Mammals B‑class High‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Archives
May 2004 to November 2006

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/495e171c43c091cb/4741e3c5156499a7/b807e227/-cpid/99cc2a66cb3082f3" id="W4727a250e66f9723495e171c43c091cb" width="384" height="283"><param name="movie" value="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/495e171c43c091cb/4741e3c5156499a7/b807e227/-cpid/99cc2a66cb3082f3" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /></object>

This article is very well written. It touches on many fascinating topics, and is obviously NPOV. The images are well used, and add to the article as nicely as the text. I've place this nomination on hold, however, because of concerns over references, and suggestions that may warrant additions. Many statements are made in the article that really need very thorough referencing. For example, "Giraffes are thought to be mute. However, recent research has shown evidence that the animal communicates at an infrasound level." Thought by whom? Who did this research? The inline citations are sporadic and, in certain sections, missing entirely. The presence of "citation needed" templates in the text makes this unsuitable for good article status presently, but since these changes are ones that could be made easily within a week, I decided to place the nomination on hold. Furthermore, I two content concerns, but I think they are easily fixed in an article of this length, and hence I've waited before failing on this account. Basically, my chief concern is that the first reference cited is in the infobox and lists the giraffe as threatened. Unfortunately, this is a very loose end since there is no exploration of any sort of conservation efforts, or any mention of the actual threats facing the giraffe. I would suggest a section dealing with human/giraffe interaction, including threats, efforts made to preserve the animal, etc. I would also suggest a section in culture and literature, though this can be done bulleted, or in summary, and is also doable in seven days, even if not as thorough as it could be (this is for good article, not featured, after all!). I enjoyed this article! Good job to those who contributed! Cheers! Chuchunezumi 00:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that the intention to improve this article in the suggested ways must be announced here within the next twenty-four hours in order to maintain the seven day hold; please make it clear whether these can be accomplished, and whether they are planned. I cannot fathom these changes will be able to be accomplished in any less time. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 01:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, as nobody has rushed to address these issues, and also because there still seems to be several edits still in progress raising further stability issues, I regret I have to fail this article. I encourage the editors to address these concerns and then renominate this article. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section Other Behavior needs revision. It is not true that a giraffe has a "specially-adapted tongue and lips that appear to be immune to the vicious thorns [of acacia trees.]" See a botany website (Wayne's Word) with pictures of the great big thorns in question. The author explains that a giraffe uses its extremely long, prehensile tongue to wrap around tender acacia leaves and pluck them. It would be most helpful to link to relevant Wayne's Word photographs (which are copyright W.P. Armstrong on his site) or to someone else who has seen African giraffes in action. Msk49 17:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how meny spine bones giraffe have ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.68.48.212 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• work on your spelling, please
  • Please don't bite the newcomers.... the answer is that a giraffe has as many bones in its aspine as any other mammel - see that article for details.
    • Please sign your comments. There is no link to an article titled mammel. The article about mammals can be found here. Spelling is important. Comme le Lapin 07:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the opening paragraph, the article states "Males can be 4.8 to 5.5 metres (16 to 18 feet) tall", while in teh "Physical characteristics" section, it states "Male giraffes are around 15–17 feet tall". Can someone find out what is right and correct thinsg accordingly? Tompw (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably 15-18 feet tall. :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps people who don't know about giraffes shouldn't contribute to articles about giraffes. Just a suggestion. Comme le Lapin 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the article about The African Bush Elephant it states that the Male can be anywhere from 19-24 feet tall, much higher than what it says of the giraffe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.148.200 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's simply incorrect. Giraffes grow as tall as 18 feet, and maybe a few inches more, while African elephants grow to a height of 13 feet. Unfortunately, 24-foot tall elephants can only be found in Tolkien. Comme le Lapin 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the African Bush Elephant article, and the 19-24 feet you were referring to is not their height, but their length. This is correct. Comme le Lapin 07:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a citation. The san diego zoo only says "Some people think the color is to keep the tongue from getting sunburned.", they don't say that's why its black. A stronger scientifc source for the statement in the article would be most welcome. --Matthew 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true, given as how okapis also have black tongues like giraffes, and they don't expose themselves to bright light.--Mr Fink 03:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When baby giraffes are born, are their bones already entirely fused together or do they fuse while the baby is growing similar to human beings? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.243.193.254 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have a new question (and suggestion for article, if someone can verify this!) about their babies: Is it true that baby giraffes are born FEET-first instead of head-first? If I could document this, I would have edited the article itself, since I believe it would be something quite interesting for all readers to know; especially since the present comment on their birth, "The mother gives birth standing up and the embryonic sack usually bursts when the baby falls to the ground." probably leaves most of us with the impression their babies merely fall out like a blob of jelly! But, according to some film footage I saw last month of a giraffe being born; which I really wish I could recall the details of what I was watching, that's far from the truth (at least, in the instance I observed, which was out on some wild plain in Africa, not in a zoo). It may have been a Rothschild_giraffe, but I can no longer be certain of that at all. Daniel B. Sedory 09:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1827, someone brought back a Giraffe whom was named Zarafa to Paris where it roamed the city where it amazed the townspeople and royalty alike. Such an animal had almost never been seen by anyone living in Europe at the time. I feel such inforamtion is relavent and related to the article section that makes refrence to: Chinese painting of a giraffe brought by Admiral Zheng He and placed in a Ming Dynasty zoo (AD 1414)

• http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4309/is_200505/ai_n15021019
• http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_11_19/ai_57564236
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarafa
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici_giraffe

--Root Beers 06:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why the taxobox is blue, not pink? Abbott75 09:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. -Nunh-huh 09:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of land animals by size starts:

1. Elephant
2. Rhinoceros
3. Hippopotamus

I can't find anywhere online a site that reveals what comes next in this sequence. I suspect somewhere within the next 10 ranks is the giraffe. Anyone able to know the giraffe's rank?? (If the giraffe's rank is not exactly 4, please complete this list to include everything in between.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Georgia guy (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There is much dispute whether or not the Rhino or Hippo is the second biggest land animal as they two are virutally identical and various individuals of each spiecies varies a lot 4.142.66.201 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Nick[reply]

Recent studies by Robert Simmons and Lue Scheepers in Africa have found that giraffes do not have long necks for the sole purpose of obtaining food. Instead, when observed most giraffes eat at shoulder level. The long neck is a result of mating. Male giraffes fight over females by wrapping their necks around eachother. The one with the longer neck usually has more force and wins the right to breed with the female. As a result the gene for the long neck increases within the population because it increases the giraffes chances for breeding. The research is fairly new in 1990. http://www.word-detective.com/howcome/giraffeneck.html.66.213.216.26 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article but I have concerns over the use of the gallery. I do not feel that the bottom three rows add much to the article. If the reader was after giraffe photos they could easily do an image search on Google or similar. I feel each photo should try to teach a new point about giraffes, at least describe which subspecies they are.

Also is it relavent pointing out in captions which zoo the photo was taken in? If this is absolutely needed could it not be put in the description on the image page as opposed to in this article?

I look forward to reading any comments. --Mehmet Karatay 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree - this is what comons is for and there's a linkcheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have removed the images that did not add to the article. Three of them were not on commons, so need to be put there. We don't have the time to do that right now. The images are: Image:GiraffeBW.jpg Image:Reticulated giraffe kenya.jpg Image:Reticulated giraffes.jpg Mehmet Karatay 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mehmet Karatay 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sauropod -- is there a way to incorporate ancestry of this creature into the article? 70.5.127.162 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come again? Sauropods and giraffes have nothing to do with each other. Any similarities, such as their long necks, are due to convergent evolution. -- Milo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.2.42 (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the relevance of the section, but I'm disputing the relevance of using that FP image at the right

in Social structure and breeding habits section.I suggest using the image on the left instead.

In my opinion the image on the left is much more relevant to both Social structure and breeding habits, than a single Giraffe's head from Melbourne Zoo. Please tell me what do you think and please explain in few words why you think this way or another. Thanks.--Mbz1 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

The second sentence of the subsection on cleaning appears tangential, and the third sentence more appropriately belongs in the subsection on feeding. The information it provides, however, is somewhat contradictory with the feeding section's claim that giraffes prefer trees of genus Mimosa because acacias form a distinct genus. Perhaps the two claims should be integrated to state giraffes prefer trees of the subfamily Mimosoideae, which includes both. Rriegs 09:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which better describs the section?

Please remember to sign your talk posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~

Ecology is a scientific term that contains all that lifestyle entails. As this is a zoological article, ecology is the preferred term. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do they really have horns? Other related spiecies have antlers. Calsium deposits sound like antler. This is hard because many languages do not have separate words. --JK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffes and okapis have ossicones.--Mr Fink 11:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffes are kool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.66.222 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many Giraffes exist in the Wild? Are they being conserved? How? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.36.204 (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that on 5 May 2007, there's been a deletion of a whole paragraph about an interesting trivia about Giraffe's mating habits (by an homophobic anonymous vandal?).

Here is the link to the modification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giraffe&diff=128339945&oldid=128338766

Can somebody can put this referenced info back in ? The original paragraph was as follows:

Another function of necking is affectionate and sexual, in which two males will caress and court each other, leading up to mounting and climax. Same sex relations are more frequent than heterosexual behavior. In one area 94% of mounting incidents were of a homosexual nature. The proportion of same sex courtships varies between 30 and 75%, and at any given time one in twenty males will be engaged in affectionate necking behavior with another male. Females, on the other hand, only appear to have same sex relations in 1% of mounting incidents.^[1]

It seems that with the newest genetic study we maybe forced soon to rewrite the whole topic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7156146.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wieszcz (talk • contribs) 00:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Lions are the only predators which poses a serious threat to an adult giraffe" Are you sure "pose" takes an "s" at the end here ?

-- (unsigned)

It should be "that pose"

SimonTrew (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a mistake to say the giraffe's weight is "1360 kilograms" because this figure obviously comes from the "3000 pounds" conversion. All the readers understand that the "3000 pounds" weight is just a rough value (the maximum giraffe's weight is around 3000 pounds and nobody expects a precised figure) so the corresponding metric value should also be rough, for example "1400 kilograms". If we read "1360 kilograms" we should understand the maximum giraffe's weight is between 1350 and 1370 kilograms! It's practically impossible to make such measure because the giraffe makes just a blink and we get another measurement. --MarceloPinoQuivira (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffe is also a musical artist based in Toronto, Ontario. <myspace.com/coffeec2kes>

St.muertay (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to refer this matter to the talkpage of Giraffe (disambiguation) as this article's subject is purely giraffes (animals) not anything named after them. AngelOfSadness talk 18:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

zebras are afeican —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.114.246 (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone noticed that Giraffe Recruitment isn't even about Giraffes? It's only for jobs.-Warriorscourge (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to an article talking about wild giraffes living in Vancouver, Canada. http://www.thebrutaltimes.com/?p=25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.81.90 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is quite the place to put this or to start a new section, but shouldn't "genuses" be "genera"? In daily life I tend to ignore these things (e.g people saying schemas instead of schemata or whatever) but in a technical section on taxonomy surely it should be right? SimonTrew (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would have been better to put this at the bottom in its own section (as it is now) seeing as that other section was last active over a year ago (I had a little trouble finding your question). As you may have guessed there are two schools of thought regarding whether to maintain the Latin plural form for Latin words borrowed into English. Well, perhaps not borrowed, since we probably won't be giving them back.

Pedants (I used to be one) will insist that since genus is Latin, the plural should be genera. Most of these same pedants will also insist on using octopi when in fact octopodes is the grammatically correct plural form. The other school of thought is that these words are now English words and should therefore use English grammar rules.

So, it's probably really a matter of taste which way you choose to go. For most Wikipædia (ok, I'm showing off!) articles I would use whichever form is already in use, like with Brit. v US spelling on non-Brit/US articles. However, scientific-types who write about giraffes (and some of the other mammals with spots) pretty much use Latin/Greek grammar forms so, even tho' we're not a scientific paper, I would go with genera et al in articles about animals, plants, et cetera. So I'm gonna change it. Thanks for pointing it out. Secret Squïrrel, approx 12:15, 9 Fabruary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

Yeah I pretty much agree with all that. One thing I *do* dislike is people who then get the anglicised plurals wrong-- e.g. bacterias. There are also sometimes useful distinctions e.g. media for the mass media, but mediums for psychics.

Thanks for making the change. SimonTrew (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think I may have gone a little over the top there <Note to self: Don't edit late at night>. Bacterias is a classic. People also use media and criteria as singular. For some reason I say "polyhedra" when referring to the general category but "six tetrahedrons". Not really correct but there is logic there. Somewhere... Secret Squïrrel, approx 2:25, 10 Fabruary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

media I think is now lost; criteria may be salvagable. It would be worth having a topic with a list of common Latin and greek words and their plurals. Otherwise we will have to cut off all their penides and shove em up their clitorides. SimonTrew (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! To be anatomically feasible I think we shall have to shove each of them up their respective recta. Secret Squïrrel, approx 1:00, 12 Fabruary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

Yeah Wikipedia disdains Greek and Latin and quite right too. Even eg and ie people get confused between them (I have done too much subbing in my life to know that). Most old-fashioned hand edits people don't know any more the symbols and signs for edits. Put "stet" in a margin and people have no idea what you mean. To elimnate Latin and Greek is a good thing-- I was never taught them just learnt them myself-- but when used, should be used correctly I think. That does not mean angliciszed words *(which IMHO should be English) but words that are still Latin or Greek, such as the Linnaen classification. (Indeed that itself is Latin, Carl Linne (sp?) was Swedish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I remember now what it was I was gonna say about polyhedra etc. It actually makes sense really. If you take collective nouns like goverment, the government can be singular (the whole lot treated as one) or plural (the whole lot treated individually). So I think that is probably your logic. It is a useful distinction, as Fowler would put it. Technically of course it is incorrect but yeah who cares about Greek plurals, does it make sense to the people who you are talking to? That is why I wanted the change. I love language but am not up my arse about it. SimonTrew (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used stet only 2 or 3 wks ago. One of the reasons that 'Ctrl-v is "paste" is because of the editor's mark for "insert" (plus it's next to 'x' and 'c', and 'p' was taken by "print"). I wasn't taught Lat./Gk. either but I have a strong interest in the life sciences and am a dino-nut so I've picked up quite a bit. I used to wonder why so many of the better-known scholars of the 16th-18th centuries were Latin. Your idea for an article listing commonly-used Latin and Greek words with their properly formed plurals might be worth doing if we can link it in with some suitable articles - disembodied lists tend to get deleted as cruft. Look, you spelt "arse" correctly ;-) Secret Squïrrel, bedtime

I tend to end up with the reverse problem that I try to make a singular inhabitant of the newest state of the Union a Hawaium (one Hawaium, two Hawaii...) and that kind of thing. SimonTrew (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]