Talk:Capybara/Archive 1

message: Someone has added the Polish name to the head section.  Not to be negative, but obviously we cannot include the translations of the name into all the thousand languages of the planet. (The interwiki links will do that job, and better, by the way.) The Spanish, Portuguese and Guaraní names were listed only because those are the languages spoken in the capybara's natural range; so they are likely to be used even in English documents, and thus are useful even to English readers.On the other hand, the names in other major local languages (say, Quechua, French, Saramaccan, etc.) would be fitting.All the best, Jorge Stolfi 13:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign names  

message: The article mentions they are raised for meat, and they are sometimes used as a substitute in pabellón criollo.  Can anyone comment on their taste/texture/nutritional qualities?
:Tastes like chicken. ;-) --Carnildo 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taste 

message: This subspecies is often given full species status by scientists. More phylogenetic testing needs to take place, so I will refrain from altering the species' taxonomy box but I included this notation at the end of the introductory paragraph. Based on morphological evidence alone it seems rather clear the Panama race is a distinct species, and new studies will hopefully conclude this in order to give the species more protection for its restricted range. --EllisD 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't Woods and Kilpatrick (2006) treat it as a new sp.?  I can't remember offhand.  If they do and you are so inclined, please make the change.  --Aranae 07:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do treat it as a separate sp.  I agree with splitting this page into Hydrochoerus, Capybara (H. hydrocchaeris), and Lesser Capybara (H. isthmius) along with a separate Hydrochoerinae.  --Aranae 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Hydrochoerus isthmius''

message: : On a wholly separate note, I'd like some feedback on the four primary photos on the page (the non-gallery ones). What's good, what's not, if we like them, what else we'd like to see (or instead). VigilancePrime 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, all of those photos are excellent.--Mr Fink 05:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I'm "retired" from photography, but I can't resist a camera sometimes... I thought they came out pretty well. They're formatted as widescreen desktop backgrounds if anyone's really a Capybara fan! Anyway, I appreciate feedback. Good, Bad, or Otherwise. Thanks. VigilancePrime 05:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: This is a great section. I know to a certain extent it could be Original Research, but I think it's important. When we can reference these, we need to, even if the reference gives only a list of animals and the number comes from visiting... As best we can, let's reference and expand this list! On a side note, I modified this line - "* Two capybara live at Hovatter's Zoo in Kingwood, West Virginia (as of 09/2007).
" - to make Hovatter's posessive (add apostrophe); it seemed logical. If this is an error and it really is Havatters singular or plural, please change it back AND COMMENT IT. I tried a Wiki search and a Google search but could not find this zoo. VigilancePrime 05:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to find 

message: : Is there a WikiPolicy on TOC's? I ask because I'm not sure and I'm certainly not any sort of expert on all the various Wiki-isms. I don't see that this should be any sort of a big deal. Quite simply, without the TOCleft there is this big dead space on the top and the page simply looks far better without the dead space. Considering all the WikiPolitics, I imagine there's long dissertations on TOC's! :-) Hoping to find official guidance. VigilancePrime 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOCleft 

message: :some comments from, I think, before the overhaul even
Per your message on User_talk:Videmus_Omnia, I'd like to make some suggestions.  It's mostly technical and copy-editing stuff, and the overall impression of the article is that it's quite good.  Anyway: (adding notes as I address or look at each of these)
* There are 4-5 unclosed wikilinks.
** I corrected 4 of these... I may have missed one, but if so, I couldn't find it as I looked a couple times over.
* The taxobox is of a non-standard color.  Just remove the color setting and it should select the appropriate color for the animal kingdom (pink).
** Argh, I know you're right. Red looked so much better! Anyway, changed in prep for the upload.
* The conservation status bit in the taxobox should probably be copied from the currently active page.
** The main page had a broken image so I took that part out. Templates are not my strong suit.
* Per WP:UNITS, all units should primarily be SI (it's a scientific article with no language-preference), and have the imperial units in parentheses.
** In this case, then, metric all around? I used the units in the sourcees, and almost all of them used imperial units. I'd convert them if I could...
* Per WP:OVERLINK, I feel that the number of internal links is excessive and it could distract from the ones that are really interesting and/or important.  I'd be happy to help trim those down.
** Yes, they are. I tend to like to link everything. I almost gave myself a headache linking! Any help here would be appreciated so as to have, exactly as you said, the interesting (or important) ones remain and remove the others.
* The inline citations look fine, but I haven't had time to go through them all yet.
** 'k. That's something I'm pretty good at (having once been terrible at referencing at all!).
* The gallery is a bit large, but it's no big deal (they're free images after all).
** Yeah, another bit of my own partiality... I like galleries.
* The part about leather is mentioned twice.  I suggest using only the mention in human interactions, but moving the cite down with it.
** corrected. Thanks for that catch!
* I'm not sure the part about catholic tradition can grow much larger, so perhaps just incorporate it in the human interactions, where the fact that we eat them is already mentioned.
** Agreed.
As I said, it's mostly copyediting.  Hope you find the suggestions useful. --Pekaje 16:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the two ancesteral species that I incorporated (with the intent of changing those pages into redirects), does that look okay? VigilancePrime 17:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts 

message: Biggest HELP! need is in putting references into the right format. I think this may have Featured Article potential and would like the thoughts (and assistance) of the "larger Wikipedia community." With the exception of citation formatting, this article, I believe, meets the criteria for a GA- or even A- status currently; if someone can confirm/"promote", please do! Many thanks! VigilancePrime 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really into that scene, but AFAIK galleries are frowned upon, especially when they're as big as the one included here, and which seems to be there simply to hold every capybara picture anyone has ever uploaded. See also my point below. --jjron (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: : Wow! A huge, old, fossilized CAPYBARA! Cool!
: Now, though, we have a bunch of links and need to get those incorporated into the article so we don't end up with a LinkFarm.
: Please help! VigilancePrime (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a stub article Neochoerus pinckneyi.  Unfortunately, there are not many useful refences on that page.  If it gets incorporated into this article, a link should be made.  Dspark76 (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Discovery! 

message: : I see that there is a reference to it tasting like pork. That's true, but if you have ever eaten it the more distinguishing factor is it's strong smell that I'm told also exists in beaver meat.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.245.230 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The taste

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging