Talk:Fancy rat

Sources which would probably withstand scrutiny - communal section

Not currently referenced

• Small Animal Care & Management - beginning on page 198
• Training Your Pet Rat - entire book

*Pet Rats - entire book Upon further review, self-published

• Animals in Person - beginning on page 131
• Rats - entire book

Currently cited, more references could perhaps be added

• Animal Biology and Care
• Rat: How The World's Most Notorious Rodent...
• The Story of Rats
• Merck Veterinary Manual
• Journal of the American Medical Veterinary Association
• Center for Disease Control

03:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Image from House

I am unsure if Image:221house-rat.jpg really adds anything to the article, thus questioning its fair-use. While an image could certainly be helpful, this one hardly shows the rat being kept as pet. Probably something from Ben would be more effective, and i'm sure there are quality images from the more recent Willard. Something demonstrating the character "taking in" the wild rat would be most fitting. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

perhaps something like this -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that one from Ben is really good. Old, but good. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the picture that will soon be deleted. Actually, no copyrighted image will be fair use in that section. We'd be better off finding a free image. hmwithτ 14:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Yeah, I really wasn't clear on the whole "fair use" deal. Thought I'd give it a try. No picture is really necessary for that section I guess. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's complicated for sure. However, this article could use more images if you (or anyone else, for that matter) have any free ones at your disposal. hmwithτ 19:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

i don't really think that one could find an apt free image for a fiction section. we would need to show how pet rats are represented in fiction, and subsequently show an image from a fictional work. but it's not an issue right now. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

I changed the lead image back to the default one, with the rat on the girl's shoulder. I had originally thought this was a good image because it showed the human interaction aspect well, reinforcing the fact that this is a domesticated species. however, most pet articles do not choose to do this, and so I understand the need for a rat-only picture. I reverted the one uploaded by 6th Happiness because while it's a quality photo, it didn't seem to differentiate this domesticated variety from the wild variety very well. While people familiar with the fancy might easily identify the rat pictured as some type of Blue variety, most lay people are likely to interpret it as grey, and not really see how that's any different than a common sewer rat (yes we know the colors are different, but not everyone will). Probably the best picture would be a well-bred hooded where the stripe is distinctly only along the spine (top/high view) against a plain background (which I'm sure 6th Happiness could produce :) ). This is because it's arguably the most common type of fancy rat people will come across, and as a result, typifies the subject. If anyone has any other suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the rat should be most prominent, and that a hooded would likely be most suitable but others might be suitable as well. There's plenty on Commons and any of them could be cropped to show the rat more prominently. As another suggested criteria, it should be clickable for a more high-resolution view, say at least 400 pixels. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Common link, what about using This blazed rat? While a dark colour, I don't think the average person would equate the blaze with a wild rat, and it is higher resolution. --6th Happiness (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ΖαππερΝαππερ, if you want a hooded for anywhere, I uploaded one a while ago here: Hooded rat.jpg The stripe's width could be more even, but it is complete and clear cut. It is not a good perspective for the lead image though imho. --6th Happiness (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead image candidates

• 
  (1) Probably one of the best examples of showing off the stripe. The background is questionable, but it is the pet's cage and that might not be undesirable.
• 
  (2) I agree the perspective is too high for a lead image, additionally the tail is cropped out.
• 
  (3) While not showing off the back, this is a high-quality image with acceptable background.
• 
  (4) This is also a good quality pic, and a definite possiblity should we not go with a hooded image. I agree that this does not have the same identification problems as the earlier image.

I cropped 1 to focus on the rat better, and it is the one i personally am leaning towards unless a better one could be created. What do others think? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 06:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the cage wire distracting; 3 or 4 are best imho. --6th Happiness (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I like 3 & 4, as well, but I'd say 4 is the best. The rat isn't hooded, but it still has domesticated-looking markings, which make it look a lot different from a wild rat. hmwithτ 16:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fancy rat Rat 3 Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia

Fancy rat Rat 4 Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia

Showing them in {{taxobox}} with default sizes. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

3 shows more personality, but 4 looks better. It's a tough one. hmwithτ 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

4 kind of looks like a guinea pig in that stance, so I change my mind from earlier: maybe 3 is better. hmwithτ 18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, 3 looks better. --6th Happiness (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

hehe... no fr:cochons d'inde then :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

i've left a note for wikifur too, but it looks like we already have an idea of where this will go. he may have an even better image to present though. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There was one I found and added earlier, commons:File:Junge_hausratte.jpg, that I liked. But you're having a good discussion now, so I'll let you guys make the call. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Although that is the cutest thing in the entire world (aww), I'd say it's pretty standard to use images of adult animals in the infobox, although that image would definitely be nice somewhere in the article. hmwithτ 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

when wikifur had originally put it in the article, i did want to put it somewhere, but was having a hard time finding an appropriate loaction. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on where to put subjects...

I have references on the following topics (articles, books), but I am not sure if they should go here, under fancy rat, or another rat-related page. I'm also not sure if they deserve their own subject, or should be lumped into another subject. 1. Working Rats: such as Therapy Animals, or doing Electrical Wiring. 2. Rats as Food (in few cases, clearly R. norvegicus, but also often generic "rat" species) 3. Rats in Culture (eg religion, zodiac, etc; not fiction, which i see we have a section for) --6th Happiness (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I'd say that a working rats section should be put in this article. It may deserve it's own article eventually, such as guide dog or assistance dog, if there is enough information.

We can start it here, and branch it off into a new one if it expands or takes up too much of the article.

(Many rats are now trained to find mines. They can be highly trained and they are highly intelligent.)

1. Any information about rats as food, I would add to the generic rat article, specifically the Rat#As_food section.

1. Rats in culture I would add to the Rat#In_culture section on the main article. hmwithτ 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree 100% on each point. The rat article, currently, is in a sorry state and could use more information. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (both of you); sorry- I should have looked through that article first, too, before asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6th Happiness (talk • contribs)

Of course. Glad to see someone helping some of these (as Zappernapper mentioned) sub-par articles. hmwithτ 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

the new relevant section in this article, As working animals, would seem to be more appropriate at Laboratory rat. The two accessible references both point to the rats being used as lab strains. -23:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider these lab rats, as they were not trained to work by a lab,

and not living at a lab. Even if born in a lab, they ended up living with a person in their home, and I think makes them pets/fancy rats, not lab rats (Rattie lived with Judy, and the therapy rats are the pets of Drue Tepper). Also, its not clear that Drue's rats actually were bred in a lab- they're just referred to as a "breed", which some people assume any hooded rat is (or albino); the lab explanation seems to be more about their historical background and how that influenced their inbred behaviours (like saying that the Australian Shepard comes from ranches, even though the particular Shepard featured in the article may be many generations removed from the ranch life). --6th Happiness (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

according to the linked ref for Rattie, he used to be a lab rat, are there other occurences of people using rats for this purpose? I seem to remember a tv program that talked about it, but i don't know if it was the same exact rat. If Judy and rattie are the only known pair that do this, then it would be best to put it in lab rat. Lab rats and fancy rats are quite different beasts. to use the dog analogy loosely, it's like having a Foxhound and a Chihuahua. Just because I start taking the Chihuahua hunting, doesn't make it a Foxhound, likewise treating a lab rat like a pet doesn't make it fancy - they have different backgrounds, and it would be least confusing to minimize crossing lines.

As for the therapy rats, i was going off the fact that they called the rats Long-evans,

but i'm going to assume that they were normal pet-store rats and either the reporter pushed the family for a "breed" or did some creative research in order to normalize rat ownership. it's unlikely the family bought 3 $25.00 rats from Harlan, so it's prolly a non-issue - however the section might do better with another reference to therapy rats, but take your time. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are that different or that they could be compared to very different dog breeds... the lines are not maintained to be seperate breeds (not even lab lines, some of which are better compared to 'mutts'). There are feeder breeders that obtain lab rats for foundation/outcrosses (even pet/show breeders who get rats from labs; or rats from feeder

breeders that got them from labs....) IOW, these different domestic rat populations are very mixed in comparison to many other species like cats, dogs, rabbits etc). They are not very different beasts... If I lined up a fancy bred albino, a feeder albino and a lab albino, you probably wouldn't be able to tell which was which. Contrast this with the fact that you likely would be able to tell the difference between a wild agouti rat and a fancy bred agouti because their behaviors would be extremely different, and they are many many generations removed from their lines being mixed. --6th Happiness (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

not to mention the physiological differences between the domestic and wild brown rat.

But anyways, i suppose it depends on if the strain of lab rat is outbred or inbred. at any rate - the dog analogy was admittedly loose, but was meant to show that we're drawing a distinction between rats bred for use as pets and rats bred for use in labs. Rattie was the latter type and it doesn't really matter that he became a pet later, psych students take home lab rats all the time. and while lab rats might make their way into the pet population because of this and for other reasons, the lab population is relatively pure. Labs aren't going to breeders (as far as i know) to get more stock. If we draw a distinction somewhere, we can't just go blur the line to put information in our preferential article. The keep the article in focus, let's keep the other info, but just move Rattie to the lab rat article, both could use the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappernapper (talk • contribs)

I still disagree; and I think its best not to split up the examples of working rats; but as this is a group effort, i'd like to see what a third+ person(s) would say and go with that. --6th Happiness (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, i'm open to other opinions :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 10:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If the working rat section doesn't go in this article, I'd prefer to see it in the general rat article. If we really can't decide, what about having its own article? hmwithτ 01:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If we moved it to rat, the section As Landmine and Tuberculosis detectors should probably be placed under Working Rats then; but care should be taken to clarify the species commonly used for each kind of work (eg the landmince and tb ones are gambian/african pouched rats) --6th Happiness (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

i would actually rather see it have it's own article before it gets merged to rat.

the more i thought about it, the sillier it seemed to try and pigeonhole it. I first thought, "Well, we wouldn't have a section on therapy dogs under wolf." and then there's the problems that 6th brought up... the topic would meet wikipedia's threshold for inclusion, it's been covered by several media outlets, so i think we could all agree on a seperate article, Working rats (better name?) that merges the info from this article, along with the technically inappropriate information at Rat (because it is supposed to focus on the Rattus genus). We can then provide links in the See also sections of the appropriate articles. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

a separate article seems a good way to handle it. --6th Happiness (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Working rat (not plural) would be the name that we would prefer, per WP:SINGULAR. Anyone wants to take the plunge & create the page? I don't want to take credit for anyone else's research. :) I'll help with whatever! hmwithτ 16:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Working rat seems like a good idea to me. Right off the bat, it seems to pass the WP:N sniff test, no? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Did I do this right (1st time trying!) Working_rat. Still need to go around to other articles and remove what was copied and point to the new article. Lunch first though :) --6th Happiness (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the article about wild brown rats before this one, and something is wrong. The wild rat article said rats live to 3 years, while this one says fancy rats live longer than their wild relatives - 2 years. Hello? Someone is wrong. (I'm learning about rats, not an expert, but thought you experts might want to address that one.)

Also, I'm studying rats for a novel I'm writing and remember reading rats have either bad sight or bad hearing. I came to research which one, but can't find anything about either. Any help on their senses would be appreciated. (Yes, I read they hear ultrasonically as new pups and lose some of that, but not all of it. I really have read, just didn't get all I had hoped.)

Thanks. Atwhatcost (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

08-01-09 update on lack of info on sizes and physical characteristics

I just took care of that. I also added more information in every regard and kept the information from previous writers; sources; and editors. If you see any mistakes in how it was entered please help me with the sourcing.. my sources are at the bottom (the last two websites and information)

No statement of SIZES (and physical characteristics)of brown rats (typically). Aug 1 09

I have seen small, medium, large and giant pet rats (brown?) what are the sizes and measurements there are none here. How can a visitor to this website decide if they have a black rat or brown rat? EXAMPLE::: I was given 2 of one type and one of another. I was told that my smaller solid color gray with smaller ears, shorter tail and smaller length nose was a Norweigan rat meaning he was of the brown rat variety. He is very different in temperment and looks than my other two. The other two are long in tail, long in nose, long in ears, ears able to cover the eyes if pulled gently - where-as the gray (brown?)I have has ears to short for that. I definately have 2 types and from my own research my calico looking black and white rats are the black rats and my gray is a Norweigan or brown rat. If that is true then both this article and the other "black rat" article really need editing!

ALSO: IMPORTANT TO NOTE: IF YOU PLACE A BROWN RAT WITH BLACK RAT VARIETIES THEY MAY HARRASS EACHOTHER RELENTLESSLY. (see black rat info on wiki: "known to kill the black rat") I learned this was true out of experience, in no way do they get along for long. The little gray brown rat (Norweigan) is much more aggressive in his dominance than the top dominant rat in the cage. They always seemed to be quite different from eachother but I never knew why until I found out what types they were and that they would fight if put together. SO this is a very important part of the "pet rat" article.

Please help out in this area if possible. Measurements should be shown as well as physical characteristics of the black and of the brown. I do not believe that the photo shown here in the brown rat category is correct, as it shows the type that I have (calico looking black and white hooded) and my 2 are most likely of black rats.. this is more complicated than wikipedia has it so far. Ill try to find what I can to help as well. mz selina kyle (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

67.40.232.120 (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

this article could perhaps briefly show the physical differences between two (or three) types of pet rat in order to make a better distinction. That being said, helpful information like, "you shouldn't put the two types together" is unencyclopedic... that would be instructional, as it really isn't about the pet rat as a subject, but the pet rat, as your pet rat (or any reader's). --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

btw, you were told wrong, based on your descriptions the two larger rats you have are brown rats. Brown rats are generally bigger and have been bred to more pattern varieties (black rats are almost always completely one color, someone pls correct me if i'm wrong) --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 12:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If a reliable secondary source warns to not keep black rat and brown rat strains together and why, it is encyclopedic for WP to including something like "Pet-keeping sources recommend not keeping strains of black rat and brown right together, due to aggression between the species.^[1][2]", citing those sources without engaging in advice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Article name

The name of this article is too ethnocentric. The name should be "Pet rat" (with a redirect from "Fancy rat"). Nobody outside of Britain would use or recognize the term "Fancy rat". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.73.198.42 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The name should be changed. This is way to British. Can somebody please change the article name as suggested above? I've written content but never changed the name before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.123.79.48 (talk • contribs)

Well, WP:AT guides our article naming policies. Is "pet rat" the most commonly used term in reliable sources for the subject of this article? Or is this article about a specific type of pet rat, specifically the fancy rat. The very first sentence and the hatnotes lead me to believe that "pet rat" and "fancy rat" are not synonymous. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of people outside Britian recognise the word "fancy". Many USA, Canadian and Australian clubs use the term for example. --6th Happiness (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a couple issues at work here. First, "fancy rat" is used in other countries, often in pet stores to distinguish one group of rats meant to be sold as food from another group meant to be sold as pets. Second, the practice of keeping rats as pets has been going on far longer in england than in any other country, having originated there, which makes this a decidedly english topic (to assume otherwise is being ethnocentric). Third, most importantly, this title explicitly excludes information on pet Gambian Pouched rats, pet Black rats, or any other type of "rat" that may be kept by people that is not a domesticated variety of R. norvegicus. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If this article is meant to describe only one type of pet rat, then "pet rat" should not redirect here. 65.184.113.99 (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

most people are looking for information on pet brown rats. the hatnotes make it clear that if someone is looking for info on the other varieties that they should check the other articles. an alternative would be to make Pet rat into a disambiguation page, because the info on each species as a pet is so different that there is no useful way to talk about them all as a group.

Ethics Section Issues

In the section on ethics, it is currently written: Reputable breeders do not practice culling, or "feeder breeding", as most large commercial pet shops do with the exception of Pet Smart (a pet supply company located in the continental United States), which is known for its attempt to treat its sale animals ethically, even going so far as to provide veterinary medical support if your pet rat should become ill within 3 days after purchase. First of all, this reads as if its advertising/promoting the chain store which doesn't seem appropriate for the article. Second, it is not true. I hate to link to anything related to PeTA but in this case, their site sums up most of what my wife (who worked for PetSmart) and I saw first hand there: http://www.petsmartcruelty.com - I recommend everything after the words "feeder breeding" be deleted in the article. --6th Happiness (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually opposed to the whole addition to that section. it reads as instruction and opinion. 'should' should never be in an article, using that word, or others like it, is a red flag for instruction, opinion, and advice. i recommend deletion of all three sentences that talk about "reputable breeding". we've already discussed that globally there is controversy regarding the practice of culling, and both sides are presented neutrally. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Social behavior section

I don't want to come off as bitey, but while many edits from 74.249.87.126 (talk) have been constructive, i doubt the encyclopedic usefulness or validity of the added section on social behavior.

• Sources: other areas of the article cite fancy groups because they are specifically talking about those groups views. While fancy-rats.co.uk seems like a very useful site that could be included in the External links section, it fails to meet WP guidelines as a reliable source - there is no third party verification of any of the "facts" ascertained on the site (peer review of the articles is needed, not more links to other sites saying the same thing). This was the same problem with ratbehaviour.org a similarly useful site, but inappropriate for citing things on wikipedia.
• Instruction: like many of the other prose i've had to remove, this section contained instruction/advice which is not what wikipedia is for. pet articles are incredibly prone to this, so i am usually quick to outright remove it. sometimes the information presented as instruction/advice can be reworded neutrally to prevent loss.
• Opinion: many opinions were presented as facts. For example: while it may be commonly accepted as fact in the fancy community that rats should be bought in pairs or groups, as presented it is merely the opinion of a well-established organization. read the Ethics section to see how this can be worded neutrally.

After removing unsourced material and advice, I'm not sure this will justify it's own section, but we'll see :) --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 12:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"Unless there is an issue integrating rats together, owners should always keep them in a group of at least three, as rats live in packs and a pack starts with three animals." lol that sounds like real news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B010:9E16:B436:44E6:3618:3C37 (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing the name of Pet Rats

Millions of people have pet domesticated wolves in their houses. These wolves are commonly referred to as dogs. People associate wolves with murdering live stock and children. We associate dogs with being fun loving and a great pet. When most people think about rats they think dirty vermin, disease carrying rodents. Even when we say pet rats that's what they usually think about. If we change the name to either raffins(singular: raffin), or fancies(singular: fancy), than people might change their minds. If we say," I have two fancies(raffins)," They might reply with,"What are those?" You could respond with,"They are basically domesticated rats," They will most likely be confused and say,"are they anything like wild rats?" We simply state,"No, not at all. These little guys are so clean! Alright, take 70% dog, 30% cat, and squeeze them together and shrink. You got yourself a raffin. They clean themselves like cats and are loyal and loving like dogs." If we could get everyone to refer to Pet Rats as this, we might be able to clean the name of them forever! They would be loved! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becca9brown (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even going to address all of this. The first sentence is wrong. Dogs are not domesticated wolves. They're a subspecies developed thousands of years ago from domesticated wolves.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Fiction

Resolved

 – Fixed.

The fiction section seems weak too me. Ratatouille is a movie about a wild rat (albeit a talking one) not a fancy. The other examples seem to be about how fancy rats are used to play wild rats. I think there is something interesting about a trope of using a pet rat to indicate that someone is somewhat eccentric. Zeimusu | Talk page 00:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What you think is interesting and what reliable sources indicate is an actual trope are two different things. This is why we have WP:NOR policy, and this also illustrates why "In popular culture" and "[In] fiction" sections are often problematic. I agree that the Ratatouille example doesn't belong here, and we do direct people to see also Rat#Fiction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: I merged the Ratatouille material to the other aricle.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Spelling

Resolved

 – Fixed.

Comments here say to use British spelling, but the article is at variance. Below the quality expected in a good article.Zeimusu | Talk page 00:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:JUSTFIXIT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: I did. I also with -ize/ized back to -ise/ised, an another -or -> -our word.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Varities

The ==Varieties== section needs more, sourced descriptive information about the varieties. If any of them are standardized breeds, this should be reliably sourced, and we should include summaries of show/breed standards for them if such exist. The following should redirect to that section: Rat variety, Rat varieties, Fancy rat varieties, Fancy rat variety, Variety of fancy rat, Rat breed, Rat breeds, Fancy rat breed, Fancy rat breeds, List of rat varieties, List of fancy rat varieties, List of rat breeds, List of fancy rat breeds. Each of those should be tagged with {{R from subtopic}}{{R to subsection}}, and all those referring to breeds also tagged with {{R from misnomer}} unless their status as standardized breeds is reliably sourceable after all. List of rat varieties should be further tagged with {{R with possibilities}}, and ASAP developed into a list of these pet varieties, and (in their own section) laboratory strains (several of which we have coverage of, in Laboratory rat#Stocks and strains); then List of rat breeds can redirect to that. Breed#Domestic animal breeds should be updated to include a pointer to List of rat varieties. If someone will do the first part and better-source a list of fancy rat varieties (we even have a separate article on one, and it should probably merge), I'll be glad to take care of all the rest (and already did some of it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've completed the redir work, and set up List of rat varieties and Rat variety as disambiguation pages distinguishing between fancy rats, lab rats, and rat species.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for all that RDR work :) the problem is that the varieties are not always standardized the same between different governing bodies, and as noted in the article fanciers tend to categorize their rats using multiple criteria, it's the whether or not the individual rat meets the criteria of each trait it's purported to possess. If I have a chocolate berkshire, it's being judged both on it's coat colour and it's markings. A poorly bred Dumbo might not do as well even if I'm not trying to pass it off as a Dumbo, because it meets no body type well. The NFRS, AFRMA, RatsPacNW, and RFME are all cited as authoritative sources for the information on the different varieties (these are similar to citing the AKC, and this is indeed a more worldly perspective, representing the US, England, and Australia) - along with some books and documentaries. I'm not sure how much more sourcing you think is needed? I'm willing to improve the article, just would like some more direction with what you think is missing. Cheers! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comparisons

Why is there a comparison of black rats and brown rats used as a comparison of domestic and wild rats? The fancy rat is rattus norvegicus, not rattus rattus, and neither of these species are fully domesticated. They're still both wild species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:71C3:6100:40F4:2100:3F07:181E (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Expanding The Health Section

Hi all

I was wondering whether expanding the health section would be useful, for example making a list of common medicines used by veterinarians (Baytril, Doxycycline) among others.

I'm more than willing to do this.

Secondly is there any point expanding what we already have on health by talking directly about diet? Or perhaps this should be a separate section entirely? I think it could be a valuable addition.

Thanks Maynardroth88 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Fancy Rats critique

I believe this is a great overview of domesticated fancy rats. I like how this article points out the differences between domesticated rats and "wild" rats. Under "Social Behavior" I think it's important to include that males can become aggressive when living near other females. They can become aggressive towards the other males and their owners. Males and females should not be kept together unless one of them is fixed and there is only one male. Another critique would be there is not any information that I came across that spoke about different sized fancy rats. There are standard sized rats and there are also dwarfs. I think it's also important to compare sizes and talk about the minimum and maximum sizes in rats including heights, weights, and lengths. Also, comparing males to females in temperament and also size, but overall, this is a very informative article and a great overview. (Mckenna720raymond (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC))

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs.
• The "Fiction" section contains too many short paragraphs and needs to be reformatted, with the text cited and evaluated for their inclusion in the article.
• The "Health" section uses a lot of sources from 2009, which is when this article achieved GA status. This section needs to be updated with more current research.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Fancy rat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The "Fiction" section contains too many short paragraphs and needs to be reformatted, with the text cited and evaluated for their inclusion in the article. The "Health" section uses a lot of sources from 2009, which is when this article achieved GA status: this section needs to be updated with more current research. Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.