Talk:List of domesticated animals/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

References

There are currently none; please provide some. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. A reference is needed especially regarding claims as to which animals are most commonly used for scientific testing. Hairy Dude 17:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Food

Is there a need to distinguish between animals raised as food and domesticated animals which produce food? IE, the difference between cows/pigs, etc., and honeybees? Also, many of these animals have other uses than food - cattle provide milk and beef, but also leather for clothing and other uses. Bees produce honey, but they also produce the nutritional supplement royal jelly, and are also often kept as an aid to agriculture as pollinators. Isn't it a bit simplistic to lump all these under the category "Food"? Applejuicefool 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Domestication

I strongly support the move to Domestication If there is no opposition make the move. If someone wants to make the move let me know, I will clean up the links and redirects. Jeepday 01:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly a difference between the meaning of the phrases "domestic animal" and a "domesticated animal". Yes, they come from the same root word but "domestic" can imply that a relation to household matters. I think I can my point clearer by using the immortal words of Colin Grigson "How many cows have you seen sitting next to the fire, nestling over slippers?" 195.153.45.54 (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What a mess

This list is kind of a mess. I think it would be better to list taxonomically, but to have a description by each animal describing the use it is put to. As it stands, there is a) lots of repetition; b) it is hard to find what one is looking for; and c) it's still not terribly well-organized even in terms of function. john k (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Deer

Is the "Location" column supposed to be where the animal comes from, or where it was first domesticated? If the former, then the Red Deer definitely doesn't come from New Zealand. If the latter then the column needs to be renamed to make that clearer. Rojomoke (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Well, that entry was added by a vandal, and while all his other additions (like hedgehog) have been corrected, that one was missed. I've just removed it. Rojomoke (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dates

The way this sorts by date is messed up. I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it though..... Thmazing (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dogs

Where are they? Are they not the earliest? Stated so at "domestication". Useablewikiname (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, this has been vandalised so many times. Can't revert the original loss of dogs. Don't have the experience or time now. Dogs removed, I think, as a result of 'correction' of a previous vandalism of the canine reference 17th March 2011. Useablewikiname (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for writing this on the talk page :) I have re-added Dogs to the list. If you need any help in the future, please feel free to ask :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm shortening the time frame for domestication of dogs. The low limit of 7000 B.C. comes from an article published in 1974, when radio-carbon dating was still new. More recent evidence is all pointing at dates of 15,000 B.C. or before. Nerfer (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Purpose?

The whole "purpose" section seems rather dubious to me. What is this section supposed to be, exactly? It seems like it lists anything and everything the species has ever been used for. It is helpful, but wouldn't it be useful to point out why the animal was originally domesticated? I really doubt people living in 9,000 BC domesticated pigs because they wanted companionship, if you get my drift, but the way the article is now there's nothing telling a person that that wasn't the case, and there isn't enough in the article to really explain what the "purpose" section is there for. 97.104.210.67 (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This 'article' is just a list, though. Should there be a separate column in the chart for the original purpose/s of domestication? Hm. Not sure I agree. Presumably the articles themselves would expand on that. duff 21:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Another purpose of the dog is 'transportation'. People in Northern Canada use dogs to pull their sleds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdKrow2 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am having a hard time believing that silk worms are kept for companionship as stated here. Is this an amusing bit of vandalism? Eperotao (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

True domestication?

I'm thinking it might be worthwhile to add a column indicating which animals are actually domesticated in the sense of being born *tame* (that is, exhibiting human-friendly behavior without being trained) vs those we merely use and alter for our purposes. I'm pretty sure that, however domesticated, say, honeybees or silkworms are in the we-have-altered-their-lifestyles sense, they are generally *not* anything like domesticated in the come-up-and-lick-your-face sense. Whereas a domestic dog (or fox) that has never interacted with humans will still, generally, act friendly towards (or at least cheerfully tolerate) humans. Maybe a yes/no column indicating "behavioral" domestication? Or just one labeled "born tame"?

149.169.162.157 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at previous discussion topics, maybe a better column would be something like "degree and type of domestication"--mentioning things like minor vs significant physical modifications, taming, etc. For example, the entry for dogs might say "significant physical changes, significant behavioral changes, tameness", whereas the entry for, say, bearded dragons would probably just have "minor physical changes"

Or it might be better to give some indication of the type/nature of the changes from the wild-type. For example, for dogs "changes in size, color, habit, introduction of useful behaviors, tameness"; beardies would have "changes in color", something like sheep would probably have "changes in color, coat length, tameness". Something like elephants would probably be listed as "semi-domesticated, wild-type". In fact, the column could be called "degree of domestication and changes from wild type"

I'm not sure how to add a column, however. 149.169.162.157 (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I figured out how to add a column. There could be a better header for it, though, and I was only able to fill in a few entries. 149.169.162.157 (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratings in domestication -should we rate the domesticated animals according to the domesticated population of them.

In this article, the very widely domesticated animals and very rarely domesticated ones are listed together. What about introducing coloured ratings (or any similar ratings) so that a reader could easily detect the relative domesticated population? The need for it can be seen even from a few examples -sheep, cows, pigs, hens, cats, etc. are domesticated in very large numbers. (i.e., we have a lot of -millions of- sheep domesticated.); bees, camels, etc are domesticated in large amounts (but not as much as cows and sheep); Guinea pigs, parrots etc are domesticated in low amounts; frogs, geckos etc. are domesticated in very low amounts. Hence there is a need for expressing the degree of relative amounts (without dividing the article into sections).The rating should be logical, no disputes can occur if we are having just four ratings. Valchemishnu^ʘ 08:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Standards for minor/some/major physical changes...

Unless there are variants I don't know about, I don't think mice have really had significant physical changes, I'd be more inclined to class them as having "some" physical changes.

My first inclination for the standards: minor: coat/color changes, minor changes to extremities (slightly shorter or longer tails, lop ears, etc), relatively rare known variants of wild-type more common (albinos, neoteny, etc), greater average weight... generally, changes within the range found in wild-type animals, or only very minor exceptions to this.

Some: Still entirely recognizable as a close relative of the wild type, but with multiple or significant changes--gain or loss of function (such as flight), significant biochemical changes, neoteny not present in parent populations, major changes to extremities (much shorter or longer limbs, etc), and so on.

Major: at least some individuals are barely recognizable as being a close relative of the wild type, and/or different varieties are barely recognizable as being the same species (dogs are probably the prime example) 72.208.167.106 (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization

Following the scientific taxonomical order distracts from the subject of domestication. Would the following reorganization better reflect the subject of domestication?

I disagree, and would rather see the list taxonomically organized to make it easier to find the species I'm looking for. (Perhaps the best solution would be to offer both, though I hate duplicating data). Further, one animal (say, cattle) are often kept for multiple reasons... or the reason the animal was domesticated has changed over time. Thus, it makes more sense (to me) to have the list taxonomic, with each species followed by their 'uses'. I'm not strong enough in this opinion, however, to change the page... but count this as one vote in the other direction! JRice 15:17, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

I also think taxonomic organization would be more useful with duplicate list pages for fiber, meat, keratin-related uses (glue, carving material such as horn, medical uses and dietary supplements made from antler, etc.), feather, etc. Deirdre 00:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This list includes any animals that have been domesticated by humans. Animals are organized by the original or primary purpose for which they were domesticated. In some cases, where an animal has more than one significant human use, it has been listed in more than one category.

• Food
  • Livestock
    • cow
    • cattle
    • goat
    • honey bee
    • pig
  • Fowl
    • duck
    • goose
    • guinea fowl
    • pigeon
    • turkey
    • chicken
  • Other human food sources
    • snails
    • guinea pig
    • dog
    • rabbit
  • Raised as food for other animals
    • nightcrawler (earthworm)
    • cricket
    • mealworm
• Labor
  • horse
  • llama
  • reindeer (domesticated caribou)
  • donkey
  • elephant
  • alpaca
  • camel
  • oxen
  • water buffalo
  • yak
• Commodities
  • Fiber (for textiles)
    • rabbit
    • sheep
    • silk worm
  • Leather or furs
    • cattle
  • Other commodities
    • pearl oyster
• Pets
  • rabbit
  • hamster
  • ferret
  • guinea pig
  • dog
  • cat
  • carp
  • goldfish
  • tilapia
• Research and science
  • dolphin
  • |mice
  • rat
  • fruit fly
  • silver fox
• Other purposes
  • infertile insects (for control of their wild fellows)
  • ladybug
  • leech

Any thoughts? --[[User:Jjhake|Jjhake (talk)]] 22:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should carp be changed to koi because as far as im aware koi are domesticated carp?

I sense little, if any, NPOV in 2.4. Could this be revised into a less snide or less cynical tone? I' d like to revisit this article and find facts, rather than one person's philosophy about atypical pets. thx :) --Choz 08:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I say nice work go for it. Make sure that each link explains why it's not just a captive but domestic or domesticated. Yes, the word "Koi" to my knowledge is what they're always called, not "domesticated carp'. Chrisrus (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

List includes a large number of non-domesticated animals

And a lot of animals that are tame, but do not exhibit a genetic change affected by intentional human selection. The low quality of this article is shocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.91.165.14 (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what the last column's good for. To my knowledge, all of these animals are at least bred somewhat extensively in captivity, even if they are not perceptibly different from wild type. Feel free to flag the "not domesticated" animals as "bred in captivity" (absolutely no changes from wild-type, rarely kept in captivity) or "semidomesticated" (kept or used somewhat extensively, but little or no change from wild-type) 209.147.143.245 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Includes many captive, non-domesticated animals

There is no such thing as a truly domesticated reptile- none have undergone significant physical modifications other than changes in coloration (and, in very rare cases, scale type as in Bearded Dragons), and none have undergone the temperamental, reproductive, or more extensive physical changes characteristic of domestication. All of these reptiles and amphibians should be removed- they're really not domesticated. Parrots aside from the budgerigar (and maybe the cockatiel) also have no place on this list, especially since most species are only a few generations removed from the wild and have never even been bred extensively in captivity. This list needs to better distinguish between animals that are actually domesticated and animals which have simply been kept in captivity, and remove all of those that don't fit. 140.247.145.60 (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why remove them? That's what the "degree of domestication" column is for. List them as "bred in captivity" or "semidomesticated" (I'd say that, at least, leopard geckos and bearded dragons would fit under "semidomesticated", as they *have* been modified somewhat, if only physically)72.208.164.39 (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Please go ahead, be WP:BOLD and do it. not every capitive animal is domesticated. tehy must be changed in nature from the wild animal. Chrisrus (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Should color morphs be taken as an indication of domestication? A lot of parrots, snakes, etc. are identical to their wild counterparts and could easily be removed from the list, except that they have been bred for a wider range of colors. Eg. red African greys or the many, many ball python color morphs. 98.65.165.51 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My ideas include:

1. Each must have an explanation of why it's not just a captive animal in the last collumn.
2. Each must say in the article that we link the word "domestic" or "domesticated"
3. Each must have a citation that uses the word "domestic" or "domesticated" to describe it.
4. Each must have one or more of the above characteristics. Chrisrus (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say color morphs would qualify an animal as either "semidomesticated" or "slight physical changes", depending in part on how far from wild-type they are in terms of color, and/or how frequently they're bred. For example, leopard geckos, which have a lot of patterns not found in nature and are relatively common pets (at least for reptiles), I put as "slight physical changes". But if people have just extensively bred, say, rare but naturally occurring albino morphs, with no other changes, I'd just put them as "semidomesticated". When I added the column, I put in all the degrees of domestication I felt comfortable attesting to, but there's plenty of empty spaces, waiting for those who know about the animals in question. 149.169.237.98 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because someone "might" own the annimal does not necessarily make them domestic. I could own a Rhinoceros or an Elephant but that does not make them domestic (since the vast vast majority of people do not own those annimals). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Kinkaju?

Please read this section: Kinkajou#As_pets. Does this rise to the level of this species being a "domestic animal"? If we allow this, will not all animals, and this list would be very long, that are sometimes kept as exotic pets, be considered by this list to be domesticated animals? If it does, will this list not become an uninteresting list? Chrisrus (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Raised in Captivity"

Wild animals raised in captivity should not be added to the list or we will have the entire list of zoo animals. The moose is a wild animal, not a domestic one. Chrisrus (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oscelot?

Not every animal kept as an exotic pet or in captivity is a domestic animal. Adding things like ostriches and oscelot is not right. Please: if the article we link to does not say that it's a domestic animal, do not add it. A domesticated animal is fundementaly changed, like the difference between a dog and a wolf. Some people keep Coyotes as pets, too, but that doesn't make them domesticated animals. Chrisrus (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No wild animals! We don't care if it is kept is zoos or even as exotic pets, if it's article does not say it is a domesticated animal, we must not include it here. If you think it is a domesticated animal, edit the article about the animal so it says that it's a domesticated animal and THEN add it into the article. Until the article you are linking to says that it's a domesticated animal, leave it off the list. Chrisrus (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bring back the elephants

I think whoever got rid of all the wild species that were listed was a little overzealous. In India, at least, I'm pretty sure elephants are at least semidomesticated. They are used for transportation and labor, routinely. Someone also might want to go back and make sure everything else that was pitched is not relatively routinely either kept as pets, or kept as working animals. 209.147.138.9 (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That was me, User:chrisrus. I did it because I read the articlea and they say that they aren't domesticated animals. We're not going by what you or I or anyone else in particular knows or thinks or believes as editors of this list. We're going by what the articles say. The African elephant article, for example, please look it over. It doesn't say it's a domesticated animal. And the article Indian elephant specifically says the opposite. It says that, contrary to popular belief they are not a domesticated animal. If you (or anyone else) can get that changed, we can add it here. Once the article says they are domesticated, go ahead and add it back to the list. Chrisrus (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Long list of birds

There are many recently added birds with identical first and second collumns. Please delete all which do not link to articles that specifically describe not just a wild animal raised in captivity such as an exotic pet or a zoo or game farm animal, but an animal which has been fundementally changed due to a process of artificial selection. The only criteria for inclusion is that the article we blue link to clearly state that it is a domesticated animal. I'm not thinking only of the birds but many of these gerbil and hamster species, I'm sure that some of them are still wild animals, and many of these tropical fish and exotic pet reptiles could have articles that describe wild animals kept in captivity. Chrisrus (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Standards for inclusion

Please, IP user, please explain your standards for inclusion. Why do you not agree that this list and the cooresponding Wikipedia articles must agree? Why, for example, have you included Red panda? This article does not say that it's a domesticated animal. The citation in the lead sentence does not mention many animals you have included and the articles about those animals don't say that experts concider them to be domesticated animals. Please take a break from editing this article and reply to the above. Chrisrus (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please log in

Why not log in before making edits? If everyone would log in when making edits, instead of editing as an IP address, great benefits would be achieved by all. So please do sign in before making edits to articles. You'll be glad you did! Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Crab-eating fox, etc

Why has Cerdocyon thous, the Crab-eating fox, been included? The article being linked to doesn't say it is, and the item has no citation or reference saying that it's a domesticated animal. Someone has written "easy to domesticate" to explain, but gives no reason other than our say-so that that is true. But let's say that they are easy to domesticate. If an animal is easy to domesticate, does that mean it's a domesticated animal? If a wall is easy to paint, does that mean it's painted wall? If a thing is easy to do, does that mean it's done? Of course not.

And this is only one example. There are many other similar cases.

It seems that users are adding animals to this article with a strange understanding of what "domesticated animal" means, a concept which, like most concepts, has some gray area around it and some room for disagreement. So I propose a standard of inclusion: the article for the animal being listed should state clearly that the animal is a domesticated animal. That is all. Please agree or suggest/explain what standard of inclusion we should use. Chrisrus (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok! Thank you very much for removing the crab-eating fox. If at some time in the future it's article should state and cite that it's a domesticated animal, please feel free to add it back.

But the point was not the crab-eating fox per se but rather that we should agree on some standard for inclusion such as my idea that that we only include it here if the article clearly states that it's a domesticated animal (not that doing so would remove any room for disagreement, there would still be some iffy cases even if this standard is adopted where reasonable people would be able to disagree). For example, what about the Rusty-spotted cat? I am asking not only that it be removed on the grounds that it's article doesn't say it's domesticated, but more to the point that the person who included it agree to some standard of inclusion, such as agreeing to my idea about the article having to say so or to suggest and work out some standard we all agree on. Otherwise, simply removing the Rusty-spotted will not solve the problem as the same user will continue to add and not delete such animals, causing this list to be a constant, recurring problem. So, if you can read this and you are the person that added the Rusty-spotted cat, please explain here why you did so or just agree not to add this kind of article to this list in the future and explain or agree to some sort of standard of inclusion that we can use here in the future. Chrisrus (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Domesticated in captivity?

Whoever put that: I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. You're either being redundant, or simply incomprehensible. I don't want to delete them all, because presumably you meant *something* by it, but you need to figure out how to state that something in a way that actually makes sense... 72.223.117.158 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edible Doormouse

The article Edible dormouse seems to describe a wild animal. However, toward the end, it does mention that the ancient Romans used to eat them so often that they used to farm them. They kept them in cages not unlike those we use for domesticated rodents. This might even be done today in some countries but it's not clear that's the case. Now, according to the definition of domesticated animal, does that make them one? It's not clear to me that it does, if you use the definition of the article domesticated animal. Chrisrus (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Degree of domestication column...

Several people have been complaining about the "undomesticated" animals listed here. I invite them to fill in the column titled "degree and type of domestication" for any animals they feel confident to provide information for. Some proposed standards/types/categories:

"Bred in captivity"--Occasionally kept as pets or working animals, or otherwise both protected and utilized by humans (hereafter, "kept"), but completely wild-type. Zoo animals don't count for this, nor do animals only kept by a tiny handful of rich eccentrics.

"Semidomesticated"--Somewhat frequently kept, but essentially wild-type

"Domesticated"--kept for several generations (not necessary if other modifiers apply)

"Tame"--behave with noticeably less fear of humans than their wild relatives, from birth/without special training. A dog is tame, a leopard gecko is not. The difference is, a dog who's never seen humans before will be a lot easier to tame than a wolf of similar age; a leopard gecko that's the offspring of pets will be just as hard to tame as one from pure wild geckos.

"Slight physical changes"--Alterations of color, extensive breeding of naturally less common physical types (like neoteny in axolotl), minor changes in size, tail length, etc; but most individuals would be recognizable as, and often could be mistaken for, the wild-type animal (leopard geckos are a good example)

"Some physical changes"--Most or all individuals are still easily recognizable as a relative of the wild-type, but enough changes have been made that most individuals could not be readily mistaken for wild-type by an expert (cats might fall here)

"Significant physical changes"--Enough changes have been made that most individuals could not be readily mistaken for wild-type by anyone (dogs are a good example)

Slight/some/significant behavioral changes would fall on similar lines. A minor change in breeding time/frequency would be a slight change, complex behaviors never seen in wild-type animals would be a significant change.

Any thoughts? 149.169.55.194 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, many spring to mind, but for the moment:

1. I've seen WP:RSes that use the term "tame" in sharp contrast to "domesticated", where the former might apply to a Hollywood lion and the latter to my spaniel. Which makes sense, because we say that lion tamers tame lions, but we don't say that they domesticate lions. But your usage seems legit as well.
2. There seem to be some animals, mostly reptiles and such, that you can take right out of the wild and they make great pets straight away. Some lizards for example from some isolated islands, are just mellow like that. So it'd be hard to tell. If you hand-raise a wild skunk (de-odorized, of course), it makes a fine pet, but raccoons, not so much, and weasels, from what I hear, not at all. This may circle back to my first point. Chrisrus (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I see a distinction between a tame individual (this specific animal has become accustomed to humans) and a tame species (every member of this species is more or less accustomed to humans). Since we're talking about species on this page...149.169.209.118 (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I can see your point. And as User JRice was saying above, we maybe should coordinate our definition here with that of the rest of Wikipedia. He said we should read the first twosentences at least of the article Domestication and talk that way here too. Chrisrus (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoever changed some of the things in this column: "Domesticated" is the default for "this is domesticated, but I don't know what has changed from the wild-type animal". Please do not change an entry that says, for example, "some physical changes" to simply "domesticated", unless whatever was there before is, to your knowledge, *incorrect*.149.169.174.36 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

California two-spot octopus as an example of recent additions

User:Adouglasbhanot, please reply:

Please spell the criteria you are using to add animals to this list. For example, why have you added animals such as the California Two-Spot Octopus? This is just one example. Chrisrus (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I removed part of obviously not domesticated species - for example fruit fly Bulwersator (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you! But please, on principle if for no other reason, don't go by what's "obvious" to you because that sets a precedent that others can go with what's "obvious" to them. Instead, go by the article. When deleting animals, please give as a reason that the article didn't say they were domesticated. Please agree. Chrisrus (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • See WP:VER - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.", so it is not OK to restore "obvious" ones without sources, but it is OK to remove unsourced ones (I removed only unsourced that were also IMHO obviously incorrect) Bulwersator (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • You are correct, you were in your rights to remove any uncited material even on a hunch. The way I like to do it, and if this article is on your watchlist you might want to try it next time, is to click on uncited animals and if I find there a clear, well-cited statement that it's a domesticated animal, I leave it alone. It's another approach, you might like because not everything that looks like a wild animal as a blue link on this list still looks like one once you've clicked the link. Once satisfied by the article behind the link, I know I should probably bring some citation back here, but I don't because I'm not worried about it anymore, but if you do, fine, excellent, it'd be welcome list improvement.
      • Anyway, thank you for your contribution to this article and even if you choose to delete every uncited item, please keep up the good work, because this list needs trimming often. Chrisrus (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Moose???

Excuse me, but who added animals such as the Moose and what was your reasoning? I just can't for the life of me understand why anyone would add the moose to this list in good faith. Did you have a good faith reason, or is it vandalism? Chrisrus (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• It was mentioned by IP - Talk:List_of_domesticated_animals#Domesticated_in_captivity.3F - I am going to trim also this type of dubious entries Bulwersator (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, ok, I apologize. I can see where, after reading the relevant section of the article where someone might look at that and think that adding it to this list might constitute article improvement. I still don't agree, however that it should be on this list because adding "Moose" to this list is tantamount to saying that Alces alces = domesticated animal. And, as everyone knows, moose are wild animals. What eveyone doesn't know is that there have been two attempts to domesticate moose and there may be some individuals that, as a result of those programs, might individually be considered domesticated by some expert. So the truth is that they are not domesticated except some very few individuals. So if we could find some way to include on this list the referent Russian domesticated moose or Sweedish domesticated moose, whatever they are called, including just those individuals would be correct to do. But just adding plain old Moose to this list, i.e.: for us to say that "the moose is a domesticated animal", that's so very mostly false and so barely sometimes maybe true that it on balance constitutes a claim of fact that's more false than not.
  • Again, sorry if I approached violating WP:AGF and please dear reader learn from my mistake and don't go on your first instinct upon seeing an item on the list but do give it a click and scan around for the word "domesticated" or "domestic" and see why it says that because it might change how you want to react. Chrisrus (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • As there is no source here (BTW, and according to Moose#Domestication moose is not (yet) domesticated) it can be removed from this list by anybody. I only mentioned that it was suggested before. Bulwersator (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, you are right. Still, I'm just saying. Chrisrus (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, hate to be a pest about this, but if you would all just sign in and spell out your criteria for inclusion or exclusion.

Before saying anything else, I thank you all for your interest in improving this list, I especially appreciate many, if not all of the recent deletions.

But if I may and if you would, could anyone/everyone/someone just spell out what criteria we are using?

Now, please, for example, if an item is uncited, what is wrong with my suggestion that we go with what the article we are linking to says?

Even though many species/subspecies on the list are uncited, if the article being linked to by the list confirms that the animal is domesticated, I'm fine with it being on this list. If not, not, because otherwise Wikipedia is contradicting itself. How about it?

Ok, let's just say that this list and the articles being linked to disagree about whether it's domesticated. If you still want it on the list, just edit the article in question so it stabilizes saying that it's domesticated. Once that's done, go right ahead and put it on this list. Simple!

If there's some debate about any one, the place to discuss that is at the article about the animal in question, not here. Here you can disagree with each other about whether the article says, if we want, but if the article is clear one way or the other, we can't have Wikipedia disagreeing with itself. Something's gotta give!

Now, if you have another idea and would like me/us/everyone to hear you out as to why, please do spell it out. I for one am open to other ideas.

Please spell out your criteria for exclusion, please. Chrisrus (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My $.02: anything that says it is domesticated, or says it is extensively kept as a pet, or says that it is used as a work animal, or says that it is raised for meat, likely belongs at least *somewhere* on the page. Basically, anything that humans keep around a lot, qualifies as at least *some* degree of domesticated or semidomesticated. We can reserve the first table for true domestication, according to the standards of the "domestication" article, and use the second table for more questionable cases, like a lot of essentially wild-type reptiles and birds kept commonly as pets, or things like elephants that we use extensively as working animals, but may not actually breed or otherwise truly domesticate... 149.169.222.227 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I worry that if we add any animal "extensively" kept as a pet than any wild animal that people start keeping in captivity will be added to the list. I think that if we don't actually breed or otherwise truly domesticate an animal, it should not be added. Only true domesticated animals should be on this list. Chrisrus (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's part of what the second table is for. Anything of dubious domesticity can go there. Which will, among other things, help with "housekeeping" on the first table, because people won't keep re-adding and re-deleting the same species because of different standards of what counts as "domesticated".

At the very least, anything that you can buy at a freaking Petsmart should at *least* count as "domestication status unclear".149.169.131.109 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? "Domestication (from Latin domesticus) is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, is changed at the genetic level, accentuating traits that benefit humans." - multiple species kept as pets are NOT domesticated Bulwersator (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

To a great extent, it depends on where you draw the line. Is it "domesticated" if it's captive-bred, but essentially wild-type? What about if some color morph or the like, that is present but rare in wild-type animals, is bred extensively? Where, exactly, do you draw the line and say "ok, this here is clearly domesticated, but before it crossed this threshold it was clearly not domesticated"? You kind of can't, "domesticated" is not that black-and-white of a status. Which, again, is where the second table I added is useful. If it *might* belong on this page, it can go on the second table, and people will stop adding it to the first table (thinking it belongs there and was just forgotten), then having other people delete it (because they think it doesn't belong). That just leads to much frustration all around.

And, really, I think leopard geckos should be on the first table (since we have bred several unique color morphs and the like), but as long as it's on the page *somewhere*, I'm not going to kick too much. 68.226.98.53 (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

*Stop removing leopard geckos!!!!!*

They are kept extensively as pets, they are bred in captivity, they have been bred to have special color (and even size) morphs, what the frell else do they need to count as "domesticated"? If you're not sure about a species, please move them to the bottom (where leopard and crested geckos were), rather than removing them from the page entirely.

For that matter, fruit flies have been used extensively in scientific research, in such a way that they are arguably at least semidomesticated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.131.109 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Verifiability - please provide reliable sources that this animal is domesticated Bulwersator (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, as I added to the leopard gecko article (with a link there), they are one of the most popular reptile pets. They are extensively bred in captivity (wild-caught leos are rarely sold these days), and several unusual color and pattern morphs have been bred. Here's a pageful: http://www.paulsagereptiles.com/LeopardGenetics.htm 68.226.98.53 (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You make good points about them being extensively bred inot morphs, and it being odd that therefore experts don't refer to it as a domesticated animal, if they don't, because maybe they should if it's been bred into morphs. The thing is, what matters here is only whether or not experts do call them that or whether they don't call them that. That is all. If you can show they do call it that, by citing a statement to that effect in the article and the guardians of the article allow it, then by all means let's have it here and no one will be able to keep it off. If, even for no good reason we can think of, they simply don't call it that, then neither should we, even if it makes no sense to us, because otherwise it'd be us Wikipedians calling it that, and who are we to say whether they are or not? We're not experts on anything. Or we might be experts in real life, but not here in our wikiforms. Here, you're just some username who might not even be you per se, but your teenage sons logging on when we're out or something. It's that simple! We can't decide here amongst ourselves where to draw the line in the gray area around the central concept of "domesticated animal". We may notice it being inconsisently applied, but there's nothing we can do about it but complain. We don't decided what is and isn't one. The experts do in the WP:RS sources used to create the article, and we just report that here and are free to feel however we feel about it. Chrisrus (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Quit removing the "status unclear" table, *please*.

Domestication is not completely cut and dry. There are definitely animals that are domesticated by some standards/definitions, and not by others. And at least one animal on the table you keep removing is, in my opinion, pretty clearly a domesticated animal (considering how many morphs of leopard geckos have been bred). Some of the animals on that table may not belong there, I kind of did a copypaste of a bunch that had been deleted from the first table, but at least some of them are possibly to probably domesticated, depending on what definition you use. And if you leave them on the page, in the "status unclear" table, then people will presumably stop adding them to the main table, which gets rid of the truly frustrating "Hey, why isn't (foo) on this table?" "Hey, what is (foo) doing on this table?" "Hey, why isn't (foo) on this table" add-delete cycle. Tamtrible (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for the belongs/doesn't belong issue

Rather than having people adding and removing and adding and removing the same species over and over again, may I suggest altering the page to have 2 tables? Have a "confirmed" table, and an "unconfirmed" table. If you think something (like, say, the elephant, which is at least semi-domesticated, considering how routinely it's used as a beast of burden) doesn't belong on the "confirmed" table, move it down to the "unconfirmed" table. If you can confirm the status of a species as domesticated, move it to the "confirmed" table. I'm a bit annoyed at whoever removed leopard geckos, they at *least* qualify as "raised in captivity", and there are many distinct morphs that have been bred... 72.223.117.158 (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If the article Leopard Gecko says they are a domesticated animal, let's include it; otherwise, if it doesn't say so and you still want to include it, first edit the article so it does say so and then include it. We can't base things on what people personally know or believe. It has to be based on what experts say, and in the articles statements are cited to experts. If you want to include the Indian elephant, change the article so it doesn't say that they aren't domesticated. Does this not seem reasonable to you? Chrisrus (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a section to the leopard gecko article mentioning their status as pets (hopefully someone who knows more will add to it), but articles get edited all the time. Part of what I'm asking for is a general policy that won't lead to add/delete/add/delete cycles that can get *quite* frustrating (someone puts the effort into making a nice entry, and adding lots of details, then someone else decides it shouldn't be there and deletes it...) since we can't even quite definitively agree to what criteria to use for inclusion/exclusion, having an "unconfirmed" table people can move dubious entries to would be... kinder. And it would also serve the purpose of simultaneously having a relatively short list of unquestionably domesticated animals for those looking for that, and a long list of animals that have been extensively used by humans in one form or another, for those looking for that, since people *do* come to this page looking for slightly different things.72.223.117.158 (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Case in point on the "articles get edited all the time" issue: I *tried* to add a section on leopard geckos as pets, and for some reason it got auto-deleted as "unhelpful" or something... 72.223.117.158 (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's tough when people don't work together and cooperate and hard to get everyone "on the same page" as it were. It's very frustrating to care about something and put work into something and others mess it up. It that's why you have get agreement about debatable things and work toward getting a general concenesus going so that things don't thrash and are accepted and remain stable. This is why communication is important and cooperation is essential and why this talk page is here. Please do scroll up and start replying where appropriate, and I promise to try to help you with your concerns. Chrisrus (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the "History" tab of the article leopard gecko and saw what happened and think I understand why. First, you didn't sign in, so you are just an IP address and so automatically suspect by the vandalism bot patrol. Second, and most importantly, you didn't provide any citation for the statement. How is Wikipedia to know that what you said there is true? If you sign in, and especially after you've made a certain number of stable edits, you won't have so many problems as you'll be a recognized Wikipedian who we can talk to about things and the bots won't bother you too much. Second, please understand and agree to the importance of citing things in articles, and making sure lists follow articles. We should be able to find a citation for your contribution to the article leopard gecko fairly easily. Do you have a book or something about them that says pretty much the same thing you said? If so, I can help you cite it and then we can add it and no one will be able to revert it and make the revert stick and it will stablize.

Next, let's agree on a common definition of "domesticated animal" vs. maybe "tame animal" or "captive animal". Without thinking about what your ideas are on that matter, please agree sight unseen that we should use the definitions use the definitions used in articles such as domestication, tame, and such, or that we at least go with those definitions for now until we can get those articles changed about what those words mean, if that's what we decide to do.

Finally, even if we do all of the above, we may still find cases such as that of the leopard gecko that we may disagree about. This is why it's important to work with people well and not go off on our own and ignore everyone else. Chrisrus (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've forgotten my login... I had one at *one* point... but I've kind of forgotten what it was and haven't bothered to make a new one. Having the second table will reduce the churn of "Oh, but what about [this species here], that's not on there"/"[This species here] isn't actually domesticated", because it will be *on* the page, so people won't think it was just forgotten or whatever...149.169.222.227 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to ask for some help...

. This user wants to log in, but doesn't know how. S/he has been editing extensively under this IP ID. Chrisrus (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To log in, click here You can also recover your login details. What was their account name? Mdann52 (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attention Mdann52. It's this user above, User 149...., scroll up just a little for the context needed to understand. Thanks again! Chrisrus (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant the IP's original username Mdann52 (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Mdann52, please meet USER 149.169, etc. User 149.169.etc., meet Mdann52, who is here to help you get logged on. He has some questions for you if you would please respond. Mdann, please scroll up a bit to where he explains "I've forgotten...., etc." just above. Chrisrus (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

All sorted, thanks. Tamtrible (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding semidomesticated, routinely captive-bred etc

This article is titled "List of domesticated animals" Bulwersator (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Domesticated is not a simple cut-and-dried, black-and-white line. Is a leopard gecko, which has been bred to multiple color and pattern morphs but has no significant behavioral changes and few other changes, domesticated? Are elephants, that have been used extensively for centuries as work animals, but are essentially identical to the wild-type animal, domesticated or not?

Also, this article has seen *multiple* add/delete/add/delete cycles, leaving the second table there will cut down on that, as you won't have "Hey, why isn't (x) anywhere on this table? I should add it", followed by "Hey, what is (x) doing on this table? I'm going to delete it", followed by "Hey, why isn't (x) on this table?"... If something's iffy... like reindeer, or elephants, or the various lizards extensively kept as pets, or whatever, it can go on the second table, so it will be on the page (and people will stop saying "Hey, (x) is missing" and re-adding marginal species), but it won't be cluttering up the table of "true" domestics.

Basically, the second table is for the grey-area stuff that some people kept taking off of the first table, and other people kept re-adding. Tamtrible (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That is, basically... there's 2 ways we can view this table. Species that are, by the strictest definition of the word, fully domesticated, or species that have been extensively used by humans one way or another. The second table lets us include the latter, but leave the first table reserved for the former. Tamtrible (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It is "List of domesticated animals", not "List of animals extensively used by humans extensively used by humans" and it is obvious that any animal listed here, without sources indicating domesticated status may be removed from the list. Bulwersator (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can change the title of the article... Tamtrible (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Everyone: please agree that we are not going to be able to draw a fine line deliniating the boundries between a captive wild animal, a semi-domesticated animal, and a truely fully domesticated animal. We should not and must not be the judges of this. Experts should. What should happen is, experts write the word "domesticated" (or "domestic") somewhere in an WP:RS. Then, the Wikipedians who write and edit the articles transfer that word from the WP:RS to the article. We here have then a job. We scan the article for the word. But wait! Finding it there does not mean we can add it to the list. We have to see how precisely it is used in the context of the article. If it says something like "even though many people think this is a domesticated animal, it's really not..." or some other thing, we obviously don't add it. But if the context is "Animal X is a domesticated animal...." or some such we add it. If it says something between those extremes, we can talk about it here and come to a decision. That is all. We don't inject our idea of where the line is in the gray areas. We can complain all we want about how it doesn't make sense that Animal X is one and Animal Y is not. That'd be interesting. But the only animals on this list will have articles that say clearly that it's domesticated -- USING THAT WORD (or one of it's forms like "domestication" or "domesticate" or "domestic", but using the root word "domestic") and that is all. Not "tame", not "pet" not "captive" not "farmed" or "ranch". Only the root word "domestic" can qualify an article for this list, and the context must be right, too. Otherwise, we'll never get this list nice and neatly organized for the reader and make some good progress with it. Chrisrus (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Domestication is not a cut-and-dried status. At least one species on the second list is, in my opinion (from what I know about the animal), clearly domesticated for a reasonable definition of the term (it is captive-bred, and has been modified from wild-type, breeding several lines of morphs that *are not present in wild animals*, meaning it qualifies as domesticated). And people come to this list for various reasons. People may come wanting an exhaustive list of animals that are extensively used by humans (the broadest colloquial definition of "domesticated"), some people come wanting only things that meet the narrowest definition of what constitutes "truly domesticated". Having 2 lists satisfies both sets; those looking for "pure" domestication or information on truly, unequivocally domesticated animals, can just look at the first list. People looking for information on any animal that a lot of humans have used a lot can look at both lists. Keep the 2 lists, separately, and everybody wins.

The specific word "domesticated" (and its variants) may be missing from an animal's page for various reasons. Because the page is focusing on the conservation of the wild species, because the people who wrote the page thought the term "pet" or "farmed" or whatever was sufficiently specific to indicate what they wanted, because there's some dispute about whether or not a species is "really" domesticated, and so on. So I think going *purely* on a "is the word domesticated listed in the animal's page" basis is... insufficient. I mean, there's one species on the list that is commonly sold as a pet, but was once thought *extinct* in the wild. You can go to Petsmart and buy a lizard that almost does not exist in the wild (they breed pretty easily in captivity)... how do you judge how domesticated a species is if there isn't a wild population to even compare it to?

Is there some way we can get a mod or whatever to make a ruling, so Bulwersator and I can stop going back and forth on this? Tamtrible (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying but you need to understand that by adding it to this list we are saying that this animal is domesticated. This is what membership on this list implies. We can't have any asterisks or such, it's either a clear-cut case or it's off. If you put an animal on this list you are saying it is domesticated, because that's the name of the list. We can't allow any gray area cases because they might be challenged and lost without a clear citation or blue link to back it up. It's just not doable because anyone who disagrees can delete them and there'd be no way to enforce it.

Please, just go the article about the lizards or whatever and include the word "domestic" or varient used in context and then add it here. If it does not stand, as soon as it falls take it off of this list here. We can't be delving into gray areas, that's for the article to do. We're just stenographers. If they say it, we'll say it; and if they don't; we don't. Because when we put an item on this list, we are reporting that "experts say that".... Chrisrus (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically, the second table is one big asterisk. It is there to indicate that these things are in a grey area, that may or may not be domesticated. The first table is "Experts say that", the second table is "Some experts argue that"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 01:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, if you'll stop deleting the second table, I will personally go through the first table and move some of the more, er, iffy entries down to the second table. But if the second table is going to keep getting deleted, I won't bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. But what about this: if you get the second table together, how about we start a new article called "List of semi-domesticated animals or some such and move that table there? Because if it's on this page, we should be able to say with all confidence that the animal is domesticated. Or actually no. We should be able to say with all confidence that experts in the WP:RSes call them that. Even if some call them that and others don't go out of their way to disagree and say the first expert is crazy don't anybody listen to him, well, that's good enough for me, personally. "Some experts call them that..." passes my personal sniff test.

For now (as far as I'm concerned, and can't speak for the others) if you give the "second table" another title and it's on the way to eventually becomeing another page entirely, I'm not going to be deleting it any time soon. It's a good compromise to move all the "iffies" to a separate "iffy" table. Chrisrus (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's on a separate page, however, it will not have the useful effect of stopping add/delete cycles, as it won't be on the page for people to go "Oh, there's <species>, I guess I don't need to add it"

and, you'll note the second table *does* have a separate title (if you want it to have a different title, feel free to give it one, but I think the one it has is pretty descriptive of what the second table contains), along with a description of why it is there.

and, well, I'm the one who added the second table in the first place, so people *would* stop adding/deleting/adding/deleting the same "iffy" species. I mostly added it because I was annoyed that someone kept deleting leopard geckos (I think anything that you can routinely buy in a freaking Petsmart counts as at *least* semi-domesticated, if it's not wild-caught...) Tamtrible (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting Adouglas on board

Is it possible to get User:Adouglasbhanot with the program, so to speak? It's very confusing when he makes edits without edit summaries and/or discussion. I don't understand why he makes the edits he does. Please, Doug, are you working with us? Chrisrus (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)