| Revision as of 19:31, 1 February 2017 editCLCStudent (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers315,516 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 50.254.205.61 (talk) to last revision by Dmol. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:06, 15 February 2017 edit undoDot Gaming360 (talk | contribs)1 edit ←Replaced content with 'hi'Tag: talk page blankingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| hi | |||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Mammals|class=B|importance=High}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Agriculture|importance=high|class=B|livestock=yes|livestock-importance=top}} | |||
| {{American English}} | |||
| }} | |||
| == Pig Manure/Biogas/== | |||
| Pig manure has the highest yield of methane and the worst smell than any other common animal for producing digesters. perhaps this should be included somewhere . They get a bad wrap in the environmental section <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Breeds of domestic pig == | |||
| A useful addition to this page would be a list of domestic pig breeds but to bad for you. Misplaced Pages has one or two pages on pig breeds e.g. ] but no list of breeds. ] (]) 23:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I take back this comment there is a ]. Perhaps the link should be in the article ] (]) 23:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| hey bone!!!!!!!!!1 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| hi <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == pigs as pets == | |||
| there should be an article or at least a section about pigs as pets-anyone up for it?] (]) 23:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Well there are articles on ] and ]... And keeping them as pets is mentioned a couple of times in this article... I have no strong opinion either way, but I can kind of see how there is no section or article at the moment. ] (]) 01:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since there are already mentions in this article, and a separate article about the pigs most often kept as pets, I would be against a separate section about pigs as pets. In sheer numbers, pigs used for food dwarfs any other use. I think it would be a good idea to create a new article for Pet Pigs and link to it from this article. There have been a lot of issues, laws, etc about pigs as pets that would be distracting in this article but could make for an interesting separate article. ] (]) 13:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a section for pigs as pets already in the ] article. <font style="font-family: Georgia">]</font> 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==gluttons== | |||
| It is appalling that gluttons such as myself should be considered neither social nor intelligent. The pig is a fine creature, not only for its implementation and grasp of social mores but also for the very fact that it is capable of such. The pig eats what it must to survive. Any suggestion that its additional caloric intake results in poor social skills or lower intelligence shall be removed from the introduction of this page post haste. ] (]) 07:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Pig diet == | |||
| Look now, it is a fact that domestic pigs ''do'' eat human feces.(wild pigs are also known to eat dung of other animals). It may not appeal to some people but a FACT is A FACT. So Why should this fact be hidden? | |||
| Because it doesn't appeal to pork eaters? Go and see this in any village in India. If you think only Indian pigs eat poop, put a plate of feces in front of an American domestic pig (maybe they are not allowed to eat), and see for yourself. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Now that I would call ''recycling''. --] (]) 21:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::59..., if you have a reliable reference for this, feel free to add it to the article. However, simply saying that it is a fact does not make it so. ] (]) 13:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, we need a ref, though I believe it ''is'' true: in some parts of the world village latrines are normally located on a platform above the pig pen. ] (]) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In fact there is a reffed article: ]. This says it's limited to Goa in India, but I have seen it in documentaries about South East Asia; it is described for Korea in the article about the ]. ] (]) 08:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Now Bob98133, I am convinced. I have seen it with my very own eyes. Now you're still free to do the experiment: Get a plate (or tin or whatever) of human feces and keep it in front of any domestic pig, and see for yourself. However I am not obssessed with including this fact in the article. If you want to believe pigs don't eat human feces, that's your problem. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:23, 13 January 2011</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| Dear Muslim friend, thank you for your contribution. I feel the need to remind you though that any such experiment would constitute a primary source, which is not allowed in Wikipaedia: we work with secondary sources only... i.e. we work with science not with rumour. Now, having come to rumour, I have seen a pig toilet (in an Eastern European village) myself. Surprise surprise, the pigs did not eat the feces. If they did the owner wouldn't have been forced to clean up the thing weekly. I'm sorry to tell you but this is bollocks! 77.4 is completely right: that would be aomw recycling. And pigs would be the cheapest animals to raise... they would only eat their own feces: feed them once and it would be sufficient for a pig's lifetime. Only thinking at that would give you an inkling of an idea whether your assertions are true or false. | |||
| Now, as for the science of it, there are plenty of sources that detail what pigs ''do'' eat. Feces of any kind is not present in any of those studies. And that's the proof it's not happening. It's not happening ''under normal circumstances''. Homo sapiens, under normal circumstances, does not eat flesh from other homo sapiens. Obviously there have been exceptions under the most unusual of circumstances (groups of people starving to death, cultural constructs etc.) but naturally it doesn't happen. ] (]) 01:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Dear 79.112.59.92, There is no reason for you to assume someone is Muslim. It is natural for pigs to eat human feces. It is not limited to Goa in India. You can go to ''any'' Indian village where pigs are present and see for yourself. Please refute my claim and I will give you 1 million U.S. Dollars. This is my challenge. It should be the same for any European village also. For how many days together did you observe the pigs? How many pigs did you observe? Are you 100% sure they did not eat feces? -] (]) 19:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Dear 79.112.59.92, my challenge still stands: show me that a domestic pig does not eat human faeces naturally and I shall give you one million U.S. dollars, but only if I am not able to show you at least hundreds of pigs in India eating human faeces. If they eat you will have to pay me 1 million U.S. dollars, so don't try to run away from the truth. It is not under special circumstances, and I can say boldly that YOU ARE LYING when you saw the pigs in eastern europe (are you sure they were pigs. You love pork and don't like this fact. -] (]) 19:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Merger proposal== | |||
| ] has posted a merger proposal template on this article, suggesting merging ] and ] (I have copied the template to this article as is usual in this situation). Can we please discuss at ]. ] (]) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Requested move== | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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: '''page not moved'''. ] <sup><b>(])</b></sup> 16:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ] → ] — Discussion of a request to merge ] into ] found issues with the current arrangement of pages. The article about the genus occupies the page name ] and consequently attracts content about anything and everything to do with pigs, but other articles exist and the result is content forking. ] (]) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. People looking for "pig" are very unlikely to know that they are really looking for "Sus (genus)". There has to be a better way to solve the problem. --] (]) 16:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :This sounds like a reason to '''support''', actually. These people probably don't want the genus anyway, but rather ] or one of the many other articles about pigs, so send them directly to the disambiguation page. ] (]) 17:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please don't re-interpret my vote. It is an '''oppose'''. People looking for pigs may well find what they want at this article and if some wanted domestic pigs they will quickly spot the link. By comparison, very few people will type in Sus (genus). --] (]) 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I think making it a disambiguation page is not a good idea, as it would cause unneccesary clicks for anyone searching for such a common word. I would agree, however, that the overview of the genus may not be the primary topic, and so I would support moving this article to ] and then making Pig a redirect to ]. This would then mirror the situation at, for example, ]/]/]. ] (]) 17:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The article ] is vandalized more than most. If it redirects to ] then that article may get heavy vandalism. I think leaving a disambiguation page at ] would help to reduce the vandalism. Also, disambiguation pages do not get many edits compared to articles, so if ] had to be protected that would not suppress as much legitimate editing as protecting the article does now. ] (]) 19:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see that vandalism is a reason to overlook the ] guideline's advice to use a primary topic (when there is one) instead of a DAB. ] (]) 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is ] the ]? ] (]) 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would think so, and that certainly seems to be supported by (presumably yours?) that most of the incoming links really refer to ] and not ]. ] (]) 20:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is a large cluster of articles related to ], so when it comes to fixing links, the best target is one of 20 or so articles. ] (]) 20:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Again I agree with Verno: vandalism is not a good reason to name a page. Also, yes, I think domestic pig must be the primary topic for "pig": it's the thing most people would associate with the word, and is surely streets ahead of anything else on ]. ] (]) 20:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as proposed, but '''Support''' VernoWhitney's variation. Wild pigs include most members of ''Sus'', but also the other genera in Suidae, so "pig" is not a synonym for ''Sus'' in that sense, but for Suidae. "Pig" is also commonly used to mean ], so I think that's the better redirect. I agree that moving ] to Pig would cause confusion. ] (]) 18:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as per reasons already discussed on ]. Less opposed to VernoWhitney's variation. More discussion, below. <span style="font-family: 'Brush script MT', cursive;font-size:1.4em;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 13:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support VernoWhitney's idea'''. Clearly, kids typing in Cat, Dog, Sheep or Pig expect to be taken to the article on those extremely common animals. There are 850 million domestic pigs in the world. <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 19:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * I find it self-evident that a person searching for p-i-g should be directed first to ]. It's obvious that most people coming to learn about pigs are thinking of the domestic animal, the barnyard animal, and not the wild boars and such, which sometimes aren't even called "pigs", by the way. Send all pig searchers directly to the obvious place to go. There, they can learn little known facts like the fact that they are decended from the Eurasian boar, and have obscure close relatives, and here's where to go to learn about them for those who want that much detail and a wider perspective, but all we can assume about such learners is that they speak English and part of knowing basic English is that familiar animal that snorts and wallows out in the backyard is called a "pig". The way I see it, anyone who disagrees with that must be an expert who can't remember what it's like not to know anything much about pigs other than what everyone knows about them. If you do not find it self-evident that Domestic Pig should be primary, please ask a random sample of people around you (make sure they have ordinary knowledge of pigs) and ask them if a searcher for p-i-g-s should be sent first to an article about regular ol' pigs or one that tells you about bush pigs and wild boars and warty hogs. This experiement should settle the matter. ] (]) 20:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| OK, I think I figured it out: | |||
| #Redirect "p-i-g" to ] (see above). | |||
| #Move ] to ] with a note that it is only about wild ''Sus'', but there are other definitions. | |||
| #Stop directing "Wild Pig" to "]". All wild ''Sus'' are wild pigs. | |||
| ] (]) 03:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :If this article is only about Sus, then why not move it to ]? ] (]) 10:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, but a common term is generally best for titles. This has been divided, there is no single "pig" article because there is one for the wild ''Sus'' and one for the common pig. ''Sus'' doesn't cover domestic pigs and "Domestic Pig" doesn't cover the other pigs. So I don't see how any article can have claim to the title "Pig". It's like "Turkey". There is no article "Turkey", there's Wild Turkey and Domestic Turkey. I guess I was thinking of examples like that. Your idea is still preferable to sending all "p-i-g" searchers to ''Sus''.] (]) 12:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, so I'm getting the impression that there's a general consensus to move ] to ] and then redirect ] to ]? I think the ] issue Chrisrus raised can be addressed later, but unless somebody points out that there's not really consensus I'm going to go ahead and make these changes later today. ] (]) 12:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes to the first part, no to the second. I think the disambiguation page should be at ]. I have been gradually checking incoming links to ] and a lot of them need fixing. ] (]) 14:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Has anybody besides you suggested that Domestic pig is not the primary topic ''or'' that putting a disambiguation page here is preferred and I missed it? ] (]) 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't oppose sending "p-i-g" searchers to the Disambiguation page first, so long as domestic is primary on that page. I want to see how the top of the disambiguation page will be done. Go ahead with the move, but please be careful not to finish until the top of the disambiguation page is integrated into the workaround. ] (]) 15:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, since it's not nearly unanimous, I'll just hold off entirely while the DAB page is being sorted. Now that I think of it an admin is supposed to deal with possibly controversial moves after a week anyways just like at XfD. Sorry for trying to jump the gun. ] (]) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::At least we can say that the fact that domestic pig should be primary on the disambiguation page is unanimous, or at least very nearly. So we may alter the top of the disambiguation page to reflect this. ] (]) 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' simple move, but '''support''' VeroWhitney's suggestion, ie, the article currently titled ] should be retitled ]. A person typing in P-I-G should be redirected to ]. At the top of ] should be the usual "Pig redirects here. For other uses see ], where all the confusion can be sorted out. I agree that most people typing in P-I-G are actually looking for domestic pig; I do not think people typing P-I-G should first arrive at a disambiguation page. In general the analogy with Sheep is very instructive.] (]) 16:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| Below are Misplaced Pages article traffic statistics (page views) for <s>July</s>August 2010. ] (]) 20:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *] 70345 | |||
| *] 37505 | |||
| *] 35230 | |||
| *] 17175 | |||
| *] 13957 | |||
| *] 8113 | |||
| *] 5262 | |||
| *] 5155 | |||
| *] 4855 | |||
| *] 4305 | |||
| *] 2315 | |||
| *] 2941 | |||
| *] 1429 | |||
| :According to , in August 2010 ] had 17175 / 70345 = 24% as many page views as ]. So although ] may be the most common target of incoming links to ], ] does not appear to be the ''primary topic''. ] (]) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Have you though about how skewed those results may be due to people simply typing in "pig" without knowing that the information they'd want could be hiding in "domestic pig"? ] (]) 21:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is this a question about the number of page views of ] coming from the search box rather than from an incoming link? I think it does not matter. Do you think that in aggregate people who search want different information than people who follow a link? I think not. Often I use the search box when I want to see a disambiguation page. ] (]) 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| When I get redirected to a presumed "primary topic", often I just repeat the search on an external web search engine. I do that because so often when there is a "primary topic" then the relevant disambiguation page is pruned down, seemingly to drive traffic to the "primary topic". Fortunately, Google and other search engines have no concept of a "primary topic". Below are the first 10 hits, in order, that Google returned for "pig site:wikipedia.org". ] (]) 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| #] 70345 | |||
| #] 9818 | |||
| #] 17175 | |||
| #] 1185 | |||
| #] 5155 | |||
| #] 13358 | |||
| #] 1136 | |||
| #] 13957 | |||
| #] 2731 | |||
| #] 80610 | |||
| ::I'm not talking about the number of page views coming from different links. First, you should read ] and know that google hits and incoming links are nice but not the only factors involved in deciding what the primary topic is. In either case, someone is going to link to ] instead of ] if it's even remotely on-topic solely because of the fact that it is short and simple and obvious. In this case it can't be a fair comparison simply because most people wouldn't think to add "domestic" in front of their search term. I'm not sure what you mean about pruning down disambiguation pages to drive traffic to the primary topic, so I can't really address that. | |||
| ::That said, sticking to what guesstimates we can make with the numbers: To use my sheep comparison of earlier, for August ] (the redirect) was viewed 23678 times and ] (the target) was viewed 42605 times. That means the redirect had more than half of all of the traffic, because it's just easier. Note that ] has 2500+ incoming links whereas ] has 1500+, so the distribution of traffic is reasonably close to the distribution of wikilinks. Compare this to ] with a mere 300+ incoming links and ] with 2500+, which means that "Domestic" is getting roughly twice as much of it's share of the traffic compared to its number of links. Obviously these numbers and calculations are ''really'' rough, but they do seem to indicate that more people want to know about domestic pigs than are currently being led there. <small>Feel free to point out the glaring holes in my logic, but my point is that numbers just can't be the sole deciding factor.</small> ] (]) 23:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :One of the simplest, non-technical methods of navigating to Pig in WP (so I assume a large number of people will come this way) is to type pig into the search box. If the user's connection is fast enough, as most will be, a list of articles beginning with Pig appears beneath the box. If the first reasonable choice is Pig, the user is likely to ''go'' for it; I currently get Pigeon under Pig, then Pig iron, with the rest in the unscrolled box being equally unlikely. (The most simple I know being to type a term after the last slash in the address bar of the browser at a previous "straight" WP page but we must presume such users don't need much help getting where they want.) | |||
