Misplaced Pages

Talk:Elephant

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 30 January 2013 (Bot updating {{ArticleHistory}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:43, 30 January 2013 by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) (Bot updating {{ArticleHistory}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Featured articleElephant is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 5, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 28, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 31, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 20, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 11, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
November 5, 2012Good article nomineeListed
December 8, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
January 30, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
Olifant was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 October 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Elephant on November 2009. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAfrica
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMammals High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCircus Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Circus. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.CircusWikipedia:WikiProject CircusTemplate:WikiProject CircusCircus
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Template:V0.5

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Four knees

Some sites on the internet are circulating a factoid that the Elephant is the only animal with 4 knees. Perhaps a blurb can be added somewhere (under Legs and Feet) to indicate that this is false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.154.31 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elephant/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice detailed article... would love reviewing this. My comments, will have more later:

Lead ✓ Pass

  • The three images seem to spoil the appearance. I advise to use a picture of African bush elephant or Asian elephant (because the other is already shown in Taxonomy) in the infobox, just as two other family articles Rhinoceros and Giraffidae do.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I have added the infobox as well, it looks perfect now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Mention after the first line in lead that Gray described the family and when.

I don't think this is needed since this centered on the living species and not Elephantidae family overall. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The lead could be summarised. Exclude or shorten the parts after you give the ranges in the first paragraph, you have it in the rest of the article. Some parts are repeated, which mustn't be. You could keep the most relevant parts, as the lead is getting too long.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Etymology ✓ Pass

Taxonomy ✓ Pass

  • In the first line, ";" can be replaced by hyphen, as - The three extant elephant species - the African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana), the African forest elephant (L. cyclotis) and the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus)- all belong to the family Elephantidae and the order Proboscidea.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Is Mammuthus the direct ancestor of elephants? You imply so, and if it is then mention it before the lines about DNA studies. The reader mayn't understand.
No. As the evolution article states. Loxodonta branched off before Mammuthus' and Elephas
  • Link 'cloned', 'embryo', 'described', 'separated', 'speciation'.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • From east to west, Asian elephants vary in color and amount of depigmentation; those further west are darker and have more depigmented patches, while further east they are lighter and have less depigmentation This seems a part of physical description mostly, and though I see you mean to describe the species, it really should be in 'Anatomy and morphology' section. I think it can be reworded - Asian elephants vary in color and amount of depigmentation geographically.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Hybrids' says about Motty only. Could use {{main article|Motty}}.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Anatomy and morphology ✓ Pass

  • Spelling mistake, degress - degrees
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The proboscis, or trunk rather be The trunk, or proboscis as the section is named 'Trunk'.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Behavior and life history ✓ Pass

  • Something is wrong with ], didn't appear on my browser.
Removed the image, the article is already full of these anyway. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Link 'estrous'
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the info about sexual maturity should be given to the reader before coming to the mating.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Could have a line of explanation about alloparenting.
Done LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Females are sexually mature by the age of 9 years and can come into estrus estrus-estrous
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What is the lifespan under captivity?
Made chances apparently some do live as long of those in the wild. LittleJerry (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
You need to mention this, with an appropriate source, of course. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservation issues ✓ Pass

  • In 1989, the African elephant ... (making trade of them illegal) Did their listing made the trade of elephants illegal or do you mean their trade is illegal? Could be made into another sentence.
Yes it made their trade illegal. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Removed the brackets. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Elephants and humans ✓ Pass

  • However, they were not used as much as horse-drawn chariots by both the Pandava and Kaurava Should be Pandavas and Kauravas.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ...used in theMauryan army space needed.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ...trunk waying or route. tracing Up to 54% ... - ...route-tracing...
Done LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • During the 10th century better say AD or BC.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As characters, elephants are relegated largely to children's stories Related, not relegated (which means distancing away)
The text is say that elephant characters are used only in childern's stories. Hence "relegated" (To assign to a particular class or category).
  • The story of the blind men and an elephant... - The story of the "Blind men and an elephant"...
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Notes ✓ Pass

  • Author of ref 1 is Douglas Harper
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No need of linking the article in ref 8, PMC already given
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep journal article titles in one case, either sentence or title case. Same with book titles.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Italics for scientific names in refs 11, 14, 20, 100.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Capitalization needed in ref 22
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Rest is well, awaiting your replies. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite satisfactory. Only an issue or two left (in bold letters). Anyway, I don't expect more problems after two GA reviews already! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

the elephant can bring good fortune to people who belive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erutas1 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Beast of burden section

The section on Beast of burden needs to be re-written, e.g. elephants have an 'in-built memory'! I would re-write this myself, but I do not have access to the cited sources and therefore do not understand what the authors were trying to communicate.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't. I'll make sure it matches the sources. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean 'Beasts of burden' section or the whole 'Elephants and humans'? I can't do much about this, for I too can't access the sources. Anyway, bult-in would do. LittleJerry, I found you have made many spelling and capitalization mistakes here and there, mostly in this section. I hope you are careful about it afterwards. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't find any mistakes. If you found them then just correct them. I also don't see why this should be re-written. Just let me get this copyedited after this is done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It is these two sentences in particular I believe need changing. "Elephants can be trained to respond to over 30 commands, although they do not always listen and sometimes come up with their own ideas on how to perform a task. Elephants have advantages over vehicles in that they can work in relatively deep water, require less maintenance, need only vegetation as fuel, and have a built-in memory." They are un-encyclopaedic and spoil what is otherwise a very good article__DrChrissy (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you suggest? LittleJerry (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I made some changes. Are they better? LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I have done some rewording for the first line, surely that would look encyclopaedic. Do you have an idea how to rewrite the second sentence? LittleJerry, once this issue is over I shall promote this as a GA. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 01:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is how I would write the sentences. "Elephants can be trained to respond to over 30 commands. They are valued as working animals over mechanised tools because they can work in relatively deep water, require relatively little maintenance, need only vegetation and water as fuel, and can be trained to memorize specific tasks."__DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks good-thanks.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, this issue too is resolved. So we can have a formal WIAGA review:

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Good, descriptive.
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Strong, reliable sources.
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): All about elephants here.
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Fine, matching-with-the-topic images!
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Pass

Congratulations! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservation Status

Can someone please add the conservation status http://en.wikipedia.org/Conservation_status tab to this article. Other pages like the one about Lions and Cape Buffalo have one. Basheera Masih (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Elephants are not a single species and do not have a single conservation status. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Image of elephant dung

elephant dung

How about this image for a use in the article? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Where? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"Ecology and activities" ... :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Call me old fashioned, but I think pictures of elephants are better for the article than pictures of their crap. ;) (but seriously, that section already has two images, as does the section below it; adding a fifth image right there would do nothing but clutter the text) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

References need attention

The references in this article need attention.

  • Why are the references listed under 'Notes' and not 'References'
  • There are many Soshani references with no date e.g. Shoshani, pp. 152–54. How is the reader to know which of the Soshani publications to refer to?
  • There are several references to Sukumar, e.g 118.^ Sukumar, pp. 59–64, but there is no complete reference for a Sukamar publication listed under 'Notes'.
  • Several of the references list authors as 'et al.'. It is more ususal to name every author in the full reference.

__DrChrissy (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You are confused, cites like Sukumar, p. 118 and Shoshani, pp. 152–54 are referring to the books listed under "General" subsection. In addition et al. is used alot, especailly is there are tons of authors. LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You are correct - I am confused. That is because the article is confusing. The full book references should be in the same section as the other references. Furthermore, I agree 'et al.' is often used in the text but rarely in the reference list, otherwise, all the authors do not get the recognition they deserve. These references need changing. __DrChrissy (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct - I am confused. That is because the article is confusing. The full book references should be in the same section as the other references. My method of citing these sources is quite common in other wiki articles. See lion, raccoon, painted turtle, ect. I meant that et al is used commonly for citations, not just here. LittleJerry (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This style of referencing is widely used in Misplaced Pages. LittleJerry has listed a few articles that use this format. (My personal preference is to have the main inline citations in a "References" section, with a "Bibliography" subsection for the main texts.) See WP:SFN. Axl ¤ 23:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I asked for advice at Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources on the matter of citing only the editor in multi-author books. There seems to be agreement that the original author of the chapter should be cited, not only the editor. This seems only fair - if you wrote a chapter for a book you would expect acknowledgement of your efforts and expertise, rather than this being attributed to the editor. The Template:Cite book will help clarify the citations.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll fix it. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. The citation style is simliar to that done in lemur. LittleJerry (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I also got rid of the et als. I hope all the problems have been solved. LittleJerry (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

martha!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erutas1 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge elephantidae into this

The terms are basically synonyms, and the articles cover the exact same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: This article is about the living species called elephants not every member of elephantidae which includes mammoths and Stegolophodon. LittleJerry (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the tag for now, since it isn't urgent, but elephant is usually used as a term for even the extinct species, so I disagree. We don't have separate articles for living penguins and Sphenisciformes either, for example. But a merge can wait, no worries. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Occisonally it is but only the mammoths. The majority of the time it refers to the living species. LittleJerry (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the elephantidae article is too inclusive, as it lists many genera outside it for some reason. So it may seem harder to integrate here than it is. A book about mammoths written by Adrian Lister specifically mentions "true elephants" (i.e. elephantidae) as referring to living elephants and mammoths collectively. I think it would be easy to absorb the little material there is in that article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. FunkMonk has a good argument but I am concerned that the "Elephant" article is already rather long, and "Elephantidae" is certainly not a stub. There is enough text in "Elephantidae" to justify its position as a stand-alone article, and it has the potential for further expansion. Axl ¤ 10:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The other article is only long (or rather, has a long list) because it includes taxa that are not widely regarded to be part of elephantidae. Cut these out, and it's only a few. Michael Benton also terms elephantidae "elephants and mammoths". It would take about five minutes to redirect that article here, and add a couple of lines about the extinct species, if that hasn't been done already FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing politeness

