Talk:Cat/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Please Remember

Please remember that this is not a social network. That means do not say things like " email me if you know how to help" or "if you have options that could help with my problem feel free to call". The reader want to know about the object, in this case about cats. They do not want to know about the stories of your cats or what happend to your dog. Please provide accurate information about the subject you are talking about. Reminder- Children use this site for school,there has to be accurate information for them. If you do not know a lot about the subject then do not fix things and type things about it in the paragraphs. Wikipedia is being told not to be used in the schools because of its lack of accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.21.14 (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes it is a social network, but with a clearly defined task: erecting an encyclopedia. That is "social", at least for us nerds (me: 93%). Said: Rursus ☻ 08:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above message. I have worked at an SPCA for several years dealing with cats. I have a lot of clinical and personal experience with cats. I work in a building where the majority of our cats do not have cages. We have a total usually averaging 60 cats. I found a lot of information to be at times contradictive to many of the things I have experienced. In the "Trainability" section it says cats are hard to train. I have to disagree. Felines are complex creatures, and each is unique. Because they do not usually have pack like behaviors dangling a treat or using a high pitched voice is usally not effective like it would be for a dog. EACH CAT IS DIFFERENT YOU CANNOT TRAIN THEM ALL THE SAME WAY! Certain cats would NEVER learn to play fetch with a toy mouse if that is not their fancy. Jingle balls may be perfect if thats what the cat fancys. I also really wished they has said a little more about the whole declawing issue. They said it is done to keep cats from fighting but I have never in my life heard a vet make a suggestion like that. Cats who are declawed have increases rates of aggression and there is a chance they will stop using the litterbox. If you want to know about cats it is best to ask for information at your local shelter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.12.44 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had exprience with a cat of mine who stopped using his litterbox after he was declawed. From Evan Detwiler 23:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimangreen13 (talk • contribs)

Don't SCREAM (allcaps text)! We can read. If you wish to add your very specific own experiences on cats, then you have to first write them on another (your own) site, and make references from the article to there - that's the WP:NOR, policy - it's a clumsy one, but it is designed to give you a worthy attribution. Otherwise: go ahead, edit! The dictionary belongs to you, too! Blessings. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

References

The senses references a yahoo reference answer. This is certainly not a reference. Quorsav (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

trainability section needs work

The trainability section cites no sources whatsoever and reflects the misconception that cats are not particularly trainable. References to highly trained cats, such as those of the Moscow Cats Theater, should be added. Alyssch (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. Remember, be bold. :-) --Gimme danger (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would love to be bold...but I'm inexplicably locked out of Cat, even though the autoconfirm time and # of edit minimums have been reached, as far as I can tell. Cat must be a super-sensitive article in need of extra protection!  :-) alyssch (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section could use some work. I can only speak for me, but I have taught my cat to fetch and beg and even open cabinets. This might only be my cat, but I'm still pretty sure that cats can be trained - it just takes some work (it took my cat a few weeks). Cats are very intelligent and usually realize what it is you want them to do quickly, or at least in my experience. Starfalcon (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat cult portal?

I think there should be a separate article for "cat cults" created. It should provide an integrative oversight of regions and eras, where cats were being considered excessively important or influential to human life (e.g. ancient Egypt or modern Japan). The article could explain psychological backgrounds, etc. - e.g. it is often said that people domesticated dogs and cats domesticated people or that cats hold their owners under hypnotic influence. The current wikipedia info on cat worship is much fragmented. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should. If you wish to do it, I would propose first extending the section History and mythology, until it is so large (a matter of taste, boldly use your own taste) that it deserves an own article. I would think that "Cats in religion" or some such is general and "serious" enought to attract interest. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the asked-for information is in the article Cats in ancient Egypt, which is misnamed. What might alternatively be considered is enhancing the non-Egyptian mythology parts of Cats in ancient Egypt and then moving the article to Cats in religion. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As regards to the cats taking hypnotic control over humans: we already know that! But my neighbors cat have given me a mind-control instruction to never reveal it to anyone. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing errors

The use of the word "affects" is incorrect in the Environmental section: "Feral cats have had serious affects on these wildlife species...." It should be "effects". S. R. Starin (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. You can help too! JNSQ (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Working link to source paper

{{editsemiprotected}} The paper "The Near Eastern Origin of Cat Domestication", footnote 3, may be found at http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/repr/add/domesticcat_driscoll2007.pdf

The current link is to an abstract and a demand for payment to see the full paper. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done MSGJ (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proper common name per MSW3

I would like to move this article, Cat, to Domestic Cat. Since it is a major article, I did not want to proceed without bringing this to other's attention. My reasoning: 1) The proper common name for Felis catus per MSW3 is "Domestic Cat" rather than "Cat"; 2) Many other WP domesticated animal articles use "Domestic" in their title, such as Domestic sheep, Domestic pig, Domestic Pigeon, Domestic rabbit, Domestic duck, Domestic goose, Domestic turkey. If there are no objections, I will proceed in a few days with the page move; otherwise, I will abide by whatever is the consensus. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

At least in all of the cases you mention, there are wild counterparts (e.g., there are both wild and domestic ducks). All Dogs, Horses and cats are considered to be domestic animals even if they are in a feral state (i.e., the words dog, cat and horse when used standing alone always refer to domesticated animals). Note that Wildcats are distinct from Feral cats. Perhaps just adding "Domestic" to the Infobox title would be enough (see Dog and Horse). VMS Mosaic (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Domestic Cat needs to be moved off to its own section. I was surprised to be taken to "Cat" when I spefically searched for "Domestic Cat" on wikipedia. Evening Scribe (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Interaction with humans section

I'm concerned that in this section, there isn't enough information about the potential diseases and parasites that can be transferred from cats to humans from even a very healthy looking cat. In particular, I'm concerned that MRSA isn't mentioned. Dogs, cats, and even horses have all been shown to transfer or recieve MRSA to or from humans. Here's a link:

http://www.vetinfo.com

I found out about this in 2007 when I myself suffered with MRSA for eight months. I have a service cat, and had to get him tested for MRSA eventually. He tested negative thank God, but it did underscore the need, to me, for the public to be informed about this. But I'm not really unbiased about this, I don't think. Could someone else add some info about cats and MRSA?

Evening Scribe (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Domestication date contested

I read a Smithsonian article that has dated the domestication of cats to about 12,000 years ago. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/brief_cats.html

AntariMysteec (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the article. It says that proof of domestication dates back to about 9500 years ago (the article says 8000 BC, close enough), but that some scientists speculate that domestication may have started as far back as 12 000 years ago. There is no dated finding that proves a date of 12 000 years ago.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Subject of debate

"There are two divergent views about the relationship of cats with the environment. The first argues that the environmental impact of feral cat programs and of indoor/outdoor cats is a subject of debate." Nonsense tautology. 86.153.15.186 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Largest cat: contradiction

"Some have been known to reach up to 23 kilograms (51 lb) due to overfeeding. [...but...] The largest cat ever was officially reported to have weighed in at about 21.297 kilograms." So there are cats bigger than the largest cat ever?! Contradiction. 86.153.15.186 (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't comment definitively, of course, but it might just be a single word poorly chosen - "some have been reported ..." but "the largest officially ..." I guess in some sense someone could even know, but still not have what is known officially registered / recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.117.67 (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"About" and "21.297" seem contradictory as well :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.253.10 (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The cat's name is Persian (Indo-European) origin not Latin or Afro-Asiatic as article says. A legend how the cat got his name: «As a cat comes from Africa, it was unknown animal for Persians before, when Persians first time saw the cat, they said: «Kas tas?» 'Whats that?', so the cat was called katas». From Persian that word was borrowed into other languages, having forms katas, katis, kadis, katos, katus, gatos, kate, katze, etc. Roberts7 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unattested. It is far more likely that the name arose as onomatopoeia for the hissing noise cats make when angry. The "pussy" name has a similar root, as can be seen in Kurdish, "Pisîk" The word for cat in many other languages is a variation on "meow". For example, in Vietnamese they are "Meo". Their name in Ancient Egypt was also "Miu". 165.166.3.170 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Is he:חתול of interest for this section in the article? Tomer^talk 09:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ethical and humane concerns over feral cats"

In that section, the first paragraph begins "There are two divergent views about the relationship of cats with the environment. The first argues that the environmental impact of feral cat programs and of indoor/outdoor cats is a subject of debate."

As far as I can tell, the second view is never presented. It reads little sloppy: "there are two views, and the first acknowledges that there is more than one view..." I'd fix it, but I don't know what the second view is! 74.60.254.86 (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC) K. Elder

Catnip

Today I've modified the brief entry on catnip. Formerly it said, "Some cats have a fondness for catnip, which is sensed by their olfactory systems. While they generally do not consume it, they will often roll in it, paw at it, and occasionally chew on it." Now it reads, "Cats have a fondness for catnip, which is sensed by their olfactory systems. Many enjoy consuming catnip, and most will often roll in it, paw at it, and occasionally chew on it."

In my experience, more cats eat catnip than do not; in any event, the statement, "... they generally do not consume it," is inaccurate. If this is "orginal research," then by all means edit or revert. Seduisant (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe both formulations contain another imprecision; the response to catnip is not via olfaction proper, but rather the detection of nepetalactone by the vomeronasal organ. - Nunh-huh 21:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been told by my vet that the effects of catnip only apply to adult cats. That young kittens are "immune" to its effects until a certain age. Is this true? User:switchbladesista 15:03 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cats have a fondness for catnip..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catnip says that only two-thirds of cats are affected by catnip. While I agree that my experience is that cats eat catnip, I think we should say "Some cats have a fondness for catnip", since there are some that do not. In fact, if the catnip article is right about its being two-thirds, I'd say the remaining third is too significant to ignore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.253.1.84 (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cat?

I want to change this: It has been associated with humans for at least 9,500 years. Domestic cat isn't domesticed at last 9,500 year. It is domesticed at last 9,000,000 years, by Oxford DNK research.--Vatrena ptica (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Errr... there were no humans 9 million years ago, so pray tell who domesticated the cat???--Ramdrake (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my mistake. Cat is domesticated at last 130 000 years. People are live only 4 milion years.--Vatrena ptica (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Try again, with a cite to a verifiable and reliable source. Otehrwise, the 9500 years figure stays. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference (Croatian literature): Vojmil Zic and Valerija Kovac, Mak, Glas Koncila, Zagreb, ISSN 1331-2731, april 2008

--Vatrena ptica (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Basically, your source is invalid here. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thirty seconds on google produced an article on the beeb's website, reporting the results of a genetic survey that estimates divergence of the domestic cat from wild types more than 100,000 years ago. The results were published in science, I assume from the remarkable similarities in this abstract, this is the paper in question, which does appear to be in English. Nanobot recurve (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Beeb link ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6251434.stm ) has been corrected. It clearly states "the study suggests the progenitors of today's cats split from their wild counterparts more than 100,000 years ago". Nanobot recurve (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Another quick search produced http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetic-study-links-domestic-cats-to-wild-ancestors-100000-years-ago-455171.html which also states the exact same facts. Nanobot recurve (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat → Domestic cat — Rationale : Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). Every member of the genus Felis can be called a "cat", this article is about the Domestic cat. Mouse and House mouse are two different Wikipedia articles and the same should be with Cat and Domestic cat. According to google search the alternative name "house cat" is informal and much less common.Mieciu K (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC) — Mieciu K (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per above argument. Mieciu K (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Nominator !vote Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Very Strongly oppose; this is as bad as the nominator's other proposal to move dog; we are not here to redesign the English language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) policy, before taking part in move request discussions. Thanks in advance. Mieciu K (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That is, of course, only part of our naming conventions: it says Be precise when necessary. There is no necessity here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Correction: According to your opinion "There is no necessity here." Please let the Wikipedia community decide per Wikipedia:Consensus. Mieciu K (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
        • • Correction (since Mieciu wants to play that way): No argument has been made for any necessity; not even declarations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
          • If you or anyone else believes there is a necessity to be precise that is relevant here, then you have the burden to explain what it is. As PMAnderson notes, no one has even declared that there is a necessity, much less explained what it is and argued effectively why it's relevant. The claim that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) applies here is baseless. --Serge (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Since when is Wikipedia:Naming conventions limited to only Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)? If using common names is so important to you why don't you start a debate about renaming United States Of America to America? After all we should always use common English names. No exeptions. Mieciu K (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
              • It's not only common names, but common names apply by default. Precision applies only when necessary. No necessity in this case has been presented. --Serge (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
                • IMHO in this case it is necessary hence this debate. "No necessity in this case has been presented" I'm not here to convince people. This is a request for opinion. Mieciu K (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support move. The definitive and canonical listing of mammal species, MSW3 lists this species as Domestic Cat. I would give and even stronger support for a move to Domestic Cat. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The common meaning of "cat" is the domestic animal. I've just looked in the Concise OED, and this is the primary meaning there. 87.114.136.166 (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose; I don't think this would benefit the readers. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The common meaning of cat is the domestic cat. In common language, all other kinds of cats are the ones with a qualifier -- e.g. wild cat, big cats.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Britannica Online uses the title Domestic Cat Asher196 (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:COMMON as well). howcheng {chat} 05:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support The proposed title is much more precise. The current title may refer to any member of Felidae family. Surtsicna (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Use common names is the governing policy. - Nunh-huh 10:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Tepid Support: For the benefit of encyclopedia users, rather than editors, as this article does concern itself with the Domestic Cat. The article Felidae is truly the one that discusses the cat qua cat. Should this renaming take place, it would be helpful if (1) redirects of "Cat" be changed to access the Felidae article, where the term Domestic Cat already links to this article, and (2) some consideration should be given to the amorphously-named article Big cats, which covers the cats of the genus Panthera. Seduisant (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • (1) should only happen when the redirect actually means any felid, not Felis domestica; this may well be the minority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Granted that the topic of this article is, technically, the domestic cat and there are other cats, the name most commonly used to refer to this topic is never-the-less, cat. This is a case where we have to balance common name with WP:PRECISION. It's true the "domestic cat" is more precise, but that term is seldom used compared to just "cat". Really, it's primarily used only in contexts where a distinction needs to be made. Nobody takes their "domestic cat" to the veterinarian; they take their cat to the vet, and no more precision is needed for a reasonable English-speaking person to comprehend the intended meaning. In other words, the additional precision provided by "domestic cat" over "cat" is superfluous in most contexts, and so I think we have to give the nod to the more common name. --Serge (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The current title is simply incorrect - this article is not about the genus, but is about the domestic cat. --Aseld ^talk 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the relevance of the point that this article is not about the genus but about the domestic cat. While the term "cat" is sometimes used to refer to the entire genus, it is most often used to refer to the subject of this article, the domestic cat. It is absurd to suggest that it is "incorrect" to refer to the domestic cat as cat. --Serge (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See Big cat article. Every member of the Felis genus is commonly called a "cat". That is why in my humble opinion we should use precise naming to avoid confusion. Mieciu K (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, your objection is that the current title is imprecise, not that it is "simply incorrect". That's very different, and much more understandable. --Serge (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, I find it difficult to believe that the desire for a more precise name outweighs the utility in keeping this at what is, by far, the most common usage of the name. Shereth 16:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, when somebody says they saw a mouse, it could in fact be any of the mus (genus), but to claim that somebody could mean anything but the domestic cat and maybe the wildcat when they say "I saw a cat" is preposterous. And before somebody asks, I also oppose renaming of any article to a more "precise" name to appease somebodies feelings bout an issue, where the old name then simply becomes a redirect to the new — that's a sure sign the rename was unnecessary. Lars T. (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good point, Lars. If the term is really so imprecise, then Cat should be dab page, but I don't see anyone even suggesting that, much less proposing it. --Serge (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The parallel discussion at Talk:Dog#Requested move should probably be considered by any closing admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Scorpions

Can anyone back this up with citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.162.123 (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A cursory and quick scan of google shows nothing but opinion. Personally, I know my pet housecats like to play with and nibble upon invertebrates, but I live in a region with no venomous species. Nanobot recurve (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cats in History

Cats have natural instincts to do what their relatives do in the wild. They also evolved from these species. Do you ever notice their little fangs? Or the way they shake their heads when they get a piece of food? There's proof! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.172.173 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Claws

I noticed that the description of the cats control of their claws in the legs may be misleading. It reminds me of that guy from x-men. These pages have much better description of the way the claws work. Maybe someone could verify and add this information?

From Yahoo! Answers [1] (Possibly not a great source, but well written) Follow the link and read the "Best Answer."

And more from Cat Facts [2]. Follow the link and read the third paragraph from the top.

The current wikipedia entry states "Cats can voluntarily extend their claws on one or more paws. They may extend their claws in hunting or self-defense, climbing, "kneading", or for extra traction on soft surfaces."

It seems that the action is not "voluntarily" as the wikipedia article explains, but rather due to the position of the leg. So, while the cat can move its leg to a position where the claws are out, it can not voluntarily retract them. I have also observed this to be true in my cat by straighting out his leg while he is sleeping!

AdamDBean (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need all these pics?

I could understand a few pics of cats engaging in different behaviours , but I think right now there is an excessive number of photos. Thoughts?--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

...I guess it dosen't bother anybody, but the number of images should still be cut down.--Metalhead94 ^{T C} 16:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Well pictures make articles better, but I don't know how to remove pictures from articles yet. Sailor_Moon (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like too many photos to me. My feeling is, we could use more pix to illustrate paragraphs that lack illustrations. We probably don't need any litterbox pix, though {GG}}. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed lead photo

Alvesgaspar felt that this photo wasn't as good as the current one, but I feel it is. It uses nicer colours; the cat's face can be seen morely clearly, showing greater "personality"; it doesn't look down on the animal (most other animal lead photos, dog, sheep, guinea pig etc. use the same technique); and has a better background (these final three issues came up at Talk:Cat/Lead photo). What do people think?

• It's is a nice looking photo in thumbnail size but obviously out of focus, when viewed in full size. I think we should wait for a much better picture than the one it is used now. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• I concur with Alvesgaspar. Also, I'm not fond of the collar. howcheng {chat} 16:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur No, per above. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a vote. The fact that it's out of focus when it's enlarged really shouldn't be an obstacle, when you consider the photos at dog and sheep again, which both have problems, but are, ultimately, quality illustrations. I don't see the problem with there being a collar when this is the article about domestic cats (most have them); again, there are precedents: see dog and cow. There's no need to pursue this though if people really don't like it. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a big deal because cat is a heavily-trafficked article, so we need to be putting our best foot forward. And because every person and their mother wants to have their cat photo in the article, we need to set standards. It may not have to be up Featured picture quality, but we should insist on technical excellence. howcheng {chat} 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rather have a valuable illustration than something that is technically great—the current image is not technically great either. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have this picture which could replace the current infobox picture. It is taken at the cat's level and has good details. Muhammad(talk) 07:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the current leading picture is not optimal because there isn't much contrast between the cat and the stone background. Frotz (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• A picture depicting the whole animal is required. See discussion above. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There are many pictures which depict the whole animal in the rest of the article. IMO the lead picture should be one which is aethetic and the current lead picture is not very pretty. Muhammad(talk) 07:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about this. My only complaint is that the contrast between the cat and the background in what is now the image at the top of the article is not good. I agree that the whole animal must be shown. Frotz (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this one? Sure it's an overview but at least it has a closer view and doesn't have a distracting background. Bobisbob2 (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Presentation of live animals

Frequently cats will not kill the animals they catch, instead bringing them inside and letting them loose. My own cat did this a few times before I restricted access to the outdoors. Does anyone know of any verifiable sources making claims as to why cats do this? The most common explaination I hear is that it's to teach the human how to hunt. Frotz (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonfatal Termimal Velocity

I was reading about and found numerous claims that cats have a nonfatal terminal velocity of about 60MPH. Since this is such a widespread rumor/ fact (whichever the case may be), I think it is important that it is addressed in the article, unless someone feels that it would lead to "Experimentation"...

Just another guy trying to be a Chemical Engineer, Nanobiotechnologist, and Mathematician (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation Requested in Claws Section

In the section on claws in physiology portion of the article, I am requsting a citation giving the origin of the information of the following quote: "...there is a protrusion which appears to be a sixth "finger". This special feature of the front paws, on the inside of the wrists, is the carpal pad, also found on the paws of big cats and dogs. It has no function in normal walking, but is thought to be an anti-skidding device used while jumping." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.100.219 (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeated phrase

Regarding the subsection "Toxic Sensitivity" under the section "Feeding and diet", the phrase "Essential oils are toxic to cats and there have been reported cases of serious illnesses caused by tea tree oil, and tea tree oil-based flea treatments and shampoos." is repeated at the end of the 3rd and the 5th paragraph. Mikusjay (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. --Dodo bird (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Diet

On the diet section, there is nothing about 'Pica'. This is when a cat eats or choose's unusual things like cotton, plastic etc (like my Burmese does!)I just thought perhaps this shoould be mentioned?Emmajaneyoung (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good addition, with a link to pica (disorder). That article says:

Unlike in humans, in dogs or cats, pica may be a sign of immune-mediated hemolytic anemia, especially when it involves eating substances such as tile grout, concrete dust, and sand. Dogs exhibiting this form of pica should be tested for anemia with a CBC or at least hematocrit levels. [2][3]

So the information seems useful, probably in the Feeding and Diet section. Bob98133 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bob! Sorry, do you want me to add the infomation or should you? (I am sligtly dylexic!) Emmajaneyoung (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! Bob98133 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose Merge

I was looking through random articles and found Smoke cat. I think the information, if it can be sourced would be better here than in its own article. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge - it's the sort of thing i would have merged on site if i weren't so new here. Kytti khat (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge - ... into the Coat patterns section (4.5.1) Seduisant (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge- per above.--Metalhead94 (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Until there is enough information for a decent-sized article on the subject(such as Tortoiseshell cat and Tabby cat) it would serve more use here. Also, if anyone can expand on it? Compared to the sections on tabbies and torties, the information is quite sparse. Kiiro (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one objected I merged the article into the section mentioned above. A new name 2008 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Interaction with dogs?

Would it be relevant to provide a section on how cats generally interact with dogs? Or is there already an article on this I don't know about? It just seems like a topic many people would be interested in and might look for.

P.S. If I'm formatting this wrong---sorry. I'm new to this...

Kiiro (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.66.5 (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pics?

Why is it that most pics portrait the cats from front, when full portraits showing the cat from the side in most cases would be more enlighting? Is it that the editors prefer taking pictures of their own pets? Then retake the photos and try to get more pictures from the side, there's plenty of time for improvements. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Now the first have changed, but it is not better. I'm considering going out and find a random cat that I can snapshot, because the current one doesn't exhibit the general form of a cat. Don't portrait your cute pets, please portrait a cat! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We should just link Other images of cats to icanhascheezburger.com and be done with it - it's gotta be the web's most comprehensive source of cat images ;) mmj (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The section on calico and tortoiseshell cats says that calicos must have patches instead of brindles, thus making the cat pictured NOT a calico. However, when you click on the image, the filename calls her a calico. This is confusing IMHO. If she is a calico, the description of what constitutes a calico is unclear to me. If she is not a calico, the filename is misleading. I don't know which to believe (and I was looking at Wikipedia specifically to answer that very question about a similar cat). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infelsphere (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

size

someone should put the average height and length of kitty in addition to weight --68.9.226.101 (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. howcheng {chat} 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tone of article

Maybe except for the physiology bit, the rest of the article is written from the pov of a pet owner (obviously...) IMO this probably should be cleaned up to be written from the pov of a biologist who has no interest in cats beyond the fact that they exist (as opposed to liking them for their pet value).

This issue exists with "Dog" and other articles. The intense personal interest most editors of this article have in cats makes my comment just that, a comment :D 118.90.105.225 (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Environmental effects

Nothing to do with cats I know, but the Kakapo is native to New Zealand, not to Australia. New Zealand wildlife has also suffered greatly from the introduction of cats, many native birds (indluding the Kakapo of course) have suffered as so many of them have evolved to lose the abilty to fly. Could this part of the article be corrected to give the right information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.214.210 (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Too graphic

It seems to me like the section on Reproduction is a bit too graphic. It states that the female 'yowls as the male pulls out of her' and so on. Not everyone likes these sort of in-depth descriptions.. Sparkstarthunderhawk (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What if some third- or fourth-grade kid looks up cats on Wikipedia, and ends up reading all that? Besides, is it really necessary to know exactly how cats reproduce? Spare us the details, please. 70.62.120.218 (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo: Toilet-trained cat

I've noticed that this photo has been taken down and put back up again. Before this turns into an edit war, I'd like to suggest that the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of this photo be discussed here instead of seeing who gets tired of reverting the page first. Thanks! --Ericdn (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Kick it out. It has no relevance at all. --84.56.228.28 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The section should have a picture of some kind, it could be this one or one of a cat using a litterbox. I believe this is the picture that should stay because:

1. The picture is relevant, the section where the picture is at talks about toilet training a cat.
2. It is not a common occurrence for people to toilet train their cat. I believe most people have seen a litter box trained cat but a larger portion of people have never seen a toilet trained cat.

This picture is helpful in illustrating a less common aspect of cats. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the photo isn't necessary to the article. At best, it provides a needless distraction. At worst, some people may be offended. --Ericdn (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it adds some insight as to the trainability of cats; also, the question whether it might offend some people is moot, as Wikipedia is not censored. I'd say keep for the informative value.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I concede in terms of possible offense the photo may cause. You're right that it's not our responsibility to worry about that. However, does the photo itself provide any informative value that a description in the text can not? Probably not. Therefore, there's no particular reason I can see why the photo should remain. --Ericdn (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In terms of trainability, if we say cats can be trained to use a toilet, some people will wonder how it is possible: for starters, cats can't sit upright to relieve themselves like we humans do. Therefore, I'd argue that it serves to illustrate a point that would be either difficult to explain in words, or if fully explained, that some people might find even more graphic and offensive than just the picture of the cat.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's possible to write a text that can be descriptive without being unnecessarily graphic or vulgar. I completely respect your opinion, and I can even understand and appreciate your opinion; likewise, I see that you respect my opinion. Therefore, I think the two of us have reached the point where we have to agree to disagree. However, I'm sure you and I will both be interested in reading others' opinions on the suitability of the photo and make further comments from there, yes? --Ericdn (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Let's agree to disagree - amicably. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not needed and we do not have room, this is very eccentric behavior for cats - making it off topic. Hardyplants (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is off topic, why is it discussed in the section? A new name 2008 (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a good clean-up and the focus needs to be tightened up. It takes a long time to load..its a mixture of clay and gold (true of most wikipedia content). Hardyplants (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In what way is it a distraction? A new name 2008 (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To Hardyplants: it's a trained behaviour. It would probably be better under "Trainability", though. As for the argument that we do not have room,, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We cannot run out of room, litterally.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree. Who says we don't have room? There are articles on Wikipedia that are far longer than this one. Eccentric behavior also is no reason to say that information doesn't belong in the article. This is not criteria for determining whether or not a photo should remain. --Ericdn (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Under "nomenclature", the article says:

A group of cats is referred to as a "clowder", a male cat is called a "tom" (or a "gib", if neutered), and a female is called a "queen". The male progenitor of a cat, especially a pedigreed cat, is its "sire", and its female progenitor is its "dam". An immature cat is called a "kitten" (which is also an alternative name for young rats, rabbits, hedgehogs, beavers, squirrels and skunks).

From where I sit this is a mixture of everyday words (kitten, tom), words used only by cat breeders or fanciers (dam, sire), and words used in real life by nobody (clowder). If I as an ordinary person want to talk about a cat's mother I say "mother", not "dam", let alone "female progenitor". It is fine for the article to define all these words, but it needs to talk about how they are used and not, as the present wording does, imply that they are the only terms used. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm not sure where you're going. These are usually considered the correct terms for these concepts, even if they're not always the most used terms colloquially speaking. The colloquial terms are assumed to be known by everyone (I don't think anybody needs to tell you that the common term for a kitten's female progenitor is "mother"). That the exact term (dam) is mostly used by cat fanciers and breeders is also not a surprise: these are the people you would expect to know about proper cat nomeclature. However, maybe a note should be added that the term "clowder" is indeed rarely used just about anywhere, even if it is the correct term.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd wager that "colony" would be the most commonly-used word to describe a group of cats. Frotz (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Size discrepancy

Cats typically weigh between 2.5 and 7 kg (5.5–16 pounds); however, some breeds, such as the Maine Coon, can exceed 11.3 kilograms (24.9 lb). Some have been known to reach up to 23 kilograms (51 lb) due to overfeeding. Conversely, very small cats (less than 1.8 kilograms (4.0 lb)) have been reported.[10] The largest cat ever was officially reported to have weighed in at about 21.297 kilograms (46.952 lb) (46 lb 15.25 oz).[11][12] The smallest cat ever officially recorded weighed around 1.36 kg (3 lbs).[13]

This makes absolutly no sense.. the biggest cat weighed 46 lb but they can reach up to 51 lb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomaschaaf (talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. Since the 51 lb statement is unsourced, I've removed it. howcheng {chat} 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

how light is the lightest cat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiracia (talk • contribs) 14:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

According to our source, the lightest cat was 1.3 kg. howcheng {chat} 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Service Cats? "Working" Cats?

A user above, in the section about human-to-cat disease transmission, mentioned she had a service cat. Would it be worthwhile adding a sub-section about service cats to the human-cat interaction section? My only reticence is a fear that service cats are probably statistically insiginificant in number versus service dogs, etc. But, I think few enough people are familiar with the existence of service cats that it could be worthwhile. Thoughts? Bluecanary99 (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, find sources and put it in. howcheng {chat} 00:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think it would benefit the Cat page to include a small section about how cats can be used in service to humans. As another user mentioned on Talk:Farm_cat, there is an entire category for "working dogs". Kpstewart (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• see also Ship's Cat. Kpstewart (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Behavior: Fondness for Heights

Will someone please remove "and prestige" from the end of the first paragraph of this section? Anthropomorphizing the subject is detracting from the accuracy of the page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.57.156 (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Diet

A domestic cat's diet consists of poultry, other meats as well as fish, dairy, cat food, mice, rats and occasionally bugs. The same accounts for wild cats like tigers and lions. In the wild cats eat mostly meat but occasionally eat bugs if the kill isn't great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catsrme (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that rats and mice are more likely to be the cat's usual prey than snakes and scorpions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.224.40 (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology: church slavonic

The church slavonic version is wrong, it's kotъka (kotŭka alternative spelling), not kotka. "kotka" cannot be due to the phonetic reasons. 195.113.149.177 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity

A more comprehensive list of toxic foods should be added to the article. One additional item would be "Grapes". See http://vetmed.illinois.edu/petcolumns/showarticle.cfm?id=359.

Some flea treatments for dogs contain the chemical Permethrin. These dog treatments should NEVER be used on a cat as Permethrin is highly toxic, often leading to fatality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwyncooper (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Image problem

With the current policy on GIFs, the whole image File:Curly_calico2.gif (392k) has to be downloaded in order to see any thumbnail... AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to note it at the time, but that file was moved to File:Curly tortoiseshell.gif (it being a tortie, not a calico) and replaced in the article by File:Curlycat02.jpg. howcheng {chat} 16:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Environmental effects

I've added references and two sentences on the ecological effects of cats on islands. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Cats in Pop Culture" section

This section is terrible: the tone is unlike the rest of the article, and the examples are awful. If it can't be rewritten from scratch (pardon the pun), I propose removing it. Any objection? Seduisant (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Since removed. Seduisant (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The orgins of the domestic cat

Fairly recent DNA analysis strongly suggests that cat were domesticated in the Near East, not in North Africa as was assumed earlier, see http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12153-dna-shows-domestic-cat-had-origins-in-near-east.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by KHAksnes (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasting waste

Don't understand why it was reverted. I had cat by hundreds and since decads ago. All xxx of them displayed and displays until today the attitude of: 1-dig holes in the terrain, 2-defecate 3-couver 4-smell until they think: 'it's okay, there is no more stink'. Nobody of them was trained to do this. So why to bother to explain the 'toilette training' while the article ignores the natural attitude of the cats to build latrines by themselves? I am not surely the only one to see it (maybe US cats are not so educated?). On the contrary, i wonder how city-cats are trained to use toilets. Fine, but here, we 'hillibilly' have no problems with this issue, there is space all around.. And it's commendable that cats, differently by other pets, are so accurate in the proper management of their wastes. It's an healty attitude too (no excrements on the ground =no hillness and paraxites all around), apart to be naturally educate (sadly it's not so for many or all the dogs, not to talk about horses) and pretty by the human side. Apart the pissing to mark the ground, but it's another history. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Health Benefits

Can I suggest adding a section on 'health benefits' below the 'health risks' one?

Numerous studies, together with the anecdotal experience of many pet owners, underscore the role of companion animals in human psychological and physical wellbeing. An excellent overview with references is available at [3] --Kestrel1971 (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not as long as your sources are reliable and the topic sounds pretty familiar one to me through TV channels. But the title "health benefit" sounds a bit awkward. ;)--Caspian blue 01:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've renamed the old section "Health risks" in the human interaction piece of the article to "Health effects", which would be a good place for such material. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

From "Skeleton"

"The cat skull is unusual in having very large eye sockets and a powerful and specialized jaw"

Unusual compared to what? Other felines or felids? Most carnivores? Other mammals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.222.18 (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Other mammals would be best. Corrected. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The word "owner"

Don't you think another word could be used that could apply for everything? My cat was kinda abandoned by my neighbors, spends most time outside, may not come for days, yet it comes to eat, sleep and it likes to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.207 (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Companion" or "carer" are the standard alternatives, but it sounds like neither of those apply to you either, since that cat is a semi-autonomous agent (it probably has other homes you know). Tim Vickers (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

'Dogs have owners, cats have staff.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cats and harmonicas

It says here [4] that cats do not like harmonicas.

Is this true, and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Impact of Hunting

This section needs a considerable reworking:

Firstly, the Kakapo is a New Zealand bird, not an Australian one. Bettongs are also preyed upon by feral dogs and foxes.

The introduction of domestic cats has undoubtedly contributed to the decline of particular native species in environments around the world, with the most clear evidence from isolated (e.g. islands), fragmented and marginal environments. A general extrapolation to all ecosystems is difficult to sustain on available evidence. However, the impact of hunting by cats in urban and agricultural environments should arguably be kept in perspective: The impact of predation is difficult to distil out of the mix of other impacts, such as habitat destruction, urbanisation, motor vehicle use, pesticides, other predators such as dogs and foxes, etc. Wildlife in peri-urban environments, i.e. adjacent to new urban developments may be at particular risk, with the impacts of urban sprawl compounded by the introduction of cats.

While cats are by nature carnivores (more properly, they are omnivores), it is important to understand that many domestic house cats do not hunt (around fifty percent according to some studies), with the number and species of prey taken varying enormously between individuals, even within the same household.

In short, the impact of predation by domestic cats on biodiversity is a more complex subject than the article suggests. Several good reviews are available at [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kestrel1971 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. On first edit of this section I've replaced the reference from Australian to Australasian to correct the 'Kakapo error'. I did the Australasian replacement throughout the article but prob missed a couple. This section could still do with a re-work (the grammar is OK, but it doesn't read as well as the rest of the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shona isbister (talk • contribs) 13:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

I tried to cut some images. I did it one at a time with an edit summary, please revert thoughtfully.

What about getting rid of the neonate getting bottle-fed, as it doesn't seem useful at all?

I want to move the cat presents mouse to owner up to the Diet section and eliminate the cat with dead bird shot. I think one such shot is enough, and the mouse one is a better quality image, and is more compelling. Abductive (reasoning) 22:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientific name

The domestic cat is a subspecies is Felis silvestris called Felis silvestris catus as they can interbreed with other wildcat subspecies and consistantly produce viable offspring. Felis catus would be the name if it were a species in its own wright. [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]] (Roomoneohone (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

I went through the trouble of double checking this article against most of the primary and secondary articles (true scientific documents that only fully trained biologists can write, not just anyone with a Wiki Account), and found that most of them list this as an independent species Felis domesticus, the name I was taught in every biology class I've taken so far. Furthermore, "Felis" IS the Latin word for cat, and I don't remember such a word as "catus" from the 3 years of Latin that I took. The alleged binomial in this article, and its dubious insistence that what the scientific name for domestic cat that I was taught is a product of 1 quack back in the 1800s, appears to be an example of Wikiality (alleged reality that only exists by a consensus of people with Wikipedia Accounts). -The Mysterious El Willstro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.177.35 (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

According to "Walker's Mammals of the World, Sixth Edition", the domestic cat is F. catus. If you don't know what Walker's is, it is a two volume, almost 2000 page text that lists detailed information about every known living mammal, and is updated with new information on a frequent basis. It is often considered to be the defacto source for scientific information about mammal species. In addition, I have found a side variety of scientific journal publications that have listed the species as F. catus, for example: Geonomics [[13]] (1999), Mammal Reveiw [[14]] (2003), The Journal of Morphology [[15]] (2005), The Journal of Heredity [[16]] (2003), The Royal Society of London [[17]] (2001), The Journal of Virology [[18]] (1995), and The Journal of Experimental Zoology [[19]] (1998). Now, as always, none of these references automatically insure that anything is correct, but it does show that caution in changing anything should be taken. At the same time, there is evidence that the domestic cat could be a subspecies, or even a sub-subspecies. As for interbreeding, many species around the world can interbreed with other species, sometimes resulting in fertile offspring. In fact, with domesticated species it is fairly common. The closest and best example would be dogs and wolves interbreeding, which, while not common, does happen. I see no reason to change anything at this time, although future changes could always happen as more evidence becomes availible. - IanCheesman (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}} I have a source for the sentence, "Cats are ready to go to new homes at about 12 weeks." in the reproduction section. The source is Behrend, Katrin (1991). The Complete Book of Cat Care: How to Raise a Happy and Healthy Cat/ Katrin Behrend and Monika Wegler; translated from German by Elizabeth D. Crawford. Barron's Educational Series, inc. Hauppauge, NY p. 28. ISBN 0-8120-4613-7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pythonian (talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 August 2009

Done Welcome and thanks for improving this article. Celestra (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cats in non-western cultures

Are cats commonly eaten in some non-western cultures like dogs are? Googlemeister (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Carnivores are rarely eaten in any culture, since big fierce animals are rare. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that page is gone now...Here http://books.google.com/books?id=wsBAAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA132&dq=cats+are+eaten&ei=c4l8Ss-RKojszATO293RBQ&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=&f=false is a link to an old source for cats being eaten, don't know if it has a place in our article. Hardyplants (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether any of it ever goes into the article or not, that link provides some good reading about who eats/ate what animals. Examine the page immediately preceding the linked page for a good "tasty human flesh" anecdote. Apropos of nothing. Seduisant (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

On reason that we tend not to raise carnivores for food is that it is inefficient. Eating an herbivore has its own inefficiencies, as it takes several pounds of vegatble matter to make one pount for meat. Raising carnivores for food just amplified this, as we then have to take multiple pounds of meat from herbivores to make one pound of carnivore meat.--RLent (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

If Cats are obligate carnivores then is ethical to even include that people actually try to feed cats vegan diets without a lot more specific explanation of why and how harmful this is to a cat?

I've noted the risk that some of these diets can pose to a cat's health, these diets are rather rare but I think they merit a mention, if only to alert people to the fact that they can be risky. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Feeding and Diet - Image

I propose changing the cat and mouse picture from:

old	new
A cat eating a House Mouse	A cat eating a House Mouse

Note: I took the photo, I'm biased - so I'm asking here. lxowle (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Bigger is better, the quality is equal or superior, and Wikipedian-created photos are preferred to Flickr ones in my book. howcheng {chat} 16:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

OK - unless I hear comments to the contrary, I'll swap it over in a few days. lxowle (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about the discription: Is the cat really "eating" the mouse or just "caught" it? 174.112.180.234 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The mouse had been caught and killed, and a little chewed. I know what you mean about the caption, it doesn't quite fit. Perhaps "A cat prepares to eat a house mouse"? lxowle (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

When my cat ate a mouse or bird, it never held up the whole thing above the ground - instead the cat used one, or more usually both, front paws to hold down the [dead] creature; the cat then pulled or bit off pieces to swallow. The cat in the larger pic is carrying a mouse, and may eat it sooner or later, but is unlikely to swallow it whole. Try "A cat carrying a dead house mouse home to eat" --Redrose64 (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the caption Redrose64 gives above and think we should use it. Any comments? lxowle (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

My cat's never brought home a mouse without first presenting it to me, and attempting to get me to accept the gift, by eating it. (Not sure if "A cat carrying a dead house mouse home to present to it's owner" reads too well, though.) 86.157.120.86 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the new one, I vote yes! So far out, I fit right in (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cat behavior

See [20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Is there something you think that needs to be changed in this article? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Basic Grammar Mistakes

Here's a quote from the article, in the category titled "SENSES", "Cats' have excellent night vision..."; please note that the words "cats" does not need an apostrophe after it as it does not show possession directly. This also applies to the following quote from the same portion of the article: "Unlike some big cats, such as tigers, domestic cats' have slit pupils." Whoever is a moderator or whatever the term is for Wikipedia should fix this. Thanks, just trying to give a helping hand and make Wiki better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydentank (talk • contribs)

Are you aware that you could just have fixed this yourself? There is no need to ask permission of anyone for these sorts of edits. You don't even need to bring them up on the talk page. Just for for it mate, that's the whole point of an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. ;) --WebHamster 10:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I must have been half-asleep last night. Fixed. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Penis spines

The quoted 7mm long penis spines sounded pretty unbelievable to me—we're talking about a house cat after all. According to the referenced PDF, they're 0.7mm long, not 7mm. 75.27.143.66 (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You're quite right, I've corrected the text. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

King Cat

A Slovene told me that a Turkish prince was once given Croatia as a gift but the prince didn't really like the country so he gave it to his cat instead. I think that the article should incorporate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.159.97 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous feedback

• My take on words emphasised, such as the group terms in the Nomenclature section was that words were italicised unlike phrases which hd quotation marks around them (reading the MOS on italics/words as words emphasis). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• The article is pretty hefty, I wonder whether declawing is esoteric enough to be relegated to a subarticle and reduced to a sentence or two somewhere.

Unfortunately all too common in the US, I've merged and condensed with the section on scratching.

• I think I'd try to merge Feeding and diet and hunting and site it at the latter entry.

Merged part of the content, the rest is too physiology/biochemistry to go into the section on behavior.

• There is no mention of the genus and family to which the cat gives its name, and maybe a sentence or two on closest relatives outside the dyad of catus/silvestris.

I need a phylogenetic tree.

Sounds good, where do we get one of those then ;)

• The word 'cat' is used alot (duh) - try and think of some clever ways to reduce....
• Although it sits nicely there, I wonder whether the first sentence of the Habitat section should be slotted into taxonomy somehow.

Excellent, keep it coming! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

More later, RL beckons...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Back again:

• In Physiology section:

• • Para 2 could be relegated to Cat behaviour (?)
  • Para 3 is unreffed - I'd just ditch it I think. Not specific to cats at all.

• In Domestication section, I would have thought something on the current status worldwide - eg are they domesticated in every single country (even tropical africa??) - any glaring differences, and any (even very gross) estimate of how many people keep them as pets or how many are kept etc. Probably not much out there but currently there is zip in the article at all.

• I am not a fan of see also sections, in most cases, a related article is related enough to have context and an existing spot from which a link exists, or it is too tenuous and should be dropped. Doesn't everyone use ctrl-F these days anyway?

Overall, intriguing read - I have done a little copyediting, which is naughty of me as the content isn't settled. The existence of an ample supply of daughter articles to relegate content is a plus, as I'd keep one eye on the length of the article and need for some more material to come in still. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Ambitious project you've got here! Given that it's still a work in progress, I won't go over individual sentences. My first thought is that the ToC is too large and jumps back-and-forth between subjects. Just suggestions:

• Nomenclature and etymology can be combined into a single two sentence section after the intro. This seems to be usual.
• At least for me, the info on domestication in 8.1 follows from the evolutionary material in 1.1. I think this of high interest to the reader and should occur relatively early. Perhaps "Taxonomy and evolution" as the level one headline with Domestication as a sub. The Felis genus should be better contextualized (e.g. currently extant where, divergence estimate).
• Couldn't most of the section 8 be incorporated elsewhere? We have "Skeleton" under 2 and then come back to "Body types" at 8.2.2. "Health" is section 4 and then "Health effects" is 8.1.1. And if "Fondness for heights" belongs under behaviour, doesn't "Indoor scratching"? I realize this is difficult as you need to discuss the subject as a generic species and simultaneously as a pet, so don't combine any sections unless you think it will help. But I do find it jumpy.
• Having both "Anatomy" and "Physiology" as headlines strikes me as redundant.
• Small note: spell out numbers under 10 in words. Lots of examples in "Anatomy" and "Size."
• The intro ought to be larger but that can probably wait until the body settles down.

The ideal ToC is often in the eye of the beholder, so perhaps Cas or somebody can offer a second opinion on my suggestions.

Great work so far! Marskell (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd wonder whether "FOndness for heights" can be relegated into the behaviour subpage too. When we did major depressive disorder the article just kept growing and growing and we had to make some fairly ruthless decisions.. (I hate that part) Casliber (talk · contribs)

I've cut half of it and merged it into the hunting section. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't cut out etymology/naming, as material in the lead should be expanded upon elsewhere in the article. Another article worth looking at for a comparison is Domestic Sheep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Better go home and feed my Felids. I'll get back to this later. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of american references?

"With 69 million of them present in American homes, cats are the most or the second most popular pets in that country" - is this particularly relevant to cats in general? (Also, isn't america a continent (or two), not a country? - ignoring that though) In New Zealand there are 1.5 million cats. But who cares? And more importantly, is this appropriate information for an encyclopedia article on cats? I think the next line effectively illustrates the popularity of cats without being unnecessarily biased towards any one country. Mechwarrior Puppies (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I only had a glance at this page but that line jumped out at me as being in completely the wrong place, why mention America as opposed to any other country? Muleattack (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

America is a country. North America is a continent, and South America is another continent. I hope that clears it up. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

America is not a country, you ignoramus. Just because the Great Uninformed use "America" as shorthand for "United States of America" don't make it so. 124.168.147.224 (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

instead of calling names, see Americas. "America" is not necessarily the same as "the Americas".  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 10:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Cat clades (not clowders)

I was asked if my edit about domestic cats nearest relatives was problematic. I edited that within its genus, domestic cats' closest relative is Felis margarita which I think is uncontroversial. Within Felis silvestris, it closest relative is the petite African Wildcat Felis silvestris lybica, which I believe was hypothesized by Darwin and confirmed by many studies (Randi & Ragni, 1991), (Driscoll et al. 2009). The Driscoll article says that DNA evidence shows that that Felis silvestris silvestris, Felis silvestris lybica, Felis silvestris cafra, Felis silvestris ornata, and Felis silvestris bieti are all true subspecies, and that domestic cats are "virtually indistinguishable" from Felis silvestris lybica. All these sources are in the article already, but are explained best for the lay person in this Scientific American article. The name Felis catus is by convention only; it does not indicate that domestic cats are a different species than Felis silvestris, just that they are domesticated. Abductive (reasoning) 23:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We now have an article that says cats are a sub-species of Felis silvestris in one paragraph, and then states that they are a separate species in their own right in the following paragraph. The article notes that some sources state that Felis silvestris encompasses both species, and that other sources treat the domestic cat as a subspecies. This will be very confusing to our readers, particularly since you have removed the statement that the phylogeny is still controversial (which reading Mattern et. al. will confirm). How do you think we should solve this problem? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As an example this paper states that a phylogenetic approach would class the domestic cat, African wild cat, European wild cat, and sand cat all as subspecies of Felis silvestris. Mattern et al, do not take a position on which are "species", although they state their data would also be consistent with the sand cat being a subspecies of Felis silvestris. Yet here we are saying F. catus is not a species, but that F. margarita is a species. I think this article should not make a definite statement on this question - we should just note the uncertainty and diversity of views. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Any source that says Felis margarita is not a full species must be outdated. In the debate about the scientific name in the archives, people relied on Mammal Species of the World and ITIS. ITIS says that Felis margarita is valid, and even has valid subspecies. I can't see what Mammal Species of the World says online, but unless it says F. margarita is a subspecies, I think we are safe. Remember also that WP:PSTS asks us to use secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary sources. You might be able to find some older primary papers that are confused about the status of Felis margarita, but we aren't allowed to use those to overturn a clear statement in an impecable tertiary source like Mammal Species of the World. Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So if we rely on ITIS, then we treat F. catus as a valid species, as these sources say this species is still the official name link. Your edit stating that F. catus is definitely a subspecies of Felis silvestris contradicts these secondary sources, which take a much more nuanced view of the question. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

MSW3 [21] indeed lists F. margarita as a separate species, with six subspecies. Seduisant (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they also list F. catus as a separate species link. This is the convention I followed in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The explanation for that is that it is a naming convention, not that anybody believes they are a separate species. This is evidenced by the ICZN's opinion 2027, (already in the article) where they talk about maintaining the old name for certain domesticated animals. Do you see how they call them "forms"? Abductive (reasoning) 19:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As a comment on the Science phylogenetic study Driscol et al 2007, they rooted their tree using Felis margarita as the outgroup, so they only examined the relationships within this clade, and could not make any comment on if the clade itself is a single species. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that study doesn't say one way or another, but as far as I can see, there is no debate whatsoever that they are a true species. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Both the Mattern study from 2000 and the Masuda study from 1996 express doubt about F. margarita being separate from F. silvestris, but I haven't been able to find any more recent articles that address the question. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, found this paper from 2006 that puts catus, silvestris, lybica and bieti as cospecific (nodes with bootstrap values of <50%). It classes margarita and nigripes as separate but cospecific (with each other). Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you copy over Mammal Species of the World's more nuanced view here? Do they address it by anatomy? What is their opinion of the DNA evidence? Abductive (reasoning) 19:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with stating that they are usually described as cospecific in modern texts, but that F. catus remains the official name and is still commonly used. However, if we keep with this official nomenclature, then we can't describe F. catus and F. silvestris as the same species. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the section again to avoid stating definitively that the African wildcat is a separate species, that modern phylogenetics treats F. catus as a subspecies, and noted that the phylogeny of the Felids is still controversial (I think that is pretty clear)! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you say so. We should be very careful using primary sources to say anything definitive. I'm looking at the tree in the source you gave just now. It seems to say (with asterisks) that F. catus has low resolution from F. silvestris, low resolution with the next node with F. lybica and F. bieti, and low resolution between F. lybica and F. bieti. They do have good resolution and a synapomorphy (the arrow) on the next node for the F. margarita/F. nigripes clade. Did you misplace the asterisks? The table seems to indicate that support for the nodes is well above 50%:

10 (Fma, Fca, Fsi, Fli, Fbi) 2.49 1.72, 3.67 0.55 91.0 99 98 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 65

11 (Fca, Fsi, Fli, Fbi) 1.40 0.89, 2.16 1.09 100 100 100 100 < 100 89 100 100 100 100 100

So is it me or you that is misinterpreting? Abductive (reasoning) 21:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're agreeing, but in different words! :) They can separate the Fcatus, Fsi, Fli, Fbi clade from the the F. margarita/F. nigripes clade (node 10), but have low resolution within these two clades, so they can't say that Fca, Fsi, Fli and Fbi are separate species or that Fma and Fni are separate species (only nodes 8, 10 and 11 are supported). Or is my interpretation of that table wrong? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Right we are. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Phew! Now I can put down my Complete Idiot's Guide To Cladistics and get on with the section on cat health. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cat fur

I don´t see why is vandalism to include the picture of a domestic cat fur coat. Cat fur coats do exist and, it is a long tradition, and like the rabbit fur, it is a well known cheaper alternative to mink or ermine. I think that the domestic cat role in the fur industry should have a mention in the article. Before removing the picture, the reasons why it is not relevant should be discussed here Koven.rm (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning the use of cats in the fur trade would be entirely reasonable, but I don't see any evidence on the image page that this picture actually shows cat furs. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added two sentences on the use of cats in the fur trade. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a better image of a cat pelt. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the resistance to showing a cat pelt is that using these animals for fur is abhorrent to most people in the Western world. Do we really need a picture of a cat pelt? Frotz (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, we need to provide a complete picture of the cat, its biology, behavior, and interactions with people. Its use as a source of fur is real, but I'm not sure how significant this is to the overall topic. It is certainly significant enough to mention, but I'm open to arguments against including a picture. However, although thinking about cats being raised for fur is very distasteful to me, this emotional reaction isn't really a convincing argument. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's UNDUE weighting, as an image. The vast, vast majority of people have never seen a cat pelt that was not attached to a cat. Given the image overload in the article, it needs to be removed. Abductive (reasoning) 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found a source here that describes the legal cat fur trade as very small indeed. Unless we can find a source giving some solid numbers on the illegal trade, I think I'd agree that we shouldn't give this too much prominence. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This source shows that the trade might be larger than claimed, but this is still only in one country in Europe. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)