Talk:Swamp rabbit

Size of rabbit in picture

Does anyone else find it ironic that the lead to the article mentions swamp rabbits as being large but the only picture is of a rabbit small enough to fit in someone's hand? Wouldn't a better picture be one that properly illustrates its size, especially when it's mentioned at the very beginning of the article that swamp rabbits are "large" (whatever that means, anyways)? --clpo13_(talk) 18:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I came to the discussion page for the same reason. It may have been a politically-motivated joke at Carter's expense, as the Carter rabbit article links here. Should probably get a new picture if at all possible. If not, should perhaps be removed - the picture itself is uninformative and misleading (as it suggests an incredibly tiny animal). 70.18.8.149 (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC) cow sucker[reply]

Yes, please provide another photo. 74.138.159.170 (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not done. Take this to some project-talkpage or other centralized place, no consensus here and would be better not to do this piece-meal anyway. DMacks (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swamp Rabbit → Swamp rabbit — WP:CAPS indicates that "rabbit" is better than "Rabbit" in the article title. --Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 00:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a contentious issue for mammals, as you can see in the archives of WT:MAMMAL. Pages occasionally get moved back and forth, which really isn't bringing us any further, so ideally there should be some standard for mammals in general. I have no preference on whether to use "Swamp Rabbit" or "swamp rabbit" for this species, but I don't think it's a good idea when this species is moved to lowercase and Category:Sylvilagus and all the other cottontails (except one) stay at uppercase. Ucucha 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Monty Python reference

I think the following sentence should probably be removed:

The press dubbed this the "Killer Rabbit", in honour of the violent rabbit in the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

While I'm sure there must have been some (many?) allusions to Monty Python at the time, this is not even mentioned on the dedicated Jimmy Carter rabbit incident page. At least, there needs to be a citation, but if it's important and relevant enough to include here, it clearly should go on the Carter page (on the Carter page, there is a link at the bottom to monty python, but it's not actually mentioned in the text). Lewallen (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False precision

Giving the weights with 4 significant figures is a complete nonsense. Not only because nobody has measured all specimens to find the actual minima, maxima and averages, but also because weight of each animal changes during the day by much more than 0.1%. The fact that these absurd numbers are given in the cited source does not mean that we should parrot them here, but only casts a doubt on the credibility of the source. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]