| Revision as of 01:57, 9 August 2007 edit24.6.65.83 (talk) →Cartoon strips← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:55, 11 June 2024 edit undo48JCL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,070 edits low |
| (55 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
{{AfricaProject|class=Start}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{MaTalk}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Africa|Tanzania=yes|Tanzania-importance=low|Angola=Yes|Angola-importance=low|importance=low|Botswana=yes|Botswana-importance=low}} |
|
==Disambiguation== |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Mammals|importance=mid}} |
|
I feel that the term "Warthog" could do with a disambiguation page. I would say (this is an unqualified statement) that warthog gets more use in everyday speech referring to either the A-10 or the Halo vehicle than it does referring to the animal. I know the A-10 already has it's own article and I am willing to write up one for M12 Warthog LRV using information from this page http://www.bungie.net/Games/Halo/page.aspx?section=Guides&subsection=WeaponsVehiclesPages&page. Is there any policy about disambiguation pages? |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
==What Is It?== |
|
|
] |
|
|
Can anyone tell me what sort of a beast this is? Is it a species of warthog? ] – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup>] 20:45, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Pretty certain it is a ]. Certainly those long stringy ears are characteristic of bush pigs. The only reason I am not certain is that our ] article - family containing all the pigs/hogs has warty pigs listed that I am not familiar with. A google image search tends to point in the direction of a bush pig also. ] ] 22:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Well, thanks for the tip! I looked it up, and it most certainly is. The image is from the San Diego Zoo, and that zoo has several Western Bush Pigs (''Potamochoerus porcus'') that look just like the image. And that zoo has no other animals that look anything like it. ] – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup>] 01:39, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Bush pig. ] 00:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Warthogs, FoxTrot and the Misplaced Pages== |
|
|
This article was recently mentioned in a ] ] (]) about Misplaced Pages. This probably shouldn't be noted in the article itself, but suits the talk page just fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
Naturally, the article is going to be a magnet for a while. --] 11:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've protected the page as it was getting a large amount of vandalism over the past hour, and with the edit history I doubt it's on a bunch of people's watchlists. By later today or tomorrow it should be able to be removed. ] 14:56, May 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Don't forget to revert the vandalism of "hundreds of pairs tusks" that still exists on this protected page. Could an admin make that change while this page (no pun intended) is still protected? ] 15:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Whoops, I was looking at like 8 different versions to try to remove all the vandalism. Must have missed one. Taken care of. ] 16:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Are you sure your current edit, "the pairs", is correct? The has "the two pairs". ] 19:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Fixed (though technically pairs is also correct). I'm also going to remove the protection now. Hopefully it won't be vandalized again. ] 19:52, May 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you should change the fact that the article says ''hundreds'' of pairs of tusks, rather than the correct number, which is one or two. (I am not sure.) I sincerely doubt that warthogs have that many tusks. |
|
|
:This was fixed hours ago. ] 20:44, May 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
For the record, the changes implied in the comic strip were made and then promptly reverted back by the same user. To see what that Page-edited version looked like , or go to the article, click the history tab and then click the version of 10:49 7 May 2005. --] 00:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm reprotecting the article for a day or so. Hello, FoxTrot readers; check out ]. Cheers, -- ] 21:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
: Unprotected; may wish to keep an eye on this one for another day or two. -- ] 17:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Adding french interwiki link== |
|
|
Since I can't do it myself: http://fr.wikipedia.org/Phacoch%C3%A8re |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. |
|
|
: Added. -- ] 17:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==species name== |
|
|
So the infobox says the species is Phacochoerus aethipicus, while the article text says the species is Phacochoerus africanus (and lists the other species name as an alternate choice used by certain authors). I would like it if the infobox agreed with the article, but the page is protected, so I can't edit. -] | ] 17:21, May 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Two species== |
|
|
I sincerely doubt the statement credited in the article that there is only one species. Almost all recent sources, including the Kingdon Pocket Guide to African Mammals, include '''two''' species. I think it should be changed. There are two articles on this mammal on the Dutch Misplaced Pages now, too: ] en ]. ]<small> See </small> 5 July 2005 07:12 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
==Photo of "half-eaten warthog"== |
|
|
What is the point of showing this? It really doesn't add to the article, otherwise we should add "half-eaten" photos on all animal pages. I say remove this pointless photo or replace it with another of a living subject. ] 22:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* Nature is not always pretty, and wikipedia is relatively uncensored. ] 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
** Pretty isn't the point. In an article about an animal, should a corpse be included? The answer is not unless it adds to the information, as in if there is something special about the animal's dead body. Does it still run around without a head like a chicken? Does it turn into gold or sing "Walzing Matilda" after it dies? No, it is just a corpse. If showing examples of the dead animal is important, then ther should be slaughtered goats and mutilated monkeys on their respective pages. There is no pictures of smashed flies or roadkill squirrels, so there is no point in having a rotting wart hog. ] 20:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Proposed merge from ]== |
|
|
