Talk:Pixie-bob

message: This article goes at lengths to give the impression that there is some bobcat heritage in this breed. This appears to be patently untrue, or at the very least extremely apocryphal. "Legend cats" are a hoax to rip off the gullible, and there appears to be no sufficiently documented incident of Lynx-domestic hybridization except maybe "Pedro" which was may be considered a hybrid on the basis of temprament, size, and, most notably, the pronounced coat changes between summer and winter (see ). There might be some hybrids between Lynx and the larger species of Felis. In general, at least the Eurasian lynx considers domestic cats a slightly inconvenient snack.
The "bobtail" is a common mutation in cats, see Cat_body_type_genetic_mutations#Tail_Types. Note especially that there are no lynxes in Japan, where bobtail cats are overwhelmingly common. Dysmorodrepanis 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these issues affect the text of the article as of August 1, 2011, so I'm marking this "resolved". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: False impression of bobcat heritage

message: I believe the pixie-bob and the american bobtail pages should be combined in the bobcat page (Froperson (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since they don't have bobcat blood, that would be merging completely irrelevant information into the bobcat article. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposed

message: Why is the commentary about keeping cats as "indoor cats only" in this article? Certainly there must be an opposing view from cat experts that cats are animals and naturally have a need to play outside. Can this unnecessary and inflammatory commentary be removed? It doesn't add anything to the article specific to the Pixie-Bob IMHO.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.140.242 (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Indoor cats only"

message: In my opinion, linking to breeders is not appropriate in this article, because, according to the external links guidelines, we should avoid links to sites which primarily exist to promote a product or service.  An anon reverted my change with a comment that there are other inappropriate links in the article, but if that's the case, the better response is to remove the other inappropriate links, too- not to restore the list of breeders.  I'm going to remove the links because they seem to violate the external links guidelines by linking to sites mainly for the purpose of promoting a product; if the goal of links is to provide useful information and/or pictures, that information is also available on non-promotional sites. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Breeders section

message: I reverted some of the recent changes. 
*The correct way to indicate content that are from Self-published sources is to use something like "According to Carol Ann Brewer...", but for uncontroversial info, they are not really needed. 
*The info that implies some lines contain wild blood needs to be verified by reliable source/s.(see Wikipedia:Verifiability). 
*Regarding the "very subjective opinions and slights on breeders" in one of the ref, we used that ref only for the breed's registration history, and not on Brewer's opinion on other breeders. Besides, the criticism is pretty generic and doesn't name anyone.
--Dodo bird (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy definitely deserves a section, as a large number of people to this day believe that Pixie-bobs are hybrids, and certain breeders have always, and continue to, push this false impression. It's a significant fact about the breed and its history. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I suggest we nix that entire "as a Pet" section as unencyclopedic. Put another way, is there anything in that section that you would think should survive longterm in an encyclopedia entry for this breed, which could be supported with a citation and attribution? The section has been marked as inappropriate tone for over a year now without much progress. I'll delete it and if anyone has a problem let's discuss it here - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pixie-bob as a Pet 

message: Just a note that you should only post using one account, I'm going to assume you are multiple people even though all the edits are remarkably similar and no one is griping when one of the "others" removes the work they just did. 
All information placed into this article must be verifiable with good solid sources. Many of the references provided do not match that criteria. Let me repeat that link again... Verifiability ... read it ... it will be your best friend in regards to this article. —N·M—talk 06:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the recent editor(s) on Pixie-bob 

message: I'm tempted to delete about 80% of this article, because it is {[em|still}} unsourced, much of it after several years; it is in many places "catty" and pushing a point of view especially about particular breeding programs and even continents; and where it could be sourced, much of it could only be sourced to nonsense cat fancier magazine articles written by non-scientific, silly-headed people who make wild and unsupportable generalizations about the behavior and other traits of an entire breed of cats, as if every member of the breed were a perfect clone.  This article needs to have a reliable, independent source cited for every statement it makes, and should focus on demonstrable facts, such as what each of the registry organizations specifies about the breed.  Finally, any "sources" that are breeders should be deleted as conflicts of interest, improper external links and probable spam even when they aren't pushing some particular point of view about this, a rather controversial breed on several levels. Which reminds me, the fact that there is controversy about the claims made about this breed, and still made or implied by many breeders, is a significant part of the ongoing history of this breed and should be well-covered (again by citation to reliable independent sources).  Cat Fancy and other such magazines may be good sources for the social/business sides of the story, even if they often suck rocks when it comes to scientific material. Basically, look at Maine Coon and some of the other much better developed breed articles as models. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is plagued with severe issues

message: Substituted at 03:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment