Talk:Cat/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

malicious editing

Someone has put the word penis repeatedly in the main body of this article. I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar enough with wiki editing to remove it. Can someone please do that? Thanks.

Has been fixed, will keep an eye on it down the road. --Pkarjala 00:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cats in Islam

I do not see any source in any Hadith about the Prophet Muhammad and the cat. Also, Hurraira does not mean cat as stated in the article. It means reddish, or something red. So Abu Hurraira does not mean father of the cat. I don't want to remove it myself but if someone can find a source for anything in that paragraph. It is well documented that Muhammad advocated kind treatment towards animals, but that specific story seems untrue.Fkh82 02:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

cat breath

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think cats have really bad breath. Of couse, it's not that bad compared to dogs' breath. Scorpionman 22:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Breath odor of cats and also dogs has more to do with dental health than anything else. In most cases adult cats have significant tartar accumulation; owners can attempt to remedy this with special dental treats, by brushing their teeth (veterinarians sell feline toothbrushes and toothpaste) or by having a dental cleaning performed. --Bk0 (Talk) 05:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course that is one of the factors, but I've also heard that air coming up from the intestinal tract will affect the breath odor. For instance, someone who's been eating junk food will have bad breath, while someone who eats good food will have relatively good breath. I think that cats' (and dogs') bad breath is due to their diet of mice, birds, fish and small other small animals. If we ate like that, we'd probably have bad breath too. Scorpionman 02:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Another cause of kitty bad breath is kidney failure; I know, because my 19-year old pal has that condition. (Technically, it's called ketoacidosis.) It's basically a buildup of toxins and other bad stuff; apparently when it gets really bad, the cat's breath can smell like ammonia. So it's a good idea to pay attention to any changes in your furry friend's breath odor. --ILike2BeAnonymous 10:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes - a problem

With the references at the end, there are 27 references, but in the text there are only 25. The problem occurs around number 16. I'm having a look into it. Thelb⁴ 07:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see: there were two in the references (numbers 16 and 17) that didn't link to anywhere in the article. I've taken them away, so it should work now. Thelb⁴ 07:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed note about lack of sources

I removed the following note, left by User:144.133.211.127 at [1], from Cat#Environmental effects: It should be noted that this article has no proof or reference to published papers to support its allegations. There is no inclusion of an opposing view.

Presumably this means that the section about cats and the environment has no sources given, since the article as a whole has plenty. Anyway, notes like this belong on the talk page. FreplySpang (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Of course, it would be great if someone did come up with a source for the material on environmental effects. And opposing viewpoints are welcome if presented constructively. FreplySpang (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The article titled “Environmental effects” makes some outrageous allegations without any supporting proof other than the reference to “Some environmentalists claim”.

You have said “…the article as a whole has plenty (of sources)”. I would be pleased if you would point out any proof that predation is destroying nature. Proof would need to be published scientific papers.WikiCats

There's a misunderstanding here. You put in a sentence that says "this article has no proof or reference..." without specifying that you meant the part about predation. The article has lots of references to subjects other than predation. FreplySpang (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. The whole article “Environmental effects” is about predation by cats and the allegation that cats are a threat to the environment. In essence, the allegation is that predation within nature destroys nature. This is a very brash assertion and you really need to be able to back it up with published papers. Thank you for assisting with this issue.WikiCats

Ah. Usually we use "article" to mean the entire Wikipedia page Cat, and "section" to mean a smaller part like Cat#Environmental effects. I stepped in to handle the procedural issue - discussion about an article goes on the talk page, not in the article. I personally don't know much about the predation issue. Since it appears to be the subject of debate, I'll move the paragraph here to the talk page and let people discuss it here. FreplySpang (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. This my second day at this.--WikiCats 10:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

your cat page

show a pic of your cat and there name heres my cat File:Ourkitty4.jpg

This is probably best done on a non-wikipedia site, such as kittenbreak or ratemykitten. --Pkarjala 00:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Environmental effects

I've removed the controversial section "Environmental effects" so that it can be discussed here. The text is as follows:

Some environmentalists claim that the domestication of cats is harmful to the environment or ecosystems, and that excessive cat populations result in the overhunting of many small animals and birds in both urban and rural areas, possibly disrupting the food chain and limiting local species' populations. This is clearly true in environments where cats did not exist, and were imported, such as Australia and New Zealand, where feral cats now kill native bird species and damage natural flora.

Throughout the centuries, as humans took advantage of the domestic cat's hunting skills, few had regard for their habitat and care, and far fewer thought to practice good animal husbandry. This created many pockets of excessive populations and local imbalances. However, with intervention and management, most especially spay and neuter programs, the disruptions and chaos in both the feline's life cycle and its prey can easily be avoided, and the positive effects these small and vital predators have in the appropriate environments can be observed and appreciated.

I do not intend to be part of the debate, only to encourage the opposing sides to provide sources and reach consensus on what this section should say. FreplySpang (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I’m happy to kick this off. It might be best to have a title that better covers divergent opinions. I would like to suggest “Environmental Issues”

I am an Australian and I have been examining this argument for a number of years. Essentially the proposal is that domestic cats and wild cats threaten the existence of or have caused the extinction of other animals. This allegation has been made for about 13 years now. Prior to that, it was not heard of.

The suggestion is that predation is destroying nature. This is a bold proposal since it is generally accepted that predation is a vital part of nature. (Predation helps to prevent over population of prey species and controls the spread of disease) They would need to show that predation by cats goes beyond it beneficial effects. They would need to show that cats are killing at a rate that exceeds prey species ability to reproduce.

In researching this issue, other than theories, I have not been able to find published studies that support this allegation. e.g. Researcher Frankie Seymour says “Those few papers and studies which speculate that cats might be a threat to the Australian ecosystem present no evidence in support of this speculation.” http://www.animalsaustralia.org/default2.asp?idL1=1274&idL2=1310

Be that as it may, I believe that Wikipedia should reflect both sides of the argument.

I would be happy to re-write this section for the consideration of others. --WikiCats 11:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

On the Simpson's Ralph spells CAT and then the cat's tail moves on the computer, and he says "i'm learning". The point of this is that CAT when spelt shows that a person has been bested, so to speak, and by spelling CAT shows just how stupid he feels, much like Ralph.

Sources

I ran a Google search for "feral cat" predation "endangered species" and looked at the top 50 results. Choosing from relevant and reputable sources and eliminating mirrors, I gathered a collection of links and classed them according to the following question: Are feral cats a threat to endangered species?

Demographics affect the classifications in several respects:

1. Is the domestic cat a native species to the area?

2. Does the local climate allow cats to breed throughout the year?

3. Does the area contain small endangered species suitable for cat predation?

4. Is the ecosystem fragile?

5. Are there local colonies of feral cats?

All of the results listed below come from the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Most come from the United States where the domestic cat is not native. Cited scientific studies of the phenomenon cover three decades in the United States. Florida generates the most results: the state has many small endangered species.

Credible threat

• University of Wisconsin
• University of Florida
• American Bird Conservancy
• The Wildlife Society
• The Lewis Clark Animal Shelter of Idaho
• Delaware Audubon Society
• United States Geological Survey, Hawaii
• Animal Legal and Historical Center regarding Florida cat populations
• University of Michigan
• University of Florida Levin College of Law

• Austrialian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage
• Department of Sustainability and Environment, Australia

Neutral:

• American Veterinary Medical Association
• DVM: The Newsmagazine of Veterinary Medicine (United States)

• BBC

No credible threat:

• Alley Cat Allies Of Bethesda, Maryland
• Animals Australia
• Messybeast.com Cat Resource Archive

Conclusion

Nearly all studies agree that abandoned animals have hard lives. Owners who can no longer keep their animals would do best to give them to friends, rescue organizations, or shelters.

The amount of ecological damage done by indoor/outdoor cats depends on local conditions. Pet owners should contact veterinarians, ecological organizations, and universities for advice. Additionally cat owners should ask local experts about possible dangers from larger predators and infectious diseases. Coyotes kill large numbers of housecats in the Southwestern United States, even in urban zones. FELV (feline leukemia), FIV (feline immunodeficiency virus), or rabies may be present in the area.

In the face of conflicting evidence, the safe choice is to keep a cat indoors. Experts recommend a gradual transition to indoor life for cats who are accustomed to going outside. Durova 09:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Request for response I see an active edit history. Could I have a comment on the above research from a regular editor to this page? I saw a strong opinion on the talk page so I'm respecting the local editors. If no one responds I'll interpret that as a welcome to edit boldly. Durova 03:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Durova. Looks good to me. It seemed that the situation in Australia was of particular interest to some editors, so maybe they'll contribute a bit more about that. FreplySpang (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of "Do cats threaten the environment?" - this is what the experts are saying:-

This is what the Environment Australia says “Convincing evidence that cats exert a significant effect on native wildlife throughout the mainland is lacking (Dickman 1996; Jones 1989; Wilson et. al. 1992).

also

"From a strictly scientific viewpoint, the jury is out regarding cats because the necessary research has not been done." Richard Evans MP

and “Indeed, (cats) are one of the very few conservation issues that may actually be overrated.” Biologist Tim Low.

and "Despite the popular view that cats, both feral and domestic, pose a great threat to native wildlife, very little convincing information is available to support this view. " and “…quantitative data which decisively show the cat to be the single or even major cause of a species extinction or serious decline on the Australian mainland, have not been forthcoming.” Ric Nattrass Queensland National Parks & Wildlife Service

“Those few papers and studies which speculate that cats might be a threat to the Australian ecosystem present no evidence in support of this speculation.” Frankie Seymour researcher

“From a CSIRO viewpoint, we are not conducting any research on feral cats (as far as I know), so are not in a position to offer any theories, conjecture, speculation, proof or otherwise on the impact of cats on the environment. It seems to me that until the appropriate research has been done, no-one knows.” Monica van Wensveen Communication Officer CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Canberra

“There is no evidence yet produced in Australia that cats are a threat to the natural Australian ecosystem.” Gold Coast Bulletin 23rd April 2005 --WikiCats 15:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that this paragraph replace the section entitled Environmental effects.

Environmental issues

There are two divergent views about cats’ role and impact.

Some people say that predation by cats is having a negative effect on other animals. They claim that cats have caused some species to become extinct.

Other people say that this allegation has never been proven. They say that proving that cats are predators is not proof that they are having a damaging effect. They point out that cats have played a useful role in vermin control for centuries. They point out that for many animals, especially is urban areas, cats are the only animal available to fill the vital role of predator. Without cats these species would over populate. --WikiCats 14:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The above suggested section was posted for several days whilst under discussion. Other contributors made changes and this was the final version -

There are two divergent views about cats’ role and impact on biodiversity.

Some claim that predation by cats has a negative effect on other species, and that cats have caused some species to become extinct.

Those contending this emphasize that this allegation has never been proven. They say that damaging effects do not follow automatically from the fact that cats are predators. They point out that cats have played a useful role in vermin control for centuries, and that for many animals, especially in urban areas, cats are the only animal available to fill the vital role of predator. Without cats these species would over populate, they claim. --WikiCats 12:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring to my previous version. While this may or may not be a legitimate issue in mainland Australia, Wikipedia is a worldwide publication. Even the Australian cat defenders agreed that cat predation can be a legitimate issue in island ecosystems. Durova 22:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This version has very real problems with NPOV. It only puts one POV, that is that cats are guily. --WikiCats 03:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comment carries loaded language. One doesn't assign "guilt" or "innocence" outside the human species. The current version states that local conditions determine whether or not it is wise to let a cat outdoors, advises people to get opinions from local experts, and advises readers to seek new homes for the housepets they can no longer keep. The question of outdoor cats turns on several issues including disease and other species that kill cats. Surely no creature is "guilty" of rabies. Durova 11:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's somewhat difficult to follow your posts when they appear out of chronological order. Wikipedia policy does not set a standard of absolute proof for information. It relies on published findings from recognized sources. That is what I have done. In addition, the Convention on Biological Diversity stresses likelihood rather than certainty. From article 14: "Introduce appropriate arrangements to ensure that the environmental consequences of its programmes and policies that are likely to have significant adverse impacts on biological diversity..." [2]. Durova 17:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two distinct points of view. One that says that cats are destroying the environment and another that says that this has never been proven. Or to put in other language, one group of people say that cats are a credible threat and another group says that cats are no credible threat. In order that the Wikipedia has a Neutral Point Of View both sides have to put. --WikiCats 16:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The “Environmental issues” section needs to clearly state that there are two divergent views about the cat’s relationship to the natural environment. And then state those views. --WikiCats 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've received several posts to my talk page from User:Wikicats. Part of the most recent may be of interest to other editors.

My point is that there are not just three sites that support the “no credible threat” case. --WikiCats 01:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

When I ran my Google survey I posted a detailed explanation of my methodology to avoid this type of misunderstanding. Apparently that wasn't enough so I'll elaborate here. On the day I ran my there were only three unique sources that met Wikipedia:Citing sources and found no credible threat. I included only sites that had unique content. That is, several sites reprinted the American Bird Conservancy's conclusions. I listed the original source but not the duplicates. Since I read these sites in depth I covered only the top 50 Google results.

The predominance of sources that conclude a credible threat may reflect the current state of the Internet. Most of the results originated from the United States where three decades of research have studied the subject. Regional circumstances in the United States, particularly in Florida and Hawaii, might not be applicable elsewhere. Durova 02:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. If you like I can move those sites to join your list.

The point is that there are one group who have one point of view and there is another group who have another point of view. Some support the “credible threat” theory and some support “no credible threat”. The the purpose of Wiki, we have to present both views for NPOV. --WikiCats 04:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle. The result of my research indicated something more nuanced. Local conditions matter. For example, there appears to be consensus among encyclopedic sources that cats do pose a credible threat to biological diversity in Florida. This doesn't imply that equivalent conditions exist in England or Australia. Florida has several geographic and ecological features that make it distinctive. So it's NPOV to refer the reader to local experts. We as editors don't know whether a particular reader visits the page from London or Key Largo. Durova 10:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no difference between the debate in Australia and anywhere else. What struck me was that they are using that exact same phraseology that is used in Australia. Word for word. If conditions are different in Florida then why are they using the same theories.

But I believe that the argument should be put.

Something like: “Some people say that predation by cats is a threat to other species and that cats have caused some species to become extinct.” – You may wish to expand on this or to reference these people.

Then the other argument could be put. --WikiCats 04:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what sources you read. You claimed on my user page that scientific research has been conducted on this subject for only twelve years, after I stated and verified here that it goes back at least three decades. All but one of the links you posted to my user page either reprinted sources I already cited, were personal web pages, or were too short and unsourced to be of use. Your links were all advocacy groups rather than unbiased sources such as universities or general environmental organizations. Endangered species are local phenomena by definition. What is the source of your confidence for denying that and dictating the structure of the section, are you a scientist? Durova 08:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Above I have quoted Federal and State environmental departments as well as biologists, environmentalists and the CSIRO.

Fortunately it is not our job to prove one point of view or the other. Just to present both. --WikiCats 12:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The article already reflects the diversity of opinion, so that point is moot. What you are attempting is to restructure the section to reflect a personal belief that the issue of biological diversity has no local variation anywhere on earth. That would violate WP:NOR. Durova 18:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As has been established there is two points of view. One says that cats are a “Credible threat”; the other says that cats are “No credible threat”. Both sides need to be put. --WikiCats 10:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Repetition is not a useful form of editorial dialogue. I refer you to the above discussion. Durova 19:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The “No credible threat” point of view has to be portrayed. --WikiCats 10:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is sinking to the level of a debate between children where the opposing sides shout, Did not, Did too! Each time you raise that identical objection I endeavor to find some fresh angle by which to demonstrate its invalidity. I'll try one more time:

• I have located the executive summary from Environment Australia. You quote its statement about the threat level to the Australian mainland only, then claim it supports a POV that cats pose no credible threat to endangered species anywhere on earth. What you fail to quote is every other sentence from the same paragraph. Here they are: "There is strong evidence that feral cats have caused the decline and extinction of native animals on islands (Dickman, 1996). Feral cats have also been shown to thwart re-introduction programs for native species. Predation by feral cats is thought to have contributed to the extinction of small to medium-sized ground-dwelling mammals and ground-nesting birds in Australia’s arid zone, and to threaten the continued survival of native species that currently persist in low numbers." [3]
• Richard Evans MP is an Australian member of parliament. The wisdom of citing a politician about science is dubious. There are ethics issues about citing someone as saying the necessary research has not been performed, while failing to disclose that the statement was made ten years ago. I have located his full address in the records of the Australian parliament. It would be an understatement to say your quote was taken out of context. In that debate he actually elaborated at great length on the statement, "I am calling for the total eradication of domestic and feral cats from the Australian mainland and offshore islands by 2020." (17 October 1996) The statement about the jury being out on cats occurs where he quotes Mr. Jack Kennear in order to refute Mr. Kennear's opinion. Yet you attribute it not to Mr. Kennear but to Mr. Evans and assign it global significance. The way you present this is nothing short of dishonest. [4]
• Tim Low is a Queensland biologist. Far from asserting that cats pose no credible threat to the environment as you imply, his newsletter Feral Herald submitted the following statement to the Australian legislature in 2004, "28 native bird species are threatened or vulnerable due to invasive predators (principally foxes and cats)." [5]
• The Ric Natrass report refers only to Australian conditions, specifically Queensland, and its major objection is lack of scientific evidence. The report is 13 years out of date. [6]
• Frankie Seymour would be better characterized as an advocate than as a researcher. The quote you list comes from Animals Australia, an activist organization. I added this organization to the article's external links myself. His analysis concerns only Australian ecosystems, yet you want to extend its significance worldwide. The most recent reference he cites is 11 years old.
• Regarding Monica van Wensveen and CSIRO, "Foxes and cats can be a deadly combination against native wildlife and farm animals," leads a 1998 CSIRO press release. [7] Further down it amplifies the statement, "Rabbits, cats and foxes have caused enormous environmental and economic damage to Australia contributing to the extinction of many mammals."
• The only result on Google for your quote from the Gold Coast Bulletin is your own post to this talk page. I tried similar searches and uncovered nothing. Taking the statement at face value for the sake of debate, it says nothing about global conditions.

To summarize, none of your sources speculate about conditions outside Australia and several of them vigorously contradict your own opinions about Australian ecology. Taken together, these sources justify the NPOV approach I chose that recommends consultation with local experts. They provide no support whatsoever for a supposed viewpoint that conditions in Australia are the same as conditions everywhere else. That is your own unique opinion, derived through original research and the deliberate misreading of available evidence. You have spent six weeks pretending that it belongs in an encyclopedia. This is mistaken: it belongs on your own private website. Durova 22:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this is an argument for excluding any other point of view or opposing view or reply that differs from the point of view of the section that exists in the encyclopedia at present. --WikiCats 10:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It also seemed to you that 17 citations meant things they did not say. Your gripe is not with me but with WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Verifiability. My assumption of good faith has expired. If you were a genuine advocate of WP:NPOV then the feral cat section would at least state that a controversy exists regarding spay and release programs. I made every effort to engage in rational discussion. One by one every reason for continuing the debate (or even having started it) proved to be spurious. This dialogue is completely out of proportion to the two edits I made to the article. Durova 21:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason for this discussion:

In November 2005, WikiCats first raised a concern about the original section and said “There is no inclusion of an opposing view.” For that reason, FreplySpang said “I've removed the controversial section "Environmental effects" so that it can be discussed here.”

WikiCats gave some background information.

Contributor Durova examined the question “Are feral cats a threat to endangered species?” and divided the responses into those that claim cats are a credible threat and those that say cats are no credible threat.

The discussion is about resolving the issue that the opposing view or reply or other point of view was not included in the original section. That is: the case for “no credible threat”.

Consensus is dependant on that issue.--WikiCats 14:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The argument as I've heard it is that letting domestic cats outdoors has a negative impact on the songbird population (at least in North America), not the domestication of cats as a whole. As cats are a domesticated animal that receive medical care and are protected from predators themselves, this isn't really predation within nature. thx1138 10:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

For the sake of consensus I am happy to have the existing version as first case and the version last edited by Haakon as the other case. --WikiCats 12:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

archiving

I archived the page again, keeping the last five sections. The page was very long - 68 KB! When I copied into Microsoft Word for archiving, it was 24 pages long! Thelb⁴ 17:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Spiritual garbage

These silly spiritual traditions drive me crazy. Where does anybody get that ridiculous idea that black cats are "unlucky"? Scorpionman 02:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, having a "black cat cross your path" is a common superstition, like walking under a ladder. It's a valid point.--Offkilter 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Superstitions, legends and other associated material" is a useful subsection (could be added to other animals etc pages).

Jackiespeel 18:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've walked past numerous cats in my time, and my life is a living hell. Drumnbach 01:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've also walked past numerous cats in my lifetime (I live with two of them) and so far nothing abonormally bad has happened to me. You just need something on which to blame your problems, that's all. I can see a rational reason as to why a cat could cause bad luck (especially if you're a mouse). For instance, if you're on a ladder, and a black cat (or any color cat) walks under it and brushes against the side, it could cause the ladder to fall. But other than that, there's not many reasons why a cat would cause someone bad luck. What seems to be your problem, anyway? Scorpionman 17:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Silly or not, its a prevelant superstition -- there's some good background information on it here [8]. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Retractable Claws

I think there should be a mention of a cat's retractable claws in the Physical Characteristics section as this is a pretty salient characteristic of the cat.

What do you think? Hoof Hearted 19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible link

More for amusement than seriousness:

Kitten wars ("may the cutest kitten win") [[9]].

Jackiespeel 18:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Cat vocalization

Itsumou added the 'nya' sound as that is how the Japanese render the vocalization of cats. As folks who venerate Kami Neko as one of their main deities, they are the folks to know. ;) Chris 19:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, I figured it was some kind of joke (I'm very paranoid, and I see cat haters everywhere ;-). Still, this is the english Wikipedia, and the Japanese rendition holds no relevancy here. Haakon 09:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:"A cat does not "meow" at another cat. This sound is reserved for humans." Strictly this is true but it could be put in a better way. In the wild cats "meow" to other cats very infrequently. Cats learn very quickly that meowing to humans gets a responce. So domestic cats meow to humans very much more that they would in the wild. --WikiCats 08:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have never been around cats in a fight, cats in heat, male cats calling girls and kittens who've lost their mom. And that's just cat communication I can name off of the top of my head. They meow during all of those things and it has nothing to do with humans. This has already been discussed and is in the archives.Pschemp 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism

With cats who are improperly socialised and do not know their own strength, this can result in inadvertent damage to human skin

I'm not convinced that any cat has knowledge of its strength. I also suspect that the resultant damage is not inadvertent... 59.95.3.86 18:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)james

I believe what the author was going for was kittens learn how hard to bite through play with its litter mates. A kitten weaned too soon doesn't know how hard is too hard. De-clawing can also lead to biting issues since its defensive options have been reduced. You're right that the damage probably isn't accidental, but it's most likely protective rather than aggressive. Luckily, all of my cats are non-biters.Hoof Hearted 19:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't think a cat knows its strength, then you don't know any cats. Most of the cats I have ever come into contact with are very much aware of the fact that they can cut your skin, and they avoid it unless they are angry or perturbed. I guess they learn this early, in play. A cat can easily cut your skin, but no matter how rough they play this rarely happens. In my experience cats only break your skin if they are trying to. oneismany 23:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

True that; my cat bites and claws me when playing, and has never (well, almost never) broken my skin. And this is a cat who once regularly chomped down rats and birds, so obviously he's physically quite capable of causing great harm. ILike2BeAnonymous 23:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Footnote number three in the text is about Cypress, yet footnote number three in the references at the bottom of the page is about "spaying and neutering". The correct footnote is the first one on the list at the bottom of the page. I think it has to do with the "#" before each footnote. These are assigned from top to bottom independent of where the footnote appears in the text. Can someone explain how the footnote should be marked and how they should work? Is the "#" redundant? In Wikipedia:footnotes there are several rival systems mentioned. There is also no footnote one and two in the text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cat health category

How about a link to the Category:Cat health? I've been updating dog diseases and adding in cat info when I can, and then inserting a link to the cat health category. I understand not wanting to clutter up this great article with a whole section on cat diseases, but a link to that category would probably be appropriate. --Joelmills 04:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cat Project

I think a cats wikiproject should be initiated. There is much work to be done with all the breeds and there is a serious lack of pictures. --UVnet 13:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There is already one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cat breeds Pschemp | Talk 22:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This needs some kind of link. --UVnet 08:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

issues in the senses section

most developed?

I've taken out two mentions of the cat's being the mostly "advanced" or "developed" of the mammals when it comes to their senses - there is no reference given, and a quick websearch (though really I didn't put in much time) turned up nothing. anyone have a lead?

testing

Presumably cat sense researchers don't actually ask cats to name letters shown in a Snellen chart. Anyone know what's actually done? (If the methodology has a wp page, a link to it could replace the Snellen link)

field of view

It says here cats have 20º on us, but http://www.ski.org/Vision/Eyepage/cat.html says it's 70.º

sweetness

National Geographic is given as the source of the info that cats don't percieve sweetness... but the article isn't in the References section, and all we have is a month and day. Can anyone complete the ref? Eitch 00:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, we need more data on the faulty receptor gene in a cat. I can't explain this but my cat (rest her soul), was really big on sweets. She could tell when something sweet was nearby and would trample onto my lap (which for a large cat, quite amazing). All of us humans would have to move our desserts way up in the air to keep her from ploughing her cute little nose into our desserts.

If there is/was a study documenting the fact cats can not sense sweets, then I support the suggestion of posting the link too. ,,,,Ariele 02:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My cats will go after pastries and ice cream -- that is to say butter, milk, and whatever it is that makes bread a hit with them. Sugar itself doesn't do it for them. Eitch 20:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerns

Feral cat programs

The following passage neglects to address the controversies surrounding feral cat programs:

"However, there are thousands of volunteers and organizations that trap these unadoptable feral felines, spay or neuter them, immunize the cats against rabies and feline leukemia, and treat them with long-lasting flea products. Before release back into their feral colonies, the attending veterinarian nips the tip off one ear to mark the feral as spayed/neutered and inoculated, as these cats will more than likely find themselves trapped again. Volunteers continue to feed and give care to these cats throughout their lives, and not only is their lifespan greatly increased, but behavior and nuisance problems, due to competition for food, are also greatly reduced. In time, if an entire colony is successfully spayed and neutered, no additional kittens are born and the feral colony disappears. Many hope to see an end to urban feral cat colonies through these efforts."

Several of the links I listed above in the environmental effects discussion also discuss feral cat programs. At least in the United States, well intentioned programs may be in violation of several federal laws. Some environmentalists oppose feral cat programs because of possible risks to local endangered species. The American Veterinary Association notes that this is a mainstream controversy and expresses humane concern for abandoned housepets.

Another editor posted above to the effect that I seem to be blaming cats. I adore cats. However, an encyclopedia needs to maintain a neutral point of view. That means presenting both sides fairly. This is a featured article and the topic concerns endangered species.

Featured article status

I've considered nominating this at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. No one has responded to the post about footnotes by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) on 20 January. The first two line citations are still missing, which is a strong indication that the article still has all of the errors he notes. Featured articles of this length generally have more than 26 citations. Taken together with POV concerns about possible risks to endangered species, this may be a good article rather than the very best that Wikipedia can offer. I'm expressing these concerns here in the hope of seeing them addressed without formal action. Regards, Durova 06:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger of cat breed

Merge since there is a lengthier bit at Cat#Varieties of domestic cat, the smaller one reads as a stub and would be better suited back here. Chris 02:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge I would recommend against merge since cat breeds is a matter of a human community of fanciers rather than anything inherent in cats themselves; if anything, some of the information in the "varieties of domestic cats" might be better suited to the breed section, since the subject of cat breeds is not strictly scientific. It is a relatively recent phenomenon which did not exist in the West until the end of the 19th century, and did not really become common until after WWII. Even today, to most people, the idea of breeding cats is a bit strange and so the whole issue of cat breeds is really of sociological interest.68.163.182.227 22:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Joel, unregistered user

Do not merge The cat article is already too large, without merging in all sorts of specifics about cat breeds. Psychofox 20:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. Article is probably too long right now. --Rory096 04:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge cat article already too long. also, the cat breeds have nothing to do with the cat species --GeorgeMoney 06:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge per above length objection. The Rod (☎ Smith) 06:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not mergeThe cat page does not need to be any larger

Removed merge suggestion - because of no significant support. Psychofox

Reverse merge direction

Per above, since this article is already too long, I propose to reverse the direction of the merge, i.e. to move most the content from Cat#Varieties of domestic cat to the Cat breed article, leaving only a brief summary and a link to that article. The Rod (☎ Smith) 06:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. I agree Psychofox 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Capital. That is exaclty what this article needs. pschemp | talk 11:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

purr link

Aren't you going to link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purr to all the purr spots below other than the first spot?

The 'anal' mentionings could be compacted into one spot.

intelligence

There needs to be a section on cats' intelligence, as they are not just sentient but self-aware, they mourn, they have senses of humor, and their IQ is comparable to that of humans. With 12% the size of our brains, (and we only use about 10%, and half of that is consumed with the concept of time-something that does not constrain cats), they use more of their brains than we do. Chris 00:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that we use 10% of our brains.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm --M1xmast3r 00:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

But it is true that cats are far more intelligent than humans :-). Unfortunately I can't see how any of that can be proven. How can cats possibly be reliably said to have a 'higher IQ' when we can't even devise an IQ test whose answers don't depend on being from the Western Hemisphere, let alone being a human?

Though anecdotally, Chris is right. They do mourn - my cousin's cat didn't get over her brother's death for about 7 years (half her life span). Not sure about the sense of humour. Depends if you define cats' immense capacity for sadism (pushing broken and dying mice to make them start moving again, not to mention sitting on humans the moment they look like getting up etc) as a sense of humour. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

cats are mammels and nothing more

cats are not birds like someone once said. They're not fish either.

Carnivorous mammals! They're also soft, we should definitely add that to the lead! Kitty 03:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Question about Neighbor Cats

Is there a way to tell if a cat has rabies, so that I can not be afraid of approaching it? In other words, are there cases where a cat would not show the typical signs of having rabies (agression, drooling, rabid), but still have it? Perhaps in the very early stage of it getting the virus (or maybe even during vaccination)? Also, if a cat is vaccinated, thus showing no signs of having rabies; if you are scratched/bitten by the cat, would you still get rabies? I was recently playing with this neighbourhood cat, (it had a collar and seemed to be either currently domesticated, or WAS domesticated but escaped and is now feral); however, that doesn't really matter, since the cat could STILL have rabies. The cat showed no signs of having rabies (typical signs); I am unaware of other symptoms, so I'm unsure... The cat had accidentally scratched me very slightly; and it was only later that I noticed the skin had a trace amount of blood; as tiny as a paper cut. I'm thinking a scratch of that small magnitude can still deliver rabies? Also, the cat has a habit of taking hold of your hand, and giving it a gentle "gnaw" or bite; sort of in a playful manner. I don't believe any blood was drawn, but some skin was scratched; similar to when a person scratches his own hand with his nails; not enough to draw blood, but still a scratch... Again it was until later had I noticed this, so IF blood was drawn, it may have already healed/been washed off. Based on what I've seen; and the little I know about this particular cat or rabies-symptoms in general, I'm thinking the cat may STILL have rabies (albeit there are no symptoms), and am afraid that his playful bite/gnawing or accidental scratch may have transfered rabies to me. I am also worried about other diseases like cat scratch fever, etc.

To answer your question, it is very rare for cats to carry rabies (in my area anyway, I live in Illinois). Also transmission is almost always through a bite, because the virus is in the saliva. However, an animal does not have to be showing signs of rabies for it to transmit it to someone, although they will start showing signs in at most ten days. That's why in cases of a cat not vaccinated for rabies the cat is usually impounded for ten days, to watch for symptoms. So, assuming the cat did actually break the skin when it bit you, you should try to figure out who the owner is and if the cat was vaccinated. If you report it to Animal Control, they will still recommend the cat get checked out by a vet now and in ten days, depending on where you live. If you report it and the cat has no owner, it will probably need to be euthanized to find out if it is rabid. All you can do to prevent other infections from cat bites and scratches is clean them really well. --Joelmills 03:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even if I was to see the cat again within 10 days after the bite; and it showed no signs of having rabies; it could be that perhaps the owner vaccinated it as a response to the rabies symptoms (which I may of not witnessed); that would mean that although, 10 days later the cat looks fine, I may still be infected; since the cat may have already been treated then without my knowing. Also, I've read in the article that symptoms could take years to finally appear in humans... So what should I do? I don't know who the owner is. The above situation is unlikely... but, is it a possiblity? I do not want to take this chance.

It doesn't work that way. If a cat is infected with rabies, vaccinating him will NOT make the symptomps go away, nor is there currently a cure for the cat (it is always fatal). If you suspect a cat to have rabies, wait 10 days, and no matter waht, if he is infected, it will display signs no matter what you do to it. --Ramdrake 18:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lice

I HAVE TWO CATS AND MY SON GOT LICE , COULD HE HAVE GOTTEN IT FROM OUIR CATS? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.56.13.92 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-17 15:12:19 (UTC)

No, lice are species specific, meaning that humans only get human lice. So he probably got it from another kid. --Joelmills 19:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Help! with article formatting (infobox positioning)

Can someone move those stupid little infoboxes near the bottom of the article? They cover up the "edit" link for the "External links" section, so you have to edit the whole damn article to edit that section. --ILike2BeAnonymous 23:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved 'em around a bit; they shouldn't cover the links up anymore. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Flying cats

Is it true that, when falling, cats will reach a terminal velocity at 60mph and will spread out like flying squirrels and glide to safety?

Yes, of course; and they can do this nine times before dying. --ILike2BeAnonymous 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Image gallery

There are tons of nice pictures about cats on wikicommons. What about creating a cat photogallery by the end of the article? Many other articles have their image gallery, for instance the russian version of the cat article. Of course, this does not mean moving images to the bottom. This just means ADD up some images. The article is quite long yet, but images should not be considered in the article lenght (people surfing with very slow connections do not see images anyway). gala.martin (what?) 02:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and try something. By the way, I don't know where you got that idea that people with very slow connections (like dialup) "do not see images"; that's ridiculous. We do; it just takes a lot longer. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 03:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Every one can set any browser not to load images. For instance, in firefox just select Tools, then Options, Contents and you can see the Load images option. Some people (expecially the ones surfing from Africa) do not load images, due to their extremely slow or unstable connections. Since I believe Wikipedia should be available for as many people as possible, we should avoid too long articles, or other stuff that will need at least a 56K connection to be viewed in reasonable time. Fortunately, images can be added with no problems.

Ok, I will try to add something. Since this is a featured article, I will wait for a while, if anybody has some points. gala.martin (what?) 12:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The image gallery project has been abandoned (by me), since there is already a link with a related cat-gallery on wikipedia. gala.martin (what?) 19:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dozens of breeds of domestic cats

The intro says just as above, that there are dozens of breeds of domestic cats. I know this is absolutely correct nomenclature-wise, as we are talking about the subspecies felis sylvestris cattus. However, to the neophytes, this may seem like a contradiction in terms. Moreover, in several languages, domestic (or its equivalent) is actually equated to non pure-breds (moggie cat). I would like to suggest, for the sake of simplicity, to just state that there are dozens of breeds of cats. I think it's quite clear that the focus of the article is the domestic cat as opposed to the wild cat. --Ramdrake 19:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. (By the way, is "moggie cat" a Britishism? We [Merkins] would say "mongrel" or "mutt", the latter usually applied to dogs.) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The term comes from somewhere in the United Kingdom, that I've been told. I'm also told it's one of the most widely used terms for a mongrel (non purebred). Not that I would know first hand, as I'm one of those quaint North Americans just to the north of you guys who as a first language speaks a totally different language from Europe. :) --Ramdrake 15:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Varieties of domestic cats

Can someone who's good with page editing try to size or place the images in this section so they don't cause these great gaps that we see in the text? I'd do it, except I really don't have that kind of skill with editing Wikipedia pages yet. Thanks! --Ramdrake 16:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

History and Mythology

The sound a cat makes when walking was used to make the ribbon which bound Fenrir the wolf, son of Loki. The brige to Asgard was a Rainbow. A quick glance at some of the Wikipedia articles on Norse mythology would reveal this, as would quick reading of any book on Norse mythology in your local library. I'll be re-editing my reverted edit now.

Looks like he's right, see Fenrir and [10]. I changed it back again. --Joelmills 01:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Image

Who thinks we should put commons:Image:Cats Sleeping GeorgeMoney.jpg in the page somewhere? --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 02:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only if the red eye is removed first. Perhaps the image could be linked in with a paragraph about cat companionship or sibling affection? Richardbooth

With respect, I'd prefer the red-eye to stay in there, as it illustrates the reflectivity of the cat retina. Of course, I'd like that mentioned in the caption too. Nice photo. Just find the right place for it, with good context - it's hard to have too many photos of cats (in my very biased opinion). — Estarriol ^talk 18:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Or we should put some images from the Wikipedia:Cat Lovers' Committee's image subpage (the link to the subpage can be found on the page). --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 22:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be my preference that we images to illustrate the text, not text to justify the inclusion of images... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.59.251 (talk • contribs) .

What was the problem with this edit?

"Cats have become more vocal through time when they have become domesticated. They have learnt that humans communicate more through vocal than body language."

I expect that's likely true. I appreciate it's an uncited fact, but was that the only reason for the revert? — Estarriol ^talk 07:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it's mostly false. Cats in nature use a great deal of vocalization with each other. And as far as cats are concerned, I would say humans probably communicate with them as much with body language as they speak to them. Not only is it unsourced, but it looks very much like anthropomorphization and POV. Respectfully, sorry. --Ramdrake 13:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with anthropomorphism? If it means that cats, being closely related to humans, are likely to similar to humans, and that it is differences, rather than similarities, that need being argued for, it seems quite reasonable.

There is a problem with the absence of supporting references for the assertions made by Estarriol. However, I find the idea interesting and it could be included in a less affirmative way. David Olivier 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Anthrophomorphism means that you assign thoughts, feelings, behaviours to animals (in this case cats) derived from the way humans act or react. That's usually inaccurate, and certainly not objective. --Ramdrake 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite what I meant by anthropomorphism. I see no reason to believe that it is "usually inuaccurate". There is a tradition (going back at least to Descartes) to believe that it is, but I see no reason to. Ironically, its inacuracy rests more on anecdotal data and ideological bias than on facts. Cats are mammals like us, and have a brain that has just about the same structure as ours, and their behavior is easily perceived as analogous to ours. In most cases, by far, that assumption is correct. David Olivier 17:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Cats are reasonably intelligent animals, but their ancestors are nocturnal predators, while ours were diurnal fruit eaters (before they became omnivores). While the overall brain structure is similar, our cerebral cortex is about 10-20 times the size of theirs, not to mention our brains are quite a bit more complex. There are similarities, but there are differences. I don't think it is proven that wild cats vocalize far less than domesticated ones -provided we talk about cats in colonies, or that they increased their vocalization to communicate with us. That woud be lending them a purpose (socialization with an "alien" species - us) we can absolutely not be sure about. That's why I was saying the sentence was anthropomorphizing cats. --Ramdrake 18:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If we get down to details, we can agree that there are differences between cats and humans. That is obvious. We can also agree that it is not proven that cats have increased their vocalization following contact with humans. What I objected to was the vacuous use of the term "anthropomorphism". The problem, for instance, is certainly not with the attribution of purpose to cats. It seems to me quite clear that cats have purposes, and that among their purposes is that of socializing with humans. Some don't, but many clearly do want to socialize with humans. Or perhaps you wish to deny any purpose, and any mental properties generally, to all non-human animals? That is a very strange idea indeed, even if it was held by Descartes and others. If that is what you wish, I think half the article should be deleted. It is completely full of attributions of purpose and other mental properties. Example: "Usually cats call out to indicate pain, request human attention (to be fed or played with, for example), or as a greeting.". David Olivier 19:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is, the passage was originally written as if cats 1)used to be less vocal and then became more vocal 2)that was done purposedly by cats in order to better communicate with humans, as our main mode of communication (with each other)is vocal. The passage was written as if to say: "humans communicate between themselves mostly through language; cats saw that and they became more vocal to be able to better communicate with us". My point is, none of it is proven. Fact is, cats living in colonies, feral or not, are reasonably vocal with each other (challenge calls, mating calls, warning calls, etc.) to start with. Also, when we communicate with cats, whether we perceive it or not, our communication is as much if not more body language and attitude than words (holding a cat, petting a cat, playing with them, etc.) But I believe we're straying from the point of this. I definitely didn't want to start a debate. --Ramdrake 20:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to make it clear that they're not my assertions at all - I just noticed them being removed in a recent edit and wanted to know if they are known to be not true, etc. I'd like to be able to advise the original editor that supplied those assertions to find a verifiable source - but I don't want to if there's another reason it was reverted. — Estarriol ^talk 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've invited the user who made the edit I'm referring to, Emmajaneyoung, to join us in the discussion here. Hopefully she can shed some light on this matter. — Estarriol ^talk 17:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

moving comment to talk page

cats are the most precious thing in your life and some of them have shiny coats as a distrubute to the law and affences to their owners.By Danielle Rose Kelly ,aged 9. [11]

That's very nice. Now learn how to spell (and how to construct a meaningful sentence) before posting anything else here. This is a place for grown-ups to write encyclopedic-like things. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not bite newcomers. If she wanted to write, let her write... she didnt damage the article did she? You, by insulting her, might have just scared away a potential great editor. --217.129.205.214 10:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, it's a chance we'll have to take, isn't it? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 08:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we semi-protect this page for the next few days?

Just think maybe we should semi-protect this page (you have to log in to edit) for a few days, considering the very large amount of vandalism perpetrated against it over the last few days. I don't understand why, as I don't think cats are a controversial subject. Thoughts, anyone? --Ramdrake 20:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do. I feel strongly about vandalism as it is, and the vandalism to this page recently has been beyond the pale. Please note that I'm biased - I believe that all edits should require a login anyway. — Estarrioltalk 21:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested. Anyone wanting to edit will need to be a logged in, registered user. This should help. --Ramdrake 22:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please protect. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 23:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think 'cat' is the first page that comes to mind when people go looking for an article, like, some smarty who wants to leave their mark on a page has a go at 'cat' because it's the first thing they think to type into the Wiki search engine.--Kbbbb 14:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I was thinking of letting the semi-protection run until May 3, a week from the moment this page got protected. Anyone, comments, opinions? They are more than welcome! --Ramdrake 13:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If I were to be standing on my soapbox, I'd argue that Featured Articles should be permanently semi-protected. Why not? — Estarriol ^talk 16:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, folks, what you're seeing is the future of Wikipedia. It's not going to last long in its present incarnation, where any idiot can waltz in the front door and fuck things up. So yes, it would make a lot of sense to protect it permanently.

Think about it: Wiki-apologists say things like "well, yes, things get vandalized, but because of the number of vigilant editors, vandalism is quickly eradicated". Well, maybe; but consider this aspect: even if this is true, it still means that many articles spend a significant amount of time in a vandalized state. The user who views a page before it's reverted or cleaned up sees a malformed page, possibly with misinformation. What kind of way is that to run what's supposed to be a reliable source of information? Not a tenable situation. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 19:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

However, judging from the pages I am watching (some of them very controversial), vandalism gets reverted usually within 5-15 minutes. That can't be counted as a "significant" amount of time. I understand what you mean, though. However, in reality there are enough people who care about the content of Wikipedia that vandalism doesn't last long here. --Ramdrake 20:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we now unprotect the page? The incidences of vandalism have died down. --Ramdrake 14:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys have had a good run with the sprotection, Dog is taking the brunt of the mischief. I just requested protection for Dogs; therefore, if you cats is opened, it may get hit just a tinny bit more. I would like to see if there is a correlation to the amount of attack between the two articles based on one being open and one being semi protected. Besides, it is has been protected for a good litte time and it should be ready to see if there are anons ready to contribute. --Supercoop 15:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

link to Bosnian language page

Could someone please add the link to the bosnian language page [[bs:Mačka]]? Thank you -- Benjamin

Link to Funny cat pictures by Bdelisle

I don't think an encyclopedia should have a link to Funny cat pictures that was added by Bdelisle. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Should we remove the link? --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 22:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Always be bold, and especially when removing non-encyclopedic links. Haakon 22:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 23:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kot Leni.jpg

I hate this image: Image:Kot Leni.jpg. I think we should take it off the page. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 23:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me why do you hate the image please. I don't find particularly appealing\cute but I do find it has some encyclopedic value for the article. --Chaos Reaver 10:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is just really ugly. Can't we get a better image to show a cat smelling? --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 19:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What, is there some kind of requirement that all cat pictures have to be cute? I kind of like that picture, in a perverse way. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 19:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be "cute", but that picture just looks weird. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup-IPA

I removed the {{cleanup-ipa}} template, which seems to be meant for the pronunciation of "meow". Animal sounds are hard to describe exactly, and cannot be specified via IPA codes. RexNL 21:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

From the "History and mythology" section

Interestingly, the symbol used to represent a cat in hieroglyphs, and the word used for "cat" in everyday Egyptian parlance, was pronounced as "miaow".

Is this there because its history or mythology? Lars T. 20:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

cats as food

There is nothing in this entry about cats being used as a food source in some human societies. I came here looking for information on that topic and, of course, found none. I request that someone more knowledgeable on this subject than myself add any relevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.102.222 (talk • contribs)

Image:Mackerel tabby.jpg

This pic has some serious image problems. It needs to be removed --Fir0002 www 06:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What are the problems you see with the image? It looks appropriate to me. --Ramdrake 13:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm not disputing it's appropriateness, I'm just saying that the image quality is atrocious. Over exposure, blurring, severe chromatic abberation, noise, low image res and a poor choice of background make it an extremely poor image; especially when considering the vast amount of photos there must be on shot a common subject. Have a quick look on flickr if there's nothing much on the commons: [12] --Fir0002 www 10:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I kind of think it's ok, and I also think it is bad. This picture is good, but it has lighting issues looks very homemade like it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. But, if we were to vote on its removal, I would vote keep. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 22:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Talking Cats

I was asked to discuss where I got some information from which I added to the CATS page but someone keeps taking it off.

I have learnt over my few years through books etc that cats used to use body language more than they do know and have developed sounds more as they have become domesticated. One of the body language books I have read talking about this is from a author called Vicky Halls. She is a animal behaviourist and her books are well worth a read.

Emmajaneyoung

Image

User:Simpsons contributor keep replacing Image:Cat cleaning itself.jpg with Image:Rupertscanjpg.JPG. If he wants to make substantial changes like that, he has to discuss it on the talk page. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 23:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

LAST CHANCE TO VOTE

We need to archive this page again. If no one opposes, I will do it on Friday, May 5 UTC.

Should we archive?

Tally:(2/1/0)

Votes close on: 0:0 May 5, 2006 UTC

Support

1. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 04:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
2. suport --71.130.15.111 18:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Ramdrake --Ramdrake 14:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral