Talk:Cat/Archive 13
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
"Meat" template
In August, an editor boldly added a nav template to the bottom of the page which added template:meat to this article. There was no talk page discussion (which would have followed this entry in the archive). I am not one of those editors who believes in strict bidirectionality in template use, but templates used in an article should reasonably be related to the subject of the article. The template for meat is not at all related to cats, despite the fact that the latter are carnivorous. The edit summary for this addition claimed that since the template was used in the article for "dog" that it was appropriate here as well. A review of the history of dog shows that this was not the case. I've removed the template from this article. Restoration should happen only if there is clear community consensus that the template is useful on this page. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 17:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Software
I ditched the line about cats being used to de-bug software because it was erroneous phrased. The cat was not intentionally "used", the event happened accidentally. It's hard to believe the topic should include ever accidental event cats are involved in.
Ditto, I changed the context of the Schrodinger reference as Schrodinger did not actually use cats in his science but the idea of the cats. --Wordfunk (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Good article despite tags
@Proud User: There was a note left at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Cat about concern about the promotion of this article to GA status despite citation tags and other questions about the sourcing. Would it be possible to address these citation issues to avoid a possible WP:GAR? I'll also ping Dunkleosteus77 and Burklemore1 who might be interested in this. Thanks folks! delldot ∇. 16:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the problems Burklemore1 (talk · contribs) referred to have been fixed. Just look at the GA nomination page. --Proud User (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note that after I looked at the article I saw a lot more problems that were not addressed. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'll organise some review without the need of initiating a GAR, but upon looking at it again the article seems to have a lot of problems. I could try and attempt a thorough review here if you would like. The sources are so far the most concerning and so cooperation from multiple editors will help. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016
Hi! I would like to suggest that on breeds, add "Blue Point Siamese". These are much different than normal siamese cats in behavior and appearance.71.75.131.25 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: Blue-point siamese cat redirects to Siamese cat. Would need a reliable source to suggest that it deserves listing as a distinct breed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
New Cat User Box
Hi, I created the following cat user box if you want to add it to your user page: Template:User cat IQ125 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
IQ125 Hello! This is a nice userbox, but I am afraid this is not the correct place to present it. Please add it to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Animals#Cats, many can view and use it then. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Domesticated Argument
Hello, I am seeking input and building a consensus on a point stated in the article. I notice the introductory sentence of the article states "The domestic cat (Felis catus or Felis silvestris catus)". This is an issue with me. The generic term "cat" can be either domesticated, i.e. (Felis Catus) or wild (Felis silvestris catus). This being the case, we should not use the word "domestic cat" in the introductory sentence.
- "Scientists say there is little that separates the average house cat (Felis Catus) from its wild brethren (Felis silvestris). There’s some debate over whether cats fit the definition of domesticated as it is commonly used, says Wes Warren, PhD, associate professor of genetics at The Genome Institute at Washington University in St. Louis. “We don’t think they are truly domesticated,” says Warren, who prefers to refer to cats as “semi-domesticated.” Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/ask-smithsonian-are-cats-domesticated-180955111/?no-ist"
What do you think? IQ125 (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is clear that this article is about domestic cats because:
- The hatnote above the article says "This article is about the cat species that is commonly kept as a pet. For the cat family, see Felidae. For other uses, see Cat (disambiguation) and Cats (disambiguation)."
- The infobox is titled "domestic cat" and under "Conservation status" it says "Domesticated."
- The second sentence of the article says "They are often called house cats when kept as indoor pets or simply cats when there is no need to distinguish them from other felids and felines."
- After a look at the "taxonomy and evolution" section, you can see it explains the evolution of domestic cats, not wild cats.
- The "anatomy" section explains the anatomy of domestic cats, not wild cats.
- There is an entire section about "interaction with humans" that explains how humans keep them as a pet.
- The images in the article are definitely not of wild cats.
- There were actually two entire discussions (here and here) about how this article is about domestic cats and not wild cats. --Proud User (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree we already have established historical concensus for this article being about the domestic cat only. Leave hatnote and opening paragraph as has been in historical version, for reasons noted above by Proud User. This is a Good Article and a former Featured Article; we need to restore accurate established text. Having had a resuced feral as a pet, I agree with statement that all cats retain some 'semi-domesticated' status. That line has already been drawn in society however, and there is no need to force this article to reflect an artificial difference. Inquire please of animal control officers and veterinarians. We are not keeping Jaguars and Cougars as pets. Nor do we even approach them, nor feed them nor pet them. The lash of a wild cat is deadly. Hopefully, most days our kittens and cats are tame, hence they are domestic and able to be kept as house pets. This is entirely an artifical premise that wild cats are the same as tame / domestic. We are not allowing wild animals in cat cafés. Fylbecatulous talk 13:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I do not mind making this article the default domestic cat only article. May I suggest a new opening sentence as follows:
- The domestic cat (Latin: Felis catus), as opposed to a feral cat (Latin: Felis silvestris catus), is a small typically furry carnivorous mammal.
This would allow uninformed readers to understand instantly what this article is about and that there is a second article about wild cats. IQ125 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I would agree if you replace "feral" with "wild," as it says right in the first sentence of the feral cat article that they are a type of domestic cat.Nope I think the hatnote at the top does the best job of disambiguating it. --Proud User (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Dog article has similar concerns which they appear to have overcome. I suggest we borrow from this article and state -
The domestic cat (Felis catus) is a domesticated member of the Felidae family which has been selectively bred for millennia for various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and physical attributes.
After all, do we really need to be told in the opening sentence that cats are furry? We can then go on to mention wild cats or other related animals. DrChrissy (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)- @DrChrissy: According to WP:MOS the introduction of an article (especially the first sentence) is supposed to be written in a manner that assumes the reader is not familiar with the subject. If you were unfamiliar with cats, what would be more important to you: knowing that cats are usually furry or that they were selectively bred for millennia?--Proud User (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Proud User:. I have looked at WP:MOS and WP:LEAD and I can not find any such directive to editors. Please could you supply a more specific section or preferably a quotation. DrChrissy (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: WP:BEGIN states "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is."--Proud User (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Non-specialist" is very, very different from being "unfamiliar". It seems to me that anyone old enough to read Wikipedia may be a non-specialist but they will be familiar with cats and the fact that they are furry is totally redundant. If we write for those "unfamiliar" with cats, we should also be stating they have 4 legs, 2 eyes and just one nose.DrChrissy (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: WP:BEGIN states "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is."--Proud User (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Proud User:. I have looked at WP:MOS and WP:LEAD and I can not find any such directive to editors. Please could you supply a more specific section or preferably a quotation. DrChrissy (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Proud User: and any other editor of this article. This may be useful in expanding or updating the domestication section of this article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: According to WP:MOS the introduction of an article (especially the first sentence) is supposed to be written in a manner that assumes the reader is not familiar with the subject. If you were unfamiliar with cats, what would be more important to you: knowing that cats are usually furry or that they were selectively bred for millennia?--Proud User (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Dog article has similar concerns which they appear to have overcome. I suggest we borrow from this article and state -
For your interest: What is a Feral Cat? IQ125 (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- The video does not say that feral cats are not domesticated, it says that feral cats may develop a fear of humans. "Domesticated" means originally breed to be with humans; however, not all domesticated animals live with humans, and (like it said in the video) may develop a fear of humans. Feral cats are by all means domesticated. --Proud User (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718134211/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/housecat to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/housecat
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150413052640/http://www.abcbirds.org:80/newsandreports/NFWF.pdf to http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/NFWF.pdf
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110609020351/http://www.neiu.edu/~jkasmer/Biol498R/Readings/essay1-06.pdf to http://www.neiu.edu/~jkasmer/Biol498R/Readings/essay1-06.pdf
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111217042138/http://www.seaworld.org:80/animal-info/animal-bytes/animalia/eumetazoa/coelomates/deuterostomes/chordata/craniata/mammalia/carnivora/domestic-cat.htm to http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/Animal-Bytes/animalia/eumetazoa/coelomates/deuterostomes/chordata/craniata/mammalia/carnivora/domestic-cat.htm
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100526223945/http://www.rawessentials.co.nz/media/documents/website%20-zorans_article.pdf to http://www.rawessentials.co.nz/media/documents/website%20-zorans_article.pdf
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725021621/http://www.aspcapro.org/mydocuments/download.php?f=l-vettech_0301.pdf to http://www.aspcapro.org/mydocuments/download.php?f=l-vettech_0301.pdf
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720231305/http://zoopsy.free.fr/veille_biblio/social_organization_cat_2004.pdf to http://zoopsy.free.fr/veille_biblio/social_organization_cat_2004.pdf
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090326225932/http://faculty.washington.edu/jcha/330_cats_introducing.pdf to http://faculty.washington.edu/jcha/330_cats_introducing.pdf
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111220064835/http://www.tufts.edu/vet/vet_common/pdf/petinfo/dvm/case_march2005.pdf to http://www.tufts.edu/vet/vet_common/pdf/petinfo/dvm/case_march2005.pdf- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120320220229/http://vlsstore.com/Media/PublicationsArticle/PV_23_12_1049.pdf to http://vlsstore.com/Media/PublicationsArticle/PV_23_12_1049.pdf - gives HTTP 404
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100713133619/http://www.imom.org/spay-neuter/pdf/kustritz.pdf to http://www.imom.org/spay-neuter/pdf/kustritz.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120320220229/http://vlsstore.com/Media/PublicationsArticle/PV_23_12_1049.pdf to http://vlsstore.com/Media/PublicationsArticle/PV_23_12_1049.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722131617/http://www.bksv.com/catspurr to http://www.bksv.com/catspurr
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Cat relativess
Cats relatve is the bear. Most people thin that the bear is not its reliative but it is. Me have poof write hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.67.124 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- @71.10.67.124: Can you find a reliable source that says that? --Proud User (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016
The article "cat" is extremely complete, but I have doubts regarding the introductory section or the following reasons :a) the first paragraph sets felis catus within the scope, first and foremost, of breeding associations. This is both morally dubious and historically inaccurate. Further, to introduce the cultural concept of "breeds" in the first paragraph as an empirical statement of fact is again, questionable. (Though a hint of doubt is allowed with mention of the competing commercially active cat fancying associations). The breeding of specific morphological traits in cats is a commercial activity, one that occurs to the detriment of cat health. Further, cats conforming to breed standards defined by these commercially interested associations form a minority of the global population of domestic cats. As such, breeding and cat associations may well deserve there own section, but do not deserve mention in the first paragraph! International Cat Care (http://icatcare.org/), a non profit organisation (to which I am not affiliated) has some excellent, and critically, disinterested, advice on this subject. I suggest, that all articles discussing domestic cats in terms of cat fancying breeds be reviewed, in the light of the excessive harm being caused to these animals, and the exploitation of Wikipedia by commercially active or interested groups in this subject. The extract in question, which I request be moved into an appropriate subheading follows "There are more than 70 cat breeds; different associations proclaim different numbers according to their standards. The International Progressive Cat Breeders Alliance (IPCBA) recognizes 73 cat breeds while TICA (The International Cat Association) recognizes 58, CFA (The Cat Fanciers' Association) recognizes 44 and Federation International Feline (FIFE) recognizes 43"
I note that the 1st paragraph has since been suitable modified, removing explicit reference to cat breeding organisations. A good move.
The third paragraph, while containing valuable information that deserves thorough coverage about the impact of cats on their environment, appears unfairly weighted in appearing in the introduction, and appears politically motivated in this light. A separate section or inclusion in an existing section covering cats and their interaction with the environment (positive/negative and neutral) is desirable.) The UK based RSPCA even argues feral cats can have a positive impact on the bird population "Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease, or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds." http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspxEither balance the paragraph with appropriate statements of both neutrality and value affirmation concerning cat interaction with the environment, or move the entire paragraph into an appropriate subheader. To be clear, the text in question follows, "Cats have a high breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, they can be bred and shown as registered pedigree pets, a hobby known as cat fancy. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, requiring population control.[9] This has contributed, along with habitat destruction and other factors, to the extinction of many bird species. Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within specific regions and may have contributed to the extinction of isolated island populations.[10] Cats are thought to be primarily, though not solely, responsible for the extinction of 33 species of birds, and the presence of feral and free ranging cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reintroduction in otherwise suitable locations."
Would it be possible to modify the third paragraph, in order to show broader balanced reach of understanding and less activist inclined rhetoric, with the following:
"Like many small and medium sized mammals, cats have a high breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, specific morphological characteristics can be bred and the cats shown as registered pedigree pets, or breeds, an activity which is an aspect of cat fancy, the appreciation of domestic and feral cats. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large over population of feral cats in some regions of the world, requiring population control, both for the well being of cats and for the well being of their local environment.[8] In other regions of the world, feral cats may be considered part of the native animal population, although proximity and interbreeding between feral and wild cats has proven to be a source of controversy in specific regions such as Scotland (ref: http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/mammals/land-mammals/wildcats/). Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within specific regions and may have contributed to the extinction of isolated island populations in Oceania.[9] The presence of feral cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reintroduction in otherwise suitable locations. However other studies suggest that where feral and domestic cats have a long established presence, such as in the Middle East and Europe, they do not have a detrimental effect upon bird or small mammal populations. (ref : http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx)"
What do you think?176.153.196.167 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: Unclear what changes you want made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016
pppppppppppppppppoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppp38.111.117.18 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)nkkjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
- Not done the faeces of the species are already discussed under the Physiology section. MPS1992 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
--206.57.217.137 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Bold texthttps://www.reddit.com/r/cats/
Dear Wikipedia,
You should add a ¨fun facts¨ category to this page. As a passionate cat lover, I happen to know many interesting cat facts I wish to share with the world.Thank you for considering the above. WhiskerPaige (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, but the article already consists of nothing but fun facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- (Also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (i.e. if fun facts are missing from the article, improve the article rather than add a "stuff" section)) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
"Toxin" doesn't mean what you think it means
See the article "toxin": "A toxin (from Ancient Greek: τοξικόν toxikon) is a poisonous substance produced within living cells or organisms; synthetic toxicants created by artificial processes are thus excluded. The term was first used by organic chemist Ludwig Brieger (1849–1919)."
So a cat would only rarely be "exposed" to toxins (produced in some other organism's cells), it would more likely be exposed to environmental toxicants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.207.204 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Etymology: 'kattepus' listed as a Swedish word
It's been raised before (page 12 of the talk archive, I believe), but since it's still in the article (including in the Norwegian version of it, which makes even less sense in my eyes) I thought I should bring it up again.
In the section regarding etymology, pussycat is said to be "related to Swedish kattepus, or Norwegian pus, pusekatt". However, as far as I've been able to determine, kattepus has never been a Swedish word. The Swedish version is instead "kissekatt" or its older version "kisse". The Swedish Academy's Dictionary[1] (Svenska Akademiens Ordbok) lists examples as far back as 1730[2] of usage of the word "kisse", but has no entries or mentions of "kattepus". There is one mention of "kisspuss" (dialectally "kissepus") as a compound term, however, but with only one lyrical quote[3] demonstrating its use.
It seems more likely that the word might have been Danish, since the Danish word for cat, kat[4], is changed to "katte-" in compound words (such as "kattemad", cat food, "kattehår", cat hair, and others)[5], and "pus" is a term of endearment for children and animals, also used as a calling sound for cats[6]. A quick google search, however, says that the word is used in a well-known Norwegian children's song[7] by Alf Prøysen (1914-1970).
However, Norway and Sweden share a very long border, not to mention that at the beginning of the 16th century Sweden was still part of the Kalmar Union (comprised of Norway, Denmark and Sweden, including any outlying territories of those three countries) and had before that often shared its monarchs with Norway (King Magnus IV of Sweden, Norway and Scania, 1319-1343 (Scania 1332-1360), and King Haakon VI of Norway (1343-1380) and Sweden (1362-1364), to give two examples). So at the time frame the article references (the 16th century), I'd wager that Norwegian was used in Sweden as much as or more than Swedish itself was used, considering how the native languages of Wales and Finland were treated when the countries were conquered by England and Sweden, respectively. I'd also guess that the term "kisspuss" or "kissepus" was coined at some point during that time due to the mix of languages (not only Swedish and Norwegian, but also Danish).
While it's entirely possible that the relatively similar "kattepus" came to be about the same time, I can find no evidence of it, and it seems to me that if it was used here it was a much more short-lived term than the other two (implying it was less popular and/or commonly used). It is, of course, entirely possible that it's an even older term, since the four languages of Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish all developed from the same root (Old Norse), and it seems reasonable that the languages remained closer than they are today for quite a while after becoming separate languages. But going that far back, it'd be more fair to call it "Late Old Swedish"[8] or "Early Modern Swedish"[9] instead of "Swedish". It's similar to claiming that a word that hasn't been used since Middle or Early Modern English should be listed as an English word. Just a few sentences later, a distinction is made for Early Modern English compared to English, after all ("In Early Modern English, the word 'kitten' was interchangeable with the now-obsolete word 'catling'"). And if it's a Danish or Norwegian term, borrowed into Swedish, it is similar to saying that "nom de guerre" is an English term.
I'd also like to add that Swedish and Norwegian in that sentence are not listed under the heading of "may have been introduced from", but rather under "related to", which as far as I can tell can include more modern terms that are related to the term you're comparing it to (in this case, the English "pussycat"). In that respect, listing "kattepus" as a Swedish word makes even less sense to me.
To put it simply, I would like to request that one of the following be done about it:
1) That the word "kattepus" in the etymology section be replaced by "kisse, kissekatt" since from evidence available to me those two seem to have been the more common, and the prevailing, terms used in Swedish.
2) That the reference/comparison to "kattepus" is removed entirely from that sentence.
94.254.54.7 (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016
"The African wildcat, Felis silvestris lybica, is the ancestor of the domestic cat." is arguably wrong, should be "The African wildcat... and the domestic cat share a most recent common ancestor." or something along those lines.
Fethalen (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Fethalen: hello, do you have any references to reliable sources that support this change? MPS1992 (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
{{done}}. To editors Fethalen and MPS1992: In the image caption, "ancestors", whether individuals or species, are either dead or extinct - the article content indicates "closely related". Paine u/c 17:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)- Undone: This request has been partially undone. On further reading, we see that the subspecies did exist back when domestication began and is believed to be ancestral to modern domesticates. So I have undone the edit and hopefully clarified it a bit in the image caption. Paine u/c 18:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Plant-eating
Cats eat grass to purposefully throw up. And other times they just enjoy the taste. Maybe it's sweet. Definitely seasonal. Anyone who has grown up with a multitude of cats know that eating grass is not an attempt to get some mineral. Sure, if they want one thing and not another... ok. But, eating grass is a regular thing like all mamals chew on spring. -Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B198:9B10:9BA:28FC:BD3:57FF (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that cats intuitively (like most hunters) eat bodies, not just "meat". There are absolutely benefits to eating a rabbit for example who still had a salad in it's stomach. So yes, in eating grass etc, the cat would be getting their A B and Cs, etc. When a cat eats something it didn't want to, it goes for the grass right away. It will actually beg to go outside to get it. This whole article is a bunch of armchair anthropology. I think we can trust what cats tell us. These are pets, not just species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B198:9B10:9BA:28FC:BD3:57FF (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2016
I only think cat lovers will come to this page so I suggest that we add that cats are low maintenance pets.
signed fivezigzagFivezigzag (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Felis silvestris catus vs Felis silvestris silvestris
This article states the domestic cat species as Felis catus, and wildcat as Felis silvestris. This however is not true. This can be validated simply by the definition of a species - a population of animals with similar morphs that can breed to produce fertile offspring. If the domestic cat and wildcat were in fact 2 separate species then hybridisation would not be able to occur - a process that is stated to occur later in the article. The domestic cat and wildcat are therefore different subspecies of the same species - Felis silvestris. Felis silvestris catus is the domestic subspecies and Felis silvestris silvestris is the European wildcat species. In addition to this there are a number of other subspecies of wildcats in other continents - such as the African wildcat (Felis silvestris lybica) and Indian desert cat (Felis silvestris ornata)
Sources are many, and just by reading the definition of what a species is you can work out the information on this page is incorrect, but here's a paper stating it too:
WillHalls (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. I was taught exactly the same definition as you and was quite happy with that for many years. However, wikipedia has taught me that things are not always as black-or-white as we might think. I also have a friend who is an expert in taxonomy and whenever I ask him such questions, his answer is "it depends which book you read". A little unhelpful, but true. Have a look at our article Species problem. Best of luck in sorting it out! DrChrissy (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry
I write a lot of articles on infection, bacteria and other medical content. But for an article to be encyclopedic, and as uncomfortable as the topic of cat diseases can get, I mean no harm and I am adding information in good faith. If there is a problem with the content that I have added, please feel to comment here or on my talk page The Very Best of Regards,
- Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Some food cats can not eat24.14.248.89 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Cats are allergenic to milk and chocolate
- Cats are not allergic to milk. And the toxicity of chocolate is already mentioned in the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- After weaning, milk is not necessary in a cat's diet. Their ability to digest lactose reduces. Cats can even become intolerant to ordinary cows' milk, resulting in the diarrhea. By the way......is this talked about in the article??208.114.41.213 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Felis silvestris catus vs. Felis catus
F. catus is an semi-archaic classification synonym to F. silvestris catus. (The sidebar states that it's a subjective synonym, which are classification names that some would argue overlap perfectly, while others may have differing ways of differentiating the two nomenclature. Basically, exact classification is up for debate.) However, the opening of this article states that domestic cats are F. catus and free-ranging ferals are F. silvestris catus as though that's an objective and widely used way of using those nomenclatures, which is untrue. I'd like to see a clearer opening statement stating F. catus and F. silvesris catus are both appropriate and synonymous names for domestic cats, and perhaps linking to the explanation of the differences listed lower in the article (which unlike the opening, is actually correct). I would be happy to rewrite the opening myself but I'd like permission before doing so given the importance of this article.
In addition, if the two terms are truly subjective synonyms rather than true synonyms, that needs to be reflected in the Taxonomy paragraph as well, with actual sources. -- 05:47, 9 August 2016 2601:192:4603:28c0:195b:5327:9f4c:7599
I'd like to add that feral cats ARE domestic cats--they are the exact same species! I don't know who wrote that part of the article but their assertion makes absolutely no sense. I think I'll stick with Felis sylvestris catus to distinguish them from African wildcats even though if you want to get technical that's the same cat too. They cross-breed with absolutely no trouble at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.44.180 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Cat Fathers Improvement
The article states that male cats have no involvement in the raising of kittens, but this requires further research. The statement is not accurate, both based on my own findings with my cats and articles such as this one, which is just one of dozens: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-normal-for-male-cats-to-take-care-of-the-kittens. If there's not much research on the subject, then it would be good to rework this section (the section pertaining to cat's behavior of bringing home prey to humans) into a more generalized summary, rather than absolute language. I think it's been well understood that males most certainly can take a role in the raising of offspring, and in my personal experience, they will absolutely bring food home to their young ones, which flies directly in the face of the article quoted here. Hopefully more research on male cat behavior becomes available soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.129.108 (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Quora and our own personal findings and experiences are really not good sources to use in Wikipedia articles. If something is well understood then it will have been noted in a reliable source somewhere. The best sources are indeed peer reviewed academic studies, but this article cites many sources that are not quite so highly-rated, so we don't necessarily have to wait for more research. We do have to wait for something more formal than Quora and personal observations. MPS1992 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Communication and Behavior
Article needs some points added, such as scent transfer, bunting, and allorubbing. Anyone qualified?
How about licking themselves when undecided? "When in doubt, wash" says National Geographic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.1.37 (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Depictions in art (gallery)
In the interest of averting an edit war, I'm opening this thread and inviting Alexiszerflin and Bluesphere to comment. My take on it: the gallery is not a great idea. Some of the images are interesting, but we're presenting them devoid of context. The topic "Depictions of cats in art" is definitely worthy of better coverage including multiple images—as it stands, the article has precious little to say about this, and that's a shame—but there should be accompanying text and the images should be selected to illustrate that text. I can even imagine spinning off a standalone article someday.... RivertorchFIREWATER 13:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rivertorch - Same thoughts, actually; the section violates WP:NOTGALLERY. I already told Alexiszerflin that that section cannot stay since it's a simple collection of thumb images with no prose justifying it. But he insisted on reverting my edit to the point of violating WP:3RR. Already warned him in his talk page about it.
- @Alexiszerflin: Please do participate in this discussion before contesting my edit again. Bluesphere 15:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I also agree that the gallery should not be included. This is a Good Article, let's keep it that way. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what purpose it serves, if it contributed to information content then I could support it; but there is no need for a gallery of images. It's not like there is a shortage of cat pictures on the internet. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Many animal articles have galleries such as this - often called "cultural depictions". I agree with Rivertorch that the gallery is acceptable, but it simply MUST be placed in context and supported with appropriate text. DrChrissy (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what purpose it serves, if it contributed to information content then I could support it; but there is no need for a gallery of images. It's not like there is a shortage of cat pictures on the internet. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I also agree that the gallery should not be included. This is a Good Article, let's keep it that way. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Evolution presented as fact
This article is flawed in that it discusses the theory of evolution as if it were fact. In doing so it commits the same logical fallacies that are normally found in narratives that assume the existence of something as the basis for explanation of something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.254.6 (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- See Evolution, Evidence of common descent, E. coli long-term evolution experiment... The diversity of dog breeds (some of now require almost as much trouble to cross-breed as lions and tigers) is another clear example of Experimental evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Maximum running speed
Please add info about cats' maximum running speed. (It is 29.6mph according to http://www.speedofanimals.com/animals/domestic_cat .) --2A00:23C0:5700:FD00:E570:FA1:410F:B757 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Surely the maximum permitted running speed is dependent on the track gauge being used by the cat in question?
- On a more serious note, is speedofanimals.com a WP:RS ? It says "Animal descriptions are from Wikipedia", which would make its use in this article WP:CIRCULAR. MPS1992 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- MPS1992 is correct. We need a reliable source. I can't find an impeccable source, but this might suffice. It lists its own (rather old) sources, including a 1974 issue of Natural History, but it doesn't indicate which sources apply to which animals. Frankly, some of the entries at the bottom of the chart aren't confidence-inspiring. (Snails: how do you know if they're even in a hurry?) Someone felt it was good enough for this article but I'm not so sure. RivertorchFIREWATER 08:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have spent over an hour trying to find an RS for this and I have failed. I very much dislike the speedofanimals source (what does "feels like" mean?) and as RiverTorch mentions, the Natural History list does not inspire confidence - it does not tell us how the speed was measured for example. DrChrissy (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Etymology of "cat"
The statement at note 39, regarding a presumed Late Egyptian origin for "cat" from čaute, feminine of čaus is spurious and should be deleted; the French dictionary cited is not authoritative on the ancient Egyptian language and does not constitute a useful source. Bottom line: There is no such word in the ancient Egyptian language, in any phase. See thus, L. Lesko, A Dictionary of Late Egyptian Index, 295, cat (my) with relevant entry in ibid., vol. 1, 179; A. Erman and H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache, vol. 6, 86, Kater (mjw) and Katze (mj.t), with relevant entries in ibid., vol. 2, 42; Walter Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, 55b, ⲈⲘⲞⲨ (cat). Crum also cites a few newer words for cat in Coptic, which are presumably loans (ⲔⲖⲎ, p. 102a; ϢⲀⲨ, p. 601a) but these also do not support the etymology proposed at n. 39. Bespantheos (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Multiple English-language dictionaries indicate an unknown ultimate origin for the word. Is the Dictionnaire français-gaulois source available online? Without knowing exactly what it says, I think the current wording may be too strong. How would you feel about substituting "possibly" for "presumably"? RivertorchFIREWATER 06:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017
On the third paragraph on the last sentence, there's a space inbetween "species reintroduction" and the period ".", could somebody fix this? --173.73.227.128 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. RivertorchFIREWATER 21:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017
Bold textI MUST EDIT! YOU MUST LET ME! I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT CATS! PLEASE! 123kdkd12 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Near Eastern Wildcat range
Regarding today's edit war, which involved roughly a dozen back-and-forth edits in less than an hour (along with namecalling in edit summaries and back-and-forth templating in user talk space) by two established editors: there's a policy that expressly prohibits this sort of thing and an excellent essay that offers a perfectly viable alternative), namely a discussion right here. At the risk of reigniting something that had died down, I don't think it's quite settled. I'm all for eschewing political boundaries in favor of regional geographical terms wherever possible, but I think in this case there may be good reason to do otherwise. Let's look at what the source says: "Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries"; it's very specific at first, but then it goes all vague. Still, it's the only source we've got for the statement. The earlier wording—"Egypt, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries"—is unsatisfactory (whether it says Palestine or Israel) because it throws Egypt into the mix. The newer wording—"Northern Africa, the Near East and around the periphery of the Arabian Peninsula"—is consistent with our Near Eastern Wildcat article, but that's not necessarily a good thing: the stated range in the first sentence has two citations, the first of which leads (with help from the Wayback Machine) to a page about what may or may not be a different species. The second citation may support the content, but I only have access to the abstract at the moment. I'm not quite sure how to proceed, but I think we'd be safer either going with exactly what this article's cited source says or else being deliberately vague and just saying "the Middle East". Pinging User:Darkson and User:Sigehelmus. Any thoughts? (Let's make sure we have consensus here before making any changes.) RivertorchFIREWATER 21:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't care much for it anymore, and I concede ny first revision just added fuel to fire, but I still support the idea that a purely geographic description would be best.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think simply saying "Middle East" is more vague than saying "Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries"? It's basically saying the same but shorter, as the three named countries are all in the Middle East? It's shorter, not more vague, and not political; and therefore preferable to the other options. Cuoregr (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- There's a saying in television: "assume the viewers are goldfish", i.e. pretty stupid and forgetful. However, even a goldfish knows how to navigate his bowl, and the average person knows of Middle East surely, and it would be bluelinked regardless in case they don't. Just mentioning Israel without Palestine is contentious if not polemic.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 13:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Happy as it is, though it was fine as it was before Sigehelmus came in pushing his POV.Darkson (I survived the 525!) 22:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- You can't just keep saying POV without clarification. I don't have a POV (well, everyone does I suppose) but that's irrelevant because a geographic description is most relevant and accurate for a description of where an animal roams. Would you say that a bird that nests in the Himalayas region roams around the Republic of India, Nepal, and Kingdom of Bhutan, or sound like a human and just say the Himalayas because it's more useful?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 15:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe you missed it in my mini-wall of text, but I've been unable to verify that the current wording is factual. Have you had better luck? Would you object to its simply saying "Middle East"? RivertorchFIREWATER 02:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- In the absence of objection, I was all set to change it to just say Middle East, but I poked around a bit more and found this. Scroll down to Figure 3.4 and look at the map; the distribution of the Near Eastern Wildcat (F. silvestris lybica) goes well beyond the Middle East (or Near East), stretching all the way to the western coast of Africa in two great swaths. This is consistent with the detailed range description here. So now I'm thinking it should say "whose range covers vast portions of the Middle East westward to the Atlantic coast of Africa". Or something like that. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds good, sure. I agree.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 12:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, it is more accurate; and if it ends this partisan bickering so much the better. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Hope it'll stick. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, it is more accurate; and if it ends this partisan bickering so much the better. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds good, sure. I agree.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 12:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Happy as it is, though it was fine as it was before Sigehelmus came in pushing his POV.Darkson (I survived the 525!) 22:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- There's a saying in television: "assume the viewers are goldfish", i.e. pretty stupid and forgetful. However, even a goldfish knows how to navigate his bowl, and the average person knows of Middle East surely, and it would be bluelinked regardless in case they don't. Just mentioning Israel without Palestine is contentious if not polemic.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 13:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think simply saying "Middle East" is more vague than saying "Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries"? It's basically saying the same but shorter, as the three named countries are all in the Middle East? It's shorter, not more vague, and not political; and therefore preferable to the other options. Cuoregr (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017
There are 75 different ctas. Gracie324 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121226041847/http://www.scas.org.uk/1825/facts-and-figures.html to http://www.scas.org.uk/1825/facts-and-figures.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfainc.org/articles/plants.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.darumamagazine.com/new/articles-excerpts/maneki-neko-feline-fact-fiction/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DIDy4b8G?url=http://www.darumamagazine.com/new/articles-excerpts/maneki-neko-feline-fact-fiction/ to http://www.darumamagazine.com/new/articles-excerpts/maneki-neko-feline-fact-fiction/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Correct the taxonomic mistake (EDIT REQUEST)
The cat is a subspecies of the wild cat and therefore should be moved to subspecies instead of species and be named Felis silvestris catus instead of Felis catus.
I do not understand this bizzare tradition of keeping up Linnaean taxonomy when its 21st century and not 18th century.
Taxonomy is about correctness and truth, not staying with old outdated and incorrect terms.
Canis lupus familiaris, NOT Canis familiaris.
Felis silvestris catus, NOT Felis catus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrkin (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- You would have had a good point until recently. Recent taxonomical schemes had tended towards including the domestic cat within the wildcat or African/Near-eastern wildcat species. However, the IUCN Cat Specialist Group has just published the long-awaited Revised taxonomy of the Felidae[a] and given species status to the domestic cat, as well as the European and African/Near-eastern wildcats. Jts1882 (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Encyclopedia
Dear editor who wants to add an adorable photo of your exceptional, charming and wonderful cat.
- Don't. Start a scrapbook.
- Best Regards
- Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I concur with this. Especially because the best cat picture ever isn't available to us. RivertorchFIREWATER 02:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Cat Evolution Backdating (proposed change)
The domesticated cat (Felis catus) is well researched, but subject to typical internet biases. I would make this change myself, based on the ample evidence, but I know the internet is touchy about cat facts.
I propose moving the date of cat domestication on this article (and the "domesticated animals" https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/List_of_domesticated_animals and any other popular linked-pages) closer to present in most places by about 5,000 years, aka, much much more recent.
Right now, almost all sources on Wikipedia, and even the internet at large (based on Wiki's sourcing) are citing the same "10,000 years ago" claim, which is entirely based on one methodologically-limited 2007 study published in Nature. (you can read it in full, badly formatted, here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GUnrb9I8Re4J:www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/sdjordan/PDFs/Driscoll%2520Science%2520Cat.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us). There is no archaeological record of cats being domesticated that long ago and no historical record. I'm a bigger fan than most people of statistical analysis and clade grouping and extrapolation and all that jazz. But it's a method, admittedly, prone to noisy results and (sometimes) big errors. The authors of the 2007 study admit that their 10k estimate is mostly based on the development of agriculture in the region in that time period PLUS the stats. We shouldn't be using a "hard" number like "10,000 years ago" or "8,000 BCE" when it's 1) only an estimate and 2) not backed up by any other data.
I have some professional background in evolutionary biology, but am not an expert in Cat Evolution or archaeology by any means. I did, however, spend the last 3 hours reading about this stuff just to make sure I get it right. MSG me on my talk page if you have concerns, or you're interested, or if you have a longer/ more trustworthy wikipedia background and would be willing to make these changes for me. Johnfromtheprarie (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Which sources mention these issues with the "10,000 years ago" claim? MPS1992 (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The Driscoll et al (2007) paper references Vigne et al (2004) for the 9.500 years ago origin of the domestic cat, which was based on archaeological studies of cat and human burials in Cyprus. The genetics in Driscoll et al (2007) was used to show the phylogenetic relationships between the domestic cat and the Near Eastern wilcat, not to date domestication. Jts1882 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
New sources
In case anyone finds this useful, a new study was published in Nature, "The palaeogenetics of cat dispersal in the ancient world", and predictably there are some related articles in the popular press, such as this one. RivertorchFIREWATER 02:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2017
One of my pet peeves (sorry, pun intended) is "see also" within prose. There is a parenthetical "see ship's cat" at the end of ¶3 in the 'History and mythology' section. This can be easily remedied by changing the clause beginning: ...as they were carried on sailing ships -to- [split sentence] Ship's cats were carried... 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1C:247F:9E77:82FF (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Change Request - Laser Pointers
The section under play dealing with laser pointers seems to be offer original research/opinion rather than well confirmed fact - or, seen another way, seems to be misapplying sources to come to a predetermined conclusion.
For example, the source about potentially harmful laser pointers goes to a report from one manufacturer complaining to Amazon that its competitors don't meet proper standards and is clearly talking about higher powered lasers not meant to be used as casual office or cat toy pointers - and, more fundamentally, the source doesn't deal with pointers meant for cats or even refer to cats at all. Likewise, the claim that a laser pointer can cause damage to cat's eyes is vague, unsourced, and deceptive - any laser of sufficient power that is misused (such as purposefully shining it into someone's eyes for extended periods, for example) could theoretically do harm, but then again that's true for any piece of technology when misused. The point here should be to relate any reasonable risk when a proper cat toy laser is used as instructed, but clearly the sources used here aren't appropriate for the negative conclusion the writer is offering. Just as it would be deceptive to maintain that toasters are as a rule inherently dangerous (and therefore by implication should never be used) because you might burn your hand if you were to stick it whole down a toast slot (a clear common sense misuse of a toaster), it is just as deceptive in this case to suggest that laser pointers meant for cat toys are inherently dangerous for cats even if used appropriately. Lastly, the final source dealing with the claimed frustration that cats feel by not being able to physically catch a laser dot is just one writer expressing an opinion - it is not a scientific source using data to demonstrate the suppose fact that cats will indeed be frustrated in such a situation. Yet, the line as written assumes such frustration as a given.
Basically, it all reads like someone with a beef against laser pointer toys for cats rewrote the section to conform to their beliefs and not the actual evidence. I would therefore like to request that the section be rewritten to either: Make it clear that laser pointer cat toys are safe when used with common sense and that any health dangers could only arise when stronger lasers never meant for such a role are used inappropriately, or; that it simply be reduced down to a basic statement of how appropriate laser pointers are/can be used as toys with cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranillon (talk • contribs)
- Fixed, I think. I agree the whole "some lasers might be more powerful" thing was OR. I added the part about shining directly into the eyes, which isn't sourced, but falls under WP:BLUE. The part about getting frustrated was sourced to a website that isn't a WP:Reliable source, so I simply removed it as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Mediatech492 reverted me without explanation so I put it back, we will see if they join the discussion here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- You provided no sources to support your assertion, reversion was mandatory. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:V. That isn't how verification works here at Wikipedia. The sources did not pass WP:RS and were WP:OR. If you want to put it back in, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide adequate sources that pass WP:RS AND show that it isn't WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia isn't a buying guide for laser pointers. For the record, the gold standard for content dispute isn't just to revert, it is WP:BRD. I reverted the information out of the article, before you go adding it back, again, the burden is on you to use the talk page to discuss. You've been here long enough to know that. Now would be a good time to revert yourself, as per the links I just gave you, it does appear that you are edit warring over improperly sourced and contentious material, Mediatech492. You've been here way too long to not know these things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- After reading your talk page, I can see you aren't up on policy here. I removed the material again, but added NO NEW MATERIAL. There is no question that you need to leave it out because it isn't sourced properly, is a bit of a guide on lasers and amounts to original research. Talk about it here, or I can ask someone to block you for being disruptive. I'm not in the mood to argue with someone who hasn't bothered to read the policies they are relying on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:V. That isn't how verification works here at Wikipedia. The sources did not pass WP:RS and were WP:OR. If you want to put it back in, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide adequate sources that pass WP:RS AND show that it isn't WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia isn't a buying guide for laser pointers. For the record, the gold standard for content dispute isn't just to revert, it is WP:BRD. I reverted the information out of the article, before you go adding it back, again, the burden is on you to use the talk page to discuss. You've been here long enough to know that. Now would be a good time to revert yourself, as per the links I just gave you, it does appear that you are edit warring over improperly sourced and contentious material, Mediatech492. You've been here way too long to not know these things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- You provided no sources to support your assertion, reversion was mandatory. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319031546/http://www.catcollection.org/files/PenileSpines.pdf to http://www.catcollection.org/files/PenileSpines.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131108151527/http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Cat_Development to http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Cat_Development
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is missing an encyclopedic discussion of why Cats like cardboard boxes, one of their most species-typical characteristics. What gives?
This article is missing an encyclopedic discussion of why Cats like cardboard boxes, one of their most species-typical characteristics. What gives?47.16.205.142 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Domestic cats have been around for ten thousand years or so. Cardboard boxes are a rather more recent invention. MPS1992 (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- This article is missing that information because someone (which now includes you as you have demonstrated a capacity to edit the site) has yet to locate a professionally published mainstream academic source defining that as one of their most typical characteristics and explaining it. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- How about this study? Will a hiding box provide stress reduction for shelter cats? According to one of the authors "Hiding is a behavioral strategy of the species to cope with environmental changes and stressors". A journalist embellished this a little: "Boxes are insulating, stress-relieving, comfort zones—places where cats can hide, relax, sleep, and occasionally launch a sneak attack against the huge, unpredictable apes they live with"(Wired). The Egyptians were among the first to domesticate cats and used to bury cats in boxes (also wrapped up to keep warm), so perhaps we can find archaeological and sociological tie-ins with the cats love of boxes. Jts1882 | talk 13:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Significantly, there's also no discussion of clawing the furniture. It might be a conspiracy by agenda-driven cat-editors intent on suppressing the content. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Misunderstanding that Cats are moggies
The reference to cats as moggies is a little know misconception except for certain well educated regions of Northern England. In fact within only a few miles of these areas the town folk still do not recognize the true meaning of the term Moggie!
If we study the development of the cat back to ancient times as now they are hunters. However, the cat was usually owned by the less well off to control vermin and rodents. As the people of the time could not distinguish between the varieties of rodents they were generally classed as MOGI. A term in ancient times to describe the little pest that scampered around the dwelling. Hence the cat was a mogi catcher and most likely this misunderstanding comes from translation when asking the cat to chase the Moggies! simply translated as get the moggi..This misunderstanding of the lack of knowledge has been known to create local conflict and even violence. take the town of Warrington many believe that a cat is a moggie ( wrongly ) whilst their Neighbours Leigh only 8 miles distant knew and recognized the real understanding that a moggie was a small rodent.This created a little known conflict called the Foy conflict.Mr Foy was a well renowned character from Warrington and after many ales in a local bar where a discussion regarding the matter became ugly and escalated in several hundred people being injured in a 6 day war. As many of the locals worked in chemicals they created a cocktail of chemical bombs to through at the opposing side. This chemical created a madness which at the time was classed as Lunacy. At the end of the conflict both sides agreed to disagree and shared a barrel of ale at the old hermitage ( Now the site of the public house the Hermit) and decided how best to care for the "Lunatics". They agreed to keep them away from both town centres and build a temporary Hospital in Win wick.Latterly this became the local sanatorium.So from a small misunderstanding a local War occurred, A ale house and sanatorium were created. At the end a Moggie is a MOUSE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.46.2 (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- [citation needed] Ian.thomson (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Feral cats
Public attitudes towards feral cats vary widely, ranging from seeing them as free-ranging pets, to regarding them as vermin.[205] One common approach to reducing the feral cat population is termed 'trap-neuter-return', where the cats are trapped, neutered, immunized against rabies and the feline leukemia virus, and then released.
I believe this is a typo for lack of a better term. TNR Programs do not routinely vaccinate against Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV). They do however routinely vaccinate against the Feline Panleukopenia Virus (FPV).
https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/23815/1/oa_23815.pdf page 9The information is also correct on the wiki main TNR pagehttps://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Trap-neuter-return#MethodologyLynnDVM (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you are; but I work at a TNR Clinic and we routinely vaccinate for FPV, FeLV, feline herpes, calicivirus, and rabies. I believe this is common practice here in in Canada, but I won't speak for anywhere else. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- We don't currently have any sources mentioning FeLV, but we do have a source (the one above) mentioning FPV. For the sake of simplicity, I suggest the following wording "... where the cats are trapped, neutered, immunized against diseases such as rabies and the feline Panleukopenia and Leukemia viruses, and then released." What do people think of this? MPS1992 (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Opinion 2027
In ICZN-Opinion 2027 it is stated that the use of separate names for domesticated animals and their wild progenitors has created confusion.[1] Especially the 1993 edition of Mammal Species of the World was followed by strong reactions among zoologists, when several wild animals were at once no longer treated under the names that were established for the wild taxa, but under the earlier published scientific specific names for their domesticated descendants.
Upon a request by Anthea Gentry et al. to correct this, the Commission ruled that 17 names of wild animals, although published at a later date than the names of their domesticated descendants, would have precedence over the older names in case they are treated as the same species.
In this article, the domestic cat is treated as a domesticated descendant and subspecies of the wild cat, as can be read in Taxonomy and evolution. In the same chapter, it is stated that "The most common name in use for the domestic cat remains F. catus, following a convention for domesticated animals of using the earliest (the senior) synonym proposed," with a reference to Opinion 2027. In Opinion 2027, no such "convention" is mentioned, and the statement therefore most likely just reflects the opinion of the user who added it.
The cases Dog and Horse are identical to this one, and in those articles, the scientific names are given as Canis lupus familiaris and Equus ferus caballus respectively.
Opinion 2027 does not prohibit the use of a senior synonym, in case the domesticated taxon is treated as a separate species. That, however, is not done in this article, so the correct name is then Felis silvestris catus, and I will once again edit the article to this effect. Wikiklaas 11:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Opinion 2027 reserves the use of Felis silvestris for the wildcat, rather than using the senior synonym, Felis catus when the domestic cat is treated as a subspecies. However, it doesn't specify what should be done with the domestic cat and, as you note, doesn't prohibit use of the senior synonym as a species name.
- In a follow up Gentry, Clutton-Brock and Groves (2004)[2] "recommended that names based on domestic forms be adopted for the corresponding domestic derivatives", i.e. that the domestic cat be known as Felis catus (see table 1).
- Furthermore, the IUCN Cat Group have recently published a revised felid taxonomy (Kitchener et al, 2017[3]; Groves is one of the authors) and the wildcat is split into three species. Felis lybica is separated from Felis silvestris and the domestic cat is treated as a species because of Opinion 2007. On p21 they write: "Following Opinion 2027 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2003), the domestic cat is treated as a distinct taxon, Felis catus (Gentry et al. 2004)".
- There is no ambiguity about their conclusion or the source of their reasoning, although you could argue whether it directly follows the opinion or is a separate development based on Groves et al (2004). This Wikipedia cat article can't be used as a source to argue for treating the domestic cat as a subspecies, rather the text of the article needs changing to reflect current views on the taxonomy. Jts1882 | talk 12:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Opinion 2027 is a ruling by the ICZN and as such is an extension to the Code that should be followed by all authors dealing with names governed by that Code. If two taxa are considered conspecific, then they should be given the same specific name. In that sense, Opinion 2027 does affect the names of domesticated animals. The "follow up" by Gentry et al. has no such standing. It is a rather private recommendation. Their table 1 is an overview of the traditional names, not of the names that should be used.
- In the above you state that "the domestic cat is treated as a species because of Opinion 2007". Opinion 2007 is about the designation of a type species for Kalotermes (an insect), so you most likely meant to refer to 2027. The Code and the body of Opinions do not provide rules for how to treat the status of a taxon (i.e. different from another taxon, or its rank at specific or subspecific level): the rules of the Code only come into play after such a decision is made by one or more taxonomists. Your statement that the domestic cat is treated as a species because of Opinion 2027 cannot hold. There may be good grounds to treat the taxon as a species, but you probably misunderstood them.
- If current views on the family tree of wild and domesticated cats differ from the treatment of the domestic cat as a descendant from the wild cat, as given in the current article, then that part of the article should be updated, and if necessary, the scientific names should be adjusted. As long as the domestic cat is treated as a subspecies of the wild cat however, its scientific name is Felis silvestris catus. I just made a correction because the scientific name used was not in accordance with the status of the taxon as expressed in the relevant part of the article. Wikiklaas 01:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, you made the edit in good faith, but it was based on a misunderstanding of Opinion 2027, as my revert indicated. Your edit entry said "according to ICZN Opinion 2027, the name F. catus should not be used if it is considered a descendant of F. silvestris, which it is in this article". The actual decision was to use F. catus silvestris if the cat was treated as a subspecies of the wildcat, which is subtly different. The IUZN decisison was neutral on whether domesticated animals should be considered a subspecies or not and there is a substantial literature on this. In the case of the cat it has been treated as a species by both Wozencraft (2005) and the Kitchener et al (2017) and the latter discusses the ICZN decision. In addition, the cat article says "The most common name in use for the domestic cat remains F. catus" which doesn't seem to be strongly supporting the status of subspecies.
- I will make changes to the article text to clarify what the ICZN decision said and subsequent events. Jts1882 | talk 12:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jts1882: I agree with you that Wikiklaas's analysis of Opinion 2027 was incorrect. However, part of your conclusion doesn't quite right read right to me. There's essentially no scientific question left at all that domestic cats are a subspecies (or less) of F. silvestris (they are). The main dispute I've seen in fairly recent material is whether to call this species F. silvestris or rename it F. catus since the catus name came first. The general rule is to do so, but there's strong resistance to the idea from some quarters (same with dogs and horses); some camps want to preserve F. silvestris and F. catus as distinct names for different contexts, others want to use F. silvestris catus for the subspecies, and others F. catus catus, while a few holdouts (and many older sources) consider F. catus a species, which has been debunked pretty solidly by now. Most of this appears to be a dispute between traditional taxonomists and cladists, and further in-fighting between rule-oriented taxonomists and really traditional ones, as well as between real taxonomists and "applied" people, e.g. in animal breeding circles who don't like seeing cats "demoted". This is a controversy or cluster of controversies WP should teach, not take a side in, other than as required to follow our general "go with scientific consensus" rule. We should report (in lead and infobox) the most common scientific name first and the second one second, and leave the rest probably to a section on taxonomic disputes. As of this second, the article is doing that according to what I knew half a decade ago, but this probably needs a re-examination. I'm not sure that F. catus should given any prominence any more, and that may hinge on whether the F. catus catus camp (i.e. the "rename F. silvestris to F. catus" camp) have made any headway. I haven't looked into this for about 5 years, and don't have as much journal-searching-sites access as I used to. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikiklaas reverting my entry
Wikiklaas can you please contact me re what you dont understand about my entry.I sent you wikitalk to you as well so I hope I am not duplicating where i should leave this message.
Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
more or less the same question, posted on my talk page, copied to this more relevant talk page
Wikilaas.what part of this did you not understand? I am happy to explain any part of it to you .I look forward to hearing from you.
Regard,Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
end op copied text
- Hi Veritylookingfortruth, you wrote: "The common blotched tabby coat pattern of modern cats is actually a recent phenotype - visual look due to certain genes-and that all domestic cats prior to the Middle Ages were all striped much like a tiger." That is not a proper sentence. It is incomprehensible because you violate grammar so much that there is no longer any meaning to the words.
- You don't have to explain any of this to me. Please be sure to write correct language when you edit an article in the main space, so that every reader will understand what knowledge you present in your addition.
- Your edit was based on a paper in Nature Ecology & Evolution. It seems you did not understand the main message in it, and you seem to have read what you wanted to read. This is what is in the paper:
- The authors did not intend to describe the history of coat patterns, nor did they anywhere claim the "blotched tabby pattern" to be "common" as this was not what they were aiming at. The researchers used it as a means to show there has most likely been human-driven selection. The gene responsible for the blotched (also called "classic" or "marbled") pattern is a mutation of the Transmembrane Aminopeptidase Q-gene. Apparently, based on their text, the gene occurs in about 80% of modern day domestic cats (although they do not substantiate this claim). The mutation for "blotched" is a recessive allele. If it is present in 80% of the domestic cat population, this means that 20% of the individuals only have the two dominant alleles. If the alleles are randomly distributed, then a simple calculation will tell us that about 30% of all cats would only have both recessive alleles, and would thus show the blotched pattern. That is, if the suggested 80% is correct.
- Another interpretation of the 80% would be that the authors literally meant that 80% of modern day domestic cats exhibit the blotched pattern. Based again on the assumption that distribution of alleles is random, and using the same simple calculation, this would lead to a frequency of 0.894 (in total) for the recessive allele, which is way off the "50% in total" the authors themselves mention. The interpretation I first chose gives allele frequencies of 0.447 (dominant) and 0.553 (recessive) which comes close to their "50% in total." A literal interpretation is thus highly unlikely.
- This paper was on the origins of the domestic cat and on the history of domestication. If you want to add knowledge about coat patterns, then you'd better cite a few papers that are explicitly on coat patterns. The authors of the Nature Ecology & Evolution paper cite one: Kaelin, C.B. et al. (2012). "Specifying and sustaining pigmentation patterns in domestic and wild cats." Science 337: 1536–1541. And be sure to phrase your additions in correct language.
- Oh, and one other thing: a phenotype is NOT a "visual look due to certain genes". To put it relatively simply it is what comes out of a certain genotype in interaction with other genes, nurture and environment. In your circumscription a certain genotype would always lead to the same phenotype, in which case the concept phenotype would be a superfluous one.
- I hope this helps. Wikiklaas 13:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I hope it does too Daylightmoon (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)