This is an archive of past discussions about Cat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In August, an editor boldly added a nav template to the bottom of the page which added template:meat to this article. There was no talk page discussion (which would have followed this entry in the archive). I am not one of those editors who believes in strict bidirectionality in template use, but templates used in an article should reasonably be related to the subject of the article. The template for meat is not at all related to cats, despite the fact that the latter are carnivorous. The edit summary for this addition claimed that since the template was used in the article for "dog" that it was appropriate here as well. A review of the history of dog shows that this was not the case. I've removed the template from this article. Restoration should happen only if there is clear community consensus that the template is useful on this page. Etamni | ✉ | ✓17:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
For clarification, the template does have an entry for "cat" but that entry is a link to cat meat, an article that already includes the "meat" template. (Likewise, it has an entry for "dog" -- which links to dog meat). Etamni | ✉ | ✓18:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Software
I ditched the line about cats being used to de-bug software because it was erroneous phrased. The cat was not intentionally "used", the event happened accidentally. It's hard to believe the topic should include ever accidental event cats are involved in.
Ditto, I changed the context of the Schrodinger reference as Schrodinger did not actually use cats in his science but the idea of the cats. --Wordfunk (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll organise some review without the need of initiating a GAR, but upon looking at it again the article seems to have a lot of problems. I could try and attempt a thorough review here if you would like. The sources are so far the most concerning and so cooperation from multiple editors will help. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016
This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hi! I would like to suggest that on breeds, add "Blue Point Siamese". These are much different than normal siamese cats in behavior and appearance.
71.75.131.25 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the tip. I added it to the list! I did not realize how many were already created; however IMHO mine is the best -:) Take care IQ125 (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Domesticated Argument
Hello, I am seeking input and building a consensus on a point stated in the article. I notice the introductory sentence of the article states "The domestic cat (Felis catus or Felis silvestris catus)". This is an issue with me. The generic term "cat" can be either domesticated, i.e. (Felis Catus) or wild (Felis silvestris catus). This being the case, we should not use the word "domestic cat" in the introductory sentence.
"Scientists say there is little that separates the average house cat (Felis Catus) from its wild brethren (Felis silvestris). There’s some debate over whether cats fit the definition of domesticated as it is commonly used, says Wes Warren, PhD, associate professor of genetics at The Genome Institute at Washington University in St. Louis. “We don’t think they are truly domesticated,” says Warren, who prefers to refer to cats as “semi-domesticated.” Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/ask-smithsonian-are-cats-domesticated-180955111/?no-ist"
I think it is clear that this article is about domestic cats because:
The hatnote above the article says "This article is about the cat species that is commonly kept as a pet. For the cat family, see Felidae. For other uses, see Cat (disambiguation) and Cats (disambiguation)."
The infobox is titled "domestic cat" and under "Conservation status" it says "Domesticated."
The second sentence of the article says "They are often called house cats when kept as indoor pets or simply cats when there is no need to distinguish them from other felids and felines."
After a look at the "taxonomy and evolution" section, you can see it explains the evolution of domestic cats, not wild cats.
The "anatomy" section explains the anatomy of domestic cats, not wild cats.
There is an entire section about "interaction with humans" that explains how humans keep them as a pet.
The images in the article are definitely not of wild cats.
Agree we already have established historical concensus for this article being about the domestic cat only. Leave hatnote and opening paragraph as has been in historical version, for reasons noted above by Proud User. This is a Good Article and a former Featured Article; we need to restore accurate established text. Having had a resuced feral as a pet, I agree with statement that all cats retain some 'semi-domesticated' status. That line has already been drawn in society however, and there is no need to force this article to reflect an artificial difference. Inquire please of animal control officers and veterinarians. We are not keeping Jaguars and Cougars as pets. Nor do we even approach them, nor feed them nor pet them. The lash of a wild cat is deadly. Hopefully, most days our kittens and cats are tame, hence they are domestic and able to be kept as house pets. This is entirely an artifical premise that wild cats are the same as tame / domestic. We are not allowing wild animals in cat cafés. Fylbecatuloustalk13:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I do not mind making this article the default domestic cat only article. May I suggest a new opening sentence as follows:
This would allow uninformed readers to understand instantly what this article is about and that there is a second article about wild cats. IQ125 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I would agree if you replace "feral" with "wild," as it says right in the first sentence of the feral cat article that they are a type of domestic cat. Nope I think the hatnote at the top does the best job of disambiguating it. --Proud User (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The Dog article has similar concerns which they appear to have overcome. I suggest we borrow from this article and state - The domestic cat (Felis catus) is a domesticated member of the Felidae family which has been selectively bred for millennia for various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and physical attributes. After all, do we really need to be told in the opening sentence that cats are furry? We can then go on to mention wild cats or other related animals. DrChrissy(talk)17:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@DrChrissy: According to WP:MOS the introduction of an article (especially the first sentence) is supposed to be written in a manner that assumes the reader is not familiar with the subject. If you were unfamiliar with cats, what would be more important to you: knowing that cats are usually furry or that they were selectively bred for millennia?--Proud User (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
"Non-specialist" is very, very different from being "unfamiliar". It seems to me that anyone old enough to read Wikipedia may be a non-specialist but they will be familiar with cats and the fact that they are furry is totally redundant. If we write for those "unfamiliar" with cats, we should also be stating they have 4 legs, 2 eyes and just one nose.DrChrissy(talk)18:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The video does not say that feral cats are not domesticated, it says that feral cats may develop a fear of humans. "Domesticated" means originally breed to be with humans; however, not all domesticated animals live with humans, and (like it said in the video) may develop a fear of humans. Feral cats are by all means domesticated. --Proud User (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I have not watched the video, but by definition, a feral animal is domesticated. Our own Feral article states "A feral animal (from Latin fera, "a wild beast") is an animal living in the wild but descended from domesticated individuals." DrChrissy(talk)20:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I have just added archive links to one external link on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The article "cat" is extremely complete, but I have doubts regarding the introductory section or the following reasons :
a) the first paragraph sets felis catus within the scope, first and foremost, of breeding associations. This is both morally dubious and historically inaccurate. Further, to introduce the cultural concept of "breeds" in the first paragraph as an empirical statement of fact is again, questionable. (Though a hint of doubt is allowed with mention of the competing commercially active cat fancying associations). The breeding of specific morphological traits in cats is a commercial activity, one that occurs to the detriment of cat health. Further, cats conforming to breed standards defined by these commercially interested associations form a minority of the global population of domestic cats. As such, breeding and cat associations may well deserve there own section, but do not deserve mention in the first paragraph! International Cat Care (http://icatcare.org/), a non profit organisation (to which I am not affiliated) has some excellent, and critically, disinterested, advice on this subject. I suggest, that all articles discussing domestic cats in terms of cat fancying breeds be reviewed, in the light of the excessive harm being caused to these animals, and the exploitation of Wikipedia by commercially active or interested groups in this subject. The extract in question, which I request be moved into an appropriate subheading follows "There are more than 70 cat breeds; different associations proclaim different numbers according to their standards. The International Progressive Cat Breeders Alliance (IPCBA) recognizes 73 cat breeds while TICA (The International Cat Association) recognizes 58, CFA (The Cat Fanciers' Association) recognizes 44 and Federation International Feline (FIFE) recognizes 43"
I note that the 1st paragraph has since been suitable modified, removing explicit reference to cat breeding organisations. A good move.
The third paragraph, while containing valuable information that deserves thorough coverage about the impact of cats on their environment, appears unfairly weighted in appearing in the introduction, and appears politically motivated in this light. A separate section or inclusion in an existing section covering cats and their interaction with the environment (positive/negative and neutral) is desirable.) The UK based RSPCA even argues feral cats can have a positive impact on the bird population "Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease, or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds." http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx
Either balance the paragraph with appropriate statements of both neutrality and value affirmation concerning cat interaction with the environment, or move the entire paragraph into an appropriate subheader. To be clear, the text in question follows, "Cats have a high breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, they can be bred and shown as registered pedigree pets, a hobby known as cat fancy. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, requiring population control.[9] This has contributed, along with habitat destruction and other factors, to the extinction of many bird species. Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within specific regions and may have contributed to the extinction of isolated island populations.[10] Cats are thought to be primarily, though not solely, responsible for the extinction of 33 species of birds, and the presence of feral and free ranging cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reintroduction in otherwise suitable locations."
Would it be possible to modify the third paragraph, in order to show broader balanced reach of understanding and less activist inclined rhetoric, with the following:
"Like many small and medium sized mammals, cats have a high breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, specific morphological characteristics can be bred and the cats shown as registered pedigree pets, or breeds, an activity which is an aspect of cat fancy, the appreciation of domestic and feral cats. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large over population of feral cats in some regions of the world, requiring population control, both for the well being of cats and for the well being of their local environment.[8] In other regions of the world, feral cats may be considered part of the native animal population, although proximity and interbreeding between feral and wild cats has proven to be a source of controversy in specific regions such as Scotland (ref: http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/mammals/land-mammals/wildcats/). Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within specific regions and may have contributed to the extinction of isolated island populations in Oceania.[9] The presence of feral cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reintroduction in otherwise suitable locations. However other studies suggest that where feral and domestic cats have a long established presence, such as in the Middle East and Europe, they do not have a detrimental effect upon bird or small mammal populations. (ref : http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx)"
You should add a ¨fun facts¨ category to this page. As a passionate cat lover, I happen to know many interesting cat facts I wish to share with the world.
Thank you for considering the above. WhiskerPaige (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
See the article "toxin": "A toxin (from Ancient Greek: τοξικόν toxikon) is a poisonous substance produced within living cells or organisms; synthetic toxicants created by artificial processes are thus excluded. The term was first used by organic chemist Ludwig Brieger (1849–1919)."
So a cat would only rarely be "exposed" to toxins (produced in some other organism's cells), it would more likely be exposed to environmental toxicants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.207.204 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Etymology: 'kattepus' listed as a Swedish word
It's been raised before (page 12 of the talk archive, I believe), but since it's still in the article (including in the Norwegian version of it, which makes even less sense in my eyes) I thought I should bring it up again.
In the section regarding etymology, pussycat is said to be "related to Swedish kattepus, or Norwegian pus, pusekatt". However, as far as I've been able to determine, kattepus has never been a Swedish word. The Swedish version is instead "kissekatt" or its older version "kisse". The Swedish Academy's Dictionary[1] (Svenska Akademiens Ordbok) lists examples as far back as 1730[2] of usage of the word "kisse", but has no entries or mentions of "kattepus". There is one mention of "kisspuss" (dialectally "kissepus") as a compound term, however, but with only one lyrical quote[3] demonstrating its use.
It seems more likely that the word might have been Danish, since the Danish word for cat, kat[4], is changed to "katte-" in compound words (such as "kattemad", cat food, "kattehår", cat hair, and others)[5], and "pus" is a term of endearment for children and animals, also used as a calling sound for cats[6]. A quick google search, however, says that the word is used in a well-known Norwegian children's song[7] by Alf Prøysen (1914-1970).
However, Norway and Sweden share a very long border, not to mention that at the beginning of the 16th century Sweden was still part of the Kalmar Union (comprised of Norway, Denmark and Sweden, including any outlying territories of those three countries) and had before that often shared its monarchs with Norway (King Magnus IV of Sweden, Norway and Scania, 1319-1343 (Scania 1332-1360), and King Haakon VI of Norway (1343-1380) and Sweden (1362-1364), to give two examples). So at the time frame the article references (the 16th century), I'd wager that Norwegian was used in Sweden as much as or more than Swedish itself was used, considering how the native languages of Wales and Finland were treated when the countries were conquered by England and Sweden, respectively. I'd also guess that the term "kisspuss" or "kissepus" was coined at some point during that time due to the mix of languages (not only Swedish and Norwegian, but also Danish).
While it's entirely possible that the relatively similar "kattepus" came to be about the same time, I can find no evidence of it, and it seems to me that if it was used here it was a much more short-lived term than the other two (implying it was less popular and/or commonly used). It is, of course, entirely possible that it's an even older term, since the four languages of Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish all developed from the same root (Old Norse), and it seems reasonable that the languages remained closer than they are today for quite a while after becoming separate languages. But going that far back, it'd be more fair to call it "Late Old Swedish"[8] or "Early Modern Swedish"[9] instead of "Swedish". It's similar to claiming that a word that hasn't been used since Middle or Early Modern English should be listed as an English word. Just a few sentences later, a distinction is made for Early Modern English compared to English, after all ("In Early Modern English, the word 'kitten' was interchangeable with the now-obsolete word 'catling'"). And if it's a Danish or Norwegian term, borrowed into Swedish, it is similar to saying that "nom de guerre" is an English term.
I'd also like to add that Swedish and Norwegian in that sentence are not listed under the heading of "may have been introduced from", but rather under "related to", which as far as I can tell can include more modern terms that are related to the term you're comparing it to (in this case, the English "pussycat"). In that respect, listing "kattepus" as a Swedish word makes even less sense to me.
To put it simply, I would like to request that one of the following be done about it:
1) That the word "kattepus" in the etymology section be replaced by "kisse, kissekatt" since from evidence available to me those two seem to have been the more common, and the prevailing, terms used in Swedish.
2) That the reference/comparison to "kattepus" is removed entirely from that sentence.
^BROMAN Glys. 3: 174 (1730). Vet han hvad mor sade, när jag var liten och såg mig i spegeln? Kissen är vacker och inte du, sad' hon.
Translated: "Do you know what mother said, when I was little and looked in the mirror? The cat/pussy is beautiful and you are not, said she."
^Kråkan räfsade, kajan drog, / Svarta kisspussen körde. SvForns. 3: 484 (1842; i barnrim) -
"The crow raked, the jackdaw pulled / The black kittycat drove." from a book with historic songs and nursery rhymes.
This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"The African wildcat, Felis silvestris lybica, is the ancestor of the domestic cat." is arguably wrong, should be "The African wildcat... and the domestic cat share a most recent common ancestor." or something along those lines.
{{done}}. To editors Fethalen and MPS1992: In the image caption, "ancestors", whether individuals or species, are either dead or extinct - the article content indicates "closely related". Paineu/c17:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Undone: This request has been partially undone. On further reading, we see that the subspecies did exist back when domestication began and is believed to be ancestral to modern domesticates. So I have undone the edit and hopefully clarified it a bit in the image caption. Paineu/c18:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Plant-eating
Cats eat grass to purposefully throw up. And other times they just enjoy the taste. Maybe it's sweet. Definitely seasonal. Anyone who has grown up with a multitude of cats know that eating grass is not an attempt to get some mineral. Sure, if they want one thing and not another... ok. But, eating grass is a regular thing like all mamals chew on spring. -Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B198:9B10:9BA:28FC:BD3:57FF (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that cats intuitively (like most hunters) eat bodies, not just "meat". There are absolutely benefits to eating a rabbit for example who still had a salad in it's stomach. So yes, in eating grass etc, the cat would be getting their A B and Cs, etc. When a cat eats something it didn't want to, it goes for the grass right away. It will actually beg to go outside to get it. This whole article is a bunch of armchair anthropology. I think we can trust what cats tell us. These are pets, not just species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B198:9B10:9BA:28FC:BD3:57FF (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2016
This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I only think cat lovers will come to this page so I suggest that we add that cats are low maintenance pets.
Felis silvestris catus vs Felis silvestris silvestris
This article states the domestic cat species as Felis catus, and wildcat as Felis silvestris. This however is not true. This can be validated simply by the definition of a species - a population of animals with similar morphs that can breed to produce fertile offspring. If the domestic cat and wildcat were in fact 2 separate species then hybridisation would not be able to occur - a process that is stated to occur later in the article. The domestic cat and wildcat are therefore different subspecies of the same species - Felis silvestris. Felis silvestris catus is the domestic subspecies and Felis silvestris silvestris is the European wildcat species. In addition to this there are a number of other subspecies of wildcats in other continents - such as the African wildcat (Felis silvestris lybica) and Indian desert cat (Felis silvestris ornata)
Sources are many, and just by reading the definition of what a species is you can work out the information on this page is incorrect, but here's a paper stating it too:
Hi. I was taught exactly the same definition as you and was quite happy with that for many years. However, wikipedia has taught me that things are not always as black-or-white as we might think. I also have a friend who is an expert in taxonomy and whenever I ask him such questions, his answer is "it depends which book you read". A little unhelpful, but true. Have a look at our article Species problem. Best of luck in sorting it out! DrChrissy(talk)18:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry
I write a lot of articles on infection, bacteria and other medical content. But for an article to be encyclopedic, and as uncomfortable as the topic of cat diseases can get, I mean no harm and I am adding information in good faith. If there is a problem with the content that I have added, please feel to comment here or on my talk page The Very Best of Regards,
After weaning, milk is not necessary in a cat's diet. Their ability to digest lactose reduces. Cats can even become intolerant to ordinary cows' milk, resulting in the diarrhea. By the way......is this talked about in the article??208.114.41.213 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Felis silvestris catus vs. Felis catus
F. catus is an semi-archaic classification synonym to F. silvestris catus. (The sidebar states that it's a subjective synonym, which are classification names that some would argue overlap perfectly, while others may have differing ways of differentiating the two nomenclature. Basically, exact classification is up for debate.) However, the opening of this article states that domestic cats are F. catus and free-ranging ferals are F. silvestris catus as though that's an objective and widely used way of using those nomenclatures, which is untrue. I'd like to see a clearer opening statement stating F. catus and F. silvesris catus are both appropriate and synonymous names for domestic cats, and perhaps linking to the explanation of the differences listed lower in the article (which unlike the opening, is actually correct). I would be happy to rewrite the opening myself but I'd like permission before doing so given the importance of this article.
In addition, if the two terms are truly subjective synonyms rather than true synonyms, that needs to be reflected in the Taxonomy paragraph as well, with actual sources. -- 05:47, 9 August 2016 2601:192:4603:28c0:195b:5327:9f4c:7599
I'd like to add that feral cats ARE domestic cats--they are the exact same species! I don't know who wrote that part of the article but their assertion makes absolutely no sense. I think I'll stick with Felis sylvestris catus to distinguish them from African wildcats even though if you want to get technical that's the same cat too. They cross-breed with absolutely no trouble at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.44.180 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The article states that male cats have no involvement in the raising of kittens, but this requires further research. The statement is not accurate, both based on my own findings with my cats and articles such as this one, which is just one of dozens: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-normal-for-male-cats-to-take-care-of-the-kittens. If there's not much research on the subject, then it would be good to rework this section (the section pertaining to cat's behavior of bringing home prey to humans) into a more generalized summary, rather than absolute language. I think it's been well understood that males most certainly can take a role in the raising of offspring, and in my personal experience, they will absolutely bring food home to their young ones, which flies directly in the face of the article quoted here. Hopefully more research on male cat behavior becomes available soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.129.108 (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Quora and our own personal findings and experiences are really not good sources to use in Wikipedia articles. If something is well understood then it will have been noted in a reliable source somewhere. The best sources are indeed peer reviewed academic studies, but this article cites many sources that are not quite so highly-rated, so we don't necessarily have to wait for more research. We do have to wait for something more formal than Quora and personal observations. MPS1992 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Communication and Behavior
Article needs some points added, such as scent transfer, bunting, and allorubbing. Anyone qualified?
In the interest of averting an edit war, I'm opening this thread and inviting Alexiszerflin and Bluesphere to comment. My take on it: the gallery is not a great idea. Some of the images are interesting, but we're presenting them devoid of context. The topic "Depictions of cats in art" is definitely worthy of better coverage including multiple images—as it stands, the article has precious little to say about this, and that's a shame—but there should be accompanying text and the images should be selected to illustrate that text. I can even imagine spinning off a standalone article someday.... RivertorchFIREWATER13:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Rivertorch - Same thoughts, actually; the section violates WP:NOTGALLERY. I already told Alexiszerflin that that section cannot stay since it's a simple collection of thumb images with no prose justifying it. But he insisted on reverting my edit to the point of violating WP:3RR. Already warned him in his talk page about it.
I'm not sure what purpose it serves, if it contributed to information content then I could support it; but there is no need for a gallery of images. It's not like there is a shortage of cat pictures on the internet. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Many animal articles have galleries such as this - often called "cultural depictions". I agree with Rivertorch that the gallery is acceptable, but it simply MUST be placed in context and supported with appropriate text. DrChrissy(talk)21:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Evolution presented as fact
This article is flawed in that it discusses the theory of evolution as if it were fact. In doing so it commits the same logical fallacies that are normally found in narratives that assume the existence of something as the basis for explanation of something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.254.6 (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
MPS1992 is correct. We need a reliable source. I can't find an impeccable source, but thismight suffice. It lists its own (rather old) sources, including a 1974 issue of Natural History, but it doesn't indicate which sources apply to which animals. Frankly, some of the entries at the bottom of the chart aren't confidence-inspiring. (Snails: how do you know if they're even in a hurry?) Someone felt it was good enough for this article but I'm not so sure. RivertorchFIREWATER08:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have spent over an hour trying to find an RS for this and I have failed. I very much dislike the speedofanimals source (what does "feels like" mean?) and as RiverTorch mentions, the Natural History list does not inspire confidence - it does not tell us how the speed was measured for example. DrChrissy(talk)16:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Etymology of "cat"
The statement at note 39, regarding a presumed Late Egyptian origin for "cat" from čaute, feminine of čaus is spurious and should be deleted; the French dictionary cited is not authoritative on the ancient Egyptian language and does not constitute a useful source. Bottom line: There is no such word in the ancient Egyptian language, in any phase. See thus, L. Lesko, A Dictionary of Late Egyptian Index, 295, cat (my) with relevant entry in ibid., vol. 1, 179; A. Erman and H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache, vol. 6, 86, Kater (mjw) and Katze (mj.t), with relevant entries in ibid., vol. 2, 42; Walter Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, 55b, ⲈⲘⲞⲨ (cat). Crum also cites a few newer words for cat in Coptic, which are presumably loans (ⲔⲖⲎ, p. 102a; ϢⲀⲨ, p. 601a) but these also do not support the etymology proposed at n. 39. Bespantheos (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Multiple English-language dictionaries indicate an unknown ultimate origin for the word. Is the Dictionnaire français-gaulois source available online? Without knowing exactly what it says, I think the current wording may be too strong. How would you feel about substituting "possibly" for "presumably"? RivertorchFIREWATER06:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017
This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On the third paragraph on the last sentence, there's a space inbetween "species reintroduction" and the period ".", could somebody fix this? --173.73.227.128 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Regarding today's edit war, which involved roughly a dozen back-and-forth edits in less than an hour (along with namecalling in edit summaries and back-and-forth templating in user talk space) by two established editors: there's a policy that expressly prohibits this sort of thing and an excellent essay that offers a perfectly viable alternative), namely a discussion right here. At the risk of reigniting something that had died down, I don't think it's quite settled. I'm all for eschewing political boundaries in favor of regional geographical terms wherever possible, but I think in this case there may be good reason to do otherwise. Let's look at what the source says: "Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries"; it's very specific at first, but then it goes all vague. Still, it's the only source we've got for the statement. The earlier wording—"Egypt, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries"—is unsatisfactory (whether it says Palestine or Israel) because it throws Egypt into the mix. The newer wording—"Northern Africa, the Near East and around the periphery of the Arabian Peninsula"—is consistent with our Near Eastern Wildcat article, but that's not necessarily a good thing: the stated range in the first sentence has two citations, the first of which leads (with help from the Wayback Machine) to a page about what may or may not be a different species. The second citation may support the content, but I only have access to the abstract at the moment. I'm not quite sure how to proceed, but I think we'd be safer either going with exactly what this article's cited source says or else being deliberately vague and just saying "the Middle East". Pinging User:Darkson and User:Sigehelmus. Any thoughts? (Let's make sure we have consensus here before making any changes.) RivertorchFIREWATER21:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't care much for it anymore, and I concede ny first revision just added fuel to fire, but I still support the idea that a purely geographic description would be best.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=)21:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think simply saying "Middle East" is more vague than saying "Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries"? It's basically saying the same but shorter, as the three named countries are all in the Middle East? It's shorter, not more vague, and not political; and therefore preferable to the other options. Cuoregr (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a saying in television: "assume the viewers are goldfish", i.e. pretty stupid and forgetful. However, even a goldfish knows how to navigate his bowl, and the average person knows of Middle East surely, and it would be bluelinked regardless in case they don't. Just mentioning Israel without Palestine is contentious if not polemic.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=)13:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
You can't just keep saying POV without clarification. I don't have a POV (well, everyone does I suppose) but that's irrelevant because a geographic description is most relevant and accurate for a description of where an animal roams. Would you say that a bird that nests in the Himalayas region roams around the Republic of India, Nepal, and Kingdom of Bhutan, or sound like a human and just say the Himalayas because it's more useful?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=)15:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you missed it in my mini-wall of text, but I've been unable to verify that the current wording is factual. Have you had better luck? Would you object to its simply saying "Middle East"? RivertorchFIREWATER02:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of objection, I was all set to change it to just say Middle East, but I poked around a bit more and found this. Scroll down to Figure 3.4 and look at the map; the distribution of the Near Eastern Wildcat (F. silvestris lybica) goes well beyond the Middle East (or Near East), stretching all the way to the western coast of Africa in two great swaths. This is consistent with the detailed range description here. So now I'm thinking it should say "whose range covers vast portions of the Middle East westward to the Atlantic coast of Africa". Or something like that. RivertorchFIREWATER04:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP(talk • contribs)18:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The cat is a subspecies of the wild cat and therefore should be moved to subspecies instead of species and be named Felis silvestris catus instead of Felis catus.
I do not understand this bizzare tradition of keeping up Linnaean taxonomy when its 21st century and not 18th century.
Taxonomy is about correctness and truth, not staying with old outdated and incorrect terms.
You would have had a good point until recently. Recent taxonomical schemes had tended towards including the domestic cat within the wildcat or African/Near-eastern wildcat species. However, the IUCN Cat Specialist Group has just published the long-awaited Revised taxonomy of the Felidae[a] and given species status to the domestic cat, as well as the European and African/Near-eastern wildcats. Jts1882 (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
References
^Driscoll et al. (2010) A Suite of Genetic Markers Useful in Assessing Wildcat (Felis silvestris ssp.)- Domestic Cat (Felis silvestris catus) Admixture. Journal of Heredity, 102, 87-90. doi: 10.1093/jhered/esr047.
The domesticated cat (Felis catus) is well researched, but subject to typical internet biases.
I would make this change myself, based on the ample evidence, but I know the internet is touchy about cat facts.
I propose moving the date of cat domestication on this article (and the "domesticated animals" https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals and any other popular linked-pages) closer to present in most places by about 5,000 years, aka, much much more recent.
Right now, almost all sources on Wikipedia, and even the internet at large (based on Wiki's sourcing) are citing the same "10,000 years ago" claim, which is entirely based on one methodologically-limited 2007 study published in Nature. (you can read it in full, badly formatted, here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GUnrb9I8Re4J:www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/sdjordan/PDFs/Driscoll%2520Science%2520Cat.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us). There is no archaeological record of cats being domesticated that long ago and no historical record. I'm a bigger fan than most people of statistical analysis and clade grouping and extrapolation and all that jazz. But it's a method, admittedly, prone to noisy results and (sometimes) big errors. The authors of the 2007 study admit that their 10k estimate is mostly based on the development of agriculture in the region in that time period PLUS the stats. We shouldn't be using a "hard" number like "10,000 years ago" or "8,000 BCE" when it's 1) only an estimate and 2) not backed up by any other data.
I have some professional background in evolutionary biology, but am not an expert in Cat Evolution or archaeology by any means.
I did, however, spend the last 3 hours reading about this stuff just to make sure I get it right. MSG me on my talk page if you have concerns, or you're interested, or if you have a longer/ more trustworthy wikipedia background and would be willing to make these changes for me. Johnfromtheprarie (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The Driscoll et al (2007) paper references Vigne et al (2004) for the 9.500 years ago origin of the domestic cat, which was based on archaeological studies of cat and human burials in Cyprus. The genetics in Driscoll et al (2007) was used to show the phylogenetic relationships between the domestic cat and the Near Eastern wilcat, not to date domestication. Jts1882 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
A very interesting article, which brings a remarkable clarity to the hitherto baffling mix of genes in domestic cats. It also cites literature providing far more evidence for cat association with humans going back 9000 years. Jts1882 (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2017
This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
One of my pet peeves (sorry, pun intended) is "see also" within prose. There is a parenthetical "see ship's cat" at the end of ¶3 in the 'History and mythology' section. This can be easily remedied by changing the clause beginning: ...as they were carried on sailing ships -to- [split sentence] Ship's cats were carried... 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1C:247F:9E77:82FF (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The section under play dealing with laser pointers seems to be offer original research/opinion rather than well confirmed fact - or, seen another way, seems to be misapplying sources to come to a predetermined conclusion.
For example, the source about potentially harmful laser pointers goes to a report from one manufacturer complaining to Amazon that its competitors don't meet proper standards and is clearly talking about higher powered lasers not meant to be used as casual office or cat toy pointers - and, more fundamentally, the source doesn't deal with pointers meant for cats or even refer to cats at all. Likewise, the claim that a laser pointer can cause damage to cat's eyes is vague, unsourced, and deceptive - any laser of sufficient power that is misused (such as purposefully shining it into someone's eyes for extended periods, for example) could theoretically do harm, but then again that's true for any piece of technology when misused. The point here should be to relate any reasonable risk when a proper cat toy laser is used as instructed, but clearly the sources used here aren't appropriate for the negative conclusion the writer is offering. Just as it would be deceptive to maintain that toasters are as a rule inherently dangerous (and therefore by implication should never be used) because you might burn your hand if you were to stick it whole down a toast slot (a clear common sense misuse of a toaster), it is just as deceptive in this case to suggest that laser pointers meant for cat toys are inherently dangerous for cats even if used appropriately. Lastly, the final source dealing with the claimed frustration that cats feel by not being able to physically catch a laser dot is just one writer expressing an opinion - it is not a scientific source using data to demonstrate the suppose fact that cats will indeed be frustrated in such a situation. Yet, the line as written assumes such frustration as a given.
Basically, it all reads like someone with a beef against laser pointer toys for cats rewrote the section to conform to their beliefs and not the actual evidence. I would therefore like to request that the section be rewritten to either: Make it clear that laser pointer cat toys are safe when used with common sense and that any health dangers could only arise when stronger lasers never meant for such a role are used inappropriately, or; that it simply be reduced down to a basic statement of how appropriate laser pointers are/can be used as toys with cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranillon (talk • contribs)
Fixed, I think. I agree the whole "some lasers might be more powerful" thing was OR. I added the part about shining directly into the eyes, which isn't sourced, but falls under WP:BLUE. The part about getting frustrated was sourced to a website that isn't a WP:Reliable source, so I simply removed it as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢18:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
You need to read WP:V. That isn't how verification works here at Wikipedia. The sources did not pass WP:RS and were WP:OR. If you want to put it back in, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide adequate sources that pass WP:RS AND show that it isn't WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia isn't a buying guide for laser pointers. For the record, the gold standard for content dispute isn't just to revert, it is WP:BRD. I reverted the information out of the article, before you go adding it back, again, the burden is on you to use the talk page to discuss. You've been here long enough to know that. Now would be a good time to revert yourself, as per the links I just gave you, it does appear that you are edit warring over improperly sourced and contentious material, Mediatech492. You've been here way too long to not know these things. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
After reading your talk page, I can see you aren't up on policy here. I removed the material again, but added NO NEW MATERIAL. There is no question that you need to leave it out because it isn't sourced properly, is a bit of a guide on lasers and amounts to original research. Talk about it here, or I can ask someone to block you for being disruptive. I'm not in the mood to argue with someone who hasn't bothered to read the policies they are relying on. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This article is missing an encyclopedic discussion of why Cats like cardboard boxes, one of their most species-typical characteristics. What gives?
This article is missing an encyclopedic discussion of why Cats like cardboard boxes, one of their most species-typical characteristics. What gives?47.16.205.142 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
How about this study? Will a hiding box provide stress reduction for shelter cats? According to one of the authors "Hiding is a behavioral strategy of the species to cope with environmental changes and stressors". A journalist embellished this a little: "Boxes are insulating, stress-relieving, comfort zones—places where cats can hide, relax, sleep, and occasionally launch a sneak attack against the huge, unpredictable apes they live with"(Wired). The Egyptians were among the first to domesticate cats and used to bury cats in boxes (also wrapped up to keep warm), so perhaps we can find archaeological and sociological tie-ins with the cats love of boxes. Jts1882 | talk13:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Significantly, there's also no discussion of clawing the furniture. It might be a conspiracy by agenda-driven cat-editors intent on suppressing the content. RivertorchFIREWATER13:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Misunderstanding that Cats are moggies
The reference to cats as moggies is a little know misconception except for certain well educated regions of Northern England. In fact within only a few miles of these areas the town folk still do not recognize the true meaning of the term Moggie!
If we study the development of the cat back to ancient times as now they are hunters. However, the cat was usually owned by the less well off to control vermin and rodents. As the people of the time could not distinguish between the varieties of rodents they were generally classed as MOGI. A term in ancient times to describe the little pest that scampered around the dwelling. Hence the cat was a mogi catcher and most likely this misunderstanding comes from translation when asking the cat to chase the Moggies! simply translated as get the moggi..
This misunderstanding of the lack of knowledge has been known to create local conflict and even violence. take the town of Warrington many believe that a cat is a moggie ( wrongly ) whilst their Neighbours Leigh only 8 miles distant knew and recognized the real understanding that a moggie was a small rodent.
This created a little known conflict called the Foy conflict.
Mr Foy was a well renowned character from Warrington and after many ales in a local bar where a discussion regarding the matter became ugly and escalated in several hundred people being injured in a 6 day war.
As many of the locals worked in chemicals they created a cocktail of chemical bombs to through at the opposing side. This chemical created a madness which at the time was classed as Lunacy. At the end of the conflict both sides agreed to disagree and shared a barrel of ale at the old hermitage ( Now the site of the public house the Hermit) and decided how best to care for the "Lunatics". They agreed to keep them away from both town centres and build a temporary Hospital in Win wick.
Latterly this became the local sanatorium.
So from a small misunderstanding a local War occurred, A ale house and sanatorium were created. At the end a Moggie is a MOUSE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.46.2 (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Public attitudes towards feral cats vary widely, ranging from seeing them as free-ranging pets, to regarding them as vermin.[205] One common approach to reducing the feral cat population is termed 'trap-neuter-return', where the cats are trapped, neutered, immunized against rabies and the feline leukemia virus, and then released.
I believe this is a typo for lack of a better term. TNR Programs do not routinely vaccinate against Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV). They do however routinely vaccinate against the Feline Panleukopenia Virus (FPV).
I'm not sure where you are; but I work at a TNR Clinic and we routinely vaccinate for FPV, FeLV, feline herpes, calicivirus, and rabies. I believe this is common practice here in in Canada, but I won't speak for anywhere else. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
We don't currently have any sources mentioning FeLV, but we do have a source (the one above) mentioning FPV. For the sake of simplicity, I suggest the following wording "... where the cats are trapped, neutered, immunized against diseases such as rabies and the feline Panleukopenia and Leukemia viruses, and then released." What do people think of this? MPS1992 (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I have now made this change. Others may be able to improve the formatting of the reference. Thank you to both for the expert insight. MPS1992 (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Opinion 2027
In ICZN-Opinion 2027 it is stated that the use of separate names for domesticated animals and their wild progenitors has created confusion.[1] Especially the 1993 edition of Mammal Species of the World was followed by strong reactions among zoologists, when several wild animals were at once no longer treated under the names that were established for the wild taxa, but under the earlier published scientific specific names for their domesticated descendants.
Upon a request by Anthea Gentry et al. to correct this, the Commission ruled that 17 names of wild animals, although published at a later date than the names of their domesticated descendants, would have precedence over the older names in case they are treated as the same species.
In this article, the domestic cat is treated as a domesticated descendant and subspecies of the wild cat, as can be read in Taxonomy and evolution. In the same chapter, it is stated that "The most common name in use for the domestic cat remains F. catus, following a convention for domesticated animals of using the earliest (the senior) synonym proposed,"with a reference to Opinion 2027. In Opinion 2027, no such "convention" is mentioned, and the statement therefore most likely just reflects the opinion of the user who added it.
The cases Dog and Horse are identical to this one, and in those articles, the scientific names are given as Canis lupus familiaris and Equus ferus caballus respectively.
Opinion 2027 does not prohibit the use of a senior synonym, in case the domesticated taxon is treated as a separate species. That, however, is not done in this article, so the correct name is then Felis silvestris catus, and I will once again edit the article to this effect. Wikiklaas11:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Opinion 2027 reserves the use of Felis silvestris for the wildcat, rather than using the senior synonym, Felis catus when the domestic cat is treated as a subspecies. However, it doesn't specify what should be done with the domestic cat and, as you note, doesn't prohibit use of the senior synonym as a species name.
In a follow up Gentry, Clutton-Brock and Groves (2004)[2] "recommended that names based on domestic forms be adopted for the corresponding domestic derivatives", i.e. that the domestic cat be known as Felis catus (see table 1).
Furthermore, the IUCN Cat Group have recently published a revised felid taxonomy (Kitchener et al, 2017[3]; Groves is one of the authors) and the wildcat is split into three species. Felis lybica is separated from Felis silvestris and the domestic cat is treated as a species because of Opinion 2007. On p21 they write: "Following Opinion 2027 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2003), the domestic cat is treated as a distinct taxon, Felis catus (Gentry et al. 2004)".
There is no ambiguity about their conclusion or the source of their reasoning, although you could argue whether it directly follows the opinion or is a separate development based on Groves et al (2004). This Wikipedia cat article can't be used as a source to argue for treating the domestic cat as a subspecies, rather the text of the article needs changing to reflect current views on the taxonomy. Jts1882 | talk12:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Opinion 2027 is a ruling by the ICZN and as such is an extension to the Code that should be followed by all authors dealing with names governed by that Code. If two taxa are considered conspecific, then they should be given the same specific name. In that sense, Opinion 2027 does affect the names of domesticated animals. The "follow up" by Gentry et al. has no such standing. It is a rather private recommendation. Their table 1 is an overview of the traditional names, not of the names that should be used.
In the above you state that "the domestic cat is treated as a species because of Opinion 2007". Opinion 2007 is about the designation of a type species for Kalotermes (an insect), so you most likely meant to refer to 2027. The Code and the body of Opinions do not provide rules for how to treat the status of a taxon (i.e. different from another taxon, or its rank at specific or subspecific level): the rules of the Code only come into play after such a decision is made by one or more taxonomists. Your statement that the domestic cat is treated as a species because of Opinion 2027 cannot hold. There may be good grounds to treat the taxon as a species, but you probably misunderstood them.
If current views on the family tree of wild and domesticated cats differ from the treatment of the domestic cat as a descendant from the wild cat, as given in the current article, then that part of the article should be updated, and if necessary, the scientific names should be adjusted. As long as the domestic cat is treated as a subspecies of the wild cat however, its scientific name is Felis silvestris catus. I just made a correction because the scientific name used was not in accordance with the status of the taxon as expressed in the relevant part of the article. Wikiklaas01:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, you made the edit in good faith, but it was based on a misunderstanding of Opinion 2027, as my revert indicated. Your edit entry said "according to ICZN Opinion 2027, the name F. catus should not be used if it is considered a descendant of F. silvestris, which it is in this article". The actual decision was to use F. catus silvestris if the cat was treated as a subspecies of the wildcat, which is subtly different. The IUZN decisison was neutral on whether domesticated animals should be considered a subspecies or not and there is a substantial literature on this. In the case of the cat it has been treated as a species by both Wozencraft (2005) and the Kitchener et al (2017) and the latter discusses the ICZN decision. In addition, the cat article says "The most common name in use for the domestic cat remains F. catus" which doesn't seem to be strongly supporting the status of subspecies.
@Jts1882: I agree with you that Wikiklaas's analysis of Opinion 2027 was incorrect. However, part of your conclusion doesn't quite right read right to me. There's essentially no scientific question left at all that domestic cats are a subspecies (or less) of F. silvestris (they are). The main dispute I've seen in fairly recent material is whether to call this species F. silvestris or rename it F. catus since the catus name came first. The general rule is to do so, but there's strong resistance to the idea from some quarters (same with dogs and horses); some camps want to preserve F. silvestris and F. catus as distinct names for different contexts, others want to use F. silvestris catus for the subspecies, and others F. catus catus, while a few holdouts (and many older sources) consider F. catus a species, which has been debunked pretty solidly by now. Most of this appears to be a dispute between traditional taxonomists and cladists, and further in-fighting between rule-oriented taxonomists and really traditional ones, as well as between real taxonomists and "applied" people, e.g. in animal breeding circles who don't like seeing cats "demoted". This is a controversy or cluster of controversies WP should teach, not take a side in, other than as required to follow our general "go with scientific consensus" rule. We should report (in lead and infobox) the most common scientific name first and the second one second, and leave the rest probably to a section on taxonomic disputes. As of this second, the article is doing that according to what I knew half a decade ago, but this probably needs a re-examination. I'm not sure that F. catus should given any prominence any more, and that may hinge on whether the F. catus catus camp (i.e. the "rename F. silvestris to F. catus" camp) have made any headway. I haven't looked into this for about 5 years, and don't have as much journal-searching-sites access as I used to. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikiklaas reverting my entry
Wikiklaas can you please contact me re what you dont understand about my entry.I sent you wikitalk to you as well so I hope I am not duplicating where i should leave this message.
more or less the same question, posted on my talk page, copied to this more relevant talk page
Wikilaas.what part of this did you not understand? I am happy to explain any part of it to you .I look forward to hearing from you.
Hi Veritylookingfortruth, you wrote: "The common blotched tabby coat pattern of modern cats is actually a recent phenotype - visual look due to certain genes-and that all domestic cats prior to the Middle Ages were all striped much like a tiger." That is not a proper sentence. It is incomprehensible because you violate grammar so much that there is no longer any meaning to the words.
You don't have to explain any of this to me. Please be sure to write correct language when you edit an article in the main space, so that every reader will understand what knowledge you present in your addition.
Your edit was based on a paper in Nature Ecology & Evolution. It seems you did not understand the main message in it, and you seem to have read what you wanted to read. This is what is in the paper:
“
A coat-colour variant was found at high frequency only after the Middle Ages, suggesting that directed breeding of cats occurred later than with most other domesticated animals.
[...]
...the domestication process seemingly has not profoundly altered the morphological, physiological, behavioural and ecological features of cats, in contrast to what has been observed, for example, for dogs.
[...]
We also studied a genetically defined coat-colour marker, the blotched tabby marking, to monitor a phenotypic change reflecting human-driven selection along the domestication pathway.
[...] Coat pattern
The domestication process has not markedly changed the morphology of cats, and few traits can be used today to identify wild or hybrid populations. Of the few traits available, the most widely used is the tabby coat marking. The transmembrane aminopeptidase Q (Taqpep) gene is responsible for the tabby phenotypic variation in cats, with a single SNP distinguishing most of the mackerel and blotched patterns that are characteristic of the wild and domestic patterns, respectively. To develop a temporal framework for the emergence of a variation in coat pattern typical of domestic cats, we investigated the three SNPs in the Taqpep gene. We found that the recessive allele responsible for the blotched-tabby pattern in 80% of present-day cats (W841X) occurred in our ancient dataset not earlier than the Medieval period in SWA (3%, minimum number of total alleles). Thereafter, its frequency increased in Europe, SWA, and Africa (50% in total), showing late expansion of this typically domestic allele.
”
The authors did not intend to describe the history of coat patterns, nor did they anywhere claim the "blotched tabby pattern" to be "common" as this was not what they were aiming at. The researchers used it as a means to show there has most likely been human-driven selection. The gene responsible for the blotched (also called "classic" or "marbled") pattern is a mutation of the Transmembrane Aminopeptidase Q-gene. Apparently, based on their text, the gene occurs in about 80% of modern day domestic cats (although they do not substantiate this claim). The mutation for "blotched" is a recessive allele. If it is present in 80% of the domestic cat population, this means that 20% of the individuals only have the two dominant alleles. If the alleles are randomly distributed, then a simple calculation will tell us that about 30% of all cats would only have both recessive alleles, and would thus show the blotched pattern. That is, if the suggested 80% is correct.
Another interpretation of the 80% would be that the authors literally meant that 80% of modern day domestic cats exhibit the blotched pattern. Based again on the assumption that distribution of alleles is random, and using the same simple calculation, this would lead to a frequency of 0.894 (in total) for the recessive allele, which is way off the "50% in total" the authors themselves mention. The interpretation I first chose gives allele frequencies of 0.447 (dominant) and 0.553 (recessive) which comes close to their "50% in total." A literal interpretation is thus highly unlikely.
This paper was on the origins of the domestic cat and on the history of domestication. If you want to add knowledge about coat patterns, then you'd better cite a few papers that are explicitly on coat patterns. The authors of the Nature Ecology & Evolution paper cite one: Kaelin, C.B. et al. (2012). "Specifying and sustaining pigmentation patterns in domestic and wild cats." Science337: 1536–1541. And be sure to phrase your additions in correct language.
Oh, and one other thing: a phenotype is NOT a "visual look due to certain genes". To put it relatively simply it is what comes out of a certain genotype in interaction with other genes, nurture and environment. In your circumscription a certain genotype would always lead to the same phenotype, in which case the concept phenotype would be a superfluous one.
Unlock this page so people can contribute to it now. Cats are not controversial, thus the page is not subjected to, "a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users" nor are cats, "biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest" to directly quote the wikipedia page that outlines the appropriate use of simi-protection. Hence, there is no reason whatsoever for locking down this page. This is a total abuse of power and contravenes the very nature of wikipedia that anyone knowledgeable of the subject matter may contribute to the edits/additions. Many pages on this site are locked now, but I think the locking of a page about freakin' CATS has to take the cake for all-time ridiculously unnecessary application of simi-protection. I wonder if the page on cute fuzzy bunnies should be locked next?!? Oh wait, just checked, the rabbit page IS locked! Disregard aforementioned statement about taking the cake in being ridiculous - I guess you all will have to settle for second place to the cute fuzzy bunny page people. Sad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.181.200 (talk) 04:52, November 9, 2017 (UTC)
Yep. And the rationale is wrong. Whether a topic is controversial does not determine the frequency of vandalism (controversial topics see more of it than usual, but so do basic, everyday-word topics like "cat" and "pizza" and "guitar" and "chemistry"). Any anonymous editor can request an edit to a semi-protected page with {{edit semi-protected}}. They can also request unprotection at WP:RFPP; an admin may in fact determine that there was too little vandalism to merit the protection. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 10:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@TheGoldenNuggetYT?: Taking these in order: See List of cat breeds. Exactly what qualifies as a "breed" differs by registry, so there is no single numeric answer to that question. Colors vary widely by breed. Jumping height: that might be worth covering in the article, and there are probably sources for this, but no one's done the leg-work for it. This will also vary a little by breed (e.g. short-legged breeds will have a lower jumping height) but there's probably a published average out there. The last question is meaningless, since "high" is a subjective opinion. PS: Please see WP:NOT#FORUM – Wikipedia talk pages exist for coordinating the work on our content, not for asking general questions. We do have a reference desk section for that, though. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Removed source on raw food
Someone added this source, but for material that fails WP:NOT#ADVICE:
This is probably also too primary for making a veterinary medical claim. It would be worth checking for some literature reviews on this topic, however, which would qualify as high-quality secondary sources. May need someone who has access to major journal archives. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 20:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Saliva
line 20 of anatomy states that cat saliva is "less damaging" than human saliva. Wouldn't it be better to say "more protective" or delete the comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.84.239 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Both statements are too vague to be meaningful. Something more specific should be said (less acidic, or whatever the actual science is), with a reliable source. PS: "less damaging" and "more protective" are not even close to synonymous. If a mugger shoots you in the face and maims you for life instead of shooting you in the forehead and killing you, the mugger is not being "more protective" of you. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 20:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to substitute a synonymous statement, I was trying to avoid the claim that human saliva was "damaging" while allowing for the possibility that there might be something protective in cat saliva (which I am less familiar with) I suspect the difference comes down to humans eating sugar which encourages the bacteria that do the damage whilst cats don't eat sugar. If this is the case there would be no difference in the respective salivas and the comparison should be deleted especially as whoever wrote it should have provided a relevant citation for the claim
Except there is a citation for that entire sentence. If you want to challenge the sourcing, quote the source and show why and how our summary of the material is a misrepresentation. PS: "I was trying to avoid the claim that human saliva was "damaging" while allowing for the possibility that there might be something protective in cat saliva (which I am less familiar with)" = WP:OR; we have a source for cat saliva being less damaging (whether that's great wording or not), while you have none for it being "protective", which is a completely different concept than "less damaging", and you don't seem to have absorbed the fact that it is. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
What I have not absorbed is how you can believe in the concept of "damaging saliva" when the wikipedia page on saliva mentions several protective properties (against microbes, dessication and acidic pH) and nothing about damaging properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.84.239 (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing to do with anyone's "belief". We have material cited to a specific and ostensibly reliable source. You have neither provided the relevant wording of the source for us to compare with our wording, nor provided a better source, so this amounts to just arguing for the sake of arguing (see WP:NOT#FORUM). And the Saliva article doesn't say what you think it does. It says enzymes in saliva helps regulate mouth pH, which will also be true in cats. This doesn't change the fact that saliva is acidic. The underlying truth is probably that cat saliva does a better job of this, but we need sources for this; we can't just make up our own interpretation. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 01:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
It is entirely about your belief that "saliva is acidic" is a fact, and your interpretation that "damaging" in the original quote actually means "acidic". The saliva article says exactly what I thought it did. You missed the relevant passage on the saliva page which reads "keeping the acidity of the mouth within a certain range, typically pH 6.2 - 7.4. This prevents mineral in the dental hard tissues from dissolving". I interpret this as meaning saliva prevents mineral in the teeth from dissolving. How do you interpret it?
There was an error in the original book. This error was copied into the wikipedia article. You have now interpreted this error as support for your "saliva is acidic" theory. This isn't about arguing for the sake of arguing it's about exposing errors.
WP:CIRCULAR policy. I'm not going to argue about this with you any further. Repeat: We have material cited to a specific and ostensibly reliable source. You have neither provided the relevant wording of the source for us to compare with our wording, nor provided a better source, so this amounts to just arguing for the sake of arguing (see WP:NOT#FORUM). — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 03:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The far more important saliva matter: The most salient fact about cat saliva is that it's what humans with a cat allergy are actually allergic to (more specifically, an enzyme in the saliva). Our allergies are triggered by dried grooming saliva (dander) not by cat hair per se. This is why claims that near-hairless breeds like the Sphynx are hypo-allergenic is just breeder marketing bullshit, which should be deleted on-sight in our articles even if it comes with a "source" like a breed profile in a cat fancier magazine (written by a breeder of the breed in question – fails WP:INDY). — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2018
This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the lead, please either:
change extirpate –to– eliminate (or similar synonym) –or,
Good answer. That's much better than either of the suggested ideas. We shouldn't link to off-site material when we have appropriate material on-site, and near-synonyms like "eliminate" or "exterminate" don't get at the nature of the issue (they can be interpreted as approximations, as decimations, when what is really meant is in fact localized extinction. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Could someone do a picture check on Bicolor cat? I think someone didn't follow the general policy for cat pictures and just added a picture of their cat (named Boots) near the bottom. What would the correct action for this be? Sincerely, Sir Intellegence - smartr tahn eaver!!!!00:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Are you considering adopting a cat? You definitely should because there are many cats across the world that are hurt, starving, and need of the love of a human. Although if you want to know all the things that come along with cat ownership, here they are, from a person who has been the mother of two cats for 12 years.
Cons:
1) One of very few cons that accompany the ownership of a cat, is that you must clean their litter box. My kitties both use this litter box quite often and it is necessary to use a scooper to clean it up and put it into a trash bag and throw it away. Although, this is much easier than having to take your dog out for long periods of walks four times a day.
2) They shed. Like many, many other animals, they shed their fur. Depending on what breed of cat that you decide to take ownership of, you may have very little fur shedding or an enormous amount of fur shedding.
3) They are attention seekers. This can be a con because if you do not want to pay attention to your cats, they may bother you. Cats do love attention, they can be left to themselves and may prefer that, but they also may bother you if you are working on an important project.
4) They may not like dogs. If you have a dog, they may not get along depending on their personality, but one of my cats loves dogs, but one of them hates them. It just depends.
5) They sleep a lot. This may not be much of a con if you love to sleep as well, but these cats do love to sleep most of the day and night.
Pros:
These are loving, caring, beautiful creatures. They can bring you infinite joy and are low maintenance. You do not have to take care for them that much meaning that you don't have to play with them often and you don't have to take them out 5 times a day. Overall, if you are considering a cat, I promise that you should get one, and get one from a shelter because they are the sweetest and need the most saving.
-Marie Pemberton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp81000 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2018
This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Ethionine is a highly toxic poison, that kills rapidly, and is carcenogenic. If it is a normal precursor to an essential nutrient I would be amazed. I love learning that I am wrong. If you have a respected reference that ethionine is indeed a normal metabolite in Cats, which cats use to synthesize taurine, then by all means please post it here. Nick Beeson (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Becky's correct that its a good source, and we could use more behavior info, even if most of it belongs in the presently rather skeletal Cat behavior article (hell, the WP:SUMMARY material at Cat#Behavior is pretty much the entire Cat behavior article, and in some ways better than it).
it's worth working up a solid behavior article and properly summarized section here, both for general encyclopedic purposes, and to diffuse the tendency for people to add behavioral stuff to breed articles when virtually none of it is breed-specific. We have a long-running problem in that regard; people are under the mistaken impression that cat breeds differ markedly in behavior and it's just not true, other than for a tiny handful of actually well-documented quirks that are statistically more frequent with particular breeds, the four most obvious being: vocalization in Siamese and related breeds, climbing and aggression in Bengals because they're part-wild hybrids, limpness in Ragdolls/Ragamuffins upon being picked up, and higher likelihood of playing fetch among Maine Coons and a couple of other breeds. Almost all other breed-specific behavior claims are unsourceable to anything but breeders' promotional materials, and backed by a grand total of zero actual science. If this article properly covers typical cat behaviors, we're less likely to have people trying to assert that particular breeds are typically affectionate with people, curious, sleep a lot, etc. It's a fair amount of initial work on this article, but it'll save time and effort in the long run.
Additionally, shows like My Cat from Hell – running for nine years and still going – and the plethora of books on resolving cat–human and cat–cat (and even cat–dog, etc.) behavior issues strongly indicates this is a topic of general public interest, and so is something we should cover in considerable detail (though without wandering off the WP:NOT#GUIDE path). I would think that using the dog behavior materials we have (aside from all the breed-specific stuff, which is legit – people have been breeding dogs for very specific behaviors for thousands of years now) would be a reasonable model, though we should look also at the horse articles. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, and proper citation from reliable and reputable sources is key here.
Referencing my earlier comment regarding merges, I feel the three individual articles I mentioned should remain separate and be better developed. (And rigorously cleaned of unsubstantiated bias—I can attest personally that male Siamese are the most vocal of the bunch, but my experience is hardly encyclopedic.) 73.252.40.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Allergies
Under the interactions with humans section, I think it is necessary to include a section about allergies and why humans are allergic to cats. It should be included that humans are not allergic to feline hair, rather, to the proteins in their urine, saliva, and/or dead skin cells, also known as dander, due to their immune system's sensitivity to these proteins.[1] Allergies to cats, depending on the severity, can be treated with allergy medication, but may require more more serious medication if it is more severe than sneezing, itchy eyes, and other common symptoms. While there are no truly, 100% hypoallergenic, or non-allergic, cats, there are breeds which are less allergy-inducing than others. Some individuals may be less sensitive to the proteins in the bodies of certain breeds of cats, which allows them to be known as hypoallergenic [1]. Jhijji (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
the second paragraph compares cats to humans twice.
"Cats can hear sounds too faint or too high in frequency for human ears...." this should be changed to something along the lines of....'Cats can hear frequencies of up to 64kHz."
"Like most other mammals, cats have poorer color vision and a better sense of smell than humans." It is my suggestion to eliminate this sentence entirely or placed in a different section comparing cats to humans/other animals.
In the Play Section:
"This behavior may be a way for cats to practice the skills needed for real combat....." The word combat means 'armed forces' which I don't think is actually associated with cat behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.165.193 (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
As part of the lead section, the second paragraph is supposed to introduce the topic and summarize the main points made in the body of the article, so it's better to evaluate the Senses section first and make any needed revisions there, then come back to the second paragraph. (See MOS:LEAD for more information.) That said, I think that making these comparisons in the lead section is valid; they are discussed in considerably more detail later, and they seem important to know: our readers thus far are all humans, as far as we know, and many of them live with cats.
Yeah. We do need reliably sourced data like "64 kHz" or whatever the real facts are. The comparisons to humans aren't invalid, they're just insufficient. They help provide context (especially to young or non-technical readers – who are probably more drawn to this article than grey-beard engineering professors are) for what something like "64 kHz" means experientially. But they're an afterthought, and they also shouldn't be in the lead oncee we have the Senses section in better shape, since the lead should summarize the real info not the derived, comparative ideas. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Lead
The lead mentions the cat's role in extinction of bird species at least three times. Does anyone else think this is a bit heavy handed? The article on Homo sapiens only mentions extinction once in the entire article (and it is about other species of humans).
A domestic cat can come in a variety of colors and coat lengths. Cats have long tails, too. Some cats, though, have almost no tail at all, like the Manx Cat. They're varied in size and weigh around five pounds. Many people believe they are very cute.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The second paragraph of the lead includes the following sentence: "They can see in near total darkness, but have poorer color vision and a better sense of smell than humans." This is logically awkward, and would be better reworded along the following lines: "They can see in near total darkness and have a better sense of smell than humans, though their color vision is poorer." Rgrayuk (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Cats cannot see most colours their vision is mostly in black and white.Also they have amazing reflexes and can jump up to 2 metres in the air!51.6.56.131 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In subsection "Superstitions and cat burning", the author claims that in Turkish tradition cats are believed to have six lives on par with the Arabic tradition. The reference to this is reference number [288], an article from the Guardian. Even if such a belief may exist in Arabic tradition or in parts of Turkey where Arabs and Turks co-exist, a great deal of the Turkish population believes that cats have nine lives, similar to many other countries. I have not found a single webpage in Turkish showing that cats may have six lives, but there are a large number of webpages that show that they have nine: here I am providing only two references:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-van-cats-not-only-get-nine-lives-but-also-pools-131300http://yumurtaliekmek.com/kediler-neden-9-canli/
Therefore, please reformulate "[...] in Turkish and Arabic traditions, the number of lives is six" as "[...] in Arabic tradition, the number of lives is six". 157.193.197.204 (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Acwilson9: I'm not convinced that your edit of this sentence is an improvement on my previous edit.
The edit summary said you were editing for clarity and word economy. As far as word economy is concerned, your edit has increased the sentence from 22 to 25 words, as well as introducing repetition ("…they see better in the dark…" … "they see in near total darkness").
As regards clarity, again, I'm struggling to see an improvement. Let me try to explain.
The sentence lists three physical capabilities of cats – sense of smell, night vision and colour vision – and compares them to human capabilities. On the first two, cats perform better than humans, whereas on the third, they perform worse than humans. It therefore makes best sense to separate the first two from the third using a "but" or "though" type construction, as is commonly used to separate perceived positive aspects from negative aspects (e.g. "Jack is smart and funny, but he can be very tiring.") As the sentence currently stands, the characteristics "better sense of smell" and "poorer color vision" – one of which is positive and one negative – are joined together using "and". This results in the sentence feeling logically out of balance (which, in fact, was what led me to edit it in the first place). Rgrayuk (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Rgrayuk: That was NOT MY edit; I have no opinion on it. (MY sole edit, 9 January, was 'Hunting and feeding: Added "See also Animal psychopathology § Pica.")'.) (MEOW!) Acwilson9 (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Any thoughts on whether Wikipedia can have a Cat (word) article?? This means an article about both definitions of the word "cat", as well as having info on comparing them (e.g. which definition is older, which definition is favored by linguistics.) Feel free to comment with things the article would have to include. Georgia guy (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Given that the vast majority of authors use the term ‘domestic cat’ in articles, books and book chapters in a) the reference list of this page and b) not yet listed sources, when they write about the domestic cat, but NOT the term ‘cat’, I propose a page move to the title ‘Domestic cat’. Looking forward to comments. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as the common name for domestic cat is cat. Although tigers, lions, etc. are cats, they are covered by their own articles and by Big cats. A link to big cats in the lede would be sufficient to adequately send readers to those pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The domestic cat is a formal common name used in scientific papers, but plain cat is by far the more common name. I don't think I've ever heard any one say they have a domestic cat as a pet. There hatnote at the top of the page points to the disambiguation page. I think a very brief indication of cat referring to the family is in order in the lede, but my attempt yesterday was altered to change the meaning and then reverted. Jts1882 | talk15:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
An red-link editor (so can't ping them) Silver Tiger 12, has been removing categories from the big cat pages which link to category cats, or Tiger, or Lion. i.e. category Lions in popular culture linking to the Lions category, etc. Can someone else please weigh in on this as it's becoming tedious to keep on adding and reverting obvious categories. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Cats may sometimes have hairballs, which is when a cat starts grooming its hair and gets some hair in its mouth. Once the hair starts building up inside the cat's mouth, it will spit it out in a ball, which is called a hairball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.19.205 (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Reverted edits which changed the lede language from "It is often referred to as a domestic cat to distinguish it from big cats and other wild relatives of the Felidae" to "It is often referred to as a domestic cat to distinguish it from the wild relatives of the Felidae" should, I believe, add back big cats. This would provide that link as well as increase accuracy, as "the wild relatives" - and I can sympathize with the term- would include smaller wild cats. There have been large undiscussed edit runs recently which have removed similar language a couple of times, and missing the big cats link and language loses encyclopedic context. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that the term and int link to 'big cat' is relevant in the lead and in this context. Also, it is not used in the ref provided. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think mentioning big cats is that important, although it does no harm. The cat is called the domestic cat to distinguish it from all other wild cats, or specifically wildcats, so a linked reference to Felidae is sufficient. Why specifically should big cats be singled out for mentioned, it's hardly going to be confused with a tiger? Jts1882 | talk13:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
And thanks for saying mentioning big cats does no harm. It actually seems important to add that big cat link near the top or at the front of the hatnote, as big cats are cats too - the topic of the page. And editors should realize that "felidae" is not common language or commonly recognized by readers, "cat" is the common name, big, small, or medium. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
But why specifically mention big cats? Big cats only share one characteristic, size, and are not a biologically significant grouping. It would make more sense to say to distinguish them from pantherine and feline cats, but again unnecessary. The distinction is between domestic and wild and has nothing to do with size. If people are not familiar with what felidae means the link is there for them follow or the text could be changed to something like "to distinguish them from wild relatives in the cat family, Felidae". Anyway, this is not something I am going to get into an edit war over. Jts1882 | talk13:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no edit war, but a request to add the link. Cats, as defined by this page (and by the first sentence which I reworded back to a couple of days ago), are small, when, in reality, cats include the domestic cat, wildcats, and the big cats. Mentioning all of these, in common language, provides the terms and links that many readers will be looking for. I guess I don't see why all the fuss for a common sense use of a very related term and link in the first lede paragraph (not as a slightly-tangential See also, which was just added). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I guess there is an edit war, as BhagyaMani is ignoring the bold, revert, discuss language and continually reverting and including the definition of the page as "small" in the short first lede sentence. I would ask for a reversion of that from someone, hopefully BhagyaMani, and a reason why the addition of 'big cat' as a differentiating descriptor is unusual or unwanted. It seems BhagyaMani may have taken ownership of this page yesterday (see page edit history). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Felidae is universally understood as comprising ALL cats!!! NO need to single out either big or small cats. Please AGAIN read Jts1882's and my arguments above, or tell us which language we should use. I added an int link to big cat in See also section to suit your wish. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Felidae is not common use language, cat is. Didn't expect all this fuss, but would you be okay with the big cat link in the hatnote? I would, as a mention at the very end of a long See also is way too far down the page and See also is usually used for slightly tangential topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
And what about my suggestion above to clarify Felidae as the cat family? What is unclear to me is why you want to emphasise the big cats here. The domestic cat is not a big cat and is distantly related to most of them. In particular, it has nothing to do with the domestic cat name, the subject of the sentence in question. Jts1882 | talk15:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
A cat is a cat. Big, small, or medium. "Cat" is not an exclusive term for domesticated cats. And if the page is to be defined that way it should at least point the way early on to the other cats (and not by the uncommon name 'Felidae' - I'll do an n-gram and put it here to see if I'm maybe mistaken...and, yikes). Much ado about nothing, but I'll keep on discussing.Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
This article is about the domestic cat, not about cats in general. The first sentence says the "The cat (Felis catus) is ...", not "A cat is ... ". If you object to you could start a discussion on a page move of cat to Domestic Cat and propose a new article on cats in general (e.g. like this one for chimpanzee. Jts1882 | talk16:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
(EDIT:And your bold edit is perfect, well written and concise. Hopefully it can stick.) Aye aye aye. No, I don't want to change the name or the focus of the article. But my questions and n-gram evidence are being ignored, because there is no reason being given to omit links to big cats, and maybe the panthers as suggested above, from the lede paragraph to differentiate for people who come here expecting a full article on all cats. Adding them thus removes any need for any future editor to even consider changing the scope of the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your questions aren't been ignored. You still haven't explained why big cats need special mention in an article about the domestic cat, when other more closely related small cats don't get a special mention. The link to Felidae covers other cats (you also have responded to my suggestion on this). The ngram evidence is not evidence for your position. All it says is that cat is used more often than the other terms, not that people expect mention of big cats when they see the terms cat.
And I see you have seen my edit responding to your concern. It's far from perfect, but can be refined. Some more specific mention of other small cats might be needed for balance. Jts1882 | talk17:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I liked your 'bold move' including domestic cat before Latin name!! And would support a page move to domestic cat!! I mentioned several small cat species in the section on Evolution. But so far, still do not see why mention of any Panthera species should be relevant in the context of domestic cat. Its most superfluous of all int links on the page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Georgia guy: The term cat is used in several senses, so it is not contradictory to call the other felids cats. It is called the cat family for a reason. In fact, the article should make clear that there are multiple uses of the term and that other animals are also cats sensu lato. Jts1882 | talk17:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
After being told in an edit summary that the addition of big cats "redefines" the term 'cat', I thought that the opening lede of Felidae is important to place here as part of this discussion, boldface mine: "Felidae is a family of mammals in the order Carnivora, colloquially referred to as cats. A member of this family is also called a felid or feline. The term 'cat' refers both to felids in general and specifically to domestic cats." Note that in the Felidae article the word 'cat' is accurately used throughout. Many coming here, to this page, come to read about cats in general. The reason to use common language in the lede (and not only 'felidae', which is not commonly used - see n-grams above) and to point to the big cats is to give accurate information, a link to a majorly related and relevant Wikipedia article, and, importantly, so that this page, 'Cat', can remain about the small cats and not branch out to include all cats (or to accurately make it a redirect to 'Felidae'). The push-back I'm getting on this idea by page regulars may be a misunderstanding of motive. I do not want this article's scope moved, but to remain on the small domesticated variety of cat. In that context the link to big cats in the lede seems both reasonable and necessary. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The article should clarify that cat is used in several senses, not obscure it. I made one attempt to do this yesterday, which was changed for worse and then reverted. I also support your attempted addition today, but think the sentence has to be more inclusive of other cats. It is reasonable to mention the big cats and link them, but something linked for small and medium cats is needed for balance. Unfortunately they don't have such a convenient article.
Here is how the lede of the (soon to be named) Chimpanzee article handles this same situation, in this case regarding the bonobo: "The chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), also known as the common chimpanzee, robust chimpanzee, or simply "chimp," is a species of great ape. The chimpanzee, along with the closely related bonobo (sometimes called the pygmy chimpanzee), is a species in the genus Pan." Randy Kryn (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The reversions stopped for me at the point of this discussion, which I assume is ongoing, but since this discussion took place there have been over 100 edits and the page is suddenly omitting big cats from the lede and is being solely focused on the domestic cat. I'm being reverted on adding category:Cats to the category:Tiger and category:Lion pages. Wikipedia seems to be now saying that tigers and lions aren't cats. Can someone step in and bring all cats back into the fold. Does this have to become a full RfC? Was hoping it wouldn't have to come to that, but excluding tigers, lions, and panthers from being called cats seems that the encyclopedic inaccuracies have emerged on this page and related categories even more so than when this discussion started. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Tigers and lions clearly aren't the kind of animal everyone understands the word cat to mean. Ask different people what a cat is and they'll say a small, domestic animal. They might say that cats chase mice. They might say that cats meow. They might say that they like cats better than dogs. Georgia guy (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
One of your reverts reads "Category:Cats is for articles about the pet species, not its wild relatives". What you and other editors are doing is pushing this page to be renamed "Domestic cat" which is what I was trying to avoid after the initial reverts mentioned above. Cats are both small, medium, and large. They are all cats. Wikipedia should not be saying that the word "Cat" is just for the small domestic cat, but that's what the lede paragraph has gone back to. Please give this more thought. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Cats can be small or large depending on what you're comparing them to. Cats are smaller than dogs, but larger than mice. This statement is clear. Georgia guy (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Definition of "cat" downsized
This is getting ridiculous. Big cats are cats, they are included in the definition and covered by WikiProject Cats. But they have been written out of the hatnote and lead to make the word "Cat", on Wikipedia, to just mean house cats. I made a perfectly reasonable editorial attempt to rectify this, and it was soon reverted. Can the regular editors who own this page please explain why the larger cats are no longer cats according to the world's largest and best encyclopedia? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I thanked Georgia guy for the prompt revert, because I fully agree that an int link to the big cat page is not at all appropriate in the lead of this page, as discussed already in January!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
That discussion was never completed and not determinative, and this has become a mess of a topic-page seemingly controlled by page-owners. Big cats are cats, and to totally remove them from the definition of cat on Wikipedia arguably does both the encyclopedia and the reading public a disservice, gives an erroneous definition, and purposely limits a word which should not be repeatedly downsized but expanded with early descriptors and links. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The cat or domestic cat is ... defines the article content in the opening sentence. There is no need to discuss other cats, big or small, in the lede. The hatnote refers people to Felidae for other cats and there is no need to distinguish between big and small cats there. They are all felids or cats sensu lato. The disambiguation page handles cats more generally. The definition of cats isn't "downsized" on Wikipedia, it's just this article is about the domestic cat. The latter might be a better name for this article, but good luck trying to change that. Jts1882 | talk16:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Is A house cat is valued by humans ... for its ability to hunt rodents an accurate statement? Too often this capability is just an irrating habit we must tolerate when we choose to share a cat's home. Jts1882 | talk16:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This statement is certainly accurate in the context of agrarian communities, see e.g. Cats in ancient Egypt. I once had a cat that was very efficient at keeping the mice living below the terrace in check. But perhaps city folk who keep their house cats indoors don't care much for their hunting instinct. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The idea of cats being merely domestic pets and companion animals, devoid of the duties of vermin control is a fairly recent development. It was not until the later half of the 20th century that there were any viable alternatives to cats for dealing with invasive rodents, etc. There is undoubtedly a large grey area on when the people started making the distinction. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The lead of the 'Felidae' article: "Felidae is a family of mammals in the order Carnivora, colloquially referred to as cats. A member of this family is also called a felid or feline. The term 'cat' refers both to felids in general and specifically to domestic cats." This lead requires that the hatnote and lead of this page mention big cats as well as domestic cats. "Cat" is the common name of 'felidae' (check the n-grams provided elsewhere or work one up). Readers will be helped if big cats were in the hatnote and in the explanatory portion of this lead. As with the past discussion, I have no idea why this is being resisted. Can someone explain without going into personal cat stories (and I've got those too). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
You've provided the answer in your own question: "... colloquially referred to as cats." "Felidae" is formal, "Cats" is colloquial (informal). Per Wikipedia Guidelines WP:FORMAL articles should be written in formal, using informal only where it helps for clarity. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The felidae article uses the word 'cat' throughout. Why? Because almost nobody in real life uses the word 'Felidae', and the word 'cat' has to be used for the clarity you mention. Remember, all I am suggesting is that the article big cat be mentioned and linked in the hatnote and in the lede, which seems reasonable. How is it unreasonable? That's a serious question which has yet to be addressed in any of the discussions, although I've asked it in several ways. The only answer so far is that the word 'cat' always means domestic cat, when clearly it doesn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
You are conflating two different things. Yes, cats is used in more than one sense and is widely used for all members of Felidae, which is why it is known as the cat family. Then you ask why no mention of big cats? You haven't given any reason why you want a specific mention big cats (5-7 species) while ignoring other small and medium wild cat species (> 30 species). They are all covered by mention of felids. Why do you want a specific mention of a non-natural group of cats for which there is no agreed composition? Jts1882 | talk12:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The 'central' page for the big cats that I consider the relevant one is Panthera. The one for the small cats is Felinae, and see all the links therein to the pages on the different genera. And BTW: all these pages are better maintained, in particular referenced, than the one you insist on linking to. As mentioned already by Jts1882, 'big cat' is a group, for which there is no agreed composition. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
But the "central" page is about an unnatural group, based purely on size, which is arbitrary and subject to different interpretations. There is usually agreement that the five Panthera species are big cats, along with the puma, which is more closely related to the domestic cat than the lion. The cheetah is often included and some people include clouded leopards. There is nothing other than size that unites these cats as a group and the broader definition includes cats that would be considered medium sized. The medium sized cats don't have a page because they are an arbitrary group consisting of the lynx and caracal lineages, plus puma lineage cats that haven't been designated big cats, and maybe a few others. A small cat page would have similar issues. However, there is a perfectly good natural division of pantherine and feline cats, which is close to the big cat/small cat division but is of evolutionary significance. This is a far more important division and should be mentioned before the big cats. Jts1882 | talk14:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
It is a functional group, established by the consensus of biologists and zoologist over many years of study and research. Size was a consideration in establishing this definition, but not the only consideration. Wikipedia does not have the mandate the second guess the definitions established by the experts, so it is futile to dispute that fact here. We report the facts, we do not define them. You can take the matter up with the Association of Biologists if you believe that you have information that they have not considered. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Big cats is not a functional group described by experts, unless restricted to Panthera (5 species) or roaring cats (4 species). It is a popular term used by lay naturalists and conservationists, which has some utility because of our fascination with large carnivores. I'd be interested to see a scientific definition of big cats if you can find one. I'm tempted to ask the Association of Biologists, but it doesn't appear to exist. Jts1882 | talk16:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
You obviously did not look very hard. A internet search for biologist's associations, took only a few seconds and gave me several dozen national and international professional biologist organizations. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Now you are backtracking. You capitalised "the Association of Biologists", which means a specific name of an organisation, not just any association of biologists. You specifically said I should provide this association with information they haven't considered in making their determination on what a big cat is. So I ask again, can you support yoru claim that experts have decribed a functional group called big cats? Jts1882 | talk18:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll take that as a no. I did read the sources in the article and they don't support your comment about experts, from real or imaginary associations. Anyway, this is going well off-topic for this talk page and doesn't address the primary point. An article on the domestic cat doesn't need to deal with a subjective topic like big cats. If you can justify your point about the expert defined big cats, which you seem unwilling to do, it belongs elsewhere. Jts1882 | talk20:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
We have disambiguation, including by hatnotes, for a reason. This page being one of a zillion cases of a word or name having more than one potential referent in readers' minds doesn't make it somehow special. We already have an article on the much more general concept of "the cats", and it is Felidae. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
that many?
Resolved
I know that there are a lot of cats in the US, but: 94.2 million million cats owned sounds like more than I would expect. Gah4 (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the cat page, under the sub-heading 'Impact on Birds' there is an inaccurate statement... The sentence reads: "Domestic cats are, however, known to be a contributing factor to the decline of many species, a factor that has ultimately led, in some cases, to extinction. The South Island piopio, Chatham rail,[207] the New Zealand merganser,[211] and the common diving petrel[212]
The Common Diving Petrel is not extinct... it is "of least concern", so I was just trying to edit out that part.
The current wording is the article is somewhat ambiguous. It could mean that cats have led to a decline of the common diving petrel ("Domestic cats are, however, known to be a contributing factor to the decline of many species [...] "the common diving petrel are a few from a long list"). The other three examples in the article are extinct, however, which means having the common diving petrel in the same sentence is misleading at best.
It's unfortunate that the reference (no. 212 Status and Conservation of the World's Seabirds) does not have an online preview via google books so I could verify what it says. I do note that the article common diving petrel makes no mention of a decline due to cats/other predators, just that numbers are declining.
I'm not going to make a change at present, and leave this section open for someone else to review. On balance, I would say I lean towards removing the common diving petrel, but I would like a further opinion. NiciVampireHeart16:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like the reasonable thing to do. People add nonsense to "major topic" articles like this all the time. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Many of the these birds are on relatively isolated islands where they have been vulnerable to introduced species, notably cats and rats. I don't oppose the deletion here (unless more specific information is added), but the additions are not entirely bogus. Jts1882 | talk20:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
'House cat' or 'Pet cat'?
Does anyone agree that the term 'house cat' is misleading and a colloquialism. It would seem to be more accurate to use the term 'pet cat' if referring to a domestic cat kept as a pet. I'd like to suggest an edit to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.253.130 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think house cat or pet cat are common names, more descriptive of them being kept as a pet (similar to "I have a pet tiger") or kept in the house exclusively. The common name is domestic cat or just cat. I've had cats all my life and can't remember ever referring to them as house cats or pet cats. Jts1882 | talk09:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you Jts1882. In the main article on Cats the very first paragraph refers to 'house cats'. I am suggesting that the phrase 'house cat' should be replaced with a more accurate term but I can't edit because the article is semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.253.130 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The term 'house cat' is the most accurate in this context. And if I remember correctly, you Jts1882, added it, didn't you? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC) PS: to distinguish from 'feral cat'. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Then I'm sorry! It did however take quite some back and forth to come to this agreement for the actual definition of 'cat'. And given the Ngram results presented above by Berean Hunter, I don't see any need to change this definition. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what edit the IP is suggesting since it is included as a common term and not the title of the article. Removing it would be wrong as it has already been shown to be more common than pet cat in published sources.
A few examples of house cat used by reliable sources within their articles:
The term is not misleading. I've heard it my whole life and know that house cat is a housepet (see that term here as well) and a name often used to contrast with another type of pet cat, the working farm cat. The difference is that a house cat may either live indoors exclusively (like mine) or may come and go from the house. The farm cat is not usually allowed in the house but often shelters in a barn, shed or other outbuilding. From what I've seen, most farm cats do receive supplemental food and are pets to some degree. — Berean Hunter(talk)23:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
"House cat" is a definition of the animal's function, it is not descriptive of the species. A house cat is biologically no different than barn cat, a ship's cat, or a feral cat. The only difference in these are what role it performs. Not all "felic catus" are house cats, nor are they all pets, so it cannot be considered descriptive of the species. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is about pet cat vs. house cat as terms. No one is trying to define the species as a whole with it. This article compares and contrasts house cats against feral cats already so removing such descriptors isn't an option. — Berean Hunter(talk)16:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
"An analysis of the cat genome led by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in 2014 revealed that cats have a relatively recent history of domestication compared with dogs; canines arose from wolves over 30,000 years ago."
Shouldn't we explicitly state the timescale for cat domestication? Otherwise all we're doing is vaguely comparing it to 30,000 for dogs. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Reclassification
Since Linnaean Taxonomy is sometimes inaccurate, and it's inaccurate this time, as cats are descended from the African wild cat (Felis lybica), they should be reclassified as a part of that species, which makes a domestic cat a subspecies or a clade like Felis lybica catus. We need to reclassify so that we can still connect the taxonomy to phylogeny, which makes taxonomy able to be converted to exact phylogeny. Smith131072 (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia's mandate to re-classify species. Taxonomy is established by professional biologists, WP merely records these facts. Mediatech492 (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Taxonomy and phylogeny are different things. Ideally the taxonomy follows the phylogeny but there are reasons where exceptions are made, notably domesticates and stem taxa, but also some taxa where tradition is strongly entrenched. What we put on Wikipedia has to be based on taxonomic sources, not what we think is the best answer based on phylogenies. Jts1882 | talk12:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I note that the description in the article is not entirely accurate. Opinion 2027 fixed the first available name for certain wild species with domesticates with an older name, but left open the decision on whether the domestic form was considered a species. Gentry et al recommended that domesticates be considered species, on the grounds that they are clearly distinguishable forms, but this was not a decision of the commission. Some taxonomic authorities have followed this advice, others haven't. Thus, following the IUCN SCG the domestic cat is a species, but the dog is still considered a subspecies of grey wolf (at least for now). Jts1882 | talk12:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jts1882: I'm only an interested layperson, but from Evolution of the domesticated cat I get the impression that the real reason is even more wide-ranging: certain sources (especially the study cited there) classify F. silvestris, F. lybica, F. bieti, F. ornata and F. cafra all as subspecies of F. silvestris, i. e., the European taxon as F. s. silvestris, the Middle Eastern taxon as F. s. lybica, etc., and that is the real reason why F. catus becomes F. s. catus. (F. bieti had been considered a subspecies of F. silvestris by several authorities before.) It does not imply anything on the precise ancestry of the domesticated cat (Near Eastern vs. European), actually. The domesticated cat, even in this scheme, remains coordinate to the European and the Middle Eastern taxon. (Only the less closely related species F. margarita, F. nigripes and F. chaus remain where they are.) The section Category:Taxonomy really needs to be revised by someone more knowledgeable in the topic than I am. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2019
This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section about nutrition, I would like to add the following information to the last paragraph:
At the 2019 annual convention of the International Society for Applied Ethology in Bergen, Norway, a group of researchers revealed the results of a study that surveyed more than 1,000 cat owners via the Internet. The study found that eating grass is a common behaviour of domestic cats, with 71% observed to have eaten grass at least 6 times in their lifetimes, and only 11% having never been observed eating grass. Roughly a quarter of the respondents said that their cat vomited after eating grass, and 91% of respondents said that their cat did not appear sick before eating grass. The researchers reaffirmed the hypothesis that this behaviour is a vestigial trait that once helped cats induce vomiting to expel parasites. The researchers also suggested that cat owners grow their own grass indoors to prevent their cats from consuming poisonous plants. [1]Mramero081494 (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the L3 section Hunting and feeding the last two paragraphs may be misplaced: the penultimate paragraph (drinking not by suction) appears to have been inserted between two paragraphs describing prey. Thus: may the penultimate paragraph (drinking) please be moved so that it's the last paragraph in that section?--217.155.32.221 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
RE: banner that just got removed. Is the article length really a problem? Readable prose is the primary concern here, not raw article size including markup. The number of characters in the readable prose is 59,505 according to XTools. Judging from WP:SIZERULE, this isn't an egregious offense. To the extent that there is flexibility within the guidelines, I generally prefer to keep long-ish articles as they are. So I'd vote for keeping the article as is.
Even if people are still unhappy with the scrollable length, we shouldn't forget that references take up a lot of space here: about 20% of the scrollable length on my Desktop computer. I'd hate to see good content get cut out in the main article just because of the giant reference section. Is there way to truncate references so they don't have to be displayed in their entirety? MaxwellMolecule (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I just want to chime in and say that I am kind of amazed that between October 3rd and today, the choice was made to cut almost 6 printed pages (compared revisions) of researched content, ~30% of this article to make it more scrollable. It feels like a destruction of value to me. Rather than cutting important knowledge, can we instead petition for better in-article navigation? Diablanco (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Female domestic cats can have kittens from spring to late autumn, with litter sizes ranging from two to five kittens.[9] Domestic cats are bred and shown as registered pedigreed cats, a hobby known as cat fancy. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by spaying and neutering, as well as the abandonment of pets, resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, contributing to the extinction of entire bird species, and evoking population control.[10]
As of 2017, the domestic cat was the second-most popular pet in the United States by a number of pets owned, after freshwater fish,[15] with 95 million cats owned.[16][17] In the United Kingdom, around 7.3 million cats lived in more than 4.8 million households as of 2019.[18]
The article does not make it clear if domestic cats are a species, Felis cattus, or a subspecies of Felis silvestris. The section which covers this seems to be saying both. PopSci (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
BTW this sentence, from the same section, seems rather trivial for a general article on the species: " Felis daemon proposed by Konstantin Alekseevich Satunin in 1904 was a black cat specimen from the Transcaucasus, later identified as a domestic cat.[27][28]" PopSci (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
It is currently recognised as a species by the IUCN Specialist Cat Group, which is used as the authority on Felidae species. The problem for the article is that the status of the cat has changed through time, with recognition as species, as subspecies of Felis silvestris or of Felis libyca (where it is nested phylogenetically), and different people edit different sections, so they often get out of synch. Jts1882 | talk11:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
Not done: Blue-point siamese cat redirects to Siamese cat. Would need a reliable source to suggest that it deserves listing as a distinct breed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the 
Not done the faeces of the species are already discussed under the Physiology section. MPS1992 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Undone: This request has been partially undone. On further reading, we see that the subspecies did exist back when domestication began and is believed to be ancestral to modern domesticates. So I have undone the edit and hopefully clarified it a bit in the image caption. Paine u/c 18:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved from Template talk:Taxonomy/Felis
Done I added a link to local extinction. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — MRD2014 (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Already done —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
