Talk:Fancy rat

message: ===Not currently referenced===
*Small Animal Care & Management - beginning on page 198
*Training Your Pet Rat - entire book
*Pet Rats - entire book Upon further review, self-published
*Animals in Person - beginning on page 131
*Rats - entire book
===Currently cited, more references could perhaps be added===
*Animal Biology and Care
*Rat: How The World's Most Notorious Rodent...
*The Story of Rats
*Merck Veterinary Manual
*Journal of the American Medical Veterinary Association
*Center for Disease Control
03:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources which would probably withstand scrutiny - communal section 

message: *Animal Biology and Care
*Rat: How The World's Most Notorious Rodent...
*The Story of Rats
*Merck Veterinary Manual
*Journal of the American Medical Veterinary Association
*Center for Disease Control
03:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Currently cited, more references could perhaps be added

message: I am unsure if :Image:221house-rat.jpg really adds anything to the article, thus questioning its fair-use.  While an image could certainly be helpful, this one hardly shows the rat being kept as pet.  Probably something from Ben would be more effective, and i'm sure there are quality images from the more recent Willard.  Something demonstrating the character "taking in" the wild rat would be most fitting. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps something like this -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that one from Ben is really good. Old, but good. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I removed the picture that will soon be deleted. Actually, no copyrighted image will be fair use in that section. We'd be better off finding a free image. hmwithτ 14:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. Yeah, I really wasn't clear on the whole "fair use" deal. Thought I'd give it a try. No picture is really necessary for that section I guess. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's complicated for sure. However, this article could use more images if you (or anyone else, for that matter) have any free ones at your disposal. hmwithτ 19:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't really think that one could find an apt free image for a fiction section.  we would need to show how pet rats are represented in fiction, and subsequently show an image from a fictional work. but it's not an issue right now. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image from House 

message: I changed the lead image back to the default one, with the rat on the girl's shoulder.  I had originally thought this was a good image because it showed the human interaction aspect well, reinforcing the fact that this is a domesticated species.  however, most pet articles do not choose to do this, and so I understand the need for a rat-only picture.  I reverted the one uploaded by 6th Happiness because while it's a quality photo, it didn't seem to differentiate this domesticated variety from the wild variety very well.  While people familiar with the fancy might easily identify the rat pictured as some type of Blue variety, most lay people are likely to interpret it as grey, and not really see how that's any different than a common sewer rat (yes we know the colors are different, but not everyone will).  Probably the best picture would be a well-bred hooded where the stripe is distinctly only along the spine (top/high view) against a plain background (which I'm sure 6th Happiness could produce :)  ).  This is because it's arguably the most common type of fancy rat people will come across, and as a result, typifies the subject. If anyone has any other suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the rat should be most prominent, and that a hooded would likely be most suitable but others might be suitable as well. There's plenty on Commons and any of them could be cropped to show the rat more prominently. As another suggested criteria, it should be clickable for a more high-resolution view, say at least 400 pixels. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the Common link, what about using This blazed rat?  While a dark colour, I don't think the average person would equate the blaze with a wild rat, and it is higher resolution.  --6th Happiness (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: ΖαππερΝαππερ, if you want a hooded for anywhere, I uploaded one a while ago here: Hooded rat.jpg The stripe's width could be more even, but it is complete and clear cut.  It is not a good perspective for the lead image though imho. --6th Happiness (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I cropped 1 to focus on the rat better, and it is the one i personally am leaning towards unless a better one could be created.  What do others think? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find the cage wire distracting;  3 or 4 are best imho. --6th Happiness (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I like 3 & 4, as well, but I'd say 4 is the best. The rat isn't hooded, but it still has domesticated-looking markings, which make it look a lot different from a wild rat. hmwithτ 16:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: 3 shows more personality, but 4 looks better. It's a tough one. hmwithτ 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 kind of looks like a guinea pig in that stance, so I change my mind from earlier: maybe 3 is better. hmwithτ 18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text:  Agreed, 3 looks better. --6th Happiness (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: hehe... no fr:cochons d'inde then :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: i've left a note for wikifur too, but it looks like we already have an idea of where this will go.  he may have an even better image to present though. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one I found and added earlier, , that I liked. But you're having a good discussion now, so I'll let you guys make the call. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although that is the cutest thing in the entire world (aww), I'd say it's pretty standard to use images of adult animals in the infobox, although that image would definitely be nice somewhere in the article. hmwithτ 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

