Talk:Anoa

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals Low‑importance This article 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Indonesia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is suggested to split this article into the two expanded articles Mountain Anoa and Lowland Anoa. --Melly42 20:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please!!! I agree!!! --HoopoeBaijiKite 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree too. Bubalus quarlesi and Bubalus depressicornis are 2 different species and should have their own page. Maximilien Cugnet, 16:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC+1)

I don't have all recent details but my understanding is that taxonomy of Anoa is under review in thesis of J Burton, Uni Edinburgh and that this is likely to lump the species together or split them differently so perhaps the article should not be changed just yet.58.187.119.15 17:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the article could probably me split. Eric Wester 15:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

sure, i was wandering why two species were in the same article anyway, the only question is, who is willing to do it?Ryan shell (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure someone will if we wait another 7 years. —Pengo 01:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

If there were more depth to the article, a split would make sense. Right now, the article is small enough to handle both. I did add section links to the redirects. —Ost (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are species pages with only one sentence articles. These are two species and should be given two separate articles, especially considering one is thought to be much rarer than the other. BronxZooFan (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have created separate articles for both species of anoa. Porqaz (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The anoa do not appear to be adaptable to humans.^{[citation needed]} --Amaltheus (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way to split this article in two for both species? It seems inappropriate to have both in one article, Ddum5347 (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is anyone here? I would like to discuss a split of this article into two different species.

@Ddum5347: I have created separate articles for the mountain and lowland anoa. Anoa article should remain as a reference for both, though it may be able to be shortened. Porqaz (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Moved from User talk:JBchrch

What are you talking about? I'm sourcing the article. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Anoa. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I did not intend to roll back a large part of your work: that was a mistake on my part using RedWarn (still, my mistake). However, what I have issue with is this addition to a caption: A supposed lowland anoa -note it lacks white markings, and thus cannot be a lowland [1]. This is strange to me: if you believe that this is not a picture of Anoa, why don't you just remove it from the article instead of introducing your own personal comments? JBchrch (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I thought it might have been that and have already edited it. Instead of making the conclusion for the reader I added the relevant cited text, but left "supposed" to draw attention to the questionableness of the identification. The picture was also clearly taken in a zoo, multiple references stress the zoo animals may be hybrids or misidentified, as the lede states. Good so? Yeah, I also thought about removing the picture, but I wanted to see what the other editor working on the article would say. Also, in my experience, if the picture is mislabelled, out of good intentions, people will keep re-adding it. Lastly, this picture might just be the best we can do -it's quite possible the 1969 scientific description just got it wrong here.86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, you seem to have thought this through, so I am not going to interfere further. Thanks for this very detailed answer. JBchrch (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

All good, Ddum5347 is going to take editing this over now. Let him/her decide how to handle these pictures (there's another at the top). Thanks for removing the warning template on my talk, very considerate. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply