Talk:Cat/Archive 4

message: This page has been archived here as a result of this vote. To revitalize a discussion, copy all of the text (formatting included) to Talk:Cat --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 00:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: This pic has some serious image problems. It needs to be removed --Fir0002 www 06:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I'm not disputing it's appropriateness, I'm just saying that the image quality is atrocious. Over exposure, blurring, severe chromatic abberation, noise, low image res and a poor choice of background make it an extremely poor image; especially when considering the vast amount of photos there must be on shot a common subject. Have a quick look on flickr if there's nothing much on the commons:  --Fir0002 www 10:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The image does have image problems, and it should be removed --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 22:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just toss it already, there are plenty of images in the article. No need to wait for replacements and a vote is overkill for a decission like this, not to mention Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy! It also seems to me there is an intrinsic problem with cat pictures. Many people have one, think its cute, make a quick snap and upload it. If you are looking for better pictures: There gotta be cats around Swifts Creek, wink wink :-) --Dschwen 07:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, I'll see what I can do! I've got a couple of pix already: :Image:Cat03.jpg, :Image:Cat02.jpg, :Image:cat_cleaning_itself.jpg, :Image:cat_cleaning_itself02.jpg --Fir0002 www 07:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I absolutely don't agree. Tabby patterns are a very important part of cat coat patterns. If we are to remove the image, then replace it with another example. Besides, when reduced to fit the page, the flaws you see in it aren't as visible. --Ramdrake 12:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, I looked at the other images on that page, and several of them also have big problems. However, they illustrate the point of the article well, despite their errors. I'm putting it back. If it is to be taken out again, please have a proper discussion about it, leaving the subject open long enough for people to discuss it and then all can take a proper decision. --Ramdrake 12:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah. I will remove it. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 08:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about :Image:Domestic_cat.jpg or :Image:Koscat2.jpg? Or some of the images from Tabby, like :Image:Tabby-cat.jpg? FreplySpang (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, none of them has as nice a view of the body coat illustrating a tabby pattern. The image quality may not be that great, but the illustative quality of the image is remarkable. Few images of tabby cats show the body pattern in such detail. --Ramdrake 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that :Image:Mackerel tabby.jpg does show the best detail of the body pattern, but I'm not sure that we need that level of detail here. For me, the washed-out face makes the cat look odd enough that it detracts from the overall picture. Also, we do have a separate article about Tabby cats - maybe it would work best to have a nicer overall-cat picture here, and put :Image:Mackerel tabby.jpg there to show off the specifics of the pattern? FreplySpang (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at the image you swapped the mackerel for, I'M finding that I can easily live with it. It doesn't have the clinical view of the other, but it is quite good enough an example. --Ramdrake 14:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good, because we're about to fall off the right-hand edge of the talk page! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hey, look, I found the reverse switch! ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Mackerel tabby.jpg]] 

message: This has become rather ludicrous. The only point I was attempting to make was that tuxedo cats are somtimes known as black-and-white cats, but, as Ramdrake pointed out, this picture is about a bicolor cat, and, as such, there should be no text stating 'otherwise known as a tuxedo cat' (as it did originally), or anything else. Therefore, if there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I will remove the bracketed text (and, of course, the brackets!!) leaving the picture to simply state: A Bicolor cat. S</font>ergeant
Snopake 21:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bicolour

message: Currently, the edit properties are: [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]. I think we should change it to [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]. We should do move=sysop, because why would any user move the cat article unless some scientist somewhere decided that cats would be called something else. And even if that happens, someone should just get an admin to move it. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 23:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that there isn't a need for that.  It's not causing any problems.  If it's not broke why fix it? OmnipotentEntity 18:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: Wouldn't the "calico" picture more correctly be labeled a tortiseshell or tortiseshell-and-white?  My understanding, backed by the calico entry is that calico's are primarily white, while tortiseshell's are primarily black.  This one has white paws, so perhaps it's a tortiseshell-and-white?  Maybe a pciture of a more classic calico (mostly white) or a more classic tortiseshell (no white) would be best?  I know this isn't a matter of life or death.  :) Lucky Adrastus 06:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calico Picture

