Jump to content

Talk:Big five game

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No giraffe

[edit]

This is almost right - but the giraffe has NEVER been big five. What South African bank note has a picture of it? Its a Cheetah.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.191.82 (talk • contribs)

Adding to the article

[edit]

Any chance of adding to this article. It seems innapropriately short. 88.155.36.98 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please add. Anyone got a pic of a cheetah?--Polygamistx4 01:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CITES

[edit]

CITES should be mentioned in the article. As techinically you can only import African Elephant/Cape Buffalo and can not import the other 3 (As they are in CITES App 1). This somtimes effects legally taken trophys being transported to countries who have restrictions on importations.Not all countries signed the treaty. Not all countries that signed the treaty enforce all or any of the restrictions of the treaty. So what do people think? People who know what they are talking about! Not biased anti hunting thanks!--203.192.91.4 14:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different countries have different national laws on endangered animals. End of story. Captain Obvious strikes again. 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rhino only Not White

[edit]

It has always been Black Rhino and never the White Rhino in the Big 5. The fact that only 10 Blacks can be hunted a year legally only starting 3 years ago, does not mean the White Rhino can now be included. Its a great marketing tool by those who supply hunts in Africa, but its not part of the Big 5. Including the White is the same as saying you are using the origonal recipe but using a substitute item. Its just wrong! Since its a saying that was invented over 100 years ago and nobody owns. It can not be updated by any means. Why not change the animals because of cost, easy to hunt, location? It just can not be done even if others are incoprrectly changing the definition of somthing they do not have the right too.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be cited? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see a cite. Most of the things I've read just said "rhino" or "rhinoceros". Vultur (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.thesafariguide.net/fauna-flora/the-big-five. I'm trained FGASA Field guide and it's correct that the white rhino mistakable is a part of the Big Five. Only modern term and laziness have caused people think it's a part of the Big Five. 95.209.240.81 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Safari Club International does not differentiate between the two species. The black rhino can be darted and is considered as being successfully hunted. DeusImperator (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Species or subspecies?

[edit]

Are there two distinct species of the African elephant (as the article implys) or it was meant two distinct subspecies, which i think would be the right thing.--96.239.0.223 (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now considered to be two different species: Loxodonta africana and Loxodonta cyclotis.Vultur (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Autochthony writes - some people - including some scientists suggest that the Pygmy Elephant is separate from bothe the Savannah Elephant and the Forest Elephant Loxodonta africana and Loxodonta cyclotis respectively.

Autohthony wrote - 2010.10.02 22 15z. 86.167.117.177 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not big six?

[edit]

Why are only these five species interesting for big-game hunters? Why no big six including zebras? Or big seven including gepards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.203.86 (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Big Five" is a term used in reliable sources and that's what we rely on. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile and Hippo

[edit]

Should the crocodile and hippo be included in the big five as well, making it the big seven. The crocodile and hippo, along with the buffalo, cause the most human deaths of any animal in Africa and would also be challenging trophies for big game hunters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.248 (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Big Five" is a well-documented term and we are only discussing what reliable sources report about it. We can't simply add things to it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things to improve

[edit]

It would be nice to expand this article as follows:

  • a couple of paragraphs about hunting each species - difficulty, terrain, stalk vs bait, day vs night, etc.
  • discuss guns and cartridges appropriate to this kind of hunt.
  • Maybe famous hunters
  • relative cost?

And whatever else someone can think of. All with reliable sources of course. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on the Rhino correction. Agree with the way it is put DeusImperator (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Safari Club International does not make a differentiation as to whether the rhino is white or black. DeusImperator (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Black Rhinoceros is extinct by hunters. Why wouldn´t you say a word about the catastrophy of worldwide extinction through killing by persons who are not able to say anything about species population size than: " not available". Wild animals have the right to exist without being used (up) by people. Think about any worth od a animal except being killed in any way by you, hunters. There are biologists who can estimate the vulneability of a species based on scientific research. As you see on the IUCN red list of threatened species, the conservation status they are NOT widely spread, except the buffalo. That means all of them needs to stay alive to regenerate the population. Shoot a picture to take home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.114.24 (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Lion endangered?

[edit]

"The lion and African bush elephant are classified as Endangered." But the lion article taxobox shows it as Vulnerable instead. 98.194.35.233 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrostatic shock

[edit]

Really claiming lions are susceptible to hydrostatic shock? What is with this? Its not even proven how can you know they are susceptible to it? That is pure speculation. Citation needed tag added --Youngdrake (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other dangerous game.

