Talk:Pig (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Mammals

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. 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 articles

June 2006

oh my god kill me,kiss me,hug me,f*** me

Move discussion in progress

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)[reply]

Inclusion of items not called "pig"

Another editor has now twice deleted the following entries from this disambiguation page. It seems to me they should be included in the disambiguation page. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion of these can be found on Talk:Pig#Requested move. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, please read WP:MOSDAB. Dabs are for users to tell which of several articles with the same title is the one they want. In this case, that means that if an article could not reasonably be called "pig", it does not belong here. Dabs are not for navigation through related topics with different names, which is done in other ways.

In fact this user has already made the very good suggestion of a pig navigation box for exactly the same purpose. This has now been created and has already been added to many pig-related pages.

The inclusion of the suggested entries would require a major re-write of the MOS, and I suggest that any further discussion of this topic is taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that including the above entries is contrary to the style guide, and I think further discussion belongs here. I have invited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you may be looking for is the Category "Pigs". On this page, we're supposed to keep it to those items a person might reasonably be expected to be looking for when he or she types in the letters p-i-g. Chrisrus (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisrus, how do you determine what a person might be looking for? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We usually try to limit these things to articles that have the same name. If someone types in p-i-g-(s); well, we have many articles called "pig(s)". So we collect all articles called "pig(s)" on a disambiguation page. Someone looking for, oh, I donno, pig iron is not likely to just type "p-i-g", but rather the full noun phrase; don't you agree? Chrisrus (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No article has the same name. There is only one Pig. It sounds like you mean articles containing the word "pig", like All pages with titles containing Pig (over 340 articles). If that were good enough, Wikipedia could do without disambiguation pages altogether. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take for example a user types in John Smith. Which of all the articles by that name does he or she want? See what I'm saying? That's how disambiguation pages got started. We don't want to do too much mindreading though there are times when disambiguation pages evolve into something slightly different or something more, we normally just try to keep such things to just those articles that have exactly the same name. Chrisrus (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's the old "X (whatever)" argument. Every article that could reasonably be "Pig (whatever)" would then need to be moved or get a redirect like this: Pig (pork) redirecting to Pork. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only thing we can assume that the user knows is the English language. So we can assume that when he wrote p-i-g in the search box, s/he didn't mean pork, because, as you know, unlike the word chicken, there're two different words for pig (meat) and pig (animal). It's not called pig (meat) in English, so there is no need for disambiguation. In the case of "chicken", we have Chicken (meat) and Chicken (bird). Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too much to expect the reader to know this exception to the general rule that the meat of the animal is known by the same name as the animal. And even pig follows the general rule: meat of the pig is also called pig. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you, in good faith are not just trying to make a point; if you honestly think that an English-speaking person (and you may very well may be right) that an English-speaker looking for pork might type in "pig (meat)", then go back up to where you created a red link to the non-existing article and click it. In the "create new article" box, type the numbersign, the word "redirect" in all caps, and the word "pork" enclosed in double brackets. So it will look like this: #REDIRECTpork. Then hit "save" and be done. You will have helped any person that should happen to come along and type in "pig (meat)" find his or her way directly to that place.

Then, that being done, feel free to add "pig (meat)" to this page if you really honestly think that an English-speaking person who types in "p-i-g" might actually have been looking for the article pork, and that they'll see the listing "pig (meat)" that you'll have added and be helped. Who knows? It could happen, I suppose. The reason I don't do these things is my conviction, perhaps misplaced, that, if someone speaks English, we can assume that they know that it's not called "pig"; it's called "pork". Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User 69.3.72.249: Chrisrus has explained it very clearly, and the guidance is also clear. Your other edits give the impression that you are an experienced editor, and if so, you surely know by now what dab pages are supposed to contain. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the user's english is so poor/unusual that they don't understand the difference between pig and pork, then a short tour of the pig, from which pork is well linked anyway, would not be out of order. I go with convention: only add terms that might be mistaken be normal english speakers, leave the others in see alsos and other navigation aids on article pages, or category pages. In the Simple English version of the 'pedia, I'd be more inclined to be swayed by IP editor's reasoning. Trev M ~ 12:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but pig and pork are synonyms (check some dictionaries), so Pork should be on Pig (disambiguation). And please stop making derogatory remarks about me. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made no derogatory remark about you: I presumed you were acting as advocate for those with a less or different than mainstream understanding of english. "...the user..." I refered to has a small letter and I meant any user, not refering to you. I'll check some dictionaries; perhaps you could cite those you are refering to. Trev M ~ 17:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: Websters as bundled with Mac OS gives:

1 an omnivorous domesticated hoofed mammal with sparse
bristly hair and a flat snout for rooting in the soil, kept for its meat.