This is just a description of ] teeth - there's little to justify a separate article. - ]<sup><span style="color:#FF0000">(]/])</span></sup> 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agree, merge ] 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Agree ] 01:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Image size == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've reverted the image size to thumb (default 150px) - this is so that users may specifiy in their preferences as to what thumb size they view, rather than forcing a size. This is wikipedia ], not personal preference. - ]<sup><span style="color:#FF0000">(])</span></sup> 10:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, you're wrong, Tiswas. That policy refers to images in the text, it does not apply to images in infoboxes and templates which already have a frame and set alignment. This box is a 'taxobox' for which the style is set up with a width to be set in pixels. You will see that as a result of setting the warthog pic to 'thumb' you have made a frame within a frame, furthermore the thumb is incorrectly aligned in the taxobox, so it looks bad. Look at other articles with taxoboxes such as ] and ] and you will see that the images are not 'thumb'. Regards, ] 10:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cartoon strips == |
|
|
|
|
|
A certain editor insists on including two comic strips that make mention of warthogs, to the point of watching the clock and reverting just past the 24hr 3RR limit. This editor, who has a history of Personal Attacks, has not addressed the issue here on the talk page. The latest revert by this editor has also now reverted a bot that added dates to the fact tags. Anybody else care to comment on whether or not two inconsequential comic strip references are encyclopedia-worthy? ] 17:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:These are very well-known strips. It is ''you'' who is fomenting the edit war. ] 17:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::And the reversion of the dates in the tags? How do you justify that? It gives the appearance of reverting good edits just to include material that you like. ] 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'd also direct your attention to the section above where this was dealt with two years ago; other editors expressed the opinion that these don't belong, so your continual reverts are more than just a disagreement between us. ] 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And it was settled two years ago. So why are you messing with it now? And if there is some factual issue with it, we'll fix it. ] 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Not settled, obviously, since other editors have questioned their presence or removed them in recent weeks. ] 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Nor was there hardly any issue at all. Some recent editors have stirred this up. ] 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello. I am responding to a request for a third opinion. It seems to me that the two of you both need to make an effort to co-operate in the spirit of wikipedia. The above debate is a case in point: |
|
|
*], you begin by accusing ] of making personal attacks. If these are an issue they should be taken up elsewhere, either through wikipedia's ] process or by reporting specific incidents at the ]. |
|
|
*], making a counter-accusation of edit warring is quite unproductive in this situation. It takes two to edit war. Either one of you could have chosen to step back and either debate the issue rationally and politely or seek outside assistance in resolving the matter. |
|
|
*Looking at the edit history it does seem that several editors have removed some or all of the trivia section. This reflects a quite widely held belief among wikipedia editors that trivia sections do not add to the quality of the encyclopedia, but tend to attract ] (see below for more on this). I can only find one editor, ], who has restored the debated material. Misplaced Pages's guidelines on ] imply that there is no consensus to keep that material in question. |
|
|
*The FoxTrot cartoon in question is copyrighted, and I am not aware of any Fair Use rationale that would justify including it on the article page. A link to the image, however, is a different matter. |
|
|
*Any consensus that may have been established two years ago does not constitute a precedent for today; consensus can change. |
|
|
*The Manual of Style provides guidelines on ]. In a nutshell, lists of otherwise-unrelated items are to be avoided, and broken down into those that can reasonably be included in the main body of the article, and those that should be discarded. |
|
|
*Misplaced Pages's Verifiability policy states that the is on the editor wishing to add or retain material, not on the editor wishing to remove it. Therefore, I would urge ] to either provide arguments, ''ideally'' based on wikipedia policy or guidelines, supporting inclusion of this material, or accept its removal, move on, and concentrate on improving the standard of this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Disclaimer''' This is only an opinion. It is not binding on anyone. <font color="006622">]</font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 21:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't just do a revert! i had done a lot of editing and tagging on 8/7 that is being deleted with each revert. the latest revert by baseball bugs includes constructive edits and tagging. please discuss the current material, but don't just revert. btw...there is an article dedicated solely to mentions of wikipedia in media and popular culture. could we remove most of the material and somehow link to that page? ] 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Agreed. Blanket reverts of multiple changes can be very ]. The version reverted to has no support except that parts of it are what one editor wants. Every part of that diff is either contested (and has not been argued for on this page) or plainly a change for the worse. Therefore I have undone that edit. <font color="006622">]</font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The Foxtrot thing is about as appropriate as any entry could be, on this so-called encyclopedia. It was put there quite awhile ago, and not by me; and just now y'all have decided you don't like it, and that's that. ] 00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thank you for weighing in, SheffieldSteel. I mentioned the personal attacks by Bugs only because they have direct relevance to the edits for this article when he wrote "You are nobody from nowhere" to an IP editor that had removed the comics and warned him about 3RR. Since I was the one who requested a 3rd opinion, and refrained from editing the article until one was given, I think I've demonstrated my willingness to discuss this in light of Misplaced Pages guidelines. Now that another opinion has been given, one which echoes my reasoning for removal of the strips, hopefully Bugs will accept that. ] 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
