Talk:Maine Coon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Breed standard

Almost all the links are no longer valid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.187.36.11 (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Zico image

I recently replaced this image with another one of an orange Maine Coon kitten, which I think is useful as it shows the different color variations rather than having every image of black/brown MCs. The existing image was way washed out and didn't add anything to the article. Given that my change was reverted by an single purpose account so that a picture of their cat could remain, I'm taking it here. I'd like to get consensus on this so we can move forward.--Terrillja _talk 15:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather have the pic of the orange kitten. IF I had to choose. it could probably be rearranged to include both though. The tufting illustration is kinda cool.--Marhawkman (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrillja, I would like for us to get along. I ask that you please compromise and drop your mission to remove this image, which I believe is one of the better ones on the Maine Coon page. Note that Marhawkman said that he would rather have both images, and not that this image be necessarily removed. I don't wish to escalate this, and I don't have the time to fight (but I will if I have to), which is why I have kept my responses contained to the previous revert comments. I would like to resolve this peacefully and amicably if at all possible. I have made a proposed edit that includes both images. Zicoon (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you could have used the talkpage in the two months that this has been here. Yet instead you waited until I removed it again to actually say anything.Wikipedia is not a battleground, I want what is best for the article, which would be to include different images that cover the different looks of the breed. And the image is out of focus and washed out. Hardly one of the best images in the article. Sorry, but constructive criticism here. I still think that the image is not contributing to the article and will probably take it to the conflict of interest noticeboard, since you have consistently pushed for your cat to be included with clear bias.--Terrillja _talk 19:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Terrillja: I really don't understand the basis of your claims. The image is not out of focus. It is not washed out (I just removed the blue cast at the rear of the image if that is what you were referring to as being washed out). Your opinion may be that the image is not contributing to this article, but we have already gone through this and several people have stated otherwise. Your conflict of interest allegations are incorrect. And unlike yourself, I simply do not have a lot of time to spend on the internet, nor on Wikipedia. Nor do I usually bother to log-in whenever I make an edit (Wikipedia does not require you to log in to make an edit), I only got my userid because of the requirement to be logged in to upload a photo. I'm an accommodating and generally nice person - Instead of trying to remove your photo, I found a tidy way to include it also (as also suggested above by Marhawkman). Can you please be accommodating also? I don't wish for this to be a "battle", so can we please end this? It would be nice if we could all peacefully coexist here. Also, please remember that I also have the best interest of this article in mind and have contributed valuable content beyond the photo. Marhawkman: I'm not sure if I've said this previously, but thank-you for being friendly and supportive. Zicoon (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Are we seriously still having this photo debate? I apologize for intruding, but from my previous encounters with this same argument (and the same photo), my stance is still solid. The image provides nothing "special" to the article.

• The featured image: A spectacular, professional-looking photo, displaying fine qualities of the breed.
• The close up of the Maine Coon face gives defined detail of facial features.
• The picture of Cosey is placed well in the "History" section.
• The photo of the two cats sitting side by side is a good example of comparing the size of a Maine Coon with other breeds.
• The gorgeous photo of the silver tabby and the white Maine Coon shows the variety of colors of this breed.
• The orange tabby is the only kitten photo in the article.

The photo provided by Zico and Wo0ter08 really do not provide anything special to the article (despite the fact that the cats in them are absolutely stunning), yet these users have issued the most difficulty when getting this matter resolved. We all want what's best for the article. This has nothing to do with myself or Terrillja trying to prevent users from uploading pictures of their own cats. We have now resorted to "sandwiching" text between photos (a no no) in order to accommodate these users' preferences for their photos to be in the article. Is that what we really want? To sacrifice the reliability and quality of this article for two images? Okay then.

– Ms. Sarita ^Confer 04:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I like looking at cat pictures as much as the next man but these two images aren't even particularly interesting or striking photographs. Barry Wom (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As Zicoon appears to be active again but has decided to ignore the talkpage, I will leave them a message, if they don't have a compelling reason to keep the article as is, I will remove the two images in 24 hours per the consensus here.--Terrillja _talk 03:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Zicoon made that edit to the article also, yet s/he has ignored the ongoing discussion. It would be appreciative if s/he would address what we have discussed here instead of simply making a slight edit that is only a small bandage to a large wound. The text is still sandwiched (at least on my PC it is) and still looks cluttered. It just, unfortunately, looks awkward to have so many spectacular, good-quality photos surrounding a picture that looks so washed out (yeah, I said it). I vaguely remember asking Zicoon to take a better quality photo of his/her pet to match that of the others, but being shot down (maybe I'm mistaken)? If I am mistaken, Zicoon, what is the possibility of this? I would also like to get Marhawkman's current opinion on this as well (since he may not be aware of the new dialogue that has taken place over the past couple days). – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As you can see above, they ignored the discussion for 2 months, so until someone does something, they will likely just continue to ignore it. I think taking action to elicit a response is the only way that anything will happen here, unfortunately.--Terrillja _talk 19:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

worst case scenario we can stuff the extra pictures in a gallery box... Actually I've been tempted to do that for some time....--Marhawkman (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well WP:IG would appear to be contrary to that idea FWIW.--Terrillja _talk 06:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it. The point of the gallery in this case would be to illustrate the variety of coat types and colors that the breed can be found in. That cannot be done with a single picture. We've been having issues doing it with 6 pictures..... Thus a gallery is warranted.--Marhawkman (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Terrillja & Ms. Sarita: Please stop repeatedly trying to remove this photo. Your reasons for doing so are personal and biased opinions not shared by all. We have gone through this over and over. Please accept that not everyone shares your views. That photo has received support from several people and is very fitting for an encyclopedic entry. In addition to showing what a summer coat looks like, it shows the body, head, face, and front paws from an angle not present in any of the other photos. It is the only photo that shows the head and face from the top and side. It is an excellent photo for this entry. And, as it happens, brown tabby Maine Coons are the most common type. As I've already said: This photo is not washed out, and I believe it is one of the better ones on the Maine Coon page. I would like this to end peacefully and amicably. Zicoon (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? How in the world are our reasons "personal and biased"? We have provided valid reasons for removing this photo. If anything, your reasoning is completely personal and biased since it is your cat in the photo. Not to mention that you have showed little interest if and when another photo is removed from the article...the only participation we have seen out of you on the Maine Coon page is when your photo is taken out. So, please don't point fingers. Not everyone shares your view either, and others have also showed support for its removal, so your point is a moot one, at best. I can't even see the cat's face, and the fact that it is the only photo that shows the cat from the top and side is entirely irrelevant regarding encyclopedic quality. I'm sorry, but the photo is washed out and is, in my opinion, one of the worst and least interesting photos on the page. You want this to end "peacefully and amicably" by the rest of us dropping the subject and letting the photo stay as is. I've asked that maybe a better quality photo be taken of this cat, and you have ignored my request. You've blanked your talk page in which Terrillja requested that you provide a compelling reason (which you have yet to provide) for the image to stay. We have tried to reason with you and compromise but noooooo. It's your way or the frickin' highway. Yeah. Real peaceful. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 06:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed images per here, if Zicoon revers, they go to WP:COIN, as they clearly have a conflict of interest and have ignored others to push their image into the article.--Terrillja _talk 06:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Image:Tabby.jpg I have found a much better image of a tabby Maine Coon with a summer coat. What does everyone think? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 07:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's far superior. Barry Wom (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't be serious. The zico summer coat photo really added details to this page. Washed out should not be an issue? It needs to be put back. What's with the major hostility? With your logic maybe you should find a new kitten photo, its not looking at the camera and the photo is oddly cropped. Same with the silver tabby, its tail is unfortunately cropped off. 174.6.10.134 (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The zico picture was a poorly taken photograph from above of a cat lolling on the carpet which added nothing to the article. Who would want to view a picture of the rear of a cat's head and its back ? This isn't an article on cat anatomy after all. There's no close-up picture of a Maine Coon's genitals either - by *your* logic that would presumably add useful "detail" to the article. (Or should that be "details" ?)

P.S. Silver Tabby picture has been reframed. Barry Wom (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That zico photo was appropriate...it should really go back up. I think all the negative commentary above is unnecessarily opinionated.24.25.249.248 (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm ... two page edits which have restored the zico photo and two comments in support of the image from anonymous I.P. addresses, neither of which have made any other contributions to WP. I wonder who could be behind this, m'dears ? Barry Wom (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think we should do a gallery...--Marhawkman (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been quiet because I am way too busy right now with much more pressing responsibilities and don't have the time at the moment (and possibly not for quite a while) to properly defend against these attacks. But let me be clear: I am independent of anyone else here. I am however grateful to the other people who are standing up to these attacks (which is what they are). I am going to side with Marhawkman: If we need a gallery here to keep things respectful, then let's add a gallery. Using false accusations, untrue statements, and poor reasoning to justify removing photos to add new ones should not be tolerated. Zicoon (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I also vote against having a gallery. Please read WP:IG, specifically the passage stating, "...Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article..." "Shoehorning" images into the article is exactly what we would be doing.

Zicoon, you are mistaking construction criticism for "attacks". No one is attacking you. We have tried to work with you and have tried to compromise (without sacrificing the quality of this GA article) so that we can include a photo of your cat or include a photo of a Maine Coon with a summer coat, but to no avail. No attacks have been made (by either side). This is called a debate. I have proposed two possible fixes: (1) Find/Take another photo of your Maine Coon that is of better quality or (2) implement the photo that I have found that still displays the summer coat of Maine Coons without sacrificing the quality of the photo. If you have another suggestion, I am completely open to hearing it and discussing it, as I always have.

It is sad that we are, yet again, arguing about this. This is not the first time we have battled on the discussion page of this article. The first time we did so, you alone prevented the article from reaching GA status for a long time, which irritated me because I felt that you truly weren't looking out for the article's best interests, but instead, your own. I hope that this isn't the case and that we can resolve this soon. You (still) have yet to provide answers to either Terrillja's or my questions (regarding how our reasons for the photo's removal are "personal and biased" or providing a compelling reason for the image to stay when two experienced editors have voted against it). You have also failed to provide any type of proposal as to how this debate can end with everyone satisfied, not just yourself. I pride myself on my patience, but eventually, this is going to have to end. Can we at least agree on that? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 01:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that I have to come in to this discussion and speak out in reference to my prior edit/discussion comment regarding the Zico photograph being appropriate, as I was under the impression that the spirit of Wikipedia was that all contributions of good quality information would be accepted in good faith. I was a little taken aback that someone would just very quickly not only negate what I had done, but insinuate that I was colluding with others and not contributing my own personal creative and artistic opinions regarding the photograph. It is very apparent to me that there are a few people on this page who are working closely in conjunction with each other to make unilateral decisions about it's content. I am wholeheartedly in support of editing incorrect information, yet the value which can be drawn from a photograph is highly subject to opinion. Claiming that a photograph is of no encyclopedic worthiness is a heavy claim and should never be made by just a handful of people. The Zico photograph is of good quality and is more beneficial to this article than the photos which replaced it. With the goal of having an amicable and reasonable conclusion to this situation, I propose that the photograph be included/restored as there is no basis other than a personal bias of a few friends who have their own personal agenda for it's removal. 24.25.249.248 (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

To the anon user above: Yes, the spirit of Wikipedia is to collaborate with other editors to create and improve articles. This specific image has been a problem since I completely revised the article nearly two years ago. Frankly, until your last response, your "opinions" have consisted of two sentences only telling people who oppose the photo that we are wrong to think so. I'm glad to have read a more in-depth response from you. Buuuuut...I am not working with anyone. I worked on this article by myself and never asked for, nor was I offered, any assistance. Your accusation about people "working closely in conjunction with each other" and a "few friends" operating under "personal bias" about this photo is about as valid as the accusation made by another user above about you "colluding with others", so please don't point fingers.

Please let me ask you a few questions:

(1) When looking at the other images in the article, you cannot possibly claim that the Zico image is of equal quality, can you?

(2) You, and Zicoon, have both accused myself and others of having a "personal agenda" for the image's removal. I believe I have asked this before, but what in the world is this personal bias that I seem to have?

(3) To both you and Zicoon (as I have asked Zicoon several times before): What resolution do you propose so that everyone will be satisfied? You and Zicoon have stated that the image stay, as is, making it seem as if there is little, if any, room for negotiations. I, however, have given a couple different options, but have been blatantly ignored. Why? Is it your way or the highway?

An "amicable" (a word both you and Zicoon have used) conclusion? Perhaps you both should look up the definition of that word. I have been nothing but compromising and willing to work with Zicoon. Obviously, I'm being taken for a fool.

– Ms. Sarita ^Confer 18:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion to everyone: every time you add a comment here to further this waste-of-time, you spend as much effort to improve the article text. If you do that, by the end of this discussion, we might actually have a better article.--Dodo bird (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I really hope you're not speaking to me. I guess when you say "everyone", you are. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 18:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you've contributed more than enough to the article to get a pass.--Dodo bird (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this article fits the criteria for a gallery perfectly. It has a wide variety of pictures that show different aspects of the subject. The dispute is about omitting a picture primarily due to lack of room.--Marhawkman (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To Ms. Sarita: Use of the same words is indicative of agreement with those words. In response to your questions: (1) I am indeed claiming that. The Zico photo is at least as good as or better than most of the photos, including your two new photos. (2) Your personal bias is apparent by your repeated abrasive behavior, double standards when comparing the Zico photo to other photos, and claims of deficiencies in the Zico photo which simply do not hold up upon inspection. A white background is not the same as being "washed out". The subject of the Zico photo is not in the least bit "washed out". The face in the Cosey photo however is washed out. I can barely see it. The Zico photo is not in the least bit "out of focus" (said by Terrillja). However the face in your Tabby photo above is out of focus, and to call it "far superior" (said by Barry) makes it apparent to me that a personal agenda is being pushed. (3) Respect that other people have opinions that differ from yours. Having your new photos and the Zico photo all stay in the article is a compromise. Removing photos that others prefer or oppose removing to make room for photos that you prefer is not. The article will not look too crowded with photos with this compromise. Adding one photo beyond that may start pushing it though, and if it came to that, or if a majority felt that the photos are too crowded, a gallery can be added as part of a further compromise. If you still think that a gallery is against the rules, please quote the specific rule that would prohibit it. The way I see it, if other articles have galleries, so can this one. I see no rule that precludes a gallery here. I also agree with Dodo bird that this is a waste-of-time. It’s time for the warring to end. I'm stepping aside, so please don't try to drag me deeper into this. Please accept my proposed compromise though; I believe it to be fair to all involved in this dispute. 24.25.249.248 (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cosey is a unique historical photo. Zico is not. As WP:IG specifically prohibits the use of galleries to shoehorn images into articles against consensus, a gallery would not be appropriate, and there is not enough space for more images than the current ones. The images should reflect the whole breed, not just brown and black cats, so no, your "compromise" of just ignoring everything said above and putting the image back in isn't going to happen. As has been said a number of times, state why you think the image in significant. Justify its use with something other than witch hunt rhetoric and a clear conflict of interest. Wikipedia isn't about making you feel warm and cuddly, it's about making the best articles, using the best images available and using them in line with guidelines. One person's opinion does not override the defended and reasoned consensus of the rest. --Terrillja _talk 12:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Anon user: First of all...two new photos? I proposed one new photo which would potentially replace the Zico image, but which would still convey what Zicoon would like to see portrayed (i.e., a summer coat). Second of all, how in the world is being "abrasive" conclusive of me having a "personal agenda"? Furthermore, I did not ask you how you came to the conclusion that I have a "personal agenda". I asked what this "personal agenda" is. I am still awaiting an answer, so that I may judge for myself whether there is a subconscious "personal agenda" going on in my head...

As far as the Cosey photo goes, the image is a digital copy of a photograph taken over a century ago, and is (as Terrillja stated) of historical value. The Zico image was taken within the last decade (I presume) with digital imaging. There is no comparison. Regarding the size comparison photo, I have stated reasons (and it has been argued by other users already). We definitely need to find a better one, but the photo in place is the only one that displays just how large Maine Coons are, which is a notable trait of the breed. This brings up a good point, one which you and Zicoon fail to understand: An image should not only be of decent quality, it also should bring something to the article that the other images do not (see my list above). As I have said before (over and over again), the Zico image (as well as the other image which was removed) brings nothing spectacular to the article.

Having to add Zico's photo alongside a new photo is overkill and is not, in any way, compromising. The debate is to remove or keep Zicoon's image. If we keep the Zico image, where's the compromise? I could care less about the photo I submitted for approval. I thought that Zicoon's reasoning was to display a Maine Coon with a summer coat, so I found a photo that is better (yes, again, I said it). If this is not Zicoon's reasoning, then the personal bias is clearly on him/her, as well as on yourself.

Right now, the article looks perfect. Pertinent images are spaced out and are not "drowning out" the text. If Zicoon would like to have an image of a summer coat, I believe that it is completely reasonable, and we'll work on getting an image of a summer coat in there. Remember that this is a GA article. Standards are held higher. I have quoted why a gallery would be frowned upon on the Maine Coon page above.

Finally, I am not "dragging" you into anything. You "dragged" yourself into this the moment you gave your opinion. You, I assume, are an adult. You are free to make your own decisions about whether or not you want to be "dragged" into this. I have no control over what you say or do.

– Ms. Sarita ^Confer 19:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't clear enough, so I will try my best to be super clear in this one last message. Please excuse the repetition. You appear to be intentionally ignoring my points and appear to have collectively stated blatant lies in an attempt to remove photos to introduce your own. This dispute isn't even over yet and I'm astonished that you're already targeting yet another photo, one that you have very recently applauded as being a "good example", for removal so that you can no doubt insert another photo of one of your cats. Your claims that the Zico photo is "washed out" and "out of focus" are outright lies and your claim that it is not "significant" to the article is extremely biased. If I wasn't clear enough I'll say it now: The Zico photo is very "significant" to this article. It is more significant than many of the other photos, including the ones that you have collectively introduced to the article or have proposed. The Zico photo is very "significant" because it is a very fine example of a summer coat. And I know that you totally don't agree with me on this, but it is a very good, well composed, and totally encyclopedic photograph that focuses on the cat's coat. And Ms. Sarita, I totally disagree with your belief that the photo that you "found" "is better". Not only is the face out of focus, it is really more an example of the coat of a younger cat than of a summer coat. And, Terrillja and Barry, please explain how you came to the conclusion that you have an "overwhelming consensus", let alone any consensus regarding removing the Zico photo. I don't see it. You can't keep claiming consensus when you don't appear to have any. And again Ms. Sarita, despite my asking you, and everyone else, not to drag me deeper into this, you are still trying your best to do so. It worked. Someone needs to get an unbiased moderator involved here. This is not a healthy discussion. An unbiased moderator should be able to provide better guidance on this matter, including whether or not a gallery would be acceptable here. Personally, with the behavior I've seen here, I think that the article should be restored to contain only the photos that were in it before the kitten was added as clearly all photo changes from that point onwards were done so with bad intent. 24.25.249.248 (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To the anonymous user at 24.25.249.248: firstly, allow me to apologize for assuming that you had some connection to the owner of the cat in the Zico photograph. I guess it's just coincidence that your first ever contribution to WP was to come to this talk page seven days after the photo was removed to provide support to the owner. I guess it's just coincidence that your first, and to date only, update to a WP article was to attempt to restore said photo. I guess it's just coincidence that you have then decided to make an extremely vociferous stand on the talk page defending the photo. Out of the three million plus articles on WP, I guess it's just coincidence that you've decided to declare war on the editors of the Maine Coon article by accusing them of "working closely in conjunction with each other", making "unilateral decisions", "abrasive behaviour", "double standards", "bad intent", "collectively [stating] blatant lies", being "extremely biased" and consisting of a "few friends" who have "personal agendas".

They say that the world would be a strange place indeed were there to be no coincidences. How true.

I'm not sure why you are so insistent that a photo of a Maine Coon with a "summer coat" is an absolute necessity in the article - I don't believe it is - but since it must now be obvious to you that the quality of the Zico picture is disputable at best, why don't you expend your energies attempting to track down a superior quality photograph rather than attempting to argue the toss ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Wom (talk • contribs) 11:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anon user: Who is being "abrasive" now? I have not been ignoring any points. I have touched on all of them regarding the photo in question, which is what this debate is (or rather, should be) about. I do not own any of the images on the page or ones that have been suggested (the one image I proposed was uploaded from a Flickr account which did not belong to me). Your accusation regarding "removing photos to introduce [my] own" is best suited for Zicoon. I honestly do not know where you are getting all of your information from, but I truly believe you need to recheck your sources before you attack me again.

I assume you are speaking of the size comparison image that I am "targeting". Excuse me for the repetition: "We definitely need to find a better one, but the photo in place is the only one that displays just how large Maine Coons are, which is a notable trait of the breed. This brings up a good point, one which you and Zicoon fail to understand: An image should not only be of decent quality, it also should bring something to the article that the other images do not (see my list above). As I have said before (over and over again), the Zico image (as well as the other image which was removed) brings nothing spectacular to the article." In addition, saying an image is "washed out" and "out of focus" (I never said it was out of focus, by the way) are opinions, therefore, they are not considered lies. Saying an image is not significant to an article is also an opinion. There's no bias behind it. The images provided by Zicoon and Wo0ter08 are/were do not bring anything special to the page. I have proposed one image to the article in the span of time between the full revision and the present. I have not introduced, nor proposed any more than one, image(s) to the Maine Coon page. All photos in the article were implemented by other people. So that shuts down your argument. The image I suggested was just that...a suggestion. Which is why I brought it here for discussion and why it has not been added to the article. (If I was as horrible as you make me out to be, I would have just flipped you all the bird and edited it into the page, but I know about discussion and compromise.)

Now if you would like to stop the personal attacks and the baseless claims, maybe we can actually discuss the issue at hand. But let me make it clear that I did not drag you into this, nor was it my intent to. I have a right to counter your berating response. You made a decision to reply to my response. That is your bad, not mine. If you feel the need to get an unbiased moderator in here to help mediate, by all means, go for it. I believe Terrillja has already suggested doing this several times.

– Ms. Sarita ^Confer 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

24.25.249.248: It should clear to everyone that the Zico image in contentious, if only because Zicoon has repeatedly pushed for its inclusion for over two years. If there is some significant feature that you think that image highlights then why not find a different, uncontentious image that also shows that feature? My person opinion is that the Zico image is not a good one and I think that if an image is needed to show the summer coat then it should be a before/after image to show the difference in a single animal.122.57.62.241 (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Sarita gave me the strong impression that she, like the above poster, is a Kiwi. Something to think about. What is contentious is her and Terrillja's repeated bullying actions. Cheers! 202.65.54.67 (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Contrary to Terrillja's reasoning when he reverted my above posting, this posting has everything to do with improving this article by pointing out a possible abuse. And there is no violation of WP:OUTING here. Really that was just another example of his bullying. 202.65.54.67 (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon user: A "kiwi"? I know a kiwi is either a breed of bird, a type of fruit, or a nickname for people from New Zealand...all of which I am not. *scratches head* I don't know what this has to do with improving the article. I invite you to read WP:PERSONAL, specifically where it states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thank you. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 22:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Native to the state of Maine?

When we are talking about an animal introduced to an area within the last few hundred years can this really be described as native? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.251.65 (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The Maine Coon was not introduced to the United States as it is now. All running theories of how the Maine Coon came to be mention how cats from overseas bred with native cats in the New England area. This, combined with the art of evolution, has made the Maine Coon the breed we see today. The breed was created in the United States, therefore, it is native to the United States, specifically Maine. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 19:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture of MC x NFC

Hi, I added this picture of a 6 month old cross between a Maine Coon and a Norwegian Forest Cat. I did this to show the similarities between the two breeds, seeing the Maine Coon originated from the Norwegian Forest Cat.

Maine coon x NFC

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelphillipr (talk • contribs) 17:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

An issue with phrasing of one sentence

The following is stated in this wiki article on Maine coons:

"A theory which is biologically-based, though genetically impossible,[7] is the idea that the modern Maine Coon descended from ancestors of semi-feral domestic cats and raccoons."

How can something be biologically-based, and yet genetically impossible? Saying it is biologically-based suggests that there is a scientific, specifically a biological, basis. I have an issue with this statement because it suggests a biological basis exists despite being impossible according to a discipline of biology.

Reference 8 states: "A number of attractive legends surround its origin. A once wide-spread, though biologically impossible, belief is that the breed originated from matings between semi-wild, domestic cats and raccoons. This myth, bolstered by the bushy tail and the most common coloring (a raccoon-like brown tabby) led to the adoption of the name "Coon Cat" which eventually was changed to 'Maine Coon Cat.'" http://www.mcbfa.org/article1.html

I would suggest removing "biologically-based" from the sentence:

"One theory, though genetically impossible, says that modern Maine Coons are descended from ancestors produced from matings between semi-feral domestic cats and raccoons." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.42.217.43 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

To the anonymous user above:

When I wrote that sentence, it was to state that the theory of Maine Coons coming from a mixture of semi-feral cats and raccoons is a biological theory, rather than a folk tale (a couple of which are mentioned directly beforehand, so this questionable sentence was worded with the intention of breaking into a different side of the breed's possible ancestry...one segment focuses on stories, another focuses on biology). The theory has been found to be genetically impossible, but it does not take away from the fact that the theory still has a basis in genetics and biology. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

We must all remember that this is Wikipedia. Anyone can edit the article if they choose to (unless it, of course, is only edited to vandalize the page, among other reasons). So please, edit it as you wish. Personally, I have no problem with your proposed prose.

– Ms. Sarita ^Confer 18:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Viking connection

The Norwegian forest cat most likely got to almost any area of Viking or Norse settlement, including the the British Isles and northern France. A large, powerful, tame cat would have had plenty of advantages over smaller cats as a competitor and in holding its own against dogs. Just being large but still tolerable around humans, it would have fared well as a predator and defender but avoided being killed as a threat to livestock and humans.

Even if it is descended in part from a breed of cats present in Scandinavia, it could have been domiciled a few centuries in Britain (settlers of early Massachusetts, including Maine) or France (settlers of Québec), both of which had been under Viking or Norse settlement at times.

Introduction by the Vikings in their short stay in the New World? Prove it. Pbrower2a (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has proven it (or proven where Maine Coons came from). Hence, the statement in the article that it is a theory. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Why?

User:Fringe to be sure that whoever decided that the American Longhair is the same thing as a Maine Coon is either stupid or did heavy research on thousands of other sites on American Longhairs and Maine Coons. Is that person trying to confuse people or what? I remember about having a hard time telling the difference between Asian semi-longhairs and tiffanies and chantillies, and Bambinos and Minskins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.23.203 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Declared extinct?

There are no links given here to support the claim that the breed was declared extinct at one point. I myself have found no reliable references to this, though the claim is commonly repeated on pages about Maine Coons. It is attributed to a specific organisation (the CFA - though of course it may not be the current CFA) it would be great if someone with access to the relevant organisation's archives could add the reference.

83.217.142.224 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)armul

Flag icon

I re-added the US flag icon. Norwegian forest cat has a Norwegian flag icon, so why shouldn't Maine Coon have a US flag icon? --Tallungs (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Polydactylism paragraph (last paragraph)

The paragraph on polydactylism has two separate sentences on how this feature is not allowed in the show ring. The text is essentially the same in both. Perhaps it would be better to eliminate one of them? Capriole20 (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

my cat ford

Italic text'Bold text

Um. Sorry? Rosefeather of WindClan (Meow at me!) 12:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

size

I think we must either correct the claim of the "The Maine Coon is the largest domesticated cat breed", or correct the Norwegian Forest Cat's article (please compare the quoted average weights of both breeds). Ferkijel (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC))

• https://www.boredpanda.com/largest-cat-nyc-samson-jonathan-zurbel/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
• https://nypost.com/2016/08/06/meet-samson-the-biggest-cat-in-nyc/

 Done.

Rosefeather of WindClan (Meow at me!) 13:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Lipinski genetic study

Lipinski gets quoted a lot on the origins of the Maine Coon. Is she worth a mention here?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754307002510

Hcobb (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Top image

Do we have any proof that the top image is a Maine Coon other than the picture name? A previous edit said it wasn't one... Jack Slade The Englishman (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool Lillybootsy (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)