[edit]

When you search for "dangerous game", the only thing you get that's actually related to a subject on hunting animals is a link to this page. I'm not a hunting expert, but I don't think that these five animals are the only animals in the world that are considered "dangerous game". I'm pretty sure that bears are dangerous game. Alligators and crocs can be, I'm pretty sure. So there must be a better place to direct people too..45Colt 04:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point of the article

[edit]

It would seem that an article on the big five should discuss the animals from a hunting perspective. One who wants to learn about an elephant can go to the respective article... Jklaus123 (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 January 2025

[edit]

Big five game → Big Five game – more common in sources as a "Big Five" Wamalotpark (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 2pou (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TiggerJay (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above points are from the original technical request. Courtesy pings @Wamalotpark @Necrothesp @162 etc.-2pou (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if Necrothesp wanted to respond to the question asked and hopefully additional dialogue. It stands right now, aside from the nom there is one mixed and one oppose.. the nom has effectively !voted multiple times in this discussion. TiggerJay (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The term does function as a proper name, and has majority usage over the downcased version. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't want to also be accused of multiple !votes but I am a bit confused by the statement that aside from the nom there [was] one mixed and one oppose so to reiterate: I support move to "Big Five game" per nom and per my responses above. While I did initially state that I struggle with these cases, I have come to the conclusion that initial caps (Big Five game) is appropriate in this case, on the grounds of widespread common usage and consistency with similar articles. You can see the evolution of my argument above, where I reached "support" after considering the nom's responses to me and Necrothesp. I confirmed by my own review that Big Five is consistent with similarly titled articles and I provided numerous examples. Additionally, and as I already pointed out in my initial comment, Ngram supports Big Five. Happy to elaborate or clarify further if my position or the basis for it remains unclear..--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By "these cases" in my initial comment, I meant any of a broad range of unrelated topics that are not obvious proper nouns — not names of people or countries, for example — but have been popularly granted a sort of title that is capitalized to varying degrees. I then reached my conclusion in support of Big Five upon engaging with the particulars in this case. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but Support alternative This is a term that does require disambiguation in that there are many list of big five. A raw ngram (here) does not consider usage in prose. But contexturalising for prose as the big five game gives a markedly different result showing mixed capitalisation (here). There are no ngram results for the big five game * (ie a wildcard search). Removing the in the wildcard search gives us one result for big five game animals (both capitalisations - see here) but we still have the problem of clarifying usage in prose since there are no results for the big five game animals The lack of results indicates a small sample set which is subject to sampling errors. A search of google books (here) shows it is often capped but not consistently capped to the extent we should apply caps here (per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS). A search of Google scholar (here) shows a lesser tendency to cap while a search of Google news (here) shows a greater tendency to cap but taken in balance with the relatively small sample and the other search results, it is not enough to justify capitalisation.
Looking at the sources used in the article, we see: Generally known as the "Big Five," [sic] the group we're talking about comprises lion, leopard, elephant, Cape buffalo and rhino, although not necessarily in that order (ref 1); No human being could begin to outrun any of the big five, nor would he last more than a few seconds in any contest of strength (ref 3); and, Ten Wild Facts about the "Big Five" (title of ref 6). A perusal of Google scholar results also shows that quote marks to a relatively high degree, indicating (not surprisingly) that big five is being used as a term of art. Per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS we do not capitalise for such cases. Big x is being used as a shortended form for a list of the x number largest or most important y. In its fuller form, it is clearly descriptive and not acting as a proper noun|name but being capitalised (when it is) for emphasis or distinction.
Referring to consistency with other titles that use Big X is essentially an argument of WP:OTHERCONTENT. Such arguments have little to no intrinsic weight unless they also establish that they represent best practice. Usually, this means that the other stuff is consistent with the prevailing P&G. Taking the example of Big Five personality traits, capitalisation in the sources used in the article and Google scholar (here - noting considerable inconsistency between use in titles using sentence case and prose), there is enough evidence to suggest this may not be correctly capitalised and that is before considering the issue of MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. Two wrongs (or in this case, many wrongs) don't make a right.
In reviewing the Google scholar results for this title (here, here, here and here) I observed that, in the context of this article, big five game often occurs as big five game animals. In turn, this suggests that game animals and not just game is an integral part of the title. I therefore propose the alternative: Big five game animals. While it is less WP:CONCISE than the existing title, the strength of the proposal lies in WP:COMMONNAME and that it is more common with than without. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without "animals", the article topic could be games of the Big Five Conference (or games in the Big five association football markets or the Big Five Argentine football clubs or the Philadelphia Big 5 or the Power Five conferences or Group of Five conferences). It doesn't seem like a proper name to me either. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose; move to Big five game animals: Yes, this proposal seems like MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. The term identifies a category; not a proper name, as commented above and below. Big five game animals is more recognizable as an identification of the topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misapplication of MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. The example given is a term that is never capitalized and would only be done by an enthusiastic editor in violation of widely accepted standards. The argument here concerns common usage. The guidance there is to not capitalize a term of art for emphasis, but if a term of art is always capitalized then Wikipedia must reflect that. Scientific consensus is never capitalized in running text but Big Five often is. WP:OTHERCONTENT is a useful essay but it does has no precedent over the Wikipedia:Article titles policy which lists consistency with the pattern of similar articles' titles as a major consideration. I do agree with you that the Big X articles need to considered on a case by case basis – we would not grant special capitalizations based on consistency alone. But the predominance of Big Five game (animals) combined with the large number of similarly titled articles, which indicates widespread consensus that this is appropriate when common usage supports it, is the basis for supporting the move.