| :But not everything from Pig (disambiguation) is offered as an option in the search scroll-down box, or even the disambig. page itself as a last resort. The non appearance of all disambiguation page information seems to be Misplaced Pages-wide, so I'm going to follow up in the appropriate place once I've found it. This means that where there are pages (even ones clearly highly relevant to the search) that don't begin with the same word, the user must use the laborious the full search method to find them. We're probably going to have to live with this (indefinitely, knowing WP) so what's the work around? I'm now going to make a redirect to Domestic Pig called '''Pig (domesticated)''' to see if it appears in the search box: I don't know how long integration into this might take though. It might also help in other unforeseen ways. The technique could then be applied to pages such as "Cultural references to ~" etc. Whatever the effectiveness of such a technique, it cant see it having any negative impact on how things might work. Then we have another issue: do terms from Redirects appear in the list of search possibilites?<span style="font-family: 'Brush script MT', cursive;font-size:1.4em;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 13:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure what you're asking about for the workaround (and it seems more appropriate to discuss it at ] anyways, so I'll just answer your second question: Yes, redirects do appear in the list of search possibilities. This supported both by your ] example as well as ]. ] (]) 20:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::That the "workaroud" should be done in such a way that all who search for p-i-g-(s) should be sent first an article just about domestic pigs, not as it is now to the wider definition that includes their wild cousins, ''Sus''. ] (]) 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll agree with that, if it's consenses. It would also be helpful if in the search hints list we could get Pig (genus) and Pig farming to appear visibly near the top when just p-i-g is typed. However, after Pig, the alphabetical order of the terms I'm offered seems to fall apart: some other criteria (hits?) used to select the order. A similar short page-top list of the other major pig pages like at the top of the Sus page would be good on those pages too.<span style="font-family: 'Brush script MT', cursive;font-size:1.4em;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 23:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| So to review... There are now three different opinions about what topic should occupy ]: the ], the ], and the disambiguation page. All of these options reflect different opinions about the existence and identity of a ] for "pig". ] (]) 05:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| If the disambiguation page were at ], this is how it might look. ] (]) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| '''Pig''' may refer to: | |||
| ===Animals=== | |||
| *'']'', the genus of domestic, wild, warty, and bearded pigs | |||
| **] | |||
| ***] | |||
| **Wild pig or ] | |||
| *], the pig subfamily including bushpigs and giant forest hogs | |||
| *], the pig family including warthogs and babirusas | |||
| *] or javelina, another even-toed ungulate animal | |||
| *], a domestic species of rodent that is popular as a pet | |||
| etc. | |||
| :Please make the obvious primary so most users need look no further: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| '''Pig''' most commonly refers to the ] | |||
| It also refers to: | |||
| ===Animals=== | |||
| etc. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Please, shall we move this discussion back to ] ] (]) 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Here is another way the disambiguation page could be formatted, if it had the page name ]. ] (]) 19:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| '''Pig''' may refer to: | |||
| ===Animals=== | |||
| *] | |||
| **], or pig meat | |||
| **] | |||
| *'']'', the genus of domestic, wild, warty, and bearded pigs | |||
| **Wild pig or ] | |||
| *], the pig subfamily including bushpigs and giant forest hogs | |||
| *], the pig family including warthogs and babirusas | |||
| etc. | |||
| ::That would not have the most likely referent primary, which, as you will remember, was an compromise offered by me instead of sending all searchers directly to the article at ], so we're needlessly delaying the vast majorty of "p-i-g" searchers. So, please don't draw their eye any lower than it has to go and bother him as little as possible with our problems about the taxon artlices. Just slap the most common, obvious, and useful link, right up front, separated from the table of contents and the title "animals" and then so closely accompanied by so many more potentially confusing articles. Your way ''is'' primary in the sense of being "the first" link, but being "primary" in this context, talking about Misplaced Pages disambiguation pages, where "primary" has the meaning "up in the first line", where we say "(Term) usually refers to (primary referent). It may also refer to:" and then we present a table to navigate all the rest of the so named articles. We want to direct the big traffic away from the smal tunnell, keep traffic moving, as we're already inconveniencing them. We want to keep separate the easy dispatch from the somewhat confusing situation with the articles based on taxons. | |||
| ::Second, "pork" is a very unlikely referent, is not an animal, and would disturb the ease with which we can explain our system of articles that cover the increasingly wider and looser system of taxon-articles that could conceivably be the target of a searcher for "p-i-g-s", which is a little tricky and potentially confusing for the user. We already have the redirect ], we can put "pork" elsewhere, pretty confidently do without it, and get down to the business of clarifying all the articles we have about pigs, more or less loosely defined. | |||
| ::Next, if the user knows the term "feral pig", why didn't he or she search for it? Besides, if we start there, where will it end with the compound nouns? There've got to be hundreds of articles about particular breeds, types, ] and so on and on and on this pig or that pig, subspecies of wild pigs, and extinct pigs, ay! Please don't open a can of works with compound nouns. Please stick to articles that are either called "pig(s)" or which could concievably have a claim to factually answering "yes" to the question "Is this article about pigs in general"? In sum, either named "pig" or about pigs in general. ] (]) 00:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Finally, please have the quick obvious primary at the top more clearly separated from the confusing business of communicating our system of articles based on the taxons. Keep the primary "p-i-g" searchers away from with all that taxon stuff, which is secondary, but actually pretty primary in another sense of that word. ] (]) 00:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I think the confusion evident in this discussion, and in the jumble of content on the article with page name ] demonstrates why the page ] should be a disambiguation page. If any article resides there, it will attract contributions about anything related to the word "pig". Let's have peace, please, and put the disambiguation page there. Let's help readers and contributors alike find the article they seek. ] (]) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with either directing "p-i-g(s)" searchers directly to ], or to the disambiguation page '''IF''' ] is above and separated from all the rest as is normally done with primary redirects.] (]) 15:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the page view stats? According to the August 2010 stats, ] gets less than half the views that ] and ] get: | |||
| ::] 37505 | |||
| ::] 35230 | |||
| ::] 17175 | |||
| ::Although I have fixed hundreds of incoming links to ], the effect on page views of ] has been slight at best. ] (]) 15:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::The very fact that you have ''had'' to correct hundred of incoming links to pig should demonstrate that domestic pig is the primary topic. ] (]) 15:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I did not say all links went to ]? Many incoming links I fixed did intend the domestic pig, but they were not the majority. ] (]) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I didn't make any assumptions about the links you changed, but now that you brought it up, let me ask you: how many links clearly meant ], how many clearly meant ], and how many would've worked either way? Just a rough impression is all I'm asking about. ] (]) 20:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::When I started, ] had 0 incoming links and now it has 100. Some are from taxonomic navigation boxes. I also found many incoming links intending ], ], or ]. I found even more links intending ] and the like, or ] or related articles: an example would be mentions of suckling pig, meaning the food item, that did not link ]. ] (]) 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am still waiting for indexing of transclusions to catch up, but I would say (a) all but a tiny fraction of incoming links are unclear if they intend the domestic pig or the genus, and (b) the majority of incoming links intend the genus. That is as it should be, given that ] currently is an article about the genus. ] (]) 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Can anyone find a precedent for a ''major article page'' (handling as many hits) moving to a dedicated DAB page? <span style="font-family: 'Brush script MT', cursive;font-size:1.4em;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Off hand, I can think of one that is likely. ] currently is an article and getting over 140,000 hits (page views) per month, but page view statistics suggest the article is not what most readers are looking for; the article likely will be moved so the disambiguation page can reside at the ambiguous base name. See ]. ] (]) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now ] is a disambiguation page and incoming links are being fixed. ] (]) 23:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I found one. In November 2009 ] had 1672 page views and ] had 58017. The ratio was 1672/58017 or 2.9%. In December 2009 the article at ] was moved to ] and replaced by the disambiguation page. In December 2009, as all the incoming links to ] were fixed, page views on ] climbed from 0 to many hundreds per day. In 2010 so far ] has averaged 20455 page views per month. So, roughly 60% of the page views on ] before the move were in error. ] (]) 23:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In 2010 so far, ] is getting 29900 page views per month, which is roughly the difference between the page views it got before the move and the page views ] is getting after the move. ] (]) 13:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's two good precedents. I've actually been through the Polarization (waves) page.... (and come out walking at a strange angle;).... Avatar, I think is one of that case of a rarely used word being "usurped", and editors refusing (rightly) to give way to the current wave of interest in the trendy usage, but being reasonable enough not to try to force all incommers to read about what avatars ''"were"'' before allowing them the trendy page. | |||
