Talk:Guinea pig/Archive 5

message: I cleaned this paragraph up and added a number of citation tags. A few questions:
#How do we know guinea pigs and rabbits don't get along? Scientific sources, of course, tell you not to mix species in the laboratory. As for pets, a short book by Barron's about gp raising (1991) says dwarf rabbits and guinea pigs get along fine, except for occasional biting.
#The Biology of the Guinea Pig states that Pasteurella is not particularly common in guinea pigs, and that it is usually brought on by bad sanitation practices.
#Guinea pigs do not generally participate in social grooming, but if rabbits do, why is this a problem? Do the rabbits attempt to groom the guinea pigs? What source are we relying on for this information?
I have a feeling that much of the information from this paragraph is adapted from this website. For what it's worth, this website disagrees.
I would prefer to have some sort of paragraph about mixing species in general; it appears that, aside from trained dogs, guinea pigs do not get along with other species well, especially smaller rodents. Thoughts? Chubbles 23:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to make sure that the information presented here is commensurate with the best available research and experience. I had trouble coming up with reliable sources for this information; websites give contradictory information about the subject. Chubbles 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hey guys, im thinking the entire paragraph should be removed. it says popular misconception, but where i live, ive never even heard such a thing. rabbits are kept in outdoor hutches or run free, and pigs are kept indoors. ive never even considered having the two together. also, it really seems arbitrary in relation to the subject and the article. it leads to guinea pigs and dogs, guinea pigs and sea lions, guinea pigs and wheat thins...i think you get my jab. its just that from afar, having raised guinea pigs, but never hearing of this 'common' misconception, paired with the fact that so many citations are lacking, it seems more than appropriate to remove the entire paragraph as arbitrary and original research. the_undertow talk 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keeping guinea pigs in outdoor hutches is only bad in cold climates; guinea pigs are kept outdoors in South America all the time.
I'm looking into changing that paragraph right now; I'll see if I can translate it into something less OR-sounding. Chubbles 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed it around a bit; how does it read now? The one major thing I got rid of is the social grooming sentence; I looked around and found several sources on both sides of this, some saying they get along well, some saying they don't. Unless someone can come up with a very reliable source for poor social compatibility, I think we should leave that out. Chubbles 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on edit about rabbits

message: It appears that about ten years ago, there was a big to-do about whether or not the guinea pig is actually a rodent. Here is a dopey-looking but very well-cited website detailing the controversy. Nothing in the article mentions this yet. We should probably add something about it, no? I'm thinking in the History section? Chubbles 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it belongs anywhere, the subject of rodent polyphyly should be discussed at rodent or Hystricognathi.  Admittedly, the paper that started it all was titled "Is the Guinea Pig a Rodent?" (Grauer et al., 1991), but the question concerned rodents as a whole and was not really more specific than hystricognaths (guinea pigs happened to be one of three rodent species sampled in that first paper).  The website you refer to is working really hard to make this appear to be a balanced debate, especially regarding recent literature.  Once evolutionary model selection, better taxon sampling, more appropriate genes, and multiple genes were brought into later analyses hystricognaths went back to being rodents just like before 1991.  It's basically a brief historical blurb of how data can be misleading.  Carleton and Musser (2005; pg. 745) give a very nice overview in Mammal Species of the World.  Adding this to one of the rodent or hystricognath articles has been vaguely on my list of things to do, but I don't think that it belongs here.  --Aranae 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions. I'll leave it out for now. Chubbles 02:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Something Missing

message: I was wondering about that, too, when I capitalized it - it didn't really look like a Texel to me, but its hair is at least a little curly...Is anyone actually able to tell what breed it is? It would be nice to say "a red and white {something} with Torticollis" there... Chubbles 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've been volunteering at a local gp shelter recently, and it looks to me just like the slew of long-haried mutts we get in often. But it could be a Texel that has been clipped. Though I know of no pet owners who trim their long hairs that much. Usually people interested in keeping a higher matenience breed keep the hair semi-long. So its really a safe bet to leave it ambiguous. VanTucky 02:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, after looking at the full size pic some more, it hasnt been clipped. Its a mutt. VanTucky 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Texel?

