Talk:Cat/Archive 8
 | 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. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
Toilet trained cats image
Is the image of a cat sat on a toilet needed?
- Are any images needed? Ask DreamGuy, he's the one who approves images.
Cats vs Scorpions?
After reading this part in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat#Domestication)
In rural areas, farms often have dozens of semi-feral cats. Hunting in the barns and the fields, they kill and eat rodents that would otherwise spoil large parts of the grain crop. Many pet cats successfully hunt and kill rabbits, rodents, birds, lizards, frogs, fish, and large insects by instinct, but might not eat their prey. They may even present their kills, dead or maimed, to their humans, perhaps expecting them to praise or reward them, or possibly even to complete the kill and eat the mouse. Others speculate that the behavior is a part of the odd relationship between human and cat, in which the cat is sometimes a 'kitten' (playing, being picked up and carried) and sometimes an adult (teaching these very large and peculiar kittens how to hunt by demonstrating what the point of it all is).
I thought it might be interesting to add that in some semi-desertique areas, cats are domesticated for their specific ability to hunt and catch scorpions,(which are a real danger). They are also known to hunt spiders (some of them are really dangerous where I used to live) and small snakes... I have never seen a cat catch a snake really... but for scorpions and spiders it's a really common sight. I know that we are not here to make a full list of the 100 species a cat can hunt but I thought that those where quite revelant since they are an incentive to keep cats in some regions. I'd love to hear some opinions on this.
- I once saw an animal documentary in which an orange desert cat, which by the way looked a lot like a domestic cat, killed a rather large poisonous snake by using its incredible speed to claw it without getting bitten, so yes I believe it's possible to train a domestic cat to kill snakes. Dionyseus 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I've seen cats that are rather established at hunting, having killed bees, moths, grasshoppers... consider the fact that the cat is similar to the mongoose.Wise King Otto 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I've owned plenty of cats that killed rattlesnakes. One method of hunting is to be fast, as previously noted. The second is to be patient and wait for the snake to try to escape and striking while it is uncoiled and unable to mount much of a defense. Pretty much any animal under forty pounds is fair game to a sufficiently motivated cat. Monkey Bounce 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
An entire entry regarding snakes and scorpions is not necessary. The task here is not to sell people on the idea of getting a cat; rather, Wikipedia is a source of information for research and inquiry. It would suffice to add ". . . lizards (including snakes), amphibians, fish, arachnids (even scorpions!), and large insects." That would cover it sufficiently. 67.40.115.70 03:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Section move / duplication request
Hi everyone. I note that the section on declawing contains a great deal of useful information entirely absent from Onychectomy. In fact, the section, if it were taken as an article on its own, would make a better article than the one currently at Onychectomy. Can I get some suggestions on which material would be most appropriate to move to the main article on the subject? It's important to retain a mention of it here, but this article is already quite long. All this article really needs is a quick run-down of what declawing is, why it is controversial, and briefly, what the opposing viewpoints are. Thanks in advance, Kasreyn 05:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't remember the word Onychectomy. I thot it was how you made cats nutless. You're welcome to perform the duplication. Man's closest enemy is a popular subjekt. Until the table of contents can be enjineered to point to a lot of smaller articles, I don't think this one will get shorter. It could perhaps be done manually. Everything in the table of contents would be an internal link to a link to a separate article, or the entire article would be composed of links from a manually constructed table of contents. But then it might be more difficult to administer the pieces. The organization operations I just performed would be more difficult, anyway, but how many people do stuff like that? Oh...there was the bit about arbitrarily renaming a section. Trivial in HTML, but HTML has more trouble with dead links than wiki. I see no easy way to make the article shorter. Brewhaha@edmc.net 20:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Kasreyn re:moving info on declawing to the Onychectomy article. The information is already there. As to what is written in the Cat article, there is no mention of the lameness that frequently occurs later in life in declawed felines. I worked for years in an animal hospital, and we saw that very frequently. Hrynn Swifthoof 10:07 16 Jul 2007 (UTC)
Invasive species?
Cats are listed under the category for invasive species. Is there a valid reason? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess because they have been brought into different habitats than they would normaly have been in by humans. As people feed them, the population has rapidly outgrown what the enviroment would naturally have supported. With that many cats around other animals are going to be affected, either because the cats take up their territory or eat them. But the cat itself is not normaly an invasive species. Think outside the box 11:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- But then by that definition, all domesticated animals can be considered invasive. The cows that farmers raise eat the grass that was naturally there for some other animals grazing, etc. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Think outside the box doesn't have it exactly right. The more relevant point about cats being potentially invasive is not that humans feed them, but that they tend to run away from home and breed like crazy, meanwhile engaging in large-scale predation and potentially endangering the existence of local species, which would be unfamiliar with the new predator. In other words, the cats feed themselves quite expertly--just as they do in the alleyways of most cities--and don't require anything in the way of human intervention other than the original transportation. Even in places where basically nobody lives, like many of the islands of the Seychelles, cats left behind by people attempting to establish settlements have driven several local species to the brink of extinction. (By the way, you won't find that bit of info in the article about the Seychelles, and I'm not planning to add it. I just happened to hear some scientist talking about it on the radio the other day. As such, it would take more time to reference it than I currently have at my disposal.) I guess the obvious difference between cats and cows is that cats hunt and eat other animals, while cows just eat grass. But also relevant is the fact that cats can breed much more quickly than larger species of mammals, such as cows. So if you combine the fact that cats are predators that can produce offspring numbering in the teens each year (and by the end of the year, the first litter will be producing offspring of its own) with the fact that you can leave cats to their own devices in most places and they'll get along fine without human help, you wind up with something that has the potential to seriously disrupt the local environment. On the other hand, if you dump a small herd of cattle in a grassy area and leave them alone, they'll breed very slowly (and also, like all ruminants, reach sexual maturity relatively slowly) and at the same time be subject to the same predators that prey on other local ruminants--which doesn't seem like an environmental catastrophe in the making so much as a temporary bonanza for the local big carnivores. At any rate, it's true that cats aren't normally an invasive species, but this is mainly because there's hardly anyplace left on earth that can support animal life where they don't already live. Buck Mulligan 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- While that makes complete sense, to me, the category implies something more like Africanized honey bees, but a potential invasive animal category would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Nontheless, it's a satisfactory answer. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just flagged the statement about how cats are supposedly causing environmental concerns in Florida. It might be true, but a source for it would be good. Apart from that, I'm not seeing anything in the cat article itself that looks objectionable. As for the "invasive species" categorization, if you have a look at the list of invasive species you'll find that it's extremely inclusive, while at the same time remaining specific about which regions of the world have had problems with which species of animals (and plants). As such, I don't think we need to worry about people who actually bother to click on the link thinking that cats should necessarily be thought of in the same light as Africanized bees. Buck Mulligan 12:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- While that makes complete sense, to me, the category implies something more like Africanized honey bees, but a potential invasive animal category would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Nontheless, it's a satisfactory answer. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Think outside the box doesn't have it exactly right. The more relevant point about cats being potentially invasive is not that humans feed them, but that they tend to run away from home and breed like crazy, meanwhile engaging in large-scale predation and potentially endangering the existence of local species, which would be unfamiliar with the new predator. In other words, the cats feed themselves quite expertly--just as they do in the alleyways of most cities--and don't require anything in the way of human intervention other than the original transportation. Even in places where basically nobody lives, like many of the islands of the Seychelles, cats left behind by people attempting to establish settlements have driven several local species to the brink of extinction. (By the way, you won't find that bit of info in the article about the Seychelles, and I'm not planning to add it. I just happened to hear some scientist talking about it on the radio the other day. As such, it would take more time to reference it than I currently have at my disposal.) I guess the obvious difference between cats and cows is that cats hunt and eat other animals, while cows just eat grass. But also relevant is the fact that cats can breed much more quickly than larger species of mammals, such as cows. So if you combine the fact that cats are predators that can produce offspring numbering in the teens each year (and by the end of the year, the first litter will be producing offspring of its own) with the fact that you can leave cats to their own devices in most places and they'll get along fine without human help, you wind up with something that has the potential to seriously disrupt the local environment. On the other hand, if you dump a small herd of cattle in a grassy area and leave them alone, they'll breed very slowly (and also, like all ruminants, reach sexual maturity relatively slowly) and at the same time be subject to the same predators that prey on other local ruminants--which doesn't seem like an environmental catastrophe in the making so much as a temporary bonanza for the local big carnivores. At any rate, it's true that cats aren't normally an invasive species, but this is mainly because there's hardly anyplace left on earth that can support animal life where they don't already live. Buck Mulligan 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- But then by that definition, all domesticated animals can be considered invasive. The cows that farmers raise eat the grass that was naturally there for some other animals grazing, etc. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Feral cats and native species destruction in Australia
I could not believe reading this article that reads "Those opposing this view stress this allegation has never been proved. They say that damaging effects do not follow necessarily from the fact that cats are predators. They point out that cats have played a useful role in vermin control for centuries, and that for many animals, especially in urban areas, cats are the only animal available to fill the vital role of predator. Without cats these species would overpopulate" without any citation. This completely flies in the face of Published Scientific Research, within Australia on the impact of feral cats on marsupials, lizards, snakes, birds and insects. Huge Government efforts have gone into eradication of feral cats and a lot of councils in Australia now have stringent controls over domestic cats. If you don't believe me then read these:
petedavo 14:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed - to quote the NT Govt website - "Feral cats are a serious treat to biodiversity conservation in Australia. Predation by feral cats is appropriately listed as a key threatening process under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999." Orderinchaos 16:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is about cats, not feral cats - look at the article Feral cat#Australia for that. Lars T. 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- This article may be about cats in general, but it has a section on feral cats, and that section contains a paragraph which these users are complaining about. At the very least it is a case of weasel words and may not be NPOV. Part of the problem is that it is not clear at all what the subject of that section is - it speaks about outdoor domestic cats and feral cats almost interchangeably. It is not even clear which view the arguments given in the paragraph are opposing. JPD (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- How about exchanging Florida for Australia, the fact tag could be dropped and the scope of the article would be broadened. I am very fond of cats, but in the australian bush they are very destructive, perhaps as much as our species. Fred 04:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Suggesting More Information
In your article on cats, there is no information that I have found that relates to cats' reactions to certain events and objects. When researching, I could not find anything that would help me understand my grandmother's cat, Jr's moods. If you can help me and add this when you get the chance, I would be thankful. --207.69.138.137 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
toxic sensitivity in cats
question: humans don't really have a better toxic sensitvity then cats. true cats are smaller but thats really the only reason. also our toxic sensitvity is for man-made posions like those found in the tainted cat food. cat toxic sensitivity is geared more toward natural poisons. 71.32.247.170 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Toxic sensitivity I presume refers to LD50s and the like and therefore is by weight. So the fact that cats are smaller is irrelevant. The article already explains that cats' livers are less capable of detoxification then humans. This is I presume one of the reasons cat's have a greater sensitivity. Also, your comments about toxic sensitivity to human-made and natural poisons doesn't make sense. The vast majority of human made poisons haven't been around long enough that cats and especially not humans are likely to have evolved to be more tolerant towards them. When it comes to human made substances (whether food, medicines, weedkillers, whatever) of course, any substance which is too toxic to humans is unlikely to ever be used much. However the toxicity of substances to cats is not that likely to have a great effect on their success. Nil Einne 18:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the paracetamol/apap/acetaminophen example in this article is just daft. The substance is highly toxic to humans, has lead to millions of overdose deaths, and is a popular method of suicide by liver failure. Only humans, at an average 60 kg, need about 2 g of paracetmol per 10 kg to die, which is multiple pills, while cats, who are typically much lighter than 10 kg, can get poisoned by eating just a single pill. 128.195.186.86 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Adieu
Added MP3 link of Spoken Wikipedia version of this article
I added link to single MP3 of Spoken Wikipedia of entire article (hosted on my server). I think it's worth having the link, because this is a very long article, the OGG version is three parts, and not everyone having an OGG player, but most people having MP3 player.
Please discuss on my talk page before removing. Thank you. DollieLlama 07:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone removed the link without discussing here or my talk page and didn't mark their deletion, so I'm going to put it back in. It's useful. Please discuss here and/or my talk page before removing. Thank you.
DollieLlama 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I thought it was a duplicate for the wiki-hosted sound files... if you want it to be listed here, get it on wikispace and not your personal site... We don't have to discuss on your talk page before removing, you don't own this article. DreamGuy 02:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The link (*MP3 of 80-minute Spoken Wikipedia version of this article) is a duplicate of the OGG files. It's me speaking them.
I know I don't own this article, and don't own my recordings of them. (And that was a kinda terse reaction on your part, no?) I am not trying to force anything down anyone's throat here, I am merely offering the MP3 link (and paying for the hosting) as a pleasant nicety to people who would rather download one MP3 file than three OGG files.
I didn't host the MP3 on a Wikipedia server because I thought that serving MP3s on Wikipedia was forbidden by consensus, due to licensing issues of the MP3 algorithm or something, right?
I may be reading something into your words here, tell me if I'm wrong. Your "We don't have to discuss on your talk page before removing, you don't own this article" sounds like "fuck you", when I'm just trying to be helpful.
Anyone else have thoughts on the pros and cons of hosting single MP3s of spoken wikipedia elsewhere and linking on here? DollieLlama 07:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's great. And I thought the response you received was unnecessarily rude, too. I feel I should provide a link to: Category:Aspergian_Wikipedians Dabizi 15:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just out of curiousity, isn't an audio file of someone reading a Wikipedia article, a little, well, self-annihilating? wouldn't the audio file become out of date too quickly? like before you finished re-recording the 80 minute mp3?Dachande 20:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Feline Diabeties
Does anyone know if Feline Diabeties varies in any way from human Diabeties? If so, could it please be entered into the main article? Artemisboy 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Spraying When Neutered?
The article says that sterilizing your cat prevents spraying and other undesirable behaviors, but when I got a kitten my neutered male started spraying around the house. I know he didn't learn this behavior before sterilization because it was done at such a young age. Should the article be changed? 67.142.130.43 08:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- The sterilization procedure prevents spraying in most cats, is what the reality is. Depending on the individual cat and the circumstances, there are a few exceptions. And spraying is an instinctive, not a learned behavior, just for the record.--Ramdrake 11:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I have moved all of the candidate photos and comments to Talk:Cat/Lead photo, due to their length. Please comment there instead.. --EvanS (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Needs to be removed
The cat is intelligent and can be trained to obey simple commands. Imtelligent is an un-intelligent way of describing cats. Absolutely propostorous statement. 86.129.25.28 03:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- What specifically is your objection to the use of the word "intelligence"? Do you object to animals in general being called "intelligent"? Or is it something else?--Ramdrake 03:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
What is your objection? Cats can easily be trained, I've trained mine. That cats are very intelligent animals is generally accepted, I've found. 152.3.113.71 19:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the editor who started this thread was trolling, as he wrote the same message on Talk:Dog.--Ramdrake 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- As an idea that cats ar intiligent my cat found out how to open latched doors all by himself as a mater of fact my father ended up having to strap the spare room door shut as every now and then he enters that room Richardson j 23:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have a cattery, thus about a dozen cats roam my house. One cat found out one day how to open the kitchen cupboard doors... and after about 2 weeks, believe it or not, about half a dozen more were able to open them too. And they say cats are asocial animals with little intelligence who don't communicate much with each other... Sheesh!--Ramdrake 01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- i have seen cats open screwtop jars despite not having thumbs. i think that deserves allowing cats to be described as intelligent. 71.252.249.43 07:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- My family owns a cat shelter, and in our experience, cats are more than intelligent. While it may be true that whomever started this article wasn't truly concerned about the topic, just being difficult, they may have inadvertently had a point. In order to ensure that the neutrality and accuracy of this article is in full effect, it may be wise to have examples of perhaps studies or personal experiences with cats to ensure anyone biased against or for felines understands the entirety of the cat-mind complexity. For example, we have known foster cats and stay-at-home cats we have had have learned from each other. Our stay-at-home cats 'taught' the fosters how to open cabinets and drawers that didn't have any handles, and the foster cat 'taught' our stay-at-home cats how do jump from our second story to a perch on the first floor. While it seems a strange example, the fact that they discovered these feats, when human children have difficulty with them, and the fact that they 'learned' from each other, despite being an asocial species, seems like moer than intelligence to me. It seems almost like an inexperienced hive mind to me. Anyway, please let me know what you think, thank you so much!Ziggaway 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- My cat can open our cabinet. He's hungry so he puts his paws on top, pulls the thing by stepping backwards. It's open. Then he meows until someone feeds him. That's the cabinet with his food in it. He is quite intelligent, but not every cat is so smart. Some cats aren't very intelligent but I see nothing wrong with saying that - in general - cats are quite intelligent. I thnk those who say they aren't, have a unintelligent kitty. Their cat may not be the sharpest claw on the paw but that doesn't mean every cat is like that. - Runningpaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.205.55 (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- My family owns a cat shelter, and in our experience, cats are more than intelligent. While it may be true that whomever started this article wasn't truly concerned about the topic, just being difficult, they may have inadvertently had a point. In order to ensure that the neutrality and accuracy of this article is in full effect, it may be wise to have examples of perhaps studies or personal experiences with cats to ensure anyone biased against or for felines understands the entirety of the cat-mind complexity. For example, we have known foster cats and stay-at-home cats we have had have learned from each other. Our stay-at-home cats 'taught' the fosters how to open cabinets and drawers that didn't have any handles, and the foster cat 'taught' our stay-at-home cats how do jump from our second story to a perch on the first floor. While it seems a strange example, the fact that they discovered these feats, when human children have difficulty with them, and the fact that they 'learned' from each other, despite being an asocial species, seems like moer than intelligence to me. It seems almost like an inexperienced hive mind to me. Anyway, please let me know what you think, thank you so much!Ziggaway 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sharpness of claws
In the "Legs" section of the physiology description the article states that the fromt claws are usually sharper. I would like a citation here as this differs from my personal experience as a vetrinary assistant and owner of a domestic cat.David Eagan 17:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- In my experience in cat rescue, I've always found front claws to be far sharper than back ones. The front ones usually come to a tiny point (see Image:Cat claw closeup.jpg, which I took), but I've never seen rear claws get like that. howcheng {chat} 16:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Eh?
Under the subheading Domesticated varieties, the article states:
"Some original cat breeds that have a distinct phenotype that is the main type occurring naturally as the dominant domestic cat type in their region of origin are sometimes considered as subspecies and also have received names as such in nomenclature, although this is not supported by feline biologists."
I considered editing it myself, but I couldn't even figure out what it was trying to say. Would someone fix this? Radioactive afikomen 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Lead photo discussion
I have moved this discussion to Talk:Cat/Lead photo, due to the length of it. Please comment there instead. --EvanS (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Calcification
Should mention somewhere in the article that domestic cats who are given nothing but dry food to eat suffer calcification of the urethra. JAF1970 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Got reliable sources to back that up? DreamGuy 05:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
yes. my cat Weasel ate nothing but dry food for 7 years and didnt get enough water. he died around Christmas because he had crystals in his urethra and it ripped the lining. he got a really bad infection from it The Umbrella Corporation 01:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- While it may have been the dry food that caused your cat to get calcification, for which I apologize, it may also have been genetics, or some other predisposition. However, it is common knowledge that a diet of all-dry food is bad for any animal. This is supported by evidence in the wild and in humans. Especially among carnivorous animals, a diet consists of wet and solid foods, mostly raw and unprocessed. And the fact that cats' teeth are designed for ripping flesh, which also includes their rough tongues, it can be said that that in itself is a reference to the obvious necessities of a cat's diet. Please contact me if you have comments or concerns, thank you! Ziggaway 03:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Enviromental impacts of feral cats
/* Environmental interaction */ I'm sorry, I like cats (this is why I was reading the page) but this section was completely pathetic. It was a complete whitewash of the massive impacts feral cats have; clearly written by a cat-obsessive not prepared to admit that feral cats are massive and very nasty problem in some places. It needed fixing. Can I say too that the claim that there would be 'overpopulation' of wildlife species everywhere if feral cats weren't there to prey on them is a generalisation so close to utter rubbish that it was an embarrasment to have it in the article.
Also someone was getting rather confused about the ethical/humane aspects of feral cats and their environmental impacts and conflating them. They are very seperate issues, so I separated them.
C'mon folks, we all like cats (in fact, my puddy is sitting on my arm as I type) but there's no point trying to gloss over the massive problem feral cats are in places (Australia being a particularly good example), or dodging the fact that responsible cat ownership (including curtailing of wildlife killing through control on movement curtailing of uncontrolled breeding through de-sexing) is an absolute MUST. Codman 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
lolcat
Ok I have to ask, since it's been reverted repeatedly but it doesn't appear to be on this talk page. What is the objection to linking to lolcat? -N 13:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's not really useful for people who come here looking for encyclopaedic info about cats. We can't link to every page whose subject relates in some ways to cats from this page. However, linking from lolcat to here would be appropriate.--Ramdrake 14:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- lolcat is simply a very minor Internet phenomenon, not at all encyclopedic of notable for a main encyclopedia article on cats. Internet jokes may be all the rage among mindless teens on the net, but that doesn't make them rise to the level of something so important that other articles must link to them or contain information on them. DreamGuy 18:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- As stated by Ramdrake, the unnecessary link to lolcat on this forum of cats would waste time and space, while ther reverse may actually be beneficial. However, the comment of 'mindless teens' was unnecessary and only a hiatus to the flow of this discussion. Fitting neatly into the 16 year old sterotype of a teenager, I can very assuredly tell you that by not encouraging the seemingly inconsequential 'Internet jokes' (by adding a link from this page to the lolcat), and by attempting to expand the horizons of anyone looking up lolcat, the unfair and untrue sterotype can be slowly depleted. Another beneficial idea behind the link on the lolcat page is expanding the possibility of finding what you were looking for despite lack of knowledge of what to search (such as a key word or phrase) or accidentally having a typo, which so commonly occurs to everyday people, and clicking on the intended link afterwards. Comments or suggestings, please let me know, thanks! Ziggaway 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Felis silvestris, Felis silvestris catus or Felis silvestris lybica?
Let's have a discussion about whether Felis silvestris catus or Felis silvestris lybica should be the species name in the infobox. If we follow the pig, dog and goat examples, it should be Felis silvestris catus. I'd like to change it away from the current Felis silvestris at some point. Thanks. Speciate 23:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'd go for F.S. catus. It sounds logical to me.--Ramdrake 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've changed it for now. I hope people won't jump all over me for it. Speciate 23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's what MSW3 has to say...
Felis catus: ... There has been almost universal use of F. catus for the domestic cat and silvestris for wildcats; however [authors] presented morphological and molecular evidence to support catus, libyca, and silvestris as conspecific. If conspecific, there would be a problem with the continued use of the name Felis silvestris (see comments therein).
Felis silvestris: There is some confusion as to the correct species name. ... Opinion 465 of the [ICZN] declared silvestris as the specific name for the Euroopean wildcat (with the understanding that F. catus and F. silvestris are usually considered conspecific). Revised by ..., who included lybica, and by ... who included chutuchta, lybica, and vellerosa. However, ... considered catus as separate and placed chutuchta and vellerosa in bieti, and they should probably be considered incertae sedis. Does not include F. catus (worldwide), which was domesticated from this species. ... retained lybica as separate from silvestris. ... supported the inclusion of silvestris, lybica and the domesticated cat (catus), however ... considered silvestris closer to margarita, and consider catus as sister group to lybica.
So I, and MSW3, vote for Felis catus, otherwise the whole of Felis needs to be revised. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- The European Wildcat diverged 173,000 years ago from the lineage of the domestic cat. Its species name is Felis silvestris silvestris. Don't laugh, there are Bison bison bison. (We are Homo sapiens sapiens.) The subspecies from which domestic cats were derived (about 10,000 years ago) is called Felis silvestris lybica. Typically, domesticated taxa are allowed subspecies names of their own even though we all know they are sub-taxon of a subspecies. For example, we now know that dogs are all derived from only one of the many wolf subspecies. But we call dogs Canis lupus familiaris. This pattern is repeated in many domestic animals. Barley is a similar example with plants. Speciate 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know this all very well. I understand priori of names, I understand quite a lot. F. s. silvestris is more than just the name of the species. If one of the other subspecies were determined to be of higher priori such that the species namee should be, for instance, F. lybica, then the European Wildcat would be F. l. silvestris. What I wrote above states that silvestris may be closer to margarita, and catus to lybica. That is, silvestris may be closer to margarita than to either of catus or lybica, which are undeniably close. This would make catus + lybica the likely species, and silvestris + margarita either a single species or a species group. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- So, to be clear, the Science article, as far as I can tell, only confirms that catus and lybica are closely linked, but still leaves open other existing questions. Listing catus as a species works with convention and with the facts. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- More precisely, the article says that domestic cats are a tiny subset of the desert cat. There is 100% bootstrap support for this. If we were being unkind, we could not even call domestic cats Felis silvestris catus, but rather Felis silvestris lybica. However, as I said, the convention is to allow people to call their domesticated organisms something to distinguish them by. Precedence and a fondness for good old Carl usually means we take his old species name and make it the "subspecies" name. Speciate 02:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Science article only looked at F. s. catus, F. s. lybica, F. s. ornata, F. s. bieti, F. s. cafra, and F. s. silvestris, and used another species, Felis margarita, as an outgroup. The article calls domestic cats F. s. catus. Instead of going around in circles about this we should be making a page for the redlinked subspecies above. Speciate 02:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- In this 2005 article on how cats can't taste sweetness, the authors call them Felis silvestris catus. Speciate 22:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- experimental biologists are not good authorities for taxonomic usage; they tend to use whatever name they happen to know, and if the referees aren't taxonomists, that's what appears in the paper. None of he authors of that paper were zoologists. The question is what is is the preferred current use in zoological journals.DGG (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- The scientific literature begins to use Felis silvestris catus in 1994 without fanfare. I don't know what prompted this change, still looking. Speciate 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Concensus on a new lead photo
I think the lead photo discussion has stalled and I'm wondering if it might be beneficial for one of us to file a request for comment just to get some outside opinions and more attention to the problem. I think a wider sample of people will add to the consensus, too. If someone knows a better way to go about this, like posting a notice on the talk pages for WikiProject Cats or WikiProject Mammals, then maybe that's what we should do. I'm hesitating because I've never done this before and could use some guidance first. Brian Adler 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- May I suggest getting some better pictures first? None of the photos in "lead photo discussion" is very good imo. --Yath 20:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[[ta:பூனை]]
please add the link
Species Name Update
Scientific American Magazine of July 2007 reports that the domestic cat is back to "Felix catus".
- I'm doubtful they say it's "back" to FeliS catus. I'll try to remember to look at the article tomorrow. Speciate 06:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article makes no claim that Felis catus is the correct name; the usage is probably an attempt by the editors to save space on a tight cladogram. Speciate 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Indoor cats
Do you think that cats should be indoors?
- Yes, outside cats are likely to die in a couple of years. Unless you want them to die... Speciate 05:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Here in Britain, most cats (except for pure bred fancy cats) spend a good chunk of their lives outside, and most of them live to a ripe old age too. That is also true of the majority of domesticated cats worldwide, and has been so for thousands of years.
- I understand that in the USA it's considered the done thing to keep a cat cooped up indoors 24/7, and even to rip out all of his knuckles so he doesn't damage your nice new curtains, but fortunately most European countries have animal cruelty laws which prevent that sort of thing. 217.155.20.163 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is mostly the responsible thing to keep a cat indoors unless supervised (you can actually walk a cat); it prevents a host of infections, diseases and injuries to the cat as well as a host of little kittens if the cat isn't neutered. I'll find a proper source, but I do remember reading somewhere that the average life expectancy of a feral colony cat is about 3-4 years. And please, to anon 217, please remember to be civil.--Ramdrake 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- A feral cat is a very different thing from a cat that spends some or all of it's life outdoors but has regular contact with a person who provides it with food and water, manages the flea situation and takes it to a vet both for checkups and if they notice any problems. Plugwash 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Many a pet cat have died an early death going outside. Also, I suspected that the questioner was a kid, so I wished to convey a simple message. Pet cats kill millions of birds (I saw an estimate of 50 million a year in Britain) even though they are well fed, which is another reason to keep them indoors. Finally, pet/feral cats are driving the other Wildcat subspecies extinct by competion and interbreeding, so the responsible thing to do is not let your cat outside. Speciate 03:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Many a pet cat have died an early death staying inside. What are you going to do about that? Lars T. 18:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Far more cats have died an early age roaming outside unsupervised than living inside. What I'd like to understand is why it is considered the responsible thing not to let a dog out without some supervision (for its own safety), but so many people still consider it's fine doing it with a cat? I guess this is just another mystery of life.--Ramdrake 19:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- For one, unsupervised dogs can be lethally dangerous. As for the dogs intelligence... Lars T. 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Granted, cats are less likely to be lethally dangerous, but you can still get attacked by a cat, just as you could get attacked by a dog (although the damage is not likely to be as severe, and it would be a minority of either species who would be likely to attack. Not sure what the comparative intelligence of cats and dogs has to do with any of this.--Ramdrake 23:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
First, if your going to let your cat go outside, leash train it and otherwise supervise it. Second, I don't understand why having a cat outside, in the conditions that it evovled to be able to handle easily and thrive in, would be bad; one would think that cats would benefit from it. Take the cars and the cat thieves and torturers out of the equation, and it's pretty much the same thing. Third, intelligence is a prime factor in survival, just look at us humans; it should be included, but don't get obsessive over it.24.118.227.213 11:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- A cat that's allowed outside on its own will usually be a healthier and happier cat. It's true it's more at risk from being run over or killed by other animals (I don't think it's fair to have a cat if you live near a busy road); that's the risk you take for letting it live a better life up to that point. The cats we had when I was a child would get very unhappy if they weren't allowed to come and go as they wished. -Riedquat 19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cats that are let outside without supervision are several times more at risk for any or several of the following: fleas, mites (including ticks), ringworm, rabies, FeLV and FIV, the last three being fatal conditions. So, a cat that's left outside is more at risk from being run over, but also from catching a host of ailments, from the relatively minor to the absolutely deadly. This, of course is almost entirely eliminated if the cat is let outside with supervision (i.e. you train it to be walked, or you leash it some other way). As I was saying earlier, the same health consideration that apply for not letting dogs outside without supervision should also apply to cats, and I don't mean just for the sake of liability against your animal attacking a human or another pet.--Ramdrake 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- More at risk, but still not a huge risk - it's certainly a risk worth taking for giving them a generally more fulfilling life. Cats are too independent to be completely happy without a fair degree of freedom in my experience. Rabies isn't an issue for me, in the UK. -Riedquat 21:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I guess it's a matter of opinion: all of my cats are indoors-only, and they seem very happy to spend most of their time playing with each other. But on the other hand, no: and outdoor cat on average will live several years less than an indoor cat (8-10 yrs vs 12-15yrs, approximatively). User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- More at risk, but still not a huge risk - it's certainly a risk worth taking for giving them a generally more fulfilling life. Cats are too independent to be completely happy without a fair degree of freedom in my experience. Rabies isn't an issue for me, in the UK. -Riedquat 21:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cats that are let outside without supervision are several times more at risk for any or several of the following: fleas, mites (including ticks), ringworm, rabies, FeLV and FIV, the last three being fatal conditions. So, a cat that's left outside is more at risk from being run over, but also from catching a host of ailments, from the relatively minor to the absolutely deadly. This, of course is almost entirely eliminated if the cat is let outside with supervision (i.e. you train it to be walked, or you leash it some other way). As I was saying earlier, the same health consideration that apply for not letting dogs outside without supervision should also apply to cats, and I don't mean just for the sake of liability against your animal attacking a human or another pet.--Ramdrake 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, cats that spend most of their lives indoors won't mind staying as such, but a cat that was let out by it's owner previously will complain if the owner stops doing so. The diseases and parasites are a moot point if the owner takes proper care of the cat, but one that won't or can't afford to pay for cat treatments probably should leave them indoors.24.118.227.213 02:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Lead photo discussion
I have moved the candidate photos and comments to Talk:Cat/Lead photo, due to their length. Please comment there instead.. --EvanS (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Two boxes at top of article
There are two boxes at the top of the cat page on recentism and the length of the article. Have any of the these issues been resolved and we can remove the boxes? --EvanS (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Changes to "Feeding" section regarding Vegetarian Diet and Nutrition in Cats
{{editprotected}}
Hello,
I'm new to this so sorry if I make any mistakes while posting this. That aside, I would like to challenge parts of the "Feeding" section of this article...
1) Under the feeding section, it says "Domesticated cats eat fairly little vegetable matter." However, basically what a domesticated cat eats is determined by the owner. I don't think this is a verifiable statement, and I don't think it's very accurate. It implies that this is true for all domesticated cats, while this is simply not the case. For example, my vegan domesticated cats eat a diet consisting entirely of plant-based and synthetic ingredients. In fact, I think the first and last sentences of this paragraph need combined, so that the first sentence should read "Most domesticated cats eat fairly little vegetable matter because the majority of brand-name cat foods are primarily meat based,[citation needed] though they often contain large amounts of corn or rice, supplemented with meat byproducts and minerals and vitamins." For documentation of the existence of vegetarian/vegan cats, see this article about Asia's largest cat rescue shelter recently switching to vegan cat food: http://www.indiaenews.com/india/20060816/18656.htm
2) The next section I'd like to challenge is in the next paragraph, which states "Cats are obligate carnivores, and cannot live on an unsupplemented vegetarian diet because they cannot synthesize several required nutrients which are absent or rare in plant food. This applies mainly to taurine, vitamin A (cats cannot convert the pro-vitamin A that is abundant in plants to vitamin A proper) and to certain fatty acids. The absence of taurine causes the cat's retina to slowly degenerate, causing eye problems and (eventually) irreversible blindness, a condition called macular degeneration." While this is true, I do think it's biased and that the information is incomplete. First of all, "absent or rare in plant food" is not really true, because, although these nutrients are rare, the word "absent" is unnecessary because obviously if the nutrients are rare, they are absent in most and present in some. That's the definition of "rare."
Perhaps this section should read "Cats are referred to as "obligate carnivores," and cannot live on an unsupplemented vegetarian diet because their bodies cannot synthesize several required nutrients which are rare in plant food. This applies mainly to taurine, vitamin A (cats cannot convert the pro-vitamin A that is abundant in plants to vitamin A proper) and to certain fatty acids. However, it is possible to meet a cat's nutritional needs by supplementing with nutrients from these rare plants as well as synthetic sources. Interestingly, it has been found that the high temperatures used in the rendering process of many meat-based commercial cat foods cause the taurine in these foods to become completely unable to satisfy a cat's requirements. Therefore, many common meat-based cat foods are supplemented with synthetic taurine, just as all nutritionally-complete vegan/vegetarian cat foods are. Cow's milk is a poor source of taurine and adult cats are generally lactose intolerant. Lactose-free milk is perfectly safe for a cat, but is still a poor source of taurine. The absence of taurine in a cat's diet causes the cat's retina to slowly degenerate, causing eye problems and (eventually) irreversible blindness, a condition called macular degeneration." I learned the information I added while reading the book "Obligate Carnivore: Cats, Dogs, and What it Really Means to be Vegan" by Jed Gillen. I would be happy to provide page numbers if needed for verification.
Thanks for listening/considering my changes to this article. It seems to me that this article is biased probably due to the general public's lack of knowledge on the matter of vegan diets and nutrition in cats. However, after fixing this article to provide more comprehensive information on the subject, the general public may become more aware and make more informed decisions.
Thank you.
68.83.75.225 04:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry, but due to cats' being carnivores, this is nonsense. Perhaps you are a Jain, but in the real world, some animals eat animals, and that's the way it is. Every time you shower or blow your nose, you're killing living "beings".Everything dies, you can't prevent that, so being killed as prey is no less "unethical" than dying from disease. as humans, we have social rules about murder, but animals' social rules have nothing to do with ours unless they are infringing on ours...for example, I would not feel bad about shooting a lion that was attacking me. Whatever. I'm sure that this is falling on deaf ears. riddle me this: viruses are alive. Are you against using antiviral medications to kill viruses?76.174.204.234 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Morningwindow
- Yes, in the "real world" some animals eat animals, but I'm by no means proposing that we go into Africa - into the "real world" - and put all lions on a vegan diet. How "real" is the world in which domesticated cats live today? In the "real world," would your cat ever attack and devour a cow, or dive deep into the ocean and hunt down a 1200-pound tuna? No, in the real world, cats eat rodents, birds, and insects. Why, then, do we think that feeding them common cat foods Not made from rodents, birds or insects is Natural? Furthermore, if you're equating animals living and dying in nature with animals living in squalor and dying in the slaughter-house, then you simply are uninformed.
- If cats are "obligate carnivores," then are we "obligate omnivores?" Are humans simply obligated to eat both plants and animals? I think you would have a hard time proving that this is so (as you would have to disprove my existence ; P ). I think that to many people, veganism is about reducing suffering, and while animals have the ability to feel pain, bacteria do not. I believe that there is a substantial difference between cats and bacteria... do you know something that I don't?
- Cats' "social rules" - or ethical standards, I believe you meant - do not exist as they have no moral beliefs to which to be held. However, their diet is not their own choice, it is ours. It is our responsibility that all beings under our control abide by our ethical standards. People control their children's behavior until they are old enough to make their own decisions. Cats are not able to make their own decisions, and therefore rely solely upon us. Just because cats cannot be held to ethical standards - basically, cannot be held responsible for actions that, if done by a human, would be considered immoral - would you not prevent a cat from killing a baby (this has been known to occur by suffocation)? The cat does not know that what it's doing is "wrong." In your words "Everything dies, you can't prevent that." I don't think we could call the cat Immoral for suffocating the baby, and yet I think that we could probably All agree that it Would be immoral for a human not to stop it.
- I'm not telling you to change your cat to a vegan diet if you find it so morally reprehensible. I'm simply asking that this article be written from a fair, unbiased and INFORMED viewpoint. You cannot argue that the statement "Domesticated cats eat fairly little vegetable matter" is correct or verifiable, and if you can, please... impress me. - 68.83.75.225 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- 1)I think when we talk about the "domesticated cat" diet, we are not talking about the house pet diet but the natural diet of the domestic cat. In that sense, it is accurate to say that they are carnivores. 2)The first sentence doesn't sound right. There are two issues. The nutrient is not found/minimal in plant material(taurine). The nutrient cannot be synthesized effectively(vit a). Saying they can't synthesize what cannot be found doesn't make sense. I edited it accordingly but it reads crappy. Could do with some copy editing. Also added the synthetic taurine part. The more detailed info should probably go to the Cat food article.
- Come to think of it, the phrase "cannot live on an unsupplemented vegetarian diet" is problematic as it implies that a supplemented vegetarian diet is livable/acceptable/healthy. --Dodo bird 20:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by stating that, when we refer to the "domesticated cat" diet, that we're not talking about the "house pet diet," but the "natural diet" of the domestic cat... is there such thing as a "natural diet" for a domestic cat, and if so, is commercial pet food containing parts of large animals that could never be eaten by our cats in nature, synthetic nutrients, and euthenized cats and dogs, really more Natural than a food made up of plant matter and synthetic nutrients? Adri782 00:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- The natural diet of the felis silvestris catus(and all other animals) would be what it eats(rodents, birds, insects etc) in the absence of human provided food source(pet food, scavenged rubbish etc). Perhaps removing the word "domesticated" would make it less ambiguous?--Dodo bird 09:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a question - does your cat prefer a vegetarian meal over one which contains meat?
- Well, I haven't tried a lot of non-vegan food on them. However, both of them, when I got them, had to be transitioned from the food they came with, to the vegan food. So I fed a mixture of both and they would eat the vegan kibbles first. But that's probably just because that kind contained nutritional yeast which cats are known to love the taste of (along with garbanzo beans, tomato sauce and garlic, lol). I have since switched them to food made with a cat-food supplement I bought online, mixed into different recipes the stuff comes with. The one cat seemed to like the homemade food more and the other seemed to like it less than the commercially-made vegan kibbles, though I'm discovering that she might be allergic to soy, so I'm switching them back to the original, commercial vegan food now. I don't know whether they like the taste of the homemade stuff better than the meat-based stuff or not, because I never fed them side-by-side, but it probably varies depending on which recipe you follow or which cat food you buy, and I'm sure it varies from cat to cat depending upon personal preference for wet or dry food, and in my one cat's case, allergies. - Adri782 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- If I found a way to get a cat to survive on Snickers chocolate bars, would it be appropriate to mention 'Domestic cats can also survive off of Snickers bars' in the diet section of this article? You must understand that forcing your cat to be vegan only has to do with your beliefs, and it does not automatically make domestic cats vegan in any way. Perhaps you should start an article about vegan diets for pets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.232.74 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that cats have considerably longer guts than their wild counterparts is evidence of a more omniverous diet. Bendž|Ť 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe, but they're still classified as obligate carnivores, unless you want to contest their classification, in which case we would ask for supporting scientific references that say they are no longer classified as obligate carnivores.--Ramdrake 21:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- In response to the Snickers-bar comment... No. However, if you did find that cats could live off a diet of Snickers bars and this was Verifiable, and this article said that cats could Not live off of Snickers bars, then yes I would think that the article should be changed. Adri782 00:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, how about instead of when speaking of the "natural" diet of a domesticated cat, we talk about the natural diet of wild cats that are able to breed with domesticated cats. Or look at the great cats, their close relatives. What do lions and cheetahs eat? Feral domesticated cats eat (discarded human food) garbage along with rodents, insects, and birds (and the occasional grassy roughage). What happens if/when domesticated cats become feral to the point of not relying at all on any kind of human food (not sure if this happens, but I can imagine it in the right circumstances).I guess as an experiment you could take feral cats and put in front of them a live mouse, a plate of mashed up garbanzo beans with nutritional yeast sprinkled on it, and some fresh broccoli. It seems that the symbiotic relationship that us humans have enjoyed with cats for who knows exactly how long has a lot to do with their great vermin-killing abilities...a few tasty scraps, a safe place to live, and affectionate neck scratches in return for rodent and bug-free houses, snuggles, and endless entertainment (just youtube "cat spaz"). I'm sure that kitty antics were many peoples' Prime Time thousands of years before TV, after the fireplace got a little old.76.174.42.207 04:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Morningwindow
- Okay, well regardless of what wild cats, or domestic cats released into the wild, eat, I still maintain that "Domestic cats eat fairly little vegetable matter" is inaccurate in it's simplicity. If we're talking about cats in the wild, then yes it would be correct to say they eat Very little vegetable matter. However, the sentence - and the article - is about domestic "house cats." Additionally, regardless of what we feel they Ought to eat, what we feel is Natural for them to eat, or what we think is Ethical for them to eat, we're simply talking about what they Do eat. We could argue that the natural diet for humans (Pennsylvanians at least) is deer meat, because if we were all released into the "wild" Pennsylvania outback, and lived in a natural, tribal fashion, we might live off of Pennsylvania's abundance of deer. Even if we can make the argument that the natural diet of Pennsylvanians is deer meat for this reason, it would not be accurate to simply state that "Pennsylvanians eat deer," because we're talking about what actually happens. Even if there are people in Pennsylvania who eat deer, if there are any who do not, this all-encompassing statement is incorrect. But because I sense that others might not take well to changes I make to this article, I'm revoking all of my previous change proposals (for the time being) and just asking for the word "Most." The sentence will now read as follows: "Most domestic cats eat fairly little vegetable matter." Thank you.Adri782 21:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... my domestic cat eats melon, and without being forced to do it. It simply likes it, so it does eat this fruit. And I tend to think that cat eats melon because of thirst. Of course it prefers pure meat over fruits. --Abdullais4u 13:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's important to distingush between the likes of individual cats (mine like grapes - go figure!) and what cats in general will eat. I'm nt aware of any (healthy) cat who won't eat meat, although individual cats may like other foods, or be trained to eat other foods. It's just a question of their nature, methinks.--Ramdrake 13:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... my domestic cat eats melon, and without being forced to do it. It simply likes it, so it does eat this fruit. And I tend to think that cat eats melon because of thirst. Of course it prefers pure meat over fruits. --Abdullais4u 13:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Protection
I've disabled the editprotected request. This article is only semiprotected, so nearly any editor can make any appropriate changes. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Books
Does any one know why my cat prefers to lay on my text books or keyboard more then in her bed? Not just my cat, but like any cats i know of like to lay on books and keyboards alot...-Hiaburi
- I honestly don't know, but my cat used to do that a lot too. Cats are connoisseurs of comfort, and they obviously know what they like! TreeKittens 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- After reading a few books on cats' behavioral patterns, I claim not to be an expert, but a well-informed feline lover. With that in mind, it must be understood that a cat that desires to spend time with its owner will lay near the person, and generally on objects that person spends more time with (like reafing or on the computer). This is also why cats catch animals and insects and many a time will leave the catch on a pillow or welcome mat of their owner; they see this as an obvious location for their owner, and ultimately very dear friend, to see their prize, because among cats, catching and outsmarting another animal is seen as a high honor. This is also why many cats that live in a multiple-cat residence leave toys and bugs in a community food or water reservoir, to show everyone the trophy prize they caught. Any comments, please let me know, thanks! 71.123.209.167 05:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Feral cats
Hi. Since this article is very long, I'd like to merge most of the Feral cats section into the article Feral cats and leave just a few paragraphs in the Cat article. This would include the subsections 'Environmental impacts' and 'Ethical and humane concerns over feral cats' as these clearly belong in the Feral cats main article. Any objections? [retro-sign] TreeKittens 21:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- No objections from me. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing, since there's a separate article on feral cats there's no reason for the section to be so large. It should be reduced to a single paragraph briefly describing what feral cats are. --George100 12:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need TEN images of cats
That is not including the pictures of cats directly related to a specific section of the article, for instance the cross-section or the claw.)
Remove atleast 6 of them by the 13th 12pm GMT or I'll delete them all except the picture in the top box. Ray harris1989 16:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- A drastic change like that would probably be immediately reverted. Feel free to engage in discussion about the pictures (there's been a lot of debate), but removal of all of the pictures is certainly not warranted. Joyous! | Talk 17:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Who the hell are you to dictate how many pictures there and set a deadline? Abacab 02:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why the hell not? This is not a printed encyclopedia. Can't fill the pages. HAve you seen other articles with like 50 pix at the bottom? I believe that more information is better than less, assuming the validity of all information is equal. SO unless someone starts posting pictures of dogs with the label "House Cat", why not?Dachande 21:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What i want to know is why the HELL we really need to see a vid of cats having sex. wtf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.69.48 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Main cat picture
I've been around this article for a while[14], usually resolving picture disputes, some of which border on the ridiculous. Dreamguy, has a similar tenure and still pops in from time to time (so, hello, Dreamguy). It's funny how pictures have always been such a contentious topic on this page. I'm loathed, therefore, to bring this up, but
Why oh why did we end up with such a terrible picture in the taxobox. It's clearly chosen to be cute rather than representative. It's not even a full body shot. I can't believe that across the whole commons, there isn't a better picture. Could someone come up with some better options please? i.e. high resolution, composed correctly (i.e. facing towards the left of the page), full body shot, standard pose, i.e sitting or standing, minimal irrelavant background. If it looks cute, this is a bonus, not a requirement of any sort.
Psychofox 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's actually a whole archive on this question now. But, please, be my guest to suggest a picture for the taxobox.--Ramdrake 21:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The place Ramdrake suggests is here: Talk:Cat/Lead photo Psychofox 21:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Lead image update: I started the new archive page on this on August 1, and just recently I had a administrator (JodyB) move it onto my own userspace — see my talk page for why. (Actually she spelled my name wrong and I had to move it again.) It is now at User talk:EvanS/Cat/Lead photo.
- I totally agree with Phychofox on the image. Although the current image is nice photography, the lead image should really show the whole body of the cat. We could even move the image further down if everyone likes it that much. --EvanS {talk} {email me} 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I also agree with Phychofox and EvanS. Several people have proposed photos which meet more of the criteria this article is looking for. The picture's attractiveness should be the least of our concerns. Brian Adler 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Phychofox on the image. Although the current image is nice photography, the lead image should really show the whole body of the cat. We could even move the image further down if everyone likes it that much. --EvanS {talk} {email me} 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Clavicle?
According to one of the cited sources [[15]], cats have clavicle bones. They are free floating, but present, so I have changed the statement saying that they do not have them. Flyingdics 18:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Not just cats, but Cats
Hi. I feel like I'm missing something here. Why is the word 'cat' capitalized throughout this article? I'm pretty sure that isn't necessary at all, at least as far as I am aware. Kutera Genesis 05:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I found it odd too, but according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Capitalization "because species names are proper nouns there is also a strong argument in favour of capitalization." A matter of taste mostly. Lars T. 11:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- (1) In a glance at the article history, the capitalisation appears to have been implemented in a recent revision, on August 23rd at 02:49 am.
- (2) The aforementioned Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Capitalization states: "... In the absence of consensus... Respect the original or primary authors; do not up and change something without notification, as you may be reverted..." With this guideline in mind, another glance at the history indicates the article was originally uncapitalised for the vast majority of its existence until the August 23rd revision.
- (3) According to WP:Style: "Common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case — for example, 'oak' or 'lion'..." A number of exceptions are mentioned, none of which appear pertinent here.
- Based on the above, it seems logical to undo the capitalisation. -- Éiginnte 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Possible compromise on lead picture?
I'm just putting this out there, but what about the idea of rotating the lead cat picture, say, weekly? A system of vetting pics could be set up on WikiProject Cats so that no truly unsightly picture gets on the page. It might have the added benefit of increasing participation in the project. Speciate 00:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a beauty parade for cats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.195 (talk) 15:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that. It's a good idea and a fair compromise. Brian Adler 03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Possible external link
I hesitate to ask given the level of debate on the serious business of all things feline but will you consider a link to http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/strange-but-true/item/cat_predicts_death_pensioners_home Although, light-hearted it does provide a starting block for the discussion of cat instincts and the cat in question was featured in the New England Journal of Medicine. On another (European - which might be why) note I'm surprised nobody has written about the history of the cat and in particular the worsening of the plague (spread by rats) after tens of thousands cats were slaughtered for being the devils animals! Finally, the decision to let your cat spend time outside unattended is split. In the US people tend to keep cats inside; in the UK people tend to let them go outside - the debate on which is 'correct' is futile - better to argue about the 'correct' side of the road to drive on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.190.50 (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- With respect to the first issue, we do in fact have an article about Oscar (the death-auguring hospice cat); whether he merits a mention somewhere in the article—he surely doesn't, IMHO, simply in view of his being a notable cat, but he may, as you observe, in the context of cat instincts (although I'm not certain how any relevant broader discussion might be particularly encyclopedically useful)—is a separate question, of course, and one about which I don't, I guess, have any particular opinion. Joe 07:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"A cat during mealtime, eating meat" - where, in space?
is there some reason the aforementioned photo is rotated 90 degrees? not only looks silly, it's embarrassingly unencyclopedic. Anastrophe 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Lives of cats
In Spain cats have 7 lives. I wanted to add this sentence at the last section, but my english is poor and I don't know how to integrate this sentence correctly into the prose. IRU 10:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
On Killing Pests, Birds, Insects
I was under the impression that this was an obvious trait that had been bred for over 10 000 years of domestication. Historical descriptions of housecats seem to almost inevitably describe them as free-roaming, mostly never fed, semi-feral animals whose "contract" with their owner was getting shelter and warmth in exchange for pest control. Also, a variety of industries, from shipping/naval to warehouses and stores have historically employed cats, not as pets, but for inventory protection from rodents. 128.195.186.86 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Adieu
Human diet
I know this may sound like a really cruel question (to some people with various cultures/beliefs)...but are cats really edible to Omnivores, like us Humans?
I do know that some countries in parts of the Far East, such as China-Vietnam-Thailand etc, do practically use cats as part of Human menu; like cows, chickens, sheep etc.
Should we also include that cats CAN be eaten?
88.105.69.234 20:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why we should. If we did, would we have to include in every article about an animal the fact that humans can eat it? Most animals are edible by humans. If cats were inedible, this might be worthy of mention. YOU are edible too, remember.--RLent 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you know humans are capable of eating most of the other lifeforms on the planet, if they should so choose. Directly pointing out that poor Tiddles can be used for food seems like an almost certain method of causing widespread offense and upset, too. A more tactful and less arduous approach would seem to be to point out those things which people should not eat. Besides that, I have visions of impressionable young minds reading such things and doing something unpleasant to the family pet, if it is included. Better for both wikipedia and little Tiddles if such things are avoided. 88.212.174.4 03:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we shouldn't include other domesticated animals which can be eaten by humans such as cows?
Cows can be deemed as too sacred to be consumed by some people in India whilst countless other people in other Western Countries are more than happy enough to sink their teeth into beef burgers.
Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be neutral, regardless of other people's cultures and creeds?
88.105.68.37 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Lead photo update
At the the cat lead photo talk page, the consensus is leaning towards "Cutecat.jpg" because it shows the whole body of a cat, and doesn't have a busy background. I plan on changing the image to that. Go to the the cat lead photo talk page to view this image. Any objections? Post them on that talk page. --EvanS {talk} {email me} 17:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't understand all the fuss about the lead photo. Most of the previous ones I have seen were fine by me. However, what consensus are you talking about. Who voted for current lead photo? It's by far the worst pic that could make it there. Seriously, let's show some reasoning here. I'm not fussy, I can go with just about anything. But "Cutecat.jpg" is definitely NOT a good picture to use as a lead photo on a cat page. MarkMarek 17:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- there's something seriously fubar going on with this image, evanS, and two other editors. please review the edit history of the lead photo discussion page cited above. i'm preparing to file a report of suspected sockpuppetry.Anastrophe 17:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not to mention that "cutecat.jpg" is EvanS' own photo. It is indeed extremely difficult to assume good faith on this one.--Ramdrake 18:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- there's something seriously fubar going on with this image, evanS, and two other editors. please review the edit history of the lead photo discussion page cited above. i'm preparing to file a report of suspected sockpuppetry.Anastrophe 17:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Was there a censensus on the current one? Bc this one is no better than the "cutecat.jpg" one. The camera angle makes he cats head too big for it's body and the cat looks like a kitten. I hoping that this is just a temporary image until we find a better one.Bobisbob 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I really hate to say it, but cutecat.jpg does seem to me to be a better lead photo candidate. It looks more like an encyclopedia photo than the cat on the colorful rug with the background all blurry JayKeaton 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- that may be, but considering that evanS resorted to bad faith creation of two sockpuppets in order to push his own cutecat.jpg as the lead, i don't think i could ever agree to its use. Anastrophe 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I vote for the image we had for over a year, it's better than any of these. Lars T. 01:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- that may be, but considering that evanS resorted to bad faith creation of two sockpuppets in order to push his own cutecat.jpg as the lead, i don't think i could ever agree to its use. Anastrophe 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
He would have been fine if he proposed his own cat, instead of pretending that it wasn't his. I would take a photo of my cat, but I do not know what particular breed or even it's age is as it was a stray (this kind of info can be very helpful for an encyclopedia, rather than just random pictures of cats without knowing their age or breed at all). So what are the other candidates? The current lead is artistic and all, but the OP is right, it is blurry in all the wrong places and the extreme color of the blankie really doesn't help. JayKeaton 09:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Close proximity
For cats, life in close proximity with humans (and other animals kept by humans as pets) amounts to a "symbiotic social adaptation" which has developed over thousands of years. The sort of social relationship cats have with their human keepers is hard to map onto more generalized wild cat (Felis spp.) behavior, but it is certain that the cat thinks of humans differently than it does other cats (i.e., it does not think of itself as human, nor that humans are cats). This can be seen in the difference in body and vocal language it uses with humans, when compared to how it communicates with other cats in the household, for example. Some have suggested that, psychologically, the human keeper of a cat is a sort of surrogate for the cat's mother, and that adult domestic cats live their lives in a kind of extended kittenhood
I think that they shan't use "close proximity" because it is already extra baggage. "Proximity" alone means that already. --Acer 07:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Kitten
I think the kitten deserves to appear under See Also category of this article. What do you think? -MarkMarek 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think cats are the best little animals in the world!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicken915 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Photo
I don't offer my own alternative favourite pet cat picture, but shouldn't the photo be a full figure photo onto the side of a normally haired house cat standing? (A representative "standard" cat). A photo (of such a common creature) should give a fair image of what the body form of a cat is like. The cat should either look on the photographer or in the direction of his/her own back, in order to give an en-face or profile image of the form of the species. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I mean the lead photo, of course, the other ones are just fine. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- If Fia is going to be the model cat star, she must be photographed thusly. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- If I owned a cat I would have taken such picture. You are absolutely right in what you've said in your original post, I would just add to it that the image should be done against a non contrasting background, be reasonably well composed and have cat's eyes in focus, to meet standard photo-quality criteria. I don't have a cat myself, but few of my friends do, however I have 2 trade shows coming that I'm a direct part of within next 3 weeks so I won't get a chance to do anything, but if no one comes with an acceptable picture in the meantime, I'm gonna take a few that meet the requirements when I'm done with my busy trade shows. MarkMarek 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- wait - where are these "requirements" spelled out? these comments strike me as arbitrary, absent a clear foundational guideline. the current lead photo has managed to remain consistent, without relentless reverting, for some time now (vandals excepted, of course). i think that's a testament to the particular image having a neutral quality - it's a kitty, could be any kitty, and it's not hard to tell what it is. there are numerous other photos of cats in the article - if someone were perchance confused as to what is being displayed in the lead photo, the remaining dozen or so photos would clear up the confusion handily. the current image works - why mess with a good thing? and for the record - since in the past, users (such as EvanS) have chosen to act unethically in trying to push their photo to the lead - i have absolutely no connection of any kind to the image currently at the lead. i don't know who took it, when, where, etc.. - i just think it's a suitably neutral image that has stood 'the test of time'. Anastrophe 00:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are certainly not any "testaments" or any wikipedia policies to point out, but imagine if you were from an isolated island where cats are never seen (because of f.ex. protection legislation), and wanted to get an image of a typical cat, before surfing away to other species, then the current image doesn't give a very good overview. I'm sure there must have been image wars and reversion wars here before, I belong to Homo sapiens and know my own species enough, but that usually doesn't contradict using logic and practicality. The current image is fine, but it should be swapped place by some other image exhibiting a typical cat in a position where the body form is pretty obvious — emotions apart. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Such as for example
- About the edit wars: I prefer discussion first, and if people are unreasonably recalcitrant, I walk another way... Said: Rursus ☻ 09:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Breeding vid...
Is that video necessary? Not only is it not, it is also not appropriate. I request it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.138.129 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Time to archive discussion?
Resolvedthere's three or four different threads on this page about the lead photo, dated from various times. the page is also long. i'd propose archiving the page. what's the standard operating procedure? i know there's a 'bot' or process for auto-archiving busy talk pages, but i don't know the specifics of implementing it. Anastrophe 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't trust the bots to do it, all too often they mess up the whole page and it needs to be reverted back anyway just to fix it. JayKeaton 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- okay. i'd still like to reach some consensus on archiving, even if minor. i've no experience with the bot so i'll defer on that matter. Anastrophe 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've decided to be bold and archive the discussions. -- Anastrophe (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- thanks to JayKeaton for pointing out the (multiple) errors of my ways in (mis)creating the archive of the talk page. should be fixed now. Anastrophe (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Looks great ^_^ Brilliant job mate JayKeaton (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)