| :::The Polarization one is clearly more relevant to this example. It's a similar volume of hits page. But 40:60 is quite down the middle, and clearly does require the user to make their own choice up front. I'm still nowhere near convinced here, though. Can you argue that 60% (or even 40%) of visitors to domestic pig want something other than what they'll find at that page or one of the other pig pages – or would be happier to get to disambiguation first? What' the others think? <span style="font-family: 'Brush script MT', cursive;font-size:1.4em;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 23:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Now that the hatnotes on ] have been normalized for a while, we can get a better sense of how many visitors there are looking for something other than an article about the genus. In September 2010 so far, page view stats on ] / ] are | |||
| 2802 / 85300 = 3.3%. So that supports what we all seem to agree about anyway, the genus is not the primary topic here. I think the length of this discussion also supports the view that ''there is no primary topic''. Let us please move the disambiguation page to ] and fix the incoming links so that more readers are more likely to go directly where they want to go. ] (]) 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===7 days elapsed for move discussion – please summarise=== | |||
| This is a catch 22: I'm resitant to spending time and energy helping organising articles until a consensus is reached on what the pages stand for. 69.3.72.249s answer is a compromise fix, and so far off ideal I will not go with it. | |||
| A pig is an animal, and all other uses originate from – or mess with – that starting point. | |||
| Domestic Pig is such a large field compared with other occurrences of the animal, that I will go with the consensus to make that the target article, but I still feel when considering a topic it is best to start with the widest view and work within that towards specialisation - as per the summary style. | |||
| The only way 69.3.72.249s push could work for me would be to make such a general page about pig that it could include practically everything on the DAB page as a '''''readily accessible''''' link and still be considered ''an article''. In such an article, the animal would still represent by far the most of the page content, albeit with human overtones, such as a section pointing to the ''Main'' of Pigs in culture. A large, more prominent than usual ''See also'' section could contain most of the catch-alls in the existing DAB page. This idea could just about work but would need very careful management to stop it becoming a directionless free-for-all, even with semi-protection. One way would be to organise it would be as a very strict '''''template only in each page section'''''. All content in the page sections would transclude from the respective Main page Lead sections. This would deter users without the patience to figure out what is going on from spoiling the page. A similar system has been used on other pages I work on. | |||
| Otherwise, the issue of dismbiguation for me is simple and as I started with it, whether it be on the Pig (genus) page or the Pig (domestic) page. The vast majority of users will want the article about the <s>domestic</s> pig "animal", or articles within the Pig tree, that are children of <s>Domestic</s> Pig "animal", eg. Pig Farming, Wild Boar. So, they arrive at a Pig "animal" page: in the "hat" position on that page is a simple DAB choice: stay with "general" pig animal; go out of pig animal to mostly allegorical uses (the dedicated DAB page); go to further specialisation within the pig animal field. Exactly how the latter is routed and named, I'm open to persuation. | |||
| Does that close any gulfs, raise any more possibilities? Otherwise I feel we're just in a stalemate, and we really need to study what ] is about. That's my flexible position. <span style="font-family: 'Brush script MT', cursive;font-size:1.4em;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Trev M, I mean no disrespect when I say I think you are confusing ] and ]. Yes, "pig" is a root word of "domestic pig", "wild pig", "pig genus", "pig family", etc. However, the Misplaced Pages concept of primary topic is not based on any primacy of root word. Root words are very important for organizing dictionaries (including Wiktionary), but do not have the same role in encyclopedias, at least not in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::No confusion at all: simply trying any which way that might work to get around this idea of typing "pig" into WP and landing at a page asking you what you might want. :>) <span style="font-family: 'Brush script MT', cursive;font-size:1.4em;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::What is so bad about that? What if most of the people who type in "pig" ''do not want'' to go to ]? That's what the page view stats are showing. ] (]) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't believe that the page view stats are showing that. Again, from my look at the sheep layout it seems that traffic for such articles should roughly correlate with the number of incoming links (if anybody knows of another situation where "Domestic foo" is it's own article and not a redirect I'll look at those numbers too, but this is the only corollary situation I'm aware of). In this case we have 2265 links to ] (including redirects) and 332 links (including redirects) to ], so domestics have about 13% market share, if you will. Now just looking at traffic for the past three days (it's arbitrary but since links have been getting fixed the more recent the better) we have 8.2k hits for pig and 2.8k hits for domestic pig, so domestics are getting about 25% of the total hits. As I said before, this means to me that more people are wanting to go to domestic pig than are currently being sent there, which (again, to me) indicates that people who type in page ''do'' want to go to ]. ] (]) 12:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I should clarify that I still don't believe any of the numbers should be the deciding factor and I feel that consensus is pretty clear for this to not be a disambiguation page, but since you apparently like the numbers I feel I should offer an alternative interpretation of them. ] (]) 12:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The situation here is not comparable to ] and ] because ] is not a redirect to ]. ] is a redirect to ], so is comparable. Below are page views for August 2010. ] (]) 18:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*] (redirect) 2407 | |||
| :::::*] 11 | |||
| :::::*] (redirect) 19839 | |||
| :::::*] 721 | |||
| ::::::First, please be careful not to edit others posts. Second, what conclusions are we supposed to draw from that comparison? Numbers for the sake of numbers don't help anything. Third, Swine redirected to ] until the 13th of this month so I ''really'' don't know what we're supposed to be looking at. ] (]) 18:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I see what you mean about editing others' posts. As far as I know, I did not do that; I never even put that string in my edit buffer. Nonetheless, I apologize. Re what conclusions are we supposed to draw, I have no idea. I was just pointing out what would be an apples-and-apples comparison. ] (]) 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Here is something we can make of this. Consider page view ratios of the disambiguation page to the base page, regardless whether the base page is an article or a redirect. From those numbers I would say incoming links to ] may need fixing even more than incoming links to ] do. ] (]) 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*Swine (disambiguation)/Swine 0.5% | |||
| :::::::*Pig (disambiguation)/Pig 2.0% | |||
| :::::::*Sheep (disambiguation)/Sheep 3.6% | |||
| ::::::::Looks like you've just made a very good case for ''not'' moving Pig to a dab page, 69.3.72.249! <span style="font-family: 'Brush script MT', cursive;font-size:1.4em;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 19:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Whether this argues "for" or "against" depends on what is the norm. Is it about 2%, lower, or higher? I think it is lower. ] (]) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Above I mentioned a similar move request involving ]. Computing the same ratio, I see what look like a desperate need for the disambiguation page to be moved. ] (]) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*Avatar (disambiguation)/Avatar 37% | |||
| :::::::Now that I'll agree with (Cow is even worse at 5.8%), but that's getting away from what we're supposed to be discussing here. If we could make Pig a redirect to Domestic pig for a month and then see how the numbers compare to what we have now, that would be a great way to see whether people are getting where they want to go, but we can't really do that without figuring out a set timeframe and what conditions to look at which would determine what happens at the end of the "trial period", etc. ] (]) 19:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What do you expect to happen? I would expect if ] redirects to ] then page views on the disambiguation page will shoot up. I would expect that because right now ] is about the genus ''Sus'', and the majority of incoming links reflect that fact. ] (]) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::''Sus'' has alot of traffic now only because it's the primary referent for "p-i-g" searchers, so that's likely to change. I don't see any particular reason that a user, having passed up the chance to go directly to ], would necessarly choose ''Sus'' over the rather wide selection of taxon-articles we'll have nicely laid out for them on the disambiguation page. They'll probably select the pig "family" over the pig "genus", if only because "family" is a nicer word, but that's not as strict a definition of "pig". So, once it's moved out of the primary position, you'll see traffic drop off for ''Sus'' pretty quickly I think, whereas ''Suidae'' the other taxons should increase their share of traffic from disambiguation page users. | |||
| :::::::::So we want to clearly mark on the disambiguation page which taxon, if any, has the best claim to be called "]s" among experts. Does anyone know if experts call whether experts use the term ] to refer to ''Sus'' or ''Suidae'' or what the situation is? The fact that "pigs" presently directs there makes you think it's ''Sus'', but we should check to be sure. ] (]) 02:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Unverified information in this article and on the pig disambiguation page. === | |||
| Both this article and the disambiguation pages say that "A Pig is an animal of the genus Sus" | |||
| Please help me evaluate the varificablity of the following sentences: | |||
| #A pig is a domesticated wild boar. | |||
| #A pig is an animal of the genus ''Sus''. | |||
| #A pig is an animal of the subfamily ''Suinae''. | |||
| #A pig is an animal of the family ''Suidae''. | |||
| #A pig is an animal of the suborder ''Suina''. | |||
| I though it would help search "Google Scholar" for the term "true pigs": | |||
| http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22True+pigs%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ACAW_enUS359US360&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws | |||
| In the first of these,''Pigs, Peccaries, and Hippoes'', the term "true pigs" is ussed four times to refer to the ''Suinae'', spelled with an "n", no "d" at all. So far, it looks that the statement number two is not verifiable. | |||
| In the second, the expert author and the editors used the terms "true pigs" and "swine" in opposition to the "New World Pigs and Peccaries", which, by implication, are not truely pigs. | |||
| The third does not seem to apply. | |||
| The fourth, I can't get beyond the paywall, but again it is discussing peccaries. The term "true pigs" is useful when discussing peccaries. | |||
| In the fifth, they use the term like this "True pigs first came to the New World in the form of the domestic pig". That's again contrasting them with the New World Pigs and Peccaries, which implies that they are the false pigs. | |||
| The sixth says the true pigs are the Suidae. | |||
| The seventh also says "Suidae". | |||
| The eighth speaks of "True pigs of the Suidae not native to the New World" | |||
| The nineth discusses the Suina as consisting on the one hand of the True pigs and the New World Pigs, and the more distantly related Hippoes on the other hand. This makes me think that the disambiguation page shouldn't carry the Suina, as hippoes aren't pigs so we shouldn't be directing any "p-i-g" traffic there. It also makes me wonder if there is a taxon for the Suina minus the Hippos. | |||
| Glancing past some that don't apply, I find two more that define "true pig" as Suidae. | |||
| That gives Misplaced Pages's definition (the genus ''Sus'') exactly zero for ten as the definition experts use for "True Pig" in this sample. How much more evidence do we need that "Sus" = "pig"? ] (]) 19:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Given that fact, no more discussion is needed to stop treating ''Sus'' as primary either here or on the disambiguation page. Even though this discussion is dragging on and on as to what, then, should then sit at the article ]. The guideline that disambiguation pages should wait for this to be decided should be trumped by the more important principle of varifiablity, not to mention truth. ] (]) 18:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :So far in the entire discussion of this requested move, no one has objected to moving the article about the genus from ] to ]. We are debating only what ''else'' should occupy ] instead of that article, and until now the only contenders are: ] and ]. Given this review of usage, it appears we should add a 3rd contender: ]. ] (]) 23:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::My point is for you all to make that clear on the disambiguation page, please, so I can change the first listing there to ] without getting reverted. That it shouldn't be ''Sus'' anymore is agreed. Please tell him ''Sus'' is just plain not supported. You can go on discussing the proper place for ], disambig or domestic or even Suidae or Suinae, but not Sus. Help me explain to him that it's ok for me to go ahead and replace ''Sus'' with ] on the disambiguation page. I'm being reverted on the grounds that this discussion has not ended, but so far as the primary not being ''Sus'', it's over. It's not Sus and so we should change this blatenty false fact that stands at the top of the disambiguaiton page that sus is the best taxon to mean "pig". Explain why an exception should be made to the guideline that disambiguation pages must at all times be the same as the primary link for ]; help me, and we can collapse this subsection. I'm sorry for the distraction, but Sus on the top of the disambiguation page does not need to stand any longer. ] (]) 00:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I get your point, Chrisrus, but I agree with the other contributor that the formula for disambiguation pages applies to this one. The time to address what comes first on the disambiguation page is ''after'' this requested move is closed. ] (]) 01:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So to your mind, disambiguation page guidelines trump verifiablity rules, truth, accuracy, and the fact that "A Pig is an animal of the genus Sus" is just plain bullshit? Please explain. ] (]) 04:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, to my mind the real problem is the first sentence of the article now at ]. Fix that, and the fix to the disambiguation page will follow; fiddling with the disambiguation page in this manner just hides the problem. ] (]) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So your answer to my question is "no"? Meaning those guidelines apply when they conflict with verifiablity? ] (]) 05:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, my answer is that the problem you are trying to fix is in the content of ], not the disambiguation page. So fix it in ]. ] (]) 14:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Please answer this question yes/no question: Does ] trump ]? ] (]) 17:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Please ask your question on ] or ]. ] (]) 17:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Thank you for this suggestion. I have done so, please all feel free to comment there. I believe we have agreed that disambiguation page should have ] at the top. Then we can take our time figuring out where ] should point. | |||
| ::::::::In reply to your statement above "No, my answer is.....fix it in ], I have done so just now, but I wonder if we will see it reverted on the grounds that this article is suposed to be about the genus ''Sus'', that we have another article about ]. So your idea seems good but maybe won't work. Maybe "Sus" should get it's own article and this one could be the suggested "umbrella artcle" as described below. ] (]) 17:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===New Idea=== | |||
| How about having an article "Pig" that describes the various animals that are referred to as "pig" and has links out to more specific articles. Not exactly a WP disambiguation page, but a prose disambiguator for the various animal articles that explains the differences briefly. Not normally what we do, but may make sense in this case? --John (]/]) 05:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I agree; a sort of hybrid disambiguation page/umbrella article; very good, if that's what it evolves naturally to be, so be it. The important thing is to clarify the situation for the user and as helpful as possible. A very good candidate for what could occupy the space at ], form the animal section of the disambiguation page, or both. Please, however, let ] be a choice right at the top in a bold way, so those who just want to read about regular ol' pigs can get where they want to go and opt out of reading about the taxonomy and cladistics of the pig. And in the meantime, please lets replace the statement at the top of the disambiguation page that says that Sus has some special claim to the word over taxons such as Suidae, with the Domestic pig so that large percentage of users can get where they want to go. ] (]) 06:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, I've taken a step back and reviewed my ] roots and changed my mind. It is clear to me that there is no agreement on a primary topic. When that happens, ] suggests that the disambiguation page appear at the term (i.e., enter "pig" and get the dab page). The discussion here is odd in that it seems to have determined that there is a primary topic and then deciding what it is. To me, that's backwards. You should decide a particular page is the primary topic and then set it up as such or have the dab page at "Pig" and discuss how best to feature the most likely articles in an effective way. Should an article like the one I describe above (a general discussion of the various animals called "Pig"), consensus might determine it is the primary topic, but in the absence of such an article and the absence of consensus on what the primary topic is, the dab page should be at "Pig." | |||