text: when wikifur had originally put it in the article, i did want to put it somewhere, but was having a hard time finding an appropriate loaction. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: I have seen small, medium, large and giant pet rats (brown?) what are the sizes and measurements there are none here. How can a visitor to this website decide if they have a black rat or brown rat? EXAMPLE::: I was given 2 of one type and one of another. I was told that my smaller solid color gray with smaller ears, shorter tail and smaller length nose was a Norweigan rat meaning he was of the brown rat variety. He is very different in temperment and looks than my other two. 
The other two are long in tail, long in nose, long in ears, ears able to cover the eyes 
if pulled gently - where-as the gray (brown?)I have has ears to short for that. 
I definately have 2 types and from my own research my calico looking black and white rats are the black rats and my gray is a Norweigan or brown rat.
If that is true then both this article and the other "black rat" article really need editing!
ALSO: IMPORTANT TO NOTE: IF YOU PLACE A BROWN RAT WITH BLACK RAT VARIETIES THEY MAY HARRASS EACHOTHER RELENTLESSLY. (see black rat info on wiki: "known to kill the black rat") 
I learned this was true out of experience, in no way do they get along for long. The little gray brown rat (Norweigan) is much more aggressive in his dominance than the top dominant rat in the cage. They always seemed to be quite different from eachother but I never knew why until I found out what types they were and that they would fight if put together.
SO this is a very important part of the "pet rat" article. 
Please help out in this area if possible. Measurements should be shown as well as physical characteristics of the black and of the brown. I do  not believe that the photo shown here 
in the brown rat category is correct, as it shows the type that I have (calico looking black 
and white hooded) and my 2 are most likely of black rats.. this is more complicated than 
wikipedia has it so far. Ill try to find what I can to help as well. mz selina kyle (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: this article could perhaps briefly show the physical differences between two (or three) types of pet rat in order to make a better distinction.  That being said, helpful information like, "you shouldn't put the two types together" is unencyclopedic... that would be instructional, as it really isn't about the pet rat as a subject, but the pet rat, as your pet rat (or any reader's). --﻿ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: btw, you were told wrong, based on your descriptions the two larger rats you have are brown rats. Brown rats are generally bigger and have been bred to more pattern varieties (black rats are almost always completely one color, someone pls correct me if i'm wrong) --﻿ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 12:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reliable secondary source warns to not keep black rat and brown rat strains together and why, it is encyclopedic for WP to including something like "Pet-keeping sources recommend not keeping strains of black rat and brown right together, due to aggression between the species.[1][2]", citing those sources without engaging in advice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: No statement of SIZES (and physical characteristics)of brown rats (typically). Aug 1 09

message: In the section on ethics, it is currently written: Reputable breeders do not practice culling, or "feeder breeding", as most large commercial pet shops do with the exception of Pet Smart (a pet supply company located in the continental United States), which is known for its attempt to treat its sale animals ethically, even going so far as to provide veterinary medical support if your pet rat should become ill within 3 days after purchase.  First of all, this reads as if its advertising/promoting the chain store which doesn't seem appropriate for the article.  Second, it is not true.  I hate to link to anything related to PeTA but in this case, their site sums up most of what my wife (who worked for PetSmart) and I saw first hand there: http://www.petsmartcruelty.com - I recommend everything after the words "feeder breeding" be deleted in the article. --6th Happiness (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually opposed to the whole addition to that section. it reads as instruction and opinion. 'should' should never be in an article, using that word, or others like it, is a red flag for instruction, opinion, and advice. i recommend deletion of all three sentences that talk about "reputable breeding". we've already discussed that globally there is controversy regarding the practice of culling, and both sides are presented neutrally. --﻿ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics Section Issues

message: I don't want to come off as bitey, but while many edits from  have been constructive, i doubt the encyclopedic usefulness or validity of the added section on social behavior.
* Sources: other areas of the article cite fancy groups because they are specifically talking about those groups views. While fancy-rats.co.uk seems like a very useful site that could be included in the External links section, it fails to meet WP guidelines as a reliable source - there is no third party verification of any of the "facts" ascertained on the site (peer review of the articles is needed, not more links to other sites saying the same thing). This was the same problem with ratbehaviour.org a similarly useful site, but inappropriate for citing things on wikipedia.
* Instruction: like many of the other prose i've had to remove, this section contained instruction/advice which is not what wikipedia is for. pet articles are incredibly prone to this, so i am usually quick to outright remove it. sometimes the information presented as instruction/advice can be reworded neutrally to prevent loss.
* Opinion: many opinions were presented as facts. For example: while it may be commonly accepted as fact in the fancy community that rats should be bought in pairs or groups, as presented it is merely the opinion of a well-established organization. read the Ethics section to see how this can be worded neutrally.
After removing unsourced material and advice, I'm not sure this will justify it's own section, but we'll see :)
--﻿ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 12:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social behavior section 

message: Millions of people have pet domesticated wolves in their houses. These wolves are commonly referred to as dogs. People associate wolves with murdering live stock and children. We associate dogs with being fun loving and a great pet. When most people think about rats they think dirty vermin, disease carrying rodents. Even when we say pet rats that's what they usually think about. If we change the name to either raffins(singular: raffin), or fancies(singular: fancy), than people might change their minds. If we say," I have two fancies(raffins)," They might reply with,"What are those?" You could respond with,"They are basically domesticated rats," They will most likely be confused and say,"are they anything like wild rats?" We simply state,"No, not at all. These little guys are so clean! Alright, take 70% dog, 30% cat, and squeeze them together and shrink. You got yourself a raffin. They clean themselves like cats and are loyal and loving like dogs." If we could get everyone to refer to Pet Rats as this, we might be able to clean the name of them forever! They would be loved!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becca9brown (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even going to address all of this. The first sentence is wrong.  Dogs are not domesticated wolves.  They're a subspecies developed thousands of years ago from domesticated wolves.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the name of Pet Rats 

message: The fiction section seems weak too me. Ratatouille is a movie about a wild rat (albeit a talking one) not a fancy. The other examples seem to be about how fancy rats are used to play wild rats.  I think there is something interesting about a trope of using a pet rat to indicate that someone is somewhat eccentric. Zeimusu | Talk page 00:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What you think is interesting and what reliable sources indicate is an actual trope are two different things.  This is why we have WP:NOR policy, and this also illustrates why "In popular culture" and "[In] fiction" sections are often problematic.  I agree that the Ratatouille example doesn't belong here, and we do direct people to see also Rat#Fiction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Update: I merged the Ratatouille material to the other aricle.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction 

message: Comments here say to use British spelling, but the article is at variance. Below the quality expected in a good article.Zeimusu | Talk page 00:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:JUSTFIXIT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Update: I did. I also with -ize/ized back to -ise/ised, an another -or -> -our word.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: The ==Varieties== section needs more, sourced descriptive information about the varieties. If any of them are standardized breeds, this should be reliably sourced, and we should include summaries of show/breed standards for them if such exist. The following should redirect to that section: Rat variety, Rat varieties, Fancy rat varieties, Fancy rat variety, Variety of fancy rat, Rat breed, Rat breeds, Fancy rat breed, Fancy rat breeds, List of rat varieties, List of fancy rat varieties, List of rat breeds, List of fancy rat breeds. Each of those should be tagged with , and all those referring to breeds also tagged with  unless their status as standardized breeds is reliably sourceable after all.  List of rat varieties should be further tagged with , and ASAP developed into a list of these pet varieties, and (in their own section) laboratory strains (several of which we have coverage of, in Laboratory rat#Stocks and strains); then List of rat breeds can redirect to that.  Breed#Domestic animal breeds should be updated to include a pointer to List of rat varieties.  If someone will do the first part and better-source a list of fancy rat varieties (we even have a separate article on one, and it should probably merge), I'll be glad to take care of all the rest (and already did some of it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for all that RDR work :) the problem is that the varieties are not always standardized the same between different governing bodies, and as noted in the article fanciers tend to categorize their rats using multiple criteria, it's the whether or not the individual rat meets the criteria of each trait it's purported to possess. If I have a chocolate berkshire, it's being judged both on it's coat colour and it's markings. A poorly bred Dumbo might not do as well even if I'm not trying to pass it off as a Dumbo, because it meets no body type well.  The NFRS, AFRMA, RatsPacNW, and RFME are all cited as authoritative sources for the information on the different varieties (these are similar to citing the AKC, and this is indeed a more worldly perspective, representing the US, England, and Australia) - along with some books and documentaries. I'm not sure how much more sourcing you think is needed? I'm willing to improve the article, just would like some more direction with what you think is missing. Cheers! -﻿ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varities 

message: Why is there a comparison of black rats and brown rats used as a comparison of domestic and wild rats? The fancy rat is rattus norvegicus, not rattus rattus, and neither of these species are fully domesticated. They're still both wild species.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:71C3:6100:40F4:2100:3F07:181E (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons 

message: Hi all
I was wondering whether expanding the health section would be useful, for example making a list of common medicines used by veterinarians (Baytril, Doxycycline) among othershttp://www.rmca.org/Articles/dchart.htm.
I'm more than willing to do this.
Secondly is there any point expanding what we already have on health by talking directly about diet? Or perhaps this should be a separate section entirely? I think it could be a valuable addition.
Thanks
Maynardroth88 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding The Health Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fancy rat. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225171457/http://www.daff.gov.au:80/aqis/cat-dogs/other to http://www.daff.gov.au/aqis/cat-dogs/other
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe this is a great overview of domesticated fancy rats. I like how this article points out the differences between domesticated rats and "wild" rats. Under "Social Behavior" I think it's important to include that males can become aggressive when living near other females. They can become aggressive towards the other males and their owners. Males and females should not be kept together unless one of them is fixed and there is only one male. Another critique would be there is not any information that I came across that spoke about different sized fancy rats. There are standard sized rats and there are also dwarfs. I think it's also important to compare sizes and talk about the minimum and maximum sizes in rats including heights, weights, and lengths. Also, comparing males to females in temperament and also size, but overall, this is a very informative article and a great overview.  (Mckenna720raymond (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fancy Rats critique  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Fancy rat. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161124222202/http://www.nfrs.org/company.html to http://www.nfrs.org/company.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150823105451/http://www.rattenforum.de/phpbb/faq/ to http://www.rattenforum.de/phpbb/faq/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209133238/http://www.nfrs.org/varieties.html to http://www.nfrs.org/varieties.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126204510/http://ratsocietyofamerica.org/standards2.html to http://ratsocietyofamerica.org/standards2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427192925/http://www.ratspacnw.org/rat%20standards.htm to http://www.ratspacnw.org/rat%20standards.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160909021538/http://www.nfrs.org/geninfo.html to http://www.nfrs.org/geninfo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081018171106/http://www.nfrs.org/banned.html to http://www.nfrs.org/banned.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified