Talk:Bearded dragons as pets

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2011. The result of the discussion was merge to Pogona.

	Bearded dragons as pets is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cleanup tag

Article reads like it was written by a fancier. It needs attention from someone who knows about the animals, but also how to craft a proper encyclopedia article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs more details on the habitat and life of bearded dragons in the wild, rather than just a guide to beardies as pets. --Soultaco 17:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The writer talks about mimicking the "waving and head bobbing" behavior, these are territorial displays and should not be mimicked as this causes distress to the animals!

yeah article should focus on the family. Go to Pogona vitticeps for the species mostly kept as a pet. would also like to see more wild info. Oogles 03:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved/renamed this page to Bearded Dragon (pet) so as to clearly distinguish between husbandry and pet topics, and the species-covering information at Pogona vitticeps Ibanix (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from opening paragraph

"" They are quickly gaining popularity and may soon be more common pets than Green Iguanas. ^{[citation needed]} ""

Removed that.

Some source is needed for that, but seems absurd to me. For anything else, the price difference. Green iguanas are sold often as 'disposable pets' ($15USD), plenty of babies are sold but how many people have 6' iguanas?... Iguanas also rear more babies, mating quads (1m3f) you can get 100+ iguanas a year. Now imagine that you have a ranch. Easy to contain 6' creatures without need of cages, cleaning them, feeding each individual one, etc.

Geckos($5+) also beat the dragon, certainly the breen anole($2+), but also leopard, etc. Needs to be sourced. My opinion would be geckos and iguanas well above bearded --- heck, collared lizard might even have it beat. Ease of breeding and number of offspring being the primary factors to cost, which is the primary factor IMO in "common".

You will also see large regional differences, especially when animals are easily wild-caught relatively close to home. Oogles 03:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"They shoot blood out of their eyeballs?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.192.186.88 (talk) 21:33, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Citation not needed

Pogona barbata - Common Bearded P. henrylawsoni - Rankin's P. minima - Western P. minor - Dwarf P. mitchelli - Northwest Bearded P. nullarbor - Nullarbor P. microlepitoda

Pogona vitticeps is the one almost entirely in pet stores and pet trade. Don't really need a 'source' for this, as it's common knowledge. Go to a pet store, look at it. It's Pogona vitticeps prolly. Just google any bearded dragon site to see that, or try to buy one to see that.

Oogles 03:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not common knowledge- a casual viewer would not know this. Because one could quickly learn a fact with some research does not mean that the fact is common knowledge- if it has to be looked up, it should be sourced. Parrotlander (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Quite one thing to take an average person that knows nothing, and to ackowledge that the species in the overwhelming majority in the pet trade is infact pogona vitticeps. I mean, is this type of source really necessary? Are you saying it's NOT the one in the pet trade? I acknowledge someone who doesn't have have a clue who looks at it sees "a lizard" (a very wide family/species range).

But this is a talk page. Not the article.

Oogles (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

In response to copyedit tag, work done on housing section. History Differences Texas Patriot | Talk | Contributions 15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp

I redid almost the entire page. Here are my references, but I don't know how to add citations. Grenard, Steve (1999). The Bearded Dragon. Wiley Publishing, Inc. ISBN 1-58245-012-9. http://www.bio.miami.edu/ktosney/file/BDcare.html http://www.anapsid.org/mainlizards.html http://www.beautifuldragons.503xtreme.com/Nutrition.html http://www.dachiu.com/projects.html http://www.dachiu.com/projects.html http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=17&cat=1796&articleid=2730 http://www.beardeddragon.org/articles/impaction/ http://www.beardeddragon.org/articles/sexing/

Also, someone reverted my edit removing a clearly NOT bearded dragon from the page without giving a reason. Learn your lizards before changing things, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.142.181.179 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There. References added. Feel free to add 'citation needed' notes and I will add them if someone else does not. 137.142.181.179 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikibooks

I put a 'howto' tag on the article, to indicate that it should not be an instruction on caring for this species. A request to move most of this material to wikibooks should be made by one the contributing editors, it would be a shame if the information was simply removed. cygnis insignis 06:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When I revamped the article a while ago I hadn't looked at many of the other pet pages on here. Not only is this information not appropriate for the wiki, it should also have been under the specific species name instead of just 'bearded dragon'. Live and learn, I guess. 137.142.181.179 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new page is posted at wikibooks here, it needs some improvements. cygnis insignis 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and improve the article too. Crimsonraptor (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adenovirus

Added Adenovirus to the list of diseases, However the autolink to the adeno wiki is mostly about the disease overall. If anyone knows more about it, maybe we can colab a page on Adeno in Bearded Dragons?TariStar (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding

Someone really has to change the romaine lettuce.Any kind of lettuce is not good as it contains mostly water and no nutrients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguy666 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it needs a reference. Ibanix (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will find one Theguy666 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, 6th paragraph ,3rd line. http://www.beardeddragon.org/articles/caresheet/?page=3 (This site is great for information on Beardies)Theguy666 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else thing that we should split off the "poisonous and dangerous" foods into a sub section of feeding? I feel as thought they are getting lost in the overall of the page. TariStar (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a good idea. --R O ^{A M A T A A}| msg 06:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Ok why is this page, out of all the thousands there are, getting vandanalised on pretty much a daily to weekly basis all of a sudden? Its about a freaking lizard for crying out loud, its hardly the most widespread subject matter. Some people really need to get a life. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate tone

The handling section was written as if this were a blog, so I tried to rewrite it in an appropriate tone for wikipedia. The paragraph needed to be changed so I changed it right away, but I think that its wording can be improved if anyone wants to take a look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abusing (talk • contribs) 17:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at rewording part of the handling section, mostly just repharsing what was there before, and adding some detail. I'm not sure if the displays should be mentioned again in detail, but it did seem to me the behaviors dragons use to communicate with their handlers should be restated, also I probably should have put something in there about tail whipping as well as pointing out that bearded dragons do not regrow their tails. This fact would seem to go without saying for some people, but there are those who believe that they can... I was also wondering if everything from "A controlled space..." shouldn't be included under Housing rather than handling --Archaic ritual (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok just dont yell at them it will make them uneasy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.171.134 (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recomended?

I may be wrong, but if I'm not mistaken, calcium sand is not 'widely' recomended by herpatologists (vets), many breeders, nor the majority of knowledgable owners. At best calcium sand is recomended by petstores (which sell the sand) and are mentioned, but not particularly recomended as a possible substrate in some bearded dragon care books --

Another matter is the under the tank heater which I removed from the 'lighting and heating' as undertank heaters are not recomended for bearded dragons, as they can cause overhearting (bearded dragons moniter heat through a sensor on their head), and should absolutely not be used with most substrates (even by the packaging of these mats sand is the only viable substrate with the item). This information comes from beardeddragon.org, as well as from a licensed herpatologist. The only recomendation I've heard for these under the tank heaters (like the sand) is the packaging it comes in and the people who sell it. Archaic ritual (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the part where it says "calcium sand is recomended". Theguy666 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It's often recommended by indivudals, perhaps pet stores -- but breeders, vets, or -- (and it's impossible to include "knowledgable owners" objectively in that -- main issue is calcium intake to the animal. Unknown if they eat an unknown dose. (ie: calcium overdose) Oogles (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Spitting Fire"

THEY SPIT FIRE :3

Article Title

If this is an article about pet bearded dragons, and there is a separate article for the genus Pogona as well as for the various species (including the Central Bearded Dragon per the hatnote), would it not be less confusing and more accurate to title this page "Pet Bearded Dragon", "Bearded Dragon husbandry" or "Bearded Dragons as Pets", or something along those lines? Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bearded Dragon" should be about the genus of lizards not about how they are kept as pets, a topic which should either be within a section or a standalone article. Until 20 February this page was titled "Bearded Dragon (pet)", maybe it should return to this and leave Bearded Dragon for the genus page. Jack (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I just moved it back without checking on some ill-advised knee-jerk page moving (sorry).. looks like there is a disambiguation page situated at bearded dragon that previously directed readers to Bearded dragons in captivity -- that's not an appropriate title, and did not reflect the content. Appropriate pages might be:

Either way this article has several //cleanup// issues - wikipedia should avoid being a guidebook for one, but also grammar and spelling (miniture!!??)

Sorry for the mess. I hope someone can make sense of that.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed the move for the moment, the solution has many advantages to previous arrangements. The dab of the common name, Bearded dragon, is accurate; it can refer to the genus (roughly), be one of many for several species, or refer to species sold and kept as pets. For many years the article, under one name or another, covered the genus and 2-5 species very poorly. It was mostly about pets, edited by enthusiasts, and has always always been vague, ill-defined, and instructional. I created the wikibook page and hoped people would add the 'how to' info at that site. There is a bit more discussion in my archive. The name is a bit clunky, nevertheless 'captive' embraces the specimens in zoos. The third title also defines the topic well, 'and people', the content doesn't match the title because it needs "cleaning-up". The scope of the topic, as defined by the rather descriptive title, is large enough for expansion. It could cover the import and export, captive breeding, which species are popular or unusual, handling, life spans, and anything else about the pets and specimens, as long it factual information derived from RS. cygnis insignis 15:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC) [fix link 11:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)][reply]

I will not dispute the reversal. However, I feel "in captivity" is an inappropriate title. Domestic pets are not "in captivity" - this term should be reserved for those in zoos (and possibly laboratories and other large scale storage operations), but note those in a domestic setting.

This article overwhelmingly deals with Bearded dragons as pets, the Miniature bearded dragon (note spelling[1]), and/or Bearded dragons and humans. I strongly suggest a name change, and that plenty of the "how to" guide-like content be removed (or ported to wikibooks) or at least attributed to an authority properly in-text.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the term is not problematic for those in zoos, I don't see how it would be for those in private collections. I grabbed a title that was used elsewhere for a similar article, it seems the most encompassing and less surprising than "~ and humans". Perhaps there is an issue with NPOV, although I also see that with the more restrictive term 'pets'. It is claimed they are bred in, ... er, a domestic setting, but I see the facts regarding poaching and conversation as closely related. As with many exotic animals, sometimes difficult to domesticate, 'bearded dragons' are often obtained from the 'natural' setting they would otherwise inhabit. Mention of things like Agamid adenovirus would be appropriate to this page, however it is titled. Some of the problems with this article, no longer found in the more specific articles, are a result of the enthusiasm of owners; this does indicate that it is a valid topic, so hopefully that can be translated into improvements here and at Wikibooks. cygnis insignis 11:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least spell *miniature* correctly. Is "miniature" an official term by the way? If all bearded dragons in captivity are miniature, I would suggest titling the page that.

And probably the foremost - there needs to be a specific distinction between these miniature (or captive) lizards and their wild counterparts. If there is no real difference between these lizards and the wild lizards, this article can serve very little purpose beyond a "how to" guide and other mostly unencyclopedic content.--ZayZayEM (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. 'Official' term?. If that is what the most reliable sources suggest, I don't see how that would be a problem.

I outlined some of the distinctions in a previous post and expect there are many others. cygnis insignis 13:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "problem" but rather a solution. I suggest a move to miniature bearded dragon.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon bearded dragons as pets (note lower case) is the most sensible move for this page, following the same 'species as pets' format as many other animals' articles (often as sections within the main article). Bearded Dragon and bearded dragon should then redirect to Pogona the genus, whose common name is the bearded dragons. There should be a hatnote or mention in the lead that bearded dragons as pets deals with the husbandry of said animals. Jack (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put it as a hatnote. Follow Summary style. Provide a small summay in a subsection that directs readers to this page as an expanded "main page" {{main|Foo as foo}}.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've moved the page from Bearded Dragon in captivity to bearded dragons as pets and hopefully updated all the redirects. It might be worth adding the terms 'beardie' and 'miniature bearded dragon' into the first few lines. The article needs a massive cleanup really. Jack (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]