Jump to content

Talk:Fennec fox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeFennec fox was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 3, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

Pets

[edit]

wouldnt it be a good thing to place a " fennecs as pets" section here? they make wonderfull pets..... Gabrielsimon 21:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This question comes awfully close to being flamebait, as there are those who have very strong opinions about keeping non-domesticated animals as pets. That said, there is a section on the raccoon page, which is a similar situation... so I don't see this as a problem, though Wikipedia rules on keeping a neutral point of view should be observed. [shrug] This page is young. Go for it. See what happens. JRice 21:00, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Do you have a fennec? If not, how do you know they make good pets? Dora Nichov 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question can be re-directed: Do you have a Fennec? Several facts can be ascertained, if you bothered to look. (1) There is an established community of Fennec owners. (2) There are Fennec breeders throughout the US (which is one of the larger markets for exotic pets). (3) The Fennec is generally recognized as the only species of fox that possible to keep as a domestic pet.

However, it is an error to call such pets domesticated. It hasn't gone through the long period of breeding and taming that loosely defines domesticated breeds. What makes it possible to keep as a pet is the ease of its temperment and the ability to socialize it. But socialization is neccesary for any pet. A domestic breed not socialized to human contact and left to its own devices will go feral.

The best suggestion is to look for reliable sources of information from Fennec owners (Fennec Fox Directory or About.com's info on Fennec Foxes) and then present opposing opinions of those who are against the ownership of any exotic pets.--David3565 03:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that while you don't want invite "flame bait" sections in the article, Fennecs are an obscure exotic pet that is growing in popularity, therefore it should be listed somewhere in the article, as those are real facts and shouldn't be withheld from a reader. PrecociousPeach (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if it helps

[edit]

if anyone wants to know more about the habits of domesticted fennecs, it might be good to join a yahoo group called fennec fox, or a cordial fennec group. or fennec resources. they have breeders and many owners as members, who might be able to asnwer questions. Ketrovin 12:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic origin of fennec

[edit]

Moved form Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language:

Strictly speaking this is not a request for translation of an article, but I don't know where else to put this. In the fennec article the following appears: The name "fennec" apparently comes from the Arabic word for fox. Can an Arabic speaker verify this and expand or delete as appropriate? -EDM 16:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native arabic, and i don't think i've ever heard the word "fennec" in my life. i'm deleting this section from the article.--Amr Hassan 12:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It could be possible even if you're a native arabic. The arabic language is very complex, for example, did you know that there's more than 200 words that means "lion" in arabic? CG 12:28, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
According to dictionary.com, it comes from Arabic fanak, but it doesn't explain what fanak means. Zoe 19:05, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
According to an arabic dictionnary, فنك (fanak) means (This is an approximate translation):
An animal species from the Canidae family and the Carnivora order. Similar to a fox. He has large pointy ears, soft furr, agile legs. He wanders from sunrise to sunset. He feeds on birds, insects and reptiles. His habitat is the African continent and the Arabic peninsula. His furr in one of the best {Persian).
So "fennec" comes from the Arabic "fannak" which according to the last word comes from Persian.
Please add this conversation to Talk:Fennec and the information to the fennec article specifying the source. CG 20:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

The Punic & Arabic related Maltese language uses tal-Fenek for Rabbit. Fenech is a Maltese family name & the complication there is the possibility of the Italian origin Finocchio - Fennel (but also a pejorative slang term for a gay man). I recall seeing a news article on one of the Australian boxers of the name who claimed the Rabbit or Hare translation. This would make the Fennec Fox a Rabbit[-eared] Fox (i.e. Fox is NOT redundant here). 124.188.100.155 (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Ian Ison[reply]

al-Munjid fi al-lughah al-‘Arabiyah al-mu‘asirah. Beirut : Dar al-Mashriq. 2001. ISBN 2-7214-2228-6.

another arabic popular dictionary that mentions that Fanak -with one N- means (This is an approximate translation): a type of foxes, its fur is one of the best furs. Al Mua'jam Al Wajiz, the arabic language academy, Egypt 1999 --Ashashyou (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just way toned down the suggestion that zerda is from Greek xeros: this is virtually impossible linguistically. First, you have to be an English-speaker, so that initial X gets pronounced as Z. This doesn't happen in other languages. Next you have to pretend that that D isn't there or that random D's can just get added to words. Presumably it's some kind of native name for the animal (Berber? who know?)... 19:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh

[edit]

The page on foxs does not include the fennec fox as a domesticated fox, but instead refers to the silver fox as the only domesticated fox. Likewise, the silver fox article says it is the only domesticated fox.