• Sus domesticus (with numerous varieties), family Suidae (the pig family),
descended from the wild boar and domesticated over 8,000 years ago.
The pig family also includes the warthog and babirusa,
but the similar peccaries are placed in their own family.
• a wild animal of this family.
• a young pig; a piglet.
• the flesh of a pig, esp. a young one, as food.

plus a couple more...

It's an almost unheard of, jovial or illiterate use on the East side of the Atlantic, as far as I'm aware. That was a US dictionary I was quoting from. I'll check a UK one shortly. Trev M ~ 17:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are a few gleaned from Google Books:

Pig meaning pork World Book, historical
Pig-meat meaning fresh pork; pork meaning salt pork historical

Re above, in addition to "less or different" there is also "more". Someone who uses "pig" to refer to pig meat does not necessarily display less command of English; they may in some cases be displaying more command. The word pair "noodle" and "pasta" are a similar case: in UK English "noodle" seems to be scorned, but in American English "pasta" is specific for Italian noodles; German and Asian noodles are also common in North America. By the way, the use of different words for the animal and flesh of the animal is fairly unusual in other European languages and even in English. This book] discusses specifically the pig/pork idiom in English. This book says in the United States "pig" refers generally to the young animal (piglet). 69.3.72.249 (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am by now quite happy to include the term, though the following comparative search frequencies illustrate the UK/non-UK divergence:

"pig meat" as a specific search term on google.co.uk yielded

About 152,000 results –cf pork– About 23,300,000 (UK filter off)  that is 153 times as many mentions of pork
About 28,400 results –cf pork– About 1,370,000 (Uk filter on)  that is 48 times as many mentions of pork

This analysis indicates that pig meat is mentioned over 3 times less frequently than pork in the whole base searched by Google, than on UK hosted web sites: not as I would have expected, though it is mentioned by a large factor, much less than pork (48-153 times less) everywhere.

However, a search for "pig meat" definition turned up a possible reason for the relatively high occurrence of the term: it is used to include all pig meat products, including many that would not be referred to as pork.

Trev M ~ 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Et seq.[reply]

Please say more about pig meat that is not pork. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why we don't need Guinea Pig

Just figure you were searching for the referent Guinea Pig. Do you honestly believe that you would leave off the "Guinea" part? Chrisrus (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because many people call the Guinea pig a pig. Like Peccary, Guinea pig belongs in the Animals section. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The peccaries are covered in Suina. Chrisrus (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea Pig has now been promoted to the main section on "Pig (Animal)". I object. Peccaries are commonly believed to actually be pigs, guinea pig is not. It's a highly unlikely link to ever be used. It gets in the way of the serious business of disambiguating the pigs for the people. It's more trouble than it's worth. Besides, it invites all kinds of additions from the universe of articles called Such-and-such Pigs. People who come here can be expected to know English and part of knowing English is knowing the non-encyclopedic meanings of common words like "pig", and part of that knowledge is knowing that it isn't a rodent.

The only reason I hadn't kept deleting it had been it's out-of-the-way position to an "other" section and the arguement that many people might not know how to spell "Guinea". But now that it's been promoted in occurs to me that this problem is probably best dealt with by creating redirects with the most common mispellings or something. And if they can get use Wikipedia they can use a spellchecker, Google works well.

The other persuasive arguement (to some) was that some people sometimes call them "pigs". Well, how does Wikipedia know that? This page knows only what the articles say about their referents. It may be true according to some Wikipedian's original research but here is not the place for that. Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think guinea pigs is a perfectly acceptable link for a non-primary (that is, there's a (disambiguation) in the title) disambiguation page. They're a basic encyclopedic topic, the word appears nontrivially in the name, guinea is easily misspelled, and a host of other things suggest the current use is fine. I don't see a compelling reason to exclude it in this case. It's not like the guinea pig lobby's spamming out the page. Shadowjams (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aardvark?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RFC

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)[reply]

RfC comment. OK, I came here from the RfC listing, and I've never edited these pages before. I've read the discussion above, and I'm inclined to be sympathetic to the position taken by 69.3.72.249. It seems to me that, as a bottom line, we should be most concerned with making things user-friendly for our readers, as opposed to taking a slavishly close reading of guidelines such as that for DABs. The downside of including more pages on this DAB page is that it is already a very long one. I've looked around and the category for "pigs", as well as the only navigation boxes that I found, all deal pretty specifically with species in the pig family, defined biologically, as opposed to other terms that readers might look for. (I can certainly imagine someone who wants to find "pork" might start by thinking "cooked pig" and type that in the search box.) So, I would tend to make this page inclusive. If that makes the list too long (likely), it may be necessary to (gasp!) make this a simpler DAB page that includes links to further DAB pages, dealing with things like "Pig (animal)", "Pig (food)", "Pig (arts)", and so on. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (also from the RfC page). I have to agree with Tryptofish and side with being inclusive in this case. I would remind those above who argued that only terms that might be mistaken by native English speakers be present that not just non-native speakers, but also children and speakers of particular dialects of English might find themselves led to this disambiguation page. Disambiguation sub-pages would solve any problem of length, though I also agree that there isn't much of a problem there, either, with the current page; though it's not an argument itself, one might note that there are quite a few disambiguation pages of great length (see Smith, Dog (disambiguation), or Cat (disambiguation), for examples) that are still easily navigable. All in all, I see no umanageable problems with being inclusive, and some potentially difficult problems with the narrow view. siafu (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm persuaded about Pig (meat): it is a plausible route that might arrive at "pig". But surely not Cultural references to pigs, Iron Age pig, List of domestic pig breeds etc? Is someone realistically going to be wanting Iron Age pigs and type just "pig"? And if we include these, why not every article bearing any relation whatever to pigs? Warthog, Crackling, Trotter, Hog roast...? Where do we stop? Particularly as there's already a navbox for all those pig things (it's Template:Pigs, which I don't think Tryptofish or John Blackburne can have found – sorry, I ought to have named it above). I really can't see a good reason for going so very far from normal dab practice (and I do agree, we should not necessarily be following that slavishly). Richard New Forest (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thanks for pointing out Template:Pigs, I did not see that as it was too vaguely categorised, which I've fixed. My thought was something like what I did at Fairy (disambiguation) which is add Template:Fairies as it has a long list of "Creatures described as faries", rather than consider adding them one by one to the article (or even worse add some and exclude others based on how clear each article made it that the creature described was also sometimes a fairy). Not strictly speaking in the manual of style except for the bit at the end, which I think could also be used here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment I doubt pig (meat) will ever get used, but who knows? It could help someone someday, never is a very long time and lots of people use the English Wikipedia, even second language users whose English might be so poor that they don't know the word "pork". So it's fine with me to include as it hurts nothing and seems to have an odd chance of being helpful so someone someday. Chrisrus (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Comment I agree with Chrisrus, given that I deal with alot of francophones, I can understand that someone who's second language is English doesn't know the word "pork". --Addi hockey 10 15:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any compound noun phrase which is also commonly known as simply "pigs" (commonly, not just conceivably) called simply "pigs" should be included. According to the article Humber Pig for example, they are commonly called simply "pigs" and so it's reasonable to assume that someone might know that there's a military vehicle called a "pig", but not know the "humber" part. The entry should be formated to maximize help to such a person find that page. They don't necessarily have to learn any more about the vehicle from this page. The Black Sabbath song "War Pigs" is not included because it is not commonly called simply "Pigs", but goes by both words. In between, we might have some room for argument, as is the case with Guinea pig, which I'm on record against including, but others don't agree with me. Chrisrus (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First line and first section

My last change to the page was I overhauled the first line and section to be line line with normal practices for DAB pages, as given in the manual of style. The two main points from it are

The first line should be on the primary topic, i.e. Pig, as the default article covered by this dab page. It may be the domestic pig is also called "Pig" but at some point consensus has determined that Pig should be the article it now is, and that is the primary topic.
There should be only one article per entry, so one blue link per line. I see this has now been fixed but the entries are still too long: they should be as long as is needed for a reader to find the article they need, where they can read at great length about the topic they are inerested in.

I also removed one entry on Suina as they are not called pigs, they just include them, so are covered by Suinae (otherwise how far up the classification should the list go?).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most people searching for the word "pig" can reasonably be assumed to be looking for domesticated pigs. Fewer will be interested in the broader articles. Chrisrus (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pecceries and some of the prehistoric animals sometimes called pigs is as high as it can reasonably be assumed to go. Chrisrus (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If most people searching for pig are in truth interested in domestic pig then that article should be moved, and I see there is a discussion on this right now. But even after that happens the primary topic of Pig (disambiguation) will be Pig.

Peccary says they are often confused with pigs, i.e. called pigs incorrectly and are not pigs. More importantly Suina does not say Suina are pigs, or are ever called pigs: it is just a higher classification that includes them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with those that say that the most common usage is the regular old domestic pig. Users will learn that Peccaries are pigs only in a crude sense, but in discussions of extinct Suina, they are called "pigs", but it's clear that the term is used very loosely. for example http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/prehistoric-predators/3885/Overview.

At the moment the taxon infobox is on Pig, implying the article scope is the genus Sus. That is why there is a request to move the contents at Pig to Sus (genus) and Pig (disambiguation) to Pig. Alternatively, Pig could redirect to Domestic pig but, looking at incoming links to Pig, I think putting the disambiguation page at Pig would be more constructive; the incoming links are a mess. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with sending p-i-g searchers here or to domestic pig, either way, and not particularly opposed to sending them to sus in general. I'm tweeking it more to clarify in responce to your points. Chrisrus (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict on article) I have rewritten the first line and section. Here is why. Omit the scientific name of domestic pigs because whether they are a species or subspecies is a matter of dispute in the literature. Shorten entries; manual of style says no sentences. Suidae is the pig family, but that does not mean every member of the family is a pig, ditto for the subfamily Suina. When referring to the genus by name, link to Sus (genus); this is so that if we decide the genus article does not belong at Pig, links about the genus will not be disrupted. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is better, though I still take issue with the inclusion of Suida, as it's not mentioned at all in the article that they are called them. Only that they are members of that suborder, but they are also members of Artiodactyla, and mentioned more often in that article. Peccary seems fine - the article also mentions they are called "skunk pig" which might be better than "javelina".--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Suina was an error: I meant to link to Suinae; I have fixed the link. Suida is something else. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put "javelina" in the line because that is another common name for the peccary; this is to help the reader recognize the animal. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems fine now: I meant Suina but mistyped it here, but now fixed it seems OK. The point on "javelina" is there's no need to include alternate names or any other details, but "skunk pig" would indicates how they are called pigs. But it's a relatively minor point compared to the formatting and overlinking issues that are now fixed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nearly as clear, doesn't have the most common, though perhaps less proper definition first. It doesn't clarify that pecceries and "prehistoric pigs" (please google that) are only very broadly and crudely referred to as "pigs". And they weren't sentences, they were noun clauses. Each should be as long or as short as they need to be and no more. Chrisrus (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your change: see above for the reasons which are all supported by the manual of style, in particular on the primary topic, length of entries, putting the link first, proper formatting and punctuation. Also as per the above discussion Suinae is more appropriate than Suina. Please do not change it against both the MOS and the discussion here without good reason.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really unclear, please fix. We need the level of usage, such as common or technical, the fact that "peccary" is technically wrong, that many "prehistoric pigs" (google that, also "killer pig") are so called in a very broad definition, etc. as stated. I will start up this again tomorrow, you've no consensus as to primary, the domestic pig is clearly the most common and likely referent, and the user is not as well served generally.Chrisrus (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary topic is "pig" and this is its disambiguation page. See WP:PT for information on primary topics and WP:DABSTYLE for how such a topic should appear on a dab page. If there is a problem with the common usage of "pig", and the page at domestic pig should really be at pig, then that should be fixed by renaming the article based on consensus. But even after that this page should still link to pig as its primary topic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisrus, if you want to argue that Domestic pig is the primary topic of Pig, please do so on Talk:Pig#Requested move. This disambiguation page starts as it does because at this time Pig is about the genus Sus, implying that the genus is the primary topic. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer the case. Chrisrus (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I redid the intial section in preparation for the workover. As soon as the primary has moved, I plan to "redo" that edit. Please use the "history" to have a look at it and let me know what you think. Chrisrus (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The requested move has not closed, so this is premature. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone still arguing against the primacy of the domestic pig? Chrisrus (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing for Sus = pig. The two points are whether to send pig searchers first here or to Domestic Pig. Who is arguing for Sus to be the article at Pig and what is their reasoning? What does "Sus" have over Suidae for example, or for that matter over Suina, which experts call the True Pigs, as opposed to the peccaries and some extinct others which they consider false pigs. What is the valid argument for Sus to be primary? Chrisrus (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is determined by the article at Pig, which is on the genus. Until that changes that's the primary topic, i.e. it's the article anyone typing "Pig" in the search box sees first, and so the most likely way they will find this DAB page. So that article is linked at the top for clarity. See WP:PT and WP:DABSTYLE for more information.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move Pork

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)[reply]

That's premature. The move request for Pig has not closed yet. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB guidelines

Please can all editors follow the manual of style for DAB pages, especially with regard to:

Only one link per line
Only one line per article
In general no redirects
In general no piped links
Concise and clear descriptions

See the style guide linked above for the long version of all the above, but the reasons are simple: this is meant to be a list of articles a user might want if they typed "pig" in the search box. A list is confusing if articles appear multiple times or if entries have multiple links, while piped links and links via redirects hide what article is actually being linked to.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In general", meaning "except when useful or helpful, but please do have redirects or piped links whenever it's better to have them". If it helps the user to do so, then we should have exactly as many as there are instances when that is the case, no more; no fewer. Therefore, the statement "Use redirects and piped links when they are helpful" is as valid as "in general no redirects or piped links". Therefore please don't revert all redirects and piped links simply on the grounds that they are redirects or piped links. You may ask for an explanation as to why they are more helpful, and if they don't seem that way to you, you may dispute, but this business about robotically undoing all redirects and piped links is crude at best and not grounds to support or revert something if you are presented with valid evidence and reason that they are helpful. Chrisrus (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps using pipes to shoehorn entries into the format Pig (subsense). Could that person explain the benefit of that? Seems to me it impedes understanding; for example, some visitors may be thinking "it's called a something-pig —" or "I know it has another name besides pig, but I can't remember it exactly". —Tamfang (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on the case, but you don't want to invite lot's of contributions like pig iron, pigs in a blanket, etc. Which are you thinking of? Chrisrus (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shoulda kept a log. The one that sticks in my mind (because I undid it once) is Humber Pig piped to "Pig (military vehicle)". How is that not less helpful than "Humber Pig, a military vehicle"? Is a reader likely to think, "No, that can't be it, I want Pig not Humber Pig" ?

If pig iron is commonly called "pig" by foundry workers, I'd say include it; someone reading a novel might easily be baffled by "pig" in dialogue. (I have a harder time imagining anyone referring to pigs-in-blankets without their disambiguator, because they're less likely to be part of anyone's daily life.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have the redirect pig (military vehicle) because the article says that they commonly go by that name, so we suppose person who didn't know the "Humber" part might search for it in that way. It appears on this page for the same reason. You are right, while we might suppose that some people, maybe those in the iron business, or cocktail hors d'oevers servers shouting back into the kitchen for Pigs in a blanket, might sometimes call those things "pig" or "pigs", the articles didn't give us any particular reason to rationally suspect that such users would benefit from such redirects or inclusion on this disambiguation page. I prefer having the main link to Humber Pig being "*Pig (military vehicle), common name for the Humber Pig, a British military primarily used in Northern Ireland", because for a few reasons. It's the way I imagined a user of that link would be thinking; ; doing it that way clarifies why it is on this page, even though it's a compound noun and therefore it doesn't encourage people adding all kinds of compound nouns that don't merrit such a redirect; and and I just frankly think it looks better on the page that way. However, others don't agree, which is fine, it's not that important to me and the way it is now works fine. I did dispute the grounds on which it was changed, however, as I think it's a good option we should be able to use. Chrisrus (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Rabbit (disambiguation) ought to conceal the name Volkswagen Rabbit (and so on)?

If we thought the car should be on the rabbit disambiguation page, I would prefer to list it as "Rabbit (car), the Volkswagon Rabbit" and then maybe some more information that might help them know if that's the one they want, such as maybe it was a German compact common in a time and place. The fact that you use the word "conceal" leads me to belive that you may not understand the point. We're just trying to help people get where they're going, and if we omit information, it's because we figure they'll hear all about it when they get there and don't need it till then. Chrisrus (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I learned from Rabbit (disambiguation) that "Rabbit (car)" would be ambiguous; you'd have to make it "Rabbit (Volkswagen car)" – or "Rabbit (German car)". Is that really easier to process than "Volkswagen Rabbit, a car"? See my first point above.

I think I understand your point about as well as I understand the doctrine of original sin. —Tamfang (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After review of recent history (whew!) I accept your stated reason for removing pig iron. —Tamfang (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, The article didn't say it was commonly called "pig", that was the main reason. Chrisrus (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"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, Oliver uses the term "true pigs" 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.

We have no authority to say this. It isn't true. Wikipedia must have a solution for this problem somehow. Chrisrus (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "A Scotsman is a human", that's true. If you say "A human is a Scotsman", it's not true. "A Pig is an animal of the genus Sus" is not true for this reason. Please recommend a solution. Chrisrus (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is true, because the article at Pig is about the genus Sus. I notice that there was an attempt to change this but the move request failed, so nothing has changed and Pig is still an article on the genus Sus. And that's what a DAB page is based on. If you still feel that the article at Pig is wrongly titled and either this or Domestic pig should be moved there I suggest another move request – though if it is just a re-run of the last one I would expect a similar outcome as most of the participants of that were against it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with that situation in more detail and reply or respond in a helpful way. Chrisrus (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you find that unhelpful, but my observation of the requested move is that most participants were against it, just by the preponderance of oppose !votes. This suggests that even if another move were requested it would almost certainly not gain consensus, unless:

much better arguments were found for the move, or
a different move were proposed, such as domestic pig -> pig, pig-> sus (genus)

I notice the latter was suggested in the discussion but as it was not in the original move request the !vote was not on that, so that would be the obvious alternative.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "pig" is a vernacular term with no set or agreed upon definition. It is not a tern that is regulated in anyway similar to scientific nomenclature, rather, it is a term defined by the masses who's definition will vary greatly depending on region, occupation, intent, age, history, and so on. Thus, depending on the situation, any and all of your statements above will be both true and false depending on who you ask. The only one that I think is questionable is the statement about suborder Suina. I removed you insertion of the term "true pigs" in the page as it isn't defined and gives the impresion that both Suidae and Peccaries are both considered not "true pigs" --Kev min § 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, the first thing experts always seem to want to teach us about peccaries is that they are not true pigs. The term is pretty much consistently used in all discussion of peccaries. If you are an expert on peccaries, and you are asked to speak to they layfolk about them, right up front you will teach them that peccaries are not true pigs. Experts agree in all sources that they aren't really pigs, and our articles are no different. So there is no doubt, really, that they are not considered true pigs; and our articles confirm this. Now of course, our user doesn't necessarily know that, but needs to know this if he or she is to navigate our system of articles based on taxa. We wouldn't want to be sending innocent readers unwarned to an article that is about both pigs and animals that experts agree aren't really pigs. This is not a matter of debate among experts, it's not a matter of opinion in Zoology.

Now, some users are bound to want to the widest taxon, but if they click on the widest that we offer, they should be forewarned that it may be one step wider than they want to go if they just want honest-to-goodness pigs. We need to help them do this. Chrisrus (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that is not how the current entry for sunia reads, it reads as though neither Suidae or Peccaries are considered "true pigs" which is not what we are trying to say. I think we are fine with a description that reads

"a suborder of mammals including pigs and peccaries"

this not only removes the confusion that is probable with the current wording, but brings the description into the same wording as the Suidae and Suinae entries. There is not a need to have "true pig" in the description. --Kev min § 00:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS please stay Civil, your edit summery was not appropriate in my opinion... --Kev min § 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting to see where pig will go

What is the proper procedure to follow when one finds that a disambiguation page is based on a statement of fact which has failed verifiability tests?

I know that there's a rule that if the primary link is going to Sus that we should do so too, but I think one should, under the circumstances, concede that while this is a fine, logical, and reasonable guideline, for complicated but perfectly undertandable reasons, we have to "ignore this rule" for a little while until they get that settled. There is no reason why we should be saying that #2 is a more verifiable statement than #3. We have enough more than enough support at pig to move this page's primary from Sus to domestic pig without waiting any longer for them to decide where the link Pig should go. That discussion is at a stage now where it may take a while to sort out all the details, but they've been under the "Time's up, please summarize" notice for a long time now. I will wait for replies, but not very long as verificablity trumps all. Chrisrus (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rule for DAB pages is that they follow the articles. They are a way of navigating between articles so are based on what articles there are and, in a few cases, what is in the articles. DAB pages don't have references, external links etc. so editors should not do research to justify what's in them, over and above looking at articles. So at the moment Pig is on the genus, Sus, and that is the primary topic. It links here in case someone ends up at Pig looking for another article, and Pig is highlighted here to make that clear. Other articles are listed below.

If there is consensus to move domestic pig to pig and pig to sus (genus) so the pages are moved then this page will need to be updated, but not until then. I myself don't see a clear consensus yet, though I've not been following it closely. And even if the pages are moved the primary topic of this page will still be Pig, though with a different focus so the description in first line will need updating, as will the links in the first section. Until then no need to make changes, against the guidelines, as such changes will only need redoing if the pages are moved, and will be confusing until then.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB guildelines again

Although the reasons are summarised above it seems there is need for more detail on what is wrong with piping like this. At WP:PIPING it says

"Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages."

And the exceptions are

adding italics to a book/film/album title
links to {{wrongtitle}} headed pages
hiding a disambiguating bracket when it's implied by the rest of the line
hiding a section link when the link is to part of the page

The point of all of the above is the text in blue should be the name of the article or close to it: by the principle of least astonishment the reader should never be surprised by a link they follow. As the article is called Variations of basketball that, or something close to it, should be the link they see. Anything else is against both WP:ASTONISH and in particular WP:PIPING, part of the main guideline for DAB pages.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth explicitly encouraged use of piping that you have provided above is the one that is applicable here: "hiding a section link when the link is part of the page". We have neither an article nor a section about the basketball game "P-I-G". The closest we can get them is to the section on "H-O-R-S-E". We send them to that section because it gets them as close to the target as we can. So as you say, if it's either the name of the article or close to it, then "H-O-R-S-E" is as close as we can get. Therefore, we should pipe there. Chrisrus (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding the section link means hiding 'H-O-R-S-E, so only the article name 'Variations of basketball' is visible. So as it was previously:

P-I-G, one of the variations of basketball

is OK. As it currently is:

P-I-G, a variation of the basketball game "H-O-R-S-E"

is wrong. Again the point is to avoid surprising the reader. As there is no article 'H-O-R-S-E' the link should not look like one to it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, unless WP:PIPING discusses how links should appear when the target is not a section, but in the place where a subsection might go if there was one, but there is not, which is what we are doing in this case, we are free to discuss the best way to do it with neither side having any claim to having this guideline backing up their position.

Second, the user is not being sent to the article "Variations of Basketball" per se. S/he is being sent to the section on H-O-R-S-E, so s/he is more likely to be perplexed if s/he is promised "VoB" and arrives at "HORSE" than if s/he is promised "HORSE" and arrives at "HORSE".

Third, no one has promised the user an article. We offer articles and sections and subsections and other navigation pages. Therefore, the user will not be perplexed that the name of the subsection they want and that click on leads them to that subsection and not an article by that name, but to the section within that article called H-O-R-S-E. S/he doesn't even see the name of the article at first when s/he arrives, she sees the section name at the top, just as s/he would expect when she clicked on HORSE. No astonishment is likely, unless the user assumes that every link on our disambiguation pages implies that we have a full article about that thing, instead of the truth, which is that we have articles and other navigation pages and section redirects and subsection redirects and so forth on disambiguation pages. Chrisrus (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it's worth, I agree with Chrisrus on this one. "HORSE" is more specific than "variations of basketball", and specific is generally good. Given that the link points to a section rather than the head of the article, it's marginally more Astonishing to show the article title and hide the section title. —Tamfang (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoofed or hooved?

Which is more correct, "hoofed" or "hooved"? Chrisrus (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult the dictionary of your choice. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Dictionary.com lists "hooved" as a varient of "hoofed". Chrisrus (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 /huːf/, /huːfs/, /huːvz/, /huːft/, /huːvd/, /hʊf/, /hʊfs/, /hʊft/, and also once (I think from an American) /hʊvz/. 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)[reply]

Differentiating animals?

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? --Kev min § 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Helping those who want "Wild Pig"

How can we help the user who has passed up domesticated pigs because s/he wants the wild ones? We have no disambiguation page for Wild Pigs, or at least I can't find one.

The user is offered Feral pigs, and it is quite rightly explained to him or her that this s the proper term for domesticated pigs gone wild, so if that's what s/he meant by "wild pigs", s/he is helped by the addition of this link.

The first thing we learn on the article Wild Pig is that they are also commonly known as Wild Boar and Wild Pig. So it's possible s/he knows there is a species called "Wild Pig" but doesn't know that they are the also called "Wild Boar". If s/he knows that there is a species called "Wild Pig" and nothing more, how can we help them understand this? So far we have two common definitions of the term "Wild Pig". Then of course we have the other taxon-based articles, all of which to one extent or another has a claim to the be about Wild Pigs in general.

This article has to take on the burden of the non-existant disambiguation page for the term "wild pig". Chrisrus (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page does not need to include Wild pig because anyone who searches for "wild pig" will go via the redirect to Wild boar. This sort of thing is explained in detail on WP:MOSDAB. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a person has "wild pig" in mind doesn't mean we can assume that s/he will recognize it if labled as "wild boar", and the fact that Wild pig directs where it does isn't helpful because if they're here it's because they haven't searched for "Wild pig" but rather simply "pig". Furthermore, it's not clear why you have suggested the Manual of Style or how a style manual can help us here. Finally, there is no rule "no piped redirects" rule: whether to pipe or not to pipe is determined by how helpful it is to the user, and several examples are given as to good times to use piping, so "no pipes" is so crude an approximation of the guideline as to be false.

The problem is, once a person has taken a pass on "Domestic Pig", maybe they are looking for something commonly known as "Wild pigs", a common but vague term, the primary meaing of which is the Wild Pig, but that's not how the link here is labled. If feral pig belongs here, surely Wild pig does as well and they should be disambiguated from each other and the other meanings of "wild pig" we have here for "domestic pig" passer-uppers to choose from. Chrisrus (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piping

WP:PIPING says: "Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternate term which is already in the article's lead section. For example:

James Cary may refer to:

(correct) James Carrey or Jim Carrey, (born 1962), Canadian actor
(incorrect) James Carrey or Jim Carrey, (born 1962), Canadian actor

On this page, we have this situation with "Wild Boar". Like "Jim Carrey", we have a redirect for the disambiguated term "Wild Pig" which could serve as an alternative name for the target article, because "pig" is already in the very first few words of the article's lead. So to follow the example,

Pig may refer to:

(correct) Wild Pig or Wild Boar
(incorrect) Wild Pig or Wild Boar

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 08:52, October 5, 2010

Im sorry but at the term "wild pig" is only three words from the linked "Wild boar" I really dont see the need to send people though a redirect to land at the wild boar article anyways. Yes pig is not a blue link, but Im pretty sure most people will read the description of the link and click it a few seconds after they would have if it was blue. --Kev min § 09:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of the debate is between the two choices below. I don't know what Kevmin's talking about; there are no redlinks involved here. There's no "conflict" between WP:PIPING and MOSDAB. PIPING is a part of MOSDAB and the only thign said about the subject. The choice boils down to these options:

[[Wild pig]], or wild boar, a species from which domestic pigs were bred
[[Wild boar]], or wild pig, a species from which domestic pigs were bred

1 is good because it starts with "Wild pig" which is etymologically closer to Pig (this page's subject) than "Wild boar". But you have to tolerate a redirect.

2 is good because it links directly to the subject, but it may confuse some people looking for "pig" and it seems to violate the MOSDAB approach of putting the subject that's linguistically closest to the subject first.

It's a small difference, but it's not an obvious answer as 69.3 suggest. Because there's an express exception that encompasses the defect of option 1, and none that encompasses the defect of option 2, I'd prefer option 1. But it's all a minor point.

In other issues, are domestic pigs and wild boards the same species? And aren't Feral pigs genetically domestic pigs? Shadowjams (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about redlinks so I'm not sure where that comment came from...

"Wild pig" may be closer to the disambiguation but it isn't what the animals are called thus the reluctance of several editors, myself included, to use the term.

Wild boar or what the domestic pig was domesticated from. However was debate as to if they should be considered the same species, separate subspecies, or separate species. The ICZN's stance on this was to conserve the the two as separate species. Feral pigs are merely domesticated pigs which have escaped captivity and there are no genetic differences at all, just a lack of captivity, hence being feral.--Kev min § 00:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Kevmin, I misread redirect. Apparently "wild pig" is one of the terms that they're called, both colloquially (I'm no pig expert but I'd call a wild boar a wild pig) and in the article's lead, which is what the MOSDAB criteria looks to.

As for the domestication/species question, my point is that the feral pig discussion should be in the domestic pig, or maybe the pig article, not in the wild boar article. But that's a discussion that belongs elsewhere. Shadowjams (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need to say [[Suinae|Pig subfamily]], [[Suidae|Pig family]], [[Suina|Pig suborder]]? Wording shouldn't be controlled by whether or not a redirect exists (yet). —Tamfang (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's more important that the user know what the word means than to tell them what the word is. Chrisrus (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt that why all disambiguation entries have short descriptive sentences that convey more information then a piped link does? hiding the article title behind the pipe doesn't seem to be helping anything if the description with the link already explains the relation the term being disambiguated. --Kev min § 17:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Disambiguation is about helping readers find the article they want, and articles are called by their common names, so hiding the article name, the best guide to what the article is on, is with few exceptions strictly forbidden: see the #DAB guildelines again for the reasoning. If it's not obvious why these entries are needed, so they need pipes and/or lengthy descriptions appended to show how they are related to "pig", then they should probably not be here. The family, subfamily, order are included in none of the following: Cat (disambiguation), Dog (disambiguation), Cow (disambiguation), Sheep (disambiguation), Horse (disambiguation).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the family is linked in both Cat (disambiguation) and Dog (disambiguation). Family should be included in the Horse (disambiguation). Its not in sheep and cow as the higher levels include a number of animals that are not referred to as "sheep" (goat, deer, antelope, cow, etc...) and "cows" (buffalo, bison, sheep, aurochs, etc...) both are in the same family.--Kev min § 18:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term Wild Pig refers to:

— 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? --Kev min § 17:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Porky Pig

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok then!I'm removing it now, let's see if we get any reverts.... Chrisrus (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Same question: will anyone search on just "pig"? Richard New Forest (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can fully see these being articles people would just use pig to try to find. Guinea pig has been discussed several times now, and consistently kept, the "terminator" pigs a fairly well known family, but people will not remember the family name a may not remember the terminator part. and feral pig is a obvious inclusion. --Kev min § 18:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Poll

The current poll regarding an issue related to this article is now closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as a new section of the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
Last issue: Do most users who search for "pig(s)" probably want the domestic pig?

Yes Users who search for "p-i-g(s)" probably are thinking of ordinary pigs. Chrisrus (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the quick poll should have been opened

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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(edit conflict)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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeated the question there as well, thanks. Also, this is not a move request. Chrisrus (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

Merge PIGS (disambiguation) into Pig (disambiguation)

76.65.128.198 (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. — AjaxSmack 00:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support people who type in "PIGS" might be looking for "pigs", which aren't on the disambiguation page "PIGS". Chrisrus (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done. bd2412 T 23:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Pigging link

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)[reply]