Talk:Cats and the Internet

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tuj56364.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Internet and cats

Moved from Talk:Internet

Graham87 09:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There are legit enough reliable source to make this article. Who's up for the challenge? :D--Coin945 (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please go for it! Actually this is an interesting, serious topic of obvious notability (see Cultural depictions of cats & Category:Cats in popular culture). --Fixuture (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I don't particularly want to create this article, but I think somebody else should. I added some more sources to the pile to sweeten the deal. :)--Coin945 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Article is now blue. Please show it some love.GliderMaven (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You should probably tone down the amount of references in the opening article. I don't think we need 35 sources for one sentence.Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who create this article. I simply provided the links above. i think that first sentence is currently a dumping ground for all the reliable sources.--Coin945 (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I did it that way because I could create it, pretty much with just that one line, and it made it almost impossible to speedy or AFD, it showed that it was genuinely notable.

Now the article is up more fully, it can be toned down.GliderMaven (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Internet is a series of tubes. And those tubes are full of cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.89.85.15 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

None of those first eleven references are currently being used anywhere else in the article. Let's dump them here instead: (sources were removed by @Coin945: as they have now been added to the article) --McGeddon (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Nice job McGeddon. Let's remove the references from this infodump once we've added them to the article!--Coin945 (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Cats on the Internet

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cats on the Internet's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "tff-winners":

• From Grumpy Cat: The Editors (2013-04-25). "Here Are Your TFF 2013 Award Winners | Tribeca". Tribecafilm.com. Retrieved 2013-04-29. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
• From Lil Bub: The Editors (2013-04-25). "Here Are Your TFF 2013 Award Winners". Tribecafilm.com. Retrieved 2013-04-29. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

Reference named "tribecafilm":

• From Lil Bub: "Lil Bub & Friendz". Tribecafilm.com. Retrieved 2013-04-25.
• From Grumpy Cat: "Lil Bub & Friendz | 2013 Tribeca Film Festival". Tribecafilm.com. Retrieved 2013-04-25.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability

My first thought was - this is WP:OR and will fail WP:GNG, but [1], [2], [3] and others seem to satisfy that, so... thanks for creating this. Ah, Internet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't have started it, if I didn't think it could be defended. I was surprised that there wasn't an article on it already.GliderMaven (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Article title

Is the scope of this article expected to stop at "cat images and videos on the internet" (which is what the sources seem to focus on), or can this article be meaningfully expanded to cover other forms of contact between cats and the internet (which is what the current title implies)? --McGeddon (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The previous title, Cats on the Internet, seems a bit better to me. Perhaps a title such as Cat media on the Internet would be even better. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer the previous title too. What does anyone else think?GliderMaven (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"Cats on the Internet" sounds like it's about cats who use the internet. It needs the word "media" or something in there. --McGeddon (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

So what? We could cover that too!GliderMaven (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with McGeddon; Cat media on the Internet would be probably more encyclopedic. But I am fine with the current title, too. It's short and clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it goes beyond the narrower scope of cat media and looks at the unique and unprecidented relationship between the internet and cats that have catapulted the latter into superstardom. At least thats how the myth goes. In any case, @Piotrus:, did you want to try your hand at helping us improve the article? Exracting info from all those sources and creating an article that looks and feels encyclopedic will take a bit of work. But the good news is that theres a diamond in the rough just waiting to be smoothed out. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current title is too wide, it sounds like it's about the network that is the Internet, and felines that are house cats, as separate things. And the title 'Cat media on the Internet' implies it's about the media, and not about any of the cats that have become famous because of the Internet, so it's about specific videos only- it's too specific.GliderMaven (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Since those cats became famous through images or videos of them being shared, I think "Cat media on the internet" still covers it. Is it worth starting a formal seven-day move discussion if there's some disagreement here? --McGeddon (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the current material would be appropriate with that title.GliderMaven (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Which aspects of the article content aren't covered by "cat media on the internet", in the current version? I thought Bonsai Kitten might be tangential, but its article actually makes the point that "BonsaiKitten.com's pictures are the source of its controversy." - and a website about cats is "cat media" in any case. --McGeddon (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I created the history and psychology sections alone. I did not add any of those sections about famous Internet cats/memes etc. (although I did add a bit about nyan cat once I saw that the section was here to stay). So baring just my sections in mind, I think it is less about listing and more about analyzing.--Coin945 (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, there could be two articles: The Internet and cats to analyse this relationship and why it exists, and Cat media on the Internet, which simply lists all the popular cat-related media. So this article would split in half: History and Psychology staying here, and the rest going to the new article.--Coin945 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

But the history and psychology sections are entirely about the history and psychology of cat videos and cat pictures. There's nothing else. Since this rename doesn't seem cut and dried, I'll go ahead and open up a formal discussion. --McGeddon (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right. I don't really have a preference for the article title, just as long as it describes the content adequately. Go ahead with the name change. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Virtually nobody would ever, ever, use, off their own bat, 'cat media on the Internet' to find this article. You're supposed to use the name that people would search for, not the 'rightest' name. Even the current name is better than that.GliderMaven (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I started a requested move discussion at the bottom of this page. If it is moved, "The Internet and cats" will redirect there; we should probably redirect Cat videos and similar phrases to wherever this article ends up, as well. --McGeddon (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Cat people and dog people

Yes, this topic most definitely deserves an article too. For some bizarre reason, there is a whole culture around how your preference for one animal or another is some determinant for a large part of your behavior and personality - kind of like horoscopes. It's weird. And very notable:

Once again, who's up for the challenge? :D--Coin945 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The Internet and cats → Cat media on the Internet – The article is purely about cat videos and cat pictures, and the cats who became famous through these videos and pictures. It is not about cats who use the internet, or text-based cat-related websites, or how internet-enabled technology affects cats, or anything else like that (and probably shouldn't be, given how much detail can be gone into about cat images and videos alone). McGeddon (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(Note: this article was moved unilaterally to Cats and the Internet, by User:Coin945, during the course of this requested move discussion. I've left it there since this seems an uncontroversial reordering.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - the suggested new title is unnatural, inaccurate, overprecise and not very concise. The purpose of the article is not to discuss the media (video and audio files), it's for all coverage of cats on the internet. It's similar to saying 'words about cats on the Internet', we're not interested in the words, nor are we specifically interested in the media. Although all coverage of cats is contained in media, that's not the focus of the article.GliderMaven (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "Cat media on the Internet", but Support the new move to its current location at "Cats and the Internet". This seems to conform to uniformity with other pages of similar titles, including: Religion and the Internet, Suicide and the Internet, and Death and the Internet — although this article is on a happier topic. :) Thus, for increased standardization, the page should stay at "Cats and the Internet". It's also a shorter title and more succinct. — Cirt (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Holy cat

Great job on the Quality improvement effort !!!

This article has come quite a long way in quality since its beginning stages less than two (2) weeks ago.

Editors who've participated in this Quality improvement effort are to be catmmended.

— Cirt (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The History and Psychology sections were mine. Your praise is very touching; thankyou. @Cirt:, as a prolific editor of Wikipedia, would you like to try your hand at improving the article? The sources have not yet been mined for all their juicy info, and the current text isn't structured as well as it could be. :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate info

This page is redundant.

• History and Psychology - general info that can go in the Cat, Domestic cat or Cultural depictions of cats. Other than that it's just quoting statistics like a cracked.com article.
• Celebrities and Cat memes - copies of cat articles, we already have List_of_cats#Cats_who_gained_internet_fame.
• Spoofs, a copy of Bonzai Kitten.

Cats are funny internet things, but this is page is a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE and essay-like. Also WP:OFFTOPIC, no clearly defined topic here.

You can create an article on any major fandom and how it effects the internet and fans, does not mean you should.--Otterathome (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

List of cats mains here for 'Cats who gained internet fame', so that's not a duplication. It wouldn't be appropriate to add any of this to Cat (aka Domestic cat- same article). Cultural depictions of cats already links to this also, it wouldn't be appropriate to go into this much depth there either. It does seem to be a legitimate topic in its own right, and has been covered by lots of reliable sources.GliderMaven (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

As writer of the History and Psychology sections, I agree with Gilderman. @Otterathome:, you seem like a very intelligent human being; perhaps you could take a peek throguh the sources in the article (or even those on the talk page that I haven't gotten around to yet), and help me to nab every last piece of juicy information? I have only done shallow readings of each source and pulled out just enoguh to justify the sources' inclusion in the article. I'm sure if we work together we can create something really great. :)--Coin945 (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A perusal of the sources, including well respected news sources like The Guardian suggests that this is a suitable standalone topic documenting a bizarre but genuinely significant pop culture phenomenon. It would be wrong to include this information in cat or list of cats, as those articles are geared towards the biology and anthropology, and we should defer to more general purpose topics rather than specific ones such as Bonzai Kitten. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair-use images

I removed a bunch of fair-use images that had not been justified for use in this article (See WP:NFLISTS; although this is not strictly a list article the logic is, I think, the same). Please be careful to use free images in this article in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Could images from sites like Facebook or Twitter be fair-use? Amyh0119 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A message for our new visitors:

Please hit the edit button and help us improve the content in this article. :D--Coin945 (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice article.

I think this article is good. but please do not advertise on other articals not related. But GOOD JOB;) Wkc19 :) (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Added reference #Old_Long_Johnson

I have added a reference to the section Old Long Johnson, if that is sufficient then please remove the 'This section does not cite any sources' banner. Kind regard, KING (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

After additional references were provided this has been resolved. Also, the section is now titled Oh Long Johnson. Gratis to McGeddon for being right on it. KING (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Old Long Johnson vs Oh Long Johnson

I am introducing this discussion here also for a unified resolution. There is debate on the Oh Long Johnson article talk page as to whether the cat is in fact called Old Long Johnson or Oh Long Johnson. Please resolve this debate for consistency and either: Move the other article or, rename the cat in this article. Thank you. KING (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

After edits this is resolved. Gratis to McGeddon for being right on it. See also, talk on the Oh Long Johnson article talk page. KING (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I've no idea if I'm "right" here, I just edited it to match the sources, which all said "Oh Long Johnson" and didn't give any sort of name for the cat. --McGeddon (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

We won't hold it against you. As it happens, I agree with you and was questioning the name of the cat days ago (see article history notes). Now all anyone needs is those pesky references for South Park, do those even exist?! In my mind, South Park *never* gets referenced. Anyhow, thank you. KING (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bongo Cat Redraw.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Cats and the Internet → ? – The title of this article should be changed, but I'm not sure to what; if this title were a redirect, it would have WP:XY issues since the title could equally refer to Cat or Internet. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support move to "Cats on the Internet". The current title isn't bad but could be better. --The Tips of Apmh 01:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment: I support this title suggestion as more precise on the article's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, the current name is fine and accurately names the scope of the article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems like a WP:AINTBROKE issue. What exactly is wrong with the current title? There doesn't seem to be a clear argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm claiming "it's broke" by claiming the title could refer to Cat or Internet. Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't understand the rationale - the title is referring to both Cats and the Internet. That's not a problem, right? That's just accurate. SnowFire (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Nominator comment: Yep, in the least, I'm starting to see the amount of fire figuratively caused by my lack of proposing an actual title. @The Tips of Apmh: Would you be okay if I withdraw this move request? (Asking you as the sole participant besides myself who has not stated "oppose".) Steel1943 (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2022 (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.

Remove Floppa

This article is focused on domestic cats, and as Floppa is a caracal, I'm not sure it belongs in this article. I won't necessarily deny his fame (though that could be argued), so potentially this should be moved elsewhere? He's listed under 'Images' in List of Internet phenomena already, if that's enough.

I think that there could be a case made to include Floppa with cats - but the specific wording of 'domestic cat' laid out in the beginning of the article is what's throwing me off. He's the only animal that isn't a domestic cat in this article - that I can see - which makes it feel more iffy.

I would also probably be inclined to remove him from celebrities and leave him just in internet memes - though I'm personally not overly concerned by that. <>=< AnteaterStim (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Since from what I can tell, 98% of his popularity is as a meme, I'd be fine with removing his entry here. Problem is, other people tend to argue to include all of their particular favorites which makes trimming this article difficult. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed him from the celebrities section and moved the information into his Internet memes section. I do feel 50/50 on removing him entirely, since he doesn't technically fit being a domestic cat, but also does hold significance. AnteaterStim (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Best article on Wikipedia

change my mind Natieboi (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Challenge declined: Your position is objectively true. 50.46.185.238 (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

"Bingus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bingus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 21 § Bingus until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)