Talk:Extensive farming

Suggest universalizing this page

For some strange reason the article seems overly focused on Australia and on the Murray-Darling Basin. This article should be made more universally relevant. It should also be renamed to Extensive Agriculture, and the agricultural elements of the issue should be brought to the fore. Herding and animal husbandry are less relevant to the study of extensive agriculture than are questions of yield, inputs, fallowing, etc., all of which are part of a trajectory between intensive agriculture (the effort to obtain higher yield per unit of land by increasing inputs such as labor, fertilizer, capital improvements) and extensive agriculture (in which the individual productive unit may expand landholding to increase yield per unit of labor, more or less). 74.75.148.113 (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

When I have some time, I'll add to this, from my own knowledge and the French article. Telso 01:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

removed passage

i removed this passage:Unlike intensive farming, which must use chemical fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, plant growth regulators and pesticides to produce a large proportion of crop per unit area to cover the costs of high property value, extensive farming is practised on low-cost land and therefore does not require high maintenance such as chemical stimulants.

extensive farming is not identical with organics, but a rather vague term for agriculture on big surfaces of low productivity. that does not mean that there are no chemical inputs, even though they might be lower than in intensive farming.trueblood 12:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaming page

A user User:Aleksa Lukic recently moved this page without discussion to 'Extensive type of farming'. The term 'Extensive farming' is an appropriate title for this article, is in common use, and no justification was given for the move other than the edit summary 'more appropriate page name'. I oppose the move, and it is not at all clear that 'type of farming' is the more appropriate name. For example, a quick search on google scholar reveals that 'extensive farming' is used in several thousand articles, whereas 'extensive type of farming' appears in less than 100.

Dialectric (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the term 'extensive farming' is in more common usage and it is more popular expression, but I think it is more encyclopedic correct to use term 'type of' — it is more banal just to say 'extensive farming', and that is thing which one encyclopedia is trying to prevent. It is, surely, a type of something, so it's correct. Take a look at serbian version, in which is also used and accepted the term type (тип). Anyway, encyclopedia is encyclopedia and its content must be appropriate for her. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I try to avoid the banality of citing wikipolicy, but see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names) - the first criteria for naming is "Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article." The current names meet this criteria, and thus are appropriate. The 'type of' wording does not meet this criteria.

Would you also change Synchronized swimming or Electronic voting to include 'type of'? These, like 'Intensive Farming' and 'Extensive Farming', are grammatically correct and standard English usage. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the Gerund - 'farming' in this article title is a gerund, and behaves as a noun. With the adjective extensive or intensive, it becomes a Noun phrase. Thus, the 'type of' is implied and/or unnecessary. The Serbian Wikipedia usage is not relevant to this discussion. Dialectric (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)