Talk:Pig (disambiguation)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pig which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Would someone searching for the referent Aardvark really just type in "p-i-g"?  I'm not saying that no English-speaking person would never just call them "pigs" but c'mon, when that same person goes to type in the search window, s/he's not going to be "p-i-g", "Oh I see, the Aardvark, thank you disambiguation page!" People with Peccaries in their backyards do call them and think of them as wild pigs, so that's different. Chrisrus (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please.  Just because the word "Aardvark" literally translates from the Dutch as "Earth Pig" doesn't mean that there is any reason to think that "p-i-g" searchers would be looking for them.  They belong, and are, on the Anteater and Antbear disambiguation pages because they are commmonly called that in English, but they are not commonly called "pigs" in English, we use the word "Aardvark" which is maybe interesting to know literally means "Earth Pig" Chrisrus (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Aardvark?

message: Should this disambiguation page include entries such as Pork and others which are not explicitly called "pig" or include "pig" in the article title? Moved from the Request board for 69.3.72.249 (talk) --VernoWhitney (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sympathetic too to those too. Pork is Pig meat, and a reader could come here looking for that. The same I think is true of pig breeds, as readers might know they are pigs but be unsure of the name of the variety or breed, although there might be a better way to link to them. E.g. at Fairy (disambiguation) there's a template which includes a long list of "creatures described as fairies". I notice Pig has a :Template:Artiodactyla but that seems to broad to be useful. Maybe a :Template:Sus (like e.g. :Template:Equus) would be useful for this. Others are more borderline but there are none I'd instantly reject. As for length I don't have a particular problem with it - it's a common and old English word, so I'd expect it to be long, longer than this even. Individual sections are not too long and the TOC aids finding the right one quickly.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I too am persuaded that Pork belongs on the disambiguation page, but I see no need to use a redirect to get there.  Why do you want to use a redirect?  I think the article about Iron Age pigs belongs in List of domestic pig breeds, and no article in that list should appear on the disambiguation page.  I think a link to Cultural references to pigs is essential:  that article collects all the figurative uses of pig.  I believe some of the chronic vandalism of this page is due to readers being frustrated by not finding what they are looking for.  69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No redirects please: the point of a DAB page is to help readers find the article they want and that's not helped by using a title different from that of the article, i.e. different from the common name. If this is an issue try and deal with it in the entry, e.g. "Pork, the common name for pig meat". As for chronic vandalism I don't see anything like that here compared to some articles on Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My reference to vandalism relates to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Pig;  I asked for the current semi-protection to be removed so I and others can edit the article. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the problem is vandalism then semi-protection is the solution. Unfortunately that treats all IPs the same, but that's unavoidable  as most IPs disrupt Wikipedia, whether deliberately or not. Your way around this is to create an account, which has many benefits mostly for you.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict) I think it does hurt something if it is so highly placed and disrupts the concentric circles that are formed by the taxa.  We are trying to get most of the non-domestic-pig-but-still-pig (animal) targets clearly across to the user, and this entry of at best iffy usefulness is getting in the way of the main point of the animal section, which is a quick tour of the taxon-based articles that we have, all with a claim to be about pigs in general.  Please find some other place for the pig (meat) entry.  Chrisrus (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: We're changing the primary to domestic pig, so, we've got to move Pork to the "other" or some such.  Chrisrus (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's premature.  The move request for :Pig has not closed yet. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Pork 

message: Which is more correct, "hoofed" or "hooved"? Chrisrus (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consult the dictionary of your choice.  69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Dictionary.com lists "hooved" as a varient of "hoofed". Chrisrus (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

text: See a discussion of related questions.  I'm a bit surprised to see hoofed preferred here, since it's the literal sense of hoof. —Tamfang (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I changed "hoofed" to "hooved" in accord with the limited usage on Wikipedia already.  I have since consulted 3 dictionaries, hardcopy.  All say "hooves" is a rare plural of "hoof" and "hooved" is a rare variant of "hoofed".  So I would change "hooved" back to "hoofed" ... except as Kevmin asks below why are we bothering to separate hoofed animals from others?  Let's just have an "Animals" section and be done with it. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am about to change it on the basis of this above limited investigation "hooved" seems to be an acceptable but secondary variation of "hoofed". Chrisrus (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a dialect thing.  Personally I'd say "hoof", "hoofs", "hoofed", all with a short vowel, but many other British people would say "hoof", "hooves", "hooved", or "hooves", "hoofed" with a long one.  I've heard , , , , , , , , and also once (I think from an American) .  WP usage within an article ought to be consistent, but otherwise either spelling is OK.  (The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives both "hoofs" and "hooves" for the plural, with no indication of which is commoner except that "hoofs" is given first; the full OED gives "hoofs", "hoofed" as the commoner.  Neither mentions the short vowel though.)  Richard New Forest (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoofed or hooved? 