Oppose alternative as unnecessary disambiguation. I agree that Big Five game without context could be interpreted as a sports reference but there's no evidence someone would type those words into Wikipedia expecting to find the details of a particular match. I looked at the first 5 pages of Google results for big five game and every single result referred to the topic of this article. WikiNav shows[3] that readers aren't arriving at this page by accident and then departing for one of the other Big Fives. They arrive via search or from related articles and proceed on to related articles. Per the Article titles policy: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. No need to disambiguate further because of a hypothetical situation where someone is confused because they lack context or are unfamiliar with this topic. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 07:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSISTENT (WP:OTHERCONTENT) is the primary reason for advancing capitalisation here. CONSISTANT refers to documented WP naming conventions of which WP:NCCAPS is one. It generally refers to word patterns. CONSISTENT and the associated P&G does not refer to consistency of capitalisation between similar articles. Quite specifically, CONSISTENT does not apply to spelling variations and capitalisation is arguably a spelling variation. CONSISTANT is one of the WP:CRITERIA for proposing an article title and arguably the weakest. There are other considerations at WP:AT in determining an article title - some, such as WP:LOWERCASE, are written emphatically. Whether CONSISTENT is a a major consideration or one of many is moot. Any P&G should be read as a whole. Furthermore, if Big X articles need to considered on a case by case basis, then an argument of consistency [note lowercase] is inherently flawed - particularly if this is a false consistency. Two (many) wrongs don't make a right.
A term of art is a word or phrase that is in common use, but, in a particular context, has a precise meaning in a particular profession or interest group. In this case, the interest is African big game hunting. A term of art is denoted by capitalisation, italics, quote marks or some combination thereof. For example, the law would routinely capitalise terms such as lease, leasor and leasee among many others as terms of art - not something that would only be done by an enthusiastic editor in violation of widely [emphasis added] accepted standards. The evidence of quote marks in sources indicates that big five is being used as a term of art for the most important or significant African game animals. This is the very epitome of capitalisation for emphasis, significance or importance per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. Per MOS:CAPS, Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Capitalisation for significance, importance, emphasis or a term of art is clearly not necessary. While Big Five game (animals) is often capitalised in sources, the evidence does not show it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Its use as a term of art is just another reason why capitalisation here is not necessary.
I did not propose Big five game animals on the basis of necessary disambiguation but on source based evidence that it was more recognisable as the WP:COMMONNAME - ie it is the name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will [be much more likely to] recognize than just Big five game. WikiNav shows that people arrive at this page. It does not show those that might have wished to arrive at this page but didn't. It shows that 58% arrived at the page through other searches. It does not show what search terms they used or how snippet views guided their arriving at this page. The conclusion you would make based on the WikiNav evidence is non sequitur. It does not obviate that in balancing the WP:CRITERIA, Big five game animals is a better choice than Big five game. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with Big Five game or Big five game here. Both are reasonable but I have a preference for the former. The addition of animals is unnecessary. There’s no evidence that the current title is ambiguous to readers familiar with the topic or that it is widely used to refer to anything else. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I do this book search, I see about half of the "Big Five game" hits are about other topics, and the ones that are on this topic include "game animals" or "game preserves" pretty often. Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not surprised that these words appear together in running text. I still don’t see evidence that Big Five game is confusing or ambiguous as a title, especially for people familiar with the target. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_five_game&oldid=1272964756"