| ::Side note: The discussion of of the "genus Sus" on the dab page is of tangental association with this discussion. On a dab page, the phrase on each link, including the first one, is to be interpreted as "In one meaning of the work, "Pig" is . . ." and that meaning is the meaning that briefly and clearly distinguishes the associated article from the rest on the page. The phrase is normally a shortened version of the essentials from the lead of the article in question. I would suggest at the moment that the first sentence of the dab read "A ] is an even-toed ungulate of the family Suidae." --John (]/]) 18:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good ideas, but I don't know where you see disagreement as to the primary target of "p-i-g(s)" searchers being ]. The disagreement is about whether to send them directly there or to the disambiguation page. Some have mentioned the possibity of other primaries, such as Suidae, but no one has argued for them. It's pretty self-evident that most such searchers are probably going to be best served by the article about regular old, common, ]s. Is there some doubt in your mind about that? ] (]) 18:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If there is a primary target, the MOS suggests the term go directly to that page. If it goes to the dab page, that indicates there is no real consensus that there is a primary topic. If consensus is that ] is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined" to be where the reader is headed, then that article should be at Pig. --John (]/]) 18:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Fine. Let's do that then. Because there are some ramifications of doing that that we need to get working on. Please make the move. ] (]) 18:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not an admin, so can't do anything more than you. Anyone who leans toward the "should be the dab page" have a comment? --John (]/]) 18:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If I understand what you're suggesting Chrisrus, this should be handled with a separate requested move. The result of the current move discussion is not clear. The move as proposed appears to have had significant opposition. Positions might have shifted over the course of the discussion, but the discussion has been rather wide-ranging. If I understand correctly, you're proposing that the current article at should be moved to ] and the article currently at be moved to ]. The disambiguation page would remain at ], though the language would be updated to reflect the new primary topic. I suggest proposing this at ] as a new move discussion so that consensus can be more clearly established. ] ≠ ] 19:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There appears to be a decent backlog at ], but I've been hoping an admin would come along and just realize that there is also the alternate proposal (which you just repeated) before determining consensus as opposed to filing a new move request while the current one is still waiting to be processed. ] (]) 19:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't think the problem is with the backlog, but rather that given the long and wide-ranging discussion, it is very difficult for a non-involved admin to come along and understand that there is any consensus for anything. A new move discussion could make that more clear. ] ≠ ] 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Aw, geez, really? This has been going on for a long time and although it wasn't the original question we have agreed that ] is the obvious primary. What that means for the rest of the articles is going to have to fall from that. Can we at least have a sort of "Resolved: Domestic Pig is primary" statement, and then the rest of what we have to do as a result of that will be helped by being seen in the light of this fact? ] (]) 19:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Looking back over the discussion, I think the only move one could claim consensus for is to move pig to sus (genus). The disposition of pig seems less clear. The possibilities seem to be 1) Redirect pig to domestic pig; 2) move domestic pig to pig; 3) move pig (disambiguation) to pig. ] ≠ ] 20:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I have a comment. I did not propose moving the domestic pig article here because by page views it is ''not the primary topic''. In fact, there is no primary topic: the idea of "the word ''pig'' and all it connotes" is exactly what a disambiguation page is for. ] (]) 06:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| This article Pig should stay as Pig as it is widely used word.] (]) 08:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose''' - What's with this recent move to change all articles on animals to their scientific names? In this situation it's just renaming a page to one of its redirects. This discussion is getting a little overcomplicated and the reasons for the move aren't very good. --] (]) 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> | |||
| == Semi-protected, edits needed == | |||
| (This article is semi-protected, so I cannot edit it. The protecting admin is Connormah but ] also is semi-protected so I cannot ask this admin to un-protect.) | |||
| The hatnote about ''Porcus'' should be deleted; ] no longer redirects to this article. ] (]) 20:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} ] (]) 20:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| How about substituting ] for the navigation box there now? Also, delete the ungulates category; the pigs category is in that category already. ] (]) 22:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Assuming I understood your request correctly, {{done}} ] (]) 10:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that's better. ] (]) 15:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The first paragraph now discusses ''hog'' and ''swine'', but neither ] nor ] redirect to this article. I would delete those paragraphs and add to the "See also" section ] and ]. ] (]) 15:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| A photo of a domestic sow and piglets has been added to the taxon box. I suggest that to avoid confusion between this article and ], any photo used in this taxon box be of one of the species that looks least like a domestic pig. I am in favor of no photo in the taxon box. ] (]) 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Speaking of photos, it would be helpful to show and discuss the babies of several species. Many domestic pig babies are hairless but the norm in this genus appears to be a full pelt with longitudinal stripes. ] (]) 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Someone please put the move notice {{tl|movenotice|Sus (genus)|Talk:Pig#Requested move}} on the page. ] (]) 14:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The article still begins in a misleading way. Google does not show the hatnote, so all the Google search user sees is this: | |||
| *Pigs are even-toed ungulates of the genus Sus, placed within the family Suidae. The name hog most commonly refers to ... | |||
| Instead, how about this: | |||
| *The pig genus Sus is placed in the family Suidae. Sus includes one species of domestic pigs, as well as ... | |||
| The idea is to state clearly in the first sentence that this article is about the genus itself. ] (]) 00:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===First sentence=== | |||
| The root of this continuing content dispute seems to be the first line of the article ], which is about the pig genus ''Sus''. Someone please edit the article to fix the first line. I suggest ''The '''pig''' genus '''''Sus''''' includes ]s and their wild relatives...'' ] (]) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| agree.] (]) 02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I agree.] (]) 20:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC on article semi-protection == | |||
| Should semi-protection on ] continue indefinitely? Of the last 500 edits to the page, 146 were by IPs or were reverts or undos of edits by IPs. Of those 146 edits, 41 edits by 33 different IPs were not reverted, leaving 105 edits or approximately 53 edits by IPs and an equal number of reverts and undos by registered users. Is saving 53 bot-assisted reverts and undos worth losing 41 contributions to this article and possibly alienating 33 new contributors? ] (]) 22:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| On page Pig, using just a text editor, of last 500 edits, I counted IP 110 edits that were reverted and 10 that were undone (237 lines inc 3 doubles) leaving 263 edits, of which 22 were since the most recent semiprot, (leaving 241) and 211 were during an earlier period of protection (22 May 2008-22 June 2010).... | |||
| ''....Leaving about 30 potentially useful edits during unprotected time when 120 revertions/undos of IPs were made.'' (not including protection changes). | |||
| Sorry if that's completely wrong. It doesn't sound like the same page as yours! | |||
| User at 69.3.72.249, please help us all and just get yourself a handle. As the guy on your (last) page said, you wouldn't have to wait. Say nothing about yourself. At least you get to create pages etc. and people know who you are and that you do serious work. | |||
| Best,<span style="font-family: 'Brush script MT', cursive;font-size:1.4em;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <small><s>Forget that - just realised I pasted the full edit history of pig in there, which is a few more lines - will recheck and post back in a moment | |||
| Just checking previous calc....</s></small> | |||
| Just checked again, and no I did paste 500 lines in, and that calc above is probably not far off. How IPs could have made 53 useful edits when I make only 30 total potential useful edits to page during unprotected time, I don't know. I need to go to bed. <span style="font-family: 'Brush script MT', cursive;font-size:1.4em;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 00:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. This sounds like the sort of case where ] would be really helpful. Having said that, it looks like huggle and twinkle were catching all the vandalism anyway. ] (]) 07:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Pending Changes was tried, and an admin declared it was not working and switched the page protection back to semi. See the log. ] (]) 14:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == book == | |||
| http://books.google.com/books?id=ns9FAAAAYAAJ&dq=pigs+peccaries+and+hippos&source=gbs_book_similarbooks | |||
| == terminology section == | |||
| Do you all know the expression "All pigs are swine, but not all swine are pigs"? Any truth to it? ] (]) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Future of this article == | |||
| I've been tempted, and actually have, a tiny bit, tried to improve this article. However, if we don't know what's going to happen to its nature and scope or whether it'll be merged, it's hard to work on. Please come to a decision, we've been under notice to summarize for a long time. ] (]) 02:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The requested move has closed; result is no move. The genus remains at ]. To go about improving it, I would try to "forget" the page name and focus on the topic: the genus ''Sus''. ] (]) 04:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::That result is not the final word. The nomination was flawed and there was confusion. If a proper move nomination were to be initiated—wait a while, please!—I suspect a move could be achieved. <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 09:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please do go on. What do you think should be done next, and if we must wait a while, how long and what are we waiting for? ] (]) 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Nature and Scope of this Article == | |||
| So, this article will be about pigs in general, defined as those pigs of the genus ''Sus'', not all the other pigs in the Suidae. On the basis of..., I don't know, nothing in particular, if you're not in the ''Sus'' proper, your not a pig. This is sort of a thing Misplaced Pages is claiming to be true on it's own, despite what experts say. And that's our decision. | |||
| Or we make it an umbrella article, one that explains how the taxonomy of pigs works, the pig (animal) part of the disambiguation page in text form. And about the word pig (animal) and it's relationship to hog and swine and sounder. It sumarizes and links to the different articles we have about pigs, such as the breeds of domestic pigs, and so on. That way, a person comes here looking for "p-i-g" can get just the basics here, and connects to the other articles for more detail. It's not a completely developed idea, but the article should lead the way to what it wants to be as we work on it. But I see no scientific justification offered so far for limiting it to just the genus ''Sus''. ] (]) 06:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *There was just a discussion on this (above), with confusion preventing any renaming (moving) of the article. <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 09:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *It is really simple. The article has a taxon box and the taxon is the genus ''Sus''. So the article is about the genus. The article should explain the (publication) history of the genus, its extant and extinct members, its natural range now and in the fossil record, and what it is related to. Leave it at that. Remove all the tangent paragraphs that are (so tedious) summaries of other articles. An article about "pig" might be appropriate for Misplaced Pages, but the page name of such an article by formula would by ]. ] (]) 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Ok, but why not divide the article? We remove the taxobox and put it in another article about ''Sus''. Then, this will be "pig (animal), an umbrella article, one which uses text to explain the situation about the word "p-i-g" (animal) and helps them navigate the other articles. Helps them to understand, about the words "pig" and "hog" and "boar" and "Sus" and "Suid" and so on, and an overview of the taxonomy, and so on, clarifying the historical debate about what constitues a pig. | |||
| :Well, for starters I dislike "umbrella" articles. They do not aid navigation and if navigation really is what is needed then the disambiguation page should be moved to ]. "Umbrella" articles are garbage can articles, generally loaded with synthesis and POV and content forks, targets of vandalism and edit warring. I have asked before and now I ask again: unprotect this page. ] (]) 18:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Move to ''Sus'' == | |||
| Would anyone object to my moving this article to ''Sus''? Please see ], first section.] (]) 15:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : There was a recent move request to the very similar ] that failed, as it seems there's no clear consensus for it and some opposition. I do not think it would be right to move it unilaterally in light of that. If you think a move is appropriate now I suggest another RM to see if consensus has changed enough to support it.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I were to do that, what would your position be? ] (]) 15:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know: I did not have any particular view on the last one, so if it's the same as last time I suspect that would be true. My point was an observation based on the move request only a month ago, and more generally the ]. The RM should also deal with what happens to ]. Does another article become the primary topic or does (as suggested in ]) the DAB page get moved to ]?--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 16:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The rest would be to move ] to either ] or disambiguation. You personally have no objection? ] (]) 16:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| You can't move it yourself as ] is an existing page, so you'd need to file it at ], but it says there "'''If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone ''could'' reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial.'''", which is clearly the case here. For ] the process is the same as the last RM: decide exactly what moves you want then subst a {{tl|move}} or more likely a {{tl|move-multi}} here.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 16:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :First, please understand that the suggestion I was making was not only to move this article to Sus and to move the article ] to "pig". | |||
| :I understand that you would object to my doing so and the reasons you give for holding that position. I agree not to make the move, thank you for responding. | |||
| :I also understand that if I did as you suggested, you would not '''oppose'''. Is that correct?] (]) 17:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <s>See also ] <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:50, 13 October 2010</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <br> | |||
| ::Please sign this post. ] (]) 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)</s> | |||
| == Is there agreement on this? == | |||
| Is it safe to assume that most "p-i-g(-s)" searchers probably looking for domestic pigs? | |||
| This is not a move request! The exact solution may be moves or series of moves and other ramafications and turned out to be a complicated question. I don't want to start another ]. Please everyone just answer yes or no. ] (]) 17:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :In my opinion, yes. ] (]) 17:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you, and yes, I should have said "in your opinion". Please if everyone could just weigh in briefly, in your opinion. ] (]) 18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Helping p-i-g-(s) searchers get where they want to go == | |||
| This is not a move request, so please do not instruct me in making move requests. What I want to establish now is simply that it is highly likely that a person who goes to Misplaced Pages and types in p-i-g(s) is highly likely to be trying to find an article about regular, ordinary, domestic pigs. You may say that to do so would in effect be a move request, and that may (or may not) be the case, but exactly which one or series of moves turned out to be a complicated question with several possible solutions and a cascade of ramifications, all of which would have to be thought through before a move request that can create concensous can be properly written. The best way to go about it is one step at a time. First, we must establish what a person who types in "p-i-g-(s)" is most likely trying to do. Then we can get into the sticky question of what do about the problem. Please instruct me in the best way to get concensous that it is safe to assume that they are looking for an article about plain, ordinary pigs. Then we can move on to the next question. ] (]) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm not sure what you want. ] what it is people are looking for when they type "pig". Here you say you want to establish they are looking for domestic pigs. I.e. you are asking a question that you are already satisfied you know the answer to. If you want wikipedia to reflect this, i.e .you want users typing "pig" to be taken to ], the normal mechanism is a move request: a straightforward process that any editor can initiate. That is the proper way to gain consensus about such a change, as it makes sure the discussion is advertised where interested editors can see it, and that the discussion goes on for long enough that consensus can form.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 19:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I understand that you have specific ideas about what the significance of the answer to the question might be, but many other suggested solutions exist. For the moment, please just answer the question. Is is safe to assume that most people who type in "p-i-g-(s)" are most probably looking to learn about ordinary, domestic pigs. IPlease, if it's not too much trouble, could you please, in your opinion, yes, or no, that's what they are most likely looking to learn about ] (]) 19:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| =="Poison Ducts" AKA "Running Sores"== | |||
| If found this on a religious website advocating a kosher diet. | |||
| '''''Every animal has its purpose. Scavengers, such as the pig, are designed to clean—not to be eaten! Some of the “cleaning” features of the pig are remarkable.''''' | |||
