Talk:Catnip

Catnip is toxic
I want to point out that catnip is listed as toxic for cat by the ASPCA https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/animal-poison-control/toxic-and-non-toxic-plants/catnip

Inconsistency with other page
This page states that about 2 out of 3 are affected, while this page states 75%. Nearyan (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

sum1 is fukken lyin... >.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.107.138 (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's worth nothing that the reference for this stat tracks back to an article that does not provide any reference for the 50% figure (it seems to be linking a dead page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.35.138 (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's probably different sources, one saying that its 75%, the other saying its 2/3, ie. 66%. It's probably not a concrete number, since we can't check every cat in the world.  Bramble  claw  x   14:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean 66.6666% continued to infinity, not 66%. Think of all those poor decimal cats left out of the statistic!

60.242.139.185 (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those cats might prefer to be included in the 33.333333 etc cats who don't get high from it. 86.152.174.176 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is now inconsistent with itself. The second sentence of the Pharmacology section states the number at 50%. Later, it states that "About two thirds of cats are susceptible to catnip." Both are sourced. How about we change it to "half to two thirds?"75.72.93.99 (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Plant exists where?
Where does plant exists? Asia, Europe, Australia? (unsigned edit from IP address 110.171.169.40)
 * Fixed. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Several sections not nearly detailed enough
For example, this article vaguely states that catnip is used to treat "several" human illnesses without specifying anything it's used for, its mechanism, etc. The section on cultivation is a single sentence on a particular variant; it has no useful information about this variant or actual cultivation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.155.181 (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

repellent
Section "Repellent" popularises a conclusion of the research in reference 13 that catnip is nearly 10 times more effective at repelling mosquitoes than DEET. The article would be improved if this statement is omitted and reader pointed to the reference itself and encouraged to make their own conclusions which can be very different from what authors of this research have chosen to publish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branko0721 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
I think that the final sentence of the article is unclear: Domestic house cats who do not react to catnip will react in a similar way to Tartarian honeysuckle sawdust

Does this mean that cats who don't react to catnip also don't react to the sawdust? So what? Cats that don't react to catnip also don't react to changes in sea level, or the phase of the moon. In fact, there are lots of things that cats who don't react to catnip also don't react to, so why is honeysuckle sawdust different? Or did it mean to say that cats who DO react to catnip ALSO react to Tartarian honeysuckle sawdust? In which case, why not say so directly? Mandolamus (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Catnip – Just to be fair, I let my cat decide. Two piles of fresh from the garden Nepeta cataria, separated by ten feet. One was brightly labeled Nepeta cataria, the other Catnip. The cat went to the Catnip pile first, but with a bit of a redirect, the cat was still able to find the Nepeta cataria pile. WP:COMMONNAME Mike Cline (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nepeta cataria → Catnip – WP:COMMONNAME is a policy that states that Wikipedia subjects should be titled under the name by which they are most frequently known rather than their technical names. This policy includes a preference for common names over scientific ones (when a common name exists, as it does here). I looked and saw no significant discussion about the previous move of this article away from "catnip", so am now requesting that it be moved back there. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC) KDS 4444  Talk  01:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Relevant guidelines and policy
 * Naming conventions (flora)
 * Manual of Style

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have posted this move request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants.


 * Oppose. There are multiple common names for this species, not to mention that the product's vernacular name is catnip, while the plant in the wild is often known as catmint. If there was enough material, I wouldn't be opposed to splitting out the product info to an article at catnip and leaving botanical info here along the lines of a grape/Vitis vinifera split. Rkitko (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Ngrams. The whole genus of Nepeta may be secondarily known as catmint and yet catnip, for the specific species, is by far the most commonly used term of all.  Ping also: Cas Liber and Hesperian.  GregKaye 13:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose not cultivated as per plants. Also has more than one common name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Rkitko said it. Hesperian 14:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't recall there being any problem with an article's subject having more than one common name; however, there is a specific policy position with regard to the use of scientific names for an article's title, i.e., if any common name exists, it should be used instead of the scientific name; if there be more than one common name, then the most common common name should be the one used. Having said that, I am staunchly opposed to the idea of splitting the article into two parts, one on uses and the other on botany.  We had a lengthy discussion about just this subject for the article on scallops a few months ago, and the article was first split (into "scallop" and "pectinidae" and then re-merged back together (into "scallop") after a very level-headed discussion (the Talk:Pectinidae page will show you the reasoning behind this final decision).  Also, for the record, and though I dislike standing on a Google result for anything: Google Books hits for "catnip", 220,000; "Nepeta cataria", 40,000; "catmint", 37,400.   KDS 4444  Talk  01:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not easy to tease out how many of those 220,000 mentions of "catnip" are referring to the product (the ingredients of which are sometimes made from different species) or nepetalactone and not the species. The term "catnip" is ambiguous as it can refer to the product, the oil, or other Nepeta species. Rkitko (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot to also mention that WP:COMMONNAME does not mean "use the common name (vernacular name)." Often, the scientific name is the most commonly used name in reliable sources. COMMONNAME does not mean if any common name exists, it should be used instead of the scientific name. Regarding splitting, it's often a great way to produce decent content forks. It works best on articles where there is so much info on cultivars, cultivation, production, nutrition, etc. that it overwhelms botanical information. It may have been a fine decision to merge scallop/Pectinidae, but the WP:FLORA guideline represents consensus on this option for plants. It's certainly possible that consensus has changed in the time since it was last discussed, so I encourage you to open a discussion about it on the talk page of the guideline. Rkitko (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1.) Agreed, teasing out the references to the product versus the species makes the Google Books results problematic. If we agree that the Wikipedia article is intended to cover the topic of "catnip"/ "catmint"/ "Nepeta cataria" generally, and that the differences between what is meant by these terms, though very real, is not great, then the need for a content fork seems premature (article is also <16KB in size, well below the 50KB proposed upper limit for an article prior to forking it out for size reasons).  Perhaps all that is needed in this case is a sentence or two in the lead to explain breadth of the term?  But then the term needing explanation is "catnip" and not "Nepeta cataria" (which is very specific, as it were). 2.) Am aware of the frequent misunderstanding regarding WP:COMMONNAME— that though the "common name" for Fuchsia is "Lady's ear drops", the article is under Fuchsia because that is the most recognizable to most readers.  I do not think that Nepeta cataria is recognizable to anyone but a botanist, but I think that "catnip" has very broad recognition and means very much (if not perfectly) the same thing, hence my proposal to move (back).  Thoughts?  KDS 4444  Talk  03:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:FLORA and WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:NATURAL. "Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany". As things stand, this is the only article on catnip. Its use as an ornamental and as a pet product are exactly the kind of cultural/horticultural uses that the guideline contemplates. Now, if it were possible to create a separate article on the horticultural/cultural uses of catnip, then that article could be titled "Catnip" and this one keep the scientific name. Until then, however, this article should be renamed per the guideline as more recognizable and natural - and thus better for our readers and editors. Dohn joe (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Only oppose status quo. Either writing up a new Catnip or moving this article would be good. Red Slash 05:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Dohn joe. It doesn't matter if this plant has other vernacular names; it would be problematic if other plants had the common name "catnip". As this doesn't appear to be the case, I support the move. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:FLORA, which says "scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany." The common name here is clearly catnip and we should move the article to that title per the relevant guideline. Calidum T&#124;C 19:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Catnip isn't Catnip on Wikipedia? Common sense, common name. Randy Kryn 00:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I just want to let you all know
that Mike Cline just dropped one of the greatest closures of a requested move, ever. Random person perusing this talk page in 2019 or whenever--go back and read that move closure again. It's good. Red Slash 01:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you must mean, me. I got you, fam. 47.226.96.225 (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Garden success when cats go wild and won't leave cultivated catnip alone.
Some cats do and some cats don't, yep. And some like it but don't seek it while others hunt it out avidly. Some cats are so intensely drawn to it that growing the plant requires protection. An herb farm I worked on had a farm cat that would dig plants up all along the main farm road where it was self seeding. Where the farmer was growing his main crop he had it protected. Later, in our home garden we found that we had to grow the catnip under a wire mesh screen so that the plant was not crushed or even dug out. In time we replaced it with other Nepeta less attractive to cats, such as Nepeta racemosa -- we were more interested in the butterflies and bees drawn in.

While my note here is "original research", somebody is bound to have written about successful cultivation when cats won't leave catnip plants alone.

A separate question -- as an inherited trait, when a digger cat breeds with a don't care cat, which trait dominates, and how much intergrade is there?

GeeBee60 (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Cats
I would suggest that discussion of other plants that affect cats is not suitable for the lead of the article. The article is about catnip, it's not about "what attracts cats". It's not so bad within the article body (although a bit questionable), but is really going off on a tangent within the lead. Thoughts anyone? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. The lead already discusses catnip's effect on 2/3 of cats, which is an important part of the plant (indeed, it provides its name). To include a slight mention of plants which provide the other 1/3 with the same effect, in parenthesis, completes the thought without distracting readers from wondering what the sentence fully means and most will just assume the other 1/3 cannot be affected. There is nothing wrong with providing readers such interesting and probably little-known beneficial information. Nobody I know, and I've asked many after finding out about this fact, that these alternates exist. So adding in the explanatory parenthesized segment gives context to the lead sentence. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not "fine." is correct, though I'd take it further: the article is an attractive coatrack for increasingly tenuous factoids (FFI: Coatrack articles). It's become something on the order of
 * the plant called "catnip"
 * common uses of catnip
 * the effect of catnip upon cats (and hence its common name)
 * statistical notes about those effects
 * exploration of the statistics
 * alternative sources for similar effect specifically for catnip-impaired cats
 * exploration of THOSE statistics

The entire article is <18K — even with four illustrations! — yet the "catnip alternatives" nonsense is spelled out THREE times. The depth is oversell that points up the fanboy fetish for trivia. Because catnip is so unusual, the article probably should go to that third tier (particularly because of the name), but any further runs into undue weight and jargon.

In an ideal world, there'd maybe be an article like Feline hallucinogens. Until that happy day, any such detail is cat-related trivia, and therefore belongs (if anywhere) in Felidae and/or Cat — certainly NOT here. Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The page is fine because the name itself denotes that the major human use of the plant is to give its leaves to cats so the cats are effected by its chemicals. People look it up to learn more about these effects and, since common knowledge and the name itself assumes cats obtain the effects, many readers will look it up because their cat is not interested in catnip. They then find in the lede that this is not unusual, and that fully one-third of cats cannot find the generally known and assumed high in catnip but can with other common plants. This is not trivia, and this page itself is more or less Wikipedia's page on feline hallucinogens (although hallucination seems like a strong word for the effects of catnip), and even if a separate unneeded page were written the information provided here would still be applicable to the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree somewhat. Furthermore, the aside that "alternative plants exist which attract the other one-third" is misleading, as it suggests that all cats that don't respond to catnip can respond to the alternatives. Based on the paper cited, this is not true. The paper simply gives proportions of cats that respond to different stimulants. They do not say anywhere that there are no cats that do not respond to any of the stimulants. A simple statement that "alternative stimulants exist" would be better in my opinion. Secondus2 (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've edited the article appropriately.  I would also ask that  accepts that there is no consensus for this in the lead, despite his repeated restoring of it to there when it has been challenged.  This article is not about cat hallucinogenics and this tangent does not belong in the lead. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you and  (nice name!), that works fine with the descriptor and link. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

effect on humans (the question of the day)
this section implies theres SOME effect as it says catnip fell out of use (as a human medicine) with the invention of more available drugs. only it fails to ever mention WHAT effect.

also it actually says it was used for a bunch of (undisclosed) things, but this is not the same as having (a bunch of) effects.

at the same time, while the section specifically dedicated to the effect on humans contains no information on this topic, the lede does mention two effects. perhaps better to a) move them from the lede to the section dedicated to them, or b) delete the section as useless and leave the relevant info in the lede. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC).

Alternatives to Catnip in Cats
Just starting this as a section following recent edits. Firstly to point out that the content in question, alternatves to catnip for cat consumptions, has indeed been questioned and removed before, as this talk page makes evident. A compromise has been reached before, but it still remains a problematic inclusion. My take is; I would therefore suggest it should be removed. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * the article is not about alternatives that cause similar effects that catnip does in cats. It's not even about cats.  It's about a plant. Having this in the lead is a tangent too far.  Indeed, it is a tangent from what is already a tangent.
 * it is not normal Wikipedia style for the lead to include links to content later in the same article. If we did this, everything in the lead should be similarly linked, because everything in the lead should reflect what is in the article.
 * 3,000 readers a day don't come here for the Nepeta cataria plant, they come to find out about catnip as it regards their cats. Many are likely confused because their cats don't have an interest in or react to catnip as expected. Hence the alternative information, which is important encyclopedic knowledge Wikipedia readers did not have before reading this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn This is entirely your guesswork, and even if true, having the correct page format, where the lead is about the article subject, not tangents on tangents, does not prevent readers reaching the information you think they are looking for. Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure it prevents them, most readers read the lead and then drop away. This way the "Why doesn't my cat swoon with catnip?" question is both answered and options given. Cats are the main topic for Catnip, their relationship with it is what 3,000 people a day come to view (a guess but probably a good one, as Orchid gets half as many and even Rose falls way behind). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn The article subject is not cats. Nor is it "Why doesn't my cat swoon with catnip?". So it is certainly not about "What else might my cat swoon for instead?" So the reader in search of this information has no expectation of it being in the lead, and if they cannot scroll down to the relevant section to find it, it clearly isn't the critical information that you imagined it to be.  As I've pointed out, it is not common style for Wikipedia leads to wander off on a tangent from a tangent, and link to it within the article.  Not even the first tangent to cats gets that privilege, so why does the follow up tangent get it?  You are giving this excessive prominence on the strength of a reader scenario that is entirely your own conjecture.  Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3,000 views a day compared to half of that for Orchid and Lily and many more than Rose. Readers are not coming here for the popularity of the plant as a plant. My own conjecture seems spot on in this case. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn Still conjecture, and still not a reason for the lead not to follow normal style. By your own conjecture, people are coming to the article to read about catnip and cats, not about alternatives to catnip in cats.  But that's not the point.  The Beatles article doesn't lead with alternative bands that the reader may prefer.  The beef article doesn't lead with a suggestion to try chicken.  Because the alternatives are not the article subject and don't belong in the lead.  Escape Orbit  (Talk) 07:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur with Escape Orbit. This is an article about a specific plant (and its typical-but-not-universal effect on cats is a noteworthy element of the article). It is not a cats article and is not about various ways of entertaining cats with alternatives. Such information probably does not belong in this article at all, much less in its lead. Maybe ask at WT:FELIDS where would be a better place for it. Cat play and toys seems like a likely bet. It already needs WP:SUMMARY information about catnip added to it, and that would be a reasonable place to put catnip-alternative info. But other wikiprojectual people over there might have some other idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the effect on cats is "a noteworthy element" of the article (which it is, beginning with the name) then the non-effect on 1/3 of cats transits with that noteworthiness. These facts certainly belong in the lead of a page named "Catnip", and if the link-concern in the second paragraph applies then let's just name the alternate plants there. These objections seem to go against the commonsense and long-term inclusion of the second lead paragraph about cats in the article named Catnip, so a full RfC seems the route to go if there is so much worry about including such basic and topic-relevant facts. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The name of the article is irrelevant; "catsup", "caterpillar", and "catfish" all have "cat" in them, after all. :-) More seriously, no one has suggesting removing all cat-related material from the article or its lead (unless I'm badly misreading), since the plant is noteworthy (other than as simply an identifiable plant species we would have at least a stub on as a species at all) because of its effect on many cats. There is also no reason to suppress the information that it doesn't affect a significant number of them. All of this can literally be covered in a single short lead sentence. But that really isn't germane to whether to go listing (especially in the lead!) alternatives for getting your cat high. The OP is correct that we also do not internally wikilink from the lead into body sections; there is no point whatsoever in doing that. It's unclear to me what you would actually want to have an RfC about. What would the question be? Maybe this thread would be better just reset with "what it says now", "what Escape Orbit proposes" and "what Randy Kryn proposes". Just lay 'em out in blocks for comparison. Probably would need that for an RfC anyway, though I doubt one of those would be needed to resolve this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "If the effect on cats is "a noteworthy element" of the article (which it is, beginning with the name) then the non-effect on 1/3 of cats transits with that noteworthiness." I would disagree with this. Notability does not work like that. To continue my above analogy; The consumption of beef in the cattle article is a notable element in the lead of that article.  It does not discuss that many do not eat cattle until well into the article, and it does not discuss what they eat instead at all.-- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If 2/3rd of those who ate beef had a well-known noticeable and topic-relevant intoxicating effect on humans while 1/3rd felt nothing unusual, then it would be stated at the beef article. Are you suggesting that the alternates to catnip be presented in their own article, which would change the link? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn You're having difficulty following the distinction between something being in the article, and being prominently linked in the lead. There is also the distinction of something being significant for lead inclusion, but the absence of it not being.  The solution is indeed for the lead to mention that catnip has an affect on 2/3 of cats, but leave any discussion about how the other 1/3 can join in to within the article.  Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Or moved to another article, since this is the article about catnip, not about chemically entertaining cats.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't the guidelines allow internal-text links if the topic is one which could easily be made into its own page? The long-term language of the second lead paragraph seems concise enough to both describe the effect on 2/3rds of cats and to allow quick access to the paragraph-relevant topic of alternatives. I still think that the page "attracts" so many readers because it interests both those who have cats affected by catnip and those whose cat's are not, and they wonder why (that 1/3 of cats are not affected probably isn't common knowledge and surprises many cat owners and non-cat owners). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't link from the lead to sections in the body. I can't think of one single WP article that does this. Catnip's effect on cats is certainly a driver of traffic to the article, and can be be summed up in a single lead sentence that even mentions that it only has the effect ona bout 2/3 of them. That's nothing to do with mentioning alternative for doping up your cat. Maybe Escape Orbit has some other point to make and I'm missing it, but it's the only one I'm trying to make. I've already suggested that some other article would be a more appropriate place for, I guess, "catnip alterantives" (and more detail on this use of catnip itself). one, though, isn't an article on cat entertainment and, er, "mind expansion"; it's an article on a specific plant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I know of one more but won't mention it (hesitant to have it removed and, like this one, it links is to a relevant section presented deep in the page). But the guideline does allow for in-page links, so wouldn't that include the lead for rare but in-context exceptions for the vast majority of readers who only read the lead? Assisting cats to get high is an aspect of this page, so the addition of information for the poor 33% who might envy their brethren seems both encyclopedic and Wikipedia-being-nice-to-cats (ignore all meows). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT. You've been around MoS and other P&G material long enough to know that it is not their function to record every single nit-picking detail of consensus imaginable, but only those points about which disputes arise and need to be settled by a codified rule. When 99.999999999% of our articles do not do something you want to do, it is overwhelmingly obvious that a consensus exists against doing it and that we have no reason to write a rule about it. I didn't even realize you were actually arguing to keep doing that section linking. I'm a bit mystified, but need a nap now. If the lead already includes the fact that it gets most but not all cats loopy, then the reader already knows there is more material in the article about this, and the ToC makes that clear, too. The ToC basically is links from the lead to the body already. There's even a whole subsection on it not working on all of them. I'm at a loss for why you might think this not already sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the lead link and changed it to (alternatives exist, such as valerian root and leaves). This retains the important information about alternatives, links to the main alternative, and is a correct summary of the page. I should have done this earlier as it both solves the conflict and retains the information. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How is this not getting through? Alternative for getting cats high is not "important information" in the lead on this plant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've explained this in-depth above, and we just differ on importance of information. My viewpoint in short: since the vast majority of readers only read the lead and, since a major topic of the page is the plant's use by cats, the little-known fact that 1/3 of cats won't be affected likely brings many cat owners to this page to find out about that. Instead of just telling them what they already know, that "yes, your cat is in the 33% percent, sorry" let's give them the alternative upfront so they don't miss it. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn This has been discounted before. The reader scenario you describe is quite specific and entirely your own invention.  It is not the purpose of the lead to provide tangental info, just because you imagine some readers can't be bothered to read more than the first couple of paragraphs.  If they won't read the section that is devoted to this subject, then it can't be as important to them as you claim.  No-one is going to come away from an article about a plant, complaining that it has failed to give lead prominence to how their cat can be doped up by entirely different substances that have nothing to do with it.  Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are innumerable alternatives to black pepper (Piper nigrum), and these not only have direct culinary use by enormous numbers of humans (mostly outside the anglosphere), they have a rich and detailed history that is closely related to that of black pepper (some examples include grains of paradise, cubeb pepper, long pepper, grains of Selim (Xylopia aethiopica or Xylopia striata), and Guinea pepper), yet we do not put them in the lead at black pepper. "Alternative to [subject] that you might consider" is never lead material. But I get the feeling this is falling on deaf ears, and should just be a WP:RFC question. It's too tedious to try to break through a one-editor stonewall on something like this on a page too few people watchlist; just ask for broader input, and it'll conclude either for A or for B without further need three particular editors to keep arguing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If black pepper had the effect of alcohol, and only two out of three humans could get peppered, you can bet the alternative herb would be in the lead summary. Or take the next sentence, "In addition to its uses with cats, catnip is an ingredient in some herbal teas (or tisanes), and is valued for its sedative and relaxant properties." What if catnip tea sedated and relaxed only two-thirds of the human race, and the rest are left nervous and fidgety because they, like 80 percent of Wikipedia's readers, do not read beyond the lead and only know that mysterious "alternatives exist"? Is your plan for an RfC based solely on keeping or not-keeping the words: "...such as valerian root and leaves" (which seem perfectly acceptable as an element of the page summary). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nah. Humans use all kinds of alternatives to alcohol to get "messed up", most obviously cannabis (drug) and they are not in the lead of alcholic beverage (or vice versa). If this goes to an RfC it won't be about a specific quoted phrase, but whether to mention in the lead any alternatives to catnip for cats. I firmly predict the result will be "no".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That was just a comparable example imagining if pepper were the only thing that gave humans the effect that alcohol does. The alternatives are part of the page, so mentioning the prominent one, valerian, just summarizes page content within the lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, every single piece of trivia in the page would have to be mentioned in the lead, and obviously we don't do that. Plus there's the concern that this material doesn't belong in this article at all, not just in the lead, but should mvoe to one article or another on cats.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)