Talk:Thunder and Bolt

Additional sources to investigate
Just adding this as a note for myself or anyone else interested. It appears like videos existed on MSN based on the URL, but they are not on archive.org. Perhaps there is another archive? https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/video/meet-thunder-and-bolt-two-therapy-pigs-making-a-difference/vp-BB17NEHB https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/therapy-pigs-thunder-and-bolt-are-happy-to-trade-belly-scratches-and-hugs-for-smiles/vp-AAv85x1 18:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Help removing orphan
I could use help with where to link this from so it does not remain orphan. Preliminary thoughts include List_of_individual_pigs or perhaps Animal-assisted_therapy but the latter might appear promotional, which is not the intent. DrGvago (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * [The help me template is for asking for help in how to edit Wikipedia, not for soliciting help with content.]
 * An entry on the List of individual pigs page would solve your problem.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Is there a different/preferred method to request content related help, or just post on the talk page of some other page like the list of pigs? DrGvago (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi DrGvago. For discussing content, relevant talk pages are a great place to start, the caveat being if you post on a talk page that is not being watched by many users, your post may not receive an answer for some time. Another option is on WikiProject talk pages: perhaps WikiProject Animals in this case, or WikiProject Psychology for the more therapeutic aspect. As a general rule, it doesn't hurt to be bold if you think something is a good idea. Adding this article to List of individual pigs sounds straightforward, though I would avoid Animal-assisted therapy unless there were reliable sources discussing these two pigs in the broader context of therapy animals and the mention did not seem trivial. —  The Earwig   talk 03:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thank you, The Earwig that is much appreciated. DrGvago (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Animal-assisted therapy with Thunder and Bolt
Already mentioned by reference on page in Pig therapy section Iztwoz (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * * Oppose - That reference describes one type of animal assisted therapy performed by various animals. Including specific animals there would distract from the purpose of that article, and if other individual animals are merged in, it could become unwieldy. DrGvago (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - the specific animals have their own specific section i.e. Pig therapy. --Iztwoz (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Forgive me as I am not so well versed on Wiki etiquette, but if you make the proposal, would one not already expect that you'd support your own proposal? I mean that with no disrespect, I am just trying to learn more, should I ever propose a merge and then not list my own support under it, if that is expected. Thank you.
 * As for the comment I will add that that section does not include "the specific animals" which are notable on their own, but rather a type of animal. How does it benefit the reader on that article to read about these particular pigs when other specific animals of various types also exist? Is the subject of that page not to call attention to individual animals but rather the broader topic of animal assisted therapy? If there is benefit to including these, then a short reference to this article makes sense but I do not see any reason to distract the reader from the primary topic with particular animals unless they have performed such an astounding act that deserves highlighting, in which case a short mention and an article of their own would make more sense to me. I also made a minor formatting change to my comment above, as I was on mobile and the default reply box doesn't include it at that time. DrGvago (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I used 'support' to add the comments. Since it fits well on the proposed page and the article is very small with little room for expansion and the animals are part of the project - cannot appreciate the opposition.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not opposing mention of them or a link, etc, only merging. I don't see how this differs from Smoke_(donkey) who is not mentioned anywhere in the main topic article, nor the sub topic article of Equine-assisted_therapy except as a link under notable examples. That is the precedent that was set for articles on notable therapy animals that I followed (Main Topic->Subtopic->Specific Animal) - If it fits well with the project to mention any of these animals them on the main topic article, then I think the 2 articles about specific animals should have the that same structure of addition to the main topic's article rather than being merged directly into the main topic article. This allows the reader to drill-down, or not based on their choice. The content length of both specific animal articles are small, and an article about a deceased animal has much less chance for expansion than young, live ones. DrGvago (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As this proposal has no traction, can the merge template be removed now? William Harris (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I am OK with removal of the merger tag. DrGvago (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks. William Harris (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

some dates?
"they are now 3 years old". A date or two in the article would give this meaning. --47.54.6.137 (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)