message: I have been wondering for a little while why at this point we have animals split into two sections.  I understand the groupings that are in place, and that when aardvark was listed it wasn't so odd to have a segment for non-artiodactyls.  But at this point it looks very strange to have guinea pigs in a separate section, while all of the other animals are in one section.  It seems less complicated to have an overall "animals" section. Thoughts? --Kevmin § 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer all animals together in one section.  I am not disturbed by the fact that Guinea pigs are rodents.  Other animals had been included, but then were taken out.  I would put them back in.  The coati in particular.  Any animal with a "pig" snout might as well be included, since their appearance does confuse people. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Differentiating animals?

message: * Wild Pigs
* Wild Pigs
* Wild Pigs
* Wild Pigs
* Wild Pigs
* Wild Pigs
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 17:35, 8 October 2010
:In all of those cases only in general terms and for Sus, Suniae, Sudiae, and Suina, you are stretching the term a bit farther then it should be.  May I ask what you are trying to convey with this? --Kevmin § 17:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, wild pigs in general, that's correct; the taxa in concentric circles of stretching the term, but stopping before the higher taxa with hippoes or such in them, yes that's correct.  My point is that Wild Pigs (disambiguation) does not exist, but many who pass up on Domestic pigs can be assumed to be looking for "Wild Pigs", but we don't have just one article about what people who are looking for wild pigs might be looking for, we have several. Chrisrus (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term '''Wild Pig''' refers to: 

message: Don't get me wrong; I'm a Porky Pig fan.  I'm sure he'll get lots of hits from users; I've clicked on it several times already and would highly recommend the article.  But there are important reasons he shouldn't be here.
It doesn't follow the rules, because there is no evidence in the link's article that he's commonly known as simply "pig", as is the case with, for example, Humber Pig.
Without a rule that excludes those referents not commonly called simply "(the) pig(s)", this page would become difficult to use.  We would not be able to say "no" to  Little Pig Robinson,  The Three Little Pigs, Peppermint Pig, Peppa Pig, or any of countless other such referents, so crowding the page as to make it difficult for the user to navigate.
Instead, we are supposed to have links in the "See Also" section for people to help people who want such navigation pages, list/articles for people who want fictional pigs, famous pigs, topics related to pigs, list of domestic pig breeds, and other such collections of links.  This will help users who want something beyond the scope of this page.
Please remove Porky Pig or allow me to do so.  Also, let us look again at some of the other entries with this in mind. Chrisrus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: dab style guidance recommends only including articles which could be called just "pig", and this is surely not one of those.  Richard New Forest (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then!I'm removing it now, let's see if we get any reverts.... Chrisrus (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

text: How do you think the guidelines apply to the pink floyd pigs, another excellent article that's sure to get lots of hits? Chrisrus (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Same question: will anyone search on just "pig"?  Richard New Forest (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem very likely to me.  What about a "See also" link to :Category:Fictional pigs, on which both Porky and the Floyd pigs are included? Then we could say to anyone who contributed an article in that category that we were indirectly helping someone looking for such things by doing so.Chrisrus (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  So, are there any more such links left in the article at this point? What about Feral pig, Hell or Terminator pig, and Guinea pig? Why does the logic that applies to Porky and the Pink Floyd Pigs not apply to them? Chrisrus (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porky Pig 

message: *Yes Users who search for "p-i-g(s)" probably are thinking of ordinary pigs. Chrisrus (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Poll 

message: : As pointed out here and here if you want the primary topic to be domestic pig you need to move that article to pig, which requires a requested move, especially as there was one recently which came down on the side of not moving. As there's already a perfectly good process for such requests, which makes sure the move request gets proper exposure and is properly considered, this poll serves no purpose.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too recent to start a new one and would be binding.  Therefore, it is best to take a quick check as to whether there is any disagreement about this.  The formal proposal must explain what is going to happen with regard to the rest of the related articles, and there were several good ideas about that. This is a different question. Chrisrus (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

text: If it's about the primacy of domestic pig then ask there, i.e. at it's talk page. You can open a thread for discussion before starting a formal move request, but you will definitely need a move request given the previous one. Other than that it's not clear what you are asking. This page as with other DAB pages is constructed based on what other pages there are, in particular what page is at pig, as per the style guidelines.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've repeated the question there as well, thanks.  Also, this is not a move request. Chrisrus (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether the quick poll should have been opened 

message: 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 Wikipedia 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. Chrisrus (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helping p-i-g-(s) searchers get where they want to go  

message: should be merged into , since "Pig (disambiguation)" already deals with PIGS/pigs terms.
76.65.128.198 (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me: there's nothing to merge as it looks like the two entries on that page are already here, so in practice it simply needs redirecting here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[PIGS]] (disambiguation) into [[Pig (disambiguation)]]

message: I was attempting to find an article on a pipeline pig. Searched for "pig" and through this disambiguation page. Stumbled upon it by searching on intitle:"pig" Please include the following in the Science and technology section:
* Pigging - use of a pig or scraper to clean, test, or analyze a pipeline.
Thank you 2606:6000:CB81:1700:8C7F:FAC8:3547:DF64 (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add [[Pigging]] link