Talk:Warthog
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Africa WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the continent of Africa. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] 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?
[edit] What Is It?
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
