This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rodents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RodentsWikipedia:WikiProject RodentsTemplate:WikiProject RodentsRodent articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
The article mentions fossil capybaras eight times bigger than the modern capybara, and links to a two popular press articles that use similar wording, but cite no sources. I suspect they're referring to recent finds of giant rodents like Phoberomys and Josephoartigasia, but those are dinomyids, not so closely related to capybaras.
Neochoerus pinckneyi was a larger Ice Age capybara, but apparently only weighed about 200 lbs. Unless someone has a reference for a thousand-pound capybara, I suggest we amend the article. Cephal-odd (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions capybaras escaped from captivity and found living near the Arno river, in Italy. Is there any source for that information?--Sid-Vicious (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article states that the capybara is the preferred prey of the anaconda, but over on the anaconda page it says that while the snakes may eat large animals (including the capybara), such large meals are not regularly consumed. Assuming this means that they usually eat other, smaller prey then there's a pretty strong disagreement here! I'll crosspost on the Anaconda talk page and see what they think too. Redset (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Graminivore" is a made-up word. "Graminivorous" is not. This is an attempted over-simplification of herbivorous behavior, and was further contradicted by the next sentence in the article. A "graminivore" would "specifically" only eat grasses and grass seeds, right? Not also aquatic plants, fruit and tree bark, correct? Doc9871 (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google seems to disagree with you there [1], as "graminivore" is occasionally used, even in scientific papers. In any case, words like this on "-vore" and "-vorous" are always used freely together, and I don't think it makes sense for any of them to say that one of the two is a real term and the other is not. A graminivore, or graminivorous animal, is an animal that eats grasses; I don't think the seeds should even be there (agranivore eats seeds).
The text on diet at this page is questionable. It's sourced to zoo sites, which are not the best we can have. The Mammalian Species account suggests that it is in fact a graminivore, in that the bulk of its diet consists of grasses (more precisely, they describe it as a "grazing herbivore", and note that it also eats sedges). It would be interesting to see where the Palm Beach Zoo's assertion that it also eats fruits and tree bark comes from. Ucucha12:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists them as being found in many countries of South America, then lists Panama and Costa Rica, which are generally considered North, or Central (or even just part of the Americas) but not South America. Furthermore, the range diagram does not show its range reaching Costa Rica.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapold (talk • contribs) 06:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently begins with this sentence (and a bunch of footnote references):
The capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), also known as capivarainPortuguese, and capibara, chigüireinVenezuela, Colombia, and EcuadorronsocoinPeru, chigüiro, and carpinchoinSpanish, is the largest living rodent in the world.
With this wording and punctuation it's massively unclear what the status of several of those names is. For example, is capibara meant to be one of two Venezuelan/Colombian/Ecuadorian names, or one of two Portuguese names, or an alternate name in English. or what? Likewise, what about chigüiro?
If this information belongs here, then someone who actually knows what's intended should restructure the sentence with punctuation that is unambiguous.
But, in any case, I don't see why alternate names of the animal in non-English languages are relevant here on en.wikipedia.org, so I think that a lot of that content should just be deleted. In my opinion, if chigüiro is an alternate term for the thing in some Spanish-speaking countries, that's information that belongs in es.wikipedia.org, but not here, unless it's especially relevant for some reason.
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Good job! Although I'm more of a reptile, especially venomous snakes guy, this was an interesting read. I think you passed the article which I worked on and nominated, the black mamba - I forget. Bastian (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please look above for problems listed. I have not gone through the entire article yet, but I will finish reading it later on.
The first "individuals" is misspelled in this sentence: "... as 100 individauls but usually live in groups of around 20 individuals."
As I said, the prose (spelling, grammar, and punctuation is good for most part), but there is still some room for improvement.
Another problem so far is the citation given in the "Fossil record and other species" section - it says nothing about fossil records or other species. Bastian (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under the subsection "Diet and predation" there is a contradiction in sources. You list "...four to six plant species making 75% of its diet." and listed this as a source. First, that source cannot be read as the lettering is way too small and so I as a reviewer cannot verify the number 75%. A second source claims "Only seven species represented 60% of the total diet:..." from here.
Another thing in the same section is this: "They will select the leaves of one species and disregard other species surrounding it.[16] Capybaras eat a greater variety of plants during the dry season as there are fewer plants available. While they eat grass during the wet season, they have to switch to reeds during the dry season as they are more abundant.[16]" - since all three sentences come from the same source, I would take out the first citation and just leave the one at the end right after "...more abundant"Bastian (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bits of improvements made are making the article look a lot better. Maybe add an "External links" section with a few links (3-5) of some general info pages from zoos, maybe links to a youtube video or two and you are pretty much good to go. Bastian (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few more problems. There are two different citation formats in the article--separate refs are used alongside inline complete citations. Many of the citations (I think these are recent additions) are not properly templated and use inconsistent, different date formats. Journal and newspaper titles are not properly rendered (at least one is abbreviated, and I've fixed "Latimes") and/or not wikilinked. Some refs say "downloaded," others "retrieved." This YouTube link is inappropriate in the first place, and certainly so in a GA. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a short paragraph about the escaped capybara of High Park, along with several reliable sources. They have been on the lam for over 2 weeks and this is still making national news. Yet my segment was deleted, probably because it was deemed not notable enough. I completely agree that it's not notable enough for its own article, but I'm not sure the deletion here was justified. Opinions? Observer31 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have the answer to my own question - this bit of info should be in the zoo history, not the species page. Sounds good? Observer31 (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've be been seeing YouTube videos showing capybaras to be very friendly. And the article show a photo of a bird sitting on one's head. If true or not, it needs to be addressed in the article. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now seen the " Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris" in the lead, which the most recent edit summary from me said they are not. And I also see they are semi-aquatic as well. But at least what I did was reverting the red links. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
In the article there are so many images I can't even put a picture of a capybara with her four pups into the article in the correct section. Maybe somebody cut down some of the images, or extend the article to enough length to fit them all? Also, can somebody archive this talk page, there's 22 sections, earliest dating back to 2007. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk19:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Capybara: Social
Capybara's are also known for their friendly nature. Capybara's are very social animals in nature, even with other species. The symbiotic nature that the peaceful animals have with others make them friendly with animals such as birds, turtles, alligators, and others. Naturally, these social animals can always be found in a large group of other capybara's, and rarely are spotted alone. Goosette (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
can we use a circulating meme with the don toliver song as an example? would this fall under fair use or would it still be subject to copyright? I think it would be beneficial to understand the meme considering how fast trends come and go. Jgourl (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to prevent talking about a meme but finding a WP:RS for that is difficult. Copyright is not a problem. Invasive Spices (talk) 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Any critter sitting in the front seat of a car would have sufficed, so this isn't about the animal, it's about the meme. It could possibly be of use on meme, but it is irrelevant on this article. - UtherSRG(talk)15:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The map shown of the capybara’s range shows that capybaras are not in the Brazilian province of Piauí even though they do, in fact, live there. JFJupiter (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under Popularity and Meme Culture, change "Capybaras also associated with the phrase" to "Capybaras are also associated with the phrase" Guy Bayan (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a nice picture of a yellow-headed caracara on the featured capybara. The caption is 'yellow-headed caracara sat on a capybara'. This should be '...sitting on a capybara.' or '...seated on a capybara.'