Talk:Guinea pig/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Staple Food

Kingduct, you recently removed a few sentences regarding the guinea pig's role as a staple food. I had provided a source for this statement; if you believe it is incorrect, could you please provide a reputable source documenting a decline in guinea pig consumption, or something to that effect? Chubbles 03:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chubbles...I am aware that there is a source, but there are many sources for many things, and they are often contradictory. My source is years of living in Ecuador and marriage to an indigenous family that has been eating the guinea pig for generations. The only people who truly eat the guinea pig as a common staple are the rural indigenous people. One only has to do a demographic study to see that they as a percent of the Ecuadorian population have fallen from being a clear majority to a small minority (below 25%). Most urban Ecuadorians do not eat guinea pig...and many find the idea repulsive.

It seems to me that it can be difficult in a situation like this to simply say "where is your reference?" I personally like guinea pig meat and think it would probably be good for the health of most ecuadorians if they ate more of it, but that is not the case. I could write an article about it and cite it...or look for another article. I am interested in seeing the article you cited, but frankly, it's just wrong. My reference is my own knowledge and experience and while that may be obnoxious, that is just like any other author, including the guy cited. I will not edit the main page, because it sounds like my reasoning is not in line with wikipedia policy, but I hope that the paragraphs I have put here remain, so at least curious people can see that just because someone read it in an article (that consumption as a staple is up), doesn't mean it's true.Kingduct 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that the only threshold of inclusion of material in Wikipedia is verifiability in reliable published sources, not truth. Not meaning to be rude, but your personal experience is not considered a reliable published source. The book by Morales that Chubbles has cited is the most comprehensive and respected cultural study of the guinea pig in South America to date. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was my understanding of things - that its use as a staple food had increased specifically among Andean Indians, rather than among the general population (especially in cities, though it appears that Peruvians generally eat a lot more of it than Ecuadorians do). I went ahead and added small clarifications about that. Thanks for keeping us on our toes. Chubbles 04:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick calculation using the 65 million number for number of guinea pigs consumed and divided by the population of Peru (28 million according to the Wikipedia) shows an average consumption of two per year. Hardly a staple. I will continue looking into the issue though...Kingduct 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's if you spread it out over the entire population, which is mostly concentrated in urban areas. If are talking about only the rural, Andean part of the population in defining it as a staple, it's a much higher rate of consumption. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Peruvian official sources, rural population was estimated at 7.6 million in 2005. Stable guinea pig population was estimated at 23.2 million of which 21.4 were in the Andes as of 2003. Anual consumption is quoted as being 65 million a year (no breakdown for regions, though) and per capita consumption as 0,35kg per habitant; the lowest for any meat in Peru except for goat meat. You can check the info at http://www.portalagrario.gob.pe/pecuaria/pec_real_cuyes.shtml. In Spanish only. --Victor12 23:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I checked out the Morales book from the library. The first thing I did was go to page 47! I will quote the following from pages 47 and 48 (the quote is not for the main guinea pig page, but is being reasonably used for discussion of it:

"People's attitude toward food has changed tremendously during the last three decades. Before the seventies some people who, subjectively or objectively claimed middle-class membership refused to eat sweet potatoes (camotes), beans, and roes. Having fried camotes for breakfast was an indication of poverty. Cuy meat was not common in metropolitan areas, except among immigrant people. Today, in Peru for example, the same social class that looked down on or ignored these foods would prefer having fried roes with rice or, in the best of cases, a cuy stew for lunch... In the Inca Empire Andeans probably slaughtered cuys for the same reasons they do today, during religious ceremonies and special occasions (Reader 1988:169). However, even if this meant that the cuy was not a food exclusive to the elite, dominant groups may have had their own recipes and served the cuy in elaborate banquets... Research presented in this book suggests that consumption of cuy meat is gaining acceptance among people who are not directly connected to the Andean culture and, eventually, it may regain its status as fine cuisine, such as it may have enjoyed during the Incas...However, although it is served daily at specialized restaurants, cuy meat is still a delicacy and is also susceptible to the subleties of social differentiation."

From my reading, the original interpretation (on the wikipedia) of Morales's text to mean that consumption as a staple food has gone up since the 1960s has gone up is incorrect. He says that the perception of the guinea pig in the middle and upper classes in cities (10% or less of the population) has changed from seeing it as a disgusting thing to seeing it as a type of luxury food. My personal experience and observations in Ecuador are similar. That analysis is actually contrary to the current statement, as a staple food (by wikipedia's own definition) is practically the opposite of a luxury food at specialized restaurants.

I am going to read the rest of the book. I am interested to see whether Morales's research reflects my own experience that the guinea pig as a staple food has declined, despite the perception of it improving (in large part as a result of the nationalistic and indigenist politics of the 60s that claimed to care about the indigenous but did nothing to show it).Kingduct 23:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite what I get from it. While it doesn't mention it as a staple, he blankly says that consumption has gone up (among upper class urban consumers as a luxury). It's about real consumption increase, not just acceptability. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

He says that consumption has increased among a very small part of the population. He at no point says that overall consumption has increased. And in fact, the book is largely dedicated to examining the social uses and acceptability of the guinea pig, it is not a study of how much is consumed. The whole point of the book is to talk about the traditional ways of consuming guinea pig, and the new ways (which he projects may some day be more common than the old fashioned ways). That said, on page nine he cites Moncayo 1992 and says that "About 90 percent of the total population of cuys in the Andes is produced within the traditional household." In other words, the urban luxury consumer eating a guinea pig or two a year is a very insignificant part of the total consumption (the traditional household cuy is for personal consumption and religious/special occasions, not for sale). Furthermore, most of the total is composed of a population that is shrinking: the rural indigenous population, which during the last century has gone from being a clear majority in the Bolivia/Peru/Ecuador (the main guinea pig consuming countries) to being a fairly small minority. Despite a far reduced population (relatively speaking), indigenous people continue to eat most guinea pigs. What we can deduce from this, is that the increased consumption by a very small percentage of the population in no way offsets the reduced consumption of a large part of the population (people who are no longer rural indigenous). Kingduct 01:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Checking out the talk page, it sure looks like the food angle has got everyone going. But really, now, is there a source for

Since the 1960s, efforts have been made to increase consumption of the animal outside South America.

Guinea pig isn't making any inroads at my local Wal-mart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C G Strauss (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There are links to a couple of articles from newspapers about this, in the "as food" section. There have been attempts to breed bigger, fatter pigs and market them outside the Andes. Chubbles 02:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

new image

File:Pig Picture.JPG.jpg

This is image is fuzzy, dark, and inappropriate for a featured article. It's poor composition, and you can even see a finger in the upper left corner. We already have more than sufficient images of domestic guinea pigs in this the mainspace. I suggest you add your image to Wikimedia Commons, where free image are always welcome. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the fellow who uploaded that picture is very young; I don't think he has the swing of things here, judging from the messages on his talk page. Chubbles 18:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 69.143.236.33 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

NY Post

I removed the mention of the single incident of "cultural persecution" that I so ardently advocated for previously. After doing more research, I now realize that the Post is patently a tabloid publication (see cited statements in its article) given to sensationalist coverage of minor topics. This was the only instance of published controversy over the serving of cuy I could find. VanTucky ^(talk) 07:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

recent sweeping changes/RFC

I strongly object to the chopping of the intro. Before, the intro read as a neutral, informative summarization of the rest of the article. Now, it has awful word and idea flow and even leaves out important information. For example, if the intro is going to summarize their use in science, it needs to begin with the fact of when use of them as such started (the 17th century) and briefly mention their current history (mostly supplanted by mice/rats, but still used for such and such experiments). Also, the mention of their South American use first was because this was the origin of the animal. We are not here to be a resource for pet owners solely, or even just Westerners. It is Anglocentric to put the informative needs and knowledge of Westerners first in the intro. And if we're going by the majority usage of the animal, I'd be willing to bet that far more numbers of cavies are bred for consumption in the Andes than as pets in the first world. So we begin by logically, neutrally stating information about where the animal comes from and what its use was first. Then we go on chronologically to the spread of the animal to the West as a pet. Just like how the history section comes first. lastly, though I like Thumperward's boldness, it seems reckless to me to make such sweeping changes to a Featured Article with narry a word of explanation beforehand. This isn't some stub needing massive improvement. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I do have to agree that I didn't see anything particularly wrong with the intro as it was previously. Chubbles 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I played no small part in getting the article to FA through sweeping changes. I didn't think there was anything particularly wrong with the intro except that it overreached in its scope. The intro does not need to provide conclusive coverage of animal research; the intro is there to provide enough basic coverage of the article to draw the reader in, not to present conclusions. I'm more than happy to discuss changes individually. For a start, if you can provide evidence that more animals are reared for food than for ownership I'm cool with making this more prominent. Chris Cunningham 00:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the science coverage needs to be conclusive either, but it does need to be a summary of the most basic conclusive facts of the science section. Those facts are: 1. Research with guinea pigs began in the 17th century, and peaked in the 18th and 19th 2. It has currently been largely replaced with other animals, but certain types of studies still show prominent use. That's not too much informtion, it's just a quick summary of the animals tertiary use. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a considerably more succinct version of what was removed. I'd be happy for basically what you just wrote there to go back in. Chris Cunningham 08:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't need numbers on how many more guinea pigs are kept for one purpose or another, but the fact that livestock are bred more prolifically than pets should be fairly obvious. Livestock is culled and consumed at a much faster rate than pets die and are replaced, especially considering the universal efforts to prolong an individual pet's life and halt breeding through neutering/spaying. But that's secondary to why the indigenous usage should be first. It's an issue of keeping correct order both in real-world chronology and in the article. You seem to agree that the order of the intro and article should reflect one another (that fact that you reordered the article to fit the intro seems preposterous to me, as the intro is a summary of the article; the article is not an expansion of the intro). The animal's original usage, the purpose for which it was domesticated which continues today, is as a food source. This is also mentioned first in the History section, for the same good reason. It just makes empirical sense to begin at the beginning of the animal's historical chronology. To say that the particular usage of the animal by our culture supersedes neutral, logical encyclopedic format is simply folly. The approach of this article (before your alterations) was one that favored neither an Anglocentric nor pet owner's/breeder's point of view; it was this sterling example of a Netral Point of View that got this to featured article status. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, the article presented as-pets before as-food yesterday, before I edited it. It also presented in-science before as-food, actually. The intro didn't, but let's not present this as me breaking the article's chronological order when it really wasn't. Chris Cunningham 08:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking for an RFC on this, as more than three people are needed for a working consensus on this. You still haven't addressed my concerns fully Chris. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would be simplest to rearrange the Intro in chronological order: evolution, pre-history, introduction to Europe as pets/origin of name, experimental animal, recent stuff. Speciate 23:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the random stuff about "food since the 60s." That has no place in the Intro. Basically, I expect an article on Guinea Pigs to mention their position in the tree of life, their domestication in Pre-Columbian South America as a food animal, then their importation to Europe as pets, and then their use as an experimental animal. All further elaboration on these points should appear lower down in the article. Speciate 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been awhile and Chris has failed to continue a discussion towards consensus on his changes. The larger majority has agreed that a pet-focused order is unacceptable, even if his deletions are kept. There is a two-one majority against his deletions, not to mention that the original intro was signed off on as being a Featured Article-class introduction. I will be reverting presently. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I had to actually look at the article history to check if this was serious or not. Three users plus 48 hours is not consensus. Bah, it's times like this that I wish I didn't bother helping articles get to FA status. Chris Cunningham 12:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, calling this a consensus is probably premature. I haven't been saying much here because this isn't a debate over content; since the lead includes only things that are already in the article later, it doesn't really matter to me if it's shorter or longer. Chubbles 14:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me for assuming that your first statement meant you preferred the original intro Chubbles.

Well it matters to me. A meaty intro is a hallmark of FA class articles, just check out the intros to these... Cougar, Frog, Bobcat, Ocean sunfish, Humpback whale, Albatross, Hawksbill turtle, American Goldfinch, Arctic tern, Triceratops and it goes on. Some of these have even longer intros than this one, and no one seems to go about hacking and slashing at them. While not all featured articles have longer than average intros, it is an empirical fact that an article with a more comprehensive introduction is more likely to be or achieve FA-class. But it's not just arbitrary length. The original introduction is both comprehensive and succinct in its statements. At least this one has a logical order. Even if there wasn't an issue of length, I'd disapprove of the new version. It's generally stiff and doesn't have good word and idea flow, which makes it less enjoyable to read. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But more important than my examples and opinion, is the style guideline from WP:LEAD...

The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:

< 15,000 characters	around 32 kilobytes	> 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs	two or three paragraphs	three or four paragraphs

The Guinea pig article is 57.1 kilobytes and 8520 words (words, not characters). Three paragraphs of introductory text is perfect, not in need of drastic trimming. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've de-watchlisted this based on the "hack and slash" comment. If other editors are going to assume bad faith on my behalf I don't see why I should be wasting my time editing articles they're watching, especially when my own work in improving them to FA in the first place is used as a bludgeon to prevent me editing in future. Good luck with the article in future, there's still A-class to strive for. Chris Cunningham 09:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, let me apologize if I hurt your feelings. However harsh, my commentary was a description of your contributions, and not in any way was meant to reflect on your intentions. I think anyone trying to push a "bad faith" label on you or your edits is nuts considering the work you've done. Let me stress this again, my dislike of your particular edits in this instance is not a comment on you or your contributions as a whole. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to what is inappropriate about the current introduction. It briefly explains why the name for the animal has connotations of science experiments. This is suitable for an introduction. A full discussion of the history, geography, politics, economics, alternatives etc. of the use of guinea pigs in research would appropriately be a section within the article itself. VisitorTalk

Is this Request for Comments done? It appears to me that the a consensus has developed; if so, I'd like to removed the RFC template on the top and therefore remove this from the RFC list. Enuja 22:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been resolved, I removed the tag. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A merge and redirect...

of Cultural references to guinea pigs (formerly Guinea pigs in popular culture) has been enacted. For those who watch and participate in Articles for Deletion debates, it has become painfully clear that all pop culture articles, especially those in a list format, are being aggressively deleted on a daily basis. After much discussion on the redirected article's talk between Chubbles and myself, we have turned the notable information from that article into a prose format and re-integrated it with the appropriate main article sections. This is mostly, "As pets" but also science and food. Citations and references to ISBN numbers for the books will be forthcoming, so please try and be patient with us. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's raining right now and my internet connection blows; I'll come back and finish up a little later. Chubbles 02:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I removed the whole Tribble-star-trek thing; people always seem to make that connection, but is there any kind of RS that mentions this connection? Chubbles 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rain? And yeah, the speculation needed to be removed. The trouble with Tribbles, sheesh ;) 03:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Question - are people likely to bitch if we include YouTube links to the advertisements? Chubbles 04:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Those YouTube links add nothing to the article, IMO. I'm not trying to advocate censorship here. You have taken a FA and added video that is extremely low quality. Now there is a difference between 'covering all aspects' and paying too much attention to one. Let's be realistic - any animal can be eaten. However, video of a horse, a spider, a monkey, or a german shepard are not likely to add to the respective article. I feel that guinea pigs as food has been way overkilled in this article. Take a look at chicken. The article focuses on the biological existence of the animal referred to as chicken. It is a tangent that it is consumed. I'm for removing the YouTube links. the_undertow ^talk 04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And yes people will bitch about linked to copyright protected material over on YouTube. --Ahc 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm done fussing with the new stuff. I couldn't find ISBN's for the first editions of some of the books; they weren't on WorldCat or Amazon. Chubbles 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the difference with the YouTube thing is that the links undertow removed were inappropriate as external links per WP:EL (dunno what I was thinking), but as a source for the commercial I think the YouTube video is fine. It's a primary source. Besides, can anyone think of a different way to cite it? As to the tribble thing, the tribble and flatcat articles say that Heinlein himself said that there probably was a connection, but he couldn't be sure. Neither is cited properly though, so removing it here is a good idea. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to chip in here, this article was originally split for the same reason as many such splits are performed (to remove useless stuff from an article while trying to get it to FA without hurting anyone's feelings too much). I don't feel that most of it is notable enough for WP at all. Chris Cunningham 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I maintain that "in popular culture" sections are notable, as examples of intertextuality, which Wikipedia is fast becoming no longer a viable source for. But in any case, the deed is already done; we merged maybe 1/3 of the GPIPC article into the "as pets" section and dumped the rest. Chubbles 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Front page material?

Anyone fancy proposing? Chris Cunningham 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, with the beagle article up there, I was thinking the same thing... I am kind of worried about opposition from biology-minded folks, just looking at the FAC. I thought over trying to address their concerns (which we never really did), but never really came up with a solution; honestly, I think the organization's well and good as it is... Chubbles 23:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've had a month off editing it, so my eyes might be fresh enough to bring some new perspective. I'll see if I can give it a look tomorrow some time. Chris Cunningham 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would you suspect opposition from biologist Wikipedians Chubbles? I also think that it looks pretty darn good as is, especially after doing about a dozen GA reviews. I always find myself comparing zoological articles to this one, and they almost always come up short. IMO, I don't think we should be pandering to anyone to get this on the main page. A sacrifice in quality for visibility is foolish. That said, a try for main page might be a great opportunity to try and do some tweaking of the article. I just don't want what I see as a near-perfect article getting ripped up the way Beagle is currently. All kinds of edit warring and nastiness has gone on there that would not have if it wasn't featured. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Name Relations

It needs mentioned that the name 'Guinea Pig' has nothing at all to do with the animal. It neither comes from Guinea and it is not any type of pig. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unknown Interval (talk • contribs) 00:46, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

This is already comprehensively covered, read the intro and the "Name" section. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Milk

I just picked up a copy of Morales' book, and I was reading the chart describing the composition of guinea pig milk. Compared to what (shaky) sources at Milk say, this isn't far behind seals and whales in having high fat composition (46% for cavies, around 50% for seals and whales). Are there more reliable sources on this someone might have that covers milk fat content in general? If guinea pig milk has the highest fat content of any non-marine mammal, it should probably be mentioned here. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Consumption location and frequency

Again, reading Morales, I've come across an issue to discuss. Presently, it feels like the article sticks largely to the "traditional Andean delicacy" perspective, which is correct in a generalized sort of way. But with quotes from Morales like

“ In almost every city in Bolivia, Columbia, Peru, and Ecuador, one finds traditional restaurants that serve either only cuy or feature cuy dishes on the menu (pg. 59) ”

I think it's false to give the impression that say, cuy is only really served in the Sierra region of Ecuador. He also twice (so far) has made mention of cuy consumption in Cuba (at least in the south of the country), including a personal anecdote of a Cuban man referring to his mother raising cuys at home. I'm going to look at his language more closely, and dig for more mentions as I read, but this seems to be pretty small to mention. Perhaps the potential controversy over it isn't worth adding it to the article. As to the Andean issue, I think what the article is having a hard time making clear is that while cuy is being served all over, it is still colloquially viewed as being an Andean indio food. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... of course "traditional" does not mean "mainstream" restaurants. In Lima, where I live, you can find restaurants that serve guinea pigs, but then you can also find restaurants for thousands of things which are not mainstream in Peruvian urban cuisine. Anyway, cuy consumption per capita is still quite low in Peru per the statistics shown above. --Victor12 22:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I did not mean that it wasn't traditional. I'm saying that portraying it as actually only being consumed among rural populations in any meaningful sense is incorrect. It's still a part of that culture's cuisine, but it's consumed outside that culture. But I'm not suggesting it's now an across-the-board staple. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

broaden "as food" section?

Morales also includes a relatively smaller section on the importance of cuy manure to other agricultural endeavors as a composting material, saying that, "manure is collected to fertilize gardens, orchards and cornfields in the Andes". He also mentions a bit about the use of cuy manure in fertilizing coca and that it is also sold some. Thus, because of this and the already present mentions of the scientific breeding programs, I think the title of the "As food" section needs to be changed to "As livestock", "In agriculture", or another relevantly broad title. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that this is all being brought up; after Kingduct's comments, I began to get increasingly worried that there may be points at which either Morales is wrong, or I was reading Morales wrong, and no one was really able to check up on it since it's not really a common find in bookstores. A sentence or two on manure would be a fine addition in the food section, though I don't really think it's necessary to rename it unless we expand it further. Chubbles 02:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. As to the Morales thing, reading it I get two distinct senses: first, that he is a good, scholarly sociologist who knows how to conduct a survey. Second, that his personal feelings about the class and race discrimination in the Andes tend to come strongly into play. Personally, from the attitudes of wealthy, mestizo South Americans that I have spoken with about cuy, I think he's probably right. But it's still a bias. But basically, I think his hard facts are great. You can't find their like in depth anywhere. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I question one of the photos under the as food section -- it states that those guinea pigs are being raised as food, but they are in an ELABORATE habitat, including a toy designed to keep them active and stimulated. That seems out of synch with what someone would normally do for a meat animal. Can anyone confirm that photo? 69.203.74.32 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. The image would seem to fit the description, for a variety of reasons. The location and material of their habitat is consistent with other images and accounts of raising guinea pigs for meat (a large proportion of cuys raised for meat are done so in a semi-informal home setting, rather than commercial production methods). The type of guinea pig present is consistent with what reliable sources describe as that which is raised for meat in South America, and the animals are being fed a very common feed for meat guinea pigs in the Andes. As to the toy idea, I assume you are referring to the wooden bridge structure? I doubt that is a toy, from my perspective. It looks to be a small "bridge" part of their habitat, and wood is often provided, as guinea pigs are gnawing rodents. But besides environmental factors, the image is from Peru, and guinea pigs are simply not kept as pets in that region. Even animals given as presents to children are housed with the family's other meat animals, and are often slaughtered or sold. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick image search, and I found a pic of the same habitat taken by a different guy. I suspect this is a zoo/museum display in Peru. What is true about the pic is the largely tan and white coloration of the food cuys. Speciate 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad sign on the Google search. If there isn't one to replace it currently in Commons, I know of a good image from Flickr to use of guinea pigs being raised in an Andean kitchen. That's definitely not a zoo. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of the cuy pens seem to be simple affairs made of bricks. Whatever that habitat is, it is much more fancy than any of the other cuy rearing enclosures I saw in my search. Speciate 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's made of the same material as many home outfits I think. Below is an image I just uploaded from Flickr, it's definitely a home setting. But it's much poorer quality. Do we want to replace anyway, in consideration of accuracy? I'm gonna try and edit it to make it better. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• 
  original
• 
  edit

So far, I'm not finding any better photos from Flickr, I really wish we could use this one, but it isn't a CC license we can use. I'll keep looking. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is an image I could upload. Do we think it's worth it? It isn't much better than the one above imo. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I like your "Cuy in the kitchen edit1" image. It shows that the people don't crowd the little guys, and give them a cozy little adobe house under the fuel supply. The other images are of marketplaces, not of rearing conditions. Speciate 21:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

is better than

Sprotected, 11 November 2006, on account of content dispute..

{{editprotected}} Please either add {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}, or unprotect the article. Thank you.--69.118.235.97 01:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Done but if there's a recurrence of the problem, the article will be sprotected again. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem was almost a year ago, whoever it was has probably forgotten wikipedia exists by now.--69.118.235.97 10:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Space launches

What exceptional is mentioned in this sentence: "China launched and recovered a biosatellite in 1990 which included guinea pigs as passengers" Provided that in the previous we have: "Guinea pigs were also launched into orbital space-flight several times, first by the USSR on the Sputnik 9 mission of March 1961 - with a successful recovery." According to the definition of the biosatellite Sputnik 9 was a biosatellite too. And a successful recovery was also made for Sputnik 9. Maybe these animals were not launched between 1961 and 1990? Or something like that? In short, why is Chinese spacecraft worth mentioning? Cmapm 16:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly because we had a source for it; I'd love to be able to list all of the space flights guinea pigs have been sent up in. I'll reword that. Chubbles 17:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Small typo

Kville105125 17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Changed extant, in first section of the page to existant. Is this correct?

"Extant" is the word intended there. Chubbles 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: if something is "non-existent", then it does not exist and never has existed. If something is "non-extant", then it does not exist now, but it has existed at some time in the past and may exist at some time in the future. Fumblebruschi 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

Somebody playing with the article. I suggest that is should be stop at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmans801 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the page was semiprotected. I can't get a word in edgewise; my edits keep getting overwritten. Chubbles 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles are left unprotected by policy. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Always, or only when they are on the main page? Chubbles 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article - see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was disappointed that my protection was removed. Semi-protection was absolutely appropriate as the article was heavily vandalized before and after it was protected. FA's are left unprotected to edits, but the link provided clearly states that they can be semi-protected. the_undertow ^talk 00:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It also describes them as being protected (even semi) "very rarely". I've tried to get FA's with way more vandalism than this semi'd, and been shot down. I think it's like a reflex for RFPP patrollers. Personally I think it's moronic. Not one brand new user or IP has made a constructive edit here. VanTucky ^Talk 00:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(un) It's a guideline that I completely disagree with, hence I obviously stand by my protection. The article clearly faired better while semi, then while bombarded with vandalism. It's ridiculous that my userpage can be fully protected while it's taboo to protect the featured article. Alas, I simply don't agree with all guidelines. the_undertow ^talk 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who decides how you would like your userpage, whereas no article is so good that it cannot be improved. The wiki process has shown that if you allow anyone to edit you can build a whole encyclopaedia. Vandalism can always be fixed, but improvements from random visitors, and opportunities to recruit new regular editors, can be too easily missed and possibly never recovered. You should review today's edits again and note the improvements if you missed them first time around. There were several good edits from unregistered editors, and at least two new accounts who have now been formally welcomed as new Wikipedians following their initial edits to this article. Who knows, some of the vandals might even return and make constructive edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your views but they are far too utilitarian for me. You are talking about the encylopedia as a whole, and I am talking about the integrity of the featured article. I also believe editors should have to register in order to edit any article. I feel the time spent reverting the vandalism will not be outweighed by vandals who may or may not come back to contribute constructively. It's simply semi-protecting one article a day. To me, it's an easy call, however I can see your side, but respectfully disagree. the_undertow ^talk 03:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Zzuzz on that one. I went through every edit today, and there were essentially no substantive content edits, and very few constructive ones at all; 99% of the 250+ edits were vandalism and the reversion thereof. It was a huge waste of a lot of people's time, and I hope no FA I ever work on is featured on the main page again. Chubbles 05:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we more concerned with discouraging editors from continuing their good work or turning away vandals who at some point, may decide to make a constructive edit? I don't leave cans of spray paint in front of my house in hopes that one of the 14 thousand taggers that bomb it will return to mow the lawn. I am very concerned when we have to be so sympathetic to anonymous users that we allow vandalism for fear that their feelings will be hurt that they cannot edit 1 article of 2 million, because it is the FA that day. the_undertow ^talk 18:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the whole point of a featured article is that they're not supposed to need a whole lot of extra work, particularly work added by new people who don't know how to cite sources. If Wikipedia is going to maintain a high level of verifiability, it's going to have to teach this to its new users before they go undoing other peoples' hard work, based on hunches and personal opinions. Chubbles 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The very first constructive edits I made to Wikipedia were anonymous edits to auto rickshaw on the day it frontpaged. Yes, vandalism is annoying, but we're talking about a single day of nuisance for the sake of massive increase in eyeballs. And it's been proven that the majority of Wikipedia's actual content (as opposed to shuffled bytes) is still originally provided by anonymous users. I don't want to get to the point where an encyclopedia which has only been getting better over time has to drop its chief slogan for the sake of saving obsessives like us five minutes a day of vandal duty. Chris Cunningham 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the very first edits I made, both as an anon and with this account, are likely to be deleted for notability concerns in the next year or two. Wikipedia is a very inefficient place; many people put in far more work than is technically needed to make it run, and there's a lot of undoing, redoing, and erasing of honest work. Protecting the TFA would be one small step toward erasing that inefficiency. It would, indeed, hurt the chief slogan, but I guess I never really bought that slogan in the first place. The slogan hurts the project more than it helps it, at least in its current state (it didn't used to, but it does now because of WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V), and countless first-time editors who watch their pages get speedily deleted see how hollow it is. Chubbles 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, I hate to be a boor, but this is rapidly veering into a chat that has nothing to do with improving the article. VanTucky ^Talk 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It pretty much already veered that way. In any event, I'm over it. the_undertow ^talk 00:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sí, bueno. VanTucky ^Talk 00:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Measurements

Any explanation why these are imperial and only SI in parentheses? prino 21:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Changed it. Jalwikip 12:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dutch cavies have white lower bodies and black upper bodies ...

according to the Colors section. But the "Dutch-colored Texel" in the picture is white and brown, not black? I don't know anything about guinea pigs, so I don't know which is wrong (or if I misunderstood, for that matter). --64.180.207.196 00:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. Dutch is banded color pattern, not a color that requires black. VanTucky ^Talk 00:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving food section up on the chain

My reason for reverting the edit is because I'm concerned about the summary of moved food section up in the interest of NPOV; it is the original/most notable/important use for the animal worldwide. To say that you are adhering to NPOV, while in the same sentence to assert that it is now neutral because the food use of guinea pigs is the most 'important' use, is original research, and completely contradicts NPOV. Guinea pigs being more important as food than as pets is not NPOV, it is exactly POV. Major changes to mature articles are best discussed on the talk page, where it can be openly discussed. the_undertow ^talk 04:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe this as a "major change" (this term is bandied about on WP far too much), but I do disagree with its being moved for the time being. The section itself is probably the most recent major addition to the article; yes, this is due to en-wp's systematic bias towards the West, but it still has to be taken into consideration that WP's treatment of the food aspect of the guinea pig is still much less complete than that of pets. Are there raw comparative figures which would help here? Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I consider a restructure to be a major change, in light of the fact that it is meant to restructure the POV of the article. Any other terms you consider 'bandied about?' I'd hate for you to find my rhetoric cliché. I'll go look for some uppercase stuff. the_undertow ^talk 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You might argue that it belongs higher up because it is the original use, but not the most important/notable use worldwide. In terms of querying every nation on what the most notable use for cavies is, you're gonna get far more seeing them as pets. The half a dozen South American countries (tops) that eat cavies are in the minority globally speaking. I don't think it should be moved up, but I don't particularly care either. I do think it's important to keep in mind that this article is really, really good for including such an extensive food section at all. No other article like this one (i.e. small domestic mammals such as guinea pigs and rabbits) has an equal balance of information on the culinary uses of the animal. That alone makes it much more NPOV than any other of its kind. VanTucky 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

cage sizing

CAGE SIZING For one guinea pig the cage sizing needs to be at least in inches 39 by 21 inches long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.249.4 (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My mother used to sing me a guineapig song. The first line was "How does a guinea pig show he's pleased?".

As a newbie here, would it be in order to add the whole song to the guinea pig entry as I can find it nowhere else on the Web?

Robthill (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If the song is in the public domain (see WP:COPY), you could add it to Wikisource, I think. But it would be a bit out of place here. Chubbles (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link on Google Books but there are others. I'm pretty sure that it's still in copyright. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pups versus piglets

At least twice now we've had well-meaning anons come through claiming that the name for cavy young is piglets, not pups. Are we 100% sure on this? VanTucky 21:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think piglets is colloquial, but strictly speaking, their offspring are as much piglets as guinea pigs are pigs. (btw, have you read that story "Pigs Is Pigs"? Quite relevant here, and funny to boot...) Chubbles (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd always heard pups personally. VanTucky 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Italian American pig" redirect??!!

I don't know how long this redirect has existed, but apparently "Italian American pig" redirects here. I don't think I need to explain how racist this is, and also how idiotic it is (the ethnic slur and the name of this animal are not even spelled the same way). This is just so offensive and stupid at so many levels. I don't know if it is a joke or not, but it is just completely unneeded.--69.115.221.70 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

About a month. It's gone now -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

can guinea pig live with hamsters

== Headline text ==,;;l'320021144

Generally, no. If the guinea pig is a common docile one than it won;t defend itself against an agressive hamster, thus getting injured. On the contrary, if it's one of the rarer guinea pigs that actually attacks or bites, the hamster will likely be severely injured since guinea pigs are much bigger. Generally speaking, they don't get along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.144.49 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} 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) 11:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Conservation Status

Can someone please explain to me why guinea pigs are listed as "least concern"? Doesn't the article state that they're "extinct in the wild"? 60.242.35.115 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See: Least Concern (LC) is an IUCN category assigned to extant species or lower taxa which have been evaluated but do not qualify for any other category. Bob98133 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the claim in the intro of it being extinct in the wild contradics the section "Natural habitat" further down, which specifically say: Cavia porcellus is not found naturally in the wild; it is likely descendant from some closely related species of cavies, such as Cavia aperea, Cavia fulgida, and Cavia tschudii, which are still commonly found in various regions of South America. Assuming this is correct, it is a species resulting only from domestication and therefore obviously never existed in the wild. As such, it makes absolutely no sense using IUCN terms (which is what EW essentially is). So, unless one of the two claims is incorrect (a: They are extinct in the wild, or b: it is likely descendant from some closely related species that still exists in the wild), we're standing with a fairly fundamental misunderstanding regarding the IUCN red list. Assuming "b" is correct, "a" should be modified to something along the lines of The guinea pig is likely a descendant of a closely related species of cavy such as Cavia aperea, C. fulgida or C. tschudii, and, disregarding populations resulting from escapees, therefore likely never existed as an independent taxon in the wild. As a brief addendum I might also suggests people check the wiki article extinction, as the lead explains well why using "extinct" is wrong for taxa that remain - and only ever were - domestic: ... extinction is the cessation of existence of a species or group of taxa. Obviously, for something to cease, it has to have existed there in the first place ("humans ceased walking on the sun"... no, humans never walked on the sun)! 212.10.92.245 (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to argue with the definition, but having once stated it, I no longer feel obliged to respond. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why the last post was posted, but I've corrected the article, as the status indeed didn't make sense, though with slightly diff. wording than suggested above. Adding to the previous, it should also be mentioned that you cannot have two IUCN cat's for a single sp. • Rabo³ • 21:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

New descendant article

FYI all, a stub article for the Texel guinea pig breed has been created. As I doubt there is enough breed-specific information to merit a separate article at this time, I've suggested a merge and redirect to Guinea pig breed. VanTucky ^Talk 17:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Related, how come there's all kinds of semi-hypothetical bunk about perceived guinea communication, BUT nothing about the fact that they're not even actually rodents? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1624762

Someone who's more motivated & better at editing than me should consider fixing this. Ubiquitousnewt (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

The government is not a reliable source. the_undertow ^talk 21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This article, while interesting, is not definitive. It doesn't even seem to conclude for sure that they are not rodents; it merely suggests that this is a strong possibility that requires further study. I don't think what it suggests is generally accepted (yet), so until in the biological community guinea pigs are reclassified as something other than rodents, we should continue to say they are rodents. --ssd (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can find anything published in the last two or three years which substantiates this claim, I'm willing to re-open the case. But from all I have read, there is no longer serious debate over this issue. It was a flash in the pan. Chubbles (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Skinny pig

The modern "Skinny pig" is a pet and cavy fancy breed that is a cross stemming from a lab strain and various haired cavy breeds, but is not the actual animal used in lab research, therefore it is inappropriately mentioned in the Scientific research section. The term "Skinny Pig" is not used in any official scientific research reports. The hairless lab model used in laboratory research is a strain called the IAF Hairless Guinea Pig, a hairless version of the Hartley, which was discovered in 1978 and has been sold by Charles River Labs since 1986 to be used in dermal studies. And it is an outbred strain that is euthymic and immunocompetent. http://www.criver.com/en-US/ProdServ/ByType/ResModOver/ResMod/Pages/IAFHairlessGuineaPig.aspx Nacktetatsachen (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

From the USAMRIID document I provided, it's clear that there was at one point an immunodeficient breed, and it was used in research. Perhaps that is no longer the case, but it's still worth mentioning, so I restored it. I rewrote the section a bit to restore mention of the skinny pig and try to make it as factual as possible. Since this is a featured article, I'd appreciate it if we talk over changes before you delete any sourced material. Chubbles (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies Chubbles, I am new to Wikipedia. In the USAMRIID document, the Kodak strain was mentioned as an example of types of mutations that can occur. If you look at the dates on the books that Ron Banks used for the 'available' lab strains/breeds you will see that they are too old to include this strain. Under IV., A., 3., Ron Banks states: "Many mutants that have been described are no longer obtainable." There is also no evidence that this strain/breed was ever actually used in research. The USAMRIID document also mentions the Hairless strain that is available through Charles River Labs(I.,D.,4.,d.). It is referenced again in the bibliography at the bottom of the page. Charles River did obtain this strain from IAF in 1982, but did not sell them to be used in studies until 1986: http://www.criver.com/en-US/AboutUs/History/Pages/home.aspx

In the cavy fancy "Skinny Pig" is not a nickname used for all hairless breeds. The Skinny and the Baldwin are two separate breeds with two separate origins, two separate genetic mutations and two standards, one for each breed. These have not yet been approved by the ARBA, but soon may be. The Baldwin is not related to laboratory stock, it was a mutation that took place in the breeder's home. I still don't understand why this is mentioned in the Scientific research section though. Nacktetatsachen (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to add more info about the Charles River breed, but I'd like to be able to cite a better source than their inventory. Surely papers were published about this... I don't know anything about the Baldwin breed; where are you getting your info? If I had a book or journal article to review I could add info about that, too. I can move the skinny pig to the breeding section, but I didn't want to remove it completely from the page - it should be mentioned somewhere. Chubbles (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to add more on the IAF Hairless Guinea Pig because it is the predominant lab model used in dermal studies today. If you do a search, you will turn up many lab reports using it. A book search by subject will give you more as well. As for the Baldwin, there are only a few acceptable sources available at this time and you may want to hold off on writing about it for the time being. I only mentioned it because people sometimes confuse the two breeds. It's also very doubtful that the Eastman Kodak athymic immunodeficient strain was used in dermal studies because animals with this mutation must be kept in sterile conditions and have their food, water and bedding disinfected. This you can find in the ILAR manual. The USAMRIID document doesn't specify that the Kodak strain was inbred (although I wouldn't doubt it). Your breeding section looks complete as it is. Nacktetatsachen (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, We have to lock

South Park is on, people are going to vandalize. Guinea Pigs!! TapeisbackI am the Tape! (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lifespan

No mention of lifespan?139.48.25.60 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"They typically live an average of four to five years, but may live as long as eight years." faithless (^speak) 22:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

I have no idea what "Their strongest and overwhelming problem solving strategy is 'activity'" means. What is the activity strategy? Someone with more knowledge here definitely needs to expand and reword, otherwise I'd say the sentence is meaningless and can be removed. Radhruin (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Basics

How big are they? How much do they weigh? At what age do they reach full size? What is their lifespan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.117.42 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not exactly sure, though I am surprised this article got to FA class without mentioning those things. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are all mentioned here. Steven Walling (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Guinea Pigs

Is there anyone out there who has expertise with constipation in Guinea Pigs? It's not mentioned in the text.

What do you feed them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.83.4 (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Weight

I have two guinea pigs and both of them weigh substantially more than the 2.5 pounds the article says is max. On my postage scale, after deducting out the weight of the small stainless steel bowl they sit it, one weighs 3-lb 14oz and the other 3-lb 2oz. Anyone else think the article is wrong on max weight? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

2.5 pounds is an upper average, not really a maximum. Are both of them male? That seems pretty chubby... everything I'm seeing has the average weight at not more than 2.75 lbs at the upper end. Maybe the scale needs calibration. Chubbles (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Rodents

This is a notice to inform interested editors of a new WikiProject being proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Rodents --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

This article seems to attract a lot of IP edits that usually end up being reverted for either vandalism or good faith poor edits. Does anyone feel these edits are productive, or would it be more appropriate to semi-protect this page? --Tombstone (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would love nothing more. Chubbles (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We should fully-protect it. All articles about pets and toys and cartoons should be fully-protected, so that children can't use them to learn how to edit or learn how to participate in a collaborative project. I mean seriously, if you want to learn things, go to Brittanica. If you want to participate, go back to Russia, Commie! That isn't what WP is about. If only there was a way to stop IPs from reading the page too, then our plan would be complete! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am rather of the opinion that children should not be learning to use Wikipedia by editing featured articles. Chubbles (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the majority of our problems with IPs are not due to children. I am also aware of the statistical evidence that the majority of our useful content is added by new or unregistered users. And I'm very aware that no article is ever complete. The current system of page protection works well enough on high-profile articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cavy

I have never heard this in America or Canada, could we elaborate where this term is used? Redwolf24 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. It's used in places like America, Canada and Australia. For instance the American Cavy Breeders Association, the Dominion Rabbit and Cavy Breeders' Association and the Australian Cavy Sanctuary (bless 'em, what a cute picture!) all use it. I shouldn't be surprised if it's used in other parts of the English-speaking world too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's more common among breeders and enthusiasts than with the general public. Pet literature frequently uses the term. Chubbles (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Useful sources

The guinea pig genome project is updated at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=genomeprj&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Overview&list_uids=12583

A recent remarkably controversial children's book is Uncle Bobby's Wedding, written and illustrated by Sarah S. Brannen http://www.afterelton.com/Print/2008/3/unclebobbyswedding

A photograph of the painting in the Cuzco cathedral that depicts the Last Supper with a roast guinea pig (not kosher!) is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/brswanson/3655815666/

I'd like more information about recently developed meat breeds of guinea pigs. I can read Spanish, if that'll help.

The German Wikipedia article Hausmeerschweinchen has a wealth of information I've never seen before.

Bob Richmond (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy of the Guinea Pig (book)

Anatomy of the Guinea Pig, by Gale Cooper MD and Alan L. Schiller MD. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 1975. A Commonwealth Fund Book. ISBN-10: 0674031598, ISBN-13: 978-0674031593.

This remarkable book was the first comprehensive treatise on the anatomy of the guinea pig ever published. The illustrations are almost entirely "utilizing both the technique and the paper devised by Max Brödel... this rendering is done by brushing carbon particles in varying densities on a specially prepared paper, Ross Board 00." The book is long out of print, with copies going at very high prices.

Bob Richmond (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Roast Guinea Pig

I wonder if it is necessary that Roast Guinea Pig.jpg be included in the section on guinea pigs as food. The picture is quite graphic in that one can see the intact form of the roasted guinea pigs on the plates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.127.33 (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is unnecessary. If it's deemed to be needed, then similar pictures should be added for more common domesticated animals, such as cats and dogs. Oh no, that's right, that wouldn't be suitable and piss people off. --IrwinRShyster —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrwinRShyster (talk • contribs) 10:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored based on certain Western attitudes to food animals. To maintain a neutral point of view on the subject a fair amount of attention needs to be given to all the uses of the animal, including as food and in science. Comparing it to dogs and cats shows an ignorance of the subject: guinea pigs were food first and then were kept as pets hundreds of years later. Steven Walling 19:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

incorrect information

the tenth cited fact that most andean households raise guinea pigs (or cuyes) is grossely inaccurate. When referring to rural populations most houshold do raise cuyes for personal or commercial consumption but it's almost unheard of in the major cities. We all eat them but that doesn't mean we raise them. Over 80% of Australians consume beef but that doesn't mean that they're all cattle farmers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juzza82 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ETYMOLOGY

I find it highly doubtful that the Galibi word 'cabiai' comes from Portuguese 'savia'. The reference given by the text gives the Portuguese explanation, but makes no mention of the Galibi word. It looks like whoever edited the article went from A to B not based on any evidence. I am more inclined to belive 'cavia' comes from Galibi 'cabiai', just because a phonetic shift from 'savia' to 'cavia' is improbable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.173.248 (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Neem Oil?

I noticed two mentions of neem oil in the heath section of this article. "Giving a bath with neem oil soap is a gentle and effective way of ridding the pig of lice." "Neem oil is an effective treatment for the parasitic skin problems in pet Guinea Pigs, at a dilution rate of four parts of carrier oil to one part of Neem oil." I have owned lots of guinea pig and have had them treated for lice several times and I have no idea what the stuff is. No credible vet would have you give a bath to remove lice anyway, as it is not a good idea to submerge their head under water, and lice can certainly continue to live on their heads. Advantage is the best treatment for lice and Ivermectin for mites, although Ivermectin can also be used effectively against lice. That is what my vets have always recommended and is that is also the general consensus in the guinea pig communities that I participate in. I really think these sentences can go. --98.250.121.165 (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Posting links to the Guinea Lynx website articles on the topic. This website is the best resource for guinea pig-related health matters on the internet. http://www.guinealynx.info/lice.html http://www.guinealynx.info/mites.html --98.250.121.165 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Marcusgardner, 12 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Dear editor,

In the article on the Guinea pig, under 'Name', the following is wrong:

"the Dutch used to call it guinees biggetje (Guinean piglet) or Spaanse rat (Spanish rat) in some dialects"

This should be, as far as the thesis about 'Spaanse rat' is correct:

"in Dutch, the Guinea pig is called Guinees biggetje (Guinean piglet), or cavia, while in some dialects it is called Spaanse rat"

As far as the capitalized 'G' of 'Guinees biggetje' is concerned: this can be checked in the official word list, www.woordenlijst.org. (Type 'Guinees biggetje' in the box next to 'Zoek naar'.)

Cheers,

Marcusgardner (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Marcus

 Done Although I don't speak Dutch, I did check on IRC in #wikipedia-nl ^connect and a user confirmed that the edit looked good. Thanks! ^Avicenna_sis @ 04:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Poor Little Guinea Pigs

I'm shocked at the fact that consumption outside of South America is being encouraged. Guinea Pigs are so cute. How could anyone eat them? SuzieSingB (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

cant we shower the guinea pig

cant we shower the guinea pig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.248.66 (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well they don't melt and they're good swimmers, so yes you can shower them. But why bother? If you just want to clean one, fill a basin with water and give it a bath. Much more effective. Mind you I've only ever had to wash long-haired guinea pigs. In my experience the short-haired ones don't normally get dirty enough to need washing. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protected; edit requested

The article states "these animals are not pigs"; please change this to "these animals are not in the pig family". 69.3.72.249 (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 Added. ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 10:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have Guinea Pigs and we have a rodent chaser, a small electronic buzzer only heard to RODENTS.WE have tried it toward our cage and it has no effect! So in my study Guinea Pigs are NOT rodents!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.11.134 (talk)

Edit request from Ms-schrott, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

in the "Name" section:

... and into Russian as морская свинка which can be translated to English as "sea pig" ...

more appropriate would be

... and into Russian as морская свинка which can be translated to English as "sea piggy" ...

- "свинка" is something like "little pig" or "piggy" in Russian

Ms-schrott (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Readergirl16, 7 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add a non-breeding external link. Breeding is controversial and contributes to pet overpopulation. You can LEAVE the breeding link, but please add some other information. I suggest http://www.guinealynx.info and http://www.guineapigcages.com/ as good places to start.

Readergirl16 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done. While both of those sites are informative and popular, they are both forum-based and are not written by recognized authorities on the subject, which violates WP:ELNO. Without commenting on the controversy surrounding breeders, there is nothing that I can tell about the site that violates WP:ELNO, nor is the one link to a breeding organization in the external links section giving undue weight to the topic. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 00:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Diet and vitamin C requirement

Suggest the simple addition of "bell pepper" as an example vegetable source of Vitamin C. Bell pepper is very high in Vitamin C, it is widely available in fresh form (and also easy to grow), and the four porkers that I have raised all loved it. 69.171.162.184 (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)srturner

Ignoring the fact that none of this information is sourced with reliable sources and it is all original research, we just simply cannot list every single example of veggies they can eat that contain Vitamin C, whether or not your piggies loved it. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 02:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I did not make the suggestion based upon my pigs' preferences, but on the relative abundance of Vitamin C in these foods (mg per 100 g):

Bell pepper 80 Apples 5 Spinach 28 Broccoli 89 Cabbbage 37 Carrot 7 Celery 3

Thus, bell pepper is a richer source of Vitamin C than any of the sources listed except broccoli. These numbers are readily available to anyone willing to spend 5 minutes looking for them, from Wikipedia among other sources. 69.171.162.19 (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)srturner

It is not my job, or anyone else's, to find the sources. As the person making the claim, it is your job to find reliable sources (and Wikipedia is not a reliable source) to verify the information. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 02:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You have quite an attitude. Think I'll spend my time elsewhere. 69.171.162.105 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)srturner

I'm sorry you seem to feel like Wikipedia should be a free-for-all, but that's just not how it works. As this is a featured article, the requirements for inclusion are very strict, possibly even more so than regular articles. If you're not willing to verify the changes you suggest with reliable sources, then this probably isn't the best place for you. (By the way, I don't necessarily disagree with you, just so you know.) ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 05:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

can kitten litter hurt guinea pigs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.254.240 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Name

"How the animals came to be called "pigs" is not clear."

On the contrary, if you happen to have one of this little fellers, it'll squeal pretty loud just like a tiny hog, not always, but every now and then, mostly if it gets stressed, if it is handed a bit rudely, etc. In those days when they were not considered pets, their handling must have been pretty rough and hence their squealing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.141.124 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad/Broken references and links

Reference 108, 109, 115, 116, 123 and 147 contain links that are either broken entirely or redirect to a substitute page. Reference 143 incorrectly gives the title as "Guinea pig: It's what's for dinner" when the correct title is "Guinea pig: It's what's for dinner in Peru – and the US". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.160.223 (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to repair those. OED is paywalled online, but is widely available in print, thus we might have to bear with that. Materialscientist (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The food section

I suggest moving the food section to a new article about the Cuy. Those animals they eat are nothing like the cute pets in behaviour, and mostly extremly heavy. Even the German wikipedia has the distinction here, and thats one of the more merge-crazy wikis out there. Additionaly, if people want to look up their cute pets, they don't want the article to end in pictures of dead bodies. No need to go all internet though guy on me here: "hurr, it's an encyclopedia", yes, but it's just bad taste, and there is enough text for an extra article. It's not like the articles about cats and dogs are ended with dead bodies, too. The cat one ignores the matter completly, the dog one has a small paragraph linking to a big article. (also, the dish is not just called "cuy", the dead animal on the picture is, it's like having a picture of a barbecue and calling it "beef"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.122.58 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. That means that we don't omit information on using guinea pigs as food simply because it might disturb people who keep them as pets. As of right now, the article cuy, based on the dish, does not exist and, as the section within this article is fairly succinct and not broken into further sections, there isn't much reason to separate them at this time (especially since this article gained featured status with that section). Even then, there would still be at least a paragraph within this article about their use as meat with a link to the main article. There's absolutely zero reason to not include that information at all. Judging by your comments here, I don't believe you are aware that the guinea pigs raised for cuy meat are, indeed, the same guinea pigs raised as pets (temperament has nothing to do with species). They aren't two different animals. I have no idea what you're trying to say with your final comment about beef. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Does't the terms "breeds" and "breeding" mean different. Inappropriate main article template.

In this article, below the section breeding, there has given a main article template to the article breed .

• The section 'breeding'(Guinea pig#Breeding) refers to the pregnancy and reproduction related topics. And the section discusses the same.
• The article breed(Guinea pig breed) discusses the different types of breeds of guinea pigs found around the world; like that of thick haired, short haired, brown colored etc.

Shouldn't we introduce a new section breeds within this article and provide a brief summary; and then place the main article template to Guinea pig breed. Also remove the inappropriate main article template from the section 'breeding'.Valchemishnu^ʘ 18:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. There should be a section here about that and I agree about removing the template. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 23:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Cui is not a guinea pigs?

According to some sources (http://books.google.ru/books?id=7W-DGRILSBoC&lpg=PA1664&dq=caviidae%20galea%20weight&hl=ru&pg=PA1666#v=onepage&q=caviidae%20galea%20weight&f=false), 'cui' is not a name for guinea pigs, but for a different genus (Galea) of the same family. Victordk13 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Guinea pigs and swimming (Behavior)

The line about guinea pigs and swimming sounds suspect to me. Section of the code:

They are also exceedingly good swimmers.

I am currently unable to verify that source but from their biological features alone I believe guinea pigs cannot possibly be good swimmers and the line may be putting pets at risk of drowning. Would someone be able to verify the source? It is linked to citation [60], at the end of the behavior section. Thanks. Liqorishh (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can verify that. I'm the one who cited that book, and the source does indeed state that the animal is a quite good swimmer. (I also took a guinea pig for a swim in a bathtub a few years ago, and he did just fine.) Chubbles (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've bathed enough dirty guinea pigs over the years to know that they swim pretty well. They don't particularly like doing it but that's another matter. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Lone Guinea Pigs in Switzerland (Guinea Pigs as Pets)

Fact correction with citation: Under the "Pets" section is the following text:Guinea pigs should be kept in pairs or, preferably groups, unless there is a specific medical condition that requires isolation. Lone guinea pigs are more likely to suffer from stress and depression;[106] for this reason, it is illegal in Sweden to sell a lone guinea pig to a buyer who does not have any other guinea pigs.[citation needed]

I would like to correct that to state that it is illegal to keep lone Guinea Pigs in Switzerland according to the website: http://www.veterinaireonline.com/expat/petregs.html As this is a restricted article, I am currently unable to do so. JoBird42 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Bumblefoot

I do not have access to edit the page on Guinea Pigs. Can someone please add a line that Guinea Pigs often suffer from Bumblefoot and this is caused by nails growing too long and the impact of unclean cages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAustralia1968 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is already information about this in the Domestic habitat section:

Cages with solid or wire mesh floors are used, although wire mesh floors can cause injury and may be associated with an infection commonly known as bumblefoot (ulcerative pododermatitis). "Cubes and Coroplast" (or C&C) style cages are now a common choice.

It you would like anything else added, please be specific with what you would like to add, and someone will be along to help out. Cheers! "Pepper" @ 13:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WARNINGS / FOOD

Guinea Pigs cannot eat iceberg lettuce because it has a low nutritional and is too high in water. Guineas pigs are also not allowed to eat normal washed potatoes as they are toxic. Guinea Pigs need 1 cup of fresh food daily in addition unlimited hay and water. Guineas pigs cannot store vitamin C in their bodies and need this and need this to come through feeding fresh foods daily. Some of the things guineas pigs can eat are,

APPLE BANANA BLACKBERRIES BLUEBERRIES CHERRIES DRIED APRICOTS FIGS GOOSEBERRIES GRAPES GRAPEFRUIT HONEYDEW MELON KIWI FRUIT MANGO ORANGE PAWPAW PEAR PINEAPPLE PUMPKIN ROCKMELON SQUASH STRAWBERRIES WATERMELON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.158.54 (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory information

Look at the fourth paragraph of the section on Breeding. it says: "Females that have never given birth may develop irreversible fusing of the pubic symphysis, a joint in the pelvis, due to calcification which may occur between 6 and 10 months of age.[73][49]:73 If they become pregnant after this has happened, the birth canal will not widen sufficiently; this may lead to dystocia and death as they attempt to give birth.[74] Calcification of the female's pubic symphysis (if not bred) is a common myth."

Doesn't the last sentence completely contradict the first? If so, which is correct? 67.174.133.217 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Breeds

A list of breeds and their characteristics would be appropriate on this page along with a short description. I would be happy to write the article if you need. ~G.

Please check out List of guinea pig breeds. Chubbles (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Then somewhere in this article could you please have a link to it? ~G.

There's a link at the top of the Breeding section. Chubbles (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Add Fleece

Fleece should be listed as a type of popular bedding. See http://www.gorgeousguineas.com/fleecebedding.html. WillEMacht (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"Lone guinea pigs are more likely to suffer from stress and depression"

Hi. I came here to read about keeping lone GPs as I am currently looking after a single GP which normally resides at a local primary school. I felt slightly sorry for it, since my own anecdotal experience is that GPs are happier in pairs having had two sets in the past.

However, when I checked the reference for the above quotation - Sachser & Lick: Social experience, behaviour, and stress in Guinea Pigs, 1991 - the statement is not substantiated. The article reports on three experiments which varied the upbringing of males and then compared the reactions they had to various social encounters. In no cases were the GPs tested in solitary conditions, nor does the article make any discussion of depression.

If I have made an error please correct me, otherwise I suggest this citation be removed. - Trimethopimp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trimethopimp (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Clasification of guinea pigs as rodents?

I was under the impression that guinea pigs are not scientifically considered rodents these days.[1] --175.38.163.188 (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC) By the way, I love guinea pigs a lot!--175.38.163.188 (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That paper's from 1996; subsequent work has indicated that their placement as rodents is taxonomically sound. This is covered in the "Traits and environment" section of the article. Chubbles (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to tell them!--Ol' Dirty Jedi (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

internal contradiction

The following quote from the text appears to be self-contradictory. If it does not contradict itself, then it should be made clearer. "Females that have never given birth may develop irreversible fusing of the pubic symphysis, a joint in the pelvis, due to calcification which may occur between 6 and 10 months of age.[75][49]:73 If they become pregnant after this has happened, the birth canal will not widen sufficiently; this may lead to dystocia and death as they attempt to give birth.[76] Calcification of the female's pubic symphysis (if not bred) is a common myth. The reason for potential calcification is a metabolic disease, like ochronosis. A healthy, normal female guinea pig's pubic symphysis does not calcify.[77] " 108.232.2.70 (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Guinea Pig Care

There should be a section all on guinea pig care. Again if you need someone to write the article I am very knowledgeable. ~G.

I know why guinnea pigs make dudu sounds (like cat purrring) . It's when they're afraid of sth and in that momentwhen they see another of their kind they purr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyladybird (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I know why guinnea pigs make dudu sounds (like cat purrring) . It's when they're afraid of sth and in that momentwhen they see another of their kind they purr. Please can anyone say sth about It's really important because i think that guinea pigs who live alone live under constant streess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyladybird (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2014

In the section "Breeding" there is a contradiction regarding calcification of the Pubic symphysis. The text from the article follows:

Females that have never given birth may develop irreversible fusing of the pubic symphysis, a joint in the pelvis, due to calcification which may occur between 6 and 10 months of age.[49]:73[75] If they become pregnant after this has happened, the birth canal will not widen sufficiently; this may lead to dystocia and death as they attempt to give birth.[76] Calcification of the female's pubic symphysis (if not bred) is a common myth. The reason for potential calcification is a metabolic disease, like ochronosis. A healthy, normal female guinea pig's pubic symphysis does not calcify.[77]

So the article is stating that calcification of the pubic symphysis due to not breeding is both a fact and a myth.

Chronofish (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinese

The Chinese usually don't call them Holland pigs. They rather call them Indian mice (天竺鼠). How did this article become featured without anyone bothering to check how common the names are in their respective languages? --2.245.104.20 (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The sentence about the Chinese name was added after the article attained featured article status. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and that makes quality control a well-nigh impossible task. Chubbles (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of brand name endorsement and link

Domestic Habitat

Paragraph 2, Line 2

"Cubes and Coroplast" (or C&C) style cages are now a common choice.[46] [46] : "Your Guinea Pigs' Home". Guinea Pig Cages. Retrieved 2006-08-29.

Recommend the sentence's deletion because: -Coroplast is a brand name (corrugated plastic) -Link takes user to sites that sells Coroplast brand C&C cages

Possible replacement with: Glass aquariums are discouraged due to ventilation issues. Plastic-bottomed cages with wire tops are recommended, of at least four square feet in size for each guinea pig. [X] [X] : "Caring for your Guinea Pig". Michigan State University Veterinary Medical School. Retrieved 2015-03-28 https://cvm.msu.edu/hospital/services/nutrition-support-service-1/client-education/feeding-and-caring-for-your-guinea-pig-1

LegitMelonhead (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015

Under Pets the governing body for the fancy in New Zealand is shown as the New Zealand Cavy Club. This is an error as the New Zealand Cavy Club is a club just like any other of a handful of clubs in New Zealand (eg. Auckland Cavy Club, Taranaki Club, Garden City Cavy Club and the New Zealand Cavy Club) and not a governing national association as shown by their website mentioning they are a club. They make no claim to be the governing body. Until Easter of this year, the interests of the fancy in New Zealand were overseen by a secretariat position representing all clubs in New Zealand called Combined Cavy Clubs New Zealand as can be seen on the links page of the New Zealand Cavy Club's own Links page which directs to Combined Cavy Clubs New Zealand secretary. As of the this past Easter National Show, the governance of the fancy in New Zealand now rests with the embryonic organisation of the 'New Zealand Cavy Council'. NZPolymath (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 17:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Polish and Russian

Polish świnka morska, and Russian морская свинка means literally sea pig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.218.30 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016

Under Pets and associations, the New Zealand governing body is listed as the New Zealand Cavy Club. This is incorrect! The New Zealand Cavy Club is a regional club based in the lower north island of New Zealand and has never been the overseeing governing body of the fancy in New Zealand. Since 1980 the fancy in New Zealand was overseen by Combined Cavy Clubs of New Zealand as a secretariat of the fancy in New Zealand. At Easter 2015 the Combined Cavy Clubs of New Zealand was wound up and replaced by the New Zealand Cavy Council which now has full governance of the fancy in New Zealand (see their website http://nzcavycouncil.org.nz). So the article should correctly list the New Zealand Cavy Council as the governing body in New Zealand, having taken responsibility over from the Combined Cavy Clubs of New Zealand at Easter 2015. At no time EVER (and definitely since 1981) has the New Zealand Cavy Club been the governing body of the fancy in New Zealand. They are just a club located in the lower north island of New Zealand. Therefore I request that the article be corrected with the correct New Zealand information. "Clubs and associations

Cavy clubs and associations dedicated to the showing and breeding of guinea pigs have been established worldwide. The American Cavy Breeders Association, an adjunct to the American Rabbit Breeders' Association, is the governing body in the United States and Canada.[117] The British Cavy Council governs cavy clubs in the United Kingdom. Similar organizations exist in Australia (Australian National Cavy Council)[118] and New Zealand (New Zealand Cavy Council). Each club publishes its own standard of perfection and determines which breeds are eligible for showing."

Polymath.NZ (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Chubbles (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Self-contradiction regarding Guyanas

• "Cavia is New Latin; it is derived from cabiai, the animal's name in the language of the Galibi tribes once native to French Guiana."
• "Another hypothesis suggests the "guinea" in the name is a corruption of "Guiana", an area in South America, though the animals are not native to that region."

The Galibi tribes will hardly have developed a term for an animal from far away, and of course the Brazilian Guinea Pig and others are native to the region. Can consistency be reached? --KnightMove (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing the phrase "though the animals are not native to that region", since you are correct that a species of guinea pig is native there. I think that resolves the issue. Chubbles (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Page confuses purring and bubbling

Purring noises are aften made when startled. This is easily demonstrated. A given cavy might run or alternatively purr and freeze for exactly the same noise. Yet this page suggests the opposite -- that it's a sign of happiness -- but has no supporting evidence, literature etc.

The confusion has probably arisen from mixing terms bubbling and purring.

The audio clips in the page used to demonstrate them is bubbling, not purring. Confusion of that is probably due to association of purring with happiness of a cat. With guinea pigs, the sound most like that of a cat purring is also called purring and indicates unhappiness. The sound is higher pitched than that from a cat and is about one second in length.

Whereas bubbling, which does not sound like a cat's purr, but is as per the sound clip, does indicate contentment, relaxation and thus a form of happiness.

 JodesF (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2017

May I plese change a part in the 3 rd paragraph.--Rocko101 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Rocko101 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. @Rocko101: You need to be more specific about what needs changed for us to make the change. —C.Fred (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guinea pig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070405184705/http://www.acbaonline.com/constitution.html to http://www.acbaonline.com/constitution.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217004412/http://www.criver.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/rm_rm_c_IAF_hairless_guinea_pigs.pdf to http://www.criver.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/rm_rm_c_IAF_hairless_guinea_pigs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The Guinea Pig is not technically a rodent

See below: 1. The guinea-pig is not a rodent (PDF Download Available) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14562155_The_guinea-pig_is_not_a_rodent

Abstract In 1991 Graur et al. raised the question of whether the guinea-pig, Cavia porcellus, is a rodent. They suggested that the guinea-pig and myomorph rodents diverged before the separation between myomorph rodents and a lineage leading to primates and artiodactyls. Several findings have since been reported, both for and against this phylogeny, thereby highlighting the issue of the validity of molecular analysis in mammalian phylogeny. Here we present findings based on the sequence of the complete mitochondrial genome of the guinea-pig, which strongly contradict rodent monophyly. The conclusions are based on cumulative evidence provided by orthologically inherited genes and the use of three different analytical methods, none of which joins the guinea-pig with myomorph rodents. In addition to the phylogenetic conclusions, we also draw attention to several factors that are important for the validity of phylogenetic analysis based on molecular data.

The guinea-pig is not a rodent (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14562155_The_guinea-pig_is_not_a_rodent [accessed Aug 1, 2017]. 75.75.55.226 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)"75.75.55.226 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

2. Letters to Nature

Nature 381, 597 - 600 (13 June 1996); doi:10.1038/381597a0

The guinea-pig is not a rodent

ANNA MARIA D'ERCHIA*†, CARMELA GISSI*†, GRAZIANO PESOLE‡, CECILIA SACCONE*§ & ULFUR ARNASON†

• Dipartimento di Biochimica e Biologia Molecolare, Università di Bari, 70125 Bari, Italy

†Department of Evolutionary Molecular Systematics, University of Lund, Sölvegatan 29, S-22362 Lund, Sweden ‡Dipartimento di Biologia DBAF, Università della Basilicata, 30100 Potenza, Italy §Centra di Studio sui Mitocondri e Metabolismo Energetico,Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 70125 Bari, Italy

IN 1991 Graur et al. raised the question of whether the guinea-pig, Cavia porcellus, is a rodent1. They suggested that the guinea-pig and myomorph rodents diverged before the separation between myomorph rodents and a lineage leading to primates and artiodactyls. Several findings have since been reported, both for and against this phylogeny, thereby highlighting the issue of the validity of molecular analysis in mammalian phylogeny. Here we present findings based on the sequence of the complete mitochondrial genome of the guinea-pig, which strongly contradict rodent monophyly. The conclusions are based on the cumulative evidence provided by orthologically inherited genes and the use of three different analytical methods, none of which joins the guinea-pig with myomorph rodents. In addition to the phylogenetic conclusions, we also draw attention to several factors that are important for the validity of phylogenetic analysis based on molecular data.

------------------

References

1. Graur, D., Hide, W. A. & Li, W. H. Nature 351, 649−652 (1991). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort | 2. Li, W. H., Hide, W. A., Zharkikh, A., Ma, D. P. & Graur, D. J. Heredity 83, 174−181 (1992). | ChemPort | 3. Graur, D., Hide, W. A., Zharkirkh, A. & Li, W. H. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 101B, 495−498 (1992). | ChemPort | 4. Wolf, B., Reinecke, K., Aumann, K. D., Brigelius-Flohè, R. & Flohè, L. Biol. Chem. Hoppe-Seyler 374, 641−649 (1993). | PubMed | ChemPort | 5. Noguchi, T., Fujiwara, S., Hayashi, S. & Sakuraba, H. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107, 179−182 (1994). 6. Ma, D. P., Zharkikh, A., Graur, D., VandeBerg, J. L. & Li, W. H. J. molec. Evol. 36, 327−334 (1993). | PubMed | ChemPort | 7. Hasegawa, M., Cao, Y., Adachi, J. & Yano, T. Nature 355, 595 (1992). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort | 8. Cao, Y., Adachi, J., Yano, T. & Hasegawa, M. Molec. Biol. Evol. 11, 593−604 (1994). | PubMed | ChemPort | 9. Kuma, K. & Miyata, T. Jap. J. Genet. 69, 555−566 (1994). | ChemPort | 10. Frye, M. S. & Hedges, S. B. Molec. Biol. Evol. 12(1), 168−176 (1995). | PubMed | ChemPort | 11. Martignetti, J. A. & Brosius, J. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 90, 9698−9702 (1993). | ChemPort | 12. Novacek, N. J. Nature 356, 121−125 (1992). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | 13. Graur, D. FEBS Lett. 325, 152−159 (1993). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort | 14. Graur, D., Duret, L. & Gouy, M. Nature 379, 333−335 (1996). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort | 15. Swofford, D. L. PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony Version 3.1.1 (Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, 1993). 16. Adachi, J. & Hasegawa, M. MOLPHY: Programs for Molecular Phylogenetics 2.2 (Computer Science Monographs, No. 27, Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Tokyo, 1992). 17. Saccone, C., Lanave, C., Pesole, G. & Preparata, G. Meth. Enzym. 183, 570−583 (1990). | PubMed | ChemPort | 18. Irwin, D. M., Kocher, T. D. & Wilson, A. C. J. molec. Evol. 32, 128−144 (1991). | PubMed | ChemPort | 19. Arnason, U., Gullberg, A. & Widegren, B. J. molec. Evol. 33, 556−568 (1991). | PubMed | ChemPort | 20. Graur, D. & Higgins, D. G. Molec. Biol. Evol. 11, 357−364 (1994). | PubMed | ChemPort | 21. Krettek, A., Gullberg, A. & Arnason, U. J. molec. Evol. 41, 952−957 (1995). | PubMed | ChemPort | 22. Saitou, N. & Nei, M. Molec. Biol. Evol. 4, 406−425 (1987). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | 23. Arnason, U., Xu, X. & Gullberg, A. J. molec. Evol. 42, 145−152 (1996). | PubMed | ChemPort | 24. Arnason, U. & Johnsson, E. J. molec. Evol. 34, 493−505 (1992). | PubMed | ChemPort | 25. Arnason, U., Gullberg, A., Johnsson, E. & Ledje, C. J. molec. Evol. 37, 323−330 (1993). | PubMed | ChemPort | 26. Xu, X. & Arnason, U. Gene 148, 357−362 (1994). | PubMed | ChemPort | 27. Devereux, J., Haeberli, P. & Smithies, O. Nucleic Acids Res. 12, 387−395 (1984). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | 28. Felsestein, J. PHYLIP (Phytogeny Inference Package), Version 3.5c (University of Washington, Seattle, 1993).

© 1996 Nature Publishing Group

Dr. Rebecca L. G. Verna, MS, DVM 75.75.55.226 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

--75.75.55.226 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The controversy over the guinea pig's classification as a rodent is discussed in the article already; this article is in fact cited. Chubbles (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Guinea pig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402223933/http://cfhs.ca/athome/guinea_pigs/ to http://cfhs.ca/athome/guinea_pigs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703103120/http://www.lakehowellanimalclinic.com/html/guinea_pig.html to http://www.lakehowellanimalclinic.com/html/guinea_pig.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928224848/http://www.canyonlakevet.com/guinea-pig.htm to http://www.canyonlakevet.com/guinea-pig.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121112706/http://articles.cnn.com/2003-10-03/tech/china.space.timeline_1_long-march-jiuquan-satellite-china?_s=PM%3ATECH to http://articles.cnn.com/2003-10-03/tech/china.space.timeline_1_long-march-jiuquan-satellite-china?_s=PM%3ATECH
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rural21.com/uploads/media/Small_healthy_highyielding_01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guinea pig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928061503/http://www.cepf.net/Documents/UnileverTea_Tanzania_Tech_Report.pdf to http://www.cepf.net/Documents/UnileverTea_Tanzania_Tech_Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

European

please change ((European)) to ((Europe))an — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:c194:fc0d:367b:d450 (talk)

 Done, though I moved the wikilink to the first mention of Europe, in the lead section. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Got edit conflicted / confused, rolled my change back. Fish+Karate 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Bad sources, questionable info

References 4 & 33 appear spurious.

• The sentence ref. 4 cites is not completely true; as far as I know, the Peruvian breeding program (Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina) for improved agronomic potential (size, litter #, killing-out (dressed carcass) %) of these animals remains extant, and it seems doubtful some private Youtuber in California called Valerie has taken it over, irrespective of how 'Big A$$' she has bred out her stock. Indeed there are similar programs in Bolivia, Ecuador (INIAP) and Colombia. The article has this info elsewhere in the text. I'd get rid of the sentence after the word cuy. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done silly source removed and sentence edited. Bod (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Source 33 could stay, but I'd delete the word 'cuy' in the sentence it references, as it is tautological. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The new breed of large animals have adopted the term "cuy" in English. I have owned one and they are definitely different. Bod (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Ah, didn't realise that. Wouldn't be the first stupid tautology in the English language. Still, it's misleading: cuy is just a general name for guinea pig in much of South America (see [2]), and the whole point of breeding these larger-sized animals was that they were different from normal cuyes. Considering the Peruvian program started in the early 1970s, with the meat shortages there, I'd warrant those guys coined their own official name for the breed(s) in the last 45 years (see [3]). You should really ref this assertion to a guinea pig fanciers org or book or something.
    • Hey! I see you also edited the disambiguation page recently... I'm going to change that, it's misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.56.115 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • It seems you are indeed correct that some people in the US have recently started calling their giant guinea pigs 'cuy'. South Americans are simply calling them cuyes gigantes, cuyes de raza gigantes or cuyes mejoradas. Some US websites claim the name should be 'cuy criollo gigante'; however, a cuy criollo means a small, short-haired, 'primitive' guinea pig which still has the ability to jump high and be agile, so a cuy gigante is by definition not a cuy criollo. The adjective criollo generally means 'primitive' in Latin America (not nice, I'm creole). You'd expect with all the Spanish-speaking people in the US they could get their terminology straight. Still, that a couple of people in the US are getting their terminology confused is interesting, but rather too specific for the lede, no? Shouldn't this be moved to the section on breeds?
    • Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• I've removed the material sourced to the YouTube link, as that source does not meet WP:RS. I'd be fine with including more material about competitive breeding, but it needs to come from vetted journalistic sources or major publishing houses. Chubbles (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Although the source was rubbish, the breeding program and appearance of these large non-pet guinea pigs was the most notable news in the guinea pig world in recent decades. So I've added back some of the info with the best source I could find and also a (cite needed). You can edit it some more if there is something that needs to be done. Bod (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    • This is a featured article, and adding material with citation tags is unacceptable; we should be starting from reliable sources. Much of this article was once sourced to hobbyist and shelter pages, none of which meet RS...we need to work with the publications that are the sources of their data. Information on recent breeding developments would be a welcome addition as long as what is added begins and ends with an RS. Chubbles (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

West Africa source

• http://www.fao.org/ag/aga/agap/frg/lrrd/lrrd9/5/gp952.htm "The current stage and future prospects of guinea pig production under smallholder conditions in West Africa; 2. Cameroon case"
• Bod (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Cuy Guinea Pigs in the US from the Peruvian breeding program

@86.83.56.115: @Chubbles:

I've started a new section. I appreciate that this is a featured article and that the sources should be Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The best sources I can find on this are:

• https://weecompanions.org/-cuy--information
• https://www.laguineapigrescue.com/cuy-page.html
• http://www.cavyhouse.org/%22Cuy%22.html
• http://www.exoticpetvet.com/cuy-criollo-giant-guinea-pig.html

... and if none of these meet the criteria for WP:RS, then something has to be done, because this information is important to include in the article. Keep looking for sources? Bod (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I found one source:

• here : The 'Peruvian breed' out of the National Agrarian University of La Molina are "fast-growing, tastier and weigh up to 3 kg" as opposed to 800–900 g.
  • here is the book: http://www.reaktionbooks.co.uk/display.asp?ISB=9781780234267
    • info: Yamamoto, Dorothy. "Guinea Pig". 15 Jun 2015, Reaktion Books. 184 pages.
• But then we need a source on Petco introducing this as a new breed in the southern California pet market.

Bod (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• So the first three of those top four sources are definitely not going to pass muster per WP:RS - they are shelter or fancier websites. The last one is an animal hospital, which I think is somewhat better, but it's very vague on the sources of its own information and seems to be relying on shelter reports (it cites shelter web pages and just says "it came to be known" that Petco was supplying the new giant pigs). I really think we need a solid journalistic source to support claims about introduction of livestock pigs at pet stores in the USA. Chubbles (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Book by one of the main scientists involved, pg. 64:https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_VxLVzsZ5HWcC#page/n63/mode/1up

  There are 3 breeds developed by this program: 'Inti', 'Perú' & 'Andina'

  Note the breeds from Ecuador & Colombia likely have other names.

  The next chapter has interesting info on slaughter/marketing carcasses: an important advantage is that these breeds can be killed at 10 weeks at market size instead of 12, albeit with a bit less meat:carcass ratio, which is great for efficiency and profitability.

  Perhaps Bod you are overestimating the notability of some local pet store in part of a state in a single country retailing a small number of these 30 years after they were created.

  Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I had one of these animals, being a guinea pig aficionado, that I adopted from a local pet store that only dealt with rescue animals. So somehow they started ending up in California as pets. Bod (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Wee Companions site mentions 3 others: "Other cuy mejorado breeds include the Inka (large red and white Abyssinians), the Mantaro (red with some white, sometimes crested), and the Saños line (1000g by 8 weeks)." Bod (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request hatnote link to "Cavy"

Can you add a hatnote

For other cavy species, see cavy.

to the top of the article 76.102.7.183 (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Already done There are already links to the Cavy species page in the article. I wouldn't want to weigh down the prose with added, superfluous Wikilinks. Also, the cavy page does not offer a substantial amount of information on the other types, rather, it is just a list of their names and a short description of their general characteristics (of all of them grouped together in one paragraph).  Spintendo  13:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response; I see that cavy links to the family Caviidae, which is in the first sentence. Can you add some info to the first sentence? Change "... is a species of rodent belonging to the family Caviidae and the genus Cavia" to "... is a species of rodent belonging to the family Caviidae, which is made up of 19 species of cavy, and the genus Cavia, which is made up of at least 5 types of wild guinea pigs".76.102.7.183 (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Laws

Under "As pets" can you move the sentence about the Switzerland law down to a new paragraph? Then can you add this "Interesting Fact: If a buyer in Sweden does not already have guinea pigs, it is illegal to sell just one guinea pig." to that new paragraph (source: http://www.guinealynx.info/companionship.html#sweden). 76.102.7.183 (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: If the article is to make claims about Swedish law, the references provided ought to be to Swedish government portals where the verbatim text of said law is displayed. (The same ought to be true for the already-existing claim regarding Swiss law.)  Spintendo  13:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I think it is interesting info but knew the source might be a problem. So.... hopefully a good source can be found. 76.102.7.183 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2018

Change the second-to-last edit to make the image caption read "A tri-colored guinea pig outdoors" instead of "A tri-colored guinea pig in his natural habitat" because it looks like a pet guinea pig put outdoors. Also, please revert the last unsourced addition of the relation to "swine" as meat because the English name wouldn't suggest that owing to the fact that they were introduced for other reasons than meat. 76.102.7.183 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

New Guinea

I think it might actually be worth mentioning New Guinea because of the fact that I have more often heard of it than Guinea itself and so people might wonder about it. 76.102.7.183 (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change: "rabbits have different nutritional requirements, as they synthesize their own Vitamin C, so the two species should not be fed the same food." to: "rabbits have different nutritional requirements, as they synthesize their own Vitamin C, so rabbit pellets are not ideal for guinea pigs." 2601:647:CB02:5034:D877:84EE:B7DD:9BA8 (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done The language of "not ideal" is very vague, so I don't think that wording improves the article. However, the wording you're contesting is a very recent addition, and it's also not very good, so I am going to change it so that it is not prescriptive in tone. Chubbles (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. 2601:647:CB02:5034:D877:84EE:B7DD:9BA8 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - New Guinea

Change " nor do they come from Guinea in Africa, " to " nor do they come from Guinea in Africa nor New Guinea in Oceania, " Because people might be more familiar with New Guinea and the two places are very different. 2601:647:CB02:5034:27:5D48:A066:4B6F (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done I reverted a similar edit not long ago, noting that New Guinea is itself named after Guinea, so it seemed to me that the addition would be essentially superfluous. Chubbles (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request about Name

This half sentence is causing me much consternation: "Despite their common name, these animals are not in the pig family Suidae, nor do they come from Guinea in Africa, and the origin of their name is still unclear;" Please change to: "Despite a confusing common name, the guinea pig is not biologically related to pigs, and the origin of the name is still unclear;" There is no reason to link the pig family. And there is undue weight on the meaning of "guinea" as an african country... if you look in the name section, there are many more meanings to "guinea", such as Guiana, the guinea coin, the island of New Guinea, and the generic meaning of "a far away exotic place". THanks 2601:647:CB02:5034:8CDE:EA34:2AD:30B7 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sort of done It's very common to name animals after the places they are found, and so I think it's important to state right off the bat that this isn't "a pig from Guinea" that the simplest reading of the name would suggest, but I changed the wording a bit to remove the superfluous note that Guinea is in Africa and the use of a biological family name over the common "pig" (though the link is still piped to suidae). Chubbles (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Much better It makes sense that a literal reading would be Guinea + Pig, it's just lost all that literalness for someone as familiar to the subject as me. It reads much better. 2601:647:CB02:5034:5C8:5612:6657:22AE (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Cuy guinea pigs

Please add to end of 3rd paragraph: When the large breeds appeared in the U.S. pet trade, they became known as cuy guinea pigs, cuy, cuy pigs, cuy hybrids, etc., and they require additional specialized care to tame them.

• 76.102.7.183 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources we can use to verify information about these breeds as sold in the United States? Chubbles (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The best, and really only, official (online) source is here (which is quite impressive). It comes from Southern California, because that seems to be the epicenter of the new breeds into the US (from South America). https://weecompanions.org/-cuy--information. There is also a link to a PDF about behavioral differences. 2601:647:CB02:5034:A9D9:C859:43B3:99D4 (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That source doesn't meet our requirements for reliable sourcing. It's a website from a shelter; the information they give does not have any sort of editorial control or vetting, which is important if we are to include it in a Wikipedia featured article about a topic in biology. They make a lot of claims that do not come from handling the animals themselves - about breeding history and classification - that indicate they are relying on some more authoritative source. We'd need to locate that more authoritative source and use that instead. Chubbles (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, published sources seem pretty sparse. It's a good starting point. Hopefully, we can find a more reliable, authoritative source. It's unlikely there is a good online source about the presence of these breeds in the pet market of the Western world, but I guess that's what we are looking for. More fundamentally, at least we have some sources about the breeding program. This recent influx seems to be diminishing and there are fewer of the large breeds as pets in the US, at the same time there is more understanding about these animals (see the PDF about behavior and taming). 76.102.7.183 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The request needs reliable source backing to be included. Chubbles (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorporate video on page

I was thinking that maybe we could include one video on the page. Something like Guinea pigs in garden. The golden hamster article has one video and it seems to enhance the article without being too much. There is a lot of information in a video. 2601:647:CB02:5034:A9D9:C859:43B3:99D4 (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'd like to make this change, but there should probably a) be consensus for it as this is a featured article (though old) and b) a specific suggestion made as to the location of the video. The entire article has a fairly diverse set of imagery, weighted evenly across each section. Izno (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can you add (/ˈkeɪvi/) as to how to pronounce "cavy"? 2601:647:CB03:5930:3CD4:1EA:9631:5609 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 01:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Vocalization heading

Add level 3 subheading "Vocalization" under "Behavior" where the paragraph starts "Vocalization is the primary means..." 2601:647:CB03:5930:3CF9:3F21:188F:90EC (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 01:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Article disagrees with self

In the paragraph

Females that do not give birth may develop an irreversible fusing of the pubic symphysis, a joint in the pelvis, due to calcification which may occur between 6 and 10 months of age.[63]:73[100] If they become pregnant after this has happened, the birth canal will probably not widen sufficiently and this may lead to dystocia and death as they attempt to give birth.[101] Calcification of the female's pubic symphysis if not bred is greatly overstated. The reason for potential calcification is a metabolic disease, like ochronosis. A healthy, normal female guinea pig's pubic symphysis does not calcify.[102]

the final two sentences directly contradict the first two sentences. Can the wording be fixed to indicate disagreement between experts? Or can somebody double check that the sources support the two positions. It looks like the second half of the paragraph dates from an addition in 2012 that was never merged with the rest of the paragraph. Rockphed (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that this condition has been overstated in the past. I don't have any percentages, but this should be edited a little. The most recent source is the one that says a healthy female will not have a fused pelvis when she matures without giving birth. Suggested edit:

There is a condition whereby females that do not give birth may, between 6 and 10 months of age, develop an irreversible fusing of the pubic symphysis, a joint in the pelvis, due to calcification.[63]:73[100] If a female guinea pig develops such a condition, the birth canal will probably not widen sufficiently and this may lead to dystocia and death if they attempt to give birth.[101] However, this calcification of the pubic symphysis if not bred has been greatly overstated; the reason for potential calcification is a metabolic disease, like ochronosis. A healthy, normal female guinea pig's pubic symphysis does not calcify, even as she ages.[102]

2601:647:CB03:5930:7D45:CBAC:F31A:3674 (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 17:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove contradictory unsourced sentences

Per the above discussion, I read the 2003 study and found it has little to say about the fusing of the interpubic joint in female guinea pigs that haven't been bred. It deals solely with the mechanism of action for the relaxation of the pelvic joint to enable a vaginal birth. Thus, the last three sentences beginning with "Calcification of the female's..." are in fact contradictory and have no source, as much as it would be nice to believe it. This is misinformation and should be removed. There is nothing on the web about ochronosis in guinea pigs and nothing to suggest that a healthy female won't possibly develop the noted condition. Might as well keep the study as a decent source. Here is a suggested edit:

Female guinea pigs that do not give birth risk increased calcification of the pubic symphysis, a joint in the pelvis, between 6 and 10 months of age.[63]:73[100] If they become pregnant after the joint has overly stiffened or fused, the birth canal will probably not widen sufficiently as they attempt to give birth, and this may lead to dystocia and death.[101] The relaxation of the interpubic joint necessary for giving birth resembles an inflammatory process.[102]

2601:647:CB03:5930:875:15E2:1480:F2DF (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Galendalia asked you to cite a source for your changes above, which indicates to me that you do not have a consensus for this change. Rather, it seems that there's a dispute over the interpretation of information in one or more sources. That is a perfectly acceptable conversation to have on a talk page, but the discussion should take place in a separate section on this talk page before the edit request can be reopened. Edit requests are for changes that an uninvolved editor will see as uncontroversial or having consensus. Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Dystocia for nulliparous sows after ~1 year

This edit (from 2012) from an IP introduced unsourced misinformation contrary to popular and medical knowledge. There is a known issue with dystocia in guinea pigs. The editor claims "the female guinea pig is the same as other female mammals, in that the 'pubic symphysis' does not calcify, unless there is an underlying disease." which is just plain wishful thinking. There is documented evidence to the contrary and in fact no mention of guinea pigs and Ochronosis in a simple internet search.

The edit added (all of which must be removed):

Calcification of the female's pubic symphysis (if not bred) is a common myth. The reason for potential calcification is an

Metabolic disease, like Ochronosis. An healthy, normal female guinea pig's pubic symphysis does not calcify.

Females can become pregnant 6–48 hours after giving birth, but it is not healthy for a female to be thus constantly pregnant.

The source added is a study into the physiological mechanism of the interpubic joint relaxation, not anything to do with problems associated with an inability for the pubic symphysis to separate in older unbred sows.

I don't know what the percentage is, but it must be significant, however it is also overstated (as the edit does claim). Some sources say it always "fuses", which is just plain wrong. The calcification that happens with age can increase to the point where separation is a problem. This "vet knowledge" source ( Vetstream ) says it always happens at 7 months of age. This book on the pathology of small mammals from 2017, says post 1 year their pubic symphysis may calcify. Here is an answer to the question by someone with experience YahooAnswers.

So the section under "Reproduction" should be something like:

Females that do not give birth may develop an irreversible "fusing" or calcified cartilage in the pubic symphysis, a joint in the pelvis, which may occur after 7–12 months of age. If they become pregnant after this has happened, the birth canal will probably not widen sufficiently and this may lead to dystocia and death as they attempt to give birth. In the past, this occurrence may have been overstated. The relaxation of the joint necessary for giving birth resembles an inflammatory process.

References

2601:647:CB03:5930:ACE1:F87B:3C8C:299 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

suggestion

Maybe if the article can include a list of treats/supplements/ etc. that are edible by guinea pigs along with the amount. These information is hard to come by.

Also types of bedding that is beneficial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhollywoodblvd (talk • contribs) 15:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I think some info on wood shavings might be good. Cedar and pine can cause some respiratory issues. Some pine is less dusty and aromatic. Aspen is supposed to be good, but I've often found it hard and sharp. The section on diet seems pretty good already. Maybe some common poisonous items should be mentioned: i.e. what not to feed. Wikipedia is not a "how to" or "pet guide" though, so it doesn't need to have all the treats/supplements that you see out there in pet stores/grocery stores. 2601:647:CB03:5930:612B:51:A161:48C1 (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This is a 2007 Featured article that has not been maintained to standard. Updating is needed to avoid a featured article review:

• Considerable uncited sources.
• Medical content not sourced to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources.
• Commercial websites were used as sources (I removed them).
• I removed excess images causing MOS:SANDWICH.
• WP:OVERLINKing, dupe links can be check by installing the tool at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
• Mixed citation styles ... some sfns, other rp templates.
• A good copyedit would not be remiss; perhaps contact the WP:GOCE. One sample only: [4]
• There are missing "as of" on dates (longest records, etc.)

There are more prose issues, but starting on this list would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

As the principal editor behind the 2007 FA push, I would like to inquire as to whether a speedy delist is possible. I'm not interested in doing the kind of work now expected to maintain this in FA status. Chubbles (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

No, Chubbles, sometimes other editors are interested in restoring FAs. And this one is really not too bad, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I welcome their efforts, should they choose to do so. Chubbles (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is the link to when the article became a Good Article: (Archived) GA on hold. UserTwoSix (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Cubes and coroplast

Promoted by the site https://www.guineapigcages.com/, which is not a Reliable Source, I was under the impression that the advent of these style of cages was an improvement to guinea pig habitats all over the developed world. I also believed that among the cavy fancy, this design was fairly well-spread, well-known, and somewhat popular. But any evidence I have is purely anecdotal. In an article like this it is often challenging to find sources to corroborate information that those in the trade take for granted. I first raised guinea pigs around 2002 so I don't have first-hand knowledge of the history of these style cages but @Chubbles: if you have experience raising guinea pigs since the 90s or 80s and know firsthand the history of these cages, your expertise is greatly valued. Do you think that these so-called C+C style cages should be mentioned in an article on guinea pigs? UserTwoSix (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe they should only be mentioned to the extent that they have been covered by high-quality sourcing. Animal care and handling is easily-contestable information and so should be scrupulously sourced to comport with our verifiability policy, particularly on featured articles (which this article still is, at least for now). That means we need to find published sources with editorial control or peer review. As you note, guineapigcages.com does not appear to pass muster in that way, and so does not qualify as a reliable source; you were not justified in reverting my edits. If the information you've added again is to be retained, someone needs to find reliable reporting on the adoption of C&C style cages. Chubbles (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for reverting when I thought the article must include at least a mention of these style cages. I hope that this is an appropriate source from the University of Florida Health: https://podcasts.ufhealth.org/guinea-pigs-with-room-to-move/. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that's technically acceptable, since it's reasonable for us to assume that a university health system's website has some sort of editorial review. But that podcast is one minute long; it's not very substantial, and doesn't really say much other than that this style of cage exists. Is this the most we can find published about them? If so, it doesn't make for a very compelling case that we should do more than make the most passing of mentions of C&C. Chubbles (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

For now, I am at least happy for a mention. And the article has other concerns too. UserTwoSix (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I did some gardening in that section to keep it in compliance with the guidelines. I wish we had a source that said something (anything!) about how caging has developed over time and who invented or popularized the C&C style. Chubbles (talk)

I too would be curious about the history of C+C cages. My feeling is that hobbyists spread the idea in limited circles in the 90s (or earlier?) and then the internet allowed the idea to spread widely in the cavy fancy. The main site (not sure if it was the "original" one) guineapigcages.com appeared around 2001 according to archive.org. Like many things guinea pig, as this article can attest, the truth is uncertain. UserTwoSix (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove horrible photo of strangled guinea pig

Can someone PLEASE remove that horific photo of a white guinea pig being strangled to death in the "As food" topic? Look, I have no issues with people who eat guinea pigs, I respect their tradition, but that photo, while not graphic, is really upseting, immoral and tasteless. Don't forget that children read these articles as well. (note: I can't remove the photo myself, since I'm not an admin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsaja92 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done for now. Photo has been replaced with a photo showing how guinea pigs are raised on dirt floors as livestock. Note that the photo showed a man preparing a guinea pig by breaking its neck, not strangling, similar to how chicken's are traditionally killed. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so it is an important source of learning about different cultures and their practices, not just guinea pigs as pets. It's unfortunate the photo is not and (evidenced by the above) probably cannot be used in articles, because it is very informative. UserTwoSix (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason the picture can't be used, but I'm agnostic as to which is the best illustration for that section. Chubbles (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Friends, just because a gruesome photo CAN be used, it doesn't necessarily mean it SHOULD be used. Yes, guinea pigs are killed for their meat, the text-written topic "As food" clearly states that matter-of-factly. But to give a visual example of a killing method? It's completely unnecessarily at best and cruel at worst. Look, I'm all for the "wikipedia is for knowledge and shouldn't be censored" philosophy, but I wish to avoid unnecesary cruelty whenever it's possible. ALSO, I cheked the articles about chiken, pig and cow meat productions, and there are no photos of said animals being killed (only pictures of alive animals, their meat, etc.) So there, let's all be reasonable and civil, thank you. Arsaja92 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, 26 gave some indication that there might be some unique instructive insight to that photo, but the case made was not supported by the text or the caption. If it were, and the illustration helped the reader to see something important about the livestock process, I'd support its restoration - I'd support that on any livestock page. There is nothing uncivil about the inclusion of the photo, certainly not in the meaning of WP:CIVIL, and the killing and eating of animals is most definitely within the purview of our encyclopedia. I am not at this point arguing that it should be restored - only that there is no inherent barrier to doing so with sufficient rationale. Chubbles (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The word 'civil' does have other meanings and contexts beyond just WP:CIVIL ;). I can think of some reasons why including such a picture in this article would be a not-so-great idea. First, consider: as Arsaja pointed out, none of the articles on the animals whose meat WE commonly eat include pictures of like kind ("we" = the anglosphere countries). What makes guinea pigs different? Why, naturally, what makes guinea pigs different is that WE don't eat guinea pigs - that's what those people do. So, you see - regardless of the intention, it has the appearance of gross POV violation at best, and neo-colonialist/white supremacist at worst (I know that no such ideas were ever at play here; it could be reasonably construed in that way, though, i.e., depicting our own culture as civilised while insinuating Latin Americans are barbarians). Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

Based on the Citation Hunt tool, citation is needed for "...some controversy exists over offering alfalfa to adult guinea pigs. Some pet owners and veterinary organizations have advised that, as a legume rather than a grass hay, alfalfa consumed in large amounts may lead to obesity, as well as bladder stones from the excess calcium in all animals except for pregnant and very young guinea pigs."

I suggest source from Metropolitan Guinea Pig Rescue: http://mgpr.org/newsite/GP_Info/Guinea%20Pig%20Diet.htm Timesoup (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Volteer1 (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Appreciation Day

I removed Guinea Pig Appreciation Day. A source has been provided (nationaltoday.com), but this source gives no information about what body makes (or could make) the decision that July 16 is the day set aside for appreciating guinea pigs. Is it a national legislature? (If so, it is not Guinea Pig Appreciation Day in other countries.) Is it some global governing body, like a wing of the UN? (I doubt it.) Is it an international guinea pig fanciers' society? (If so, which, and is it a body important enough to merit mention here?) Without such information, this feels simply made up, and isn't described with enough reliable detail to be worth including. Chubbles (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• In popular culture, not everything has to be set by somebody. There seems to be agreement on which day is Guinea Pig Appreciation Day so I've re-added it. I tried to place it more appropriately with more info and a better citation. Just like we really have no idea about why or who decided to call them "guinea" "pigs", but everyone does it. It seems worth including. I mean we have a lot of new "days" every year. It looks like this has been going on since at least 2018. I hope you don't take the revert personally. UserTwoSix (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think the popular culture section has to be held to quite the same standards as some parts of the rest of the article. I tried to find the origin or original source, but it is strangely mysterious. UserTwoSix (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not so. If a day is anointed the day to celebrate a thing, there are two basic processes for this to happen: either some governing body or agency declares it so (de jure), in which case reliable sources will report on the proclamation, or some community takes it up organically (de facto), in which case reliable sources will report on the community adoption. We have neither in this case; we have nationaltoday.com and a new footnote, happydays365.org, which is a content mirror of nationaltoday, and both websites give no context as to the actual means by which this putative holiday was established. As we've noted, its "origins are mysterious", and it appears to have been made up one day - but Wikipedia is not for those things. I'd be satisfied with a single newspaper article or magazine piece with a story about the establishment or observance of Guinea Pig Appreciation Day, which would corroborate (satisfying WP:V and WP:RS) that the event is important enough to be included here. Failing that, it should be removed, and I will do so swiftly in the absence of such sourcing. Chubbles (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I had never heard of it before. I doubt there is such sourcing. UserTwoSix (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not archiving

This talk page is not archiving properly. I checked the parameters at the head of the page, and they appear to be set up properly. I can't find any problem listed at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo that would stop the bot from running (blacklisted links, no timestamps, etc.). But we haven't had threads archived from this page in almost a year. Does anyone see what might be causing the logjam? Chubbles (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know but everything seems to have more quirks, be less maintained lately. I just take it as the way things are. And @Chubbles: thanks for doing a manual archive! UserTwoSix (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chubbles and UserTwoSix: I've fixed it. It was caused by this edit, which put the archiving instructions in another template. Graham87 14:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

I want to add vegetables to feed the pet guinea pig. Source: The humane society katy devine-tschida (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Sadielovespink.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Guinea pig taste could be a origin of their name

Change "How the animals came to be called "pigs" is not clear. They are built somewhat like pigs,"

To "How the animals came to be called "pigs" is not clear. Their meat has a similar taste to pigs, they are built somewhat like pigs," Illegally (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022

After the linked word "coprophagy" there's a closing parenthesis, a space, and a full stop.

coprophagy) .

Please remove the space. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Why guinea pigs are called "guinea pigs"

One theory as to why guinea pigs are named guinea pigs is that you could buy them as pets in England for a "Guinea"(a type of coin) and that they move/sound like pigs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani Wytte (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

"A common misconception is that they were so named because they were sold for the price of a guinea coin. This hypothesis is untenable, because the guinea was first struck in England in 1663, and William Harvey used the term "Ginny-pig" as early as 1653." - in the current version of the article. Chubbles (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Dedicating entire rooms to Guinea pigs

Dont know how to use wiki, but there is a youtube channel calle The Pig Room in which the owner litterally has dedicated a room to thier Guinea Pigs, it can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/c/ThePigRoom is that enough to resolve the citation needed thing in the living environment chapter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:F1C:5800:39B9:BD21:78A1:95A4 (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, no, we'd need a source that conforms to the reliable sources guideline. A YouTube link of that sort would be a primary source. Chubbles (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Although it is a phenomenon that I have bore witness to multiple times on the Internet, I don’t see mentioning it as some type of critical component to the care process. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Living Environment: bedding liners of fleece fabric is now common

Fleece has gained in popularity in recent years as a bedding for guinea pigs. It’s very soft, reusable and hygienically safer than other types of bedding. Fleece as bedding is also comfortable as environmentally friendly and cost effective. WikidSpirit (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Such content would need to be cited to a a reliable source. And be careful of geography here. I would suggest that the current content on bedding is very US-centric, and this IS a global encyclopaedia. If we mention it, we should say where it occurs. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop 2600:8805:A202:1050:6065:473C:756C:B774 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2023

Dear Wikipedia Editorials, I am writing to bring to your attention a broken link on one of your page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pig. While browsing your website, I noticed that the link to a specific article ["Guinea Pigs". Canadian Federation of Humane Societies] is no longer functioning properly. The article in question is http://cfhs.ca/athome/guinea_pigs, and it appears to be leading to an error page. As a solution, I would like to suggest replacing the broken link with an active and informative article that I have recently written on the same topic. The article is titled “https://petearnest.com/why-guinea-pigs-are-good-pets/”, and it provides comprehensive and up-to-date information on the subject matter. I believe that this article will serve as an excellent replacement for the broken link and will provide valuable information to your readers. I would be happy to provide any additional information or assistance that you may require to make this change. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing back from you soon. Sincerely, PetEarnest Anurags499 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done The broken link mentioned above has been archived and the archived link is included in the citation. Since the link is to a reliable source that is verifying specific information contained in the sentence it follows, the link should remain where it is, or alternately be replaced with a different reliable source which verifies the same information. Chubbles (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)