Talk:Tortoiseshell cat

message: Just a moment, DreamGuy, where are all these depictions you claim that are already shown? You have removed them all, so now nobody is any the wiser what the different types of torties, etc. look like. Citing WP:NOT is all well and good but it does not necessarily refer to other encyclopaedias who possibly do have a series of photos, yes, call them "galleries". What makes you say encyclopaedias don't show photos?
Are you telling us you have a god-given right to decide what is encyclopaedic and what isn't? Wp:Not does in fact state: Wikipedia is not censored. Well, your high-handed action comes pretty close to some kind of absolutism. Please, do discuss this with others first before you remove anything on such a scale. I hope you put some of the clearer ones back at least. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: God didn't give me the right, it's pretty standard on WIkipedia to not just have a bunch of photos. That's what a link to Wikimedia Commons is for. DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So what are you going to do about Sweet chestnut to name but the nearest one which immediately comes to mind. Are you going through it like wildfire? You will be popular. The greater part of all articles have pictures of some kind, where do you draw the line? Does that mean all readers uninitiated as they may be, have to make their way through Wikimedia every time they want to see what it is all about.  Don't forget we are talking about the reader who wants to consult Wikipedia, what does he/she know about Wikimedia, people don't necessarily know anything about our set-up. Be reasonable, is it a likely scenario? I don't think it is. Dieter Simon (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: DreamGuy, the article is not just a bunch of photos. The photos serve an illustrative, encyclopaedic purpose (although I suppose the number could be reduced). WP:NOT would apply to an article which would be mainly a collection of pictures. This is just not the case for this article.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Photos above for reasoning, DreamGuy. Galleries can be used perfectly fine in articles when they serve a purpose. The big gallery of torties/calicos before we instituted the current scheme was indeed afoul of guidelines, but the current setup is far more useful. howcheng  {chat} 03:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of gallery 

message: I haven't found anything in MOS or WP:SECTION that indicates when an article is too short and that its Table of Contents needs to be turned off. Could you link and quote to the criteria that you are using please? Thank you,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sincere apologies User:Berean Hunter. Long ago, during my first edits i've read the entire wikipedia guidelines and i thought there was such a rule, so i just linked those here again without re-refering. The reason i removed it is that it doesnt seem important, since the article is not too long to be navigated by a toc. And the reason i really want it removed is because it stretches the article unnecessarily and leaves a lot of blank space... Kind regards. Rehman (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for responding here and the polite response. I happen to favor keeping the table of contents (articles are encouraged to grow! :)) but will continue to keep an open mind. Perhaps we should give it a day or two to see what other editors here think as well? Agreeable to you? Other editors feel free to comment. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Agree. Have a nice day. Rehman (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC 

message: "It has been suggested this article should be merged into Cat coat genetics"? Where? You might suggest it but there hasn't been the slightest mention before. The "genetics" section is only one of several others in "tortoiseshell cat", the "description" one being just as important which would get lost in a generalized article on "genetics". Therefore we must keep this article "tortoiseshell cat". Dieter Simon (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger prompt removed 

message: Please note that tortoiseshell cats in the UK are predominently brown, with reddish-yellow or white patterns and the colour described under calico is in fact named "calico". This applies to cats in Germany where they are called "Schildpattkatze" which denotes a "cat of tortoisechell colour". So please do not automatically assume that all tortoiseshell cats in England are "calicos". Dieter Simon (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tortoiseshell or calico cat 

message: My kitty's pic is a great photo of a calico cat. Please let me put it. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW</b>) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: File:A cat named Kylie.cropped.jpg is the photo in question. howcheng  {chat} 16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at least let me add it to the gallery. --MisterWiki talk contribs 20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calico cat 

message: *The citation provided for the section on tortitude (cite note #10) links to an about.com site, yet the citation itself contains the letters "NYTimes" in reference to what is presumed to be The New York Times. It is my understanding that about.com is irrelative to NYTimes. why are these letters included in this citation?69.106.191.22 (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's no evidence that that opinion piece was ever published in the New York Times. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the guilty party...when I added the reference, it was related somehow to being in the NY Times webpage as a feature article on torti's by the author named. My bad for not giving much, much more detail in my citation, such as article date, title, author, et all. All the more reason for using the better template for citations that prompts fill-in-the-blanks for all the facts I left out. (Live and learn). Having worked on a bunch of music album articles, I know how archives of links can just vanish. Thanks for catching this and updating the link accordingly. I shall now search for yet another more appropriate citation. ツ  Fylbecatulous talk  22:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just to prove myself not crazy, here is some information I dug up: from the New York Times webpage:  The New York Times Company’s About Group, which publishes the advice and informational Web site About.com, has appointed a new chief executive: mediadecoder blog nytimes.com = date of publish July 26, 2011, 6:47 pm; About.com Gets New Chief Executive (author) By Jeremy W. Peters. This was just so I could rest, I'm such a perfectionist. I didn't want to think of myself as having given a false reference.  I'll be timid, not bold and not reinsert "NY Times" to my citation since there is no indication in the link. What do y'all think though about it being a proper reference?  Fylbecatulous talk  23:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That explains a puzzling phenomenon. I don't think it should be re-added for two reasons, firstly, the New York Times Company owns a number of independent publications and media so it is not appropriate to leave readers to possibly think that the editors of the New York Times newspaper are involved with about.com, and secondly, about.com has apparently been sold. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds wise, thank you.  I imagine that unilaterally, about.com is not much of a reference. Thanks again for amending my citation and I'll see if I can find another reference, so that Tortitude doesn't vanish from the article in a future edit. I know it exists and so does my tortie, but proving it by references is another thing altogether. In agreement,  Fylbecatulous talk  15:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: About.com, like AllExperts.com and the rest of their ilk, is a user-edited site with nothing like Wikipedia's WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, so it is categorically unreliable. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ  Contrib.  20:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot locate an online reference that will satisfy all that alphabet soup in the above post. ツ. I imagine "tortitude" can be classified as just so much folklore, although my veterinarian certainly believes it. I did not originate the section on Tortitude. This article probably showed up on an edit test log I watch. I thought I had successfully rescued the section from deletion by finding a suitable source, and I have already admitted to my being led astray by the "NY Times" identification in my two posts above. I am going to give this about 10 heartbeats, ten shakes of a lamb's tail and ten twitches of my cat's tail and come back and delete the section as unencyclopaedic and POV (I do know my alphabet).  Fylbecatulous talk  22:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good plan.  I was going to delete it myself in a day or two if no one came up with something more reliable. NB: I was not criticizing you in any way, only About.com, on which it is very difficult to find any article at all that doesn't have errors and nonsense in it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ  Contrib.  10:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Having worked with cat rescue for a number of years, I can attest to the "tortitude" phenomenon, except that I was never able to find a reliable source to document it. —howcheng  {chat} 20:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my real-life reference is a rescued feral tortie. She is pilled with a daily dose of Prozac, incidentally. Ah, these anecdotal evidences...  Fylbecatulous talk  02:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citation for "tortitude" 

message: Personally I am very tolerant of what some would see as excessive illustrations, but not of excess pictures that don't illustrate anything much. I have just deleted a picture from this article; it was a perfectly OK picture, but did not to my mind illustrate anything that was not already illustrated. Some of the remaining pictures are in little better case. I reckon that here in Talk we should discuss the things we think there is reason to illustrate, then we should select, obtain or supply suitable pictures for each item, and thereafter get sniffy and exclusive about newcomers. Any thoughts? JonRichfield (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustrations, or pictures

message: Extreme Melanocyte Progression is something that happens at the embryo stage.  The image entitled extreme Melanocyte Progression appears to be a form of leukoderma or progressive pigment loss and is not related to melanocyte progression in the tortie embryos.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.33.70 (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Extreme Melanocyte Progression Image

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see talk:tortoiseshell material -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "{{noredirect|tortoiseshell}}"

message: Doesn't look like a tortoise's shell . . . I googled about for an answer to this. I feel like this article should say why they are called that but I don't know, I am guessing it is similar to tortoise shell guinea pigs and butterflies but can't find a reason for the name for those either. Popish Plot (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always believed the name refers to the irregular patterns in cut tortoiseshell, as in the picture to the right. A comb like that would at one time have been a familiar object to many people. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes someone on wiki told me this was the kind of thing like "the sky is blue", we don't need a reliable source for that. What if there was a blue cat, it'd have that name because it looked blue. I just didn't see it as being so obvious but then again I don't know much about tortoises or their shells. Popish Plot (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody seems to publish the statement. I just checked Stephens, G. and Yamazaki, T. 2000. Legacy of the Cat: Revised and Expanded, 2nd Edition. Chronicle Books. isbn:0-8118-2910-3, but there is no explanation of the term. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right with the original post here that at one time many people would be familiar with this, although I wasn't. And no cat experts ever bothered to put in a book or publication an explanation that sounds like "tortoiseshell cats are so named because their coats look similar to a tortoise shell." But it can be considered obvious like the sky is blue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue Popish Plot (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it called torttoise shell? Should there be an etymology section? 

message: Excess images, again... Why do we have a gallery with more than 20 pictures of tortoiseshell cats? Most of them do not appear to serve any useful purpose (aside from the editor being able to say  "Look, my cat is on Wikipedia!") Meters (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been more than one month with no comments, so I'm going to start cutting this gallery back. Meters (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Please don't add any more images unless they actually illustrate something that we don't already show. Meters (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Calico History and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Calico History until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Calico History" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Clouded tiger and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Clouded tiger until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Clouded tiger" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The cat pictured in This image as an example for for a cat with white spotting does not have white spotting (it just has the typical paling on the throat that would be seen on a solid red cat - white spotting isn't a gene that has been identified in Asian cats) a better example is needed. Catfanaticmeow (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better example of white spotting is needed 

message: Correct an error; 
“There are some additional interpretations of the luck of tortoiseshell cats, such as the one in England that describes an announcement of misfortune when a strange tortoiseshell cat enters a house.[24]" 
to: 
“There are some additional interpretations of the luck of tortoiseshell cats, such as the one in England that describes an announcement of good fortune when a strange tortoiseshell cat enters a house.[24]“ 
As per source[24]: 
“It is lucky to see a black cat,2 and a strange cat coming into the house is a sure indication of good fortune.”  
https://academic.oup.com/nq/article-abstract/CLXIX/sep21/201/4195168  Cathoarder101 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folklore 

message: Article states "undergo the phenomenon of X-inactivation". Both the method and reason (gene dosing) are known. 2600:1009:B022:BE9F:0:55:CBBE:A901 (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  X inactivation is not a phenomenon