Talk:Footrot

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 April 2026. The result of the discussion was keep.

On 16 April 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved from Footrot (disambiguation) to Footrot. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 16 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to "Footrot" per consensus below. There are some editors who wish to delete the article entirely, and so I will start an AFD discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Footrot (disambiguation) → Footrot (term) – This list article seems useful but it is not a disambiguation page because it contains prose, images and references. What is the best title for it? Something like Digital diseases of ruminants would include many other ailments which are correctly not mentioned here because they are not called "footrot". Certes (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 13:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Footrot, currently a redirect. Gjs238 (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Usurping that title sounds better than my suggestion. This page works well as a BCA and it has a prominent link to Footrot's current target, Interdigital necrobacillosis (cattle). Certes (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Foot rot, preferably, or possibly Footrot, and reclassify as a broad-concept or set index article. The open compound "foot rot" has more usage per Ngram and historically there was a much larger gap. On Google Scholar, "footrot" has 8,760 hits while "foot rot" has 32,600. "Footrot" results on the first several pages of GScholar overwhelmingly refer to sheep specifically; other results are for goats and sheep, bovids specifically, and ruminants generally. "Foot rot" results are mixed between sheep/ruminants and plant diseases also called "foot rot". So, "Foot rot" is far more common but also ambiguous, but we don't have an article on the fungal disease of plants, and Foot rot was the title of Interdigital necrobacillosis (cattle) for almost 20 years until a very recent page move. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Footrot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Consensus to move, relisting to generate a more thorough discussion on whether to have the title be one or two words. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 13:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article, which was created a month ago, is a collection of red links and is of no use at all. Footrot is already a primary redirect. If User:Lucyin or any other interested editor wants to submit a draft to WP:AFC, that's fine, but the current proto-broad-concept is not ready for mainspace. 162 etc. (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per 162 etc. All valid points. Gjs238 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible violation of WP:NEWLLM

(References are from this version of the article).

Reference 1, Diseases of Sheep pp. 265-267, is the start of chapter 13, which is about respiratory diseases, and there is no mention of footrot in those pages.
Reference 2, Lameness in cattle p. 151, does not mention footrot on that page and does not support the claim in the article. I have not been able to get hold of a copy of reference 3 yet.

I am surprised that the creating editor made such egregious mistakes in referencing in two out of three of the sources presented, whereas this - citing incorrect page numbers in sources that may have some bearing on the topic - is exactly the sort of thing that LLMs do: see Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing § Book citations without page numbers or URLs, which says: Some LLM-generated book citations include page numbers, and the book exists, but the cited pages do not verify the text. Signs to look out for: the book is on a somewhat general topic or frequently referenced in its field, and the citation does not include a URL (not mandatory for book citations, but editors creating legitimate book citations often include a link to an online version of the text). I'd welcome the creating editor's thoughts. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, footrot gives 32 relevant results in 1972's Lameness (and none as "foot rot") Jensen and Swift's 1988 Diseases of Sheep gives 2 hits for "footrot" (both in separate cites on page 292). It provides 63 hits if searched for "foot rot", often in conjunction as "strawberry foot rot". Footrot is a well-documented thing as any Gsearch will show. BusterD (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For background on User:Lucyin I've done some due diligence, looking through the page creator's edits here and on their home Walloon Wikipedia (where they have two dozen edits today and over 500 in April). I'm not seeing any obvious signs or previous warnings about LLM use. Further, they've been on English Wikipedia with no previous issues since 2006. No block log. 306,378 total edits on various wikiprojects. On wa.wiki they are both a sysop and a bureaucrat. I'd encourage SunloungerFrog to tread carefully, having already G15-tagged their page creation as LLM based purely on their pagenumber speculations above. BusterD (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if one was to look at Lucyin's en.wiki contribs, you'd see animal husbandry is their chosen field of editing. This appears also true on wa.wiki. BusterD (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the record, I absolutely do not dispute that the sources in question cover footrot, nor that the subject is almost certainly notable (I have not done any additional research in the area save to examine, in some detail, the three sources presented). I am just at a loss to understand why Lucyin made such a seemingly basic error in citing not just one but two of the three sources. An error, moreover, that occurs in LLM output. And, as I said above, that's why I'd welcome Lucyin's thoughts on the matter. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the maintenance template on the basis of Lucyin's comment at the AfD. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]