Talk:Cat/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Pictures on the page

I don't know how to go about this, but I think it would be nice to put a warning atop this page asking people not to replace pictures already in the article with a picture of their favorite pet. There are litterally millions of cat pictures out there, and the pictures on this page have been selected relative to how well they illustrate the subject being discussed in the different sections of the article, and because of their visual quality too. Wikipedia is not a blog for people to post a picture of their favorite cat. It is an encyclopaedia. (Getting off my soapbox!). --Ramdrake 14:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of the images on this page could be moved into a gallery at the end of the article, but even so there should be some guidelines for what is and is not an encyclopedic picture of a cat. I'd say an image in the main body of the article should illustrate something explicitly discussed in the text, and the gallery should show one example each of some of the major breeds/coloration patterns. User:Angr 15:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The main picture of the cat is really bad. it should be changed. I put up a far better one, and it was removed. This is just dumb. [[[User:Lib3rtine|Lib3rtine]] 18:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)]

Lib3rtine's cat picture

Wheras in my opinion, the main image was a perfect example of your common moggy (at least as found in Britain. On Wikipedia, 'better' is the group concensus, not your own personal opinion. If the community decide to change the image to yours, or another one, then so be it. But the images featured on cats are so regularly changed that any change without group concensus will most likely be considered vandalism. LinaMishima 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Put it up here, on the talk page, and you can discuss it with the editors. --Ramdrake 18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought everybody is an editor here? That cat picture is very bad. It is of poor technical quality, and there's literally millions of better free pictures of said animal on the internet. Lib3rtine 20:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can edit, but just like in life, it is polite to listen to the views of others. Without concensus, we risk chaos. Personally, I believe cat_outdoor to be of goo technical quality, having the entire of the cat in focus, whilst whitecat appears to have been taken to emphise the face alone. In terms of suitablity for an article describing cats in gereral, including feral cats, indoor cats and outdoor cats, cat_outside provides the better compromise (in my personal opinion). LinaMishima 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:IUP, WP:EP and WP:NOT LinaMishima 20:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the new one better. 162.83.242.242 21:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Given a choice, I too would find Cat_outside.jpg more appropriate, for all the reasons stated above, plus the "typicality" of having a tabby cat (which is the most common type of domestic cat). Also, the fact that no part of the animal is emphasized (contrary to whitecat.jpg) is better suited for an encylopaedic article.--Ramdrake 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see the cat's legs or tail in the current photograph. Why can't we include a picture of the entire cat if that is a requirement? Lib3rtine 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can take an appropriate photo, then please upload it so that we may discuss it here. Hunting on the internet for a photo may often result in WP:IUP being breached. LinaMishima 20:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a complete idiot, and didn't know i couldn't just steal copywrited pictures! Lib3rtine 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Cat outside" is a much better picture than "Whitecat", as the entire cat is shown and in focus, and it could as easily represent a feral cat as a domestic one. User:Angr 08:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just saw that the source of Whitecat is licensed under a Creative Commons license allowing noncommercial use only. Such licenses aren't allowed at Wikipedia, so the image had to be deleted. User:Angr 08:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Landing on its feet, sources?

"Certain breeds that don't have a tail are a notable exception, since a cat moves its tail and relies on conservation of angular momentum to set up for landing." This is certainly incorrect, if I'm reading it right; my manx always lands on its feet, and several websites say that it is a cats inner ear, not it's tail, that controls its landng. Example: http://members.aol.com/manxlines2/ml/manx_faq.html, question number 10.

• I've broken this part off into its own section, which hopefully will encourage more sources. I've added one about failure to land. --M@rēino 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice WP:BOLD editing! I'll try to recall to do a journal paper hunt on this at some point. LinaMishima 21:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Page protection?

Given that this article seems to suffer from a few vanalism edits a night (often image changes), I suspect Cat would make a goo candidate for some level page protection. The article itself seems fairly complete, and any significant changes are apparently being disgussed here. Any thoughts? LinaMishima 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection would only be called for if there was ongoing vandalism we were having a hard time keeping on top of. The Kitten Vandal vandalizes this page maybe once a day before getting his latest sock blocked indefinitely, so for now I think we're good. User:Angr 07:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Some kind of revision which does not appear in the edit page.

This is what the article for cat shows. Note the bolded section. When I tried to delete this part, I could not find it on the "edit this page." Any thoughts?

They communicate by calling ("meow"/"miaou"), purring, hissing, growling, chirping, clicking, grunting, and about a hundred other vocalizations and body language.[3] Cats in colonies use a mix of vocalizations and body language to communicate with each other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.86.202 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It was fixed about twenty minutes ago. Refresh the page: force your browser to load it again and not from your computer's cache (command differs with different browsers/platforms). Antandrus (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Eyesight

Testing indicates that a cat's vision is superior at night in comparison to humans, and inferior in daylight.

Sorry, but this is just false. A cat's vision is still superior to humans during the day. —Viriditas | Talk 11:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the source of the test cited? What I've always heard (but I don't have sources to back it up) is that cats have trouble seeing things that aren't moving (which is why they often bob their heads from side to side when looking at something), and that they're quite nearsighted compared to humans (can't see clearly more than a few meters away). That doesn't sound like it's superior to human vision at all. User:Angr 11:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of that makes sense, but I can tell you that my cat can catch moving lizards at a distance of between 10-15 meters in broad daylight, which honestly blows my mind. I can't see anything that small moving at more than a distance of 6 meters. I know, it's all anecdotal, but there it is. —Viriditas | Talk 12:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's the movement that's crucial. Your cat can see a moving lizard at 10-15 meters, but you can't; but maybe you can see a still lizard at 5 meters, but your cat can't. User:Angr 12:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but isn't it silly for us to say it's superior/inferior? That's really what I'm on about. —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think it is beyond the scope of modern science to use the words superior/inferior.--LifeOfWar 06:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say vision is too broad a term to to make that qualification.Lars T. 16:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have similarly read (although it was not what I would consider a necessarily scholarly source and I am unable to cite it because I can't remember the name of the book) that cats have trouble seeing things that aren't moving. --LifeOfWar 06:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading that cats are unable to visually distinguish the face of one human from another and that they recognize humans by smell. There inability to distinguish faces however is not an indication that their vision is poor but instead that their ability to see and hunt relies more on the detection of motion, possibly at the sacrifice of non-movement image resolution. Can anybody verify/comment on this?--LifeOfWar 06:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I read that Whites can't tell apart Chinese by there faces; does that mean they have selective bad vision?Lars T. 16:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the vertical slit admits more light in exchange for losing vertical resolution? That should be a sensible tradeoff for a cat, they're quite interested in seeing something scurry across in the dark.

Declawing and scratching

The following line was anon-added to the article. I suspect it is true, and as such would be a useful to prevent the idea of declawing as being a behavior modifier rather than a results modifier. Omicronpersei8 believes that the line is not worth having in the article. Rather than simply revert the change again, I felt it more sensible to prompt a discussion. What does everyone else think?

Most cats will still scratch things, but it will not leave any marks. The only reason you know that they are doing it is a faint noise.

LinaMishima 02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel your point is a very good one, and should be included in the article. I just don't think this person's addition was quite that well-conceived. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I tend to have very serious doubts about this addition, being the reason for a cat to claw (the behavior is usually also called stropping) is to break off any part of the claw which has become blunted, so as to sharpen it again (consider the analogy of an X-acto knife: you break off the tip to get a new, sharp, clean blade). Keeping that in mind, the cats need to exert pressure on the claws for them to break off and regenerate the sharp edge. Usually, that pressure should leave marks on most materials softer than the claw itself, which would include pretty much all fabrics, most woods and a few other things.--Ramdrake 03:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And flesh. 167.24.104.150 06:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

However I do recall something about scratching also being a marking behaviour, and it is certainly an instinctual one. I currently feel we should wait for evidence before re-inserting. LinaMishima 03:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture removal

This picture: 'Domestic shorthair tabby' is really poor. It low resolution, only 480x640 and the cat itself is tiny. It doesn't contribute anything to the article and is clearly a vanity post. Why do people insist on putting rubbish pictures of their cats on this page? Sorry this is a bit harsh, but I removed and someone stuck it back in. I've been monitoring this article for 18month now and have removed many poor quality vanity postings. It is a thankless task, but it's the reason why pretty much every image adds something to the article. I'll take it out in a day or two, unless there are any well reason arguments as to why it should stay. 87.194.59.251 22:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's poor quality and the cat is tiny in the picture, I agree. However, since it is a picture of a domestic shorthair tabby (likely the most common type of domestic cat in existence), I feel another one should be put in its place. And unfortunately, it not per se a "breed" of cat, so wouldn't fit in that section. Can someone find a good picture of a DSH tabby cat to put in its place? Thanks in advance.--Ramdrake 22:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that there is an article with even more pictures than the article about cats in German wikipedia. It seems that every single internet user insists on having their cat pictured in the wikipedia article. Not only does this contribute almost nothing to the article, on top of that the most pictures are of poor quality.

Did I mention that I have some very good pictures of my cat? I captured her in almost 23 slightly differing sleeping positions! This is a must for this article! --StimpsonDE 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree most strongly. I've been checking in on this articles for a couple of years now and every time I leave it for a couple of months a couple more vanity images (My Cat is in wikipedia OMG!!!!) sneak in, usually with some thinly veiled justification. A couple of years ago the situation go so bad the article became protected and was left this way for several months, it took weeks of careful negotiation to sort it out. Psychofox 19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why I generally revert any non-discussed image changes, be they additions or removal. Articles on pets constantly see vanity images appear on them, and bikering in one form or another over existing images (often as a prelude to putting forward their own pet's image). LinaMishima 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just don't believe that bit...

I added this section because i couldn't find anywhere else to say this: I don't know if it should be changed but i just don't believe a cat can eat a whole sock. Dogs suck. Cats rule. 18:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC) David Cat

Surely the paragraph on a cats gait being the same as a camel is either ill informed or vandalism! Slow motion video of my cats shows them walking with a the typical gait of a quadruped. Davidjs 05:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your cats must be weird then. Watch it carefully -- cats step with the rear leg then the front leg on the same side before doing the same on the other side. howcheng {chat} 16:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In Response to "To Do List": Reference to Finnish term for cat

The reference to "katti" being a Finnish word for cat was in the sentence where the derivation of the term cat was being described. "The word cat derives from Old English catt,..." Since "kissa" doesn't sound like "cat" the way "katti" or the other words did, it seemed just easier to cut out the Finnish reference in that sentence. That all right? -- Wishkres 00:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Cat photos on flickr

There are a lot of junk photos on this article (sorry if that's harsh - but I feel it's true). Have a look in flicr: [1] [2] [3] [4] for a start --144.139.163.177 12:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The last three can't be used here because they're licensed for noncommercial use only. The first one has an acceptable license, but I don't see that it's superior to the existing pictures. User:Angr 13:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Important, but missing, history issue

Cats have been variously thought to have become associated with people in Egypt, or perhaps Mesopotamia, some 3-4000ya. This appears to be wrong as anrecent excavation in Cyprus demonstates close association around 9000ya. This should be mentioned in the history seciton. I've gone throught the archived talk, and, as nearly as I can tell, this has only been mentioned here once. Should be added now.

It bears on the question of cats' domestication as a species. In all that time, likely most of it humans have interfered with cat reproduction (though it's harder to do than with dogs) and yet cats are still wild in form and essentially in behavior as well. They show little or none of the common changes in both that other domesticated animals do (cattle, dogs, sheep, etc).

But, whether this somewhat hard to explain (and uncertain meaning) is issue is mentioned at all, the fact of the Cyprus burial excavation should be here. ww 04:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a reference to the cat having been domesticated over 8,000 ya at the beginning of the article, complete with reference (pointing to the findings in Cyprus). And I'm afraid you can't by any stretch of the imagination call cats "still wild in form and essentially in behavior as well". That has more to do with a common misconception than reality. If you're talking about the ability to survive and thrive in the wild, it is shared by at least dogs and horses (excluding of course the urban habitat for horses). If you're talking about the diversity and number of breeds, while there are fewer breeds than dogs, the number of cat breeds today (including extinct breeds and those still in development) numbers between 200 and 300.--Ramdrake 13:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If the ref includes mention of the Cyprus grave (I haven't looked), why isn't the "since" shown as 9500 rather than 8000? I've tried several times to add a line specifically about the Cyprus grave, but it keeps getting wiped out by reversions, presumably in response to vandalism. It's very annoying. Katzenjammer 10:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the ref used in the article says 8000, not 9500 years. If you have one that places the age of the burial at 9500 yo, please feel free to substitute it. As a rule of thumb, if it's already covered in a ref, there is no reason to add an entire paragraph about the fact, as the article is already quite long.--Ramdrake 19:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added back the sentence (not a paragraph) and included a cite (National Geographic) for the 9500yo age. I can only hope it doesn't get wiped out on the next de-vandalisation. Katzenjammer 16:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Kucing galak/Acalypha Indica plant

Kucing Galak is the name of a plant commonly found in northen areas of Peninsular Malaysia. It literally translates to Amorous Cat. Its roots are very attractive to adult male cats, and it is believed to increase the sexual propensity of the cats that eat it.

Unfortunately this is anecdotal, and while I can certainly get male cats to chase me around if I have some (they really, really like it), I couldn't find any publications on it except for a newspaper article in Bahasa Melayu (Malay Language). I wonder if it is approriate to put in? Xiorlanth 09:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like it would enhance the article, but it can't go in without a source. However, I went looking and found two news references that discuss its affect on cats in english :) [5], [6]. I would say those would qualify as reliable sources to add a tidbit on the plant to the article if you'd like to. Shell ^babelfish 09:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Being in a non-English language doesn't make a source unreliable, assuming it's a reliable source in every other sense. Though given two sources with the same information and reliability, obviously the English one is preferable in this encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems this needs more research. Kucing Galak itself has few links, But the scientific name has turned up way too much information, including some studies on cats. Xiorlanth 00:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cat allergies

How come there is nothing in the article mentioning allergies caused by cat? I personally know people who become allergic even being in a room that used to house a cat. --Kvasir 02:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ear nonsense

The picture with the caption: A half-Siamese kitten showing the ears he inherited from his mother. is surely a vanity post. All cats have ears... What's so special about that one? Did the father not have ears? I'm going to remove the image shortly.

'Tis not nonsense: Siamese are known for their larger-than-average ears among domestic cats. This one's ears do look like he may be half-siamese, although their placement isn't quite right. Assuming that it is indeed his mother who was a full-blooded Siamese, the captipon makes sense. I'm not saying anything about quality, though. But yes, to someone who knows cat breeds, it's absolutely not nonsense.--Ramdrake 02:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't presume that anon knows nothing about cat breeds...! The image could /maybe/ stay if the caption read something like 'Siamese cats usually have large ears as this half Siamese kitten illustrates'. But really, the point would be much illustrated with a picture of a full Siamese... Psychofox 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Calico image

I'd like to switch out Image:Cordelia.JPG with another calico image. First, there's already a picture of a van calico slightly above this, and besides, this one is pretty blurry. I originally picked Image:Satine.jpg (from the Tortoiseshell cat article, but there must be eleventy-billion of them on Commons. howcheng {chat} 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst Image:Cordelia.JPG is blurry when enlarged, it looks ok in thumbnail form, in my opinion. I cannot see the distinct large patched calico style image you are refering to elsewhere on the page. Generally tortoise shell is seen as being the strongly intermingling colours, whilst calico is that of large patches of the different colours. We should probably try and keep to distinct examples for these. What about Image:Tortoiseshellcat.jpg, which is actually calico, despite the name? LinaMishima 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to Image:Greece-Cat.jpg, which is of a calico van. But here are some more possibilities:

• 
• 
• 

I'm actually kind of surprised that Commons:Category:Felis silvestris catus doesn't have more calicos in it. howcheng {chat} 20:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought Greece cat was a specific breed for patterning, if not we should probably correct the caption. Image:Katze in Tunesien.jpg and Image:Calico cat - Phoebe.jpg both seem good, perhaps edging towards Katze. LinaMishima 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I just added the "van" and "colorpoint" descriptions, what if I move Image:Greece-Cat.jpg down and use that to illustrate both "calico" and "van" patterns? Two cats with one stone. howcheng {chat} 23:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd-eyed cat image

I'd like to propose replacing the current blurry, somewhat red-eyed odd-eyed cat image with Image:Two eyes cat.jpg, which is much clearer (and cuter). Any objections? howcheng {chat} 23:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I can make any decisions, I need to know what image were you reffering to that was blurry and red-eyed?

But, I do agree that the Image:Two eyes cat.jpg does look good enough for it to replace something else. GeorgeMoney (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:OddEyed.jpg is the one I think should be removed. howcheng {chat} 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree the red-eye shouldn't be there, I think the fact that some cats have different colored eyes on each side should be in the article along with a picture. And the following might not be true but I heard that if a cat has a blue eye on one side that ear will be deaf too. So if I can find any good sources on that statement, I think we should add the image you want and also have an image of the weird-eyes one, but maybe one without red-eye. GeorgeMoney (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if an odd-eyed cat has one blue eye, it is not a foregone conclusion it will be deaf on that side, but if the cat is white as well, the chances of that side being deaf are about 40%. If the cat isn't white (or nearly white) he usually isn't deaf at all on the blue side (unless the entire ear area including the base of the ear on that side is white as well). I think you could find a good reference in the book "Genetics for Cat Breeders", by Dr. Roy Robinson. I have a few odd-eyed cats (it runs in one of the lines I breed), and none of them are deaf on the blue side.--Ramdrake 16:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A Calico cat should be pu into the main page. I also belive that the cat artical should be the first artical of the featured articals.

Kitikens

the cat that can type.

10:47 Sept. 16, 2006

Unsourced image replaced.

On my cat image binge here, I also replaced Image:Cat&Pigeon.jpg, which is lacking a source and now is pending deletion from the Commons with Image:Cat eating mouse.jpg. I also moved into the "Hunting and diet" section, as it's more appropriate there than in the Domestication section. howcheng {chat} 23:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some pix of cats - any room?

I was just wondering if you guys wanted to use these two images anywhere? They're of a pretty high standard IMO (which I obviously know isn't enough by itself):

Cat in Tree

Cat in Tree

Also I wondered if you might prefer one of these edits to the main image:

File:Cat outside edit.jpg Removed plant

File:Cat outside edit02.jpg Removed plant + enhancements

File:Cat outside edit03.jpg Removed plant + green pole

We really shouldn't be adding any more cat images unless they are significant improvements over existing images or serve to ilistrate points that are currently not ilustrated. I'm afraid I don't see any compelling reason to remove the plant from the main image, and I personally feel that we should try and keep doctored images to an absolute minimum, especially for the main image for an article. Good work, though. LinaMishima 13:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but there's no real reason to remove plant and pole. It's a perfectly fine image without it. As for your other pictures, it doesn't seem to illustrate any point in the article that isn't already adequately covered by an image. Did you mean to replace an existing image with it? howcheng {chat} 06:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the contribution by Fir0002 is a real improvement over the present pix. This editor has real talent as a photographer and I don't think his contribution should be dismissed so lightly. --WikiCats 14:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean the image edits for the main image? the edits significantly increase the ammount of apparent blur in the background, to be honest, and destroy the natural setting. The new images featured however are good, but we need a reason to use them, we cannot just include any nice photographs. LinaMishima 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Fir0002's works, but again, although it's a nice cat picture, what point exactly does it illustrate in the text that doesn't already have a good image? howcheng {chat} 23:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maltese cat

Why is this singled out in the Coat patterns section? It's just one line and it leads a stubby article, and really it's not even a coat pattern, but a color. If there are no objections, I'm going to remove it. howcheng {chat} 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No objection here.--Ramdrake 16:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Section on touch. Possible error, needs citation.

"whiskers also help cats detect scents." - I found this to be a somewhat dubious comment. Though possibly true, as a biologist I am perplexed as to how whiskers may in any way interact with scents as the sense of smell and touch function on rather differently on a mechanical level. Although I'm a human physiologist so its somewhat out of my scope as humans don't have whiskers and our sense of smell is little more than an evolutionary relic. I think really this needs some kind of explanation or citation, as it seems to be quite a big jump into the depths of the scientific unknown to just state it like its a fact. Can anyone clairfy, verify or give a citation for this comment? Thanks. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 00:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as i know, the whiskers of a cat can't detect scent, that seems a bit over the top to me too --58.169.193.63 03:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the cat's sense of smell, coupled with the action of the whiskers (which allow the cat to discern the direction of the smallest air currents) act together to allow a cat to find out where an interesting scent is coming from. The whiskers themselves play no part in smell, just in directionality. [7]--Ramdrake 13:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ramdrake, that makes an awful lot more sense from a biological/mechanical point of view. At some point I shall ammend that comment to perhaps make it clearer that the whiskers themselves play no part in sense of smell, but rather combined with the sense of smell can allow the cat to calculate approximate distance/direction and so on. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

It's probably about time to remove the partial protection. Not sure what the process is for this. Psychofox 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Now requested unprotection using the proper mechanism. Psychofox 22:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you'll find an article as prolific as this would probably benefit from permenant semi-protection, because its going to get vandalised several times daily. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 08:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that it needs semi-protection. I've added a line about the 9500yo Cyprus grave 3 or 4 times now, and it keeps getting reverted out. Pretty darned annoying! Katzenjammer 10:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved your comment about the 9500yo grave to the domestication section - I think it was too detailed for the introduction to article. Psychofox 18:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Lamu Archipelago

The suggestion of a Lamu Archipelago connection for the cats of the Ancient Egypt, which currently has a cite-needed, sounds familiar to me from a piece in The Economist that I think I saw around 1999. Frustratingly, I have not been able to find it through Google. -- Alan Peakall 19:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you see the Kirkus review for this book (scroll down)? http://www.amazon.com/Cats-Lamu-Jack-Couffer/dp/1558216758 They mention that Couffer believes in that connection, though apparently he doesn't make a proper case for it in the book. Katzenjammer 21:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypoallergenic Cats

Added reference to Allerca. Katzenjammer 20:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Huge

This article is huuuuuuge. I don't think I will ever read it in one sitting. Rintrah 11:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Then read half of it sitting, and half of it standing 68.149.157.248 01:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That is one solution; however, you might be missing the figurative meaning of sitting in my sentence. But if you read it so, I am happy to follow your example. Rintrah 03:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for diagram of evolutionary tree

Can a half-decent artist create an image of the evolutionary tree for cats for use in Wikipedia?

There is a good diagram of cats and other animals that share a common ancestor with Miacids. It can be found at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles - Cats and their relatives, or another one here at Climbing the family tree. We can't use those copyrighted images, but similar ones can be created and then used. JabberWok 07:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sentence

This could be made clearer: with one or more new breeds being recognized each year on average, having distinct features and heritage. Is the phrase following the comma supposed to clarify what is meant by new breeds? Or is it supposed to describe something already implied by "new breeds"? Or perhaps it means "recognised as having distinct features and heritages". Although some readers might be able to work it out for themselves, it would be better to phrase it more clearly. Rintrah 09:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dietary habits and cannibalism?

Have there been any known cases of cannibalism in large domesticated cat populations?

I am asking, because I have witnessed something like that just today (the memory is quite haunting), and if situations like that have been occuring more frequently it might warrant a mention in the article.

The situation I am talking about occurred in a population of about 18 animals, six adults and twelve young between five and six months of age. All of the cats were well-nourished, and the "victim" was the weakest specimen among them. I am unable to determine whether that cat has died from natural causes (which, given its poor health, was possible) or has been killed by the others - even though when I realised what was occuring I intervened, there are hardly any remains to speak of. --The Fifth Horseman 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Breeders have sometimes made the unfortunate experience of a mother eating some or all of her own young, but that can usually be attributed to extreme levels of stress and usually is only done on very young kittens (a few days to a month old at worst). I have had the dismaying experience first hand (being a breeder). Although, I must admit I have never heard of cannibalism on larger kittens (like the five-to-six month old you're referring to) or in adults, for that matter.--Ramdrake 14:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a very small one, despite its age. For some reason, its' growth stopped at the size more typical for a three to four week old specimen and did not progress beyond that point. Is it possible that this sort of behavior might be related to what can be found under Cannibalism (zoology), paricularly in reference to social domination? The mother of that young has been a dominant figure in the pack, so I see a possible connection in that aspect. Alternatively, could that be a behavioral change resulting from a possible rabies or BSE infection (there is suspicion that either might have been present in the enviroment)? --The Fifth Horseman 15:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

From my reading, I seem to understand the kitten was roughly the size of a month-old kitten, and its mother was one of the dominant cats of the pack. If that is so, and she was currently being challenged by another cat in the pack, or she felt something was seriously threatening her in any way, considering the size of the kitten, yes cannibalism would be possible under those conditions (in my experience, at least). Although, I'm afraid such a thing isn't referenced often in the literature, as breeders usually don't like to talk about these things very much.--Ramdrake 18:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a female cat called?

That's all. Just what is a female cat called? oct. 14/2006.

Had you considered reading the article at all?

"a male cat is called a tom, and a female is called a queen"

Ian Dalziel 12:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Behavior

The article states that one may not be able to tell the difference between mating vocalizations and fighting, but I think it may be possible, and hopefully it can be sourced. In general, cat fight vocalizations may be very loud, but short screeches, whereas the mating may be just as loud, but tends to be a longer call, going up and down in both volume and pitch, often for 30 seconds or more. Cat fight vocals rarely last more than 10-15 seconds, with the weaker cat usually running away. If a cat is surprised in a vulnerable area leaving no exit (such as being cornered), they will make an excruciatingly loud (I'm curious as to the actual dB) screech, rapidly attack with slashing motions using their front paws, and emit a noxious smell from an anal gland (I'm assuming that's what it is, but I don't know), at this point, they will eye an exit and run for it. —Viriditas | Talk 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

While that maybe correct for some cats, you seem to forget cat vocalizations will differ also based on the breed of cats: I breed cats, and while the vocalizations of Siamese and Oriental cats are similar to what you describe, the vocalizations of Persians and Selkirks tend to be much more discrete, almost a cooing sound, at least for calling and mating. Unfortunately these observations are likely to constitute OR, so I've not included them.--Ramdrake 02:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. But, I would like to see more information about cat behavior in this article, obviously focusing on shared characteristics between breeds, and when necessary or possible, highlighting those differences as you have done. Is there a good source for this information? —Viriditas | Talk 08:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Newsgroups intended for breeders would be a start. I'll try to dig up some stuff...--Ramdrake 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can be dense when I don't stop to think: sites from the large established cat registries (TICA, CFA, etc.) will often have informative profiles on the different breeds they recognize. I addition, the messybeast site also has interesting information on cats, some of it not found anywhere else on the web to the best of my knowledge.--Ramdrake 16:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Cats Behavaior

The cats behavior mostly depends on its age. When a kitten is roming around that is normal. If the kitten is lazt thats not veyr good because kittens are curious.

Terminology

I've changed "owner" to, e.g., "companion" or "caregiver", since the context in which the terms are used is social, not legal. Katzenjammer 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The context may be social, but the majority of people even in this context will talk about "owners", not caregivers. If you want to use "human" throughout, I don't see a problem, but to me "human caregiver" sounds too much like trying to push the animal rights political agenda. In any case, I would suggest you secure consensus here on the talk page before making those changes again.--Ramdrake 21:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is WP policy to accept the rule of the majority? (And also: are you so sure that the majority of people conceive of their cats as their property? I'm not!) To me, to speak of the "owner" of an animal sounds like pushing an anti-AR agenda. The fact that that agenda is pushed so frequently in everyday life doesn't make it NPOV.

There is no necessity to speak of owners here, since the context is not legal. Just saying "the human" may or may not be enough, depending on the sentence. If it is necessary to say "human caregiver" or "human companion", that seems correct to me; it is just descriptive.

David Olivier 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

LIke I said, I don't really have a problem with "human". I have a problem with "caregiver". And the fact of the matter is, most people still talk about "owning" a cat (while those like me who live with cats know it's really them that own you :) ).--Ramdrake 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How, in your view, does using "caregiver" "push an AR agenda"? I have quite a good vocabulary, but I really cannot think of a more neutral, unemotional word than that one. Katzenjammer 22:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest leaving 'owner' as a legal term, which will have various meanings (e.g. liability), sometimes not identical with a primary caregiver. (For example where I live the municipal government "owns" every untagged stray.) "Most people" is not necessarily true planet-wide. Peter Grey 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, have you any sources to support that "the fact of the matter is, most people still talk about "owning" a cat"? Er, you said above that you breed cats, perhaps you have a kind of sampling bias on the fact of this matter? :/

In any case, in the paragraph where the changes "owner" -> "human companion" (or other terms) were made, legal ownership is irrelevant, and may even not be the case, as noted by Peter Grey. If I happen to keep a cat who legally is owned by someone else, that cat may start to display the behaviour described, towards me. What is relevant is that I am the cat's keeper, or guardian, or caregiver, or companion, or whatever; not his owner!

I'm not sure what the best terms are; I do feel sure that "owner" is an irrelevant term that only serves an anti-AR agenda.

David Olivier 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like someone reverted my changes. Will whoever did it please own up, and explain your action? I explained mine. Katzenjammer 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you go back in the history, Ramdrake removed your changes 4 minutes after your edit and asked that you take it to the talk page. I can't see any edit summaries that imply that your terms were added back in since then, although I can't look at EVERY edit difference just to see what changes were made, but there you have it. Nique1287 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I could see Ramdrake's talk history, but not who reverted my changes. Evidently there are interpretation skills I'm still lacking. Katzenjammer 22:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So are there any principled objections to replacing the term "owner" in those passages where legal issues are not figural? Katzenjammer 22:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

suggested deletion of cat-related category

Please check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_25#Category:Ailurophiles and vote accordingly. Chris 01:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Slightly OT question about cat eye color

Hello, I have what may be a slightly OT question. I have a cat with grey eyes (not steel-grey - pure flat grey -- He's also a grey tabby persian). Between myself and two other breeders, we total several hundred kittens in all our years of experience, and we've never seen such an eye color. Has anybody else heard of grey-colored eyes in cat? I'm just curious.--Ramdrake 01:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just guessing, but don't these mutations show up when there is too much inbreeding? —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't quite work that way. The genetics of breeding will usually show problems much earlier on than the "too much" concept. Incidentally, it's called "line breeding" if the line is successful and "inbreeding" when you get a cat with three eyes kind of thing. Since I'm sure you know that eye colour is genetically related to coat colour, and this sounds like a cat of known lineage, I'd say you want to keep watch on the cat for vision issues. Do the eyes "reflect"? CMacMillan 02:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

tom

at least the usage i have heared has used tom to reffer specifically to male cats with their reproductive organs intact. Plugwash 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the usage I heard too. Same applies for queen: normally refers to an intact female cat, reproductively speaking.--Ramdrake 23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering what they've given up, you'd think they could at least keep the titles! ;) CMacMillan 23:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ROTFLMHO!!!--Ramdrake 23:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that to indicate an unaltered animal, you preface with "whole", as in a "whole tom" or "whole queen". Kasreyn 05:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that calling males 'Toms' comes from no more weighty source than popular literature (Desmond Morris pinpointed it), it seems a little anal to try enforcing such a distinction, particularly without supplying a similarly friendly term for other males. Katzenjammer 11:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The common term for male humans with their reproductive organs intact is "Dude". Gzuckier 16:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cats not being able to taste sweet?

I doubt this now. Although it is rare, some cats CAN taste sweet. Like my cat since we got him, he loves the caramel sundae topping leftover in the bowel, and licks any jelly that drops off my toast onto my plate off. I've also read it here: http://www.bluewhite.dk/Tips/senses.shtml

Er, fascinating, but I assume you mean "bowl"? In any event that doesn't mean he can "taste" sweet, but rather that the substance holds a different taste than we experience. CMacMillan 16:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt about it. They've actually identified the mutation that prevents the Tas1r2 protein from being produced, which is required for the sweet taste sensor to operate. No protein produced whatsoever (deletion leading to reading frame change leading to early termination signal, for all you geneticists) This is relatively new, last year[8], not "Formerly it was believed that cats were unable to taste sweet. Now a days it has been established that cats have a few taste buds for sweet at the back of their tongues." They do have the whole sweet taste bud structures, but they do not function because the receptors in them are not functional. It has to have been a mutation in an early ancestor of the whole cat family, tested in domestic cats, tigers, and cheetahs, and absolutely perfectly fits in with their whole extreme carnivore lifestyle and makes it all make sense. Much the same as how primates, whether monkeys, apes, or humans, have all lost the ability to make Vitamin C which most other animals have, and have adapted by adding lots of fruits and cabbagey type plants to their diet; again, must have been a mutation in an early ancestor of the whole branch of the tree. This doesn't mean that they might not enjoy caramel or jelly or chocolates, but it's not the sugar that's doing it. Caramel in particular seems to me, just off the top of my head, to be kind of "meaty". I've had cats that would chomp on one fruit or another. Gzuckier 18:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)