Contents

Talk:Pack animal

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

Equine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Focus

[edit]

This is more about humans than about animals.--62.143.121.135 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be helpful at the top of the article maybe to have something like not to be confused with animals (like dogs for instance) that are classified as operating socially in packs? does that make sense? 24.148.118.190 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will make a disambig. --Una Smith (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just garbage. What is with the huge part about humans potentially being pack animals or something. It's weird, unrelated, and poorly written. Someone needs to rework this article completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.137.124 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is way too image-heavy for the amount of text. We are approaching an indiscriminate collection of images here. Thoughts? Can we expand the article, or perhaps put all the animals into a chart (like, for example, the coat colors at leopard complex) or something? Right now, it looks really awful. Montanabw^(talk) 21:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a substantial re-jig, and it looks just fine with an illustration of the diversity of pack animals in that section. There is however certainly scope for expansion in pretty much every section. If anything, it's somewhat horse-heavy (sorry), because packhorse is already quite a well-developed article so there's a risk of overlap. I'd say therefore that we ought to try to expand the account of other species, e.g. historic use of llamas, yaks, etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the browser, on my laptop, the images are in two rows and were distorted by images spilling over from other sections. It's a challenge, but I'm all for expanding content. Perhaps a more general overview of what pack animals do, and then the specializations of various critters with links to those articles (such a packhorse) that have their own per WP:CFORK. I'm in for at least help with formatting and such. The backpacking with animals thing is worth a look too, particularly for llamas and goats. Montanabw^(talk) 01:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not really knowable given devices of random sizes with all possible browsers and all possible user settings of font size and image defaults. This article isn't a priority for me either: like you I just noticed it was an uncited mess and did a bit of tidying. All the same, we've now doubled the number of refs and greatly improved the accuracy of the text. Since the visual message of the topic not being all equine is important, perhaps aesthetics will have to remain in second place. But actually with a reasonable screenwidth, it looks great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You and I must share the trait of not accessing WP via smartphones! I too am a "horizontal screen" rather than a "vertical screen" user... I learned recently that adding "m" to the url after "en" makes the page load in a format akin to how it looks on a cell phone (i.e.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_animal ) but that said, it's not like I'm previewing it that way... I wonder if there is formatting advice for gallery formatting for phones... Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 00:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edit "content", in the vile modern phrase. There is no point worrying about specific formats because, in my grandfather's fine phrase, there's always a newer model just around the corner. (He was referring to lost girlfriends.) Programmers will find ingenious ways to push what we write onto devices ever newer. I expect next year's phones to project images via a holographic laser smart virtual wall^TM into thin air, or something. (I've just loaded the page on my not especially smart phone, and it looks really neat. The gallery displays vertically, each image at the full screenwidth less a narrow white border. Told you!) Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For my own edification, what does the chart of coat patterns at Leopard complex look like? I've been told charts are problematic...but others say they are great... Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 19:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, a vertical list with Pattern, Description, Image columns. Not sure such a treatment would help here, and in any case, the existing seems to display as a vertical list on a very ordinary mobile. I honestly don't think we have a problem here that needs fixing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Eylcamel.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]