Talk:Werecat

Cats Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirituality Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

In Popular Culture

possible (borderline) addition: The_Nine_Lives_of_Chloe_King Halconen (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also a couple of Creatures_of_Grimm including Mauvais Dentes and Klaustreich. Halconen (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible addition for popular culture? In Michael Jackson's music video "Thriller," he turns into a werecat: Thriller_(song) 72.239.133.237 (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weretiger

Proposing to spin off a weretiger article from the existing werecat article and to be linked from the pre-existing article having submitted Draft:weretiger Jackie Daytona (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Jackie Daytona (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackie Daytona. I've had a quick look at your draft article, but it doesn't look substantial enough to me to justify a spinoff. The only bits exclusive to weretigers are in the Folklore section, and I would have thought that these could be accommodated in the Asia section here, which seems to refer only to weretigers anyway. It might be useful to incorporate what you've written about Clinical lycanthropy and hypertrichosis into this article though? (Other editors may offer other opinions, so give it a few weeks!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, honestly yeah. I agree. after reviewing the draft:weretiger page again two options became apparent. either add more of the difficult to source information and spend more time on that or to withdraw my draft and incorporate the information into the werecat page. I'm curious if there is a way to withdraw the weretiger draft. Jackie Daytona (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackie Daytona: - tbh I'm not familiar with the process, and use a tool called Twinkle when I want to request speedy deletion of an article (i.e. one that doesn't need discussion, e.g. because requested by author)... Will ping Robert McClenon here, as he reviewed your draft and will hopefully be able to deal with it. But don't lose your useful info and citations - copy them into your sandbox and fix those URLs and then try adding bits into the article as appropriate. I would suggest that "Medical conditions" could be a subheading, without the need to break it down further. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much for your insight Jackie Daytona (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jackie Daytona, User:Laterthanyouthink - I will decline the draft, based on this discussion. Then my advice is to leave it alone. If it is not edited in six months, it will be deleted automatically. In the meantime, if someone finds Asian sources, they can edit and resubmit the draft. I advise against tagging the draft for deletion at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you this has been a lot of help. Jackie Daytona (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Jackie Daytona, and thanks for the speedy assistance, Robert McClenon. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the Etymology section of the page

(summary: the first parts of the Etymology section of this page now have sources whereas only the final paragraph once did.)

The Etymology section before I edited it (I'll refer to it as "the original") had no citations in the first parts. Only the final paragraph of that section had citations: https://web.archive.org/web/20220524174224/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werecat

I first edited "phobia" to "philia" because it was more positive, and I did it without an account (i didn't cite anything because the original didn't cite anything so I didn't think I needed to either). That was all. @LizardJr8 messaged me that my edits were "not constructive", but they didn't elaborate. that confused and annoyed me because they gave no details, and the original was arguably less constructive than my edits since bringing up "phobia" has nothing to do with talking about werecats. as i said, there were no sources or links in the original anyways.

My changes were not to take away or mess with citations or sources. I didn't greatly impact the content of the page. I was changing "phobia", which is negative as it's about fear and hate, to something positive. I replied to @LizardJr8 in three separate replies but they didn't reply to me. (i replied three separate times because I wasn't using an account, I didn't know if I could or how to edit original replies with or without an account, and I only just made my wikipedia account now after all of this.)

I don't know how @LizardJr8 could have missed this, but my point was that the original has no connection to the article. Neither does bringing up "philia" but at least it doesn't translate to "fear/hate". Somehow to @LizardJr8, my edits weren't right in some way even though my edits were no different to the original nor had no effect on the page aside from referring to "love" instead of "fear/hate". I know that my edits also had no citations, but again, my point is that the original had no citations either so why not just leave my edits alone? I still don't understand.

I did message @LizardJr8 in one of my replies that it wasn't up to me to provide citations where there weren't any originally anyways. it was @LizardJr8 job to do that; they have a wikipedia account and they know how to cite things, they work on wikipedia pages, while I don't, which I also told them. Just because, I guess what was my alerting them to this part of this page not having citations, it didn't make it my job to fix it.

after i replied the third and final time without an account, i made the same unsourced edits a second time and still without an account because I still didn't understand. instead of replying to me, they changed my second edit back to the original. So I made a wikipedia account, edited "phobia" to "philia" a third time but with my new account, provided citations for not only my edits but also the beginning parts of that Etymology section, and now I'm putting this on the Talk page and here to explain my reasons. I still don't understand what was so wrong with leaving my edits alone or explaining to me what their problem was with my first and second edits.

The next day, I've now made it more clear that ailouros and anthropos are actually root words. Not everyone will know that just because the introduction to the paragraph is "Ailuranthropy comes from the Greek words ailouros meaning "cat", and anthropos, meaning "human"". Now it is obvious, and that's why I referenced ailouros later in the same paragraph.Simple2understand (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]