Talk:Common warthog/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disambiguation

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?

I think that Warthog should stay as the main page. There is a precedent on some pages for having disambiguation within the main article, with links such as [For A10 Warthog click here]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendel boy (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What Is It?

What is this?

Can anyone tell me what sort of a beast this is? Is it a species of warthog? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:45, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Pretty certain it is a bush pig. Certainly those long stringy ears are characteristic of bush pigs. The only reason I am not certain is that our suidae 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. Pcb21| Pete 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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 01:39, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Bush pig. 211.72.108.18 00:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Now see Red river hog article. Invertzoo (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Warthogs, FoxTrot and the Wikipedia

This article was recently mentioned in a FoxTrot comic strip (the image) about Wikipedia. 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 nonsense magnet for a while. --Kizor 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. CryptoDerk 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? Rossumcapek 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. CryptoDerk 16:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure your current edit, "the pairs", is correct? The last version before the Foxtrot affair has "the two pairs". Zyqqh 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. CryptoDerk 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. CryptoDerk 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 click here, or go to the article, click the history tab and then click the version of 10:49 7 May 2005. --agr 00:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm reprotecting the article for a day or so. Hello, FoxTrot readers; check out Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected; may wish to keep an eye on this one for another day or two. -- Infrogmation 17:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Adding french interwiki link

Since I can't do it myself: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phacoch%C3%A8re

Thanks.

Added. -- Infrogmation 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. -Lethe | Talk 17:21, May 9, 2005 (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. 70.108.143.20 22:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nature is not always pretty, and wikipedia is relatively uncensored. Wahkeenah 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. 70.108.58.167 20:25, 3 March 2007 (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 Wikipedia now, too: nl:Knobbelzwijn en nl:Woestijnknobbelzwijn. Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 5 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Warthog ivory

This is just a description of Warthog teeth - there's little to justify a separate article. - Tiswas^(t/c) 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, merge Rexparry sydney 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree Steevm 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 policy, not personal preference. - Tiswas^(t) 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 Giraffe and Sable Antelope and you will see that the images are not 'thumb'. Regards, Rexparry sydney 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? 24.6.65.83 17:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

These are very well-known strips. It is you who is fomenting the edit war. Baseball Bugs 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. 24.6.65.83 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. 24.6.65.83 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. Baseball Bugs 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not settled, obviously, since other editors have questioned their presence or removed them in recent weeks.[1][2] 24.6.65.83 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nor was there hardly any issue at all. Some recent editors have stirred this up. Baseball Bugs 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:

• User:24.6.65.83, you begin by accusing User:Baseball Bugs of making personal attacks. If these are an issue they should be taken up elsewhere, either through wikipedia's dispute resolution process or by reporting specific incidents at the administrators' noticeboard.
• User:Baseball Bugs, 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 cruft (see below for more on this). I can only find one editor, User:Baseball Bugs, who has restored the debated material. Wikipedia's guidelines on consensus editing 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 trivia sections. 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.
• Wikipedia's Verifiability policy states that the burden of evidence is on the editor wishing to add or retain material, not on the editor wishing to remove it. Therefore, I would urge User:Baseball Bugs 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. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 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? LurkingInChicago 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Blanket reverts of multiple changes can be very disruptive to wikipedia. 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. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 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. Baseball Bugs 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.[3] 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 Wikipedia guidelines. Now that another opinion has been given, one which echoes my reasoning for removal of the strips, hopefully Bugs will accept that. 24.6.65.83 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to "personally" attack an anonymous IP address, especially one which ironically claims a well-known national comic strip (also cited in various other places in wikipedia) is "inconsequential". Baseball Bugs 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I neither dislike, nor do I question the notability, of Foxtrot. My reasoning is laid out above and is nothing to do with those issues. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Avoid trivia sections This page is part of the Manual of Style. These guidelines have been developed through the consensus of many editors and should be followed in Wikipedia articles. This is well worth reading. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, in your mind, neither the well-known comic strip Foxtrot, nor wikipedia itself, is notable. I won't argue with you on the latter point. Baseball Bugs 02:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I already said, this is not about notability. This is about trivia. The guideline I just posted is about trivia. I like the comic, I think it is notable, I do not think it has a place in this article. The wikipedia policy on trivia seems to agree with me. If you want other opinions on that question, I'm sure we could get some. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a guideline, not a rule, and I find no violations of that guideline in including the cartoon reference. Baseball Bugs 03:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is some relevant text from Wikipedia:Handling trivia:

Note that certain kinds of information can be more or less important, depending on the context. For instance, in the South Park episode "Pink Eye," the space station Mir lands on Kenny McCormick, killing him. The overall importance of this piece of information may be hard to define, but it is certainly important to Pink Eye (South Park episode), somewhat important to Kenny McCormick, and not very important to Mir. ... It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because the term "important" is subjective. That said, an ideal Wikipedia article would present its subject in a straightforward but well-organized way, without spending much time on unnecessary details, yet while referring the reader to other articles or outside resources where more details can be found. The overinclusion of unimportant detail detracts from this goal. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so some degree of selectivity should always be used.

I challenge Baseball Bugs to explain the importance of the Fox Trot panel for a reader who is seeking information about warthogs. How does this improve the article? If this isn't "indiscriminate information", what is? And do you have any idea just how many cartoons, picture books, novels, short stories, fables, poems, TV show episodes, movies, video games, songs, T-shirts, crossword puzzles, paintings, postcards and greeting cards mention or depict warthogs? Probably 500,000+, and they don't all need to be in this article. How is this example special? You have made no defense for its inclusion, aside from insisting the rules don't expressly forbid it. Ewulp 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pumbaa

Should get a mention as the fictional warthog to have popularised the species? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendel boy (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

additional video

Grazing

--Neozoon 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Tarangire Warzenschwein1.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Tarangire Warzenschwein1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 29, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-04-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 20:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) is a wild member of the pig family that lives in grassland, savanna, and woodland in Sub-Saharan Africa. The common name comes from the four large wart-like protrusions found on the head of the warthog, which serve as a fat reserve and are used for defence when males fight.Photo: Ikiwaner

Meaning of binomial

I always appreciate it when the binomial name is translated. "Africanus" I know, but what does "phacochoerus" mean? Thank you. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"One of the world's ugliest animals"

I have an old copy of World Book Encyclopedia that calls the warthog "one of the world's ugliest mammals". In a caption accompanying a photo, it is proclaimed "The Wart Hog Is One of the World's Ugliest Animas." On its own this is clearly a qualitative aesthetic judgment. However, if the Wikipedia article were to say that "Writers have described the animal as one of the world's ugliest," that doesn't so much describe the animal as it does human beings' perception of the animal. I think this at least somewhat important, as both the study of animals and the degree of protection they receive is to some significant degree influenced by how we perceive them.

I'll leave it to others to decide whether to include this information. The reference is World Book Encyclopedia, copyright 1963, Volume 19 (W-Z), page 43. The entry is titled "Wart Hog", with a space between the two words. The article begins with this sentence: "Wart Hog is an African swine, and one of the world's ugliest animals." Full disclosure: It would be dishonest if I did not admit that I was amused when I read that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.215.19 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

One more reference to the warthog's ugly appearance. And here is a link to some folklore on how the warthog got its ugly appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherpioneer (talk • contribs) 17:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)