Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Brief notification

Hey, just stopping by to let yall know that I have (a) nominated the redirect Pratifelis for speedy deletion (Db-move), and (b) plan to move the article Pratifelis martini there as per normal policy to treat prehistoric species at the genus page. I also plan to expand the article once it's moved with what little mentions of it I could track down, so please don't mess with it yet. Happy editing! SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Alerts

Proposal: Please change the current "Article Alerts" format to the more commonly used one seen at WP:MAM and WP:PALEO.

Reason: The current format is difficult to read and understand, and the way it formats alerts is very strange (for instance, currently the line "Redirects for Discussion" is in the left column with nothing below it, but refers to the alert given in the middle column, while "Files for Discussion" is on the bottom of the middle column but refers to the alert in the right column). By changing the format to the one more commonly used by WikiProjects, I hope that it becomes more useful and understandable. (Looking at the WikiProject page, we might want to consider updating/overhauling the rest of it).

Pinging BhagyaMani and SMcCandlish, the two active editors in this WikiProject. Happy editing.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Importance organization

While wandering around Wikipedia, trying to be productive, I have looked over many different WikiProjects. One thing in particular caught my attention- WP:Dogs has a very clear scale of what articles belong to which importance category. This is very useful, as it is listed on their project page, and also makes a good deal of sense. Therefore, I propose that WP:Cats adopts a similar scheme for our own importance.

The organization is as follows:

  • Top Importance - Key articles, considered indispensable - The family Felidae down to species level, as well as the Cat (F. catus) article.
  • High - All of the subspecies belonging to the species above. Also broad cat-breed types, and important cat articles (e.g. Feline behavior, communication, species hybrids)
  • Mid - Individual breeds and landraces.
  • Low - Crossbreeds, individuals, books/stories/songs/poems/TV shows/movies about cats, cat shows/judging, individual cat breed clubs and organizations, veterinary topics.

The original table can be found at WP:DOG/Assessment (here).

Pinging SMcCandlish, BhagyaMani, who I know to be relatively active in the area of this WikiProject.

Good day.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me, especially since wild felids are within the project's scope. However, I would put hybrids at the same level as breeds/landraces. Several breeds are actually hybrids, and I don't really think that, say, liger is a higher-importance topic than a popular breed like Siamese cat.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I had a look at a few pages on cat species: all of them are rated on their talk pages from top to mid importance. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC) The few I looked at are rated in line with the criteria for importance + readers' + editors' experiences, imo. For a re-assessment, it may necessary to revise these criteria?-- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Worth discussing at least. Most of the project stuff was written in the 2000s, by people who don't even edit here any more. WP:DOGS has gone through quite an overhaul in the last 1–2 years, and it may be time to do the same here. Anyway, on prioritization, I would also read WP:0.7 and WP:1.0 materials on the subject. I think these importance labels were originally intended for those meta-projects. Might also be worth looking at WP:TOL and seeing if they have any recommendations on this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:TOL does not provide recommendations for rating importance and quality. The criteria for quality assessment at WP:1.0/A do not differ significantly from those at WikiProject_Cats/Assessment. Nevertheless: I think that both, importance AND quality, need to be reassessed for lots of pages, especially those about cat species. But who will do it? I once placed a request for a reassessment of a page, which was never answered. YOU are the only one who reacted when I asked you directly. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
While individual hybrid types may be Mid, but I'd say that the main articles Felid hybrid and Panthera hybrid could be High. There is also some question as to what the importance of the extinct species would be.
And yes, I agree that it is probably time for an overhaul of WP:Cats. I would gladly help, as long as I can make the time to do so away from classes. While I, personally, would prefer that the WikiProject move away from popular culture stuff- why are there pokemon included, for instance- and more towards scientific topics, I allow that I am probably alone in that.
Also, when it comes to assessing quality and improving article on the extinct species, WP:Paleo has a new internal article review. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Update: Since there hasn't been much discussion or disagreement, I went ahead and began reclassifying the importance of some articles, starting with the Top Importance ones. Also removing the banner from a few that don't really fit our scope.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Major Update

I have now spent quite some time digging through the many articles that were badged as being under WP:Cats, and realized two things. First, I should probably update this WikiProject with what I have been doing and give some explanation. And secondly, I have, rather unconsciously, been redefining/restricting our scope from what is currently stated on the Project page.

Recategorizing, with explanation:

  • Top importance: The (extant) taxa articles Felidae down to the various species; the extinct taxa Machairodontinae and Smilodon are included due to relative importance to the paleo side.
  • High importance: Extant subspecies; the few major working roles of cats (e.g. Farm cat, Ship's cat), and key cat articles (I'm a little iffy on what exactly those are); Extinct/prehistoric taxa below subfamily down to species. Also the Panthera hybrid and felid hybrid articles.
    • Theoretically: "Needed subtopics of "key" articles, often with a broad scope; needed to complement any general understanding of the field."
  • Mid importance: Cat breeds and landraces; articles on semi-important topics or subtopics; major color morphs (e.g. White tiger, Black panther); extinct/prehistoric subspecies.
    • Theoretically: "Mid-priority articles on more specialised (sub-)topics; possibly more detailed coverage of topics summarised in "key" articles, and as such their omission would not significantly impair general understanding"
  • Low importance: Veterinary-related topics such as diseases and parasites; individual cats or groups/colonies/prides of cats; animal shelters/rescue groups/conservation societies; biographies of people who (notably/significantly) worked with cats; cat breed registries/associations and cat show-related topics; significant mythological or folkloric cats; cat-care items and cat paraphernalia; minor bits and pieces of cat behavior and anatomy; populations of extant species/subspecies (excepting the tigers, which are widely held to still be subspecies); most color morphs; dubious taxa. If there are any notable crossbreeds, they would fall into this category (but for now, anything purporting to be a breed or landrace goes under Mid).
    • Theoretically: "While still notable, these are highly-specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles)."
  • Excluding & removing: Movies, books/books series, TV series, comics, anime/manga, and characters thereof; artwork of or including cats; any people only tangentially related to cats. I have found a truly remarkable number of such tangential articles. My proposal for refining our scope basically boils down to removing the part where it says our scope includes fictional cats. Anyone interested in fictional characters is going to head to one of the many WikiProjects that specifically cover those topics.

The "Theoretically" sections are the official descriptions that I'm working with, modeled after the chart at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Assessment. The theoretical part is that I'm not always sure which articles should go in which category, particularly the ones that cover subtopics (such as Cat senses, Cat health, Cat communication, Cat genetics, Cat intelligence, Cat anatomy (and pieces thereof), Cat coat genetics) and various cats-and-culture articles (Cats in ancient Egypt, Jaguars in Mesoamerican cultures, Cats and the Internet, etc.).

Unless someone has any objections, I'm going to continue on my present course for now. And fair warning, I added my name to the active list with the hopes of getting around to doing mainspace editing once I have free time, so you all might be seeing a lot more of me. I'll be making a list of what I'm planning on my userpage, for those of you who are curious. Happy editing!--SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I made a detailed list of the current importance organization scheme over at User:SilverTiger12/sandbox2 that lays out what goes where in near-complete detail. Also, I have made significant progress with cleaning up the current categories. Additionally, I have the beginnings of a proposed new layout for the WikiProject Main page in User:SilverTiger12/sandbox if anyone cares to comment. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Very well, I propose a moratorium on adding or removing any and all WP:Cats banners to articles until such time as this is resolved. I will also note that, while the project scope may have included fictional cats, it has never included books, movies, TV series, video games, anime, manga, or any other media and that those should not be included. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Depopulated breed categories

I just got notice that Category:Cat breeds originating in New Zealand and Category:Cat breeds originating in Cyprus have been tagged for speedy deletion, as empty. I'm not certain they should be empty. These categories would not exist if something had not originally been in them, so either something has been incorrectly removed from a category it belongs in, or something was AfDed or PRODed, resulting in an empty category. Not sure which.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've already found three breeds (as redirects to sections) that belong in the NZ category, so I repopulated it. Not sure about Cyprus. Aegean cat doesn't mention Cyprus and seems confined to Greece and its islands.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I depopulated those categories on account of Aegean cat (only article in that category) not being from Cyprus, and thinking that redirects aren't actually supposed to be categorized. I will refrain from doing so again.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Restricted scope

Due to the lack of objection to my proposal to restrict the scope and also my activities in that direction, I went ahead and changed the wording on the WikiProject Main Page. My reasoning is as follows:

  • Having "cats both real and fictional", specifically the fictional, has meant that any number of only barely cat-related articles got badged with our banner. This included pokemon, anime, manga, books and movies with a feline characters, cartoons with a semi-feline character, etcetera.
  • This is not a very active WikiProject; according to the bot report, there are only about three to five editors active in the WikiProject area. By restricting the scope, I hope to make it clear what our focus is: real cats. The fictional ones often only have a tangential relationship with reality (hence, fiction) and are better treated at the respective WikiProjects for anime/manga, novels, children's literature, theatre, cartoons, comics, etcetera.
  • Our restricted scope would thus be real felids, both wild species and domestic breeds, as well as various topics related to felids (see Major Update above, where I broke everything down into its respective Importance category).

Pinging SMcCandlish and BhagyaMani, the only two active editors that I am aware of currently. All other project members are welcome to comment. But please speak now or forever hold your peace. Happy editing! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for teasing apart the pages on real and fictional cats, and re-rating the pages on real ones. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I basically agree that the scope of the WikiProject Cats should be real cats, both wild species and breeds, but excluding fictional ones. Latter is the scope of a WikiProject Arts. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I have no issue with fictional cats or fiction about cats being included in our project.★Trekker (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem is, there is Project creep (is that a term? it feels like it should be a term) going on. This project's scope started out as real and fictional cats, but the latter part got bloated to include various media articles that had a cat, or cat-like, character in them. That was never part of this project's scope. Secondarily, people come to this WikiProject to discuss real cats: just look through the talk page archives. Anyone looking for fictional stuff is going to go to any one of the many other WikiProjects that are specifically for media. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem is tho? Its not like adding the project to the talkpage forces anyone here to work on those pages.★Trekker (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Without being accusatory or rude, maybe you aren't around to notice, but this WikiProject isn't very active. By restricting the scope I hope to revive it a little, similar to what happened over at WP:DOGS. And, as I said, project creep has become a problem. It does make it harder to find what articles we should be working on when a few hundred that shouldn't be badged are bloating the categories.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no problem. I concur that the scope of THIS project should not include comic and other fictional cats. We have enough work to do with adding + updating the pages on the real ones, living and extinct. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I've never used Project categories so I can not relate to this, but if it is an issue then I will concede.★Trekker (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker), not a frequent participant in this project’s space but I can say that refining the scope of WP:DOGS has enabled us to review our various articles by class and to focus on improving those articles in dire need. It has also allowed us to better utilise tools like most recently edited articles, recent changes and article alerts. There is a temptation for people to arbitrarily brand their article with as many WikiProjects as they can but I feel it prevents anyone from accepting responsibility for them. Cavalryman (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC).
I have no real issue with the scope being narrowed. I don't think WikiProject Equines spends any time on fictional horses, either. WP in general spends way too much editorial time and energy on trivial entertainment topics instead of writing about real-world subjects, and there are already piles of fiction-related wikiprojects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: I note that Coolabahapple previously strenuously opposed narrowing the scope, and Treker doesn't seem convinced either, so I don't think there's actually consensus to narrow the scope.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I can't recall Coolabahapple ever contributing anything to pages on real cats. Perhaps on breeds only? If anybody has strong convincing arguments for not narrowing the scope, s/he has opportunity to voice them here. But those who don't are not interested in this discussion, I presume. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I restricted the scope based on a lack of objections; Coolabahapple (who, by the way, seems to be primarily interested in and contributing to the WP:Literature and related projects) only objected after I proposed the change here. I will reiterate that I have requested a moratorium on adding or removing WP banners until this is settled. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: WikiProject main page, layout

Sorry to bother everyone so soon again after opening a discussion on scope, but I honestly wasn't expecting to get this done so quickly. Essentially, I have come up with a cleaner, better-organized format for the WikiProject Cats main page and would like people to comment on it. If it is acceptable, I will then go ahead and implement it. See here: User:SilverTiger12/sandbox.

It isn't completely complete; some discussion on the color of the tabs would be nice (although I have no clue how to actually change it), and there is a different recommended structure for cat breeds article there than what we have currently (I just noted it down there, but it should technically be a separate proposal). The quote and picture at the top can also be changed if requested.

Happy editing! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Update: In absence of any objections, I've gone ahead and began doing some rearranging. The tab header (which I hesitate to put on the main project page) can be viewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats/Tab header. The color is okay as of now (I do not know how to change it), but I'd prefer a different one if anyone has any suggestions. Maybe a more golden-brown/tawny, similar to that color so common in wild cats? Anyway, I'm now trying to figure out why the Table of Contents is being suppressed. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Article proposed for deletion

I have proposed the List of largest cats for deletion due to being a content fork of Big cat, as well as some WP:SYNTH concerns. Happy editing! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is the deletion discussion? I don't feel strongly about the article but I don't think it is a content fork or synthesis. There is little overlap between the content of the two articles and its quite common to have articles and list articles on similar topics. Compiling data into tables using different sources is not WP:SYNTH, which is using multiple sources to draw conclusions not found in any of the actual sources. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
It neither looks like a content fork to me. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. It has been deprodded (though without explanation), and I will not continue looking to delete it. That said, I do feel that it is somewhat redundant to the article Big cat. The synth concern was that the sources did not discuss the largest cats as a whole, just as individual cases. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with article about pet food company

Hi there. I’m hoping a member of this group can help out with a few changes I’ve proposed to improve the Freshpet article. Talk:Freshpet#Request Edits February 12 2021. I have a COI, so am unable to edit the article directly. Thanks! NJ0220 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

How do I join?

I feel like a newbie that's going to get bitten just by typing this, but how do I join this WikiProject? I've read Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with other editors/WikiProjects and other group efforts, but I still feel clueless and don't know how to join this WikiProject. It's probably because it has an {{outdated}} template. Can somebody help me? treekangaroos (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome! All you have to do is list your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats/Participants, and edit cat articles. We're not active enough to have a collaboration, unfortunately. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: Thank you! treekangaroos (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Raas cat

Hello, cat lovers,

An IP editor recently added an image to this article and the image's description identifies it as "Male Busok Cat from Raas Island kept in Sumenep, Madura" but the article is short and I can't tell from the description whether this image is accurate to this breed. I recently found some questionable cat breed articles so I thought I'd see if any members here could verify that the image is a Raas cat. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: I searched for images of Raas cats on Google, and this is the closest match I could find, along with another close match. In my opinion, the photo that the IP user added is definitely a Raas cat. The fur colour is spot-on, and it seems like they usually have yellow eyes, similar to the British Shorthair. treekangaroos (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Freshpet Article Discussion

Hi, I’ve made a proposal to substantially update the article about the multi-billion dollar publicly- traded fresh pet food company Freshpet. The proposal is here: Talk:Freshpet#Request Edit December 2021. It’s now only a stub and I think the extensive reliable sourcing merits a regular article. I thought members of this project might have a special interest in this topic! I have a declared COI as an employee of Freshpet, which is why I am not directly editing the page. Your independent analysis would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. NJ0220 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Clouded tiger

Clouded tiger, currently a redirect to Tortoiseshell cat, has been nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Clouded tiger. My preliminary searches suggest this might be a name for the Clouded leopard or Marbled cat, but I'm not sure. Comments from knowledgeable editors would be welcome in the above discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Evolution of the domesticated cat#Requested move 27 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Evolution of the domesticated cat#Requested move 27 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Indochinese tiger feedback request

Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Indochinese tiger#Distribution map query. BrightOrion (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Nominated for Deletion Beast of Bevendean

Hi, you may want to participate in this potential deletion discussion for the article Beast of Bevendean. Duck Dawny (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pallas's cat#Requested move 6 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pallas's cat#Requested move 6 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Felidae#Requested move 25 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Felidae#Requested move 25 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Please watchlist both Turkish Van and Van cat

These two topics (which may not be directly related at all; all known foundation stock for the Turkish Van breed was not from the Van area) keep getting badly confused and messed up, both by well-meaning editors and by socio-political vandals.

Turkish Van in particular got trainwrecked over the last year or so and completely conflated the two topics. I've undone much of that mess today, but the article has other problems (e.g., much of the History section, when actually on-topic at all, reads like a magazine article; there's great over-reliance on a single source; and at least one of the sources appears to be an unreliable blog page). It doesn't help that a few sources that seem ostensibly reliable (some "cat encyclopedias" and breeder-authored fancier magazine articles) themselves confuse the two varieties of cat.

Van cat is semi-frequently subjected to politicized drive-by edits, mostly to promote Armenia (the article is under WP:ARBAA2 sanctions for this reason). This is also done occasionally to Turkish Van, for that matter.

I've proposed merging the off-topic Van cat material out of Turkish Van and into Van cat; thread is here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Bobcat
  2. Cougar

Lion attacks

Could someone please have a look at Talk:Lion attacks? There are a considerable number of issues there that need sorting, and perhaps someone here has access to some very old offline sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Rolf (campus cat)

Would like some input as to whether information from certain sources could be included. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, see Talk:Rolf (campus cat)#Low quality sources and the associated AfD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

See this post from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals

Many pages of the category "Mammals" do not have either wikiprojects attached to them or even existant talk pages, on this linked post i listed in my sandbox (since otherwise it would clogged a lot) about 300 such pages, some of which are pertinent to this wikiproject, notably 3 individuals cats, Pinch-induced behavioral inhibition.

There is probably also a few others pages that could be pertinent to this project. Entry of the talk page : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Are_individual_animals_page_in_the_WikiProjectMammals_?, where this small side project stemmed !

Cheers ! Gimly24 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The cat-related articles are now project-tagged, and removed from Gimly24's cleanup list.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

As this WikiProject uses the normal criteria and has no special classes, I don't see a reason for us to opt-out. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Felid hybrid#Requested move 28 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Felid hybrid#Requested move 28 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Infobox_cat_breed

Hey there!

I have a question about some template maintenance over on the Talk Page for the infobox_cat_breed and there isn’t any traction on the Talk Page itself so I figured someone here may have some thoughts on the matter: Template talk:Infobox cat breed#Should use of “country” parameter be deprecated and replaced strictly with “origin”?

Thanks!

Pedantical (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pampas cat#Requested move 11 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pampas cat#Requested move 11 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Cat breed layout

Pinging @SMcCandlish: and @YukiKoKo:, the only two editors I know to be active on cat breed articles.

Hello, it's me again. This time I did a moderate and not-unreasonable update to the recommended layout of cat breed articles:

  • The {{Infobox cat breed}}
  • Lede section: summary of general information about the breed, brief history, brief description.
  • History
  • Characteristics
    • Appearance (the following order of paragraphs is suggested)
      • Build and proportions, height and weight ranges
      • Ears, tail, muzzle, etc.
      • Coat types and colors
      • Subcategories of the breed
    • Behavio[u]r (optional and requires excellent sourcing- no registries or online websites.)
  • Health, possibly including:
    • Life expectancy
    • Common medical issues
  • Legal and regulatory matters (optional, as required)
  • See also (optional)
  • References
  • External links (optional): Links to web sites that expand on the encyclopedic info provided by wikipedia. Generally excluded are local breed clubs (too many hundreds to try to maintain the links), commercial sites (where the ads or intent to sell something are blatant), forums and blogs (not particularly encyclopedic).

Galleries and "In popular culture" sections are strictly discouraged per wider Wikipedia policies.

It is largely similar to the former layout; perhaps the biggest change was enumerating the suggested order the Appearance section should follow. I consider the warnings about sourcing for Behavio[u]r and the explicit discouragement of galleries and pop-culture sections necessary as all three are ongoing issues across breed articles.

Going forward, I hope this provides a better structure for the expansion of cat breed articles and a guide to what information should be included in them. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, but how much of a change does it entail in existing article structure? And I'm not sure "Subcategories of the breed" is a "Characterists" subject. I more often cover that under "History". And you have "Build and proportions" in there twice. Sourcing problems also pertain to medical claims, and "online website" (a reduntant phrase) isn't the problem, it's lack of independece from the subject. I'll try to address some of this directly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Re extent of change: it doesn't change much from the previous structure. It still goes Infobox, Lede, History, Characteristics, Health; I added the Appearance and Behavio[u]r subsections because behavior tends to be variable in placement; made note that both common medical issues and life expectancy go under Health; and outright added the Legal section and removed the More? note in the old layout. The subcategories is meant to refer to where there are variants that are similar except for a difference in color/pattern/fur length (example: the Cymric cat is a long-haired Manx); I suppose depending on the available information it may well fit better in the History section.
Thank you for your changes so far, especially the note about MEDRS needing to be met and the links to various guidelines. The extra build & proportions was an artifact of a malfunctioning computer mouse; I apologize. SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Cymric is kind of an odd case, because some registries treat it as a separate breed. But that kind of issue comes up fairly often.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Lykoi

The Lykoi breed article is relying on a bunch of unreliable, self-published, promotional, and click-bait "sources" that need to be replaced. Probably an hour or two's work for someone not swamped by some other project.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Some updates and proposals

I'm not sure who else is still active here, but here goes:

In case anyone hasn't heard, article class is being moved from individual WikiProject banners to the banner shell to create independent class assessments. While WikiProjects can opt out of this, I don't believe we have any need to do this- all our articles classes are standard and we have no special requirements on classes.

Second, User:Hawkeye7 offered in this discussion to run MILHISTBOT over articles from other WikiProjects. While we don't have any unassessed articles, if this offer includes re-assessment of already-assessed articles I think it could be useful to see how our articles measure up. Note that MILHISTBOT assesses articles against the B-class criteria (excluding b6) and fill in the b-class checklist in their banner, which auto-assesses articles that way. I'm not sure if we could ask that the bot just directly change the class in our banner directly if we decide to ask about a potential reassessment further. Note that MILHIST assigns classes based on the B-class criteria, thusly:

  • If b3, b4, or b5 are failed, then Start-class
  • If b3-b5 are met while b1 xor b2 are failed, then C-class
  • If b1-b5 are all met, then B-class

And a third proposal: I propose to exclude from this WikiProject's scope any article pertaining to veterinarians, diseases, parasites, and medical conditions that are not specific to cats; and animal welfare societies/animal rescue groups and animal shelters that also are not specific to cats. Both of these groups are covered by other WikiProjects more directly (WikiProject Veterinary Medicine and WikiProject Animal Welfare, for example), and this WikiProject seems to attract people interested more in the actual animals, than in such tangential topics.

And with that, good day and happy editing. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  • The current task only involved unassessed articles (but tagged to a project) rated as Stubs. However, it is possible to create a new task that goes through your articles and reports on (or updates) article assessments. The criteria can be modified if you want. Looking at the profile of articles, it matches other projects quite closely, so I would not expect a lot of anomalies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
    Did anyone assess the cats articles that didn't have any wikiprojects tagged to them ? See Talk Entry above (10th march 2023).
    --------------
    Here's some.
    Tuxedo Stan | Cat
    Foreign White | cat | Siamese
    Blue Peter pets | Cats, Parrots, Dogs, Tortoises (i know parrots are not mammals but anyways)
    Pinch-induced behavioral inhibition - Cat Behavior (amongst others)
    I had made a huge search on unassigned wikiprojects pages (and therefore unassessed), cumulating around 250+ pages on animals without a wikiproject. See here User:Gimly24/sandbox#Individual_Animals_with_no_WikiProject_Attached (Over 100 were about racehorses and members of that project and myself assessed them..) I classed the pages by categories and usually by alphabetical order in that section of my sandbox. I am pretty busy right now, so if anyone could do them, this would be done for. Thank you Gimly24 (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
    Articles without projects are dealt with the New Page Patrol. If the bot were allowed to process them, a lot of rubbish would be tagged as stubs rather than speedily deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
    What do you mean ? That I can't assign them to a wikiproject and assess/give a rating to them myself ? Please explain because to me, having this be done by the new page patrol and the 1633 page reviewers (+ admins) would make little sense. Edit : i guess neither of those 4 are in the New Page Patrol Section anyways [1] has 12440 articles, apparently the oldest not patrolled is from 2017? [Pinch-induced behavioral inhibition was created in 2013, Blue Peter Pets in 2007, and the Foreign White in 2005 and tuxedo stan in 2021] Gimly24 (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
    I went through and tagged the cat articles. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
    Huh, for some reason I thought Milhistbot also periodically re-assessed Stub/Start/C-class articles already. Don't feel like you have to go through the effort of making a new task at one person's request.
    Also, if no-one from this project objects within a week or so, I'm going to start removing the non-cat-specific veterinary stuff and animal welfare stuff from our scope.
    Pinging those I remember being active @BhagyaMani:, @SMcCandlish:, and @LittleJerry:. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
    These propositions all seem reasonable to me. Caveat: If we would lose wikiproject tagging on an article about a malady that is particularly common in cats, this may be a sign that a cat-specific spinoff article is needed, like Hip dysplasia (canine) is separate from Hip dysplasia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
    Further update: I have also altered the WP Cats banner to allow for the inclusion of the B-class checklist. It isn't required, but it may be useful. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


@Hawkeye7: since no-one has objected, I'm going to go ahead and request that bot-reassessment, assuming you're still willing and don't mind the extra work. The WP Cats banner does support the B-class checklist, so the bot can still fill that in, but it doesn't have MILHIST's checklist-mask-thingie, so it'll have to change the class directly in the parameter. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. I will add it to my work list, but am very busy in June with the Paralympic project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)::@Hawkeye7: Not to bother you, but any word on this? Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Appologies for not getting back to you. The run was prepared and tested. I need to obtain permission to run it automatically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
It's fine, this isn't any kind of high priority. Do you mean permission as in BRFA? Because BRFA seems to be moving at a snail's pace for the last few months. Anyway, I look forward to seeing how WP:Cat's articles do against set criteria. Rater doesn't seem all that accurate and doesn't check against the B-class checklist at all. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: as a reminder. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm on it! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing (or broken) taxonomic/phylogenetic information at two key articles

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Cat#Evolution section fails to have the basic information. In short, there's no taxonomic/phylogenetic information at Cat any longer, and what is present in Felinae may be incorrect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Leopardus guttulus photo needed

Someone keeps trying to add an unencyclopedic photo of either a margay or an oncilla (not this species), but it's crap + OR at once, and needs to be replaced with a proper photo from somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Depending on the next IUCN update, we may very well soon need a bunch of photos for the Leopardus emiliae, and three more pampas cats. Hopefully one for the southern tigrina can be found soon. As an aside, it looks like the common name for L. guttulus is southern tigrina, northern tigrina for L. tigrinus (aka oncilla), and eastern tigrina for L. emiliae. But that's a discussion for another time. Good luck and happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Cat breeds is unhelpful

Almost everything in there has been diffused into sub- and sub-sub-categories of Category:Cat breeds by country of origin, which makes it nearly impossible to find a specific breed the reader is looking for unless they already happen to know that tidbit of origin information (which of course may be exactly what they were hoping to find out in the first place). This needs to be undone so that Category:Cat breeds lists all the breeds, however else they may be categorized. Should be the same in this regard as Category:Horse breeds, etc. PS: Category:Dog breeds also has this problem, and also has a diffusion tag atop it, while the cat one doesn't.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

List of experimental cat breeds

Did some cleanup work there, but it needs a lot more. About 1/3 of the entires are completely unsourced. I did not count as "sourcing" the fact that the list of nominally accepted breeds at REFR mentions some of these names, but the breeds in question have no pages of information at that site, since all that indicates is that REFR is aware that someone somewhere asserts that they are working on a breed by that name but REFR has no details about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

PS: There is a also a contradiction between this article at Tiffanie cat, in which the former says that Tiffanie and Australian Tiffanie are different breeds (which makes sense or they would not be named that way) while the latter assert they are the same breed. From what I can tell, they have similar foundation stock, but the Australian one has direct back-crossing to one of the progenitor breeds while the established Tiffanie does not. Bears some investigation, especially someone caught up on Australian breeding and which organisations over there even still exist and what they are up to. Speaking of which, I noticed that the Dwarf Cat Assocation and its parent Designer Cat Association have gone defunct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

A requested move

Resolved
 – Article moved to Cat fancy.

Please see: Talk:Cat culture#Requested move 15 November 2023 (proposed move to cat fancy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Islam and cats dispute

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Islam and cats#Change Contents in Islam and cats (and the post immediately above it). I'l leery of editing that article in the detail-level requested because I'm not a subject matter expert and don't have a basis on which to evaluate the claims made about the sources in relation to other source material. I've notified WT:ISLAM of the dispute, and that might be sufficient to get it dealt with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Cat physiological claims

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Cat anatomy#Dubious longevity claim, etc. (and the thread immediately above it). In short, an editor has been making additions, with some sources, that seem to contradict other material, so the sources or their interpretation are probably in error. Needs examination by a subject-matter expert (veterinarian, etc.) This combined diff includes the dubious material for examination.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Cat fancy needs work

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Cat fancy#Needs a "History" section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Cat massage

I rewrote that trainwreck article from scratch [2], after removing all the b.s. that was cited to nothing or to promotional blogs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Cat play and toys

Did some cleanup here, including removal of unsourced material that violated WP:NOT#ADVICE, though there are still some unsourced claims in there, and some of the removed material might be re-addable in non-advice form given some reliable sources for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Article needed: Cat breeding

We need the equivalent of Dog breeding, but for cats. We do have List of cat breeds and Cattery (which is about larger-scale commercial breeders).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The material at Purebred#Purebred cats is basically a WP:STUB to start with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, an article like Dog breed could be written about cats (though much shorter since there are not functional "breed types" of cats the way there are for dogs) Cat breed presently redirects to List of cat breeds (equivalent to the separate List of dog breeds).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Socks (cat) naming ambiguity

An editor has requested that Socks (cat) be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Two questionable drafts

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Draft talk:Cat predation on islands and Draft talk:Human–cat conflict.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Catnip alternatives - where should that "live"?

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Catnip#Alternatives to Catnip in Cats – It's unclear where Wikipedia should be keeping information on "catnip alternatives".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Australian Mist photos

There is a currently a lack of Australian Mist photos. Wikimedia has only two and I'm not entirely sure if one of those is even an Australian Mist. The breed is quite rare but if you own one or know someone who does good quality photos of the cat would be highly appreciated. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately commons:Category:Australian Mist only has the two pics. Might be worthwhile to dig around online where people are talking about this breed and invite people to upload pictures of purebred examples, and instruct them that they'll have to provide them under a CC-By-SA license to do so (I've learned the hard way that if you don't make this clear up-front, various people will want to contribute and then balk when they later learn that they will no longer have total control over the image).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I've emailed every breeder I could find asking for photos and for them to confirm they are okay with it being distributed under a Common Creatives License on Wikipedia but I thought I may ask here in case anyone has their own cat/knows someone who does. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Example of a good breed article to reference/look at?

Which article on a specific cat breed (or possibly even another animal) would someone recommend as being of good quality? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most all of the current cat breed articles are lacking. Maine Coon, Norwegian Forest Cat, and Singapura cat are all ostensible Good Articles, but they were reviewed and promoted as such in 2009, 2011, and 2008 respectively, and time has not been kind.
Personally, I would suggest taking a look at the recommended article layout for cat breeds and following that. And the normal Wikipedia guidelines regarding prose, verifiability, and sources all apply; this set of criteria may also provide guidance on what makes a good article. I am also willing to answer further questions should you have any. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Two I've worked on significantly are Manx cat and Turkish Van (the latter complicated by the need to distinguish it from the Van cat landrace and from the Turkish Angora breed). Also worked a bit on Bengal cat. However, I took a long break from cat articles, and cannot be certain these are really exemplary right now, due to intervening edits possibly mucking them up. We have a long-standing problem that almost all of our cat-breed articles are full of bogus behavioral claims made on the basis of promotional breeder material and not sourceable to anything reliable on animal behavior (ethology), plus a lot of health claims based on sources that fail WP:MEDRS (which also applies to veterinary material), and also a lot of historical claims about breed origins that are also grounded in promotional material from breeders (and tertiary sources like generic "cat encyclopedias" that are themselves just regurgitating breeder claims). Some of the best material on breed histories is ahrd to get at, in paper-only cat related publications, which have sometimes published in-depth histories of breeds which have actually been independently researched and are not just "I did all the work" self-promotional blather. But this either requires obtaining old publications via eBay, or going through periodical collections (often on microfiche) at libraries. For a few breeds, there are actually academic journal materials on their genetics, but this is rare (such work has mostly only been done on dog breeds so far) and they are usually paywalled, though a WP:The Wikipedia Library account can be used to get at some of them. Agreed with SilverTiger12 above about following the recommended structure when feasible. If you're planning to write an article on a "new breed", be aware that the majority of these do not pass WP:N and get deleted at WP:AFD, with a short summary added instead to List of experimental cat breeds. PS: As for behaviorial claims, I lean toward purging every single one of them, especially if there's an entire section of such nonsense, except in the ultra-rare case that there is actually good sourcing for the claim (e.g. that Main Coons have a tendency towards playing fetch, which is well-documented, though I'm not sure how well we're actually sourcing that on WP right now).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
NB: I just looked at it, and Bengal cat has been turned back into a trainwreck. Manx cat still looks reasonably good.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Followup: Traumnovelle, Persian cat actually looks pretty close to exemplary. It's rich in detail, well-sourced, has properly sectioned material that covers pretty much everything, and I don't detect a bunch of breeder promotionalism in it, though I have not pored over every word. It even has only a hint of behaviorial claims, and they are general with some sources, without "good with children", "unusually intelligent", etc., nonsense made up by breeders, nor outlandish claims with no ethological basis. One issue is has is too many kitty images and poor placement (almost all on the right), causing large blocks of whitespace, but that's a layout issue not a content/verifiability problem of course.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks I'll use that article as a guide line in the future. As for the photos a gallery would probably help. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Breed notability Bambino cat

Does this breed meet notability? Breed notability requires one of the main registries to recognise it but it's currently only registered as an experimental breed. Do experimental categories count for notability or should it need to be registered properly? Traumnovelle (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

No, experimental categories do not count. It probably shouldn't have an article. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll start the deletion request then. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Foldex merge?

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Foldex cat#Merge discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts on The Spruce Pets as a source?

Most articles on cat breeds are of poor quality and are mass produced without any bother to check and verify detail making these sites quite unreliable for sourcing pretty much anything. (May as well use the Fancier site as they are just taking information from them, if they're not just throwing a random number around to add in life expectancy and height/weight). I did notice https://www.thesprucepets.com/ when searching and it seems to be of a decent standard considering the state of cat breed articles.

It lists the author of the article and some articles do get reviewed by a qualified veterinarian/veterinary nurse. Some of the list/chart content like friendliness and affection ratings just seem to be made up/unreliable but aside from that the articles seem to be of good quality and they do reference sources. (Usually just Fancier claims).

Just like to know if anyone has thoughts/comments on it's use as a source. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I remain highly skeptical when it comes to most of their material. This seems like mostly just another clickbait "internet pets site" designed to monetize clicks by having fluff articles on every alleged breed ever named by anyone, except that it has some editorial and sometimes even veterinary review of certain articles, but not the majority of them. A good test for me was their article on the controversial Scottish Fold [3]. It cites no sources, is full of generic stuff that pertains to all cats, bogus behavioral claims that are just repetition of breeder promotional materials, and a glossing over the breed's medical issues, that reads like someone just cribbed from our own article. Maybe they have better stuff, but I think a WP:RSN/WP:RSNP review of this site would conclude that like so many it just publishes whatever its registered writers send in without much editorial oversight, putting it in about the same camp as "contributor" pieces submitted to Forbes and Entrepreneur (both listed at RSNP), just about cats instead of business. Same with "contributor" pieces in HuffPost and in Rolling Stone "Culture Council". Lots of publications are moving toward rapidly piping out content submitted by non-employees and subject to little if any ediorial control. This publishing model is growing like mad, and it's bad news for us. A The Spruce Pets piece written by a subject-matter expert would be one thing, but the articles I looked at over there were mostly not encouraging.

I do see some that have a "Reviewed by" veterinarian link and a "Fact checked by" editor link [4]; those would presumably be better-quality sources, though few of the article have both (e.g. this one [5] lacks the former despite making medical claims), and many have neither (like the one I started with, despite also making medical claims). A handful have the vet review link but not an editor one [6]. One of the site's most frequent writers is this one who claims to be a cat expert with "decades of hands-on experience and intensive research", but is actually an author of a total fluff book about cats and a children's book, both of which seem to have been self-published, aside from the latter which is on Amazon [7]. Nope, even that one is; it's a "Kindle Scribe" e-book (i.e. self-published by an Amazon user). She has no veterinary background, and says she simply took some cat health classes. Her on-site bio's claim "EXPERTISE: Feline Anatomy, Feline Medical Conditions" is not defensible.

Didn't look at other bios, but my rede on this entire site so far is "use only with caution", only with at least the editor-review link, and for medical claims only with a vet review link. But, really, anything of that nature would be better sourced to something from scholar.archive.com, scholar.google.com, or JSTOR or another journal site via The Wikipedia Library. Any material from TSP is bound to be tertiary sourcing at best.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with SMcCandlish. I took a cursory look at it, and my impression was that it was mostly listicles and clickbait. It certainly does not meet MEDRS, and I wouldn't want to use it for other claims either. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cats/Archive_5&oldid=1245364016"