Genus

[edit]

If this source classifys the genus as vulpes why is the binominal name Fennecus zerda?--Bjw e bb (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

[edit]

I removed the Taxonomy section because it made questionable statements about the origin of "zerda". Someone had to have known what "zerda" meant in order to apply the name in the first place. Species names don't come out of nowhere. Coyoty 00:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fennec story hero

[edit]

A very good children's book is "Mischief in Fez", set in Morocco and featuring a fennec named Baha as the boy protagonist's spirit guide to the world of the djinni.

68.8.166.237 05:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

le petit prince

[edit]

isn't this genus of fox one which told about "taming" to the prince in the Saint Exupery's little prince? as the fox there is also lives in the sahara desert... this coincides and implies that he was a fennec.

Fennec or fennec

[edit]

It strikes me that this page has fennec sometimes written with an upper case F and sometimes with lower case. Shouldn't someone work out standard spelling and do the whole page with one and the same name for this gorgeous animal? BuzzWoof 12:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asse?

[edit]

Some crosswords include the word asse for the Fennec and googling it comes up with a few uses, but I cannot find this in dictionaries. Does anyone hear know in what context if any this name is/was used? And if so, should it be listed as an alias of the Fennec? 41.243.28.73 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC) (A wandering browser)[reply]

Exotic pets

[edit]

I took this out because it doesn't really have to do with Fennec's but with exotic pets in general:


The issue of owning exotic pets is controversial. Requirements of behavior, diet, environment, socialization, and the demands of the time and attention needed to keep an exotic are often very high. Such factors may not be conducive to the lifestyle of an average person, be more than they are personally willing to invest, or even require special expertise. All these factors, along with the real or perceived danger in handling non- or semi-domesticated animals, are often strongly cited as reasons for never considering the purchase or adoption of an exotic pet. Whatever the decision, such factors must be considered in responsible ownership and care of any pet.

Arthurian Legend 01:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyment Of Pets

[edit]

To say that one animal is more enjoyable than another is a matter of personal taste, and probably shouldn't be stated as fact.

89.125.45.167 09:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating taxonomy

[edit]

I will be updating the Canidae taxonomy and common names to match Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed, 2005) as follows:

I will hold off for a few days for comments. Since I'm posting this in multiple places, please contact me on my talk page if you have any concerns. I'll wait a week to give folks time to comment. -

Updating Geographical Locations

[edit]

The current version of the article says Fennecs are only located in North Africa and Saudi Arabia.. but I'm deployed to Iraq and I see these guys ALL the time (you have to be good at braking on loose gravel to avoid hitting them at night). Anyone got enough free time to search out a verifiable resource so this location can be added to the article? 214.13.173.15 (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking Water comment

[edit]

I cannot believe that any animal could go for years without drinking water. This is most likely an exaggeration. 63.3.3.1 (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You underestimate the amount of water that can be obtained through food consumption, as well as other factors. The Fennec Fox is not the only animal that can go for extreme amounts of time between drinks of water. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fennec Fox/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HMallison (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


no quick fail

[edit]

The quick fail critera [[1] are not applicable, so no quick fail for this one :) HMallison (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

minor changes

[edit]

this is a list oft he minor changes I and other made and the reasons for them:

  • "breed" --> "Species". Breed refers to animals produced by human breeders through slective breeding. The artcile talks about a wild animal, thus not a breed. Also, there are dog breeds smaller than the fennec.
oh how well I know that kind of Freudian slips!HMallison (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • language: some sentences showed bad style or were confusing.
  • Africa and Asia, not just North Africa
  • weight: source [2] is cited saying "1.5–3.5 kg (3–8 lb)", while [5] says "three to 3.5 pounds". What's correct?
  • Just double checked the reference and that was an error that crept in - the template had it set up to covert from kgs into lbs when it should have been lbs to kg. Figures match better now. Miyagawa (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for checkingHMallison (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources: there is a citation ([1]) in the lead, needs to be moved down to the appropriate section.
  • "Classification" should be re-written; the content is good but the text reads a bit roughly.
will look at that in a few hours.HMallison (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now :) HMallison (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Pet" section: good, I tweaked a bit.
  • I de-wikilinked several terms that are basic vocabulary, for which there is no possibility of unclarity or further explanation (coins, keys, watches). HMallison (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

open matters

[edit]

this lists matters that need to be checked and improved. I will do what I can; please feel free to help!

  • reference check: I will need to acquire several works from the library to check the accuracy of the citations. If anyone happends to have PDF of the offline sources, please help.

HMallison (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • zerda - I will try to get the original publication next week and see whether the etymology is explained there.
  • good point on the talk page about Fennec Foxes in Iraq; I will check on that next week when in my office (oh how I love free online access to practically any journal on biology and a huge library) HMallison (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delay

[edit]

sorry, something unexpected popped up; I will be much more busy than expected the next few weeks. I will try to get this done as fast as possible, but I cannot promise that next Friday will see me done with the literature check.HMallison (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more comments

[edit]
  • Overall, the article is quite concise. Some people may call it too short, however, I'd rather point to the lack of drivel as a positive feature.
  • However, issues that need some more data, are
* social structure - too short, too little. There is no description of the social role of suabdult and adult offsprings. There is nothing on the interaction between neighboring groups, and nothing on interaction within groups. Please add!
  • Unfortunatly this seems to be a major gap in research. I've added a short section on what is known regarding their social interactions in captivity and regarding the gap in social information regarding the groupings in the wild. Miyagawa (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Does anyone prey on the fennec?
  • I would appreciate pictures of fennecs in the wild. I know they may be hard to get, but right now there is not a single one.What about fennec cubs?
Managed to find a shot of a fennec in the wild with appropriate permissions on Flickr. It's now added to the article replacing an image of one at a safari park. Miyagawa (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more to come, I am sure.

Haven't been able to find a picture of a cub but have added an image of a ten-month old Fennec. Miyagawa (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the language needs a make-over. Nothing bad, it just does not read well currently. Someone should make sure that pronouns are used correctly, i.e. that when 'it' or 'they' are used, the noun is indeed 'fennec(s)', and not something else.

all for now. :)HMallison (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate: the language needs a make-over. For one thing, the animal should be talked about either in the plural or singular consistently throughout the article. Alternatively, the context should be made clearer for each sentence. Sometimes, it is unclear if the sentences addresses the fennec or its ears, e.g.! Thanks for the updates! HMallison (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! HMallison (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a quick go at the grammar. Be aware of singular/plural changes in mid-sentence: going from a singular fox at the beginning of a sentence to more than one fox at the end of your sentence (and vice versa) will cause your readers confusion. Also, there were a lot of problems with possession and the use of the apostrophe; "it's" where "its" is meant, "breeders" where "breeders' " is meant, etc. Thanks for all your work on this article. Also: the picture of that pet Fennec is sooo adorable. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and the help from Neekeem in sorting out the grammar on this article - it's never my strong suit! Miyagawa (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. By the way, I removed the periods in partial sentence captions that a subsequent editor added in afterwards. They're not supposed to be there, according to the Manual of Style. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Could I get an update on any outstanding issues? Thanks. Miyagawa (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, work, sick kids and other stuff have slowed me down a lot. Here goes:
  • some sentences still are grammatically unacceptable. For example: A Fennec's burrowing can cause the formation of dew, and it is also known to absorb water through food consumption; however, it will drink water if available. Who absorbs water through food? The burrowing? Please check for such things.
let's see:
  1. Well-written:

         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

a) see above - this is the main point right now! b) check 

  2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

         (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
         (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
         (c) it contains no original research.

a) check b) check c) check 


  3. Broad in its coverage:

         (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

check 

  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5]

         (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

check, check, check

Overall, the situation is not easy, because information on many points is lacking, but that's not the problem of the authors here. Research not done can't be cited or included, so no need to blame the article. I'll go over the refs with regards to the MOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMallison (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a couple more gramatical errors including the dew one.Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no updates in a month; what's going on with this? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry, family matters and chaos at work keep me from doing anything productive here right now. I intend to go over the text again for grammar and style, check everything one last time (inculding finally getting hold of the original description) and then pass the article. HMallison (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not happy with this article passing GA. It is simply much too short, with many important things left out. What, for instance is fennec "singing"? Providing a file featuring of a behaviour not mentioned in the text is bizarre. —innotata 21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article also does not explain what the fennec's habitat requirements are. —innotata 21:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True - this has totally escaped me, as did the "singing" issue. Knowing the answers make me blind. HMallison (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the "singing" as from looking into it, it seems to just have been a bit of poetic licence by the original uploader. Miyagawa (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The description of habitat remains unsatisfactory. The part about burrows really ought to be under behaviour,. —innotata 13:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sectioning is bizarre. Isn't reproduction behaviour? Why is etymology under description as well, surrounded by the actual, very brief, description? Why are predators under "habitat"? Why isn't "habitat" called something like "distribution and habitat"? I also think there should be a full-scale section on "relationships with humans", covering cultural depictions and fennecs in zoos, as well as fennecs as pets. Overall, I entirely disagree with the comment "Some people may call it too short, however, I'd rather point to the lack of drivel as a positive feature". Several recent GA reviews, such as Eurasian Sparrowhawk, have been put on hold for one of the deficencies I've pointed out. —innotata 13:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final

[edit]

I just read through the latest copy editing, and things have improved a lot! Minor things only remain, very minor. If I now finally manage to extricate the original description from the uni lib and can thus check out the etymology this baby is ready for GA. HMallison (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; hopefully this can be fixed in the next day or two. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to withdraw the GA application on this one. I don't have access to sources that cover the information innotata mentions above, and frankly I don't really have the drive to work on this article anymore. Miyagawa (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A shame, since it seems it was almost there. Alas, another casualty of reviews taking too long. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry that I did not get this thing going. Family matters took all my available time, and each time I hoped to get things back on track something new popped up. I must, however, at this point chide some of the other people who commented: if you had expended the same time it took to comment to improve the article instead, things would look much better now. HMallison (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're all volunteers here. I am willing to spend some time to leave a note before an article that contradicts itself and does not use one of the most important sources available is recognized as a GA, but not to spend time on a species that really doesn't interest me. The text used at WP:GAN when a page is being reviewed says "additional comments are welcome", but you do not thank the people who assisted in the review by noting problems and instead blame them for failing the article. Ucucha 12:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking to you. HMallison (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er...not sure how to do this...new to editing Wikipedia...but there are two mentions of longevity in the article, and one says it's a measure of lifespan in the wild, the other in captivity. SLOW93 (talk) 0103, 09 JUN 2010 (UTC)

Picture Problem

[edit]

Is the main/first picture in the article of a Fennec fox?

Its ears don't look long enough. Its head looks wrong - muzzle point vs head width. The body seems a bit big, too.

Can a different picture be put up? Even if it actually IS a fennec, I think it'd be better to have the fox in the main picture look more fennec-like. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image, following a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs. Feel free to replace it with another one which is not in doubt... bobrayner (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the original photographer, and by no means a taxonomist. If not a Fennec, then what? I feel the photo is a good representation, and that it was shot in the wild should surely be a plus. I've examined the other photos I have of this individual- the other candidate would be Rüppell's fox- especially considering the muzzle point as mentioned. However, the tail tip on this individual was black, and the back of the ears were dark. This still suggests Fennec to me.

Darylnovak (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title and animal English name wrong

[edit]

The title of this page must, ASAP please, be changed to fennec; I can find no authority in any encyclopaedia or dictionary for the phrase "fennec fox" with the first word being either attributive or adjectival. All English dictionaries (and I have more than 20 here including Chambers, Collins, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Macquarie (Australian English) and many others) and Britannica give only the simple noun fennec as the name of this species of animal. Iph (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is because of IUCN. Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I caught this a good many years too late. For some unfathomable reason, some scientist evidently decided that the single word English name, fennec, which is derived from the Arabic word meaning simply "fox", and appeared in every English language dictionary and encyclopaedia as the name for an animal of this species, so was totally unambiguous, wasn't long enough, and so wrote in some scientific paper that had to mention the species that the English name for this species consisted of two words, without there ever being any dictionary or encyclopaedia entry justifying such a change. We are now apparently stuck for ever with a name that is almost twice as long, and is a totally superfluous pleonasm: "fennec fox" is about as sensible as "River Avon" (where the name "Avon" means "river). But whereas in the latter the name (Avon) refers to only one geographical example so that people from elsewhere might well not be aware that the bare name "Avon" meant "river", in the case of the fennec it is a common name, not a proper name, and so was in every English dictionary and encyclopaedia, and could be looked up. This is like renaming in ordinary English usage certain other well-known species (and it is obvious in each case which ones I mean although several are actually generic i.e. they are ordinary English terms covering more than one actual species) the "tiger cat", the "heron bird", the "python snake", the "termite insect" and so on. In the case of the fennec, the name has only ever referred to one species; however I do note that in one of the documents listed in the Red List entry, namely the North American regional studbook, where the English name asserted is "fennec fox", the Latin name of the fennec is given as Fennecus zerda. So much for scientific precision and uniqueness of nomenclature. People make mistaks in scientific literature. If there are multiple papers that reference the fennec but give the Latin name Fennecus zerda instead of Vulpes zerda (if that is indeed now the agreed scientific name), it ought still to be possible to go back and correct this unnnecessary almost-doubling of the English name of the species and re-assert the simple name "fennec" which is totally unambiguous (unlike many other English names of species such as "tiger") and totally unlike any other English word and very clear and simple as it is. However, I admit that making that change will involve more than just the article here at Wikipedia. Who is up for doing it?! Iph (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read this whole post, but as far as how to move pages: since this may be disputed, and non-admins presumably can not move this page to "fennec", show that the term is more widely used and open a requested move. "Fennec fox" is definitely a legitimate name, if not the more common one, so we don't need to correct every inbound link. Wikipedia article names reflect usage, scientific names reflect classification: they're a different story. Looks like you may be right, though I'm sceptical as to your theory on the origin of the form "fennec fox". —innotata 23:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note, sika deer is a widely used term originating in Japan. It is a repetition, because in Japanese sika is the only (commonly used) word for deer. This is to say that our ignorance in foreign languages results in such terms, but there is little we can do about it. Materialscientist (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also particularly an Americanism, like 'dodo bird' and 'kiwi bird', of the stating-the-bleeding-obvious kind that make me want to tear my hair out. 86.154.218.83 (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

The spelling is not consistent in the article. There is some regular spelling with some British extra letters thrown in. in this revision, it is the first to use any spelling, and they used regular spelling, not British. I checked WP:RETAIN. 71.168.152.247 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've made some behaviour->behavior changes, which were the only inconsistencies that I noticed. (Also, you really shouldn't call it "regular spelling".) --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhum, 71.168.152.247 - British spelling is regular spelling, to many Commonwealth speakers. There is no 'correct' or 'regular' form of British - all are equally valid. So please don't present US English as the 'norm' or somehow more regular or correct than any other version of English. However, as per MOS, the article should be in the English variety of its first version, if it has no ties via its subject matter to a nationality. 86.154.218.83 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fennec fox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fennec fox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fennec fox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should Eevee and it's evolutions be in the Cultural depictions?

[edit]

Eevee is a fennec fox merged with a cat, so i think adding it along with it's evolutions (except Espeon) is a good idea83.23.78.190 (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of neutrality in the "as pets" section

[edit]

I have noticed a general lack of neutrality in the "as pets" section. I understand that keeping non-domesticated animals as pets is controversial, but unequivocally stating hand rearing fennecs is "unethical" when even the cited source material makes no such claim is not promoting a neutral viewpoint. I have removed reference to the ethicality of hand rearing and noticed another user appropriately removed language referring to the feelings of the fennec fox. I mention this here just to encourage users and editors to keep an eye on this section, and perhaps write a more objective criticism of fennec foxes as pets if the need arises (citing a source about health or wellness in captivity might be appropriate, though I am of the impression that extrapolating the feelings of the animal based on nothing is not).

24.2.51.82 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

One of the many species that are related to Fennec foxes are Red foxes. Their lineage is separated by 51 mutations. These two species show similar characteristics, hunting style, activity style, and feed on the same preys.[1] ChristyUIC (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Karssene, Y., Nowak, C., Chammem, M., Cocchiararo, B., & Nouira, S. (2019). Genetic diversity of the genus vulpes (red fox and fennec Fox) in Tunisia based on mitochondrial DNA and noninvasive DNA sampling. Mammalian Biology, 96, 118-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2018.09.008

Omaru Polka

[edit]

Omaru Polka is a Japanese character personifying a fennec fox. Why is this less of a cultural depiction than a World of Warcraft reference to fennec foxes? Each time this actually legitimate update is added, it is immediately deleted without a reason given. Is this xenophobia or is there a reason why a major entertainer is less of a cultural depiction than a character in Zootopia or a Pokemon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:3D06:6B00:74A3:32A0:BBF7:A55A (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I don't know how to add references, but the actor David Tennant was compared with a Fennec Fox by author and showrunner of Good Omens Neil Gaiman (Tennant acts in the show) resulting in an ongoing gag among fans with pictures of fennec foxes and David Tennant with similar poses or looks on several social media platforms from handles dedicated to matching and posting such images. The idea is that they are identical. "David Tennant as fennec fox" should show several such results on Twitter, Google Images, etc. The comparison is widely accepted by fans resulting in images of fennec foxes referred to as David Tennant, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.242.197.247 (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC) https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/19887304.meme-day-herald-diary/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.242.197.247 (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Depictions

[edit]

Fennekin from Pokémon is based on the fennec fox. I tried adding this but it was reverted. 88T3 (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fennec fox/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wolverine X-eye (talk · contribs) 21:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Larrayal (talk · contribs) 01:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Wolverine, I've looked at this article, and I don't think its at GA-level. At all. Mainly, I think this article is much too short considering the scope of the topic and available sources.

The lead section contains information that is not sourced or even included in the body of the article, such as the kidney adaptations, the fur trade, and the lifespan in the wild. Please make sure that the lead reflecs the tekst of the body, and expand on all topics that you include in the lead within the body of the article with the necessary sources.

The taxonomy section is frankly lacking. Nothing is said on the exact relationships of V. zerda with other Vulpes species. A phylogenetic tree would be a good addition here, and most are easily available. There is absolutely no reason to include information on V. riffautae, or V. skinneri. This is about V. zerda. Please only include information closely related to V. zerda to this article in the future. Including more fossil species would be confusing to the common reader. It appears to me that you got much of it from the Vulpes article, but it is clearly not valid here. The description is well-written but could do with more information. In my opinion, some information on its postcranial skeletal anatomy and desert adaptations would be required to reach GA status. The distribution and habitat section has the same issues, with the only source used being the not-academically published, not peer-reviewed IUCN website. If this webpage provides at least some sources, none of the statements used in the article are sourced. The behaviour and ecology section is good enough, though the lead of that section is unneeded and most could be put in their own subsections.

On the disease section, almost everything on the canine distemper virus infection is paraphrased from Woo et al., 2010. This also can't be generalized for all captive fennec foxes, as some are bred in captivity; the paper focuses on the autopsy of animals captured in the wild. The predator section in particular is lackluster; I don't see mentions of caracal in that part of the article; "nomads" need to be made more specific in this case, as there are quite a few in that area; salukis in particular are traditionally bred in the Middle East, rather than North Africa; as some other sources used in the article mention that attributions from the Middle East likely represent young Rüppel's foxes. The threat section doesn't cover all threats mentioned in the sources used in the article. Conservation section is also probably too short ; In culture section should probably be much more expanded.

The sources are generally fine, but are dramatically underused. The IUCN source, though useful, is uncorrectly used several times over where more precise and academic sources are available and preferred. More sources than the formal description and Asa et al. 2004 would be an improvement, but Asa et al. 2004 is not even used to its fullest in the article's current state. Please expand on all the topics covered in that article, review the sources of this article, not just their abstracts, and include them here.

The placement of the images is quite strange ; the skull should be in the description section ; I don't really see the use of the Two fennec foxes image on that part of the article ; the taxobox image is good, but could be used in the behaviour section, with more visible feet and tail ; on that tangent, there are a lot of great images on Commons which should be used for an improved article.

While there are few issues with the prose, some phrasings are strange and need to be improved. The nominator also seems to have had only a small impact on the prose of the article overall, despite the frankly massive amount of edits done. Adding onto this, all of these edits are based almost fully on sentences in the abstracts of the sourced articles. Fennec fox gives 2700 results on Google Scholar; Vulpes zerda gives 2940; I think more than 30 sources could easily be found. There's no copyright violation that I could detect, but some heavy paraphrasing could do with being reworded; the article has been relatively stable, but it was nominated mere hours after the nominator started editing it, with all 48 edits happening in the six hours prior to GA nomination. Edits made by the nominator are, in my opinion, not sufficient to warrant GA status. Due to all issues listed, to me this article does not seem to be near ready for undergoing a GA review. I suggest adding more information from both present and new sources, and potentially running it through peer review beforehand, and once it passes that, resubmitting it to GA.

