Jump to content

Talk:Fancy rat/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Harley rats

I have removed the references to "Harley" rats as they are not a recognised variety within any rat society worldwide. I have also removed the link to http://www.skyclyde.com as this is a link to the person who alleges to have "discovered" the Harley. Until such time as this is proven to be a genuine new variety (i.e. other ratteries begin to produce "Harleys" and it is recognised as an unstandardised, new variety by at least one respected rat society such as the RMCA), I don't think it is appropriate to mention it in the article. If we were to list every so-called "new" variety discovered each year, there would be more rat varieties than article! Likewise, we cannot provide a link to each rattery with a web presence - there are simply too many of them. Arkady Rose 23:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Media section

Reorganized the media-section as it looked sloppy. JeebusSez 05:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide

According to WP:WIN "What Wikipedia is Not", Wikipedia does not offer advice, nor is it a how-to guide. One should be on the lookout for the words "you" and "your" as it's an indication that the text is the wrong style for an encyclopedia. --RainR 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's also not a place for advocacy, and this article goes a little bit out of it's way to advocate and defend the idea of rats as pets.

Lines like these are based on opinion, not fact:

Rats make excellent pets for urbanites with small apartments, as they bond with humans and offer much in the way of affection and entertaining activity, but require little space indoors (and don't need to be taken outside at all).

Whereas some of the rarer rat care guides suggest that rats can be kept solitary if given plenty of attention from their human owners, no amount of human attention can replace social interaction with other rats.

And then the worst offender:

Though they do urinate occasionally when allowed to wander outside the cage, especially males who have a tendency to "scent mark" by leaving tiny drops of urine.

Poor grammar aside, this kind of twists one of the more unpleasant aspect of rat ownership to make it seem insignificant (I had several pet rats in my teenagehood - they pee wherever they are whenever they get the urge. Theres no distinction and it's not necessarily occassional, though the bit about male scent marks is science fact.)

This article needs a rewrite. Any brave souls out there? --relaxathon 06:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


well, actually most rats do not just pee wherever and whenever they want. i have owned rats for over ten years and have found the marking may occur, the actually urination outside the cadge is very very rare and usually only occurs when a rat can no longer "hold it"

additionally, rats who are comfortable exploring outside their cages can be easily taught to use a litterbox or return to their own cage to toilet. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 11:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How2

Wikipedia is not a how to look after your pet guide. If no-one can rewrite the article to an acceptable level, I shall consider listing it at Articles for Deletion. -- Chris Lester talk 20:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes the article needs a lot of re-writing, but I don't think it's anywhere near deletion worthy. The "How To" information needs rewording, not removing. Looking around at other pet pages, I don't see much difference with the information, just the language. Inkwell 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that a threat? Go right ahead. You'll be ridiculed for listing this on VfD. If you believe that this article contains too much information, feel free to delete some. In the meantime, I'm removing these boilerplates. 216.39.182.234 10:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from; however, whilst deleting it all together may be a bit harsh, something needs to be done. There are unsourced statements therein. Also refer to WP:NOT, and you'll see that a "How to" guide is not appropriate. All that is neccesary is for the information to be reworked en masse.

For that reason I have restored the boilerplates: other editors seem to agree that there is a need for change. BTW, it wasn't me who put the original boilerplates there in the first place, all I did was select more specific ones. Please contact me if need be. -- Chris Lester talk 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the boilerplate to the generic cleanup notice. I agree that the article needs work, but it is better than many articles I've seen. I advise you to be less heavy-handed in the future. You should also note that VfD has an "inclusionist" bias, and as such any article that has the slightest grounding in reality tends to be retained. Let us fix up this article in good faith, rather than fight over templates.
i have just plain removed the offending text (see below). the info is good and some of it can be worked in with an encyclopeadic one. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 11:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia is not a how to guide, would it be wrong to mention how they are cared for, as opposed to, "How you should care for a rat:"Metaf5 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)"

Yes it would, because it is impossible to say how they are cared for, since everyone cares for them in a different way. It is difficult to imagine any useful generalisations.Mumby 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The removal of all the "how to" language has only damaged the article. It needed to be re-written, not deleted. Every other pet page has information about housing and feeding the animals, so why should rats be different? Inkwell 11:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fancy Black Rats?

What are the difference between brown and black rats for fancy? Out of better availability, is there some reason to favour brown rats? What are strengths and weaknesses of the black rat compared to the brown rat, when considered as a pet? Reply to David Latapie 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, by here are some off-the-cuff thoughts. The thing that makes fancy rats good pets is that they have been bred for many many generations to be pets, with the aggressive, overly skittish, and unmanageable ones being selected out. Presumably the same thing could be done with black rats, but just any old black rat, even if it was born in captivity, would probably not make a good pet. Probably brown rats were the ones bred as pets simply because brown rats are most common in European countries. KarlBunker 21:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There was some fancy black rats (with variants as albino and green(!)), but they disappeared in the early 20th century. Some people do have black rats as pets, but they aren't really domesticated and they are reported to be more nervous than brown rats. // Liftarn

muelies?

I came across the word "muelies" in the Food-and-Drink section. Is this a mispelling of muesli? I hesistate to correct this word myself, since I am not the rat expert.Buck Leupitsthlaw 17:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mielies? As in South African ears of corn.

Other Health Issue's

I'm a rat owner and I've noticed that sometimes my rats eyes turn red and "glassy". Does anyone know what's causing this? Shadow fox7321 19:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't help with your above problem, but I want to point out one more fact re: tetracyclines. Not only are they relatively deactivated by iron, but also by calcium, aluminum, magnesium (and pretty much any other divalent cations). In the section regarding nursing sick rats back to health, it was stated that milk, ice cream, cream cheese, etc... were good foods for doing so. This may be true, but these are all dairy products and thus incompatible with tetracyclines. This is also true for another family of antibiotics, the quinolones; I don't know if they are used in rats (they are effective for various strains of Mycoplasma).

error in homemade food section.

"Another popular homemade diet is made from 50% rabbit food, 10% uncooked pasta, 10% doggy kibble, 40% human breakfast cereals (low sugar) also other items such as low fat crackers, rice-cakes and crumbled dog biscuits can be added."

50%+10%+10%+40%= 110%

I'm not an expert so I don't want to correct it myself, I just noticed it doesnt add up. Tora619 00:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Lab rats as pets

I am not sure this article notes that possibly the best source of rats is a professional breeder of lab animals. Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. sells the Sprague-Dawley rat, which is docile and curious and readily submits to handling. They're friendly toward humans. Believe me when I say that because when I did lab work with rats, they came to the front of their cages and asked to be picked up even after my colleagues and I had given them multiple shots and other such unpleasantness.

That depends. Lab rats are generally not bred for health. They are bred for easy handling and temper (and tend to get a bit fat (but Wisatar is more active than Sprague-Dawley). Also if you wan't something other than the standard pink-eyed white you don't have much choise. // Liftarn (talk)

moving pet care info

above comments are correct, wikipedia is not for telling people how to take care fo pet rats - it's for general encyclopedic information. If you want to say that fancies used in lab experiments were found to be less stressed when they were given 2 sq ft per rat - that's fine as long as you cite the lab experiment. I've move the info to my user page here. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 11:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

House's Rat

Steve didn't have plauge, he had mycoplasmosis (although I can see where the confusion might have stemmed from, as Wilson joked about causing the black death a few lines after House mentioned the diagnosis). I'm changing the article to reflect that. Here is the episode transcript in cause there's any questions: http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/house/season2/house-207.htm BethEnd 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding American English/British English

I reverted the anonymous edit to the article that changed all the colours to colors. Unfortunately the link I supplied in my edit summary was wrong, it should be this one: disputes over style issues. Mumby 08:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Something really needs to be done about the long and ever lengthening list of external links in this article. The Manual of Style says

...it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.

Some of those links breach pretty much all the guidelines found in wikipedia: external links. I plan on removing virtually all of the links, but I will go through them and leave any that warrant keeping.Mumby 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I went a did it, since yet another site was added. Let me quote from the Manual of Style:

it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.

Furthermore:

Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.

Links to be avoided:

Links mainly intended to promote a website.

Many of the links were clearly just advertising for certain breeders:

Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

There are many ratty forums on the net, we do not need to link to all of them. Basically, we do not want a list of peoples favourite websites where they hang out and share pcitures of their rats. Please see Wikipedia:External links for further details on the guidelines.Mumby 12:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but, by 'ratty', what exactly do you mean?

I mean rat related. Please sign your comments with 4 tildas like this ~~~~.Mumby 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

The picture layout in the Colours and markings section now looks really bad. Having pictures on the left and the right makes it look a mess. I think we do need pictures here to illustrate the different markings, surely the gallery format is best? There is no point trying to align the correct image with the relevant part of the text because it is not edit proof, as soon as somebody adds more text you will have to do all your realigning again.Mumby 23:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Error in: Health concerns

Ringtail link leads to the animal, not the condition. I'm not familiar with editing wikipedia pages, so I'm wary to change it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.226.226.146 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikiproject

I have proposed the creation of Wikiproject Pocket pets, if interested, please visit the proposal page. thanks! VanTucky 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Choice of images

The image in the infobox, Fancyrat1.jpg doesn't show the whole body of the animal. Maybe it could go elsewhere on the page, but it doesn't give the essential information you'd expect from an infobox. The other image, Albino_pet_rat.jpg has lost most of its detail through overexposure. There are many other high-quality images that are free to use on Commons. --Rat at WikiFur 23:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

---

You're more than welcome to use any of the following pics:

Russian Blue Rex http://homepage.mac.com/lwernham/.Pictures/Ratties%2020070923/0009.jpg

Russian Blue: http://homepage.mac.com/lwernham/.Pictures/Ratties%2020070923/0011.jpg

Black: http://homepage.mac.com/lwernham/.Pictures/Ratties%2020070924/0003.jpg

Lavender: http://homepage.mac.com/lwernham/.Pictures/Ratties%2020070924/0006.jpg

Agouti: http://homepage.mac.com/lwernham/.Pictures/Ratties%2020070924/0010.jpg

All of these are my own pics and I am happy for them to be used here - Lew (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In order for them to be usable on Wikipedia, they have to be usable not just on Wikipedia, but also allow commercial use as well. If you agree to that, I would suggest uploading them to Wikimedia Commons as that is the repository of images used by Wikipedias. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hairless rats

The section on hairless rats has some inaccuracies. First, the patchwork rat (a term which I invented 17 years ago) is not related to the true hairless rats. Patchwork hairless rats are a type of double rex rats. Rex genes are different than the gene that causes true hairlessness.

Second, the 3 genes named nude, fuzzy, and shorn are found in special strains of lab rats only, not in pet hairless rats. The gene that causes hairlessness in pet rats is referred to as hr, and is a completely different gene from the lab genes. I have had numerous hairless rats in my career as "The Rat Lady" and none of my hairless rats have had any of the health problems associated with the nude, fuzzy, and shorn genes.

Does anyone object if I make these changes to the page? Debbie "The Rat Lady" Ducommun Debbietheratlady (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A rat history should be added! The "article" isn't an article, its a sentence. What should be added: history of wild rats, how they became tamed, and their needs (diet, home). I have a lot of experience with rats, so I could add a lot to this "article". Right now I have two pet rats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irina333 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

no qualms here! please contribute!!! just remember that ur personal experience is not considered a reliable source and any claims should be backed up by a published source. thanks! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
btw, Debbie, if you could find a book (not written by you), or news article that states you coined the phrase, that would be a great thing to add to the article! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Somehow, I cannot see a newspaper or science journal caring enough about pet rats to report on a name a pet owner came up with; those that would report like this are going to be the the self-published club newsletters and professionally-published writers (like Debbie), which isn't "good enough". 75.3.0.134 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rats in movies

Missed out Borris from Home Alone 3, the main charatcer's pet. Borris had a lot of screen time, possibly more than the main characters siblings, but less than the pet parrot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.113 (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah it was Borris? I though it was Doris and wondered why a buck would be named Doris. // Liftarn (talk)

Behavior section

i thought it would be better to move this info to the Brown rat page, as nothing in the section is specific to only lab/pet rats, but the behaviors are attributed to the specis as a whole. any other thoughts? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

apparently not... :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of new sources

I first want to say thank you for all the help with improving the ref tags, and for finding some useful new sources for this article :) I've reviewed the citation tags and will be fixing them in hopefuly only a couple passes. As for the new sources added, while most of them are great, the addition of rodentfancy.com seems a poor choice. This is a self-published site that, while an informative portal to useful articles elsewhere, has no oversight and rarely references where it gets its info. That's actually why I had originally gone with ratbehavior.org - while still self-published, it cites it's sources inline. Because, as it has been brought to my attention, the latter would be a poor candidate as a reliable source, the former can't really be any better.

Because rodentfancy.com is mostly used to cite markings, colours, etc. it might just be better to use the nationally recognized clubs like the AFMRA and NFRS. While books on the subject of rat fancy might seem great candidates for this sort of thing; 1. They are not always up to date. 2. They are using the clubs as their reference anyways, and so have become a tertiary source for that specific information. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good catch regarding rodentfancy.com. To be clear, I am not the one who added it.
You said, "books on the subject of rat fancy might seem great candidates for this sort of thing; 1. They are not always up to date. 2. They are using the clubs as their reference anyways, and so have become a tertiary source for that specific information." I would say we should use them when we can. That way we at least cut down on the number of potentially controversial references. Regarding "tertiary sources", what would then be the primary sources? PSWG1920 (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thinking this over, and rewriting my response a couple times, i don't think i have any argument against rat care books except for accuracy and comprehensiveness issues. It kind of goes back to the whole "don't use a book review as the source for the plot" argument. especially because in certain realms, like fiction and hobbies, secondary descriptions can have factual errors that could confuse readers. When talking in the realm of analysis, interpretation, and evaluation i agree that books would be better (like for the controversy section).
I'm glad you aren't the one who was adding rodentfancy.com, PSWG :) I'm well aware of the site, and enjoy it - but to whoever was citing it, please refer to WP:SPS for an explanation on why this doesn't work so well. If you are closely tied to the site, providing access to the resources used would be most helpful :) (I remember asking Debbie D. to help out, but she never responded) At any rate, i'm using my library to get access to most of the sourced material at ratbehavior.org, so at some level this info can be verified. I've had little to no luck obtaining the sources online. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 02:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the reference to the standards on rodentfancy because those were the RMFE club standards- so it is an extra resource like AFRMA or NFRS standards; if you read the standards booklet, the copyright was removed, so it is in use by other clubs like rodentfest in maryland 75.3.0.134 (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

while i understand where you are coming from, the difference is that the AFRMA and NFRS sites are still maintained by an active club, and still subject to oversight by peers. accountability is one of the neccessities of a reliable source. technically, at this point A. Gangi could say Dumbos should always have furled ears and there would be no way to verify it. This site, as it stands now, is little better than a blog - a very, very good and comprehensive blog - on rat fancy. I tried to access the archived site when it was the official site for the RMFE, but archive.org is blocked by a nobots tag. when we already have a good source that represents US standards, i don't see why we need to supplement it a worse one. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

choosing to use those standards in other clubs instead of being a chapter of an exting one is because people thought they were good. they were originally written by 5 people, all judges in other rat clubs i think so they brought lots of experience to writing them. (i thought it said in that standards packet but i went to look and see i was wrong. if you read the 1st paragraph of this booklet on running a show: http://rodentfancy.com/pets/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/have-a-show.pdf it explains how the standards were come up with which is a lot more work i think then other clubs have done, and it is not just Gangi's opinions) Gangi has said that any clubs using the standards can contribute new standards and research (on message groups and private discussions) for inclusion, and that they will be cross referenced with work in other clubs. Apparently there is serious talk about want to bring back that registry thing to be international so the standards, while not for a club holding shows, still need to be up to date and to need to make sense to fanciers in any country. So, yeah, the club might not officially exist anymore, but the work is still phenomenal, does/will incorporate work by other people (kinda like wikipedia?) and really, it is a lot more up to date than the AFRMA standards which I don't think have changed on the website since the 90's; how that's 'better', i don't see.

You guys mention the Velveteen coat and the Harley coat in the article... and then list NFRS and AFRMA standards as references to those sentences/sections. But neither AFRMA nor NFRS recognize either for those coat textures! Only RMFE had velveteen standardized for show and in the standards. So why not reference a club that actually had the coat type described? Or remove the references to the coats.

How does one verify i furled ears or not anyway- I mean, other than the standard says it. One club could standardize it that way if they wanted to. Another could not. Other than saying here is the list of standards- what can you do to verify the standard is "correct"- especially when different clubs define standards differently? (like, without any scientific papers on the subject how can you verify that roan exists, other than that nfrs says so?

Finally, I don't see why using an out-of-date link to the old RMFE standards via archive.org would be better than the updated, better formatted version on the website (or were you just checking that the standards were basically the same and no weird new unverifiable things added?) But, if you want it, why not ask the site owner if they'll allow access to that original page? 75.3.0.134 (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

answering your questions in reverse order-
yes, using archive.org was an attempt to verify the standards were unchanged from when it was an official club.
we do not need any "scientific papers" on the subject of a hobby - books on the subject, and the hobbyists themselves are sufficient for the purposes of description. continuing the Dumbo example - if i had come across a club site where they said that their standard was for furled ears, the article would have been written to reflect the inconsistency:as it currently stands, i'm not aware of any club with a web presence (even a small one) that standardizes Dumbos this way, and if one were brought to attention, we would review it for activity and try to see if there are any more and this isn't an extremely small minority.
as for coats, i had actually thought that one of those two refs did talk about the harley and velveteen coats... i fixed it with this edit, and removed a defunct link to an outdated australian site (at the time it was added the site was being maintained).
i understand that it's not just Gangi's opinion, and i've already conceded that the info is good. if i owned wikipedia and this article i'd much rather draw research from this site and maybe a couple others. but because of wikipedia's policies on verifiability, and guidelines on reliable sources we just can't. besides, you haven't yet presented a reason why we need to be using a source with these kinds of problems, when enough exist sources without them. you may not like the fact that the afrma hasn't changed much about their standards for 15+ years, but that's not completely a bad thing (how often do dog breed standards change?), and their site shows it is actively updated (i can get this year's standards booklet, and there's a timestamp on the pages). were there any other cases (like the harley example) where the two standards didn't cover something they were referenced to?
i hope i've helped you figure this all out, and i also hope you continue to contribute to the encyclopdia - it's always great to have another set of eyes and another keyboard to work on making the articles better. sincerely, ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


thanks for getting back to me (sorry i was so long in my post). I think that if you thought that it was worth checking archive.org, then there was soemthing about it worth including and someone should ask Gangi if the older club files can be provided. I didn't mean to come off as not liking afrma's standards- i only thought that having more club examples besides AFRMA and NFRS was a good idea; it shows that the UK and USA are not each governed by one single club, and allows people to follow links to investigate how much similarity/differences there are in clubs world wide as well as regionally in a country. (It'd be nice too get more of the Aussie clubs too, but so many seem to have sadly vanished overnight). I mean, if I was writing about the cat fancy, I wouldn't say that cats come in many breeds, such as siamese, russian blue and persian- and then list only CFA as the north american reference. I'd list CFA, TICA, ACFA, IPCBA...
I am confused by the wikipedia standards and your saying that "we do not need any "scientific papers" on the subject of a hobby - books on the subject, and the hobbyists themselves are sufficient"... Because up above, Debbie, who has run the RFC, has been professionally published etc was told that she can't contribute because its self-referencing...? So can I quote debbie and include what she isn't permitted to on her own?
Thanks for finding some other links to support harley and velveteen!
BTW, on the coat topic, (and I am sorry that this is another rodentfancy reference, but this was literally just posted to a message board I am on; did you see it? http://rodentfancy.com/pets/2009/01/13/a-review-of-coat-varieties-genetics-in-the-domestic-rat/ it is a self-published booklet, BUT there's a huge amount of references in it. My question is- because of the level of research that is obvious here (unlike the standards booklet we were discussing earlier, which for all anyone know's is just Gangi's personal opinions) is a booklet like this one something that can be used as an article reference? If not, can the references at the end of the booklet be culled for use here? Several are scientific, and while this is a hobby-based entry, some scientific info to back up some stuff is kinda nice to have IMHO.

75.3.0.134 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm glad you're taking the time to ask questions :) and i tend to get a little verbose myself... hehe. as for multiple links - like i had recently told another editor on an unrelated topic, it's not generally a good idea to create duplicate refs. That is, it's not very helpful to be making a statement like, "The hooded is an unbroken line down the spine" and then provide four/five references that all say essentially the same thing. I do agree it's a good idea to relate that clubs may differ in their standards (and i know you recall the wording in the article that says as much), and i do agree it's helpful to link to sites beyond the AFRMA and NFRS - that's what the Fancy rat#External links section is for. Perhaps the best course of action is to use pet care books as composite kind of source (see the discussions i had above with PSWG).
in regards to Debbie, i think you misunderstood me, or i misspoke... and due to her sudden absense - she may have misunderstood me as well. I meant that she needed to be careful when adding material that she not just write things "because she knows it to be true." i respect her opinion on the subject - very much, but i wanted her to be sure she backed up anything she added with sources per WP:RS.
Coats - i was happy to notice that in refs and further reading, many of the sources i've been utilizing were mentioned :) Unfortunately, we can't use the booklet itself, but we can use most of the sources! (yay) It would have been nice if Gangi had used inline citations to figure out what info was gotten from where (like at ratbehavior.org), but it's fine enough to have a big list of sources to start from. We just need to be careful with some of the sources, and be careful to draw the line between lab rat and fancy rat - nude/fuzzy/shorn rats were moved out of here b/c the info didn't really have anything to do with pets. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 08:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah good, I don't want to be overly annoying as i get the hang of this :-). I didn't see the external links section before when I added the Rodentfancy reference... did I miss it, or did you add it? anyway, i think that was a good idea.
  • no it's always been there :) having an external links section is nice for those really good sources that can't be really used because of some limitation or another.
please forgive me if I'm a bit slow on the references thing.... Can Debbie back up her statements with her own work? Debbie may have misunderstood, but if she did, i doubt she left in a huff- she's pretty busy and probably just didn't have the time (and peopel like Debbie, Gangi, Ann Storey etc- they probably do have lots of references we don't even know about- but being busy people they're probably not poking around places like this. emailing them might be worth it. It would be cool to know where the term Patchwork came from. I do know Debbie uses it in her book (with a photo of a patchwork rat) published by BowTie press which was (c)1998... but that doesn't mean she made the patchwork term up. I don't think we need this level of detail for the article, but for my own understanding, instead of claiming to have invented the name, would it have been acceptable for Debbie to have simply said "the term patchwork has been in use since at least the late 1990's" and use her book as a reference for that?
  • Yes Debbie could use her own (third-party) published work - however she would need to be careful about presenting any personal published views as generally accepted fact (it would be better in those cases to write it explicitly as her own view, or lead editors to the material and let someone else put it in). I agree it's a little unneccessary to delve too much into the entymology of Pathchwork rat, and the info might be better suited in an article devoted to the subject, should more background info be forthcoming in reliable sources (i'll admit i haven't really looked - just working on GA right now, hehe). But for the sake of explanation - yes, that would have completely acceptable, provided it wasn't a self-published book.
Thanks again; this makes much more sense now! --75.3.0.156 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Also I guess I don't understand where the line is drawn exactly with the articles/booklets... why can't we use say, this booklet, but we can use say Mary Ann's article "Breeding: Can YOU Live With It?" Granted her's appeared in the RMCA "magazine", but Mary Ann was author of the article, editor/publisher of the magazine, owner of the club, and thus essentially self-publishing her own opinion/self-research. It seems to be a technicality that one self-published work is acceptable while another one that at least has actual sources cited is not. 75.3.0.134 (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That specific example is a little different. That article was essentially an editorial on the cons of hobby breeding. Like you said, it was written by a prominent person within the fancy, and as such her opinions carry much more weight than say mine when the article makes claims about there being "controversy" in the fancy. And like i said, we can always just use the sources that Gangi has provided, rather than the booklet itself. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
ETA: Having headed over to the hairless section in Lab Rats that you pointed to, I find myself even more confused. Almost all the info in that section is based on an anti-hairless article removed from the RMCA website; as I'm reading over the Gangi's Rat Coats booklet- almost all the information seems to disagree. I have made ONE correction to the lab rat page - where it claimed that there were only 3 hairless mutants, because Gangi provided an inline reference supporting that there are at least 25! While I don't think getting into all the details of each kind is necessary, I thought it'd be good to at least list a few of the other names besides the 3 described. But to do that, must I look up every reference in Gangi's coat booklet and find which ones mention other hairless rats? Also, the Rat Coat's booklet addresses some of the RMCA article claims like that 75% of the hairless rats having malocclusion, etc. There doesn't seem to be any articles to back up the claim... It was easy enough for me to see how to fix the "only 3 mutations" to the "at least 25 mutations", but how does one correct something presented as a fact, that has no support, thus no reference to point to when altering the text? 75.3.0.134 (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • the rmca article still had several references of it's own. i invite you to help me look through them as well. i'm going to read through gangi's booklet again and the article currently being used at lab rat article to see these discrepencies and hopefully answer you more specifically. for the sake of organization and focus, i'm going to ask that you bring up your concerns on Talk:Laboratory rat though, i have many articles that interest me watchlisted so i will see if you comment there :) (another reason you should get a username - i'll just keep pestering you >:) ) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
since this page should be focused on the Fancy rat article, and there's no discussion at Talk:Lab rat, i've left a note on your talk page and we should probably continue any further discussion there. Cheers! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I responded earlier, and realized it was on my user talk page, not the lab rats one- I'll try to start convo there... sorry bout that, im still getting the hang of this set up! (crosses fingers that i do it right this time!)

Hooded image

I've removed the image Image:Twinkle_Brown_Hooded.JPG b/c at the most it's an unhelpful image that poorly showcases the hooded's distinct marking with a bad angle and busy background - at wost it invites people to upload all their cute ratties. I've asked the original uploader at their talk page to upload a better shot if they truly feel a hooded picture is necessary. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ulcerative dermatitis

I noticed the red link in this article and decided to create a Ulcerative dermatitis article (mostly to get rid of the annoying red link). In the brief research I performed to create the stub article, I noticed that this disorder is prevalent amongst rats. As such, if some rat fancier over here is well versed in Ulcerative dermatitis, then I'd appreciate any help in expanding that stub. In any case, one more red link down, several thousands to go! :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 07:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

actually the condition is found among a wide variety of animals. it's a common infection from scratches. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove - Time to remove?

I've gone through this article several times now and it seems very well referenced indeed. Are there any particular passages without verification which needs to be cited by a reliable source? If so, please tag these passages and we will get on with finding appropriately reliable sources. If not, then perhaps it is time we removed the "Refimprove" tag from the top of the article. Thought? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I do note a few section-opening paragraphs which still lack citations. Most likely the sources are later in the respective sections, but it wouldn't hurt to make the sourcing clear everywhere. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks, PSWG1920. Now we have some specific targets where sourcing is needed or needs to be made clear. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "This allows for very specific classifications such as a ruby-eyed cinnamon rex berkshire dumbo."
    • ummm... so do you want a reference that points to a rat being described as such?
  • "The two extremes would be a self (completely solid, non-white colour) and a Himalayan (completely white with a gradual blend of sepia colouring toward its nose and feet)."
    • you want refs to these being the definitions of self and Himalayan?

-ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to make sure that these are not original ideas. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

i understand, i just want to know exactly what kind of reference you want.
on a note of personal preference, i disagree and do think it hurts the article to excessively cite.
  • (WP:CITE) - "When to use. Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, when checking content added by others, and when uploading an image"
lots of articles need to be cited heavily to maintain neutrality and to make extraonrdinary claims. But it's some kind WP:CREEP when it means that an article needs to cite every assertion that it makes - take a look at this section of a featured article. I'm not disagreeing to add these citations b/c i'd really like to see the article reach GA, but it seems discordant with how non-controversial articles tend to be written in order to reach FA. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I was being too nitpicky. I'm used to citing everything I can, but I edit mostly controversial or potentially controversial articles. Still, I worry that if I pass this as GA, someone will request a reassessment, and I want to be prepared for that (and minimize the chances of it happening to begin with.) I'd like to hear Levine2112 or others' opinions on whether the statements in question need sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
you mostly work on controversial articles?!?! really?!?!? :P -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
at any rate, fair enough... let's see what levine thinks. in the meantime, could clarify a bit on the two bits of prose above? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess I was just looking for some kind of reference within the respective paragraphs. Unreferenced paragraphs can create a bad impression (though as you pointed out, they exist even in Featured Articles, which surprises me a bit.) PSWG1920 (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that we try our best to find references for the three places where PSWG1920 has requested. Let's see what we can find to support these statements. I don't think we can be penalized for providing too many references. :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 21:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Okay, I added in the rest of the requested citations. I think now is a good time to submit this article to peer review and get some more outside feedback. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here ar ethe results of the automated peer review: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/February_2009#Fancy_rat. We may want to address these issues straight away. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
For ease, I will list the suggestions here. Feel free to cross them out once you've made the appropriate remedy.
-- Levine2112 discuss 20:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the article too, and try to look at these concerns. Thanks for getting this started! hmwithτ 22:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fancy_rat/Archive_1&oldid=1136719834"