Talk:Guinea pig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guinea pig article.
Peer review Guinea pig has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


  1. /Archive 1: Mar 2003 - Jul 2006
  2. /Archive 2: Jul 2006 - Nov 2006

Contents

[edit] Pictures

There are too many pictures in this article. It appears to be more of a childish "Aww, my guinea pig is so cute. See? See?" rather than something informative. --72.57.2.7 23:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which ones bother you. The "Diet" section might be a little cutsie, but the rest of the pictures all have a pretty solid reason for being there, in my opinion. Haber 00:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The following picture: Image:Cavia porcellus-Licorice.jpg , has the caption: "Black guinea pigs are considered especially holy." I'm not certain what this is supposed to mean or whether it is encyclopedia appropriate. I suggest a rephrasing is in order to clarify the author's intent. LitCigar 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. KarlBunker 17:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll provide the bibliographic reference later, but I read an anthropological study of cavies and their role in indigenous religous ceremony in the andes. It basically said that black cavies, and only black ones, are used by traditional healers to assume the spirit or sickness of the person being treated. like a scapegoat, without the killing. So that's what they meant. VanTucky 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the book is already cited. Though from my reading it didnt say that they are used to determine illness at all. VanTucky 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the cite. I don't have the book, and I was going by the synopsis here. If you have access to the book, then your take on what it says is obviously more reliable than mine, so by all means edit that caption. KarlBunker 20:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pargs?

I've never heard guinea pigs/cavies called pargs, not in English anyway. If its a foreign language name its proper place is the Czech article or whatever it is. There doesnt seem to be a discussion (archived or otherwise) about this odd addition. I Googled it, even "keeping pet pargs", and there were no results relating to cavies within the first ten pages (not that Google is the most reliable bibliogrpahic resource, but it shows the relative obscurity of the term anyway). If its a regional name or something please fill me in. Thanks VanTucky 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The word as an alternate name appears to be nonsense. Google shows "poly(adp-ribose) glycohydrolase (AKA parg)" in connection with biological research with Guinea pigs, but that's about it. This was added by an annon editor back in September[1], and apparently no one caught it as suspicious. KarlBunker 22:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dishover JPG

please refrain from changing the picture to the Dishover jpg from the original Joepcavia. However cute your pet may be, it is not a clearer picture of a cavy speciamen. VanTucky 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to request semi-protection again if this keeps up. It boggles the mind how much stupidity this article attracts. Chris Cunningham 12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this user has been asked repeatedly to stop and is completely unresponsive. I suggest we either place the article under semi-protection or better yet, block his IP address (if possible). VanTucky 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The IP isn't constant. Semi-protection sounds good. Fancy doing the honours? Chris Cunningham 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont know how. VanTucky 23:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection (via Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). The admins may decline the request though, as they often do if they deem "not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time." KarlBunker 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
From my experience of requesting semi-protection, I would be suprised if it were granted. I have requested semi-protection on articles with 5 times as much vandalism and been declined in the past, but then again it seems to be pot luck sometimes.-Localzuk(talk) 00:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm three for three success-wise recently, so I suppose I must just be picking better fights :) Chris Cunningham 00:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This conversation makes me laugh. -- Steel 01:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is quite funny, but it does highlight a problem with semi-protection though. There is a large amount of inconsistency within the process that needs addressing.-Localzuk(talk) 01:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Although there's never going to be 100% consistency when we've got 1000+ admins, I do accept that there is much more inconsistency in page protection than there is in say CAT:CSD, where things are much more mechanical (CSD R1 for example - either the redirect is broken or it isn't). It is pot luck, really. Some people semi-protect anything and everything while others (like me) are much more stingy. -- Steel 01:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is to create a specific (and alterable of course) set of criteria for semi and full protection. Both to give guidelines for and differentiate the two options. I'm not an admin myself, but maybe someone (hint hint Steel) would like to get started on it. VanTucky 03:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Easier said than done. Bring it up on the WP:RFPP talk page or WP:AN. -- Steel 11:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


I think it might be time to try unprotecting this article. --Aranae 05:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guinea Pigs as food citation

The statement "It is high in protein (21%) and low in fat (8%)" appears to be backed up by http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-61200-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Perhaps other material from this piece or the articles it itself cites could be used in this article.

Is protection really needed here.. looks like a problem with one guy and a picture.. would not a simple block work? Balaam42 02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

People switch IP addresses all the time. If I'm not mistaken about how a block works, it wont work for this anon user. VanTucky 03:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that the page is semi-protected. Also, the user who was causing troubles was changing IP regularly (probably on an ISP such as AOL) so blocking would be ineffective.-Localzuk(talk) 11:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added the reference requested. --Ahc 15:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size - inaccurate?

The article states that guinea pigs are 25-40 cm long. This is huge. My family and I have had dozens of guinea pigs, and I don't think I've ever seen one longer than 30 cm in its normal posture. Most were about 20 cm when full-grown.

But of course, GPs are very flexible animals and can stretch out to become significantly longer than they are in their normal posture. Are these figures of 25-40 cm meant to apply to a GP fully stretched out? SpectrumDT 23:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. It refers to the possible length of a extended show/pet cavy, but also to the larger varieties bred as livestock. Just like other animals, farmers breed them for mass to increase the market weight of cavies for consumption. Hence producing cavies of much larger size than typically seen in The States or Europe. VanTucky 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have a problem

Okay, so I've adopted a cavy from the local humane society, and they told me it was male. But after trimming its nails, I noticed it has nipples. Does this mean that its a female? I need to know asap b/c I'm a foster volunteer and I'm not looking for any baby cavies. VanTucky 20:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, all mammals have nipples, even males. That seems pretty obvious as it is true in humans. Check the lower underside, My male cavy has an easily noticable penis. Also, talk pages usually are more for the article itself, not so much the topic. For better and more responses, I'd suggest the reference desk. WP:RD. Reywas92Talk 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

no, its not obvious. I knew that at least females had to have them, but just because other male mammals (such as humans) do doesnt necessarily mean cavies do. and I thought it was a male when I checked too, but thats not obvious to someone who hasnt had them before. it may surprise you to learn that most people cant differnetiate rodent genetalia without experience. VanTucky 22:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It might make this encyclopedia more useful to have a quick description or a link to a site on how to sex a GP. Cavyspirit.com has excellent photographs to help you. Thanks for the heads up. Haber 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures, again

There really are far too many. I can't think of another article so loaded with photos of wiccle animals. I'm going to start removing these as I edit. Chris Cunningham 11:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to reduce the number of images. Just please make sure the ones that actually support the text survive. --Ahc 14:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
See, I don't think any of them "support the text". Does a guinea pig sitting on a lawn truly help one to understand that they eat grass? Chris Cunningham 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the following "support the text":
  1. one that shows what a guinea pig looks like generically (I'm not a big fan of the current, but I'm not sure which I'd swap in).
  2. the one of wry neck illistrates the condition well
  3. the one of the new born shows that they are born with hair (which is an oddity among the small rodents)
  4. the long haired illistrates the varity of breds well, I would keep the one labeled: Two abyssinian guinea pigs for the same reason.
  5. I like having one of the pregnent sow, but I don't think it's as important
The others I think are just cute pictures that aren't really supporting the article well. --Ahc 16:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ahc, all those without a doubt support the text. every few weeks we get some random yokel (no offense chris) coming in and for some reason objecting to the number of pictures. It only has alot of pics in contrast to other small mammal articles, which personally I think could use more. Rodents are all very similar animals, and the best way for laymen to differentiate them is the vast visual difference between say, a cavy and a capybara. Besides the huge difference between a Peruvian and a Abyssinian or American variety of cavy is best shown through pics. As far as the pregnant pic goes, its EXTEMEMLY important for someone adopting or buying a cavy to know what a pregnant female looks like, for obvious reasons. VanTucky 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with Ahc's five. And no, it doesn't just have a lot of pictures next to other small mammal articles, it has more than practically every other article on any subject. I don't have a problem with the non-supportive images being moved into a gallery, but they shouldn't be intermingled with the article in a way that suggests they're actually necessary. The pregnancy argument holds no water by the way, people shouldn't be using wikipedia as a buying guide at all. Chris Cunningham 23:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia is an open source ENCYLCOPEDIA which, as you well know, is intended to be informatory. anyone should (and can) be able to get information about what constitutes an acceptable level of health in a guinea pig up for purchase or adoption. Whether or not youre going to get more cavies than you bargained for is rather important I would think. But youre right about some of the random pics of cavies eating and such that are just repetitous. they dont even need a gallery really. VanTucky 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to find a comprise statement here. From my reading it looks like we're all agreed that there are currently too many pictures in the article. We are also all agreed on following the 5 suggestions I made above (please note that includes 6 pictures total, point 4 included 2). We are not totally agreed on the value of the pregnant sow, but we don't have a strong call to remove it either. So let's say for now we pull all but the 6 I listed above. When others are added we can debate the value of the new image when they arrive. We can also leave the debate about what is and is not encyclopedic to another thread. --Ahc 05:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

sounds good. VanTucky 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many pictures and that some aren't very useful, but I consider pictures to be a very inportant part of an article. Some can be deleted, but more than just the 5 above should stay. Reywas92Talk 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest which others should stay and why? --Ahc 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