@Larrayal: I think this review is a bit overzealous. First off, this article is near GA-status and most of the concerns you listed are trivial to say the least. Regarding the lead concerns, I've addressed them with no issues whatsoever. Over to Taxonomy, you were right in that I did not add enough information about their connectivity to other Vulpes species. I've done so now. However, your comments about the fossil species are completely wrong. The information I copied from Vulpes are entirely relevant in this article as they discuss the common ancestors of fennecs and other African fox species. We now arrive at distribution, and whatever you're on about that's a you problem. I've used the IUCN source for well over 2 years with no issues, that is until I met you. The IUCN is a reliable source and so I do not have to explain why it was included. There is also nothing wrong with the canine distemper information but since you have such a problem with it being generalized I've changed the wording a bit. For the predation part, I removed the caracal information since it was not supported by the cite, but other than that I do not see the subpar part of this section. Moving to threats, I added a little something but that's it. There is not a whole lot to add since the global population is relatively safe. The conversation material part is appropriate, as the conversation of this species largely focuses on captivity. And lastly, the Cultural significance section is that small, in large part due to the fact that there is virtually no information on the cultural depictions of fennecs. If you do find something, please let me know.
What I'm seeing in the GA progress below is questionable. Like I don't get why I'm being failed on reliable sources. Seems a bit harsh in my opinion. I'm also being failed on stability even though you said above that the article is stable. Just wow. In addition, you also fail me on the grounds of not staying focused and providing broad coverage? This seems sus to me. Is this all about the message I left on your friend's talk page? You don't do much reviewing and judging by this review you also don't seem to be an experienced reviewer. This review has been unfair and your judgment on multiple aspects are off by a long shot.
Finishing off my comment, the broadness issue is unsubstantiated. I've done my research and included as much information as possible. Not much is known about the species, hence the relatively small size. And most of the fennec fox or Vulpes zerda results on Google Scholar are mere mentions. With that being said, I think you need to reconsider your decision here. ✟WolveríneX-eye✟ 11:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: About the description section lacking desert adaptation information; if you read the section carefully, you'll notice that it is literally riddled with such information – not that that's a bad thing. ✟WolveríneX-eye✟ 11:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nowhere near GA article. It is messy and critically incomplete.
The section you added on apparent relationships between V. riffautae and V. zerda now falls entirely under WP:OR ; de Bonis et al., the description paper, points out the distinct autapomorphies separating it from the modern genera ; Bartolini-Lucenti and Malapeira 2020 is to my understanding reporting the same information on its size. The information copied from Vulpes serves no purpose here, as they can as simply be read in the Vulpes article ; they don't concern fennec at all. If you used the IUCN source on several other articles, then I'm afraid they will have to be reviewed once again, as the IUCN website likely does not represent peer-reviewed sources ; ideally, they should be limited to what the IUCN is about, preservation and level of endangerment. It is a reliable source on that point. On other points, however, it only repeats the information found in other publications ; when it is not sourced in the IUCN website, it is not an information that can be put on an article, as the IUCN is likely not the primary source. This could maybe hold true for C-class, maybe B-class articles ; this is a GA review, academic precision should be expected here. The predation section is quite sketchy, honestly ; why does the lead tell that the Verreaux's eagle-owl is its main predator, but the section names the Pharoah's eagle-owl instead ? And why is the mention that "nomads" hunt it with salukis not expanded upon, or in the Threat section ? Dog hunting is definitely not listed among the threats, should it be ? I did not say that the Conservation section is inappropriate, but it is too short, and should focus firstly on its preservation in the wild, secondarily on its preservation in zoos. The pet trade should go in threats (for animals taken in the wild) or in its own section (for animals bred in captivity), as it has nothing to do with conservation in this particular case. If it does, it probably needs to be expanded upon, to make that clear to the readers. Even the French version of the article has more information presented ; although it has several other issues too.
The main reason why I failed it on reliable sources is because the IUCN source is not usable in the context it is used upon, and that the article seems to revolve around a single source, Asa et al. 2004 is good but likely not the only source you could use on its skeletal anatomy, fur variations, etc...