LittleJerry, you recently made multiple changes to the section on seismic communication in this article. Your revised version deleted relevant information and contained inaccuracies and typos. You left no edit summary so there was no indication of your motivation behind these changes, therefore I manually reverted to the previous version. Your subsequent immediate revert indicated the motivation was "(your verison contains close paraphasing and direct copying of the sources.)" Yes, I may have closely paraphrased, but this is permissible according to Wikepedia:Close paraphrasing if suitable in-line attrubition is given. I have done this. Similarly, with direct copying, this is attributed to the author from where I have taken the information although I felt it did not require quotes. I use the highest quality material when researching my edits and sometimes this means the statements of authors simply can not be improved upon. Please revert your changes and please use the Edit summary for each of your changes. __DrChrissy (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Direct copying without qoutes still violates copyright. Your wording is not an example of "suitable in-line attrubition" because it is not being attrubited to a person (e. g. John Rawls says that, to reach fair decisions, parties must consider matters as if behind a veil of ignorance). In addition, your wording is way to technical and needs to be put in laymen's terms. Wording like "Elephants may also use seismic communication from signals generated through percussion on the substrate or acoustical waves that couple with the substrate" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia that's meant to be accessable to the general public. LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
If you had these concerns you should have raised them with me on the Talk page rather than reckless editing in an almost complete absence of giving edit summaries (something you have been warned about several times on your User Talk page). It is your own single opinion what material is accessable to the general public - making a unilateral series of heavy editing without discussion indicates you may be in violation of thinking you own this article__DrChrissy (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I did, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Axl pointed that out in the PR. LittleJerry (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Guys, we are all trying to improve the article. I am sure that we can collaborate and do so. The references for the "Communication" subsection are of good quality, and we can use them to support statements in the article. Let's avoid accusations of ownership. Collaborative editing is one of Misplaced Pages's principles; we can all expect have our work edited by others. Thanks. Axl ¤ 23:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this has not been a collaborative effort. It has been editors other than LittleJerry making good faith changes only to have these pounced upon and deleted or changed with no discussion and no edit summaries. This leads to much work for other editors to follow which edits LittleJerry has been making. I will be making no further contributions to this article until it is submitted for Featured Article status.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing review

The peer review has now closed. However I still have comments to make. Axl ¤ 12:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  • In "Elephants and humans", subsection "Attacks", several incidents are listed that all seem to have the same pattern: elephants go on a rampage, locals claim drunkenness, officials deny drunkenness. Perhaps these incidents could be combined into a single sentence that summarizes them? I don't think that it is helpful to list them individually. Axl ¤ 12:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • From "Elephants and humans", subsection "Cultural depictions", paragraph 2: "Similar beliefs existed among certain other African tribes, who believed that their chiefs would be reincarnated as elephants." Are these "other African tribes" named? Axl ¤ 11:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Nope, just the Igbo-Ukwu. LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Axl ¤ 13:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • From "Elephants and humans", subsection "Cultural depictions", paragraph 3: "Elephants in fiction are typically surrogates for humans and their concern for the community and each other is depicted as something to which to aspire." Can you simplify this sentence please? Perhaps split it? Axl ¤ 12:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Better? LittleJerry (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ 13:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have finished reviewing the text. I have not checked the references. Axl ¤ 13:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. LittleJerry (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lankan elephant

  • From Sri Lankan elephant: Only 7% of males bear tusks.(ref= Jayewardene, J. (1994) The elephant in Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka, Colombo) However, according to the elephant census conducted in 2011 by the Wildlife Conservation Department of Sri Lanka, only 2% of the total population are tuskers.
  • From Asian elephant Some males may also lack tusks... and are especially common among the Sri Lankan elephant population... (ref= Clutton-Brock, J. (1987). A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. London: British Museum (Natural History). p. 208. ISBN 0-521-34697-5.)
  • BBC
  • Sunday Times

Edit request on 28 December 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Text apparently contains a spelling error:

"Female same-sex behaviours have been documented only in captivity where they are known to mastrubate one other with their trunks."

Perhaps "masturbate" is more appropriate?

219.117.23.10 (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Well spotted! Adrian J. Hunter 11:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Categories: