Talk:Cat/Archive 8

message: After reading this part in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat#Domestication)
In rural areas, farms often have dozens of semi-feral cats. Hunting in the barns and the fields, they kill and eat rodents that would otherwise spoil large parts of the grain crop. Many pet cats successfully hunt and kill rabbits, rodents, birds, lizards, frogs, fish, and large insects by instinct, but might not eat their prey. They may even present their kills, dead or maimed, to their humans, perhaps expecting them to praise or reward them, or possibly even to complete the kill and eat the mouse. Others speculate that the behavior is a part of the odd relationship between human and cat, in which the cat is sometimes a 'kitten' (playing, being picked up and carried) and sometimes an adult (teaching these very large and peculiar kittens how to hunt by demonstrating what the point of it all is).
I thought it might be interesting to add that in some semi-desertique areas, cats are domesticated for their specific ability to hunt and catch scorpions,(which are a real danger).
They are also known to hunt spiders (some of them are really dangerous where I used to live) and small snakes...
I have never seen a cat catch a snake really... but for scorpions and spiders it's a really common sight.
I know that we are not here to make a full list of the 100 species a cat can hunt but I thought that those where quite revelant since they are an incentive to keep cats in some regions.
I'd love to hear some opinions on this.
:I once saw an animal documentary in which an orange desert cat, which by the way looked a lot like a domestic cat, killed a rather large poisonous snake by using its incredible speed to claw it without getting bitten, so yes I believe it's possible to train a domestic cat to kill snakes.  Dionyseus 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cats vs Scorpions? 

message: Hi everyone.  I note that the section on declawing contains a great deal of useful information entirely absent from Onychectomy.  In fact, the section, if it were taken as an article on its own, would make a better article than the one currently at Onychectomy.  Can I get some suggestions on which material would be most appropriate to move to the main article on the subject?  It's important to retain a mention of it here, but this article is already quite long.  All this article really needs is a quick run-down of what declawing is, why it is controversial, and briefly, what the opposing viewpoints are.  Thanks in advance, Kasreyn 05:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember the word Onychectomy. I thot it was how you made cats nutless. You're welcome to perform the duplication. Man's closest enemy is a popular subjekt. Until the table of contents can be enjineered to point to a lot of smaller articles, I don't think this one will get shorter. It could perhaps be done manually. Everything in the table of contents would be an internal link to a link to a separate article, or the entire article would be composed of links from a manually constructed table of contents. But then it might be more difficult to administer the pieces. The organization operations I just performed would be more difficult, anyway, but how many people do stuff like that? Oh...there was the bit about arbitrarily renaming a section. Trivial in HTML, but HTML has more trouble with dead links than wiki. I see no easy way to make the article shorter. Brewhaha@edmc.net 20:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section move / duplication request 

message: Cats are listed under the category for invasive species. Is there a valid reason? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess because they have been brought into different habitats than they would normaly have been in by humans. As people feed them, the population has rapidly outgrown what the enviroment would naturally have supported. With that many cats around other animals are going to be affected, either because the cats take up their territory or eat them. But the cat itself is not normaly an invasive species. Think outside the box 11:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then by that definition, all domesticated animals can be considered invasive. The cows that farmers raise eat the grass that was naturally there for some other animals grazing, etc. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Think outside the box doesn't have it exactly right. The more relevant point about cats being potentially invasive is not that humans feed them, but that they tend to run away from home and breed like crazy, meanwhile engaging in large-scale predation and potentially endangering the existence of local species, which would be unfamiliar with the new predator. In other words, the cats feed themselves quite expertly--just as they do in the alleyways of most cities--and don't require anything in the way of human intervention other than the original transportation. Even in places where basically nobody lives, like many of the islands of the Seychelles, cats left behind by people attempting to establish settlements have driven several local species to the brink of extinction. (By the way, you won't find that bit of info in the article about the Seychelles, and I'm not planning to add it. I just happened to hear some scientist talking about it on the radio the other day. As such, it would take more time to reference it than I currently have at my disposal.) I guess the obvious difference between cats and cows is that cats hunt and eat other animals, while cows just eat grass. But also relevant is the fact that cats can breed much more quickly than larger species of mammals, such as cows. So if you combine the fact that cats are predators that can produce offspring numbering in the teens each year (and by the end of the year, the first litter will be producing offspring of its own) with the fact that you can leave cats to their own devices in most places and they'll get along fine without human help, you wind up with something that has the potential to seriously disrupt the local environment. On the other hand, if you dump a small herd of cattle in a grassy area and leave them alone, they'll breed very slowly (and also, like all ruminants, reach sexual maturity relatively slowly) and at the same time be subject to the same predators that prey on other local ruminants--which doesn't seem like an environmental catastrophe in the making so much as a temporary bonanza for the local big carnivores. At any rate, it's true that cats aren't normally an invasive species, but this is mainly because there's hardly anyplace left on earth that can support animal life where they don't already live. Buck Mulligan 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While that makes complete sense, to me, the category implies something more like Africanized honey bees, but a potential invasive animal category would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Nontheless, it's a satisfactory answer. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just flagged the statement about how cats are supposedly causing environmental concerns in Florida. It might be true, but a source for it would be good. Apart from that, I'm not seeing anything in the cat article itself that looks objectionable. As for the "invasive species" categorization, if you have a look at the list of invasive species you'll find that it's extremely inclusive, while at the same time remaining specific about which regions of the world have had problems with which species of animals (and plants). As such, I don't think we need to worry about people who actually bother to click on the link thinking that cats should necessarily be thought of in the same light as Africanized bees. Buck Mulligan 12:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed - to quote the NT Govt website - "Feral cats are a serious treat to biodiversity conservation in Australia. Predation by feral cats is appropriately listed as a key threatening process under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999." Orderinchaos 16:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This article may be about cats in general, but it has a section on feral cats, and that section contains a paragraph which these users are complaining about. At the very least it is a case of weasel words and may not be NPOV. Part of the problem is that it is not clear at all what the subject of that section is - it speaks about outdoor domestic cats and feral cats almost interchangeably. It is not even clear which view the arguments given in the paragraph are opposing. JPD (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How about exchanging Florida for Australia, the fact tag could be dropped and the scope of the article would be broadened.  I am very fond of cats, but in the australian bush they are very destructive, perhaps as much as our species.  Fred 04:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasive species? 

message: I could not believe reading this article that reads "Those opposing this view stress this allegation has never been proved. They say that damaging effects do not follow necessarily from the fact that cats are predators. They point out that cats have played a useful role in vermin control for centuries, and that for many animals, especially in urban areas, cats are the only animal available to fill the vital role of predator. Without cats these species would overpopulate" without any citation. This completely flies in the face of Published Scientific Research, within Australia on the impact of feral cats on marsupials, lizards, snakes, birds and insects. Huge Government efforts have gone into eradication of feral cats and a lot of councils in Australia now have stringent controls over domestic cats.
If you don't believe me then read these:
* []
* []
* []
* []
* []
* []
* []
* []
* []
* []
* []
* []
* []
petedavo 14:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - to quote the NT Govt website - "Feral cats are a serious treat to biodiversity conservation in Australia. Predation by feral cats is appropriately listed as a key threatening process under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999." Orderinchaos 16:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This article may be about cats in general, but it has a section on feral cats, and that section contains a paragraph which these users are complaining about. At the very least it is a case of weasel words and may not be NPOV. Part of the problem is that it is not clear at all what the subject of that section is - it speaks about outdoor domestic cats and feral cats almost interchangeably. It is not even clear which view the arguments given in the paragraph are opposing. JPD (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How about exchanging Florida for Australia, the fact tag could be dropped and the scope of the article would be broadened.  I am very fond of cats, but in the australian bush they are very destructive, perhaps as much as our species.  Fred 04:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feral cats and native species destruction in Australia

message: In your article on cats, there is no information that I have found that relates to cats' reactions to certain events and objects. When researching, I could not find anything that would help me understand my grandmother's cat, Jr's moods. If you can help me and add this when you get the chance, I would be thankful.
--207.69.138.137 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting More Information 

message: question: humans don't really have a better toxic sensitvity then cats. true cats are smaller but thats really the only reason. also our toxic sensitvity is for man-made posions like those found in the tainted cat food. cat toxic sensitivity is geared more toward natural poisons. 71.32.247.170 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Toxic sensitivity I presume refers to s and the like and therefore is by weight. So the fact that cats are smaller is irrelevant. The article already explains that cats' livers are less capable of detoxification then humans. This is I presume one of the reasons cat's have a greater sensitivity. Also, your comments about toxic sensitivity to human-made and natural poisons doesn't make sense. The vast majority of human made poisons haven't been around long enough that cats and especially not humans are likely to have evolved to be more tolerant towards them. When it comes to human made substances (whether food, medicines, weedkillers, whatever) of course, any substance which is too toxic to humans is unlikely to ever be used much. However the toxicity of substances to cats is not that likely to have a great effect on their success. Nil Einne 18:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the paracetamol/apap/acetaminophen example in this article is just daft. The substance is highly toxic to humans, has lead to millions of overdose deaths, and is a popular method of suicide by liver failure. Only humans, at an average 60 kg, need about 2 g of paracetmol per 10 kg to die, which is multiple pills, while cats, who are typically much lighter than 10 kg, can get poisoned by eating just a single pill. 128.195.186.86 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  toxic sensitivity in cats 

message: I added link to single MP3 of Spoken Wikipedia of entire article (hosted on my server). I think it's worth having the link, because this is a very long article, the OGG version is three parts, and not everyone having an OGG player, but most people having MP3 player.
Please discuss on my talk page before removing. Thank you. 
DollieLlama 07:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was a duplicate for the wiki-hosted sound files... if you want it to be listed here, get it on wikispace and not your personal site... We don't have to discuss on your talk page before removing, you don't own this article. DreamGuy 02:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added MP3 link of Spoken Wikipedia version of this article

message: Does anyone know if Feline Diabeties varies in any way from human Diabeties? If so, could it please be entered into the main article? Artemisboy 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feline Diabeties 

message: The article says that sterilizing your cat prevents spraying and other undesirable behaviors, but when I got a kitten my neutered male started spraying around the house. I know he didn't learn this behavior before sterilization because it was done at such a young age. Should the article be changed? 67.142.130.43 08:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sterilization procedure prevents spraying in most cats, is what the reality is. Depending on the individual cat and the circumstances, there are a few exceptions. And spraying is an instinctive, not a learned behavior, just for the record.--Ramdrake 11:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spraying When Neutered? 

message: The cat is intelligent and can be trained to obey simple commands.
Imtelligent is an un-intelligent way of describing cats. Absolutely propostorous statement. 86.129.25.28 03:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What specifically is your objection to the use of the word "intelligence"? Do you object to animals in general being called "intelligent"? Or is it something else?--Ramdrake 03:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the editor who started this thread was trolling, as he wrote the same message on Talk:Dog.--Ramdrake 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an idea that cats ar intiligent my cat found out how to open latched doors all by himself as a mater of fact my father ended up having to strap the spare room door shut as every now and then he enters that room Richardson j 23:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a cattery, thus about a dozen cats roam my house. One cat found out one day how to open the kitchen cupboard doors... and after  about 2 weeks, believe it or not, about half a dozen more were able to open them too. And they say cats are asocial animals with little intelligence who don't communicate much with each other... Sheesh!--Ramdrake 01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i have seen cats open screwtop jars despite not having thumbs. i think that deserves allowing cats to be described as intelligent. 71.252.249.43 07:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My family owns a cat shelter, and in our experience, cats are more than intelligent. While it may be true that whomever started this article wasn't truly concerned about the topic, just being difficult, they may have inadvertently had a point. In order to ensure that the neutrality and accuracy of this article is in full effect, it may be wise to have examples of perhaps studies or personal experiences with cats to ensure anyone biased against or for felines understands the entirety of the cat-mind complexity. For example, we have known foster cats and stay-at-home cats we have had have learned from each other. Our stay-at-home cats 'taught' the fosters how to open cabinets and drawers that didn't have any handles, and the foster cat 'taught' our stay-at-home cats how do jump from our second story to a perch on the first floor. While it seems a strange example, the fact that they discovered these feats, when human children have difficulty with them, and the fact that they 'learned' from each other, despite being an asocial species, seems like moer than intelligence to me. It seems almost like an inexperienced hive mind to me. Anyway, please let me know what you think, thank you so much!Ziggaway 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My cat can open our cabinet. He's hungry so he puts his paws on top, pulls the thing by stepping backwards. It's open. Then he meows until someone feeds him. That's the cabinet with his food in it. He is quite intelligent, but not every cat is so smart. Some cats aren't very intelligent but I see nothing wrong with saying that - in general - cats are quite intelligent. I thnk those who say they aren't, have a unintelligent kitty. Their cat may not be the sharpest claw on the paw but that doesn't mean every cat is like that. - Runningpaw  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.205.55 (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be removed 

message: In the "Legs" section of the physiology description the article states that the fromt claws are usually sharper.  I would like a citation here as this differs from my personal experience as a vetrinary assistant and owner of a domestic cat.David Eagan 17:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience in cat rescue, I've always found front claws to be far sharper than back ones. The front ones usually come to a tiny point (see :Image:Cat claw closeup.jpg, which I took), but I've never seen rear claws get like that. howcheng  {chat} 16:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All five of my cats have sharper front claws, i expect it's because all the jumping cats do wears down their back claws or somethingDAVID CAT 13:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, i found you a citationDAVID CAT 13:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an inappropriate reference. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O RLY?DAVID CAT 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharpness of claws 

message: Under the subheading Domesticated varieties, the article states:  "Some original cat breeds that have a distinct phenotype that is the main type occurring naturally as the dominant domestic cat type in their region of origin are sometimes considered as subspecies and also have received names as such in nomenclature, although this is not supported by feline biologists."
I considered editing it myself, but I couldn't even figure out what it was trying to say.  Would someone fix this?  Radioactive afikomen 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eh?

message: I have moved this discussion to Talk:Cat/Lead photo, due to the length of it.  Please comment there instead. --EvanS (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead photo discussion 

message: Should mention somewhere in the article that domestic cats who are given nothing but dry food to eat suffer calcification of the urethra. JAF1970 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got reliable sources to back that up? DreamGuy 05:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: While it may have been the dry food that caused your cat to get calcification, for which I apologize, it may also have been genetics, or some other predisposition. However, it is common knowledge that a diet of all-dry food is bad for any animal. This is supported by evidence in the wild and in humans. Especially among carnivorous animals, a diet consists of wet and solid foods, mostly raw and unprocessed. And the fact that cats' teeth are designed for ripping flesh, which also includes their rough tongues, it can be said that that in itself is a reference to the obvious necessities of a cat's diet. Please contact me if you have comments or concerns, thank you! Ziggaway 03:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calcification

message: /* Environmental interaction */ I'm sorry, I like cats (this is why I was reading the page) but this section was completely pathetic.  It was a complete whitewash of the massive impacts feral cats have; clearly written by a cat-obsessive not prepared to admit that feral cats are massive and very nasty problem in some places.  It needed fixing.  Can I say too that the claim that there would be 'overpopulation' of wildlife species everywhere if feral cats weren't there to prey on them is a generalisation so close to utter rubbish that it was an embarrasment to have it in the article.
Also someone was getting rather confused about the ethical/humane aspects of feral cats and their environmental impacts and conflating them.  They are very seperate issues, so I separated them.
C'mon folks, we all like cats (in fact, my puddy is sitting on my arm as I type) but there's no point trying to gloss over the massive problem feral cats are in places (Australia being a particularly good example), or dodging the fact that responsible cat ownership (including curtailing of wildlife killing through control on movement curtailing of uncontrolled breeding through de-sexing) is an absolute MUST.  Codman 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enviromental impacts of feral cats 

message: Ok I have to ask, since it's been reverted repeatedly but it doesn't appear to be on this talk page. What is the objection to linking to lolcat? -N 13:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really useful for people who come here looking for encyclopaedic info about cats. We can't link to every page whose subject relates in some ways to cats from this page. However, linking from lolcat to here would be appropriate.--Ramdrake 14:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: lolcat is simply a very minor Internet phenomenon, not at all encyclopedic of notable for a main encyclopedia article on cats. Internet jokes may be all the rage among mindless teens on the net, but that doesn't make them rise to the level of something so important that other articles must link to them or contain information on them. DreamGuy 18:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated by Ramdrake, the unnecessary link to lolcat on this forum of cats would waste time and space, while ther reverse may actually be beneficial. However, the comment of 'mindless teens' was unnecessary and only a hiatus to the flow of this discussion. Fitting neatly into the 16 year old sterotype of a teenager, I can very assuredly tell you that by not encouraging the seemingly inconsequential 'Internet jokes' (by adding a link from this page to the lolcat), and by attempting to expand the horizons of anyone looking up lolcat, the unfair and untrue sterotype can be slowly depleted. Another beneficial idea behind the link on the lolcat page is expanding the possibility of finding what you were looking for despite lack of knowledge of what to search (such as a key word or phrase) or accidentally having a typo, which so commonly occurs to everyday people, and clicking on the intended link afterwards. Comments or suggestings, please let me know, thanks! Ziggaway 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lolcat 

message: Let's have a discussion about whether Felis silvestris catus or Felis silvestris lybica should be the species name in the infobox. If we follow the pig, dog and goat examples, it should be Felis silvestris catus. I'd like to change it away from the current Felis silvestris at some point. Thanks. Speciate 23:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go for F.S. catus. It sounds logical to me.--Ramdrake 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've changed it for now. I hope people won't jump all over me for it. Speciate 23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The European Wildcat diverged 173,000 years ago from the lineage of the domestic cat. Its species name is Felis silvestris silvestris. Don't laugh, there are Bison bison bison. (We are Homo sapiens sapiens.) The subspecies from which domestic cats were derived (about 10,000 years ago) is called Felis silvestris lybica. Typically, domesticated taxa are allowed subspecies names of their own even though we all know they are sub-taxon of a subspecies. For example, we now know that dogs are all derived from only one of the many wolf subspecies. But we call dogs Canis lupus familiaris. This pattern is repeated in many domestic animals. Barley is a similar example with plants. Speciate 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know this all very well. I understand priori of names, I understand quite a lot. F. s. silvestris is more than just the name of the species. If one of the other subspecies were determined to be of higher priori such that the species namee should be, for instance, F. lybica, then the European Wildcat would be F. l. silvestris. What I wrote above states that silvestris may be closer to margarita, and catus to lybica. That is, silvestris may be closer to margarita than to either of catus or lybica, which are undeniably close. This would make catus + lybica the likely species, and silvestris + margarita either a single species or a species group. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So, to be clear, the Science article, as far as I can tell, only confirms that catus and lybica are closely linked, but still leaves open other existing questions. Listing catus as a species works with convention and with the facts. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More precisely, the article says that domestic cats are a tiny subset of the desert cat. There is 100% bootstrap support for this. If we were being unkind, we could not even call domestic cats Felis silvestris catus, but rather Felis silvestris lybica. However, as I said, the convention is to allow people to call their domesticated organisms something to distinguish them by. Precedence and a fondness for good old Carl usually means we take his old species name and make it the "subspecies" name. Speciate 02:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Science article only looked at F. s. catus, F. s. lybica, F. s. ornata, F. s. bieti, F. s. cafra, and F. s. silvestris, and used another species, Felis margarita, as an outgroup. The article calls domestic cats F. s. catus. Instead of going around in circles about this we should be making a page for the redlinked subspecies above. Speciate 02:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this 2005 article on how cats can't taste sweetness, the authors call them Felis silvestris catus. Speciate 22:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: experimental biologists are not good authorities for taxonomic usage; they tend to use whatever name they happen to know, and if the referees aren't taxonomists, that's what appears in the paper. None of he authors of that paper were zoologists. The question is what is is the preferred current use in zoological  journals.DGG (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scientific literature begins to use Felis silvestris catus in 1994 without fanfare. I don't know what prompted this change, still looking. Speciate 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Felis silvestris'', ''Felis silvestris catus'' or ''Felis silvestris lybica''?

message: I think the lead photo discussion has stalled and I'm wondering if it might be beneficial for one of us to file a request for comment just to get some outside opinions and more attention to the problem. I think a wider sample of people will add to the consensus, too. If someone knows a better way to go about this, like posting a notice on the talk pages for WikiProject Cats or WikiProject Mammals, then maybe that's what we should do. I'm hesitating because I've never done this before and could use some guidance first. Brian Adler 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest getting some better pictures first? None of the photos in "lead photo discussion" is very good imo. --Yath 20:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concensus on a new lead photo

message: Scientific American Magazine of July 2007 reports that the domestic cat is back to "Felix catus".
:I'm doubtful they say it's "back" to FeliS catus. I'll try to remember to look at the article tomorrow. Speciate 06:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article makes no claim that Felis catus is the correct name; the usage is probably an attempt by the editors to save space on a tight cladogram. Speciate 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Species Name Update

message: I have moved the candidate photos and comments to Talk:Cat/Lead photo, due to their length.  Please comment there instead.. --EvanS (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead photo discussion 

message: There are two boxes at the top of the cat page on recentism and the length of the article.  Have any of the these issues been resolved and we can remove the boxes? --EvanS (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two boxes at top of article 

message: I've disabled the editprotected request. This article is only semiprotected, so nearly any editor can make any appropriate changes. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Does any one know why my cat prefers to lay on my text books or keyboard more then in her bed? Not just my cat, but like any cats i know of like to lay on books and keyboards alot...-Hiaburi
:I honestly don't know, but my cat used to do that a lot too. Cats are connoisseurs of comfort, and they obviously know what they like! TreeKittens 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading a few books on cats' behavioral patterns, I claim not to be an expert, but a well-informed feline lover. With that in mind, it must be understood that a cat that desires to spend time with its owner will lay near the person, and generally on objects that person spends more time with (like reafing or on the computer). This is also why cats catch animals and insects and many a time will leave the catch on a pillow or welcome mat of their owner; they see this as an obvious location for their owner, and ultimately very dear friend, to see their prize, because among cats, catching and outsmarting another animal is seen as a high honor. This is also why many cats that live in a multiple-cat residence leave toys and bugs in a community food or water reservoir, to show everyone the trophy prize they caught. Any comments, please let me know, thanks! 71.123.209.167 05:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: Hi. Since this article is very long, I'd like to merge most of the Feral cats section into the article Feral cats and leave just a few paragraphs in the Cat article. This would include the subsections 'Environmental impacts' and 'Ethical and humane concerns over feral cats' as these clearly belong in the Feral cats main article. Any objections? [retro-sign] TreeKittens 21:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections from me. howcheng  {chat} 17:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking the same thing, since there's a separate article on feral cats there's no reason for the section to be so large.  It should be reduced to a single paragraph briefly describing what feral cats are.  --George100 12:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feral cats 

message: That is not including the pictures of cats directly related to a specific section of the article, for instance the cross-section or the claw.)
Remove atleast 6 of them by the 13th 12pm GMT or I'll delete them all except the picture in the top box. Ray harris1989 16:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A drastic change like that would probably be immediately reverted. Feel free to engage in discussion about the pictures (there's been a lot of debate), but removal of all of the pictures is certainly not warranted.  Joyous! | Talk 17:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who the hell are you to dictate how many pictures there and set a deadline? Abacab 02:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the hell not? This is not a printed encyclopedia.  Can't fill the pages.  HAve you seen other articles with like 50 pix at the bottom?  I believe that more information is better than less, assuming the validity of all information is equal.  SO unless someone starts posting pictures of dogs with the label "House Cat", why not?Dachande 21:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need TEN images of cats 

message: According to one of the cited sources [], cats have clavicle bones.  They are free floating, but present, so I have changed the statement saying that they do not have them.  Flyingdics 18:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clavicle?

message: I hesitate to ask given the level of debate on the serious business of all things feline but will you consider a link to http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/strange-but-true/item/cat_predicts_death_pensioners_home Although, light-hearted it does provide a starting block for the discussion of cat instincts and the cat in question was featured in the New England Journal of Medicine.
On another (European - which might be why) note I'm surprised nobody has written about the history of the cat and in particular the worsening of the plague (spread by rats) after tens of thousands cats were slaughtered for being the devils animals!
Finally, the decision to let your cat spend time outside unattended is split. In the US people tend to keep cats inside; in the UK people tend to let them go outside - the debate on which is 'correct' is futile - better to argue about the 'correct' side of the road to drive on...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.190.50 (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect to the first issue, we do in fact have an article about Oscar (the death-auguring hospice cat); whether he merits a mention somewhere in the article—he surely doesn't, IMHO, simply in view of his being a notable cat, but he may, as you observe, in the context of cat instincts (although I'm not certain how any relevant broader discussion might be particularly encyclopedically useful)—is a separate question, of course, and one about which I don't, I guess, have any particular opinion.  Joe 07:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible external link

message: is there some reason the aforementioned photo is rotated 90 degrees? not only looks silly, it's embarrassingly unencyclopedic. Anastrophe 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "A cat during mealtime, eating meat" - where, in space?

message: In Spain cats have 7 lives. I wanted to add this sentence at the last section, but my english is poor and I don't know how to integrate this sentence correctly into the prose. IRU 10:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lives of cats

message: I was under the impression that this was an obvious trait that had been bred for over 10 000 years of domestication. Historical descriptions of housecats seem to almost inevitably describe them as free-roaming, mostly never fed, semi-feral animals whose "contract" with their owner was getting shelter and warmth in exchange for pest control. Also, a variety of industries, from shipping/naval to warehouses and stores have historically employed cats, not as pets, but for inventory protection from rodents.  128.195.186.86 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Killing Pests, Birds, Insects 

message: I know this may sound like a really cruel question (to some people with various cultures/beliefs)...but are cats really edible to Omnivores, like us Humans?
I do know that some countries in parts of the Far East, such as China-Vietnam-Thailand etc, do practically use cats as part of Human menu; like cows, chickens, sheep etc.
Should we also include that cats CAN be eaten?
88.105.69.234 20:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we should. If we did, would we have to include in every article about an animal the fact that humans can eat it? Most animals are edible by humans. If cats were inedible, this might be worthy of mention. YOU are edible too, remember.--RLent 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Read WP:NPOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human diet 

message: At the the cat lead photo talk page, the consensus is leaning towards "Cutecat.jpg" because it shows the whole body of a cat, and doesn't have a busy background.  I plan on changing the image to that. Go to the the cat lead photo talk page to view this image. Any objections? Post them on that talk page. --EvanS {talk} {email me} 17:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't understand all the fuss about the lead photo. Most of the previous ones I have seen were fine by me. However, what consensus are you talking about. Who voted for current lead photo? It's by far the worst pic that could make it there. Seriously, let's show some reasoning here. I'm not fussy, I can go with just about anything. But "Cutecat.jpg" is definitely NOT a good picture to use as a lead photo on a cat page. MarkMarek 17:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there's something seriously fubar going on with this image, evanS, and two other editors. please review the edit history of the lead photo discussion page cited above. i'm preparing to file a report of suspected sockpuppetry.Anastrophe 17:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that "cutecat.jpg" is EvanS' own photo. It is indeed extremely difficult to assume good faith on this one.--Ramdrake 18:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I really hate to say it, but cutecat.jpg does seem to me to be a better lead photo candidate. It looks more like an encyclopedia photo than the cat on the colorful rug with the background all blurry JayKeaton 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that may be, but considering that evanS resorted to bad faith creation of two sockpuppets in order to push his own cutecat.jpg as the lead, i don't think i could ever agree to its use. Anastrophe 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for the image we had for over a year, it's better than any of these. Lars T. 01:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead photo update 

message: For cats, life in close proximity with humans (and other animals kept by humans as pets) amounts to a "symbiotic social adaptation" which has developed over thousands of years. The sort of social relationship cats have with their human keepers is hard to map onto more generalized wild cat (Felis spp.) behavior, but it is certain that the cat thinks of humans differently than it does other cats (i.e., it does not think of itself as human, nor that humans are cats). This can be seen in the difference in body and vocal language it uses with humans, when compared to how it communicates with other cats in the household, for example. Some have suggested that, psychologically, the human keeper of a cat is a sort of surrogate for the cat's mother, and that adult domestic cats live their lives in a kind of extended kittenhood
I think that they shan't use "close proximity" because it is already extra baggage. "Proximity" alone means that already.
--Acer 07:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close proximity 

message: I think the kitten deserves to appear under See Also category of this article. What do you think? -MarkMarek 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kitten 

message: Is that video necessary? Not only is it not, it is also not appropriate. I request it be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.138.129 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CENSOR. Anastrophe 17:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breeding vid... 

message: there's three or four different threads on this page about the lead photo, dated from various times. the page is also long. i'd propose archiving the page. what's the standard operating procedure? i know there's a 'bot' or process for auto-archiving busy talk pages, but i don't know the specifics of implementing it. Anastrophe 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't trust the bots to do it, all too often they mess up the whole page and it needs to be reverted back anyway just to fix it. JayKeaton 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okay. i'd still like to reach some consensus on archiving, even if minor. i've no experience with the bot so i'll defer on that matter. Anastrophe 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've decided to be bold and archive the discussions. -- Anastrophe (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks to JayKeaton for pointing out the (multiple) errors of my ways in (mis)creating the archive of the talk page. should be fixed now. Anastrophe (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great ^_^ Brilliant job mate JayKeaton (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to archive discussion?