well, on a purely sociological perspective, the one of the black cavy should stay. The use of cavies by folk healers is the second big reason for their rearing in the Andean region of SA. and its an interesting tidbit VanTucky 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. There are currently 10 pictures in the article, we agree that's too many, we're now talking about keep 7. I'd like to try again at a solution that at least cuts us back to 6:
  • I'd like to replace the image in the info box with the one of "Two abyssinian guinea pigs" since I think it's a better picture, and just as informative.
  • Keep, wry neck, new born, long haired, pregnent sow, and the black one.
  • Remove all other images.
How does that sound? --Ahc 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

agree, but dont replace the headliner with the abysinnian, just delete them. the front view is in no way clearer than the present side view pic. VanTucky 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to have objected to the recent deletions, or commented about replacing the prime photo. So I'll go ahead and delete the Absyinnians too. VanTucky 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since KarlBunker did object to that edit, and still no one has objected to replacing the prime image. I'm going to do so now. We'll see what comes from that. --Ahc 14:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
By "prime image" you mean the info box picture? Replace it with what, and why? The current pic seems a very clear illustration of a classic guinea pig. KarlBunker 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You're quite right, I missed the objection. My appologies all around. I would still like to find a higher quaity image for the info box. --Ahc 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. Actually VanTucky objected to that change, and so do I. Abyssinians aren't the "classic" GP breed, so they're not ideal for the infobox pic. KarlBunker 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the number of pictures as we have it now is good. They show a range of different things, ie. Different types, illness and pregancy. Why do we still want to get rid of another one?-Localzuk(talk) 15:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC

I propose we close the dsicussion of any further picture deletion and consider replacing the primary picture upon finding a higher quality picture of an American(breed) cavy. (bangs gavel) VanTucky 20:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Savage Cavy"

Okay, whatever user insists on reverting to the costumed cavy, please desist. Not one regular editor of this article is going to let someone post a racist picture like that. Besides, its just silly. This may the internet, but there are plenty of forums to post your cutesy pet pics other than Wikipedia. VanTucky 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling native Americans savages? That would make you a racist. Besides, guniea pigs are natives of the Americas.
It's a joke at the expense of your bad taste, and it was in quotes designating the sarcasm of the moniker. The fact that cavies are native to South America has nothing to do with the ethics of dressing one up to look like a stereotype of First Nations people. And even the pic of your cavy without the costume is not as quality as the current photo. First off, in the discussion page it has been agreed that the primary pic should be of an American breed cavy for reasons of recognisability. Second, try some proper lighting and composition (i.e. not a muddled frontal shot that doesnt clearly show a cavy specimen to those ignorant of what one looks like) and it may be considered. Dont just replace things in the article because you want your pet to be seen without asking on the discussion page first. And if multiple people revert your edits, you can be sure that whatever you want changed isnt going to happen without some serious discussion. That's Wikipedia.
p.s. sign your posts VanTucky 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
My "bad taste"? "The ethics of dressing one up to look like a stereotype of First Nations people"?? Wow, I'm sorry, I had better hand myself over to the political correctness police. I was just having some fun with my pet, but now that I have realized - with your help - that I am actually aggravating the plight of an already oppressed people, I will cease my racist ways. I will be the first to admit that my posting of my pet guinea pig (oops, sorry, my "cavy"; I wouldn't want to offend Italian Americans, now would I?) was completely ridiculous. But to call the picture or the costume offensive and racist is completely asinine. Politically correct extremism is ruining freedom of expression in this country. I have a cat I've named Senor Mustachio. Should I rename him because his name is a mockery of Latin Americans? Spare me, please.
P.S. If this dictatorial regime where a few people, taking their job way too seriously, wield an iron fist over unchangable content is Wikipedia, count me out. Jvaszari 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

haha! just to set the record straight, no one is perfect when it comes to wiki rules. We both have made personal attacks, which are expressly forbidden. so here's my apology for that. I can definitely appreciate your well developed sense of sarcasm. as far as cavy/guinea pig goes...who cares. I call them cavies, you call them guinea pigs, I have a friend who just calls them piggies (or even little fuckers when they bite). Its not that anyone thinks that your costume fun actually harms native americans (I called them first nations people because I have personally been asked by indians to call them that), its that a combination of little things add up to a larger cultural stereotype of the tomahawk bearing redskin. so we try not post examples for thousands of people to see. and to ask whether its offensive isnt asinine. it offends me. so its offensive. maybe not for everyone, but for me. To sum it up, you can name/dress up your pets and yourself as whatever the hell you please. You can think native americans should be sent to the gas chambers in the privacy of your home. this is america. but when you impose it on a public forum like Wikipedia, you are doing something wrong. But besides the larger "ethical" arguements, the pictures just arent quality examples of composition to represent a "typical guinea pig". Thats mostly why they have been denied. VanTucky 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/i/Talk%7EGuinea_pig_888d.html"