| '''''One such feature is located under its hooves. Often referred to as poison ducts or running sores, these “sores” act as a conduit for poisons to ooze from the pig’s body. This is one reason pigs can eat poisonous snakes that would kill other creatures and not be affected themselves. However, these ducts will often become “plugged” from the amount of toxins pigs must excrete from their bodies. If this becomes the case, a farmer must quickly have the pig slaughtered and sent to the market before it dies.''''' | |||
| Is there any truth to this? I've tried to find more trustworthy sites that verify this, but all I've turned up are similar unverified claims from other anti-pork websites. ] (]) 03:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Short answer: no, this is garbled nonsense. Many animals (certainly sheep, and very likely pigs too) do have glands on their feet, but these are usually scent glands and have nothing to do with toxins. Poisonous snakes are not poisonous to eat for any animal, but only if their toxins get into the bloodstream when they bite you; like other animals pigs are affected by their bite. Pigs deal with toxins the same way other animals do. It is true that they are adapted to cope more easily with food toxins – for example, the lethal dose of ] is hundreds if not thousands as high for a pig as for a human. These toxins are metabolised, and any excretion of metabolites will be done as by any other mammal (including us), ''not'' including excretion through the feet. | |||
| :Avoidance of pig meat is a perfectly respectable cultural tradition, but it has no more logic than other ]s such as avoidance of horse, dog or insects. Actually it seems to me that a desire for pseudoscientific explanations for such taboos shows something of a lack of confidence in the culture. I don't eat horse because I am British and we don't eat horses: I don't need any silly logical excuse for it. | |||
| :Anyway, why would toxins oozing from the feet make a pig inedible? | |||
| :Finally, if pigs are "designed" not to be eaten, why does bacon taste and smell so wonderful? To me they seem ''perfectly'' adapted to being turned into the most delicious range of tasty products... ] (]) 19:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, thanks for the info. =) ] (]) 00:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit request == | |||
| {{tlf|Edit semi-protected}} | |||
| There was an unsubstantiated claim inserted in the section "Health issues" that should be removed. It could be readded in a new sentance with the reference if a reference is found that substantiates it, preferably by a medical journal or study. | |||
| The statement "Modern pork almost never has this issue and trichinosis has been virtually wiped out except in wild animals like bear." is not supported by the reference | |||
| ^ Marie Parsons. "Pigs in Ancient Egypt" http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pigs.htm | |||
| The secton for reference #15 should be changed to | |||
| The presence of these diseases and parasites is one reason pork meat should always be well cooked or cured before eating. Some religious groups that consider pork unclean refer to these issues as support for their views. | |||
| :] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Removed the offending sentence and replaced it with a sourced one. — ] (]) 06:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Biological information of the pig. == | |||
| This article really lacks biological information about the pig. The article seems to stress eating/or not eating and raising it for food. Look up sheep and you will find long sections of behavior and intelligence, diet, reproduction, health, etc. This article about pigs is severely lacking in my opinion. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I agree. See ], ], and ]. ] (]) 07:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == The Lindgren Boar == | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} | |||
| <!-- Begin request --> | |||
| a rare type of pig is know as lindgren Boar, it has just been found as a fossil | |||
| <!-- End request --> | |||
| ] (]) 08:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 10:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::This article has been deleted as a "blatant hoax". There are no other Google hits. ] (]) 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| What is their live expectancy? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Relationship with Humans section should include medicine == | |||
| There is a long & rich history of pigs in human medicine. Seems like it warrants entry in this section. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Pig as a "tool-using species" == | |||
| I was directed to the "Pig" page from "Category:Tool-using species". However, there is nothing in the pig article describing any such behavior. Addition of this information would help complete the article. | |||
| ] (]) 04:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == "Many abrahamic religions" == | |||
| That bit in the Cultural/religious section seems unnecessarily sloppy - there are only three (so-called) Abrahamic religions, and two of those have a negative attitude towards pigs, Judaism and Islam. Name them both, perhaps explain why they have an irrational dislike for the creature, and move on. The section as it is offers no real information. ] (]) 10:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ok sexy drop he made to this women and produced a little baby.. That is the real truth guys! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Mixing up domestic piga with wild boars == | |||
| The belongs on this page. ] (]) 23:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == SOW == | |||
| the sow is evidently a female domestic pig used for multiplication | |||
| - | |||
| please correct me when I am wrong. | |||
| - | |||
| At least this is the word's meaning when an Austrian or Bavarian | |||
| farmer speaks of his "Sau" (this is the German spelling of sow, | |||
| the pronunciation is identical in English and in German) | |||
| - | |||
| Moreover, Biologists use the German word Sau in a wider sense for | |||
| any female pig independently from the race. | |||
| - | |||
| I don't know if this applies to the English word sow too. | |||
| - | |||
| There should be a wiki page for SOW and also a there should be | |||
| a German wiki page for SAU clearing the usages of these words. | |||
| - | |||
| It would also be worth knowing whether the word came from German | |||
| to English in early times or whether this word migrated to | |||
| English during the evolution of industrial agriculture. | |||
| Gerald Trost <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Consumption concern for humans and pigs behavior == | |||
| I have read somewhere that if a pig gets stressed they will kill and eat their babies. This is definitely a health concern for humans who consumes pigs as food. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Nigel Pig == | |||
| The Nigel pigs are big pigs that live Italy,Malta and France. | |||
| Their habitats are Forests,Hills and Swamps. | |||
| They are Omrivores they eat every thing from fruit to meat and even dead animals. | |||
| They stay in packs to avoid predators sutch as Lynx and birds of prey. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Pigs in Biomedical Research - Section Needed == | |||
| Pigs are used in biomedical research for a variety of reasons. People who access the pig page in Misplaced Pages would benefit from reading about the discoveries that have been made using pig models of human disease. There are many citations that can direct the reader to more information. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I agree - pigs are often used in scientific studies, probably far more than people think. Perhaps we should try to get consistency here. We already have articles on the ] and ] - I think we should start ] with a link/summary section on the ] article. If you provide the sources you mentioned, I can start a stub/article we can all build on.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 10:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Here are some citations: | |||
| '''1.''' Current progress of genetically engineered pig models for biomedical research.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1089/biores.2014.0039}}</ref> | |||
| By: Gun, Gokhan; Kues, Wilfried A | |||
| BioResearch open access Volume: 3 Issue: 6 Pages: 255-64 Published: 2014-Dec-1<br /> | |||
| '''2.'''CRISPR bacon: a sizzling technique to generate genetically engineered pigs<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1095/biolreprod.114.123935}}</ref>. | |||
| By: DeMayo, Franco J; Spencer, Thomas E | |||
| Corporate Author(s): Editors-in-Chief, Biology of Reproduction | |||
| Biology of reproduction Volume: 91 Issue: 3 Pages: 79 Published: 2014-Sep (Epub 2014 Aug 06)<br /> | |||
| '''3.'''Transgenic pigs as models for translational biomedical research<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1007/s00109-010-0610-9}}</ref> | |||
| By: Aigner, Bernhard; Renner, Simone; Kessler, Barbara; et al. | |||
| JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR MEDICINE-JMM Volume: 88 Issue: 7 Pages: 653-664 Published: JUL 2010<br /> | |||
| '''4.''' Domestic Animal Models for Biomedical Research | |||
| By: Baehr, A.; Wolf, E. | |||
| REPRODUCTION IN DOMESTIC ANIMALS Volume: 47 Special Issue: SI Supplement: 4 Pages: 59-71 Published: AUG 2012<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1111/j.1439-0531.2012.02056.x}}</ref> | |||
| ] (]) 15:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)nanodudek | |||
| ==American English== | |||
| I'm obviously not registered, but the article was started in American English, not british english, please stick to making contributions in one, so it doesn't get all haphazard. cheers. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Color of pigs == | |||
| --] (]) 15:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)--] (]) 15:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)--] (]) 15:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)--] (]) 15:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| They are pink or brown. | |||
| <gallery> | |||
| http://www.clipartkid.com/images/314/pig-in-mud-cartoon-pig-cartoon-clean-confused-jpg-OPtR72-clipart.jpg | |||
| </gallery> | |||
Revision as of 23:06, 15 February 2017
hi