 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This is also an important part of Australian history and needs to be ocky-fied. They are still used in forestry in old-growth areas of Tasmania (I just need a source!) -- Ga rr ie 03:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
We seem to have several related articles with considerable overlap. It seems to me that we need to clarify the distinctions between the articles, or perhaps even merge them. For clarity in this discussion: a wagon has four wheels, a cart has two wheels, oxen are draught cattle, usually adult castrated males, which are known as bullocks in Australia and New Zealand ("bullock" often has a different meaning elsewhere – in Britain it usually means a young castrated male reared for beef, in America it means a young uncastrated bull).
At the moment we have:
- Ox-wagon. An article about four-wheeled vehicles drawn by oxen and used for pioneer transport in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand in the 19th and 20th centuries. No mention of earlier historical uses in Europe or elsewhere.
- Covered wagon. About similar wagons used in North America for similar purposes, with horses, mules or oxen.
- Bullock cart. A brief article about two-wheeled vehicles (did include a large section about bullock wagons in Australia, which I've moved to Ox-wagon).
- Ox. Draught cattle.
- Wagon. Four-wheeled vehicles in general.
- Cart. Two-wheeled vehicles in general.
- (There may be others...)
- Red River cart, virtually the same vehicle, but built elsewhere.
Are these articles divided in the best way? The ox-wagon article concentrates on the pioneering aspects of the use (and overlaps heavily with the covered wagon one). Were (and are) ox-wagons not used elsewhere, for other purposes? I know that wagons were used with horses in western Europe, and oxen were used there for ploughing and logging, but I don't know about ox-wagons as such – perhaps for some reason they were only invented for pioneering? The bullock cart article really only covers Asian use – is that the only place where oxen are used in carts?
Do the ox cart and ox wagon articles really deserve to be separated from the cart and wagon articles? Do they indeed need to be separated from each other? What justification is there for separating American pioneering use of wagons from that of other areas? We could perhaps for example have the following arrangement instead:
- Wagon
- Cart
- Ox
- Pioneer wagon (or some such name)
Would all the material go more logically in these? Or are we happy with the current arrangement? At the very least the articles themselves should be clearer on the distinctions, and the cross-reference should be much better. Thoughts please. Richard New Forest ( talk) 10:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with Richard. Having all these articles which are about the same subject but separated by national history and dialect is absolutely untenable. We're making it very hard for readers looking for a single objective explanation and history of draft cattle. I think the first step is merging this stub two ways into Ox and Cart respectively. Then we should combine Ox-wagon and Covered wagon into a single Pioneer wagon article that covers both historical uses of ox-drawn wagons. Steven Walling 19:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd describe the vehicles by type and not what animal pulled them unless they were NEVER pulled by anything else. i.e. Horses and mules also pulled (and still pull) these types of wagons. Sounds to me like there is also a major need for some cross- linking and a whole lot of redirects! So while I like the notion of combining articles that need to be combined, especially when it's merely due to regional terminology and no other factors (things like cultural distinctiveness MIGHT be grounds to keep a separate article), as was done with, say cattle crush, you certainly don't want to lump all farm or rough-built wagons and carts as ox-pulled conveyances. (and by the way, in the US, a young uncastrated male is simply a "bull calf" and a young castrated male is a STEER, not an ox--Oxen are neutered male ADULT draft animals here) Note Horse-drawn vehicle as a possible model under which various cattle-pulled conveyances could be described as a group, with articles combined and renamed to describe the conveyance style, and not the animal that pulled it. I also don't know who got the idea that the covered wagon or the more specific conestoga wagon should be called a "pioneer wagon," either...sigh. A "pioneer wagon" is simply the colloquialism for a covered wagon when used to transport goods west, it isn't the proper term for the conveyance itself. (ditto for "prairie schooner", another nickname) From the article text, an ox-wagon appears to have primarily South African roots and in design as described in the article is clearly NOT a "covered wagon" (though oxen were sometimes used to pull covered wagons). May want to ask the carriage and wagon article editors to weigh in too, I have not enough info on how the classification scheme works in this area of wiki. Montanabw (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note a follow up, what I think is that there is a clear need for articles on the vehicles, in all their permutations. See Red River cart, which is local to more or less my neck of the woods (or prairie). Clearly, there is a worldwide phenomena of crude, two-wheeled carts built of local materials, designed to be pulled by slow-moving animals, in essence the cheapest form of freight transportation. IS there any kind of standard name for this technology that can be made into an overview article, with each of the regional/ethnic designs added as they are located? Montanabw (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- My point wasn't that pioneer wagon is the only or ideal name for a new merged article. It's a suggestion that we find a compromise for combining articles that talk about the same mode of transportation from different national historical perspectives. If the subject is enough of a separate vehicle type (not just a colloquial name) that it should be separate from any general article, then that's obviously the right way to go about it. I think conestoga and Red River cart are unique enough for that to apply. But having a general title article like "ox-drawn wagon" applying only to South African history is not okay, and the same goes for bullock cart. It's repetitive and confusing to the reader, and is nearing POV forks. For a solution, I do like the suggestion to mirror what's been done at horse-drawn vehicle, though the Ox article is small enough that it could just be a section in that.
- As a point of clarification: according to actual ox drovers and their associations, in the U.S. oxen is first and foremost a reference to adult working cattle, the majority of which happen to be castrated males. Being a neutered male is not technically part of the definition.
Steven Walling 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- As another example, I'll point out that Commons solves the definition problem by having the Category:Ox transport, which has subcats for carts and wagons. Awkward name, but good solution. Steven Walling 00:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer to see the articles named as cart, wagon etc as they were hauled by various animals including camels, horses and buffalo and so on. Oh, and our ox(en) are fattened for the Japanese dinner tables. Bullocks are used for hauling wagons here and in other countries, too. Cgoodwin ( talk) 05:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- It was bullocks I said were young bulls, not oxen – though I'm only going by what it says in Cattle#Terminology (I seem to remember that came out of a similar discussion). The British def of "ox" is pretty much as Stephen says – it's primarily a bovine used for draught, which is in practice nearly always a castrated male, but which could be a cow or even a bull. We also use "ox" for adult cattle products other than beef: ox liver, ox-hide, ox-blood, ox-tail, ox kidneys etc. Neats'-foot...
- "Pioneer wagon" was my phrase, I'm afraid. I was trying to think of a general term which would include American covered wagons, South African ox-wagons and Australasian bullock wagons. Richard New Forest ( talk) 14:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Probably your "pioneer wagon" could be simply the good all-purpose farm wagon LOL! CG makes a good point that many working animals can pull similar conveyances. I DO like the idea of grouping vehicles that are essentially the same mode of transportation and possibly then just explaining all the different animals that could pull them (for an example, skijoring and why ISN'T it an Olympic sport??) And, yeah, I remember the discussion that one could interpret Ox to mean a barren cow or something that got put to work instead of made into burger, but out here, the castrated boy youngsters are still called Steers, not bullocks (grin)! Out here, the only Bullocks are politicians! Though, I guess you Have a few of that kind over there too!
Growing up in America, the generic word is ox cart, especially for two-wheeled but sometimes for four-wheeled carts, although ox wagon is understandable if one specifically means four-wheeled carts. 74.96.60.245 ( talk) 03:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, it seems more practical to have one article covering all types and sizes of ox carts, and subsections breaking out the specialized sub-types which have been used in different areas, and another subsection discussing oxen as draft animals [e.g. how far they can go in one day]. 74.96.60.245 ( talk) 03:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
cart or wagon. Bullock cart#Australia mentions "four wheeled". Should that not be called an ox-wagon? Peter Horn User talk 06:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @
GarrieIrons: @
Richard New Forest: @
Montanabw: @
Steven Walling: @
Cgoodwin: Your input and thoughts please.
Peter Horn
User talk 15:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Most of these other folks no longer edit WP much. Basically, there are regional variations in terminology. So there is no one right term. If it was a Cgoodwin edit, then it’s correct for Australian livestock, Cg was a solid authority on that. If it was Richard New Forest, then it’s sure to be use in the UK. I miss having those editors around. But back to the question, basically a cart can have four wheels, yes.
Montanabw
(talk) 15:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah in the Western US, we don't even use the term bullock at all (it would be ox wagon). I think keeping the current name is fine and then mentioning regional variantions in the lede. Steven Walling • talk 15:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Most of these other folks no longer edit WP much. Basically, there are regional variations in terminology. So there is no one right term. If it was a Cgoodwin edit, then it’s correct for Australian livestock, Cg was a solid authority on that. If it was Richard New Forest, then it’s sure to be use in the UK. I miss having those editors around. But back to the question, basically a cart can have four wheels, yes.
Montanabw
(talk) 15:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I propose that for the sake of consistency, not withstanding regional variations,
carts and
chariots are two wheeled vehicles and
wagons and
carriages are four wheeled vehicles. So, on the one hand,
bullock carts,
ox carts and
chariots have two wheels and, on the other hand,
ox-wagons and
bullock wagons have four wheels. That includes redirects. That leaves
ox carriage or
bullock carriage as four wheeled vehicles. As for the latter two, one would become a redirect to the other. Toss or flip a coin. Now a little joke. What doe an American car and an elephant have in common? They both have a
trunk.
Peter Horn
User talk 17:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest reading the long discussion from a decade ago above. It’s old, but it’s between people who actually know about livestock and the art of driving. Also, be careful not to engage in WP:SYNTH and just do up arbitrary “rules” for the sake of a consistency that doesn’t make sense. I think somewhere along the line,,it was clear that there really isn’t a primary use, but the old consensus was to start with UK English unless there’s some real compelling reason to say it otherwise… for example, Oxen don’t pull “carriages,” usually. But perhaps in certain specialized situations an ox-drawn vehicle might have a quirky name like “carriage.” I mean yes, carts often but not always have two wheels. But people call this vehicle a cart even though it has four wheels, basically because it’s small. Wagons have four wheels, but they also have other distinguishing characteristics (they aren’t buggies or carriages). There are also lots of regional variations. Similarly, Bullock is UK/Aussie English. Ox, etc., is more generic. As for terms for animal-drawn vehicles, it’s as bad as modern cars, with many regional variations. For example, if you look at something like this glossary, first they say that carts generically are two-wheeled vehicles, so on one hand, that’s a useful starting point, but then on the same page they mention “four-wheeled carts.” Then you take this source, which is pretty good, except that no, a buckboard isn’t a “carriage,” it’s a wagon… I’d suggest looking for more source material and note the geographic regions any terminology comes from. So, maybe not enlightening, but it’s my two bits. Montanabw (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
No 202.88.248.132 ( talk) 14:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
അറിയില്ല. അറിയില്ല. അറിയില്ല 202.88.248.132 ( talk) 14:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- ഹായ്. ക്ഷമിക്കണം, ഇത് ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് വിക്കിപീഡിയയാണ്. ഒരുപക്ഷേ നിങ്ങൾക്ക് മലയാളം വിക്കിപീഡിയ പരീക്ഷിക്കാമോ?
Malayalam Wikipedia (Google വിവർത്തനം ഉപയോഗിച്ച് വിവർത്തനം ചെയ്തത്)
GoldRomean (
talk) 02:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Translation: Hi. I'm sorry, but this is the English Wikipedia. Perhaps you could try the Malayalam Wikipedia? Malayalam Wikipedia (Translated using Google Translate) GoldRomean ( talk) 02:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)