message: I thought I might find or create a picture of a guinea pig that shows how to pick them up properly. I know its sort of edging into "how-to guide" territory, but if we just leave as a caption then I think it should be fine. The fancy mouse rabbit and hamster articles talk about handling, so I think its acceptable we do too. any objection?VanTucky 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that most people think of them as housepets I wouldn't object on principle, but the wording has to be careful. And I assume that'd mean replacing an existing image, given out too-many-photos problem. Chris Cunningham 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I thought it might be either the "agouti eating grass" (which seems pretty inane to me anyway) or the Abyssinisn one. Either one could be moved to Domestic vareties of guineapigs if it's replaced. VanTucky 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: here is the Wikimedia Commons page for Cavia Porcellus. VanTucky 01:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like the Abyssinian picture; I'd be okay with dumping the Agouti one, since it's small, not that great, and not very important in terms of what it illustrates. A good handling picture would be fine to replace it with. Chubbles 01:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sounds like we can replace the "Agouti" one. Let me take a couple pictures and I'll post up the candidates for a vote. VanTucky 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Honestly, I have to admit that I think that section is one of the least important in the article; even as it stands, it sounds like a prescription, and we don't want it to appear prescriptive. It's not Wikipedia's job to give pet owners advice on what they should or should not do (after all, South Americans don't have a problem cohousing gp's with other species. Look at the picture in the Food section; there's a dwarf rabbit in it!) I'd rather keep the grass picture than add the rabbit picture, but if anyone else disagrees, I welcome other opinions. Chubbles 08:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handling pic 

message: I bumped the "Domestic guinea pigs" section up and renamed it "Guinea pigs as pets". I was thinking about trying to fashion a more logical organization of the parts, and this seems to flow better - the traits section has all the information about housing and behavior, and that seems to flow better into the pet section, into the animal fancy discussion, into the breeding section...Any comments on the new ordering? Chubbles 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. But I suggest moving Guinea pigs as pets to just before "...in scientific research". That way, its all three uses in succession. That would make more sense, considering breeding, health, and diet cover pretty broad subjects that go beyond info for pet owners. what do you think? VanTucky 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I restored the original order. Chubbles 02:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reordering

message: I have proposed the creation of Wikiproject Pocket pets, if interested, please visit the proposal page. thanks! VanTucky 05:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject 

message: I was thinking of moving the Wiktionary link from the bottom of the page (with the rest of the Wiki directory links) up to the Name section. Any objections? Chubbles 08:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiktionary link

message: I have reviewed the article according to the GA criteria. Please fix the following suggestions and I'll pass the article.
#The lead of the article should be expanded to better summarize the article due to its length (probably 3-4 paragraphs). See WP:Lead for information.
:Split and expanded into 3 paragraphs. Chubbles 11:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to look into archaeology references; even the Morales is scant about that. Chubbles 11:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the last suggestion (the evolution of the species) is that there are nearly nil published resources that are scientific studies of the animal as a wild creature. This is because it is extinct in the wild and is purely a domestic creature. VanTucky 18:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see - information about evolution...well, there's a lot out there about rodent evolution, but I got the impression from other editors that that's more at home on the rodent, or even cavia pages. Guinea pigs being a domesticated animal, I'd like to have more information about the history of domestication, but again, I'd have to check on archaeological sources, and I don't know how much is out there. Chubbles 19:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: I have passed this article as a GA according to the GA criteria. Considering the last point I raised, again only add the section if you think that you have reliable sources on it and have enough information to properly describe it. I'm not an evolutionist, but I'm sure some readers might be interested to learn about the animal's lineage or where it got its start. This may be important for FA if you decide to take it there, but for GA, an article only needs to be broad, not comprehensive. Continue to improve the article as you see fit, making sure all new information is properly sourced (shouldn't be a problem based on what I've seen here). To anyone that is reading this, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the backlog. We need all of the help we can get at allowing other editors to have a quick review time for their articles. --Nehrams2020 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: It seems like the paragraph about how they resemble pigs comprises wp:original research. Can we cut this back to just a single sentence explanation or cite it? VanTucky 00:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That always sounded to me like simple description of the animal, but I can surely find support for it. Chubbles 01:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: wow, never believed wikipedians could have done such a good job here --Andersmusician 04:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: Many thanks to the editors responsible for getting this article to GA. Remaining things bothering me include:
* We have tons of references to different pages within only a few textbooks, which are listed separately as "General references". These should really just be presented as a single reference, to the whole book, using a named attribute and short refs () for references after the first. This would trim both the article's wikitext and the sheer length of the references section with little loss of precision. The General References section should not be needed on an article which makes comprehensive use of contextual citation.
*: Actually, I had the refs that way and then converted them last week, since that appears to be how most of the GA/FA articles handle sourcing of print texts. Chubbles 18:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few nitpicks 