While the article seems stable enough, force is to note that you only started editing it hours before submitting it to GA, and the amount of edits needed to port this article to GA status makes it not stable enough to seriously review. Maybe, after a few weeks of work, it would pass, but it was submitted before these, and as such any critique made now is likely to not be relevant once the article is properly finished. 27 edits have been made between yesterday and today. I don't know what friend you are talking about, I don't have many here and I don't recall seeing your name on Talk pages ; I read a lot of Talk pages on my spare time, so please educate me on this incident ; I got in here reading the noticeboard ; regardless, ad hominem attacks will not help this article to pass due review process. This article still can be improved ; this needs work, this needs time, I don't think that it can be passed to Good Article in its current state. I don't think not much is known about the species, considering that it is an extant species not only really common in zoos, but also present in the pet trade. Once again I want to point out that "Vulpes zerda" gives 1140 cues on Google Scholar and "Fennec fox" 1820. I don't doubt that you have done your research, but more research is still needed. I do agree that I was too harsh on focus, I'll pass that ; however the original research parts need to go.
Finally, on the things added today : the "group of eight 'desert fox'" does not seem to hold any phylogenetic value. The article sourced is a book on the red fox ; more precise sources are needed. The Rüppel's fox is now pretty generally considered to be the sister taxa of the red fox, while the fennec and Blanford's sits as an early diverging clade. V. riffautae can't be an ancestor of V. zerda and V. rueppellii without also being an ancestor of all other Vulpes species, which probably should mean that the subject must be treated in the Vulpes article. Finally, in the threat section, the IUCN source that you use clearly states "The impact of major oil field development on local populations has not been assessed." Although I don't disagree with the statement, this shows the limits of the IUCN webpage, and means that oil exploitation probably shouldn't be listed as a direct threat.
Also, please in the future use Edit summaries when editing ; 27 edits of varying sizes without a proper edit summary certainly don't help the review process. Larrayal (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Larrayal: Well you clearly show your inexperience in your latest reply once again. You failed to acknowledge some of the points I've raised which seems sketchy to me. Your whole rant about IUCN seems to be a you problem, so I won't look into that. And your baseless accusations of ad hominem attacks and original research just shows a lack of assuming good faith. Perhaps startling is your extremely harsh criticism of this article. While I have no problem working with you to help fix this article, courtesy should be shown on your part to make this process beneficial for both parties and the encyclopedia as a whole. I used to adopt this extremely harsh approach when reviewing articles, but I've since realized that that helps no one and instead drive editors away. You also say that more research is needed but you haven't specified what. If there is a section that could do with more information it's the "In captivity" one. Besides that, everything else seems to be in order. Also, why am I being failed on pictures and MOS? If that is not harsh, I don't know what is. Lastly, I would like to point out that this article does not qualify for a WP:QUICKFAIL; do see that page for more information. And that concludes my comment; hopefully the reviewer will now notice their mistake. ✟WolveríneX-eye✟ 07:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reviewing the Taxonomy section you were right to say that they were not directly linked to those fossils. That's a misinterpretation of the source on my part. But I still fail to see how this information is irrelevant, when they are a part of the Vulpes genus. I couldn't locate a source that points to a definite V. zerda ancestor, and so I came to the conclusion that the Vulpes information is entirely appropriate. Maybe if you find a source, you can point it out to me, but until then, the Taxonomy is OK as is. ✟WolveríneX-eye✟ 08:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a review of my quality as a reviewer, but of the quality of the article, and sorry, it does not meet Good Articles standards. If it worked in the past with different reviewers, maybe blame them for not being thorough enough, but it is not my fault. The IUCN website does seem like a reliable source, and the work of the IUCN is commendable, but it shouldn't be hard to verify the bibliography of the webpage and check if all informations presented there are available in other publications. You nominated this article mere hours after starting working on it, it is not surprising that it is still not holding up to GA standards. The article wasn't to standards before you started editing on it, and the edits you did on it, though substantial at least in number, are yet not enough to warrant it a place in GA. As I said, all sections need improvement, but more specially Threats, Conservation and In culture. You still have not removed the information pasted from Vulpes in the Taxonomy section, and there is not yet a good rationale about its inclusion. Now, seeing on your userpage that you are taking a break from editing until the 15th of February, I think the best course of action will be to fail the review of this article until you come back from your break and improve substantially the article. Happy holidays ! Larrayal (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fennec_fox&oldid=1264035244"