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

Africa High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Travel and Tourism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles 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.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Mammals 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is almost right - but the giraffe has NEVER been big five. What South African bank note has a picture of it? Its a Cheetah.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.191.82 (talk • contribs)

Any chance of adding to this article. It seems innapropriately short. 88.155.36.98 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please add. Anyone got a pic of a cheetah?--Polygamistx4 01:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CITES should be mentioned in the article. As techinically you can only import African Elephant/Cape Buffalo and can not import the other 3 (As they are in CITES App 1). This somtimes effects legally taken trophys being transported to countries who have restrictions on importations.Not all countries signed the treaty. Not all countries that signed the treaty enforce all or any of the restrictions of the treaty. So what do people think? People who know what they are talking about! Not biased anti hunting thanks!--203.192.91.4 14:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different countries have different national laws on endangered animals. End of story. Captain Obvious strikes again. 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been Black Rhino and never the White Rhino in the Big 5. The fact that only 10 Blacks can be hunted a year legally only starting 3 years ago, does not mean the White Rhino can now be included. Its a great marketing tool by those who supply hunts in Africa, but its not part of the Big 5. Including the White is the same as saying you are using the origonal recipe but using a substitute item. Its just wrong! Since its a saying that was invented over 100 years ago and nobody owns. It can not be updated by any means. Why not change the animals because of cost, easy to hunt, location? It just can not be done even if others are incoprrectly changing the definition of somthing they do not have the right too.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be cited? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see a cite. Most of the things I've read just said "rhino" or "rhinoceros". Vultur (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thesafariguide.net/fauna-flora/the-big-five. I'm trained FGASA Field guide and it's correct that the white rhino mistakable is a part of the Big Five. Only modern term and laziness have caused people think it's a part of the Big Five. 95.209.240.81 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Safari Club International does not differentiate between the two species. The black rhino can be darted and is considered as being successfully hunted. DeusImperator (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there two distinct species of the African elephant (as the article implys) or it was meant two distinct subspecies, which i think would be the right thing.--96.239.0.223 (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now considered to be two different species: Loxodonta africana and Loxodonta cyclotis.Vultur (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Autochthony writes - some people - including some scientists suggest that the Pygmy Elephant is separate from bothe the Savannah Elephant and the Forest Elephant Loxodonta africana and Loxodonta cyclotis respectively.

Autohthony wrote - 2010.10.02 22 15z. 86.167.117.177 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are only these five species interesting for big-game hunters? Why no big six including zebras? Or big seven including gepards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.203.86 (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Big Five" is a term used in reliable sources and that's what we rely on. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the crocodile and hippo be included in the big five as well, making it the big seven. The crocodile and hippo, along with the buffalo, cause the most human deaths of any animal in Africa and would also be challenging trophies for big game hunters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.248 (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Big Five" is a well-documented term and we are only discussing what reliable sources report about it. We can't simply add things to it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to expand this article as follows:

• a couple of paragraphs about hunting each species - difficulty, terrain, stalk vs bait, day vs night, etc.
• discuss guns and cartridges appropriate to this kind of hunt.
• Maybe famous hunters
• relative cost?

And whatever else someone can think of. All with reliable sources of course. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on the Rhino correction. Agree with the way it is put DeusImperator (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Club International does not make a differentiation as to whether the rhino is white or black. DeusImperator (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Black Rhinoceros is extinct by hunters. Why wouldn´t you say a word about the catastrophy of worldwide extinction through killing by persons who are not able to say anything about species population size than: " not available". Wild animals have the right to exist without being used (up) by people. Think about any worth od a animal except being killed in any way by you, hunters. There are biologists who can estimate the vulneability of a species based on scientific research. As you see on the IUCN red list of threatened species, the conservation status they are NOT widely spread, except the buffalo. That means all of them needs to stay alive to regenerate the population. Shoot a picture to take home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.114.24 (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The lion and African bush elephant are classified as Endangered." But the lion article taxobox shows it as Vulnerable instead. 98.194.35.233 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really claiming lions are susceptible to hydrostatic shock? What is with this? Its not even proven how can you know they are susceptible to it? That is pure speculation. Citation needed tag added --Youngdrake (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you search for "dangerous game", the only thing you get that's actually related to a subject on hunting animals is a link to this page. I'm not a hunting expert, but I don't think that these five animals are the only animals in the world that are considered "dangerous game". I'm pretty sure that bears are dangerous game. Alligators and crocs can be, I'm pretty sure. So there must be a better place to direct people too..45Colt 04:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that an article on the big five should discuss the animals from a hunting perspective. One who wants to learn about an elephant can go to the respective article... Jklaus123 (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big five game → Big Five game – more common in sources as a "Big Five" Wamalotpark (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 2pou (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TiggerJay (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article's cited sources seem to capitalize "Big Five". Note that the article was created at Big Five game and later moved to Big five game without discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above points are from the original technical request. Courtesy pings @Wamalotpark @Necrothesp @162 etc.-2pou (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I struggle with these cases. Wikipedia has clear guidelines for using sentence case and avoiding aggrandizing use of caps but exceptions are allowed when there is sufficient evidence of particular usage. Big Five dominates Google Ngram for at least the last 30 years. I tried a quick Google News search hoping to find usage in mainstream, non-promotional media and the results returned a lot of travel magazines and sports coverage. This is hardly exhaustive, but Forbes uses big five[1] while CBC uses Big Five.[2] --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to add, whenever I look up "Big Three", "Big Four", or "Big Five" etc., anything, i.e. "Big Five personality traits" article on Wikipedia, the number is always capitalized. Combined that with the sources all being capitalized, and user 162 etc.'s point that the article was moved without discussion to a lowercase number, I thought I would start this move request. Wamalotpark (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, this is outside my realm, I don't do anything with titles, but maybe the article could have a disambiguation? Big Five (game)? I don't know... Wamalotpark (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a similar case to the US military almost always capitalising absolutely everything, but us not doing so. For instance, there has been a longstanding conflict between those who want to capitalise Marine (because the USMC does) and those who don't (because Wikipedia doesn't). The latter always prevail. We don't always follow sources on capitalisation because we do not capitalise things that aren't proper names. We have our own style guidelines in this respect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So why do all those articles on Wikpedia with "Big X" that I can see have capitals? Is the "Big Five personality traits" article wrong? Seems like this is the exception. Wamalotpark (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Literally EVERY article I can find has a capital number in the title. Until the other articles get renamed, I support moving this article to capital Five. Wamalotpark (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So why do all those articles on Wikpedia with "Big X" that I can see have capitals? Would you care to list some? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Big Five (notably capitalized) has many examples in addition to the aforementioned Big Five personality traits: Big Five (Eurovision), List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees, Big Five (orchestras), The Five (composers), Big Five (law firms) in South Africa… There many more. The page also references the Big Five technology companies and links to Big Tech, also not a true proper name but styled as such (see also: Big Pharma conspiracy theories). Another mention on this page is the Big Four accounting firms, formerly the Big Five and before that the Big Six, Seven, Eight… "Big five game" is one of the outliers here, although the wikilink is styled Big Five game, consistent with the style used in the article body, in most sources, and for the other Big Fives. We also have Big Three (American television), Big Three (record labels), and about two dozen other Big Threes, mostly from sports, and even a Little Three.

    More examples at (some of these are proper names and some do not link to an article with the exact title, so they may not have been subject to as much scrutiny):

    • Big One (disambiguation)
    • Big Two (disambiguation)
    • Big Three (disambiguation)
    • Big Four (disambiguation)
    • Big Six (disambiguation)
    • Big Seven (disambiguation)

    Indeed, we do have our own style guide, policies, and norms which call for standard English spelling and capitalization rules and not blindly following "creative" styles. These same rules also direct us to follow widespread, common usage and to consider consistency among similar articles. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Another example I stumbled across is Group of Seven (disambiguation) and related terms. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Logged in. Just type in "Big (any number)" into the Wikipedia search bar. Without even pressing search, the recommended articles all have a capital number. @Necrothesp would you care to list some that don't? Seems like you are the only objection to standard formatting I see across the entire website. Wamalotpark (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We also have the Rat Pack, the Brat Pack, and the Squad (U.S. Congress). I support move to "Big Five game" as this consistent with both widespread usage and similarly titled articles. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I support move to "Big Five game" Wamalotpark (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting to see if Necrothesp wanted to respond to the question asked and hopefully additional dialogue. It stands right now, aside from the nom there is one mixed and one oppose.. the nom has effectively !voted multiple times in this discussion. TiggerJay (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The term does function as a proper name, and has majority usage over the downcased version. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't want to also be accused of multiple !votes but I am a bit confused by the statement that aside from the nom there [was] one mixed and one oppose so to reiterate: I support move to "Big Five game" per nom and per my responses above. While I did initially state that I struggle with these cases, I have come to the conclusion that initial caps (Big Five game) is appropriate in this case, on the grounds of widespread common usage and consistency with similar articles. You can see the evolution of my argument above, where I reached "support" after considering the nom's responses to me and Necrothesp. I confirmed by my own review that Big Five is consistent with similarly titled articles and I provided numerous examples. Additionally, and as I already pointed out in my initial comment, Ngram supports Big Five. Happy to elaborate or clarify further if my position or the basis for it remains unclear..--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By "these cases" in my initial comment, I meant any of a broad range of unrelated topics that are not obvious proper nouns — not names of people or countries, for example — but have been popularly granted a sort of title that is capitalized to varying degrees. I then reached my conclusion in support of Big Five upon engaging with the particulars in this case. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]