message: "Sexing of guinea pigs can be difficult, as males and females do not differ in external appearance apart from general size..."
Is this supported by the citation that follows several sentences after, or is is uncited? I ask because if you look here you can see that in adult guinea pigs there is a good deal of external differences that are notable (a naturally extruding penis and testicles). Maybe just a clarification about how it is difficult to tell in young guinea pigs who have just reached breeding age. VanTucky 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like pressure is being applied to allow the penis to stand out in many of those pictures. And anyway, haven't we all heard stories of owners being "surprised" at their pregnant males? =) Chubbles 04:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From personal experience, I can tell you that pressure is not needed for you to see a visible exterior penis (it's only necessary on very young ones). Yes, this true. I'm not advocating we say it is easy to sex guinea pigs without prior experience, this isnt supported by sources. However, the current statement isnt cited and is not technically true. The difficulty in sexing is quite a separate matter from the existence of visible difference. The problem is error in human judgement, not guinea pig anatomy. VanTucky 04:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly reworded; how does that sound? Chubbles 04:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Thanks Chubbles. VanTucky 04:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexing

message: Please see the discussion at Talk:Guinea_pig#Something_Missing, which is only a month old. I actually proposed inclusion of this debate, but another editor noted that the thrust of this debate was really the status of rodent taxonomy rather than guinea pigs specifically and thus more appropriate for inclusion at Cavia or Rodentia. (Note that subsequent articles on this topic center on rat and degu research rather than cavies.) Mind you, I've no POV to push here; I don't give a damn whether they're rodents or not, but recent scientific consensus seems to indicate that they are. 
Theoretically, I have no objection to including this information, if there is a consensus among the WikiProject Mammal person/people that it really belongs here. I think it should be subsumed under Scientific Research, and I would definitely like to cite better sources than that zany Science World article. Chubbles 04:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Aranae and I are working up an explanation of this controversy on the rodent page, which we can link to here once it's properly updated and sourced. Chubbles 07:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: See Rodent#Monophyly or polyphyly?. I added a short summary of this in the Traits and Environment section. Chubbles 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for needlessly sharing credit for your work.  Well done, Chubbles.  --Aranae 18:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy edit

message: Wikipedia's article on Guinea pigs is complete nonsense, and contains no valid information. Most people's idea of a "Guinea pig" is a small domestic mammal which feeds mainly on vegetables. This is the subject of Wikipedia's article. However, the real Guinea pig is totally different. It is a large but secretive marsupial, found living inside the trunks of certain trees in the Amazon rainforest, and living exclusively on purple chocolate (scientists have not yet discovered how it gets hold of this). Unfortunately, these fascinating creatures are now extremely rare, due to deforestation and a shortage of purple chocolate.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.146.251.193 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty then. --Ahc 17:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Patent nonsense, what does that mean? --Andersmusician $ 04:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just someone being silly for no reason, trying to be funny. Chubbles 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guinea pigs 

message: I'm not entirely sure where this would go, but related to guinea pig as food, there's a famous painting in the cathedral in Cuzco, Peru, portraying the Last Supper, in which Jesus and his disciples are eating cuy.  --Jbmurray 14:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, apparently there are at least four of them, painted by the Quito school. I put in a request for an article on that school of painters. Chubbles 15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last supper 

message: I watched the video of the curandero in the external links section. She mentions the guinea pig is used "just like a X-ray". In other words, a diagnostic tool not a treatment. Does Morales specifically mention it as a treatment device? VanTucky 23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's right, it's sort of a folk stethoscope, it doesn't actually do any curing itself. I had to return Morales to the library; I'll see if I can get it out again and clarify footnote 9. Chubbles 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  curanderos