Talk:Springbok

Untitled

The word Springbok was also used as the radio callsign for South African Airways-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.12 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2004 (UTC)

--Note: Just added a talk on the wrong page, sorry about that.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by JHMM13 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation

Strictly, "bok" is primary a _male_ goat (billy-goat), like "buck" in English. 88.159.72.144 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Springbok (antelope) and leave the disambiguation page at Springbok, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Springbok Antelope → Springbok — The springbok is almost never known as the "springbok antelope": it is simply the springbok. The animal is the primary meaning, the other usages listed at springbok being named after it. So, I think this article should be at springbok, and the page currently there moved to springbok (disambiguation). —Alivemajor 01:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Neither - I suggest Springbok (antelope) as a better choice, as there are valid alternative uses for Springbok that are used frequently, but also agree that Springbok Antelope is clunky and not correct. Greenman 08:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Neither - I agree with Greenman. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support but with springboks continuing to redirect to South Africa national rugby union team. — AjaxSmack 07:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved per request and discussion. It's true that the rugby team gets a lot more hits on a seasonal basis, but the antelope is a clear common-sense primary topic. If there's a better hatnote to use than the one I added, please edit accordingly. - GTBacchus^(talk) 03:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Springbok (antelope) → Springbok — The animal is the primary topic from which the other subjects derive their names. This has previously been discussed, but consensus was not clearly established. Paul_012 (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Springbok → Springbok (disambiguation)
• Oppose The claim is, essentially, that the antelope is the primary topic. Whilst I may be sympathetic to that view, a quick Google search indicates the opposite. Searching in English, excluding Wikipedia, produces the following:
  • Springbok plus animal: 104,000 hits
  • Springbok plus antelope: 46,400 hits
  • Springbok plus mammal: 31,400 hits
  • Springbok plus rugby: 637,000 hits
  • Springbok: 1,680,000 hits
• Skinsmoke (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The animal is the only unambiguous springbok except for the town (Springbok, Northern Cape). Other uses are derivative and are located at articles with other titles. — AjaxSmack 21:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Sadly, I must Oppose per Skinsmoke's evidence, and the pageview statistics for June:
  • Springbok (antelope): 14,922 views
  • South Africa national rugby union team: 58,378 views (plus or including (not sure) 6,184 via Springboks redirect)
  • Springbok, Northern Cape: 684 views
• I find this state of affairs disappointing, and I would not support redirecting Springbok to the rugby team's article, but the antelope just doesn't qualify as the primary topic. Powers ^T 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  Springboks (plural) should continue to redirect to South Africa national rugby union team but saying that a lot of people read that article doesn't mean they were searching for "springbok". — AjaxSmack 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  That's true; Skinsmoke's Google numbers are more compelling, but I thought I'd offer the pageview stats for additional data. Powers ^T 23:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  Google numbers merely establish that there are a lot of web pages with both the word "springbok(s)" and "rugby". Especially in this kind of case, they do not clarify encyclopedic usage. Cf. another similar animal case, gamecock, where university mascots, rather than the primary topic bird, dominate the Google results. — AjaxSmack 03:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  Not entirely, but they also certainly don't support the animal being the primary usage, either. Powers ^T 13:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Just to clarify, the search I quoted was for the exact term Springbok, and therefore excludes instances of Springboks (unless both appear on the same page). Must admit, I was surprised at the results, but it largely comes down to the habit of referring to individual members of the rugby team as a Springbok. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Disambiguation via views alone is never a wise decision. If you look up Springbok in a dictionary, the primary definition (often the only definition, actually) given is for the animal. Clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests it makes the most sense to perform this move. Steven Walling 21:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment We are not a dictionary. We are an encyclopedia. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests nothing of the sort. It states There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors, include: Wikipedia:Vital articles: if exactly one of the ambiguous articles is a vital article, the encyclopedia is improved by making it is the primary topic; Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere; Wikipedia article traffic statistics; Google web, news, scholar, or book searches. Both terms, I would suggest, are vital articles. Google searches and article traffic statistics suggest there is no primary topic. To choose a primary topic the evidence should be overwhelming. The evidence in this case simply isn't there, whatever you, I or Nelson Mandela may wish. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying we should blindly follow the dictionary, because that's what we are. Don't be facetious for rhetorical purposes. I'm saying that having it be the only definition in a dictionary lends credence to the idea that the animal "Springbok" is the primary topic for the term "Springbok", not some sports team whose nickname is borrowed from the primary usage, no matter how many hits it gets. Steven Walling 18:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • The primary topic is the article, if any, more commonly sought than any other article when readers search for a particular ambiguous phrase. I'm not sure how you can read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and get the impression that it has anything to do with which usages are listed in a dictionary. "How many hits it gets" is exactly the criteria that the guideline is concerned with. Propaniac (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Having the animal as Springbok and the rugby team linked to Springboks is okay by me. Springboks is only a nickname for the rugby team and if someone is looking for an individual player there are going to look under that person's name, not Springbok. Cjc13 (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Steven Walling. Quite clearly the primary topic in any "common sense" sense of the term. All other uses of "Springbok" are derivative. "Springboks" in a sporting sense is a nickname only and not a formal team name that requires disambiguation. If the policy does not allow this common sense move then quite frankly the policy needs changing (or ignoring in this instance). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I have never liked Ghits and I don't buy into pageview because people simply quote one months pageview stats and extrapolate them without considering whether those figures might be anomalies. The figures quoted above are for June 2010, yet if we look at May, June and July 2010 it is clear that pageview stats are not stable indicators of anything:

• Springbok (antelope): May 2010 (16,255 views), June 2010 (14,922 views), July 2010 (9,462 views)
• South Africa national rugby union team: May 2010 (52,518 views), June 2010 (58,378 views), July 2010 (36,463 views)

• What we have to bear in mind is that pageview stats are going to be higher for the rugby article because every time the team plays a major international match, a lot of South Africans will look at the article. In the last three months they have had all sorts of matches such as the Vodacom Tri-Nations. However if we look at December 2009, when there are fewer rugby fixtures, we have:

• Springbok (antelope): December 2009 (14,627 views)
• South Africa national rugby union team: December 2009 (3,579 views)

• From that are we supposed to assume anything? The answer is yes, NEVER assume statistics are showing you the true picture. Green Giant (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the antelope is clearly the common sense primary topic with the others derived from it. Green Giant (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Springbok which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 03:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Antidorcas marsupialis 2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Antidorcas marsupialis 2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 3, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-03. 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} 16:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The springbok is a medium-sized brown and white gazelle native to southwestern Africa. It stands about 70 to 90 cm (28 to 35 in) high and is known for its jumping ability, being able to leap 4 m (13 ft) in the air and over a distance of 15 m (49 ft). It is also a fast runner, capable of reaching speeds up to 96 km/h (60 mph). The springbok is the national animal of South Africa.Photo: Hans Hillewaert

Performance speed and jump: springbok best athlete ground mammals

The springbok is a gazelle or an antelope of South Africa, springboks are very extremely fast until 55 mph (88 km/h) on average on 2 kilometers, with a peak speed 71 mph (115 km/h) on 400 meters (recorded "Smithers on 1983"), and hold 30 mph (48 km/h) on 6 kilometers, this gazelle gone up on springs can also make record jumps for 4 meters in the airs upright and up to 15 meters in length. Springbok gazelle, athlete of the ground mammal are the best. It is the small colored and graceful antelope which re-seems strong in the Thomson's gazelle, but distinguishes itself from it by some characteristics: his size (the springbok is higher in the shoulder), its horns, its geographical distribution, the springbok is a part of real genus " Gazella ", but it is a only genre " Antidorcas Marsupialis ", he also possesses a pocket of length white hairs snows at the level of the back train, as well as develop the muscle of springs at the level of the thighs who allows her to make spectacular jumps sometimes.

Reality cuts of top in the shoulder of springboks: 73 - 87 cm

• Males: 77 - 87 cm (average males 82 cm)
• Females: 72 - 82 cm (average females 77 cm)

The average of the species generally 80 cm.

Mass:

• Males: 32 kg - 48 kg (average males 40 kg)
• Females: 23 kg - 38 kg (average females 30 kg)

The average mass of the springboks is of 35 kg. --Angel310 (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Radio

I've listened to some South African radio programs from the 1960s and some were on Springbok radio. I don't know if that was the only South African radio station or what, but shouldn't that be mentioned in this article? Jtyroler (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's significant enough to be mentioned here, given how long it's been off the air, and that it wasn't the main station of it's day (which would have warranted mention under "national symbols"). Having said that, I can see no reason why it shouldn't be listed at the dab page linked to at the top of the article. Anaxial (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Springbok/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll take this one. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• The intro seems too long for an article this size.[1] I think at least a third could be cut.

In my previous work on similar articles this problem did not arise with lengthy leads. Nevertheless I have cut out a large portion. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine now, generally, the length of the intros should correspond to the length of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this. I will try to respond as soon as possible to all comments. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I found some unused pictures that show interesting behaviour, which could maybe be used somewhere: Fighting:[2] Herding:[3] Predation:[4]

Looked them up. They all look good under the Ecology and Behaviour section, but I think it's best to use just one to avoid clumsiness. If so then I guess the herding picture would be the best, since it is a major topic in this section. Your say? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'd think a picture of fighting males (there are other photos that show this as well) would be the most interesting, but it's your call. It's harder to imagine them fighting, than just duplicating them in your mind, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, done :D ! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Dates and authors for subspecies?

Gosh, missed them out! Fixed

• I think the MOS says bold should only be used in some specific literary cases outside the intro, so it appears the bolding under taxonomy should be removed.

I have this habit since I worked on Giant eland, and it even survived the FAC. I have continued this through several GAs as well without objections to it. I feel it gives a good emphasis as it is, but if the MoS is strictly against this then I guess I shall have to drop this practice. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, ok, here's the guidelines in question:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess all have forgotten that little line in the MoS! Well I am gonna abide by it from now. Thanks for letting me know. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• "It was first described by" Perhaps mention he considered it as part of an existing genus, and mention who gave it its own genus and when?

Sorry I don't have access to any information about this. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find anything... FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It would appear Zimmermann originally placed it in the genus Antilope, and that Sundevall placed it in its own genus in 1847, this info is already in the taxobox, but would be hard to understand for the lay reader if not stated explicitly in the text. May seem like useless detail, but now the article implies that Zimmermann originally placed it in its own genus, which is incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have often found synonyms too confusing to go upon. Couldn't say Zimmermann took the genus Antilope exactly without a better source, and I really can not find even a bit about this. Moreover I don't find anything that could relate the blackbuck (A. cervicapra) and springbok taxonomically so that they could have once shared a genus. But I guess it would be well enough for now to add something like "Sundevall placed the species in its own genus Antidorcas in 1847"?

If you have a sources that lists the synonyms, that should be enough to cite those statements.[6] As for early taxonomists grouping unrelated animals in the same genus, that was pretty much the norm back then, hehe... Seems the genus Antilope was a wastebasket taxon, like felis was as well... FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I am no expert on this, thanks for telling me. Added. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the gallery of springbok varieties, maybe it would be nice if "Three springbok varieties" was written at the top, above the images?

Nice idea. Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've done some copy editing as I went along.

Thanks! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the same paragraph you say "and horns are present in both sexes." and then "and both sexes having horns." One should be enough.

Corrected. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• "In addition to the normal-coloured springboks there are also pure black and pure white forms." I think this would read better if you describe the normal colouration before mentioning there are other varieties.

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• What produces these varieties, is it random, or linked to subspecies?

Could not find any source supporting such relation. Might be random. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, there seem to be captive groups consisting entirely of either kind:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I found a line like this from Kingdon's book : "Dark and pale morphs have been selected on some South African farms." I guess artificial selection is involved in this, though why they might have taken up this task is still a mystery to me. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps worth a mention? FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well then, added. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Males have thick horns about 35–49 cm (14–19 in) long, while those of females are thinner and shorter than those of males. In the subspecies A. m. marsupialis, 'females have horns shorter and thinner than males, with horns only 60-70 percent as long as those of males. Horns have a girth of 71 and 83 mm (2.8 and 3.3 in) at the base and thinning to 56 and 65 mm (2.2 and 2.6 in) towards the tip. In the other two subspecies there is no significant difference between the horns of both sexes." There seems to be some contradiction here. First you make a general statement that the horns are different. Then you repeat it for a single subspecies, and then you say the other subspecies don't have differences. Which is it?

Fixed Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Group size and distance from roads and bushes were found to have major influence on vigilance, more among grazers than among browsers." Are both groups springboks? Could be clarified, because it is only explained further below that springboks both browse and graze.

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• "While pronking, the springbok repeatedly leaps" and "The most accepted theory for stotting". Perhaps you should choose which term you want to use repeatedly for consistency.

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• "summed up to a number in complete disagreement with East's estimate. Based on these figures the total population in southern Africa was estimated at approximately 2,000,000 - 2,500,000 animals." Are the numbers that are in disagreement those mentioned by the end of the section, or is it some kid of compromise between the two? Seems a bit unclear.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• The intro refers to it as an " antelope-gazelle", but later the article states it is not a gazelle. How can it be both an antelope and a gazelle?

Oh, some defective legacy. Corrected. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• All looks good to me then, passed! FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

South African English?

Shouldn't this be marked as "South African English", not "British English"?--— Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

What are the differences between the two that affect this article? MPS1992 (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I think written SA English is pretty much identical to UK English? Apart from maybe some extra loanwords from other languages. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

South African English is very distinct. Pronking is a SA term, that English people call stotting, frinstance. Billyshiverstick (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Map of Africa

The map of Africa shows South Sudan as part of Sudan. This should be corrected.Liam McGreevy (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Liam McGreevy

Semi Colons and Sentence Structure

Hi all, when articles go main page, I consider it an invitation to work on the English. This article has nice facts, but the sentences and paragraphs convey them poorly. Generally, when you see a semi-colon, or colon, it means the sentence has failed. I fixed a bunch of them, but I invite other editors to jump in and re-write these sentences better. There is a lot of minor repetition, and there are a lot of "in fact" and other pieces of fluff. cheers all Billyshiverstick (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree - and also an oppertunity to review taxonomic context - see below. Roy Bateman (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Higher taxonomy

I moved the higher taxonomy section to the genus page, where I think it is better placed and makes this article more concise. I hope this is not contraversial! Roy Bateman (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)