Talk:Cat/Archive 12

The common Slug is instant death for cats. They carry some bacteria that cannot be cured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.253.2 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Source, please. --Seduisant (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

According to this article, it has been assumed that the Theory of Evolution has been proven as fact when in fact it has not. Due to this fact, the article has listed as irrevocable fact that the cat "evolved" from other species. This does not include the alternative theory of Intelligent Design; therefore, a neutral POV has NOT been maintained. If and when the Intelligent Design theory concept of how the "cat" came to be is added, the NPOV Tag may be removed. Removal of this tag before then will result in reporting.Matthewgibson3321 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any references from mainstream scientific sources? If not, that's why it's not cited. We don't have to give equal weight, we give due weight according to reliable sources. Mainstream science does not consider Intelligent Design to a scientific concept but a creationist rejection of evolution (ID does not have a monopoly on creationism, by the way). Because mainstream science does indeed consider evolution to be proven fact (see for example the E. coli long-term evolution experiment), Wikipedia follows suit. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if ID has no real acceptance among biological scientists, then discussion of it belongs on articles specifically about evolution controversies, not on 5,000 different articles on various species. As has been said before, Wikipedia is not "neutral" between the hypotheses that the earth moves around the sun and that the sun moves around the earth... AnonMoos (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do I get the feline that we're going to see meow of this later? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

At least you didn't say "purrfect". —Tamfang (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, the earth moves around the sun?129.139.1.69 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This article at The Atlantic - amid plenty of interesting points about T. gondii - makes note of cats being popularized as pets by bohemians in Paris and London in the later half of the 18th century, which if further (i.e., well) sourced, would be an important point in the history section.

Certainly most people have heard about the Egyptians, but the article goes from their religion to now with nothing in between. Keeping them for their own aesthetic value / companionship among the middle class rather than keeping rats out of the food supply among the farming class certainly began somewhere. Any stories about prominent ones being kept by medieval rulers would also be interesting. 101.229.79.243 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting change to: 8.6 Reproduction

I think this picture:

should be replaced with this video:

because the description under the picture is a bit hard to understand without seeing it.

Helenecatty (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think editors would be willing to add a video of a sexual act. — Abhishek  ^Talk 12:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya, a picture of one cat mounting another should not be posted on wikipedia. No matter how funny or 'informative' it may be.MilkStraw532 (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, such a picture was already there, with no objection, and there is longstanding consensus against censoring such images. This discussion is about having video footage available instead of the still image. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. Obviously, that might offend people. Whereas the pictures [over in this article] are completely encyclopedic and contribute value to the internet as a whole. They're 'informative' too, but funny might be 'stretching' it. Haha. And no, I didn't have anything to do with that article (other than commenting on the horror), but the ridiculous 'butthurt' on this particular talk page over a basically harmless addition is making me laugh. 24.1.252.60 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone is tallying !votes, note that 24.1.252.60's "Right...that might offend people" above is clearly sarcastic, and the editor he/she is in favor of using the video. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"It's offensive" is a poor reason, however "videos use up more bandwidth, and we already have a picture illustrating the same concept as well as the video would for most of our users who wouldn't bother to open it because most people don't care to watch cats humping" is a good reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If people don't want to see it they don't need to open the file. I see that in the catarticle from Suriname uses the video (http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мачка), that the article from Bulgaria also included the video (http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Котка) and so on (you can see the rest of the articles that is including this video in the video description). I just want to point out that it is encyclopedic, not sexual as one person said. --Helenecatty (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of those arguments against using the video are bogus for consensus-judging purposes, for numerous reasons:

1. Without clicking it to animate it, the video preview is essentially identical in form and informativeness and blandness to the original still image (albeit they are of different cats). The article as such would be basically unaffected by the change.
2. Other-language Wikipedias use this or similar videos in their versions of this article, without problems; I'd also bet good money that there are similar animal mating videos used in other English Wikipedia articles, but I have better things to do that go look for them, since it isn't isn't important anyway, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
3. Footage like this is entirely routine on the Discovery Channel, National Geographic shows, Animal Planet, etc. There's nothing unusual or non-mainstream about it, and certainly no suggestion that it is indecent, obscene, or otherwise restricted.
4. Videos do not use up more bandwidth unless they're actually played, and if they're encyclopedic, we don't care anyway; Wikipedia and commons provide a large number of videos, and as has been said at WP:Village pump a million times, bandwidth is never a valid argument against anything that improves the encyclopedia, unless the change in question demonstrably causes technical problems, which using a video link on this page obviously won't.
5. Even the most psycho-conservative religious nuts do not propose that animal mating is in any way "offensive" or "dirty". The fact that there are a few individuals who for personal reasons are very squeamish about anything to do with reproduction is of no concern here, as they are not forced to watch the video. Cf. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
6. The fact that there are people who find animal mating of personal prurient interest is irrelevant; this is true of virtually everything, from shoes to clowns.
7. Only children (and perhaps childlike adults who have spent their entire lives indoors and never been exposed to nature) would consider basic animal mating footage "funny" (unless something funny happened in the footage, like the animals fell over). Even the slew of "funny animal videos" TV programs never present footage like this as humorous, and a quick review of the "tee-hee" comments on pages of such footage at YouTube clearly indicates they're all from either kids or idiots. Normal adults tend not to think that way. Those that do have no effect on how we create an encyclopedia, anyway.
8. There's nothing excessively explicit about the footage; there is no undue focus genital details or something else that might make the footage of non-encyclopedic value in the context. It is not a WP:GRATUITOUS problem.
9. There's been no suggestion that the footage is not typical and illustrative, nor that it is fake, so it has no WP:neutral point of view, WP:verifiability or related problems.
10. No argument could be made with a straight face that the mating habits of a species are, alone among all its biological and behavioral details, somehow not a matter of encyclopedic interest.
11. The supposition that most readers would not bother to watch the video is irrelevant, per WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL. Most readers wil never read the Cat article at all, but this is no reason to delete it.
12. And, most importantly, Wikipedia is not censored, as a matter of WP:Policy. We don't even use disclaimers.

The only valid potential objection that has been raised so far is that having it be a video might not be any more encyclopedically informative than having it be a still. This is a very weak argument, since a still does not show how cats mate, only what position they take when doing so. It's like arguing that footage of a race car in action cannot be encyclopedic because a still shows what it looks like and we all know that it rolls on its wheels.

The real reasons to not use this particular video are a) the video quality is very low by modern standards; and b) the still of it is much less clear even at thumbnail size than the original image this video would replace, so the replacement would actually degrade the quality of the article on one level to ostensibly improve it on another. A better video should be found. That said, I have no objection to the video being added instead of replacing the original image, as long as a better one is eventually found, and does replace the image, to remove the redundancy.

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your points about arguments against posting this video. Displaying feline mating behavior in a video form can be scientifically informative. However, I'm not sure the video quality is that bad; it seems to show the behavioral aspects in sufficient detail. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SMcCandlish -- I can't view the video right now without futzing around with software downloads and configurations (which I don't want to do), and the JPEG thumbnail is clearer and more relevantly informative than the OGG still thumbnail... AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully with everything said by Candlish, and am surprised that I have nothing to add. I would like to point out those who haven't even watched the video yet to go ahead and watch it as I think a squeamish person would be more turned off by the idea of the video than the video itself. That said I support adding this video in addition to the photo.AerobicFox (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

<sigh…> ok, another example to add to the list. Why do we even need the still image? The pertinent aspect of cat sexuality is not that they fuck - sexual intercourse is a commonality among higher vertebrates - but rather that cats have a fairly unique breeding interaction. --Ludwigs2 19:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am currently arguing for a relaxed attitude to censorship (i.e. acknowledging that we do it, and then discussing case by case if and how we want to do it) in an Arbcom case. In this case I fully agree with SMcCandlish. There is no reason for censorship, but the video is of such a poor visual quality that it cannot replace the photo. Hans Adler 20:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's not worth arguing the point here (I'm not overly concerned about the image, and although I'd like to have a rational discussion about it just to hash it out, I suspect any such discussion would attract a whole lot of irrational input that would be counter-productive). I'm voicing it for form's sake more than anything else. No worries. --Ludwigs2 20:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I support adding the video, either in addition to the still image or as a replacement for it. Ideally I think we should have both - the image is clearer than the video still, but I think a total of four illustrations for this short section would be too many. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the video should be added in addition to the keeping of the photo, and the future replacement of both if a better video is found. The video does better illustrate the biting material, but the low quality of the video also makes the image better in terms of a quality viewing of the subject. Thus, keep both until a video is found that is better quality and illustrates the subject as well as both of them do together. Silverseren^C 12:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Quality of this video is terrible (zoom in - zoom out - zooom in - zooom out) so in this situation picture is a better idea Bulwersator (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything at all wrong with having either a photo or a video of mating cats if they illustrate the subject. Unfortunately, yes: the video quality is pretty crap, it's difficult to see the female's position, and most of the duration is the tom trying to figure out what he's doing. Photo is a better option until a decent video is available. ~ Kimelea (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Domestic cats are known to eat plants. Therefore, domestic cats are omnivores, not carnivores.

174.62.67.119 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Have a look at the Physiology section and the associated references. Cats are obligate carnivores and not omnivores because they can not survive on diets without relatively high quantities of protein. –TheIguana (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, cats eat plants because it causes them to vomit, so they can dispose of their hairballs. Shouldn't you know at least that much? 74.36.129.181 (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Cats are known to eat grass because it helps with their digestion for the fiber contained, but it's a very minor part of their diet. They are still carnivores. Wikicali00    36:0 04:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This article was tagged last month as too long. I think the reasons are pretty obvious. I'd like to make a suggestion (not an edit request - a suggestion that ought to be discussed here) about how we might remedy this. I'm looking especially at the section about breeds. We have very long, detailed descriptions of every cat breed when each one already has its own separate article. As far as making the article a more comfortable length, might a good place to start be trimming the section about breeds? Sleddog116 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, If we could put the breeds topics into their articles then we could shorten up the article quite a bit. also for the section on humans and cats could be dealt with. It could even be made into a new article. They also talk a lot about the specific cat characteristics, and we can shorten that up a bit too. Thanks for bringing that up. Karicats7 22:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just want to add that this article has 56kb of readable prose according to the page size tool, which is not so long that the article necessarily has to be split or reduced, per WP:LENGTH. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be shortened, but I just thought I would mention this. Buttonwillowite (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the length of this article really that important? Does "length = quality"? Seriously, I like this article long as it is. --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By the way, if you want one section to be an independent article, I recommend WP:RFC. --George Ho (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, GH. I took another look at the article, and it seems entirely reasonable to have an article of this length on a broad topic like cats. If there's consensus (or no objection in the next couple days), I will probably remove the banner from the article. I just don't see a good reason to keep it there, and it looks ugly. Buttonwillowite (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed that for you. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is true that it can be lengthy and still be a good article, but, do we really need all of that information in one single article when there are other articles already addressing these topics. Karicats7 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If an article of subtopic doesn't exists, and if you consider splitting a section into a new article, please read WP:N. If unsure, go to notability noticeboard to ask which subtopic of "Cat" deserves its own article. Actually, to be honest, not all subtopics of this article are easy to search. Tiger and jaguar are easy, but who is typing "relationship between humans and cats" or "<what cats eat>" or "<how cats breed and feed kittens>"? I don't think every subtopic of cat is notable enough to guarantee an article. However, let's hear other people's opinions. --George Ho (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please fix this link? Looks like a copy and paste goof.

Here's the last one from the archive:(http://web.archive.org/web/20090307030050/http://animal.discovery.com/guides/cats/body/extended.html)

71.184.110.84 (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks (sorry it took so long - I shelved it on my to do drawer). Materialscientist (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The lede now says that domestic cats are primarily nocturnal. Is this true? As a source it cites the Animal Humane Society, but that's just the FAQ section of a web site. It's not really authoritative. I had always thought that the scientific consensus was that domestic cats--most felids, really--were crepuscular, i.e. most active during dawn and dusk. --129.199.158.132 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good article indeed,but I think this article is very long and needs to be straightened out a little. For example, I would probably put the history at the beginning. I think all the sections are important, but there should be less information so there would be a little less to read. I think there's a simple Wikipedia page, but I don't know if that one may be too simple to read. Also about the pictures: all of them are good and has to do with what the author is writing about, but it would be OK if there was less. Woofy13457 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean {{very long}}, {{overly detailed}}, and {{too many photos}}? --George Ho (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In the bodies of both the Cat article and the article on African Wildcats, it is asserted, with citations, that the African Wildcat is the progenitor of the Housecat. The caption on the picture of the African Wildcat in the Cat article, however weasels a bit, stating "The wildcat Felis silvestris is a close relative and possible ancestor of the domestic cat." (emphasis added) Intentional? Correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.231.186 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Karicats7 suggested that a section of "Cats and Humans" be split into a new article. For now, I'm abstaining this proposal, as I would like to see your opinions on this. --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Approve. The article on cats is getting rather long, and I think that cat-human interaction deserves an article of its own. Diamantina (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. This is a sub-topic of the general topic. It fits with the overall theme of the article, adding depth and relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.116.93 (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Approve. This article has been through hundreds of users wanting to add more and more things. I mean about 1/3 of the article is just references. Even though references are a very good thing in avoiding plagiarism, a lot of it really just isn't useful. So, I am also saying some work can be put into making this article much better, so that it doesn't bore the reader to tears with how long it is. If someone is interested in "Cats and Humans" then we can just put a link to the page on the cat page. Karicats7 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Disapprove. The whole section is smaller than some other sections, thus a stub may pop up. --76.20.130.244 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done → see cats and humans.

@ 198.53.116.93: the #cats and humans section is still there, but trimmed and with at {{main article|cats and humans}} template.

@ 76.20.130.244: the article cats and humans isn't a stub. benzband (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Since everybody and their mother seems to want to add pictures of their cats to this article, I've created an edit notice for picture addition/replacement guidelines. Feel free to improve that as needed. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 00:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this but it should be more generic so that it can be added to any cat page. I'm constantly removing images from bicolor cat for example. It seems everyone with a cat wants its image and name to be on wikipedia. I would also suggest mentioning there is no need to provide the name of the cat, the encyclopedic value of the photo is the depiction of the animal/markings, not its name. SpigotMap 01:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

By more generic I'm referring to "This article gets more than 10,000 page views a day". I'd go as far as to say "This article already has enough images" but that's just me. SpigotMap 01:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The wording in the sentence below (from the first section) implies that cats have actively evolved better hearing to catch their prey. Evolution is not an active process, and it cannot be proven that cats have better hearing because of any one particular reason. It should probably be reworded to the matter that better hearing allows cats to be better predators.

Current sentence:"This is because the usual prey of cats (particularly rodents such as mice) make high frequency noises, so the hearing of the cat has evolved to pinpoint these faint high-pitched sounds."

Could be changed to something along the lines of:"The usual prey of cats (particularly rodents such as mice) make high frequency noises, being able to pinpoint these faint high-pitched sounds gives cats an evolutionary advantage."

Dirtmcguinness (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh thank God, someone concerned about Lemarkian vs Darwinian differences, instead of a young earth creationist. I'll get right on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dirtmcguinness -- We should certainly avoid implausible "just so" stories or unnecessary searching for teleological effects. However, in this particular case, there seems to be a fairly simple cause-and-effect relationship, so I don't see any real problem with the current wording... AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Cats can also be poisoned by another lily, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargazer_lily which are very popular cut flowers in the UK. The vet's office has a big warning poster about this type of flower, so it would be of benefit to British cats if this could be added to the poison section. thanks.

Update -it's the "Poisoning" section & sorry, forgot to sign - Kath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.194.1 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In Turkish, "Pisik" or "Püsük" means "cat". To call a cat, Turks say "Pisi pisi pisi ... !"--98.196.234.69 (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a source, then you make include it. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It probably originated as onomatopoeia in an unknown ancient language that was not written down. Standard dictionaries (OED1, AHD3, etc.) tend to suggest an origin (for the English word) in the Germanic language grouping... AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Turkish language has made relatively few contributions to the English language (and vice-versa), and then largely on Turkish items (yogurt) or institutions (seraglio). Something so basic as a synonym for one of the names of a cat is highly unlikely. "Pisik" or "Püsük", if related to the English word "pussy (cat)", would likely be a Greek or Romance loan-word in both languages. Pbrower2a (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Modified text to say that "catling" was current in the early modern era of the English language. To say it was current in "medieval Britain" is inane; English was spoken as a native language nowhere else in the world, then.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Time to refresh the cat poster at the begining of the article. I have replaced it with a new one that I have prepared using some of the best pictures I could find. I leave here the image together with a possible alternative. Some help is needed to identify the beatiful portrait of the black cat. I have lost the track of the file! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the alternative to the article image because it shows a walking cat; all the other cats pictured are sitting or lying down. Could you incorporate File:Felis_catus-cat_on_snow.jpg into a new composition based on the article image, perhaps by replacing the black cat at the lower right with the walking cat? I think the alt as it currently stands has a weaker composition than the article image-- cats looking off the page and one too many images to be useful at the current size. Thanks for your efforts. --Martinship (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Martinship on all points. While the black kitty portrait is nice, it's not helping the article be more encyclopedic, which the walking cat will, and they are about the same shape of picture. Meanwhile the alt. proposed and shown here, File:Cat poster 1.jpg, is too "busy". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to respond so late. The only problem with the proposed change is that we will have an exagerated number of tabby cats. Will that be ok? Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

They're all shorthairs! Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Chiming in again. Given the huge number of cat breeds, the poster is too small and has too little variety. (All shorthair, two tabbies, all very common breeds.) I'd double the number of pictures and include longhair and exotic breeds. And just to emphasize variety, there needs to be a picture like this one that demonstrates how big some cats can get. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Since article Cat genetics is short, and the genetics section of the present article is long, it seems to me swapping them would better fit in with Wikipedia:Summary style. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's valid; but I'm not in love with the replacement. This article doesn't need a definition of 'genetics' or summary of what it's good for. (I'll need to think a bit about what to put there.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I made some changes to both articles. I think it makes sense now Bhny (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes; good going. That done, I figure the article is still too large and the next targets for stricter application of WP:SUMMARY should be behavior followed by anatomy. Maybe taxonomy after those. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a well known and important part of most cat's behaviour. I am very surprised it is not mentioned. 109.148.78.160 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that normal cats have a "fear of water"; rather, they have a dislike of having their bodies be immersed in water. AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well you pick up a domestic cat and take it near water and see what happens. It's not a dislike, it's a morbid fear. The thing with scratch, bite and panic doing anything to escape. As far as I can find out it's because of oils in their fur. The importance of a cat to not get wet has evolved, resulting in an instinctive terror of it.31.53.208.88 (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it thinks you might throw it in, then of course there's going to be a problem! However, if you allow the cat to approach the water on its own at ground level, so that it feels that it's in control, then usually there will be no "morbid fear of water" (and sometimes the cat might not even care too much about getting its paws wet). Rather, the cat will simply act to prevent its body from being immersed in water... AnonMoos (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can cite some reliable sources, go for it. I doubt that you'll find anything so conclusive as an evolved fear of water. There are in fact several domestic cat breeds that appear either to enjoy or at the very least not mind water. As for wildcats, there are many felines that swim, play in water, use water for cooling, etc. --TimothyDexter (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are a (very) few breeds of cat that do not have this fear, Turkish Van being one well known one. However these breeds represent a VERY small percentage and so do not represent the majority AT ALL. It can be proved by taking a young domestic cat that has never before in its life become wet and thus have no experience to base a dislike. If this cat is taken to a body of water, the cat will enter a blind panic, proving the response is instinctive. Instinctive responses such as this are always based on fear, so a domestic cat has an instinctive fear of water. I will attempt to find citations for this for you. However, I've noticed on Wikipedia, that what is classed as a "reliable source" often is very far from being so. Page editors often reject very reliable sources simply because they disagree with them. 109.157.98.96 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fairly certain your point's simply untrue, but certainly sourced & unrefuted studies would be worthy of inclusion. 101.229.79.243 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've often heard that cats are afraid of water, but it completely contradicts my own experience. Both of my cats are actually attracted to it. I've even seen pictures of cats happily swimming. I'd suggest avoiding this topic unless you can attribute it to a serious source. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet, there are plenty of examples of cats, who are comfortable with the water. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

My cat is afraid of water if you carry it to water. But if you let him go there on his own, he is fine with it. 19maxx 67.237.38.68 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If we're just going to present unsourced and anecdotal evidence here, I'll point out that my cats are licensed scuba divers. --64.118.218.181 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not unheard of, but I'm going to insist that you source any claims of feline literacy.--Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Cats are strong enough (just look at such powerful analogues as jaguars, tigers, and the Asian fishing cat) to be powerful swimmers. They simply have more hair for their size than those larger creatures, and they easily water-log. Once they water-log the water overpowers them and weakens them. Hypothermia can quickly set in, and the cat drowns. For a short time a cat can swim, probably to get back to the land. Add to that, cats are land creatures whose vision isn't good on or in water.

Licensed scuba divers? Cats in wetsuits and well-adapted helmets might never get wet. In any event, such behavior is learned. Scuba diving is very different from unassisted swimming. There are enough cats that freakish behaviors are possible, but this is Wikipedia and not the National Enquirer. Pbrower2a (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

While reading through this article, I noticed three statements that might not be accurate. I have only personal observation to cite for any of these, so I am not going to edit the article. I will do some digging to see if I can find some citations.

1. The article states that cats don't sweat. Cats do sweat from their paw pads when they are distressed; you can sometimes see this at a veterinarian's office, where a distressed cat walking on the examination table will leave damp paw prints.
2. Hunting behavior. Th article states that cats are solo hunters. That may be true most of the time, but they do sometimes hunt together.
3. There's a statement that male cats have nothing to do with raising kittens. That may be true for some males, but not all. I've seen (neutered and intact) male cats take part in raising kittens, even kittens that weren't theirs, by playing with, grooming, and cleaning the kittens.

Marina M. (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

All of these claims require citations to reliable sources. Your personal anecdotes don't qualify, and may be mistaken anyway. E.g., the cat's paws may have been damp from grooming; what appeared to be two cats cooperatively hunting may have been two competitively seeking the same prey; and the grooming behavior may have been friendly, not parental; to address all three of your observations in order. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Under "Cats and Humans" the following claim is made:

Additionally, cat consumption can be found in parts of Australia where residents have taken up the practice to reduce the feral cat population.^[1]

The claim made in the article is not supported by the reference. The reference provided is quite clear on the context of the cat consumption. 203.45.39.201 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope it's true, but in any case this article already gives too much space to a topic better handled in Cat meat. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The evidence we have from that source is that some Aborigines eat wild cats and that one person served a cat dish in some kind of food competition, and suggested that people eat more feral animals. That's not enough to claim people are eating cats for population control.--Dodo bird (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm addressing the small question of what the present article should say, not the bigger question of whether the topic should be kept out of Wikipedia in general. This article should be brief and vague on the topic, for example, "It is less common for people to eat Cat meat than the meat of other domestic animals". Meaty questions of particular countries, cultures or purposes belong in that article and its talk page. Regardless of how the fine points of culinary motive may play out, this is the wrong article for the details. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean meaty meaty questions, right? Anyway, since there is a Cat Meat article, your idea has obvious merit. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement that cats are primarily nocturnal is false. They are crepuscular. 129.1.215.84 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated in an edit summary, "Beneficial changes helping a new line to survive/breed more is evolution defined." There is no other way to describe cats' ancestors having an advantage which passed on because it allowed them to survive and breed better than those without that advantage except as "an evolutionary advantage." The only way one can disagree is to be completely (even willfully) ignorant about evolution. It is no more original research than calling the picture of the cat skull in the Anatomy section as such, or noting that 2 + 2 = 4. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the lede summarizes the article. I've recited the ref that discusses the evolutionary advantage of cats' (and other animals') hearing, even though per WP:LEDE because it's discussed elsewhere in the article we shouldn't have to. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Having every confidence my cat can hear squeaky voices because her ancestors were the ones who were most able to feed on squeaky rodents, I don't see why this particular article, and particularly its lede, need discuss whether it was a matter of differential reproduction or a gift from Bastet. She can hear squeaks, and she likes mice, and not in the same sense in which I like cats. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unlike written in the article, it is believed/said by Turkish that cats have 9 lives, not 6. And there's also an idiom in Turkish: "like a cat with nine lives." Please note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.86.194 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The article this is cited from does not define what constitutes it as being the most popular pet in the world and is simply an opinion based on the number of estimated cats in the world, of which a large portion are feral. Just a minor discrepancy I saw in the last paragraph of the introductory page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.199.19 (talk • contribs)

I gather Scientific American is a reliably source (?). If you have an issue with their methodology I guess you'd have to take it up with them. I have clarified in the article that the statement is according to them, however. Яehevkor ✉ 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

some one put cheetohs is a cat.can some one chage that please--Kittylover101 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Kittylover101 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Kittylover101 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done, removed Cheetoh from the cat breeds template (not a recognized breed). Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

When I searched for Cheetoh on their website, their Standing Rules, on page 55 (p. 59 of the PDF) reads "701.4.5 The following is a list of the names and current abbreviations for experimental breeds as of 05/01/12: ... XCT- ExperimentalCheetoh". Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The links to [grunting] and [trilling] go to articles that don't fit cat vocalization. Hillbillygirl (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The tales under the header "Reproduction" are actual but false. It has appeared to me that most cats in this western world have instincts wich are broken. They look like a cat but the animal is not there. May be I have been the lucky one to receive an unspoiled cat. It is a tabby which in a struggle whit her mother when she was a kitten happened to save her original instincts, be it far away.This cat has only two times of heat. One in March and one in September. This remembers her tropical anchestry, because having kittens in the winter does not make sense.A cat is a very sensitve animal, wich perhaps gave the Egyptians the motive for holyness. But as such the animal is the most tortured animal in western society. It has become a fleshball with a nice skin. But, yes humans are the measure! Left the question: "What humans?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.80.250.145 (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the characters of the British sci-fi sitcom Red Dwarf is called Cat. Has anybody considered mentioning that in this article?--68.103.31.159 (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would we, we have a Cat (Red Dwarf) article? This article is about the species not the fictional character. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

68.103.31.159 -- He's listed on the Cat (disambiguation) page which is linked at the top of this article, but that's as far as it's useful to go... AnonMoos (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL 74.198.164.64 (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The BBC reports.... Cats are one of the top threats to US wildlife, killing billions of animals each year, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Define wildlife? Are we talking birds and rodents? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Written by a cat hater? :P —Kri (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In any case, the study ("The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States" by Scott R. Loss, Tom Will, and Peter P. Marra, Nature Communications) was only published on Jan 29th, so it's not necessarily reasonable to expect it to be incorporated in the Wikipedia article the same day... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to know if you know of what breed this cat is? It looks very much like a cat my mother has, but she doesn't know of what breed it is! :P Thanks to anyone who can help me! —Kri (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of cats don't necessarily belong to any particular "breed", and that's a low-resolution picture of the head only. I don't think you can tell much from that image other than that it appears to be a white shorthair... AnonMoos (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Perhaps it's difficult to tell, and perhaps that's also all that can be told about my mother's cat as well. Anyway, thank you very much. —Kri (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please add the following link to the Ensembl Genome browser to the 'External links' section:

• View the cat genome in Ensembl

193.62.194.245 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Normally I am very hesitant to add new external links to an article but I think this is better than some of the ELs already on the article. If no one objects within 24 hours of your request I will go ahead and add it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Done Appears non-controversial, added.  — daranz [ t ] 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The terminology in the dis-ambiguation header of the article suggests that this article should really be at Domestic cat with Cat re-directing to Felidae. Any thoughts on how to word it?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pedigree has nothing to do with anything but breeding. A feral or pet cat can be pedigree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.114.140 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The passage on laser pointers "replacing string" is problematic (never mind bizarre that the two involve disparate types of play) because it cites a doctor who says it is virtually impossible to harm a cats vision with a pointer. First off as a layman I still say BS on that, no doubt a high power unit from wicked lasers or a similar source pointed directly into a cats eyes WILL cause damage and if not I'd like to see a research paper documenting otherwise. Even a low power unit directly into their eyes could cause temporary impairment. I'm going to assume the doctor meant there was virtually no chance of harming the cat with a low power laser during normal play, i.e;, you are directing the spot on objects, NOT the cat's face. I think the passage should be clarified to explain this lest people take from the article an invitation to use a laser around a cat irresponsibly. Batvette (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The articles Brian Whitlock and Jordan Dale Lucas have been nominated for deletion. You might want to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Brian Whitlock beat his dog. Not to mention, this talk page is specifically for the article Cat. You may want to put a notice about Jordan Dale Lucas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to ask - all of the cats I have had eat plant matter (to encourage vomiting), say ferns, long grasses, particularly plants with waxy membranes on the leaves - yet I cannot find this on the page. Do any of you have data about this? (Or perhaps point me to the place on the page about this I may have missed.)? My vet (when we had our first cat) said this was very normal and was a way of 'cleaning out the gut'. But can any of you confirm (or deny) this?

Ekhmuel (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Ekhmuel

I'm not sure that this claim is tenable, even if a source is given:

The ultimate source of the word is Afroasiatic,presumably from Late Egyptian čaute, the feminine of čaus "wildcat".

These are my concerns:

• The source is a dictionary of Gaulish, and the author is an expert of Gaulish, presumably. What is his source for Late Egyptian? Is it possible to cite that source instead?
• Felis chaus, is the scientific name of the jungle cat, found in many places in the world, included Egypt. But the name was given while observing a Caucasian population, and was probably not chosen with reference to Late Egyptian. Strange coincidence, but possible. Since it is strange, it needs more attention.
• In Middle Egyptian the usual word for cat is mjw, whose feminine is mjwt. In some old dictionary these words might have been transliterated as mau, maut, similar enough to čaus, čaute to be suspicious.
• The French version fr:chat cites the Online Etymology Dictionary that is not a reliable source, even if it is usually accurate. The claim there is that the cat is called kadis in Nubian, kadiska in Berber. Based on which source?

Sprocedato (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I recall a mention on a British panel show (QI) that the origin is the latin "catulus" (puppy, whelp). Some minor searches I did indicate that "catulus" indeed mean this, and that "cattus" was not used until at least the 600s.

Another source, Tufts University (which uses a set of dictionaries), no entry for 'cattus', an entry for 'catulus'. Lewis and Short is a fairly solid textual source as a Latin dictionary, so I feel this is quite a likely etymological sequence.

75.182.99.60 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

We know that Latin 'cattus' and related words spread to the European languages in the first centuries of Christian Era. We do not know the route. Latin 'catulus' may or may not be related. It is attested much earlier. The origin of the word 'cat' has been searched in the Egyptian language, because we know the role that cats had in the Egyptian culture. But the actual facts in support to this hypothesis are not clear to me, and I'm not sure that the dictionary of Gaulish of Jean-Paul Savignac is a reliable source for this etymology. At least, I'd like to know the exact words used by Savignac and, if possible, his source. Otherwise, it is safer to say that we have no idea what the origin of the word 'cat' is. Sprocedato (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The citation that cats are the most popular or liked pet in the world is not anywhere in the article that the sentence cites. If anything there is no way to determine what pet is most popular and I would put money down that whoever put this into the article is some cat lover that feels the need to force their love of cats on everyone else. But again there is nothing in any scientific journal or study to indicate cats are the most popular animal as a pet. Even if you define pet as an animal on your property which is what most cats are (simply living beside you somewhere on your land and not really your pet). So it should just be deleted altogether as there is nothing to change it to that would make sense or be relevant.76.98.90.132 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's in the second sentence of that citation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it really neccessary to include a picture of a cat eating a rabbit's face? I get it, they're predators and disruptive to wildlife, but a photo like that is just inflammatory that incites hate not knowledge.

I mean 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year, I don't see a single photo of a dog bite on the dog Wikipedia page. Meme3234 (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it's in a section titled "Impact on prey species", and a photo like that I think is perfectly appropriate to illustrate cat predatory behavior. For comparison, the article Lion includes two pictures of lions around dead prey carcasses.—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The picture is disgusting and extremely disturbing to unsuspecting users. Surely a less disturbing photo can get the point across just as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.56.186 (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's disgusting, but that's a subjective judgment on my part, as it is on yours. Kelvinsong is quite right about the parallel with the lion article. To expand on that a little, cats and lions are both members of the same family, and both species are fierce carnivores, so it actually would be rather odd not to depict that fact for both of them. Wikipedia articles—including their illustrations—should reflect reality, not a sanitized version of reality, and certain aspects reality are often quite disgusting. Some people probably don't find it disgusting at all. (And presumably it's not disgusting to cats!) That said, you're free to propose a specific replacement image. Rivertorch (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What about this picture is disgusting? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If its not a problem please add a illustration:"Diagram of the skeleton of a cat" to section: Anatomy

Przemek Maksim (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. My take: it's a good image but better suited for Cat anatomy (where in fact it's already found). It's really too large with all its numerical key to fit comfortably in the anatomy section, which is only a summary of what's in the separate anatomy article anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought this photo of two cats, trying to figure out how to open a door, might illustrate curiosity, and be suitable for gallery. Wondering what others think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I like cats, so I'm prejudiced in favor of photos like that one. I guess I have some reservations about it, though. For one thing, it's dark and a little blurry; this might be fixable, but as is it doesn't look good in thumbnail form. Secondly, what it illustrates is basically that the cats are curious about something on the other side of the door. The photographer may know that they wanted to open the door, but it doesn't specifically illustrate that very well. Rivertorch (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Seconding Rivertorch... If I'd seen the picture without the above commentary, I'd think the cats were investigating a noise (or something)... nothing here to suggest the cats are trying to figure out how to open the door. Sorry. --Seduisant (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanx for your views. I'll take this up with the kittie's agents who promised ("guaranteed"! was the exact word) that these cats were photogenic, plus I'll write a letter of complaint to the photographer, easy, since it was me.:)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If you could get one of them to reach a paw towards the doorknob, that would be really cool. Rivertorch (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The lede is more than four paragraphs. Per WP:LEAD, the introduction must be no more than four paragraphs. --George Ho (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

With the recent rise in cases of permithrin poisoning in cats in the uk, may I poiltely suggest the following addition in the poisoning section please?

Permethrin is approved for small animal flea control, large animal topical fly control, crops, ornamental plants and human use. Permethrin is found in shampoos, dips, foggers, spot-ons, and sprays for small animal use but can be toxic to cats in very small doses. Despite this it is still often marketed for flea control for cats in the form of powders or collars. The lethal dose can be as low as 10mg/kg, collars contain up to 18% or 460+mg

source:^[2]

^[3]

81.99.105.114 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. — Reatlas (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I read the wikipedia page for Philodendron, and it says that there is not necessarily evidence of the plant being toxic to cats; however, in this article, it states that it is toxic. I think that claim should be removed.

--thujone -- 21:53, 28 September 2013‎ 76.169.139.212

These sources—[14][15]—indicate that the toxicity is there but cats don't usually consume enough to suffer renal failure. Both articles probably could make that clearer. Rivertorch (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Cats are actually omnivorous mammals. Can you please change where it says carnivorous mammals to omnivorous mammals? Because it has been proven that cats eat vegetation when meat is unavailable. They don't completely rely on meat proteins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.65.100 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the lead sentence of carnivore, which carries two citations, a carnivore is "an animal that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue". This would appear to be entirely consistent with the feeding habits of cats. Rivertorch (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

65.184.65.100 -- Cats occasionally nibble on plants, possibly for some kind of supplemental purposes, but plants never make up cats' basic main food. A cat which is fed on a natural all-vegetable diet will get very very sick and eventually die, which doesn't sound too much like being an omnivore... AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Cats are what is known as "Obligate Carnivores". This means that they *must* eat significant amounts of meat, and do so frequently. Meat sources contain taurine, which is an essential nutrient for cats. A dietary deficiency of taurine will cause a cat to become blind over a span of only a few months. Many other carnivorous animals are not 'obligate'. If you want to change anything, you should change "carnivorous" to "obligate carnivore". User:dpasek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.24.11 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC) I wasn't logged in, I am now, and take credit for this paragraph. Dpasek (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Why people used to feed cats with milk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.53.133 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You might try asking at the reference desk. Rivertorch (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Cats like *cream*. Some cats really crave the taste of the milk fat. I have one cat that absolutely begs for half-and-half. I give her only small amounts, and then she seems satisfied. Several of my cats will also steal butter or cheese. I have to keep a close eye on the cats when I have these food items out. Dpasek (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

" The female will utter a loud yowl as the male pulls out of her. This is because a male cat's penis has a band of about 120–150 backwards-pointing penile spines, which are about one millimeter long;[156] upon withdrawal of the penis, the spines rake the walls of the female's vagina, which is a trigger for ovulation. This act also occurs to clear the vagina of other sperm in the context of a second (or more) mating, thus giving the later males a larger chance of conception.[citation needed]"

Yes, indeed, a citation is needed here.I believe the quoted part amounts to urban myth, hearsay not supported by direct observation.

The queen's yowl is not caused by male withdrawal, but is an orgasmic response caused by stimulation of the queen's clitoris. The queen gets her onset of orgasm *first*, then whacks the tom upside the head, causing him to withdraw, and probably causing his penis to become flaccid so that the barbs no longer grip. Penetration is not necessary to stimulate orgasm in a queen, and practically any vet or knowledgeable cat breeder can tell you this backed by direct observation. Orgasm is required for a queen to ovulate and this is easily proven by demonstrating the effect of 'false pregnancy' which can be caused by direct stimulation of the clitoris in the absence of a tom. Only a single orgasm is necessary. The queen will drop out of estrus within a day or two and it will take 6 weeks or more for the next estrus cycle to begin. Without the stimulation to orgasm, either artificially or by copulation with a tom, the queen will take two weeks or so to drop out of estrus, then will come back into estrus again within about another two weeks. user:dpasek Dpasek (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. If you can dig up a source for that, we could add it to the article. In the meantime, how do you suggest proceeding—removal of the entire passage? Rivertorch (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

sourcing that will be tough 174.114.11.60 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to allow the humane society website as a reference for trap, neuter, release then you also need to use the website of people for the ethical treatment of animals which clearly states they have tried TNR and find it to not only contribute to more cruelty towards cats, but also is terrible for the environment and only contributes to more overpopulation of feral cats which contributes to only more suffering. So either remove the part of the article hailing TNR as effective or add Peta's position that it makes the problem worse and causes much more suffering for the cats (which almost never die of old age) and also the animals around the cats which generally have no defenses against the cats and end up suffering because of cats being in an environment they werent meant to be in. Just because people sometimes degrade the environment through overharvestjng of resources doesn't mean we should let our pets do it too. There are only rare circumstances where this program is appropriate which is also mentioned by PETA. It doesn't necessarily mean euthanizing is always the answer either although if implemented correctly, and thoroughly, it is the only method which reliably rids the environment of feral cats which are a man made pest. So TNR is actually a well intended program that greatly enhances animal suffering and worse overpopulation of feral cats. And here is my resource which is just as reliable as the humane society website.

http://www.peta.org/issues/Companion-Animals/trap-neuter-return-and-monitor-programs-for-feral-cats-doing-it-right.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.196.247 (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No one here is ancient Egyptian but I don't believe that people worshiping cats back then is in the same form of what we now known as cult today. The history is sometimes naive but cult in modern day is not.Anyway, why don't we just take that controversy away and say what is really verifiable? i.e. What happened?

How about "Ancient Egyptian worshiped cats"? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In the study of ancient religion, the word "cult" refers to a manner of worshipping or focusing religious devotion, and doesn't have much in common with the Scientology / Moonie / Jim Jones Temple meaning of the word... AnonMoos (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

AnonMoos is right; see cult (religious practice). Scholars frequently refer to the cult of a particular deity—the cult of Bastet, in this case—meaning the organization and practices surrounding that deity. Egyptian religion was made up of all the cults in the country. To say cats were worshiped is actually less correct. Cats were involved in the cult, so they were "cult animals", but I don't know that any of them were worshipped as representatives of a deity the way the Apis bull was. The cat mummies found in Egypt seem to have been raised specifically to be killed and mummified. They were more like offerings to Bastet than the objects of worship. A. Parrot (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This statement should be deleted because, while narrowly true, it is a huge disservice to the cats who will be abandoned because the abandoner thinks "in the wild" means "outside" and "perfectly capable" means "all of them do". Most don't: "Pet cats that are abandoned will not easily fend for themselves outdoors. Unfortunately, most of these cats and their offspring will suffer premature mortality (death) from disease, starvation, or trauma."(http://www.state.nj.us/health/animalwelfare/stray.shtml)98.118.24.253 (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it would help if the adverb "perfectly" were removed? I think it would. I see your point, but the main gist of the sentence has to do with cats' not having evolved after domestication. Rivertorch (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It is closer to what we mean, that domestic cat can hunt well enough for itself, but it stays a broad claim.

but the main gist of the sentence has to do with cats' not having evolved after domestication.

How about "domestic cats are still capable of surviving in the wild."? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could say that domestic cats can adapt to the wild by reverting to feral within a generation in the absence of significant human interaction. Fully domesticated "house" cats may have difficulty surviving in the wild if abandoned because they have not learned some critical skills. Feral cats have a much shorter life expectancy than those that are well cared for. Feral cats: 3.5 years or so, House cats: 15 years or more. Alley Cat Allies may have some reliable reference material. Dpasek (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Lifespan is just part of the picture. You also compared two drastically different environment and there is a limit on how long a "perfectly capable" cat can last in the wild.

Is 3.5 years really hellish for cats? What if they can pass on their gene and the population can spread, but die young, are they capable? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Under "Reproduction" section.

The size of a litter averages three to five kittens, with the first litter usually smaller than subsequent litters.

I've female persian cat, 1st litter, having at least 7 kittens.

Persian cat mom with 7 kittens

DarkerFate (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: the article discusses the average litter size. One cat by itself isn't notable. --Stfg (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Are cats born precocial or altricial? This article does not yet provide clues to answer that question.The altricial page says that cats, dogs, and humans are;this page doesn't answer the question about cats.

Maybe we should consider answering this question in a more general way.

Chris (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends which other species you compare cats to, I suppose. Cats are born with eyes closed because they have no real use for sight in their first week or two of life, and if having vision encouraged them to leave the nest or den which their mother had established, this would be more likely to decrease survival than increase it. Compared to herd animals which are required to be able to move with the herd soon after being born, cats are obviously immature at birth... AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference #42 is showing up for me as "Caucasian Large Mammalian Fauna" followed by some special, non-printable characters. — RC Howe (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed now, and the reference checked and verified. Rivertorch (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out, as a student working on my degree as a Veterinarian, that some of the information in the physiology section is false. Cats, do indeed sweat, they have sweat glands in their paws. So it would be more accurate to say cats have minimal ability to sweat, with glands located primarily in their paw pads.

http://www.cathealth.com/how-and-why/how-do-cats-sweat

http://pets.thenest.com/cats-sweat-5555.htmlDaAdorableOne (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out - and supplying references - Arjayay (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Under https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Cat#Nomenclature_and_etymology it is stated "Attested only from the 16th century, it may have been introduced from Dutch poes or from Low German puuskatte, related to Swedish kattepus, or Norwegian pus, pusekatt."

The thing is that the word "kattepus" is used in norwegian, not in swedish. The closest word in swedish is probably "kissekatt". A sort of childish, nickname for a cat, or house cats in general.

This article is semi-protected, so I can't change anything. I'm also not sure about how Wikipedia works, but maybe someone with edit rights can change the article.

Best regards, an ethnic swede — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.129.225.7 (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with all current and past dialects and accent of Swedish? Do you have any citations?I personally would write that it is d

This whole box should just be removed as its information is just completely false and promotes a misunderstanding of the concepts it mentions. Pedigree has nothing to do with human interaction beyond breeding, a feral cat can be pedigree as the term has to do with it's breeding/looks and not training/behavior. As well Feral cats also include any domesticated cat placed in wild conditions, it's socialization level has no impact on if it is feral or not. A cat that lives completely wild but likes to hang out around people is still feral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.230.117.254 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the article Conservation status, which apparently is a standard system to gouge the risk of a species becoming extinct, the given "Domesticated" in the info box, below the Conversation status headline, is not a valid level of risk. Since domesticated house cats are widespread the level probably should be "Least Concern" -- 20:35, 21 March 2014‎ 2a02:8108:1c80:b18:a841:264f:1042:715ehi riley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.209.181 (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This article doesn't provide much information on the pregnancy of cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 September 2013‎ (UTC)

"Cats have excellent hearing and can detect an extremely broad range of frequencies. They can hear higher-pitched sounds than either dogs or humans, detecting frequencies from 55 Hz up to 79 kHz, a range of 10.5 octaves; while humans can only hear from 31 Hz up to 18 kHz, and dogs hear from 67 Hz to 44 kHz, which are both ranges of about 9 octaves."

Change to frequencies low to high, as below, please:

Cats have excellent hearing and can detect an extremely broad range of frequencies. They can hear higher-pitched sounds than either dogs or humans, detecting frequencies from 55 Hz up to 79 kHz, a range of 10.5 octaves; while humans can only hear from 18 Hz up to 31 kHz, and dogs hear from 44 Hz to 67 kHz, which are both ranges of about 9 octaves.

Its a small edit, sorry I can't do it myself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.220.29 (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2014‎

Not done: The units are different for those two values, so it is already in the same ascending order as the other ranges. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"Before releasing them back into their feral colonies, the attending veterinarian often nips the tip off one ear to mark the feral as neutered and inoculated, since these cats may be trapped again. Volunteers continue to feed and give care to these cats throughout their lives."

Tattoos are also used to indicate that an animal was neutered without cutting off ear tips. One line or 2 lines around the area of operation and/or "N" or "S" for neuter and spayed respectively on the inside of ears is also used.

http://www.mypetsdoctor.com/tattoos-indicate-spay-neuter

http://www.anticruelty.org/tattoo/

http://feralcatproject.org/documents/ocm/ocm_procedures/procedures_prep_tattoo.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.220.29 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2014‎

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Could you provide the words you would like to add? Probably based on the information in the third document which is clearly about TNR cats. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Haven´t seen anything about cats being mostly reptilian based predators, with the occasional bird and mouse.

The issue with birds, is that IF cats where REALLY bird predators, then they should not have much issue with the occasional crude egg. However, they do, the cells within an egg not being quite correct.

Haven´t seen anything either, about cat´s NOT being fish consumers, which should be obvious, house cats, do NOT swim and IF they where water predators (dot dot dot). Then that question is, what is it, in FISH, that makes a cat eat that? Fish liver perhaps? Hard to find ´licks´, or is it some narcotic in the same form and manner that fermented mangoes are for elephants?

You suppose cats evolvolved out of catfish? jeje, ehhhh, no.

Anyone doing these very SMALLISH real issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.36.69 (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"However, because of modern phylogenetics, domestic cats are now usually regarded as another subspecies of the wildcat, F. silvestris." So why is the species name still Felis catus in the scientific classification box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Their genus, species, and subspecies name would be Felis sylvestris catus, which can be shortened to F. catus. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please add this picture http://imgur.com/edAbfEa to the section about eyes. Specifically this picture is a good visual example of the slit eyed nature of domesticated cats and would be a good addition to the article. The specific section that is relevant is as follows."Unlike some big cats, such as tigers, domestic cats have slit pupils.[75] These slit pupils can focus bright light without chromatic aberration, and are needed since the domestic cat's pupils are much larger, relative to their eyes, than the pupils of the big cats.[75] Indeed, at low light levels a cat's pupils will expand to cover most of the exposed surface of its eyes."

Thank you!Gagdad (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. - 09:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have some concerns about the information given for cat lifespans. I began to research this issue when working on the lifespan of feral cats, & added related comments to the discussion section on the Feral Cat page. I've now received a study that sheds some further light on the issue, especially about the lifespan of pet cats.

The text under Cat Health now reads:

"The average life expectancy for male indoor cats is around 12 to 14 years,[92] with females usually living a year or two longer.[93] However, cats have been reported as reaching into their 30s,[94]with the oldest known cat, Creme Puff, dying at a verified age of 38.[95] Feline life expectancy has increased significantly in recent decades.[96] Having a cat neutered confers some health benefits, since castrated males cannot develop testicular cancer, spayed females cannot develop uterine or ovarian cancer, and both have a reduced risk of mammary cancer.[97] The lifespan of feral cats is hard to determine accurately, although one study reported a median age of 4.7 years, with a maximum of 8.3 years.[98]"

Lifespan of pet cats

The figure of 12-14 years as the average lifespan of male indoor cats was referenced with an article by Taylor and others et al (found online here: "Some nutritional aspects of ageing in dogs and cats", E.J. Taylor et al., Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (1995), vol 54, pp. 645-656.). However, the article does not say what it is supposed to have said. In their study researching appropriate foods for aging cats and dogs, the authors mention in their introduction that cats "have an average life expectancy of 14 years yet the oldest recorded cat is known to have lived for 36 years" (page 1). The reference given for these facts is a study of J.E. Mosier done in 1978. (Canine and feline geriatrics, Proceedings of the American Animal Hospital Associations's 46th Annual Meeting, pp. 129-133. Indiana: AAHA.) So the average lifespan is simply given as 14 years; not 12-14 years. Further, there is no difference given for cats being indoors or outdoors, or for males or females. The comment is also a single reference to a study done in 1978, which is fairly old. We can do better.

The statement that female indoor cats usually live a year or two longer is referenced with a book by Dan Poynter (2002). The Older Cat: Recognizing Decline and Extending Life (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Para Publishing. p. 25. ISBN 1-56860-076-3. Poynter is not a scientist or cat expert, but a writer and publisher who has self-published many volumes of books under his publishing house Para Publishing, this one included. Assuming the author is quoted accurately, I don't expect this to be an authoritative source for saying that females usually live longer than male cats.

The statement that feline life expectancy has increased significantly in recent years is referenced with this study by W. Kraft (February 1998). "Geriatrics in Canine and Feline Internal Medicine". European Journal of Medical Research 3(1–2): 31–41. ISSN 0949-2321. PMID 9512965 However, nothing is really indicated as to the starting point, or any final conclusions on the actual lifespan of cats. At the article abstract (unfortunately truncated; found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9512965), the author noted that as for humans, at least in developing countries, the life span of dogs and cats seems to have increased in the last 15 years. I was finally able to get a copy of the original study to find out what it said. It was a comprehensive study of cats (and dogs) treated at the Department of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian's University, Munich, comparing data from four years beginning in 1983 and ending in 1995. For cats, the average year of death rose from 7 years in 1983 to 9.4 years in 1995. There were also increases in the number of cats over 20 years of age. Intact male cats lived 5.1 years on average, compared to intact females at 6.2 years. Neutered males lived 10.4 years on average, and spayed females 10.1 years. These numbers are quite a bit lower than those originally given here. They support that neutering extends the life of both sexes of cats, and show age variations by sex but not in the way that it was stated in the current text.

A study by Levy and others in 2003 (found online here: "Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population", Julie K. Levy et al., JAVMA, Vol 222, No. 1, January 1, 2003.) referred to a figure of 7.1 years as the average age of pet cats. This was based on research done in 1984 by Nasser et al. (abstract: "Study of the feline and canine populations in the greater Las Vegas area.", Nassar R, Mosier JE, Williams LW. Am J Vet Res. 1984 Feb;45(2):282-7). The average age of 7.1 is comparable to the starting 1983 data from the Kraft study.

I located some more recent estimates in the Banfield Pet Hospital's State of Pet Health Report in 2013.^[4] Using data of the cats over one year old euthanized in its over 800 animal hospitals in 43 US states, they came up with an average lifespan of 12.1 years (ranging from 10.7 years in Delaware to 12.7 years in Massachusetts)(page 1). They said the estimate had risen one year since 2002.(page 2) As this data includes only cats receiving medical services (and from this provider), it wouldn't include cats dying of old age at home, killed on the road, or those without any medical intervention, but it is interesting and offers something more current than other studies mentioned. Also not sure why they didn't include data from cats euthanized under 1 year old.

These sources don't have any references comparing the lifespan of indoor cats to that of outdoor cats, so that aspect can be taken out.

New content: "The average lifespan of pet cats has risen in recent years. In the early 1980s it was about 7 years, rising to 9.4 years in 1995. U.S. data from the Banfield Pet Hospital suggest a lifespan of 12.1 years in 2013, with regional variations from 10.7 years in Delaware to 13.2 years in Colorado. (Next follows current statement re very old cats.)

"Spaying or neutering significantly increases life expectancy: one study found neutered male cats lived twice as long as intact males, while spayed female cats lived 62% longer than intact females. Unneutered cats in the U.S. are 4 times as likely to be hit by a car as a neutered cat, and are 3 times more likely to require treatment for an animal bite." (Next follows current statement about health benefits of neutering.)