Talk:Cat Protection Society of Victoria

{{WikiProject Australia|Victoria=yes|class=start|importance=low|VIC-importance=low|}

Who's For Cats campaign info

I was just tidying up the article a bit & exploring this section, noticed one of the references wasn't as described. It states in the article: "After two years in operation, the campaign has resulted in a huge increase in complaints about cats and impoundments." There was nothing to that effect in the reference. I'm going to delete this comment and instead state more info from what the reference actually provides. This was the article in question: http://www.savingpets.com.au/wp-content/uploads/WFC-Evaluation-Exec-Summary-2009.pdf. It is somewhat old now and there may also be further updates available, but for now I will just rework the inaccurate reference.

Canadianknowledgelover (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

One paragraph has nothing to reference it and sounds pure speculation. This is what it says:

The Sunday Age was told by an alleged "well-informed source" at the society that the true number of cats adopted was only 6.5 per cent, or 1036 cats. If the society had adopted out 30.3 per cent or 4782 cats, sales would have been worth more than $250,000. Cat sales amounted to only $77,670 for 2008, according to the society's financial statement. The Society offered no comment, and the details of this report are unavailable so cannot currently be confirmed. The source of these allegations is also unconfirmed.

This paragraph has to be deleted. I have found a juicy bit of controversy though that I will be adding in. I was looking for updated statistics on euthanasia and found an article where the numbers of cats killed were a subject of controversy.

POSTSCRIPT: I found the source of the paragraph, the first part of it was quoted directly from the article: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cat-group-may-face-watchdog-20101127-18bjr.html. I rejigged the content so it doesn't sound so much like a bunch of unsupported information, and included the comments by the executive director to be fair.

Canadianknowledgelover (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warning about multiple issues

Now that there are quite a few references it's time to remove the warning. I'm including it here in case anyone would like to see it again.

{{Multiple issues|{{Orphan}} {{Refimprove}}}}

Canadianknowledgelover (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Executive director

The article stated the exec director was Ian Crook. I couldn't find anything with this name. I found lots of sources with Dr. Carole Webb, some quite recent, so made a change to the little box with the org info. Couldn't get a direct reference from the website, so I may be wrong. Webb seems to have been a vocal leader for some time. Canadianknowledgelover (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused named references

Hi. I've just removed these unused references.

<ref name="Cat group may face watchdog"> {{Cite web| title = Cat group may face watchdog | publisher = The Sunday Age | url = http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cat-group-may-face-watchdog-20101127-18bjr.html}}</ref>

<ref name="Scrap widens"> [http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cat-protection-scrap-widens-20101030-1789f.html "Cat protection scrap widens"], Mark Russell, The Age, Oct. 31, 2010.</ref>

Mattwheatley (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cat Protection Society of Victoria. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]