Talk:Popular cat names

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 12 October 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
Speedy Keep, 2 June 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
Endorse Keep, 21 May 2010, see DRV.
Keep, 10 May 2010, see discussion.
Keep, 7 November 2008, see discussion.

Names in Italy

I live in italy and I haven't seen people give these names to cats. In fact, names like "matisse" and "minou" (from the italian version of The Aristocats ) and "trudy" (a popular italian plush toy producer) seem a lot more common. Could someone find a citation for the italian names given? Thank you. 93.34.55.173 (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Remarkably enough, this can actually be sourced;

top dog and cat names in the U.S.

Now, whether such a list is of encyclopedic value is another matter .... MadScot (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate Original Research

Page has been reverted to the original style, which is an indiscriminate list of OR. A list of popular pet names CAN be sourced, but they way it's being done here ... PROD was removed so I'm taking this to AfD. MadScot (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to make this article encyclopedic

First of all here are some sources I found:

1)It's from an e-newsletter. But it's better than nothing.

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/07/09/05/the_top_10_names_for_dogs_and_cats_--_and_some_tips_for_naming_pets.htm

2)It's from the New York Times Opinion section. But I think it can be used as such. ie. "A New York Times Opinion article discussed..."

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/the-most-popular-names-for-british-pets/

3)A sourced list

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934061.html

I would suggest rewriting the article so it's an encyclopedic discussion of this topic. ie.

No official source exists for the most popular cat names, but based on pet insurance registrations...

Be careful not o violate copyrights. The list seems to be reported elsewhere so I think it may be usable. I would also suggest that other sources can be used in a way such as, "According to XYZ the top three most popular names are..." But the way this article is organized now it's definitely orginal research. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did what I suggested. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List?

It's not a list anymore. Either the list should be put back in, or the title of the article changed. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

This article is completely based on unreliable sources. I am challenging all of the content of this article. Can someone please answer the following question:

Why is youpet.com an authoritative source on what the most popular cat names are in America? Did they do a national survey? If so, how many people did they survey? What was the margin of error? What is their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? (In other words, what makes this source verifiable?) Same question goes for all of the other sources for the rest of the countries.

As an illustration, I did a quick search for a bunch of equally verifiable and reliable sources for the most popular american cat names, and the table below summarizes my findings:

Source	YouPet	BabyNames (Male)	BabyNames (Female)	BowWow	Washington Post
1	Tiger	Max	Chloe	Tigger	Kitty
2	Smokey	Tigger	Lucy	Tiger	Tiger
3	Kitty	Tiger	Molly	Max	Max
4	Shadow	Smokey	Bella	Smokey	Smokey
5	Tigger	Oliver	Sophie	Sam	Tigger
6	Baby	Buddy	Princess	Kitty	Patches
7	Oreo	Charlie	Cleo	Sassy	Misty
8	Angel	Simba	Angel	Shadow	Sam
9	Princess	Sammy	Lily	Simba	Shadow
10	Max	Oscar	Maggie	Patch	Samantha

Not so much consensus on the most popular names there. The point is that none of these sources are reliable or verifiable. None of them have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as required by Wikipedia policy (except for the Washington Post, but an open internet survey of 500 people in the Washington DC area is hardly scientific). So, I am challenging the content of this entire article. If someone can provide reliable, verifiable sources (by Wikipedia's definition) that can substantiate the most popular cat names in a particular country, then I won't remove all of the unverifiable information in this article. Otherwise, this article might as well be called List of random websites' favorite cat names. I'll allow a week or two for a response. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 22:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe almost all of your questions and points were answered fully in the AfD discussion. You ask: Why is youpet.com an authoritative source on what the most popular cat names are in America? Please reread that part of the article: Neither the article, nor, I think, youpet.com make that assertion at all. YouPet.com was reporting on the names its members submitted about their cats. Is there a reason to doubt that organization's accuracy about what it's own members tell it? Is there a reason to think that its information is irrelevant to a section about the names English-speaking pet owners give to their cats? Not so much consensus on the most popular names there. Actually there is some consensus, but so what? Please compare with Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. No one claims to know the exact ranking and we know that various companies are using what their large numbers of customers are telling them. The idea is that it's suggestive. Where the results overlap, it's more suggestive. Where they diverge, it suggests cultural differences and changing fashions, as noted in the article (and which are encyclopedic content). VPI is a source that appears to be reliable since it is regarded that way by other reliable sources. About.com is a reliable source. There is no serious reason that I can think of that youpet.com or "Bow Wow Meow" would not be considered reliable sources on making public information on their own records. Do you have an actual reason to doubt that they can count the names their customers give them? You ask what makes this source verifiable? Please review the WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:SELFPUB sections of that policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very trusting person when it comes to sources. How do you know that I didn't personally create the "Bow Wow Meow" website and list my top ten favorite cat names, and claim that they are the top ten favorite cat names in America? You don't. Because no one knows who the creator of "Bow Wow Meow" is. That is precisely why sources need to be verifiable, and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A source is not automatically considered verifiable as long as you don't have any particular reason to doubt the truthfulness or accuracy of the source, or because you have a gut feeling that the creator of the website doesn't have a reason to lie. That's not how WP works. Even a well-intentioned web site can have completely inaccurate data on it. A source is verifiable when it gains a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I would even be ok with multiple questionable (but indepedent) sources that came to the same conclusion, but my table above shows that is clearly not the case. I could go right now and register a domain like www.kittykittypoopoo.com and create a web page that purports to have researched the top 10 cat names in the country, and it would be equally verifiable to any of the sources in this article, perhaps with the exception of the Veterinary Pet Insurance source, although I'm not buying that one either, for the following reason:

According to your own sources, people in the US own 90 million cats. The VPI survey counts 475,000 of them, a mere 0.5% of the population. Not exactly a scientific survey. Furthermore, the sample is not random. It is a survey of the most popular cat names from people who take insurance out on their cats, which is a very small minority group of cat owners. Who is to say that people who are not apt to insure their cats choose entirely different names? We don't know because there are no reliable sources (probably because the whole idea is ridiculous and pointless, and the people who have the ability to provide a definitive answer have much better things to do with their time). I would support the renaming of this article to List of most popular cat names with relatively wealthy owners or List of most popular insured cat names in the United States. But surely, if Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia that contains facts, then we cannot include garbage content like this and present it as "truthiness". We would not accept presidential election polls of all homeless people in Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, so why should we accept a survey of all insured cats? Just because it is the only data available? At best, this list should be List of some popular cat names which is obviously not encyclopedic.

My point is that this article is fundamentally flawed because there are no qualified sources which have researched this topic and presented their findings. No one knows for sure what the most popular cat names are, presumably because no one cares enough to go through the time and expense to find out for sure. I have no doubt that this article uses the best sources available to us, but if the best sources available to us are crap and do not meet WP standards, then that is not a reason to pretend the sources are valid. SnottyWong talk 02:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you've been complaining, I've been adding to the article. Australian newspapers know who "Bow Wow Meow" is, and I've cited them. That's how we establish who reliable sources are, as WP:RS states. We may, in fact, consider "Bow Wow Meow" a subject expert, good enough for self-published information -- although I now have citations from newspapers that trust that company. After all: It makes and sells pet tags with names on them. Nowhere in the article do we assert that these surveys actually show exactly how popular each name is or even that they give exact rankings for the nation that they're in. They're meant to be suggestive, or at least they're used that way here. We could certainly add a passage saying something more about the limits of the data, but that doesn't mean it's worthless. We have plenty of reliable sources telling us that they don't think it's worthless. The information is quite encyclopedic, since two cat encyclopedias use the same type of information. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't make any claim as to the exact popularity ranking of the names, then why are they all listed in numerical order? Why isn't the article titled List of popular cat names? The only thing we're doing by listing the names in numerical order is precisely claiming that we know exactly how popular each name is compared to the other names. And even if we didn't list them in numerical order, we would still be saying that we know that these 10 names are more popular than any other name out there. But I think even you cannot say with any certainty that that is true. And that is why this article is a farce. The reason I'm "complaining" is that I feel my time is better spent trying to rid WP of articles like these rather than attempting to improve them despite it being impossible to do so.

It is also curious how you can claim that a company that makes pet name tags and a company that provides pet insurance can be reliable sources for the most popular pet names. Both of these companies are only making use of relatively small data sets from non-random sets of the pet-owning population. Again, this article is not List of most popular insured cat names and List of most popular cat names with name tags. If you can point me to a source that actually did a scientific study on a truly random subset of the population with a reasonably low margin of error, then I would change my tune immediately. We wouldn't settle for less in a presidential poll, so why should we settle for less here?

I find it interesting that one of the examples on WP:LISTCRUFT is List of dog names. In other words, Wikipedia's definition of Listcruft practically includes this article by name as a specific example. If that doesn't convince you, then I'm afraid nothing will. SnottyWong talk 05:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can add more sources until the cows come home, but I will still be able to find equally verifiable sources that list different names in different orders. How do you propose we solve that problem? SnottyWong talk 05:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By pointing out that you've improperly framed the issue. Having "equally verifiable sources that list different names in different orders" isn't actually a problem. We do this all the time, as a review of WP:RS and WP:NPOV makes clear. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clever, but not quite. The article you linked to is a presidential poll, where a random sample of people were polled for whether they like Option A or Option B. That is much different than taking a non-random sample of people, asking them what their cats' names are, and compiling the results as the "List of most popular cat names". Unless, of course, you are suggesting that we should list the results of every remotely credible survey of the top 10 most popular cat names in a giant table. I would absolutely be for that, since it would only serve to highlight the ridiculousness of this article. Let me know if there is consensus with creating a table similar to the one I've made above and adding it to the file, and I'll get started on it right away. SnottyWong talk 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll interpret your lack of a response as an act of submission, and assume that there is no objection to modifying this article to add tables showing the most popular cat names arranged by source. SnottyWong talk 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be incorrect. You should interpret it as boredom that you haven't come up with any new arguments, but just rehashed the tired ones. I have no problem with tables that show annual results from the same source, but only because the tables purport to show essentially the same thing from year to year. The Chicago and Bow Wow Meow sources would be good in tables, for instance. The various sources from the UK would not, because it would imply they're trying to give an authoritative statement on what is happening among all pet owners in the country. What they're doing instead is suggesting that. Big difference. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for misinterpreting your boredom, but you actually haven't responded to any of the "tired" arguments that I keep rehashing. Oh, except for your grand idea to add an "s" to the title, which supposedly would solve every problem I've brought up with the article. Well, I can see this has gone as far as it's going to go. I plan on relisting this on AfD in the not too distant future, seeing as how the previous AfD was not closed by an unbiased admin. SnottyWong talk 21:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research Claim

In response to this quote in the section above:

"You ask: Why is youpet.com an authoritative source on what the most popular cat names are in America? Please reread that part of the article: Neither the article, nor, I think, youpet.com make that assertion at all. YouPet.com was reporting on the names its members submitted about their cats. Is there a reason to doubt that organization's accuracy about what it's own members tell it?"
— JohnWBarber

No, I do not think there is any reasonable doubt that the youpet.com accurately reported the names of their customer's pets. However, you yourself admit that neither this article nor your source claim to be an authoritative source on what the most popular cat names are in America. Thus, you admit that this article is completely based on original research. In other words, you are compiling statistics from different pet-related organizations (none of whom claim to definitively know the most popular cat names in the country), and from those statistics you are producing a list of "the most popular cat names". If it's your assertion that that isn't what you're doing, then re-read the title of this article: "List of most popular cat names". When a reader goes to this page, they expect to see an accurate list of the most popular cat names. This article, by virtue of its title, purports to contain a list of the most popular cat names. And it actually goes so far as to list them in numerical order, from 1 to 10. Yet somehow you can simultaneously claim that none of your sources are authoritative in this respect. Something is not right here, right? Either we need to find some better sources, or we need to rename this article to List of popular cat names and add a lot more cat names and get rid of the numerical ordering. Or, we need to delete this article outright. Agreed? SnottyWong talk 05:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that the article name is wrong for the article content, but perhaps "Lists" rather than "List" would be an improvement. That would seem to eliminate all of your objections. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that wouldn't even eliminate one of my objections. One of my objections is that listing the names in numerical order implies that we have definitive proof that name #1 is more popular than name #2 is more popular than name #3, etc. Adding an "s" to the name of the title doesn't even come close to addressing that problem. I have no problem with the fact that the article has multiple lists for different geographical regions. I have a problem with the fact that each list purports to be accurate when in reality it is based on a non-authoritative, non-definitive source (by your own admission). SnottyWong talk 21:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat myself here, as well. (1) You say: listing the names in numerical order implies that we have definitive proof that name #1 is more popular than name #2 is more popular than name #3, etc. I disagree. In the case of companies that release lists based on their customer databases, the companies say what they are based on. The "definitive proof" extends only to the company's own database. (2) You say: when in reality it is based on a non-authoritative, non-definitive source (by your own admission). You keep on insisting that this article must have definitive proof of a numerical listing of what the most popular cat names are, in order. That is not a requirement. Evidence is hazy for a lot of proper encyclopedic subjects. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article name question

On May 22, an editor changed the name of the article from List of most popular cat names to Popular cat names, saying in the edit summary for the move that the article was not a list. I'd radically changed the article just before that. As it stands right now, it's made up of a series of published lists of most popular cat names and explanatory material about the lists and about what the information in the lists says about cat names. I think this may actually be an article the subject of which is "lists of popular cat names". On the other hand, the subject "Popular cat names" may be essentially the same thing. I'm still trying to think this through. Another idea is "Trends in cat names". Does anybody else have any thoughts on this? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say List of most popular cat names would indeed be the proper name for the article. As most of it is, indeed, lists.- The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same, as it's comparable to List of most common surnames in Europe#Finland and List of most popular given names (which should also, eventually, expand-upon the list data in detailed explanation). -- Quiddity (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to "Popular cat names". Similar titles include:

"Trends in cat names"
"Trends in popular cat names"

These "Trends in..." names I guess slant the perspective to a time varying study. "popular" works, because there seems to be no coverage of unpopular names.

"List of ..." means that the article is either about a single notable list (which it is not), or the article is a navigation aid (which it is not).
"Lists of ..." means that the coverage is of the lists. This does not look to be the case. The commentary is about the cat names, not about the lists.

I also think it desirable to get away from the problematic "List of " style of naming that remains criticised. There are people who would have almost every "List of" article removed from wikipedia. I think they are partly right; "List of " articles do not frame any article well for improvements leading to comprehensive encyclopedic coverage. Future editors will arrive and try to add to the lists. They should arrive and feel a need to add sourced commentary to the subject of cat names.
I recommend "Popular cat names" as a simple plain title that reflects the content of the article and the subject of the sources. "Trends of" adds a focus, which is good, but it better used as a section title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The only reason the article isn't a pure list is because so much explanation is required to justify and explain the poor sourcing for these lists. Every list has to be preceded by "According to kittykittypoopoo.com..." or "While no one claims to truly and authoritatively know the most popular cat names, kittykittypoopoo.com posted the following list on their website after their thoroughly unscientific 'survey' of a few of their friends..." It doesn't matter what you call the article, it's still crap. SnottyWong talk 14:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unified table should have consensus before going in the article

I've reverted Snottywong's compacting of different popular-name lists into one table because this had been discussed before and didn't have consensus. There's nothing wrong with being bold in editing, but not when you know there's been an objection to what you're doing. I disagreed with having one table because the different surveys -- of what particular companies found were the most popular names of cats among their customers, or what was popular in Chicago -- were meant to be no more than suggestive of what names were popular at a particular time. I think we give the reader the wrong impression by putting all that in one table, and I doubt that even explaining the differences would erase the impression that all the surveys were meant to show the same exact thing. We might as well include the German and Quebec lists in the same table. One of Snottywong's edit summaries suggested new information was added, but I find that so much was changed in the edit that I can't tell what's new and what was only moved. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I need to gain consensus to add material which is properly sourced. If your argument is that one of my sources is not reliable or verifiable, then let's hear it. Otherwise, if you don't like the table format, then make it more readable without deleting the sourced material I added. Our arguments above on this page served to point out that there is no authoritative source for what the most popular cat names are, because no one has done a proper survey of a random sample of people across the nation. Therefore, we need to include all of the reliable sources available in order to illustrate what names were popular when (and where), just like your presidential polling example above. If you think the table is unclear and you'd like to add an explanation to make it more clear, be my guest. But please do not delete uncontroversially sourced material. And, regarding this: "We might as well include the German and Quebec lists in the same table", that would not be appropriate because this table is under the United States section. If there are multiple reliable sources for the names in those countries, however, then I think we should create a similar table for each country. SnottyWong talk 14:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I need to gain consensus to add material which is properly sourced. See WP:CONSENSUS. It has nothing to do with the sourcing. I'll look over your other comments later, but let's just get the basics down first. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a particular suggestion you have for including my well-sourced material into this article, I'd love to hear it rather than getting my edits repeatedly reverted. I assume you are familiar with WP:3RR. SnottyWong talk 05:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also direct you to read WP:DRNC before reverting for the third time. SnottyWong talk 14:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRNC (emphasis added): This page in a nutshell: If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it. Me (21:34, 21 May): I have no problem with tables that show annual results from the same source, but only because the tables purport to show essentially the same thing from year to year. The Chicago and Bow Wow Meow sources would be good in tables, for instance. The various sources from the UK would not, because it would imply they're trying to give an authoritative statement on what is happening among all pet owners in the country. What they're doing instead is suggesting that. Big difference. [1]

You are being uncivil and edit warring. You are not trying to resolve matters on the talk page. Please stop doing both.

Otherwise, if you don't like the table format, then make it more readable without deleting the sourced material I added. As I've said before, the particular table you are trying to single-handedly impose on an article you would like to delete is inappropriate because it pushes the idea you have that each company's information is necessarily meant to show the exact order of popularity of each name, far beyond the bounds of its own customers. The article doesn't say that and I don't think any of the companies say that. Only you say that, and without proof. I'm not going to spend time reformatting that information. Instead, add it correctly to the article outside of a single, massive table.

This indicates that you are being disruptive by doing without consensus what you previously said should be done with consensus. According to this, you seem to understand quite well that consensus is required: Unless, of course, you are suggesting that we should list the results of every remotely credible survey of the top 10 most popular cat names in a giant table. I would absolutely be for that, since it would only serve to highlight the ridiculousness of this article. Let me know if there is consensus with creating a table similar to the one I've made above and adding it to the file, and I'll get started on it right away. SnottyWong talk 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC) [2] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how we are supposed to faithfully represent all of the different sources that exist for this topic? Or, is one of the sources far more authoritative and accurate than the others that we can just use a single source and ignore the other sources? If you don't like the aesthetics of my table, that's fine. The more important point, however, is how to deal with all of these conflicting, yet equally reliable and verifiable sources. SnottyWong talk 03:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how we are supposed to faithfully represent all of the different sources that exist for this topic? See WP:ASF: "By 'opinion', we mean a statement which expresses either a subjective judgement or value, or an apparently objective statement which is contradicted by some reliable sources." To the extent that these different lists contradict each other in suggesting different names as the most popular ones and in different order from other lists, we can consider each list as an opinion, as ASF provides. Treat them all as minority opinions, each with some WP:WEIGHT but not a lot more than any others. One source does not appear to be very much more authoritative or accurate than others, although in the U.S., the VPI source appears to be cited a lot more than anyone else, and it seems to have the largest database, so we should probably give it more prominence than the rest, but not much more. (In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views,, also see WP:WEIGHT) WP:ASF goes on to say, When we want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and discuss the fact that they have this opinion This means we don't have to try to decide which list is correct.

I take it by your comment above that you won't object if I remove the large table. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to you removing the large table as long as you replace it with an alternate way of displaying the same information. I have never objected to removing the table itself. I do object to removing the information without reorganizing it in a way that is more aesthetically pleasing, and which conforms to the applicable WP guidelines. Although, I'm not sure if I'm buying the application of WP:ASF in this instance. I think it's a stretch to classify these sources as "opinions". They're really just very poorly executed surveys, which are likely not very indicative of reality. A top 10 list of the most popular cat names for the US does exist and is knowable, it is not a subjective concept. If someone took the time to survey every owner of every cat in the country, the result would be a 100% correct factual list. The fact that these sources have failed to obtain 100% accuracy of a completely obtainable fact doesn't mean that they're opinions, they're just inaccurate sources. SnottyWong talk 23:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The words after "WP:ASF" in my last comment were a quote from that policy. It simply is policy. How would it not apply? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't apply because there is only one correct answer for the top 10 cat names in a particular country. There can be no opinions about it. You can't have an opinion about whether 2+2 is 4. Look at the examples of "opinions" given in WP:ASF: whether or not stealing is wrong, whether or not the Beatles are the greatest band in history, whether or not the US was right in using an atomic bomb. These are not mathematical or statistical questions which have a single, knowable answer. They are subjective questions about which differing opinions can be expressed. SnottyWong talk 17:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You're assuming that the information must only be used to determine which is the exact ranking of the 10 most popular cat names for a particular country in a particular year. You have no right to limit the use of the data to that, and it is not used that way here. You have no right to insist that the data be limited to only that use. We have sourcing that says some of this data is limited and many of the sources simply state that the rankings are what some company says it found among its own customers. (2) Even if we were to use the data as attempts to show exactly what the rankings are (and I agree that this would not be a good idea), then we'd treat it like polling data, which purports to show what the (almost) exact popularity of one thing or another is. The fact is that public opinion polls done by different firms will have different results, even when they ask almost the same question at the exact same time. That's because they all use slightly different methods, and they often adjust their samples (taking out too many old folks or Republicans if they show up in greater numbers than the population as a whole, for instance). There's quite a bit of art in the 'science' of polling. In any event, my real point is #1. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was trying to do by adding the table. There are conflicting sources, and as long as they are all (roughly) minority sources, then they all have a right to be included in the article. Either we can present the information from each source in paragraph form, or we can list it in tabular form. Doesn't matter to me. I don't have a problem with qualifying our sources by saying "According to kittykittypoopoo.com's survey..." or however you'd like to do it. However, on a different subject, the fact that we're listing the names in order from 1 to 10 doesn't trouble you? SnottyWong talk 18:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't trouble me. I doubt readers will be misled, especially since we have a variety of lists. I don't know if I addressed this point you made before, but until the article gets too long, I'd just keep adding results from various sources. If at some point the article gets too crowded, we might find ways of removing less prominent sources, I guess. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break

Ok, so if your objection to the table is purely aesthetic, do you have any suggestions on how to reformat the data into a more aesthetically pleasing form? SnottyWong talk 22:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly something like individual tables for each source that we list 10 names from. Perhaps something like this:

Source	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Kitty Litter Inc.	Tom	Dick	Harry	Thomasina	Ducky	Harrilina	Dom	Rick	Larry	Mo

If we get another top-10 list from the same group the next year, we could add it to the bottom and note in the "Source" column the year. Would this do? (I'm going to be away on Saturday and Sunday, so I may not be replying again until Monday.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the exact same table with the rows and columns swapped... or am I missing something? SnottyWong talk 01:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The differences are important: By having separate tables, it makes clear that the table presents information that should only be compared with other lists with care (you might combine some lists into a single table and note in prose just above the table that it compares two separate sets of data which were gathered in different ways; that might work, too -- I'm not absolutely, in all circumstances, opposed to this, but we'd have to word the description of the table well, the lists should have a lot in common [something like same year, same country or, of course, same source] and I'd want to see the whole thing somewhere off the article page first). Tables done this way also avoid a large amount of white space and extra scrolling for the reader. Uniform tables also make it easier on the eyes of the reader comparing different lists. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to prosify the tables. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think tables interspersed with prose reads much better, and it's difficult to read one top-ten list after another in prose form (this old version of the Chicago information in the second-to-last paragraph here [3] is really pretty difficult to read). Tables work best with larger amounts of uniform information. There's no better way of presenting the VPI annual information, for instance. I can't imagine anybody's eyes not glazing over a presentation of that material in prose. If you look at the United Kingdom section, we have two lists that could each be presented this way. We could save a lot of white space and extra scrolling that way, and the page would look better. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the entire premise of this article?

This whole article seems to be based on the assertion that, to quote the article intro, "Ranking of the popularity of cat names can be approximated using statistics from pet insurance registrations or from other companies that keep records of many cats." Is there a source for this assertion? If I had to make an uninformed guess, I would assume that the customers of such companies are not representative of cat-namers in general. They are likely to be more affluent, more educated, and have more love for their cat than, for example, the homeless guy who names the stray cats that live in the same alley as him or the senile old woman who has 200 felines in her living room. Of course, those are extreme examples but my point is that cat-namers who purchase insurance or other cat-related services are likely a minority, so the assertion that their naming habits can be used to approximate general cat-naming habits needs to be sourced. --75.155.22.72 (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign in. --Miken2005 (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Popular cat names. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100207162823/http://babynames.com/Names/Pets/ to http://www.babynames.com/Names/Pets/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Popular cat names. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207162823/http://www.babynames.com/Names/Pets/ to http://www.babynames.com/Names/Pets/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Ashes'?

'Ashes' is given as the top name in many of the lists, but the sources don't back this up - Ashes doesn't appear in most of them. Someone's idea of a joke?

Concur. There is no way that this is true. Follow out the links, and they show completely different information. I'm betting someone out there has a cat named Ashes that he/she wants to promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.97.252 (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]