was 'lost' in these last few days. I can't see why anyone would want it removed and have to assume it was deleted by a vandal or accidentally. Kyle sb 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject chickens?

Does a project for creating an improving articles on the many chicken breeds exist yet? Minglex 16:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There ought to be, especially since Wikipedia's coverage of chicken breeds is poor. Kyle sb 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject chickens would rock. Is there anyone out there who can actually make this a reality, or are three people just going to talk about it on the chat page?Chicken666 18:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Chicken as pets.gif

In case nobody noticed, the picture of a woman holding a hen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chicken_as_pets.gif) is animated. Every couple of minutes or so the hen turns into a bucket of KFC. I find it hilarious, but that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. It sure does. Yikes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish I had seen that... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Loving"?

Re "Chickens can make loving and gentle companion animals": I have kept chickens for both food and companionship, and, while the birds can be sociable enough, I'm not sure one can honestly describe any chicken's behavior as "loving". Are fowl capable of love? Bchan 16:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________________

That's kind of a philosophical question. Are you capable of loving? Can you prove it one way or the other? Since we can't ask chickens if they love, it would perhaps be more accurate to use the word "affectionate" in place of "loving". People who look at something as food are never going to want to believe it capable of love, in any case. 13:02, 17 November 2006 38.112.120.230 18:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Swimming?

Are chickens able to swim? :/ Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no. And I own chickens. They have at least three factors going against them:

1. They can't float. (to my knowledge)
2. Then their many fluffy underfeathers get wet, and weighs them down even more. (no, their semi-water proof outer feathers won't protect them, since most likely they will flap trying to escape from the water, not to mention that they are just that, semi-waterproof.)
3. Their feet are not webbed, so they would flail around helplessly underwater.

None of the above is pretty.

I also have chickens and I have by all means seen them swim in a deep pool. I don't know for how long they could swim or if they could direct themselves, but a chicken, alive or dead, at least floats, and seems to keep its head up (the alive ones anyway). I was unable to find a citeable reference on the subject.

The Editor 2 15:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thus meaning you can put them on an island somewhere for them to populate...Chicken Island! --TheJosh 10:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just curious. What exactly does semi-waterproof imply? - 05:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Water resistant? 32.97.110.142 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Piepants\

* But only partially? - fiveless 15:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Chicken Radio

Me thinks this segment may possibly be more accurate if titled "Chicken Ratio." But, what do I know. When I read the word 'chicken" I think of the trucker talk on CB radio wherein "choke your chicken" refers to a male manipulating his male member in an attempt to achieve some form of temporary physical pleasure. Obbop 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

when chickens are raised to lay eggs the male chicks are apparantly killed. I just wonder, does someone know what the ration of male chicks to female chicks is? I read on some sites that it is 1 male to 4 female and on another it is 1m to 9f. It would be good if the chicken page could contain some data on this.

thanks

Absolutely not! Assuming of course you ment before any chicks are killed. If a clutch of eggs is hatched naturally by a hen, or you do it in an incubator, it is about 50/50. That is unless before they hatch you candle them and kill the ones you think are male. Which is oddly in my mind to close to abortion to be good. I'd wait until they grow up so you can get some meat off them. The Editor 2 15:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

quite honestly, the reason people vandalize this page is because it's funny:) we should just keep erasing it and tough it out. Chicken666 13:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This won't help matters. Despite what Fictional Jimbo Wales says :-) --Richmeister 14:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This might be simultaneously the best and worst idea ever. [2] Gorman 14:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hilarity Ensues! -- wtfunkymonkey 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Before the chicks are killed, there is a 50/50 hatch rate. There is no way to tell the gender of chicks before they hatch out. Indeed, some people make a living out of vent-sexing chicks at day old. However, unless you have these super-specialised skills, you need to wait until they are at least 8 weeks old, often longer before you can tell, as neither gender has any external sex organs.

Hatcheries and big, commercial farms employ vent sexers, and then they gas the males, at day-old. If you want a rooster for breeding (this is the only reason you need one - hens will lay without a rooster), then the normal ratio suggested is 8 - 12 hens per cock.

Chicken deceases, chickens as food.

If anyone has time, could they:

• Create articles for the deceases that are externally linked
• Find common names for deceases
• Create a list of chicken dishes that have deceased
• Link to that list in the chickens for food section

TheJosh 10:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Diseases, right? :/

edit suggestions from anonymous users

Can someone revert this edit. Subsequent vandalism got reversed, but this one was forgotten. thanks. --84.172.176.156 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Is what he says true? That wikipedia editors are completely humorless about wikipedia? If so, can we edit that? --68.167.148.211 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Some are, I'm sure, but most are human beings. :P --Masamage 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite a reliable source for our being humorless, we will be honor-bound to include it. Also, Masamage, good call on the protect--I was about to do it myself after reading Ryan North's Livejournal. -- Merope 17:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not ALL Wikipedia editors are completely humourless about Wikipedia! I said "many" when I *probably* should have said "just the stereotypical ones". ALSO: when I linked to this article it was already protected from before, so I didn't expect it would cause too much trouble. Sorry if it has been! -- Ryan

Look, everyone! It's Ryan North! And, dude, some of us do have a sense of humor. See, I can link to it and everything! -- Merope 18:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Daaaaamn! It's true! It's not even a red link either!

I guess IN MY DEFENSE I was only talking about many not having a sense of humour about Wikipedia, not in general? --Ryan

Thanks Merope, but I didn't protect it. ^_^ I'm not an admin, I just zoomed over here to check on it as soon as I read the comic.

Also, hi Ryan! I have an envelope with your handwriting on it. :) So...this probably won't be an enormous amount of trouble to take care of, but any time people vandalize it is going to take time and effort and attention to keep it under control. I'm hoping that the sense of humor most of your readers have is going to be combined with sufficient maturity that we don't have a problem here, but maybe next time your comic should get an 'M' rating just to be sure?

What do you mean that's not how the rating system works? --Masamage 19:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a sense of humor. I am an admin, and I like to block people and delete articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did not know that my posting of what I considered to be useful information would be considered spam. After some consideration, I understand what could lead a person to that viewpoint. That in mind, it would probably be a good idea to remove my edit comment from the history, as well. No sense directing history-browsers to a site which incites Wikipedia vandalism. -Tsanth 17:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, many Wikipedia users still have a sense of humour and, what is worse, use it deliberately. This is why I recently set up the Wikipedia Fun Police, to help eliminate this problem once and for all. I encourage all true Wikipedians to help make this site a less fun place to be. --Grey Knight ⊖ 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Problem is that they have no sense of humour and apparently an undying love and acceptance for pokemon. Which seems to be so odd. So much of wikipedia is obscurity being ridiculously well documented that you often wonder why detailed filings of celebrity masturbation aren't being kept. And while all that riff raff is being intensly speculated over, levity is despised to the utmost. I think wikipedia needs a serious look into the fact that it is a crowning achievment of humanity and should let itself be beautiful in ways that it is not prepared to be yet. The implications of this are obviously vague and the expectations even stranger. My best guess is that I am saying wiki should be "Yeastier" (Or Yeatsier?) One Love. Thechosenone021 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

CHAARRRRRRR!!! -- Charmander 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So... what's a "neak"? (see 'Chickens as food')

rofl, I read the latest dinosaur comic ([3]) and was wondering if the chicken article had been vandalized more often than usual today. Turns out it's even protected! Sonic3KMaster^(talk) 22:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It was already protected ,before Ryan posted that comic. That's one of the reasons he picked it. --Masamage 08:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell needs an article about chicken protection? Did any chicken-slandering occur? I oppose that! 194.95.63.241 14:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if this was possible. I know I'd rather have just one super vandalized page than hella minorly vandalized ones.Reignbow 23:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not Vandalism? TheJosh 09:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The irony involved would cause vandals' heads to explode. Gorman 10:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

According to official Wikipedia policy: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The Every Topic Except Chicken proposal is quite obviously an attempt to increase the integrity of Wikipedia and thus should be allowed to commence. But the whole idea is based on vandalism and it isn't vandalism so it won't do any good and if it doesn't do any good it is vandalism but if it is vandalism it will do good but if it does good it isn't vandalism but... but... but...*explodes*Oman612 18:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

People don't follow the "don't vandalize" rule--why would they follow an "only vandalize a little" rule? If the goal is to break things, disrupt the flow of work, and get attention, an officially sanctioned junk-page would be totally ignored.

If you need proof, just look at WP:Sandbox. Yes, we already have a space for screwing around, and yet disruption still occurs everywhere else. There is no reason to take this joke seriously. It's funny, but it will never work. --Masamage 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The reason your sandbox isn't working is because it is cleaned every hour. Vandals vandalize because they want their work to last for a while. You have to trust in your principle. If something is extremely offensive someone will take it down, other then that a fun space that is not washed out so often is useful. And besides: who DOESN'T want to write a little quirk about chickens. Everybody has SOMETHING. Like chicken nuggets. I wasn't aware that chickens had nuggets!

So many vandals do their work by blanking everything everyone else has done that it wouldn't be that much of a difference. --Masamage 06:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that my insatiable lust for vandalism may have to be redirected to the chickpeas article instead. - Vandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.242.14 (talk • contribs)

The Every Topic Except Chicken proposal may be an attempt to increase the integrity of Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it succeeds in that regard. Were this topic unlocked, many individuals who up until today were not vandals would most likely vandalize this page (I know I would). Individuals who have vandalized in the past would probably not limit their vandalism to this page, because if their goal is for their work to be seen, they would head for an article not already being vandalized. And if their goal was to disrupt the learning of others, say, out of spite, they would head for an article that people could learn something from, not one that people know will not teach them anything, due to being filled with vandalism. Am I missing anything? 24.22.96.82 03:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds solid to me. --Masamage 03:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Protect or semi-protect from people not being a Digital Maoist

Is there a reason we're not semi-protecting this instead? Phil Sandifer 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was getting heavily vandalized by registered users. --Masamage 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

YEs, this was a coordinated effort to vandalize. Users had no problem registering to do so. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was linked from [4] which in turns links to a joke site, which makes fun of Wikipedia. -- Equinoxe 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protecting also stops newly-registered users. And it's not a coordinated effort, it's a joke on a webcomic. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And a web site. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Linked from the webcomic, and created as a back-up joke. Why don't we try semi, and see if it works. (By which I mean that I switched to semi, and we can re-protect if it continues as a big problem.) Phil Sandifer 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was semiprotected at first, and that didn't work at all. But now that it's the next day, we'll see. Hopefully things will calm down. --Masamage 23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur Comics hasn't updated yet... probably once the T-Rex Chicken Solution To The Wikipedia Problem shifts off their front page, things will be more relaxed. --Grey Knight ⊖ 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.qwantz.com front page - updated! Now it can die peacefully in its sleep. --Grey Knight ⊖ 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I can see a lot of this winding up on BJAODN. Sockatume 02:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please unlock this article! Illustrations are completly wrong!

Vast majority of chicken living today were born in industrial farms. Almost none looks like the photos showed in this article. I got some photos of how 99% chicken looks like today. Please let me update this article with those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.139.183 (talk • contribs)

Where are the images you had in mind? (And please remember to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ .) JDoorjam Talk 01:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is locked because there of this site: Which basically tells everybody to vandal this page.

Please sign your posts. The page is only locked for anonymous and very new registered users. In order for images to be included in articles, they must first be uploaded. Where are the images you're referring to currently located? JDoorjam Talk 06:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

They're basically rectangular for greater space efficiency and don't actually have feathers. They definitely don't look like a differently-proportioned farm chicken. Sockatume 12:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You're slightly funny... D3matt 15:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Though Sockatume is unable to properly describe these chickens, he is essentially correct. Because they have been kept in small spaces their entire lives and are genetically modified to produce more meat, chickens are now very bulbous, and unable to walk in most cases. -Tombrend 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

I think that its weird, i read an article about the founder of wikipedia asking people to vandalize the chicken page, hoping it will keep them from vandalizing other pages, so when i get to the chicken page, it says that it has locked from editing because of recent vandalization.

Actually, that was Ryan North, putting his words in the mouth of Fictional Jimbo Wales. Fictional being the keyword. --Masamage 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And indeed the picture of Jimbo on the page in question has the word "Fictional" in large rainbow type over its head :-P --Grey Knight ⊖ 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh! looks like this one could carry on for a while... wikipedia chicken controversy (theregister.co.uk) Crimsone 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(Dinosaur Comics)

Some facts and factoids can be written in a humorous manner. It is rather sad that the old biddys will cluck their dissatisfaction at the cleverness some of the postings convey. Those old biddys can become as mad as a wet hen when their feathers are plucked. Personally, I really don't give a proverbial cluck what they think. Obbop

Here is my solution to the chicken vandalism: User:TheJosh/Chicken. Have fun! TheJosh 10:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I did my best to make your vandal wall entertaining, up to a certain point where I realized that I was wasting too much time and gave up. Thanks for the enjoyment!203.131.167.26 12:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we link to http://www.everytopicintheuniverseexceptchickens.com I mean it was a really coordinated effort :) ~JunkyardChiken

Nope, per WP:N. It didn't make much of a difference in the world. --Masamage 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This came up during the Colberrorism incident as well: we have to differentiate between things that affect the subject of an article, and things that affect the article itself. The chicken article is not about the article about chickens, it's about the chickens themselves. Because this assault (albeit a light-hearted one) was on a Wikipedia article, not on chickens, it's not related to the subject of the article. (It's also not terribly notable, undying love for Ryan North and Dinosaur Comics aside.) JDoorjam Talk 19:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

recent vandalism

Hey, Ive noticed "your mom", on the cause of depresion cell. Revert it. --Walter Humala 21:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC) That edit might have come from a registered user.--Walter Humala 21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, why didn't you remove it yourself instead of just marking it? --Masamage 01:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would 've removed it, but I didnt have the word to replace it. --Walter Humala 03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. In the future, you can feel fine about just deleting stuff like that outright.^_^ Someone else can make the other fixes. --Masamage 04:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I fear the Vandal tribe that eminated from what is now the general area where Germany is located will press a lawsuit against all those using their name in a negative sense.Obbop 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Just thought I'd mention that neither the Chambers Dictionary nor the New SOED give a general bird of this species as a meaning of the word 'chicken' – only the young and the meat. The article should really be called 'Domestic fowl' or 'Common domestic fowl'. Grant 01:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the common name guideline would apply here. --Masamage 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you expect the 'common' name to appear in a dictionary? Grant 02:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it does in the three I just checked. On the other hand, I have no idea whether or not WP has any guidelines on how prestigious a dictionary we're supposed to be using; I've never heard of the ones you mention, but they seem important. Still, dictionary.com lists the bird under this name under several sources. --Masamage 02:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as likely to happen but I would support such a name change because;

• It would make this article seem more serious and may help reduce vandalism? I personally don't see what is so funny about the word chicken.
• Chicken is sometimes ambiguous for some people it refers to; 1. just hens, 2. the baby chicks, 3. the meat, or 4. the species Gallus Gallus domesticus in general. Kyle sb 09:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

History problem with dates

The guidelines say to add comments and suggestions at the bottom, and also refer to a "Post a comment" button... Confusing. However, the confusion that I wanted to comment on and ask for clarification of regards the history of chickens in the article. It says there were pictures of chickens in the 7th century BC in Rome, indicating an earlier introduction. It also says the bird probably originated in SE Asia and spread from there, but that's associated with a date of the 12th century AD. This is not making sense, though it might be that the 12th century thing is unrelated confusion and the chicken had actually been moving to the west long before that? Shanen 03:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

History: The Mystery of Araucanas

This article could use a section on Araucanas. They are a breed of chicken in South America (Chile), with apparent Pre-Columbian origins. They are quite mysterious. They lay blue eggs and lack tails. They are often cited as evidence of travel from Southeast Asia and South American in Pre-Columbian times.

Here's a site on them:
http://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/CGA/Arau/BRKAraucanas.html

I note that wikipedia already has an article on araucanas. Perhaps it should be merged into this article.

Interwiki request

Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is:

[[sr:Кокошка]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. By the way, congratulations on reaching 40,000 article over on srwiki, which has apparently been accomplished recently (based on the modified corner image.) Picaroon9288 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Places that DON'T have chicken

Do such places exist? I had an informal discussion with my brother once and after determining that even Russia could / should have chickens (we are not 100% sure but find the idea completely possible), we couldn't find a normally populated place that wouldn't have chickens.

Actually as I was typing this I was thinking that likely the arctic would not have chickens, and thus northern Russia also shouldn't have chickens. On a similar note the same with Antarctica.

Anywhere else? Piepants 10:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Piepants

I'm Impressed!

I'm impressed with this article -- seems quite complete! Yes, the tone could be improved in some sections, but the content/scope of material seems generally good. And I am envious -- what a wonderful big list of chicken breeds! Whenever I try to start something like that in an article, I get slapped down... Keep up the good work! 69.87.204.169 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Are people aware of this?

www.everytopicintheuniverseexceptchickens.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelritchie200 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC).