Talk:Cat/Archive 9

message: Is it possible to revert back to the Featured version of this article, and resume work from there?  I tend to idle with this article, as I touch up others.  However, it seems that this article is deteriorating, rather than improving.  Does anyone else agree with that notion? KyuuA4 (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support.  Add anything important from the current version. —Viriditas | Talk 10:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Support.  "Revert to FA" is a rather strong measure, but not unheard-of, and this article seems to need it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to Featured version 

message: user 'i dont know whats going on' or some such is repeatedly adding a section which is clearly his own original research, as he/she is unable to provide a valid citation for the added material. i've reverted it at least three times, so 'i dont know whats going on' is the lucky winner of the persistence game for the moment. his justification is that since wikipedia is already filled with unsourced crap, more unsourced crap is a-okay. i disagree, and wikipedia's policies all disagree. i'll leave it to others to revert this newly added WP:OR. Anastrophe (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's clearly WP:OR, keep removing it. If it keeps being added try to discuss the matter with the user, and if you feel it is warranted, there is a WP:UWT template for this. If it still continues, admin action can be taken as the UWT warnings escalate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: All three of those products contain salt, do they not?  Perhaps your cat is attracted to that instead. —Viriditas | Talk 05:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: material in an article that misrepresents what a verified source states can certainly be challenged, and if needed, be either modified or removed. Anastrophe (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I doubt that this is original research, but rather think that the writer is just reporting something that they heard somewhere.  I think the proper response would be to go out and try to verify before attacking.  There is some research, or at least scholarly speculation out there on this.  I can't remember exactly where, and I don't have time to look it up, but I do remember reading something about this topic.  It wouldn't be surprising if a predator like a cat had evolved a dietary indifference to sweet food.  Maybe it was in a Desmond Morris book that I saw it.  Anyway, google gives me this article supporting: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401107.html Stavrolo (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reporting something that they heard somewhere" without sourcing it is within the definition of WP:OR, since Wikipedians are generally not psychic and cannot magically know whether the unsourced material was literally invented by the poster personally; "if it walks like a duck..."  Regardless, the point is moot, since adding unsourced material violates WP:V anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: To me, this reference seems to strongly suggest cats generally cannot taste sweet foods. Now, there may be exceptions, but I would say the source is sound.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still problematic. The material can be quoted directly or paraphrased closely, but cannot be used as a source for a statement in the article that cats can't taste sweet, that some theorize that cats can't taste sweet, etc., since this is not what the source actually says.  Doing so would be a novel synthesis per WP:NOR. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The abstract from this source says Although domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) possess an otherwise functional sense of taste, they, unlike most mammals, do not prefer and may be unable to detect the sweetness of sugars. So, if it doesn't say that they may be unable to taste sweet, what is it saying?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it does say that they may be unable to taste sweet. the problem is that our article states that they can't taste sweet. hell, this is just silliness. i'm going to fix it. Anastrophe (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced dreck 

message: Do cats have color vision? Very little is said about their vision, and this key question doesn't seem to be answered. (Sorry about putting this here; I couldn't find a more appropriate place on the Talk page for this)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.210.78 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Note to user: Just create a new topic next time; I've done this for you. That's what the "+" button in the top menu is for. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, supposedly cats and dogs do have the cone cells, but not nearly as many as people. Can't imagine that they would have them, but they're "not hooked up". Indulging in a little hypothetical here, I think color is just too useful for distinguishing objects for them to not have it, evolutionarily speaking; but it's probably not as prominent in their consciousness as it is to us. In a sort of vice versa, I imagine if cat scientists were to study humans, they'd probably start out by thinking we couldn't smell anything at all; then they'd discover that we have a sense of smell, it's just not as significant to us as it is to cats.Gzuckier (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: They most assuredly cannot see infrared. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Color vision

message: I notice this article uses the pejorative 'owner' which is obviously a violation of the neutral point of view policy. Clearly no one can own another living thing! Shouldn't a more appropriate term be found? AvruchTalk 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Serf'? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm taking the troll bait, but, show me an example of *anything* that can truly be "owned", and you'll have a point worth considering. we all eventually die, so nothing can truly be owned. therefore, "owner" is not a pejorative, it is merely a convenient colloquialism. Anastrophe (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I own my wallet. If I want to put it in a blender, I can. Now - if I put my cat in a blender, wouldn't you object? The cat would, my wallet wouldn't. I own my wallet, therefore, but not my cat! AvruchTalk 20:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before we launch into gigabytes of discussion (exaggerating slightly here), I would like to point out that this topic has already been discussed extensively right here.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, you can own a living thing.  Of course domestic animals are capable of being "owned".  It is for this reason that a farmer can exclude others from the cattle he "owns".  Without the concept of ownership over an animal, another person could come along and take it from you without any recourse.  I appreciate the normalistic ideal of not being able to 'own' a living thing, but in reality, they can be owned.  Furthermore, in response to your argument re: throwing a cat in a blender resulting in legal recourse, the mere fact that the state has created (animal cruelty) laws relating to holding ownership of a certain thing does not mean that it precludes holding ownership of said thing.  (And yes, I'm aware you were joking - but I thought the point should still be addressed) 70.53.110.21 (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm relieved to see that you were joking; unfortunately please understand that in this medium, jocularity doesn't really come across, so it's at times hard to distinguish between an attempt at humour and plain trolling. And if you've read this silly archive, you should understand that nobody who was there is anxious to launch into a rehash of that particular debate. I wish you a good day and happy editing.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm afraid i'm less charitable than Ramdrake. article talk pages are for discussing the article, and ways to improve same. if your intent was to start a lame flamefest here, it was inappropriate, and not appreciated by this fellow editor. WP already squanders enough of my goodwill and talent reverting relentless trolling and vandalism; fellow editors attempting to start flamefests for their own amusement is exceedingly uncivil. please rethink your actions in the future. Anastrophe (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose you both have a point, but I wouldn't have continued it into the arena of 'flamefest.' I kind of thought the tone and 'Please respond' recycled comment might've been a giveaway, but I apologize if I caused any undue stress. Try to have fun. Vandalism at WP is a fact of life and not something to get upset about, IMHO. Lots of kiddies with 'net connections in the world. AvruchTalk 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't this be changed?

message: Cats can sometimes live to be nineteen years old! Cats don't really have nine lives, though. Unless, as some people believe, they go through reincarnation. (Egyptians thought this especially.) Cats can live quite long, though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.214.154 (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is size relevant here? A parrot that fits in a 0,33L soda can can live 90 years if well-cared for and palm-sized sea shells last up to 400 years according to recent growth-ring counts. On the other hand atlantic giant squids the size of a minibus live for little more than one or two years! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, very few cats live past 20 (that's the feline equivalent of a centenarian), even when very well cared for. And the actual longevity record for a domestic cat is 35 of 36 years old (if memory serves correctly - I can look it up if you wish), that being the cat of a pub owner in the UK.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "According to Guinness World Records, the oldest cat ever was Creme Puff, born August 3, 1967 and still living at the age of 37 in 2004. Creme Puff was owned by Jake Perry of Austin, Texas, USA." - UtherSRG (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cats can be 19? 

message: I'd heard that these terms are related to the name of the Ancient Eqyptian cat goddess Bast.  Some corroboration is at the website <http://wuzzle.org/cave/catlore1.html> and I've read similar statements in a couple of cat books.  From the  website: "...Bast is the Egyptian Goddess with the body of a beautiful young woman and the head of a cat. ... Name Variations: Bast, Bastet (usually when in full cat form), Pasch, Pasht, Ubasti, Ba en Aset. ... Bast was the daughter of Isis and Osiris, the twin sister of Horus, and possessor of his "eye" the sacred and magickal "utchat". As time went on, the utchat became more associated with cats. It was often depicted as cat shaped in later art. It is probable that many of modern Indo-European names for the cat are derived from the word utchat: cat, chat, cattus, gatus, gatous, gato, katt, katte, kitte, kitty, etc. From "Pasht" we get the remaining Indo-European names for the cat: pasht, past, pushd, pusst, puss, pussy, as well as the word "passion". ..."  (Please forgive me for the fact that I'm new at this so I might not be following strict format.)  216.19.36.171 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great. I think the etymology of "kitty" should be on there even if the rest of what you said here needs to be condensed or summarized. --Bluejay Young (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Origin of the terms "puss" and "cat"

message: Do we really need a video of cats having sex here? Wikipedia is not censured but that is ussually linked to articles related to sexual themes, I doubt that parents would expect their children to be exposed to sexual content while trying to learn more about their kitty, maybe a new article along the lines of "Feline breeding" or something like that would be a better place for this cat pornography. 24.138.193.55 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you answered yourself: wikipedia is not censored. it's not pornography. Anastrophe (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: God your awnsers are dry wich I guess its because your opinion is biased as you seem to think I am a "troll" but I don't care what you think of me, I wasnt a reasonable detailed explanation from someone that is able to actually discuss the topic and the logic solution that was proposed by me. 24.138.193.55 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the above response is absolutely uncivil. i removed it, but anon replaced it. is any more evidence needed that this is trolling? so now i have to live with having an uncivil comment in place to protect the 'rights' of a trolling vandal. great. Anastrophe (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: While his response is uncivil, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is trolling, or that his concerns regarding the article content are anything other than genuine.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'll take that as a 'no' that you'll revert anon's uncivil comments. okey-dokey. so, to the issue at hand. anon dislikes the video of cats copulating. anon notes that wikipedia is not 'censured'[sic]. i point out that anon is correct, and the fact that animals copulating falls outside the definition of pornography. anon tosses incivilities at me, because anon doesn't like my answer. i cull the entire discussion, as the response suggests that anon is trolling. anon reverts, and others take up anon's 'cause'. as well, it may be illuminating for interested editors to review this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cat&oldid=180641003 , anon's response to section 8. not trolling? i think not. the fact is, anon has won: look at where we are. i'm sure anon's having a good laugh. okey-dokey. the incivility will stay in place, anon succeeds, with assistance. me? i wonder why i bother trying to contribute constructively to a place that coddles vandals. but that's a meta discussion for another time. Anastrophe (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are distorting things, I did reply in that way because you removed my comments clainming they were trolling twice and then gave a response apparently trying to get rid of me. 24.138.193.55 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i removed your comments based upon the revision i linked to above, which was an absurd response to that inquiry. that established the pattern to me.Anastrophe (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, I too believe this video may be out of place in this article, for the following reasons 1)its interest is peripheral to the subject at best 2)the video takes up a lot of space on the page and its placement is thus awkward 3)the video is of rather bad quality. For all these reasons, I am questioning the encyclopaedicity of having this particular content. I don't think it adds much of anything to the reader's understanding of cats' reproductive behaviour; in fact, it more likely resembles my idea of a college prank on a well-known site. While I will defend the fact that Wikipedia isn't censored, this shouldn't be an excuse to keep low-quality, unencyclopaedic content of possibly disputable taste in the articles.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Anon's original proposal was reasonable, and deserves discussion, not deletion.  If you compare with the Human article, you will find that Human has no nude photographs of people, let alone video of them engaging in the sexual act.  The article has only a superficial description of sexuality, and places the more graphic content in Human sexuality.  This is analogous to what Anon was proposing for this article.  While Wikipedia is not censored, that does not constitute a mandate for inclusion of any and all material.  There may be better ways of arranging the information, simultaneously improving the presentation and avoiding unintentional offense. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point, exactly. --Ramdrake (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: i would counter argue ramdrake's contentions, that 1)reproduction is integral to the subject; 2)it takes up no more 'space' than any of the images on the page; 3)i can't counter as i've never watched the video. per coneslayer, comparing the human article to the cat article only highlights that there is a different standard with regard to human activity, and this is established in virtually all scientific articles. nobody would expect there to be video of humans copulating, since that falls into a completely different category of content from that for an article based on another species. on the other hand, i do tend to agree that it is of limited value, though i don't know if i'd go so far as to call it unencyclopaedic. Anastrophe (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)Reproduction, while being one activity of the subject, is only one of many subjects related to the subject, and possibly not the most interesting from a layman's point of view, thus its interest may be considered peripheral 2)please take another good look at the video, as it takes up the entire width of the page, and the height of a fairly large paragraph, which could be construed to be undue weight relative to its importance. 3)I've watched the video, and it's several minutes of fairly poor-resolution, blurry video. If it had been a picture (so that everybody would have had to look at it), it would have been removed by now, along with the countless additions of bad pictures that this article has gone through. If you want another grounds for comparison, please try to find any article on mammals which carries a video of them copulating. You won't find any, and I can think of a number of good reasons for this. Why Cat would be the lone exception to carry not just a picture, but a video of cats copulating is beyond me. That in addition the video takes up a lot of space, is longish time-wise and not of particularly good visual quality are to me ample grounds to have it removed from the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no disagreement with any but #2, which appears to be browser-specific. i normally view WP in firefox (so that i can use the excellent Twinkle utility). in FF, it appears only slighly larger than any of the photos in the article. in IE, it takes up the full page width. Anastrophe (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also no problem with the size in Safari. Lars T. (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: okay, i've watched the video. it is dark and somewhat blurry. i don't see anything at all objectionable about it. in fact, it's interesting. checking the author's 'cv', it doesn't appear at all to be a 'college prank'. that other articles on mammals don't have such video is not a valid reason for removal, as has been thrashed out countless times in other articles. i really don't see any compelling reason to remove it. Anastrophe (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anastrophe, I'm not saying it's objectionable as per the subject; that's a judgment call I'd rather leave to others. However, the fact that it's dark, blurry, rather long and rather uninformative for its length would, IMHO, push it into the "unencyclopaedic" content category. In and of itself, the quality of the video would warrant its exclusion.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, it's a horrible quality video and it should be removed from the article on that basis alone. As Ramdrake says, if that were a photo, it would be been taken out almost immediately. howcheng  {chat} 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, where do we go to check whether there is consensus to keep or remove?--Ramdrake (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is good enough. I say a video of cats having sex is valuable. Many readers have not had the "pleasure" of hearing stray cats mate at night, and fewer still have seen their mom throw a bucket of water on them to get them to stop caterwauling on the back porch. For most of the world, animals mating in public is commonplace and no big deal. Also, Wikipedia should not be censored (even by well-meaning people). If you think children are harmed by such things, please produce reliable sources to that effect. I have not viewed this particular video because I lack the player, so I can't comment on it quality, but I don't care. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times should I repeat myself? I'm not trying to exclude this video on the basis of some kind of morality. I am against its inclusion, based 1)on the poor quality of the video 2)on the awkwardness of display under IE (where it takes up the entire page - and yes, most people still use IE) 3)on the fact that it is strikingly uninformative for a video that takes several minutes to watch. So, no, Wikipedia isn't censored, but the fact that it isn't censored doesn't mean we have to accept that poor-quality material be included when it shouldn't be included on grounds of quality alone. I hope this is sufficiently clear.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That problem could be solved by describing the video in the caption, editing the video, or by getting a new video. How hard would it be to create a shortened version of the video? AnteaterZot (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Still, the video is of bad quality and overlong. Can we just scratch it and if and when another, better-quality video appears on Wikipedia, we can re-add it?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i have no objection to that rationale. the person who brought this up objected to kitty "pornography", which constituted "i don't like it", which is the sort of thing i instinctively fight against.Anastrophe (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's understood, and I would have objected to its removal too if the only rationale was something about pornography (kitty porn?). However, there are other, encyclopaedic criteria that should make us exclude the video, and those have nothing to do with morality.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI, I have removed the cat video, as per this discussion. It should be understood that, should a better-quality video be found (and one preferably shorter too) on the same subject, there should be no objection to its inclusion; Wikipedia isn't censored, but the material we include should be able to meet certain quality criteria. I just want to make clear what this removal is about.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cats humping

message: Looking at what's written under Physiology - Origin I think someone doesn't know the difference between cats and dogs... And I know I wouldn't trust me to change the info, so please help out! 85.226.60.84 (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The wolf is no longer at the door. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wolf cat?

message: Perhaps someone who is more expert than me can add a few lines about the mek mek call:
the sound cats makes that signals very effectively to other cats that they need to stay
low as the caller is stalking its quarry. Cats who hear the call will often look in the direction
the caller is looking and add their own mek mek when they spot the prey.
This is not quite pack mentality, but a rudimentary form of hunt cooperation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pack mentality 

message: Just a personal opinion, but this article looks a lot less like an encyclopedia article and a lot more like a MySpace for cat lovers, with multiple loving cat owners wanting to get their widdle kittysnookums on Wikipedia. The text is excellent, well-written and informative, but the massive number of cat pictures (particularly the behavioral and breed-specific pics) do not seem to be well served here. I guess I can see why this page is sprotted - I certainly don't think any major change I made would be allowed to stand more than a few minutes; however someone with a userID and perhaps a little more goodwill on the cat team than an anon might want to cut back on the pictures. 65.42.26.190 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree.  It's ridiculous.  There are stupidly cutesy pictures that aren't needed.  Why is there a picture of a cat curled up?  Does that seriously need to be shown?  Why is there a blue-eyed white-haired cat picture for that random bit of trivia?  "Cats can befriend other cats. Here, two cats sleep together" shows a cat putting its arm around another - looks like it was taken to be captioned in poor grammar and shared in a stupid msn display picture.  There are what, 20 pictures in this article?  Most common animal articles have four-five (ie the trout article has four).24.108.153.22 (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many Pictures 

message: The following elements are not necessary, but should be used if multiple photos match the Required Criteria
*I have also been debating adding a measure of artistic merit, however this will likely cause contention. However it should be noted that, given two images that otherwise meet all the criteria, the more artistic image should be used. This does not mean the most 'cute', however. LinaMishima (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferred Criteria 

message: There has been repeated changing and re-changing of the photo in the infobox, despite the consensus reached in the discussion above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. domestic cat cropped.jpg is the better image, and as long as there is consensus for it, keep it. You have to understand that almost every cat owner is going to want their picture on the page. Changes to the photo with consensus (and additions of random cat pictures to the article in general) should be reverted, and the editor should be informed of this and directed to the discussion above. Think outside the box 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This sort of issue is never going to quiet down -- people will keep adding their own image for years to come. Generally speaking, the criteria mentioned above sound very useful. Between the two images being argued over, in this last spat, I would agree :Image:Domestic cat cropped.jpg is the way to go, but that shouldn't be taken to preclude a better alternative. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that :Image:Domestic cat cropped.jpg is more informative, and has a better angle of perspective.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article RFC

message: Unless I missed it there's nothing about cats' extraordinary ability to find home after being deposited in a strange place. Example: I took my Natasha to a beauty spot about 3 miles away (as the crow flies), her first time there, and all was well until she spotted a dog about 300 yards distant, following which she ran for cover in dense undergrowth. After trying to retrieve her for 90 mins I had to, reluctantly and with light fading, head for home as she was nowhere to be seen or heard. About 55 hrs later she appeared in through her cat door, looking for an easy meal and some tlc, but with no hard feelings (awww...). As cats do not travel in straight lines I'd say she covered maybe 5 or 6 miles across unfamilar territory. I understand the record for a displaced cat is 850 miles in about a year, that tallies with the approx. 2-3 miles/day in this case. Maybe an expert on the latest research and state of knowledge on the subject could add some interesting information to the article. EdX20 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All information I've ever come across on this subject is anecdotal and therefore not verifiable, unfortunately.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ramdrake. Cats, not unlike humans, have different personalities and abilities. This means that extraordinary attributes cannot link to one species, pe se, because of random complexity. One which cannot be verifiable in this medium and be attributed to one species overall. In other words it is germane eclecticism. ←Gee♥Alice 01:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homing Ability 

message: Why is this only rated B-class? I realize we may not be able to hit FA status, but it seems like an A-class article to me. howcheng  {chat} 00:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rating 

message: The article says that cats reaction of becoming docile when grasped by the scruff relates to the way the mother carries her kittens. It should also point out that the behaviour links to mating as well. During mating the male bites the female on the back of the neck, and it is noticeable that many cats will adopt a 'ready' posture, when not in heat or even male cats, when grasped by the scruff. 62.49.6.17 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added this, see Cat#Skin Think outside the box 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scruff of the neck 

message: this must have taken hours! but i think u need 2 get 2 the point...its too long  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetasapeach726 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow 

message: A U.S. study suggests having a cat at home could cut your risk of a heart attack.
The finding suggests that the stress relief pets provide to humans is heart-healthy.
A site that might help if you don´t have or can´t have a pet is Catsleep.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nockturn (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Healthy pet owners! 

message: Can someone work in a mention of essential oil toxicity in the toxic sensitivity section?
*TEA TREE OIL - TOXIC TO CATS
*cats.about.com a more general article, which links to the slightly more detailed thelavendercat
--165.21.154.91 (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essential oils 

message: "When a cat bonds with its human guardian, the cat may, at times, display behaviors similar to that of a human. Such behavior may include a trip to the litter box before bedtime or snuggling up close to its companion in bed or on the sofa."
Somehow, this doesn't sound very scientific to me.  It sounds like something that someone made up.  Also, no sources are cited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.252.172 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cats showing human behaviour? 

message: No. that is wrong. And plus, cats CANNOT have a ponography style unless a human purposly makes him/her. Relish  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerkat manor II (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cat humping REPLY FRESHLY 

message: Someone just blanked your talkpage. I quickly reverted it. Talk to you later.--RyRy5 talk 20:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanked Page 

message: In the "Physiology" section , the "Skin" sub-section ends with the statement, "Often (much like a small child) a cat will lie with its head and front paws over a person's shoulder, and its back legs and rump supported under the person's arm." What exactly does that have to do with any portion of the feline anatomy, let alone the "Skin"? Should it be (re)moved? 216.240.7.149 (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It relates as an alternative means of carrying a cat to lifting by the scruff of the neck, which is a notable feature of the skin. If it was worded differently, properly source and perhaps organised elsewhere it could be useful. JNSQ (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin Problem 

message: Can anyone tell me what type of cat this is" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g93MMg_At6c ? The name and most of the description is in... japanese maybe?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.93.244 (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to see the Science Reference Desk for that.  Click here to ask your question there.  Cheers!  - DiligentTerrier (and friends)</font> 00:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species? 

message: This article has a number of "low-value" links, of the style "the skin of the cat is covered with fur, commonly brown" (just making that up as an an example). Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking:_what.27s_the_best_ratio.3F, we should try to eliminate these.
On the other hand, article contains a number of not-especially-helpful technical terms, which we should probably try to eliminate per Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible.If you see any examples of things that should be tweaked, please do so.-- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you should not eliminate technical terms. You seem to have missed the admonition on the page you cite: Do not "dumb-down" the article in order to make it more accessible. - Nunh-huh 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should tweak the links and vocabulary of this article. 

message: I would like to put a caveat in there because cats are very careful with climbing into trees in environments that have lots of birds of prey and racoons and whatever else there's up high that might want to get them.  Neither domesticated, nor feral, nor wildcats I've observed would climb into trees or other exposed places unless they were reasonably sure it was safe. Just most domestic cats now live in environments where such predators are not that plentiful. --Lisa4edit (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find us a reference to a reliable source where this is mentioned (otherwise it reads as original research). Thanks. howcheng  {chat} 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fondness of height 

message: Can one of the two tortoiseshell image be replaced by this image of a classic tabby? --165.21.155.17 (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, instead of replacing it, I'm just removing the dilute tortoiseshell in order to keep that section from overflowing with pictures. howcheng  {chat} 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat pattern image 

message: Caption to feral cat image :"Feral cat showing effects of a rough life." Should be edited to state only that the photograph is of a feral cat. "Rough life" is subjective. Please change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.180.119 (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feral cat image 

message: I agree that the section that was recently added was not well written, and tried pretty hard to tug on the ol' heart strings, but maybe this is a topic that could be briefly covered in the article?
Hybrid cats have become a fad based upon the premise that breeding a wild cat to a domestic cat will produce a wild looking feline with domestic feline qualities. The result is more often a domestic looking cat with wilder tendencies, many health disorders and traits such as spraying and aggressive biting. These hybrids are most often the crosses between domestic cats and Asian Leopard Cat (Bengal cat), Jungle Cat (Chausie), Serval (Savannah) and Geoffroy cat (Safari). Many cats are killed in the process of producing these hybrids and despite the offspring selling for thousands of dollars, they often end up being euthanized due to their nature.
It is a topic that affects people who work with cats, not only as breeders, but owners, vets, etc.  What do you think?  Should we try and include it somewhere? IanCheesman (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would need to be documented whether these problems are indeed more common in these hybrid cats than in "normal" cats. While I'm confident this is probably the case, the problems mentioned (character disorders, health issues, marking and biting) are problems that potentially affect all cats. It would be nice to have a WP:RS stating these problems are more common in hybrid cats. Also, the "many cats are killed" and "often end up being euthanized" should have reliable sources, lest they pass for weasel wording.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Hybridization