Talk:Cat/Archive 9

Revert to Featured version
Is it possible to revert back to the Featured version of this article, and resume work from there? I tend to idle with this article, as I touch up others. However, it seems that this article is deteriorating, rather than improving. Does anyone else agree with that notion? KyuuA4 (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Add anything important from the current version. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. "Revert to FA" is a rather strong measure, but not unheard-of, and this article seems to need it. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced dreck
user 'i dont know whats going on' or some such is repeatedly adding a section which is clearly his own original research, as he/she is unable to provide a valid citation for the added material. i've reverted it at least three times, so 'i dont know whats going on' is the lucky winner of the persistence game for the moment. his justification is that since wikipedia is already filled with unsourced crap, more unsourced crap is a-okay. i disagree, and wikipedia's policies all disagree. i'll leave it to others to revert this newly added WP:OR. Anastrophe (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's clearly WP:OR, keep removing it. If it keeps being added try to discuss the matter with the user, and if you feel it is warranted, there is a WP:UWT template for this. If it still continues, admin action can be taken as the UWT warnings escalate. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could revise the sections that say (in an absolute manner) that cats can not taste sweetness. The source cited never actually says that it has been confirmed, only that it is possible. I only brought this up now because my wife and I recently got a cat that seems to love sweet food (marshmallows, sugar cookies, etc.), and will get into chocolate if we do not hide it from him. This really caught us by surprise, as I had always believed that they would not eat such things myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.46.221 (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All three of those products contain salt, do they not? Perhaps your cat is attracted to that instead. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * material in an article that misrepresents what a verified source states can certainly be challenged, and if needed, be either modified or removed. Anastrophe (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt that this is original research, but rather think that the writer is just reporting something that they heard somewhere. I think the proper response would be to go out and try to verify before attacking.  There is some research, or at least scholarly speculation out there on this.  I can't remember exactly where, and I don't have time to look it up, but I do remember reading something about this topic.  It wouldn't be surprising if a predator like a cat had evolved a dietary indifference to sweet food.  Maybe it was in a Desmond Morris book that I saw it.  Anyway, google gives me this article supporting: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401107.html Stavrolo (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Reporting something that they heard somewhere" without sourcing it is within the definition of WP:OR, since Wikipedians are generally not psychic and cannot magically know whether the unsourced material was literally invented by the poster personally; "if it walks like a duck..." Regardless, the point is moot, since adding unsourced material violates WP:V anyway. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, this reference seems to strongly suggest cats generally cannot taste sweet foods. Now, there may be exceptions, but I would say the source is sound.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Still problematic. The material can be quoted directly or paraphrased closely, but cannot be used as a source for a statement in the article that cats can't taste sweet, that some theorize that cats can't taste sweet, etc., since this is not what the source actually says. Doing so would be a novel synthesis per WP:NOR. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The abstract from this source says Although domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) possess an otherwise functional sense of taste, they, unlike most mammals, do not prefer and may be unable to detect the sweetness of sugars. So, if it doesn't say that they may be unable to taste sweet, what is it saying?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * it does say that they may be unable to taste sweet. the problem is that our article states that they can't taste sweet. hell, this is just silliness. i'm going to fix it. Anastrophe (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Color vision
Do cats have color vision? Very little is said about their vision, and this key question doesn't seem to be answered. (Sorry about putting this here; I couldn't find a more appropriate place on the Talk page for this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.210.78 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * &#91;Note to user: Just create a new topic next time; I've done this for you. That's what the "+" button in the top menu is for. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC) &#93;


 * Yes, they do. I'm looking at a couple of scientific articles right now that tested cats' color vision, they do fine. The whole "animals can't see colors" thing is untrue, many animals, like birds and insects, see ultraviolet light as a color. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, supposedly cats and dogs do have the cone cells, but not nearly as many as people. Can't imagine that they would have them, but they're "not hooked up". Indulging in a little hypothetical here, I think color is just too useful for distinguishing objects for them to not have it, evolutionarily speaking; but it's probably not as prominent in their consciousness as it is to us. In a sort of vice versa, I imagine if cat scientists were to study humans, they'd probably start out by thinking we couldn't smell anything at all; then they'd discover that we have a sense of smell, it's just not as significant to us as it is to cats.Gzuckier (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cats can see colour, but seem to take much less notice of it than we do. However colour is important in hunting (cats see infra-red). As a home demo, compare a cats reaction to otherwise identical blue and red grooming tools and its clear they distinguish easily, when its significant to them. Tabby (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They most assuredly cannot see infrared. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Lifespan
After the recent media stuff about cats decimating bird populations, I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to track down a single reference to data about average lifespans of cats. I believe the uncited feral cat lifespan quote should say "probably" instead of stating it as fact, since there is no citation and I have been thwarted in finding any actual data (and I don't mean a zillion people saying it's true) about average lifespans of cats in different circumstances. Of course, I can't edit the page to make this fix. If anyone can find actual scientific published papers documenting the average lifespan of cats, please post the citations! One of the issues that could complicate this number is that some numbers might include birth mortality, where most people expect 'lifespan' to be only for animals that survive to be adopted, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryingtofindcatdata (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you access this article?
 * Dispersal Pattern of Domestic Cats (Felis catus) in a Promiscuous Urban Population: Do Females Disperse or Die? Sébastien Devillard; Ludovic Say; Dominique Pontier. The Journal of Animal Ecology, Vol. 72, No. 2. (Mar., 2003), pp. 203-211. Stable URL AnteaterZot (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Near as I can make out, the article says that cats that live in and near a hospital in Lyon, France, well fed by kindly humans, have an 20% mortality rate per year. That means that 50% are dead by age 5, if one doesn't count infant mortality. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This article say they all die by 8 years old, but it is on an island with no humans:
 * Effects of Feline Panleucopaenia on the Population Characteristics of Feral Cats on Marion Island. P. J. J. van Rensburg; J. D. Skinner; R. J. van Aarde. The Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 24, No. 1. (Apr., 1987), pp. 63-73. Stable URL —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnteaterZot (talk • contribs) 07:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is quite an interesting read. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be changed?
I notice this article uses the pejorative 'owner' which is obviously a violation of the neutral point of view policy. Clearly no one can own another living thing! Shouldn't a more appropriate term be found? Avruch Talk 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Serf'? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm taking the troll bait, but, show me an example of *anything* that can truly be "owned", and you'll have a point worth considering. we all eventually die, so nothing can truly be owned. therefore, "owner" is not a pejorative, it is merely a convenient colloquialism. Anastrophe (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I own my wallet. If I want to put it in a blender, I can. Now - if I put my cat in a blender, wouldn't you object? The cat would, my wallet wouldn't. I own my wallet, therefore, but not my cat! Avruch Talk 20:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Before we launch into gigabytes of discussion (exaggerating slightly here), I would like to point out that this topic has already been discussed extensively right here.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to my arguments. Thanks Avruch Talk 23:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you can own a living thing. Of course domestic animals are capable of being "owned".  It is for this reason that a farmer can exclude others from the cattle he "owns".  Without the concept of ownership over an animal, another person could come along and take it from you without any recourse.  I appreciate the normalistic ideal of not being able to 'own' a living thing, but in reality, they can be owned.  Furthermore, in response to your argument re: throwing a cat in a blender resulting in legal recourse, the mere fact that the state has created (animal cruelty) laws relating to holding ownership of a certain thing does not mean that it precludes holding ownership of said thing.  (And yes, I'm aware you were joking - but I thought the point should still be addressed) 70.53.110.21 (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, don't respond - I was joking anyway, I'd just come from the lame edit wars page and read most of that crazy archive ;-P Avruch Talk 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm relieved to see that you were joking; unfortunately please understand that in this medium, jocularity doesn't really come across, so it's at times hard to distinguish between an attempt at humour and plain trolling. And if you've read this silly archive, you should understand that nobody who was there is anxious to launch into a rehash of that particular debate. I wish you a good day and happy editing.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm afraid i'm less charitable than Ramdrake. article talk pages are for discussing the article, and ways to improve same. if your intent was to start a lame flamefest here, it was inappropriate, and not appreciated by this fellow editor. WP already squanders enough of my goodwill and talent reverting relentless trolling and vandalism; fellow editors attempting to start flamefests for their own amusement is exceedingly uncivil. please rethink your actions in the future. Anastrophe (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose you both have a point, but I wouldn't have continued it into the arena of 'flamefest.' I kind of thought the tone and 'Please respond' recycled comment might've been a giveaway, but I apologize if I caused any undue stress. Try to have fun. Vandalism at WP is a fact of life and not something to get upset about, IMHO. Lots of kiddies with 'net connections in the world. Avruch Talk 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cats can be 19?
Cats can sometimes live to be nineteen years old! Cats don't really have nine lives, though. Unless, as some people believe, they go through reincarnation. (Egyptians thought this especially.) Cats can live quite long, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.214.154 (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is true. Cats break the rules of longevity being of small size but having a long life. House cats that are well taken care of can live 20 to 25 years old and I believe the record holder is a cat that lived to be 40 or 45 years. If I'm wrong someone correct me but I'm pretty sure that is the record for a house cat. Cat specialist are actually trying to figure out what makes cats so special that they have a such good longevity for their size. One of God's mysteries. lolMcelite (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite


 * How is size relevant here? A parrot that fits in a 0,33L soda can can live 90 years if well-cared for and palm-sized sea shells last up to 400 years according to recent growth-ring counts. On the other hand atlantic giant squids the size of a minibus live for little more than one or two years! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, very few cats live past 20 (that's the feline equivalent of a centenarian), even when very well cared for. And the actual longevity record for a domestic cat is 35 of 36 years old (if memory serves correctly - I can look it up if you wish), that being the cat of a pub owner in the UK.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "According to Guinness World Records, the oldest cat ever was Creme Puff, born August 3, 1967 and still living at the age of 37 in 2004. Creme Puff was owned by Jake Perry of Austin, Texas, USA." - UtherSRG (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok I wasn't too far off. lol 40 years was close. Well my oldest cat was 18 before he passed away. So my girl cat is 6 now so hopefully i have more then a decade left with her. She's my buddy.Mcelite (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

RE: Origin of the terms "puss" and "cat"
I'd heard that these terms are related to the name of the Ancient Eqyptian cat goddess Bast. Some corroboration is at the website  and I've read similar statements in a couple of cat books. From the website: "...Bast is the Egyptian Goddess with the body of a beautiful young woman and the head of a cat. ... Name Variations: Bast, Bastet (usually when in full cat form), Pasch, Pasht, Ubasti, Ba en Aset. ... Bast was the daughter of Isis and Osiris, the twin sister of Horus, and possessor of his "eye" the sacred and magickal "utchat". As time went on, the utchat became more associated with cats. It was often depicted as cat shaped in later art. It is probable that many of modern Indo-European names for the cat are derived from the word utchat: cat, chat, cattus, gatus, gatous, gato, katt, katte, kitte, kitty, etc. From "Pasht" we get the remaining Indo-European names for the cat: pasht, past, pushd, pusst, puss, pussy, as well as the word "passion". ..." (Please forgive me for the fact that I'm new at this so I might not be following strict format.) 216.19.36.171 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC) uncledon.
 * That's great. I think the etymology of "kitty" should be on there even if the rest of what you said here needs to be condensed or summarized. --Bluejay Young (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually have you heard about that cat whom lived through about three or four boat/cannon attacks but this was ages ago like in the 1800s!

"those" humans?
" 3 sacral vertebrae like most mammals (humans have 5 because of their bipedal posture)."

hmm...why does it say "their"? I assume that it´s referring to, us, humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.68.77 (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Speak for yourself, Earthling. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why assume? -- "Their" is a pronoun and like all pronouns, unless somehow otherwise modified, its use refers to the most immediate previous reference to an actual noun, which is, in this case (as you surmised), "humans". Also, since I was in the anal-rententive mode anyway, I corrected "asumeing" for you. :)
 * 216.240.7.149 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cats humping
Do we really need a video of cats having sex here? Wikipedia is not censured but that is ussually linked to articles related to sexual themes, I doubt that parents would expect their children to be exposed to sexual content while trying to learn more about their kitty, maybe a new article along the lines of "Feline breeding" or something like that would be a better place for this cat pornography. 24.138.193.55 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * you answered yourself: wikipedia is not censored. it's not pornography. Anastrophe (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * God your awnsers are dry wich I guess its because your opinion is biased as you seem to think I am a "troll" but I don't care what you think of me, I wasnt a reasonable detailed explanation from someone that is able to actually discuss the topic and the logic solution that was proposed by me. 24.138.193.55 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * the above response is absolutely uncivil. i removed it, but anon replaced it. is any more evidence needed that this is trolling? so now i have to live with having an uncivil comment in place to protect the 'rights' of a trolling vandal. great. Anastrophe (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While his response is uncivil, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is trolling, or that his concerns regarding the article content are anything other than genuine. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * i'll take that as a 'no' that you'll revert anon's uncivil comments. okey-dokey. so, to the issue at hand. anon dislikes the video of cats copulating. anon notes that wikipedia is not 'censured'[sic]. i point out that anon is correct, and the fact that animals copulating falls outside the definition of pornography. anon tosses incivilities at me, because anon doesn't like my answer. i cull the entire discussion, as the response suggests that anon is trolling. anon reverts, and others take up anon's 'cause'. as well, it may be illuminating for interested editors to review this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cat&oldid=180641003, anon's response to section 8. not trolling? i think not. the fact is, anon has won: look at where we are. i'm sure anon's having a good laugh. okey-dokey. the incivility will stay in place, anon succeeds, with assistance. me? i wonder why i bother trying to contribute constructively to a place that coddles vandals. but that's a meta discussion for another time. Anastrophe (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are distorting things, I did reply in that way because you removed my comments clainming they were trolling twice and then gave a response apparently trying to get rid of me. 24.138.193.55 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i removed your comments based upon the revision i linked to above, which was an absurd response to that inquiry. that established the pattern to me.Anastrophe (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I too believe this video may be out of place in this article, for the following reasons 1)its interest is peripheral to the subject at best 2)the video takes up a lot of space on the page and its placement is thus awkward 3)the video is of rather bad quality. For all these reasons, I am questioning the encyclopaedicity of having this particular content. I don't think it adds much of anything to the reader's understanding of cats' reproductive behaviour; in fact, it more likely resembles my idea of a college prank on a well-known site. While I will defend the fact that Wikipedia isn't censored, this shouldn't be an excuse to keep low-quality, unencyclopaedic content of possibly disputable taste in the articles.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anon's original proposal was reasonable, and deserves discussion, not deletion. If you compare with the Human article, you will find that Human has no nude photographs of people, let alone video of them engaging in the sexual act.  The article has only a superficial description of sexuality, and places the more graphic content in Human sexuality.  This is analogous to what Anon was proposing for this article.  While Wikipedia is not censored, that does not constitute a mandate for inclusion of any and all material.  There may be better ways of arranging the information, simultaneously improving the presentation and avoiding unintentional offense. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My point, exactly. --Ramdrake (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * i would counter argue ramdrake's contentions, that 1)reproduction is integral to the subject; 2)it takes up no more 'space' than any of the images on the page; 3)i can't counter as i've never watched the video. per coneslayer, comparing the human article to the cat article only highlights that there is a different standard with regard to human activity, and this is established in virtually all scientific articles. nobody would expect there to be video of humans copulating, since that falls into a completely different category of content from that for an article based on another species. on the other hand, i do tend to agree that it is of limited value, though i don't know if i'd go so far as to call it unencyclopaedic. Anastrophe (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1)Reproduction, while being one activity of the subject, is only one of many subjects related to the subject, and possibly not the most interesting from a layman's point of view, thus its interest may be considered peripheral 2)please take another good look at the video, as it takes up the entire width of the page, and the height of a fairly large paragraph, which could be construed to be undue weight relative to its importance. 3)I've watched the video, and it's several minutes of fairly poor-resolution, blurry video. If it had been a picture (so that everybody would have had to look at it), it would have been removed by now, along with the countless additions of bad pictures that this article has gone through. If you want another grounds for comparison, please try to find any article on mammals which carries a video of them copulating. You won't find any, and I can think of a number of good reasons for this. Why Cat would be the lone exception to carry not just a picture, but a video of cats copulating is beyond me. That in addition the video takes up a lot of space, is longish time-wise and not of particularly good visual quality are to me ample grounds to have it removed from the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * no disagreement with any but #2, which appears to be browser-specific. i normally view WP in firefox (so that i can use the excellent Twinkle utility). in FF, it appears only slighly larger than any of the photos in the article. in IE, it takes up the full page width. Anastrophe (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is also no problem with the size in Safari. Lars T. (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * okay, i've watched the video. it is dark and somewhat blurry. i don't see anything at all objectionable about it. in fact, it's interesting. checking the author's 'cv', it doesn't appear at all to be a 'college prank'. that other articles on mammals don't have such video is not a valid reason for removal, as has been thrashed out countless times in other articles. i really don't see any compelling reason to remove it. Anastrophe (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anastrophe, I'm not saying it's objectionable as per the subject; that's a judgment call I'd rather leave to others. However, the fact that it's dark, blurry, rather long and rather uninformative for its length would, IMHO, push it into the "unencyclopaedic" content category. In and of itself, the quality of the video would warrant its exclusion.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh, it's a horrible quality video and it should be removed from the article on that basis alone. As Ramdrake says, if that were a photo, it would be been taken out almost immediately.  howcheng  {chat} 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, where do we go to check whether there is consensus to keep or remove?--Ramdrake (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is good enough. I say a video of cats having sex is valuable. Many readers have not had the "pleasure" of hearing stray cats mate at night, and fewer still have seen their mom throw a bucket of water on them to get them to stop caterwauling on the back porch. For most of the world, animals mating in public is commonplace and no big deal. Also, Wikipedia should not be censored (even by well-meaning people). If you think children are harmed by such things, please produce reliable sources to that effect. I have not viewed this particular video because I lack the player, so I can't comment on it quality, but I don't care. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How many times should I repeat myself? I'm not trying to exclude this video on the basis of some kind of morality. I am against its inclusion, based 1)on the poor quality of the video 2)on the awkwardness of display under IE (where it takes up the entire page - and yes, most people still use IE) 3)on the fact that it is strikingly uninformative for a video that takes several minutes to watch. So, no, Wikipedia isn't censored, but the fact that it isn't censored doesn't mean we have to accept that poor-quality material be included when it shouldn't be included on grounds of quality alone. I hope this is sufficiently clear.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That problem could be solved by describing the video in the caption, editing the video, or by getting a new video. How hard would it be to create a shortened version of the video? AnteaterZot (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

i made a small modification to the video in layout, which appears to have eliminated the annoying tendency for it to take up border-to-border on the page. Anastrophe (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, the video is of bad quality and overlong. Can we just scratch it and if and when another, better-quality video appears on Wikipedia, we can re-add it?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * i have no objection to that rationale. the person who brought this up objected to kitty "pornography", which constituted "i don't like it", which is the sort of thing i instinctively fight against.Anastrophe (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's understood, and I would have objected to its removal too if the only rationale was something about pornography (kitty porn?). However, there are other, encyclopaedic criteria that should make us exclude the video, and those have nothing to do with morality.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have removed the cat video, as per this discussion. It should be understood that, should a better-quality video be found (and one preferably shorter too) on the same subject, there should be no objection to its inclusion; Wikipedia isn't censored, but the material we include should be able to meet certain quality criteria. I just want to make clear what this removal is about.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't just ignore cat sexuality - the video should be added. Sex can be beautiful but people are afraid of it. That makes no sense. ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wolf cat?
Looking at what's written under Physiology - Origin I think someone doesn't know the difference between cats and dogs... And I know I wouldn't trust me to change the info, so please help out! 85.226.60.84 (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The wolf is no longer at the door. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

pack mentality
Perhaps someone who is more expert than me can add a few lines about the mek mek call: the sound cats makes that signals very effectively to other cats that they need to stay low as the caller is stalking its quarry. Cats who hear the call will often look in the direction the caller is looking and add their own mek mek when they spot the prey.

This is not quite pack mentality, but a rudimentary form of hunt cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Too Many Pictures
Just a personal opinion, but this article looks a lot less like an encyclopedia article and a lot more like a MySpace for cat lovers, with multiple loving cat owners wanting to get their widdle kittysnookums on Wikipedia. The text is excellent, well-written and informative, but the massive number of cat pictures (particularly the behavioral and breed-specific pics) do not seem to be well served here. I guess I can see why this page is sprotted - I certainly don't think any major change I made would be allowed to stand more than a few minutes; however someone with a userID and perhaps a little more goodwill on the cat team than an anon might want to cut back on the pictures. 65.42.26.190 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. It's ridiculous.  There are stupidly cutesy pictures that aren't needed.  Why is there a picture of a cat curled up?  Does that seriously need to be shown?  Why is there a blue-eyed white-haired cat picture for that random bit of trivia?  "Cats can befriend other cats. Here, two cats sleep together" shows a cat putting its arm around another - looks like it was taken to be captioned in poor grammar and shared in a stupid msn display picture.  There are what, 20 pictures in this article?  Most common animal articles have four-five (ie the trout article has four).24.108.153.22 (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a common occurrence with this article. Every and their mother wants to get a picture of their cat on Wikipedia. Anyway, I've removed two of them that didn't really display anything special, but I left the cat curled up and the two snuggling cats bcause they show aspects of cat behavior that aren't covered in other images.  howcheng  {chat} 17:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

 * The following discussion has been resolved, and it remains here as an archived debate for reference purposes only. Please do not modify it. 


 * Just a thought, but I think that we need to find a different photo for the infobox. The current one is a nice picture, but does not show the cat very well, with the background being so distracting.    Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 01:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I very much agree! I was going to change it but saw the comment so I didn't. I think a regular tabby cat should be in the info box. The one there now, while attractive in an artsy kind of way, does not belong -- because the body of the cat is out of focus, the depth of field is strange, it does not fit for an infobox image. The one I post here of the adult domestic tabby is very clear and bright in the face with no distortion. I've tried to find others, but could not find one that shows the whole body, that was in focus, nicely shot, and of good composition. This one, is the best I've seen. Too bad there is not more of the body showing. That's what I've been looking for. What does everyone else think? (BTW, this is NOT my cat) ← Gee ♥ Alice  03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst the image is nice, I would prefer more of the overall body structure to be visible. If, by some unusual means, someone without any knowledge of cats was to look at this image in the infobox, they may have issue relating the classic lying position in the photo with the overall anatomy (due to the legs being folded in, and so the animal appears squat). The tail is also not visible, which is generally considered one of the general anatomical features of a cat. The infobox image really needs to be the best and most complete representation of the species in question. Normally I'd also mention natural habitat, but that's a whole other debate we would be best to avoid :P LinaMishima (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What about using a collage? Taking the best shots on commons, of different cat features, positions, envoirnment? This would solve the problem of multiple insertions of someone's cat, and show the diversity of the cat, and its ananomy? Maybe if everyone would get together to gather their favs -- then I can make a collage that is both attractive, while showing many variaties, etc. Maybe six images at the most, well maybe an odd number would be more attractive, say five in the final draft? What do you think? ← Gee ♥ Alice  04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the standard however to be for a single, non-collage, image. Whilst a collage gets around problems, the individual images would be too small to be of much use when the collated image is placed into an infobox. LinaMishima (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you make a good point about a collage. The present infobox image is bugging me though. lol. It's distorted (head), out of focus (body, or what you can see of it), and the background is distracting. ← Gee ♥ Alice  22:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * it may not be perfect, but for better or worse, it has 'survived' a remarkably long time as the infobox image. considering the strong inclination some editors have to try to push a photo of their own kitty into the article, i'm inclined to leave it be, lest it start another round of "my kitty is the best kitty in the world so it needs to be the infobox kitty" changes. i really don't see it as all that bad. it's a generalized image of a cat. there are many other photos of cats in the article, so readers can come to a reasonable synthesis on their own of what cats look like from the many examples. i will say though that because of the syndrome i noted, any change of the infobox image to a photo that was authored by the editor who makes the change, will be reverted pretty quickly. let's just call it an application of WP:COI...Anastrophe (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The present image has been in the infobox for a very long time because there is a comment that says to not change it. The image is clown-like, "artsy", rather than a more professional presentation.

What about this one? This image's composition is much better, shows all of the cat, but the tail, and looks more professional. It has a less distracting background, it's in focus and is not distorted like the present image. (Disclaimer: it is NOT my cat, nor my photography.)← Gee ♥ Alice  23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i just don't see much point in changing it. i just had a look at random at dog, parrot, ferret, rat, cow, pig, horse, and none of the photos are significantly better than this one (some are worse). it strikes me as a non issue. there are many other photos of cats in the article. it's plainly evident that the infobox photo is of a cat. so, why change it? and no, the lead photo cat is not my cat, nor did i take the photo, nor do i have any connection at all to the cat or photo...it's just a nice photo, and it's also nice that it isn't the wikipedian pet of the week rotation. Anastrophe (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the colors of the blanket in the current image go great with the info box, I like how the cat is looking towards the article (see MOS), and the current tabby cat is more of a normal looking cat than the big-eared young Abyssinian. The image you suggest here would certainly improve Abyssinian (cat), though. - Enuja (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I disagree though with both comments, but not in a bad way :-). I do not think colors of the blanket is helpful, because it detracts from the subject, the cat. This article is a generic article about "cats", the cat in the infobox is a of a Bengal cat(and can be mistaken for a young "wild cat", which is more unorthodox than the Abyssinian) It's a distorted image. I'm not on the dog, rabbit, cow, pig, etc articles......yet lol.


 * Yes, it's a cat, but does it convey the "house cat' that this article represents? And who added the comment to not change the image in the first place? I could "flip" the image to comply with MOS#Images, but like I said, I understand that Wikipedia is run by consensus and I'm OK with that. Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I realise that comments cannot convey emotion, and sometimes can be mis-interpreted to be something not intended. I disagree in a friendly way. No hard feelings at all. :-} ← Gee ♥ Alice  04:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i for one greatly appreciate your comments, and your tone, as i'm frequently dealing with contentious, POV-pushing editors in other articles. a friendly disagreement is a breath of fresh air. in the bigger scheme of things, it is just a photo of a cat. i'm sure there are better photos - i'm sure there are worse. my only real concern is the (seemingly) inevitable 'but that new photo isn't perfect for this reason, here's one i snapped of my adorable kitty it's way better' that seems to ensue when the lead photo is changed. the abyssinian is a fine looking cat - but considering that (i presume) the majority of the kitties 'round the world are likely mixed-breed, i think a mixed breed would be better representative for the article. but i'm rambling now. Anastrophe (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I was afraid of a backlash. I'm so glad you understood my tone, as intended. Yes, it is just a cat, but dang-it, the image is so distorted. I know I'm making a big deal out of it, as you are right, it could be worse. lol. But, the infobox cat is NOT a mixed breed, it is a Bengal cat. But, there I go pushing, pushing, pushing my view. I don't understand why there isn't a regular common breed cat photo that is nice and appropriate around SOMEwhere on Wikipedia. Trust me, I've looked and looked for one, but couldn't find one. I guess I really have a prejudice of the infobox image. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good, in a funky kinda way, photo. Much better than a lot of photos I've seen. But, sigh, not for the main cat article. :(. I guess I'm making a bigger deal than it is. After looking at the Abyssinian cat article, this article is great, both in images and content. lol. So, I'll move on. Hopefully some regular ol' house cat pic will surface eventually. :) You're so cool! I too appreciate your tone. I know how ruffled feathers can get. It's a pleasure dealing with editors that are friendly, even when disagreeing. Cheers! Meow! ← Gee ♥ Alice  06:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * well, don't get me wrong - i can be exceedingly unpleasant to deal with on some contentious matters.  heck, if you look through the archives, you'll find where i discovered that another user was employing sockpuppets to cheat a vote about the infobox kitty - so that his photo of his kitty would be chosen. that was definitely not friendly in tone! but i guess the fact that this article is about kitties helps keep my blood pressure in check moreso than other articles. because who can stay angry when thinking about kitties?? Anastrophe (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The fact that the current image is of a Bengal cat is indeed a problem. I honestly still don't know how the current image is distorted, because the image quality looks fine to me, and I can't image what kind of distortion it suffers from. However, if anyone can find an image that is better, by all means, suggest it here. Left-looking, completely standard domestic cat (not a specific cat breed), whole body in focus, image that is visually interesting and lacks distracting background elements. We should all keep our eyes out for this type of image, and when we find (a free) one, suggest it here. I personally simply don't think that the Abyssian cat image is any better than the current image. - Enuja (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The distortion I'm seeing is from the aperture settings, making the head abnormally larger than the body, and that's not only from the angle from which the image was taken. It's a depth of field setting on a camera that is usually used to keep the foreground in focus and the background slightly out of focus. This setting works when you want to take an image of a person, building, object, or whatever - to focus only on that object without a distracting background. Sorry for being so wordy in my description, but it's the best I can do to explain why I think it is distorted, which it is. ← Gee ♥ Alice  22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikimedia Commons has a good selection of cat photos that I think are better than this one for a infobox image.  Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been all over Commons and could not find one any better, that includes the body without a distracting background, except for the Abyssinian. ← Gee ♥ Alice  22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah-ha! Here's the reason for the distortion. I'm not a photographer, but I used to tell them what to do. I was the eye, they were my tools. lol. ← Gee ♥ Alice  06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Required Criteria
The following "Required Criteria" have been approved my multiple users and are a must for possible pictures
 * Display the general physique of a cat, showing as much of the full body as possible (LinaMishima (talk))
 * Background should not be significantly more colourful or varied than the cat itself (LinaMishima (talk))
 * The cat should be in-focus (LinaMishima (talk))
 * A mature adult cat should be used (LinaMishima (talk))
 * No other animals may be present (LinaMishima (talk))

Preferred Criteria
The following elements are not necessary, but should be used if multiple photos match the Required Criteria
 * I have also been debating adding a measure of artistic merit, however this will likely cause contention. However it should be noted that, given two images that otherwise meet all the criteria, the more artistic image should be used. This does not mean the most 'cute', however. LinaMishima (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ideally it would have been nice if the cat was standing, with the body at a slight angle with its tail in the air. But, tell me, have you ever tried to photograph a cat and asked it to pose just so? (I'm not being sarcastic in a negative way, just saying I totally understand from both sides of the coin) To get the cat to pose in a way that is just right is not easy, trust me, 90% is luck! lol." [Expressed by GeeAlice below; copied into criteria list by Diligent Terrier.]
 * Background should be of the natural environment. Given the cultural differences with regards to cats, we should hence use a neutral background that is not significantly descriptive (LinaMishima (talk))
 * A common breed should be used (LinaMishima (talk))
 * I would personally recommend a Domestic shorthaired cat with classic tabby markings, or a Tuxedo cat LinaMishima (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A normal and common behaviour should be depicted, with care taken that the implied body shape is not distorted (LinaMishima (talk))
 * For instance, when a cat lies down, they often tuck their legs under themselves, giving a different impression of their physiology. LinaMishima (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The cat must be well-framed within the image (LinaMishima (talk))

Comments and Photo Nominations

 * I agree with all of the above. Thank you. ← Gee ♥ Alice  22:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's one of a tuxedo cat: full body, adult domestic shorthair, in focus, neutral background. Image:V cat edit.jpg. (Disclaimer it is NOT my cat, although I did modify it some from one already on Commons) ← Gee ♥ Alice  23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The tail is not visible, and the stare makes the pose look a little odd. I should also suggest that we probably should have an image without clothing (collar), also. The background used in that image seems ideal, though. LinaMishima (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. It was late and I was looking at so many images, I didn't notice the tail was missing. But, today I was bold and exchanged the infobox image to a common tabby that shows the tail, body and face straight on. While it's not perfect, I feel it is better than the other one. This background is a bit busy, but not any busier than the other, in fact it's less busy. And this cat, while taken from above from a human height distance, is in proportion and does not have a distorted focus, (as in depth of field), like the other one. This is the only professional-like image that I've seen that has all of the cat and that does not have any other thing other than the cat in the photo. It's in focus, clear and an attractive ordinary adult cat. (Disclaimer: Again, this is not my cat, nor am I the photographer) ← Gee ♥ Alice  00:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As a rule, I would recommend not using bold to change an image when a discussion has being going on and people have been willing to discuss changing the image. To do so invites a revert, rather than a stable change, and sets a dangerous precedent. However, I can live with this change, even though I believe the new image to have a single real flaw. The flaw that isn't real, of course, is the matter of framing - but then cats are not square, so that will never be perfect :P The cat sitting upright, however, does make the nature of the hind legs harder to determine for a casual skimmer between articles to determine. My favourite image on the page is actually the feral cat walking towards the camera, something like that taken at the correct angle (to maximise frame filling) of a domesticated cat in a neutral background (brickwork, gravel or tarmac seem to be good options, as we associate them with houses, but also with outside) would be perfect. LinaMishima (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying about setting a precedent. But another image I presented, I forget which one, was dismissed because the tail wasn't showing. This one has the tail in the photo. Ideally it would have been nice if the cat was standing, with the body at a slight angle with its tail in the air. But, tell me, have you ever tried to photograph a cat and asked it to pose just so? (I'm not being sarcastic in a negative way, just saying I totally understand from both sides of the coin) To get the cat to pose in a way that is just right is not easy, trust me, 90% is luck! lol.
 * I agree about the feral cat, but it shows just the tip of the tail. Can you link to a photo off wiki to show a pose that you feel should be the one? That would help to understand your criteria. No offense, I'm smiling as I write this, because I understand very well wanting to have it just so. The image before had numerous faults. The body distortion, distracting background/foreground, a specialize breed, etc. This one fits most of the criteria. Not all, but better than the other one. IMO. I hope it doesn't set a "dangerous" precedent, and others hopefully would take the suggestions from the talk page, and not post just any image of their cat they think is cute.
 * I know I'm new to this article, and many have been frustrated by changes being made without concensus long before I came along. Maybe a new eye is good, maybe not, but I believe I've done the best I could with what is available (free) without going out and photographing a cat myself. (BTW, I've done this before. Well, not photographing, but having to have a shot just so). We used a kitten from the pound to sit just so on a pillow. It was amazing luck, that it just plopped down, and looked perfect for the shot! This after shooting many animals and not getting a good shot, and having poop all over the place..etc., lots of other problems...etc., LOL. I could go on and on about photographing animals professionally. Oh, BTW, the kitten was adopted later by a family member of staff, thank goodness. :) That was my biggest concern, more so than the perfect shot for a client. ← Gee ♥ Alice  05:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this one, Alice? It's standing, you can see all four paws, its tail, the full body, and we don't have to worry about the background at all.    Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 16:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * that's a terrible photo. it's worth noting that in your previous incarnation as user evans, you employed sockpuppets to create bogus votes in favor of a photo you took. i'd like to assume good faith, but you've never proposed a photo that wasn't one you took or was of one of your cats. i just reverted your change of the lede photo, done without any discussion here. this is not good. Anastrophe (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anastrophe, can you please get over the fact that at the time of the "sockpuppetry," I was not aware that it was against policy to encourage friends to vote. So now I am nominating it here first and I really don't see what's so wrong my photo that you can call it a "terrible photo."  And, by the way, the change of the lead photo was done with discussion here, as you can see above.  I went ahead and changed it because sometimes you just have to do that in order to get some attention.    Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * you're misrepresenting the facts. you didn't "encourage friends to vote", you created false userids and voted for your own photo. regardless, i stand by the statement that the photo is terrible - the image itself is low resolution and dark, as a cutout it looks weird, the pose is unnatural, and, as before, it's your own photo of your own kitty. you didn't wait for any feedback on your photo before forcing it into the article. sorry, but this isn't going to fly. the image quality alone precludes its use, the fact that you are once again trying to force your own photo of your own kitty into the article is sufficient to say "no way". Anastrophe (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * also, i'll at least credit you with chutzpah, for replacing the image by fiat, without any consensus or feedback on the talk page, and including with that image the following warning: "DO NOT REPLACE THE INFOBOX PHOTO UNLESS IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA ON THE TALK PAGE, AND HAS A CONSENSUS AMONG OTHER USERS." Anastrophe (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to break it to you, but I had better things to do at that time then to go on a create other accounts and vote for my own photo...so I just encouraged friends to vote. Your image quality argument is very subjective, and since it is being used in a small infobox, resolution is not as important as what the image shows.  The cutout, I will admit, is not great, but again, when it is used in the infobox, it looks just fine.  Considering that the image you like so much, Image:Domestic cat cropped.jpg, was also added very recently without a consensus, I am going to re-insert this photo (on my third and final revert) because it actually matches more of the criteria above than Image:Domestic cat cropped.jpg.    Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 18:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * again, you're misrepresenting the sockpuppetry, but we'll just have to leave it at that - since i see you cleverly had the entire discussion of the sockpuppetry, and the evidence of the sockpuppet votes, deleted from wikipedia. image resolution *always* matters, the infobox image is a link to the actual image, it's not a thumbnail. since i'm not going to go to 3RR over this, i'll let other editors take on the job of reverting this ugly photo. Anastrophe (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What I meant by that note in there is that the previous photo (Image:Domestic cat cropped.jpg), was added without any consensus at all, and that if the image is again replaced with a new one, it should at least meet more of the criteria than the current.  Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 18:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * again, kudos on the chutzpah. put your photo in place without any consensus, then warn others off from reverting it without consensus. cheeky. Anastrophe (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Typical cat.jpg is horrible. It's small, blurry, and why is the background eliminated? Ugh. Image:Domestic cat cropped.jpg is far superior and is good as the lead photo.  howcheng  {chat} 18:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hate to say it, but Image:Typical cat.jpg is probably the worst photo I've ever seen proposed for cat. Image:Domestic cat cropped.jpg _is_ far superior. But that does not make it good... Psychofox (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the image resolution wasn't important, I just said that other things, such as what the image shows (ex: the whole body, all four legs) are more important factors to see in the lead image. We have to remember that the lead image is there more for scientific purposes than "let's see which one is the prettiest image".  We can put the pretty images somewhere else in the article once someone gets a general idea of what a cat looks like.  Let's not forget the criteria for replacement that was layed out above.  The current image (Image:Domestic cat cropped.jpg) was actually inserted very recently without any prior consensus (as you can see in the history when GeeAlice replaced it and failed to even mention it here).  Since Image:Typical cat.jpg actually matches more of the criteria layed out, that means it should means the current image (Image:Domestic cat cropped.jpg) should be replaced with it.  And, by the way, Image:Domestic cat cropped.jpg really isn't that good for a lead photo because of the way the background blends in with it and the composition is very poor.    Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 22:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The selection criteria doesn't explicitly state that the image must be of high quality because it's a given. That photo is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The cat article is a high-visibility/traffic article (it was viewed 294792 times in January), and we cannot have something that poor. Let me make it clear that my opposition is only to this photo; by all means, take something better and I'd be happy to see it as the lead image.  howcheng  {chat} 18:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. I will upload a few better ones and post them here when I get a chance  :)    Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been stopping by at the Cat article for the past couple of years, ever since I stumbled across and noticed it had been protected because of bickering over cat photographs. I sorted that out - i.e. mediated the discussion and got in unprotected. That was my major foray into Wikipedia. If you go back through archives you will find that since then there has been an image flamewar every 2 to 3 months on average.  Usually precipated by someone stopping and deciding to put new images in place. I like the attempt to present criteria for acceptance.  What I strongly dislike are comments along the lines of 'we've now reached a consensus - when there are literally ten to twenty editors who have gone before and been through the same thing.  My two cents, I think the protocol for images on this page should be something like: you get to propose one image, if people don't like it - then that's it - accept you don't have an eye for it.  Don't waste time by repeatedly offering images with various weaknesses. Incidentally, the current infobox image, Domestic cat cropped.jpg, is just terrible.  Even the cropping is bad. Psychofox (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Article RFC
There has been repeated changing and re-changing of the photo in the infobox, despite the consensus reached in the discussion above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer, it is quite obvious that the current photo (domestic cat cropped.jpg) is far better than the alternatives (typical cat.jpeg, which is terribly cropped and is not worthy of a featured article). Furthermore, I like the stones in the background as it puts the cat in a domestic setting. If there is consensus, then there shouldn't be an issue. DJLayton4 (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. domestic cat cropped.jpg is the better image, and as long as there is consensus for it, keep it. You have to understand that almost every cat owner is going to want their picture on the page. Changes to the photo with consensus (and additions of random cat pictures to the article in general) should be reverted, and the editor should be informed of this and directed to the discussion above. Think outside the box 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This sort of issue is never going to quiet down -- people will keep adding their own image for years to come. Generally speaking, the criteria mentioned above sound very useful. Between the two images being argued over, in this last spat, I would agree Image:Domestic cat cropped.jpg is the way to go, but that shouldn't be taken to preclude a better alternative. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree that Image:Domestic cat cropped.jpg is more informative, and has a better angle of perspective.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Homing Ability
Unless I missed it there's nothing about cats' extraordinary ability to find home after being deposited in a strange place. Example: I took my Natasha to a beauty spot about 3 miles away (as the crow flies), her first time there, and all was well until she spotted a dog about 300 yards distant, following which she ran for cover in dense undergrowth. After trying to retrieve her for 90 mins I had to, reluctantly and with light fading, head for home as she was nowhere to be seen or heard. About 55 hrs later she appeared in through her cat door, looking for an easy meal and some tlc, but with no hard feelings (awww...). As cats do not travel in straight lines I'd say she covered maybe 5 or 6 miles across unfamilar territory. I understand the record for a displaced cat is 850 miles in about a year, that tallies with the approx. 2-3 miles/day in this case. Maybe an expert on the latest research and state of knowledge on the subject could add some interesting information to the article. EdX20 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All information I've ever come across on this subject is anecdotal and therefore not verifiable, unfortunately.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ramdrake. Cats, not unlike humans, have different personalities and abilities. This means that extraordinary attributes cannot link to one species, pe se, because of random complexity. One which cannot be verifiable in this medium and be attributed to one species overall. In other words it is germane eclecticism. ← Gee ♥ Alice  01:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Article rating
Why is this only rated B-class? I realize we may not be able to hit FA status, but it seems like an A-class article to me.  howcheng  {chat} 00:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes my cat ran away and about two or three days later he was at the door meowing for food! I almost had a heart attack:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.31.106 (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Scruff of the neck
The article says that cats reaction of becoming docile when grasped by the scruff relates to the way the mother carries her kittens. It should also point out that the behaviour links to mating as well. During mating the male bites the female on the back of the neck, and it is noticeable that many cats will adopt a 'ready' posture, when not in heat or even male cats, when grasped by the scruff. 62.49.6.17 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added this, see Cat Think outside the box 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

wow
this must have taken hours! but i think u need 2 get 2 the point...its too long —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetasapeach726 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Healthy pet owners!
A U.S. study suggests having a cat at home could cut your risk of a heart attack. The finding suggests that the stress relief pets provide to humans is heart-healthy. A site that might help if you don´t have or can´t have a pet is Catsleep.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nockturn (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Essential oils
Can someone work in a mention of essential oil toxicity in the toxic sensitivity section? --165.21.154.91 (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * TEA TREE OIL - TOXIC TO CATS
 * cats.about.com a more general article, which links to the slightly more detailed thelavendercat

Cats showing human behaviour?
"When a cat bonds with its human guardian, the cat may, at times, display behaviors similar to that of a human. Such behavior may include a trip to the litter box before bedtime or snuggling up close to its companion in bed or on the sofa."

Somehow, this doesn't sound very scientific to me. It sounds like something that someone made up. Also, no sources are cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.252.172 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt sound scientific but its true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.189.161 (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

cat humping REPLY FRESHLY
No. that is wrong. And plus, cats CANNOT have a ponography style unless a human purposly makes him/her. Relish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerkat manor II (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanked Page
Someone just blanked your talkpage. I quickly reverted it. Talk to you later.-- RyRy5   talk  20:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Skin Problem
In the "Physiology" section, the "Skin" sub-section ends with the statement, "Often (much like a small child) a cat will lie with its head and front paws over a person's shoulder, and its back legs and rump supported under the person's arm." What exactly does that have to do with any portion of the feline anatomy, let alone the "Skin"? Should it be (re)moved? 216.240.7.149 (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It relates as an alternative means of carrying a cat to lifting by the scruff of the neck, which is a notable feature of the skin. If it was worded differently, properly source and perhaps organised elsewhere it could be useful. JNSQ (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Species?
Can anyone tell me what type of cat this is" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g93MMg_At6c ? The name and most of the description is in... japanese maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.93.244 (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to see the Science Reference Desk for that. Click here to ask your question there.  Cheers!  - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 00:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

/* Species? */ I know it's got the scottish fold in it, and the markings on it's forehead, legs and tail are tabby, but I can't figure out whatelse it has in it. Mabye Exotic Shorthair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.125.173 (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Superfecund"
"Furthermore, cats are superfecund; that is, a female may mate with more than one male when she is in heat, meaning different kittens in a litter may have different fathers." I've removed the part in bold. The fact that different kittens in a litter may have different fathers doesn't seem to merit use of this technical term here. (Per Make_technical_articles_accessible) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary said the term was "apparently used incorrectly": it is in fact used correctly. Now you say you removed it because of guidelines designed to "make technical articles accessible". The problem with this is that [1] this is not a technical article, it [2] is certainly accessible, and [3] is not made less accessible by the inclusion of a technical term with full explanation of that term! In short, if we adopted your criteria, no one would ever learn any technical vocabulary from Wikipedia, and that is at odds with our intentions to inform and educate. Accordingly, I'm restoring the term to the article. - Nunh-huh 00:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. :-) You caught me on my error between incorrectly/accessability -- I took a quick look at superfecundation, thought that the term was being used incorrectly here, edited, but then when posting here to Talk, saw that I had misread the definition/discussion, but I still thought (and still do think) that the use of this term here adds nothing to this article. (Hope that explanation is clear. If not, don't worry about it. :-) )
 * However, I'm certainly not going to argue this further - not that important IMHO. Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Learning a new term is pretty much always a desirable event. - Nunh-huh 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We should tweak the links and vocabulary of this article.
This article has a number of "low-value" links, of the style "the skin of the cat is covered with fur, commonly brown" (just making that up as an an example). Per Manual_of_Style_(links), we should try to eliminate these. On the other hand, article contains a number of not-especially-helpful technical terms, which we should probably try to eliminate per Make_technical_articles_accessible. If you see any examples of things that should be tweaked, please do so. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you should not eliminate technical terms. You seem to have missed the admonition on the page you cite: Do not "dumb-down" the article in order to make it more accessible. - Nunh-huh 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fondness of height
I would like to put a caveat in there because cats are very careful with climbing into trees in environments that have lots of birds of prey and racoons and whatever else there's up high that might want to get them. Neither domesticated, nor feral, nor wildcats I've observed would climb into trees or other exposed places unless they were reasonably sure it was safe. Just most domestic cats now live in environments where such predators are not that plentiful. --Lisa4edit (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please find us a reference to a reliable source where this is mentioned (otherwise it reads as original research). Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Coat pattern image
Can one of the two tortoiseshell image be replaced by this image of a classic tabby? --165.21.155.17 (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, instead of replacing it, I'm just removing the dilute tortoiseshell in order to keep that section from overflowing with pictures.  howcheng  {chat} 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cats are the cutest things on earth!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.241.146 (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Feral cat image
Caption to feral cat image :"Feral cat showing effects of a rough life." Should be edited to state only that the photograph is of a feral cat. "Rough life" is subjective. Please change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.180.119 (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Modern Hybridization
I agree that the section that was recently added was not well written, and tried pretty hard to tug on the ol' heart strings, but maybe this is a topic that could be briefly covered in the article? "Hybrid cats have become a fad based upon the premise that breeding a wild cat to a domestic cat will produce a wild looking feline with domestic feline qualities. The result is more often a domestic looking cat with wilder tendencies, many health disorders and traits such as spraying and aggressive biting. These hybrids are most often the crosses between domestic cats and Asian Leopard Cat (Bengal cat), Jungle Cat (Chausie), Serval (Savannah) and Geoffroy cat (Safari). Many cats are killed in the process of producing these hybrids and despite the offspring selling for thousands of dollars, they often end up being euthanized due to their nature." It is a topic that affects people who work with cats, not only as breeders, but owners, vets, etc. What do you think? Should we try and include it somewhere? IanCheesman (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It would need to be documented whether these problems are indeed more common in these hybrid cats than in "normal" cats. While I'm confident this is probably the case, the problems mentioned (character disorders, health issues, marking and biting) are problems that potentially affect all cats. It would be nice to have a WP:RS stating these problems are more common in hybrid cats. Also, the "many cats are killed" and "often end up being euthanized" should have reliable sources, lest they pass for weasel wording.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)