Disputatio:Cavia porcellus

message: What does arites mean? Que significa aristes? Qoud significat aristes? Precious stome? Joya?Gemmane? Acinumne?Jondel 04:52, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly they were going for s? —Muke 13:40, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Head of grain or something like that. nice! How about acutulior?Jondel 13:53, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It just looks like the comparative of .  I'm not sure what they're going for in that sentence, especially with ferrae (I suspect 'ferae' is meant—but 'wild cavies are a little sharper every day'?). —Mucius Tever 19:16, 7 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Comparative, yes. But not standard/recognized latin videtur(it seems).I googled it and found many references as 'sharper/smarter'. I would like to confirm if this is standard/reognized latin.
thread_title: Aristes

message: I didn't conceive this article and am trying to understand a lot of what the author is saying with help from the other language wikis. I hope I will be able to improve this. Your help of course is highly appreciated.Jondel 13:37, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For one, I wonder why it's at 'cobaia' instead of 'cavia' (influence from Iberian languages, I guess?)  —Muke 13:40, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, I added "Fontes desiderati" therefore (sorry, I don't have time to do the checking right now). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:45, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ughh mee toooo. It's late at  night in this side of the hemisphere.--Jondel 13:54, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The taxobox shows it's an animal, and it therefore needs its ordinary Latin name; hence the new lemma. Note that the species epithet, porcellus, is a masculine noun ('little pig'), which stands in apposition to the genus name, a feminine noun. IacobusAmor 14:06, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Good move, Iacobe! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:39, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
The intro sentence seems to suggest a common name or genus is in mind, not the species ("X is a mammal of the caviid family originating from one or many of the species of the genus Cavia").  It looks like it was written when the page was still at a page that could be about cavies in general, but wasn't rewritten when the page was moved to Cavia porcellus in particular. (The history doesn't support this hypothesis, though—I can't tell how this sentence came to be at all.)  —Mucius Tever 19:16, 7 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

text: I created the intro because I believe the original article is about Guinea pigs/Caviis. The long hair type from Peru and 'cobaia' were give-aways. (If erroneous which is unlikely, it should be corrected.)I uhh, am no biologist am quessing there are many species like dogs and cats. I will work on confirming this info.    Jondel 10:12, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :It doesn't look like you wrote this part of the intro.  The first sentence is saying that the one species "Cavia porcellus" has individuals from one or many species in the Cavia genus.  This would be appropriate if the lemma was "Cavia" (=guinea pig/cavy) generally—a cavia could be anything in the genus Cavia—but the lemma is "Cavia porcellus") (=domestic guinea pig) which is only the one species. If the page is going to be about all species of guinea pigs and cavies, it should be moved to cavia and the first sentence updated.  If it's only going to be about the domestic guinea pig, the first sentence needs to be rewritten. (It might need to be rewritten anyway. It's worded awkwardly and looks like it could also mean that the species itself comes from multiple species, but this would be unusual for a mammal, and I don't think en.wiki suggests this is the case.)  —Mucius Tever 17:47, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The original text was probably trying to accommodate the idea that this species descends from another species, in keeping with the English text: "earlier studies based on biochemistry and hybridization suggested they are domesticated descendants of a closely related species of cavy such as Cavia aperea, C. fulgida, or C. tschudii and, therefore, do not exist naturally in the wild." But the result was indeed confusing. Also, the first sentence might better say it's a rodent, rather than a mammal. IacobusAmor 13:46, 9 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::But you removed the rodentia_description?Jondel 12:29, 10 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

text: ::I made this which was what I thought, the intro you were referring to. Iacobus made and immpressive improvement. I used the word cobaia then. I copied the template from the feles article.

text: ::I think the article should be and originally was about guinea pigs/cavy's /cavia porcellus. I guess that means a rewrite is required at the first sentence.'coming from many species' must be deleted.

text: ::In a few days time I would like to write the genus Cavia, unless someone else would like to write it first.

text: ::I feel that the second paragraph needs a lot of rewrite.(The lover cavy's yell at each other.' ?)

text: ::Please go ahead make the changes. They would be highly appreciated. If not, let work on them in a few days time..Jondel 10:17, 9 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Note that the first sentence in most entries for genera follow a standard format: A is a genus of B of family C, where A is the lemma, B is a larger-scale noun (at the ordo level or higher; e.g., butterfly, angiosperm, starfish), and C is a family. Sometimes in Wikipedia you'll find a subfamily indicated: A is a genus of B of subfamily C of family D. Sometimes you'll find a nontaxonomic indication for element B, as in A is a genus of small trees of family C and A is a genus of perennial subshrubs of family C. With a binomen, however, it's questionable whether the idea of species needs to be stated, since the lemma itself—trumpeted in its italicization and capitalization—plainly tells you it's a species. So that would give you A is a B of family C. IacobusAmor 13:46, 9 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Thanks for this advice. Im working on this now. Please review when it comes out.--Jondel 10:51, 10 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

text: ::::Its out :Cavia_(genus)!Jondel 12:29, 10 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Conception and emendation

message: If there's a western world, I would have counted Peru as part of it: you don't get much further west than Peru without getting your feet wet. On the other hand, Japan, where guinea pigs are loved by some and not eaten, is fairly far east. So maybe western world is not the ideal term? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 19 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The presumed source of the phrase (in en) has evolved into this: "In Western societies, the domestic guinea pig has enjoyed widespread popularity as a household pet since its introduction by European traders in the 16th century." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:26, 19 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western World