Talk:Odd-eyed cat

A note
Since when is an Angelfire-hosted site an appropriate reference?--Admiral06 01:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

More pictures
A few more odd-eyed cat pictures are available in Wikipedia. I'm not sure the ones in the article are necessarily the best we could use. If you delete pictures from the article, please move them here for backup.

Nyh (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A Few Edits
I changed the screwed up link in the second paragraph and changed the first picture description from "A close-up of the cat showing one blue eye and one yellow eye." to "A close-up of an odd-eyed cat showing one blue eye and one yellow eye."

&gt;FrozenFood&lt; 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Human Infants are born with blue eyes"
Is this universal among all the races? Are black infants born with blue eyes? Just curious... --Vlmastra 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it from the article, as it seems it's only true for white infants. Here's a website that helps answer your question. --Candy-Panda 03:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As green as the lake and as blue as the sky?
Amber isn't green. If your lake is that color you peed in it.

Deafness in odd-eyed cats
I re-added the section "Deafness in odd-eyed cats" after someone removed it. Just Google "odd-eyed cats" and you'll get all these pages asking "are all odd-eyed cats deaf in one ear"? It's a common misconception that needs to be addressed. --Candy-Panda 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

removed second photograph
I removed the second, smaller photo of an allegedly odd-eyed cat. There's really no way to tell from the size of the pic. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 06:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the same cat as the one in the larger picture. --Candy-Panda 06:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it's redundant and doesn't illustrate anything new (in fact, it illustrates less than the first photo). Simões ( talk/contribs ) 14:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The cat is in the sunlight this time, that's new. --Candy-Panda 10:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has way too many pictures as it is. Are there really four or five different ways to illustrate the concept of different colors as it applies to eyes? Could this really just be people wanting to put pictures of their cat in WP? Manys (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

İsmet İnönü
Was İsmet İnönü bitten by an odd eyed cat? Nil Einne 14:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, I would be very interested to know if Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's prediction was correct. ;) --Candy-Panda 10:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The story is made-up. Fabricated by American cat breeders to make their Angora cats appear more interesting and thus more saleable.81.79.94.199 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pics
Breathe. Relax. Ahh. If we have some disagreements about pictures and would like to address problems with potentially photoshopped images and whether or not any particular image may or may have not been drastically altered might I suggest we do it here, under this heading, instead of in edit summaries.A mcmurray 05:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

removing picture
I've again removed the picture of your cat. This edit revision says the eye color was added with Phootshop. Whether it was or not, this picture serves no real purpose, since the eyes are too small to be inspected in the shot, anyway; the other two pictures are much more appropriate for the article. Three pictures is too much for such a short article. I've again removed it. -- Mikeblas 11:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude it's my cat and I don't even have photoshop! That "color added by photoshop" comment was added by a random unregistered user, a vandal, NOT myself. That second picture is as every bit as authentic as the first. If I didn't actually have an odd-eyed cat then why would I be inspired to write this article in the first place? I can understand you questioning the photo's purpose in the article but to accuse it of being photoshopped is just going way out of line. It's not like the cat has 9 legs or something. --Candy-Panda 12:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not out of line at all -- the description for the photo said it was Photoshopped. If I'm wrong to believe what I read on Wikipedia, then I think we've got much deeper issues to worry about. Don't you? Meanwhile, when you're ready to discuss the other points I made, please let me know. -- Mikeblas 03:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong to believe a vandal. If you looked at who wrote that comment it was an unregistered user who's only contribution was that line. Why is it so hard to believe that I might actually have a cat with one blue eye and one yellow eye? I mean, it's rare but it's not THAT rare. If I claimed to have a 9 legged cat then skepticism would be expected, but not for something like this. Why do you believe what a vandal writes instead of the person who originally uploaded the photo? ANYONE can edit Wikipedia, you have to take things with a grain of salt sometimes. --Candy-Panda 04:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The photo was too small to really be useful, the two on the page now are really good examples. If the other one isn't photoshopped fine, removed that part of the description if you are the creator and uploader, no harm no foul. I doubt that Mikeblas would have thought to look at the history simply because of what he said. Of course he is going to think it's photoshopped if it says it is. Hopefully the second you saw what you temed vandalism, CandyPanda, you reverted it. Otherwise I dont see what all the fuss is about. Revert the vandalism and then leave the article as is, I think it's fine.A mcmurray 05:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. No harm, no foul. --Candy-Panda 13:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

yes
Why does this article even exist? There's a perfectly good heterochromia article covering various species, we don't need a whole page for a bloody cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.123.202 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cats are one of the most common pets, that is why, you are either a dog person or not a pet person, just my guess, could be wrong. There are more cats than dogs. Telecine Guy (talk)

Another pic comment
Wanted to say that image currently in the article appears to have been photoshopped into a sort of hoax. No cat has ears this long and weird-looking. For a very long-eared normal cat see: Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to kind of agree, that cat is so strange looking it seems like it can't be real, can it? My guess is there's some kind of lensing effect going on, check out the original picture. The tail and feet are also exaggerated in size and the centre seems to be squashed in, probably some kind of camera setting or post production software meddling. The photo does demonstrate the eye effect well, but with the picture being so distorted it's distracting. Maybe a further cropped version should be created to cut out the stretched ears. Or at least there should be a warning telling people that it is not photo-realistic. --Hibernian (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)




 * [[Image:Odd-eyes_reflect_light_differently.jpg|thumb|100px|]] I found this guy on Google and is an older image that illustrates the effect just fine, if a little blurry. I think it's odd that the page image is everywhere that this one is not.Manys (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To add to this discussion, if you take a look at the metadata of the original photo, you will notice a focal length of 10.1mm. Photographers will recognize this length as common in ultra-wide or fisheye lenses. Thus, while the photo does not seem to have been altered post-camera, the image has incredible distortion due to the wide angle of the lens. In other words, those are correct by saying no cat naturally has ears this long - the elongated features are a product of the lens. 24.249.27.19 (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The paws seemed elongated at first glance to me. This effect would explain that. Although I'm disappointed - I really hoped a breed of cat that looks like this existed. SteubenGlass (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Though 10.1mm is a very wide-angle lens on a full-frame camera, this was taken on a point and shoot (Sony DSC S600) which has a smaller sensor, so focal length can't be directly compared. Correcting for sensor size, the picture was taken at the full-frame equivalent focal length of 31mm, which is a little wide, but not unusual.  Given it's a point and shoot, I would also assume the lens is designed to be rectilinear over its range, so I doubt this is entirely due to a lens effect. 38.77.5.28 (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Could someone with an odd-eyed cat just photograph him with a flash and replace this weird photo? I came here to complain that with the current placement of pictures in the article, it sort of looks like two pictures mean to illustrate a "before" and "after" cat, with this one being the freaked-out "after". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the picture(s) discussed here are better examples of creative photography and artistic use of perspective than a representation of an(y) odd-eyed cat. it has been more than two years for anyone to offer a counter arguement.  either its creator is no longer curating this page or no one has bothered to remove the picture from the article.  Dr. F 14:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

File:June odd-eyed-cat.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:June odd-eyed-cat.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 8, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-02-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 08:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Percentages in the 'Deafness' Section
It says, and I do not quote, 60-70% and 10-20%, regarding the cats' chance of deafness. I understand that there are references for these number, but this requires a further research, as there is at least ten percent missing. Unless we are now in the business of assuming that there are only, maximum, 90% of one eyed cats.--Monkofbob (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Odd-eyed cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217183413/http://www.purinaone.com/catcare_cond_atoz_article.asp?Seed=791&ArticleNumber=77 to http://purinaone.com/catcare_cond_atoz_article.asp?Seed=791&ArticleNumber=77

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:June_odd-eyed-cat_cropped.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 16, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-06-16. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 13:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)