message: Can someone explain to me what can be put on this page that would be considered vandalism? They're housepets! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.33.228.198 (talk • contribs) 
I don't know why someone would want to vandal this page. Most of the vandalism is just nonsense, and it needs to stop. Immediately. Vandalism is wrong and it only brings down Wikipedia's quality. If you want to view the vandalism, go to the history. SilentWind 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalisation 

message: Are black-and-white cats extra crabby? My family has had seven cats in all (two have died), and the only ones that were ever nasty were our black-and-whites - bare in mind that three of our cats (tabbies) were wild before we got them, and the vet thought that they would never be tame. Our first black-and-white was very nice when he was young, then when he was middle aged he became very nasty. By the time he got to about fifteen, he'd gone completely senile, and spent his remaining two years being nice again. Our second black-and-white is so bad that the vet said we had to give him two days notice before we bring her in, so that he can get out of the country. You can imagine what sort of cat she is. The vet also told me that they had never seen a nasty ginger or tabby cat, but they had seen nasty black-and-whites. Have I just been unlucky with my black-and-whites, or is this a trait that many carry? Sergeant Snopake 18:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never seen anything about balck-and-whites being "extra crabby", although I've see references to ginger cats. I've been told male gingers are "extra social and athletic" and and female ginger "very bossy". I have several of both, and can testify to the veracity of this. :) --Ramdrake 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black-and-White

message: Should any mention be made (either here or in a separate article) of people eating cats? Horses and dogs both have such a section and I don't see why cats (who have given mankind far fewer contributions than the aforementioned species) should be treated better. 66.133.180.56 03:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Far fewer contributions? They keep pests out of food supplies. I'd say food is pretty important. Lib3rtine 20:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, so long as someone can provide verifiable information and not just speculation or inneundo ("Duh, I heard that they cook cats over in Chinatown). ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the "urban legend" about cats sucking breath is relatively founded. Cats are attracted by warmth, and anyone who has held a baby can tell you how warm they are. The cat would crawl in the crib to sleep with the super warm baby, and when the baby would die of SIDS or something like that, the cat would be blamed because it was the only thing near the baby at the time of death. --Allie 04:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/catsuck.htm --DrBat 21:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I remember seeing a television documentary once where it was shown that some Australian Aborigines hunt and eat feral cats, which is closer to verifiability than "This one time, a friend of my friend Bob..." but still not sourced well enough for Wikipedia since I can't remember what show it was. User:Angr 07:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cats as a human food source? 

message: We need a serious effort to get some inline references here that are NOT web pages, as that seems to be the vast majority of things cited. Cats are not an obscure topic, so I'll get my vet books out and anyone else with printed matter, feel free to help add some more concrete refs. pschemp | talk 21:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: "However, the majority of brand-name cat foods are primarily grain based, often containing large amounts of corn or rice and supplemented with meats and minerals and vitamins."
i'm guessing this only applies to dried cat food not the tinned stuff which certainly appears to contain big chunks of meat to me, anyone care to confirm? Plugwash 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cat food 

message: This picture thumb|leftwas deleted from the article "Cat". I feel it is a good example of an american shorthair. It should be placed back into the article but I didn't just put it back in case anyone wanted to add a comment to why it is not  worthy of being in the article.
:One of the questions to answer is, how many images should go in an article. It is already very heavy due to a large number of images, so I would say, what is the added value of this image weighted against making the page even heavier? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps even more important, why was this picture deleted and another one put in its place, which to me has no obviously superior value to the one that was deleted? I agree that there are a lot of images in this article, and there are a number of pictures one would like to include but can't. --Ramdrake 20:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there's already too many pictures in this article.  Is it really necessary to include a picture of a cat litter box?  Seriously, who doesn't know what a cat litter box looks like?  I'll go and remove it.  Dionyseus 20:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Picture 

message: I've never heard a female cat called a "queen", but I have heard them called "Janes" BethEnd 03:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a common enough calling among cat breeders. --Ramdrake 16:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Janes 

message: How long can a cat live fully? My Aunt and Uncle has a cat who is 19 years old!
:Almost 20 here. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but that's not what this page is for. Please keep trivia like that off of the talk page. pschemp | talk 20:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Average is 15-20 years, depending on health and environment (neutered cats live longer, domestic cats live longer, etc.).  I'll try and find a definitive source for that. Zerbey 23:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat's Lifespan 

message: I'm getting a bit tired of seeing the phrase "because the domestication of the cat is fairly recent", as the cat was one the the first three or four domesticated animals. One wouldn't refer to the horse as a "recently domesticated animal", but it was domesticated several (roughly four) millenia after the cat. The cat does retain some atavistic predatory behavior, but this doesn't mean it is any less of a "domestic" animal. --Ramdrake 23:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestication of the cat

message: Does anyone know how often it is that a mother will have just one kitten in a litter? Sergeant Snopake 15:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a perfectly reasonable place to ask to me. We do encourage people to ask about subjects at their talk pages - see Template:RD3 which is used to direct people who ask knowledge questions at the Help desk. (Couldn't answer the question better than Ramdrake, though I did stumble across the useful advice that if only one kitten comes out, and the mother has had bigger litters in the past, you should check that more aren't stuck.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine if it is, but I was told over and over that article talk pages were meant for discussing improvements to the article, and not a general discussion forum (please see the Evolution page for an example - that one comes up there often enough). I don't mind being wrong.--Ramdrake 15:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it comes down to the difference between a knowledge question (like Sergeant's) and a question intended to provoke discussion, as in "aren't cats awesome?" The first aren't as prone to provoke extended and irrelevant discussion as the second - and they can turn up areas that the article doesn't currently cover but could. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't mean to cause controversy! I just wasn't sure where else to ask. Sergeant Snopake 15:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kittens 

message: Sorry if I did a blanket revert of the addition the first time, but the initial wording was:
:1)misleading as the only way to get that incredibly high number of cats was if all offsprings survived to 7 years of age as a minimum. While cats that are cared for can easily live up to 12-15 years (and even beyond), it is estimated the average lifespan of a feral cat is about 2-3 years (not counting perinatal mortalilty!), and 
:2)offensive as it implied that everyone and anyone breeding animals was contributing to pet overpopulation. I am a cat breeder in my community, and I ensure that all my kittens are placed in good homes. I keep control of how many litters of kittens my queens give birth to in any given year. Also, my cats never go outdoors (and they don't miss it a bit), so they don't contribute to increasing the population of feral cats in any way, shape or form. --Ramdrake 00:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on overpopulation

message: Does anyone have a citation that supports the discussion on laser pointers?  The sentence "the fact that the cat cannot physically touch the laser dot no matter how hard it tries and that it cannot understand this concept can lead to even normally calm cats becoming very agitated and even severely stressed" sounds a little anthropomorphic to me.  My cat seems to enjoy the laser pointer without ill effect.
:Sounds a bit silly to me, I had a kitten that chased the beam from a flashlight.  When she figured out it wasn't killable she lost interest.  I'm sure the same is true for laser pointers.  Personally, I would be concerned that the beam would hurt the cat's eye.  Use a soft toy, much safer! Zerbey 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it - I agree with the above. "It cannot understand this concept" seems particularly insulting to a cat's intelligence to me. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Our little darling loves the laser pointer game. What's more, she knows that the pointer pen itself is somehow related, and goes wild if she accidentally sees the pointer pen's light when looking up. LinaMishima 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to need a source on that Lib3rtine 21:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Our cats know where the laser pointer is kept and get all excited if we open that drawer. It's the only cat toy in that particular drawer, so it must be the pointer. User:Angr 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laser pointers? 

message: Aren't cats the most hygienic animal? --DrBat 18:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone will probably have a better answer, but I would guess that humans are the most hygienic animal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But cats clean themselves on a constant basis. They don't get all sweaty and oily, either. --DrBat 19:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most hygienic? 

message: There is no source marked for the following statement: "Feral cats living in modern urban environments often live only two years, or less.". Such a strongly worded statement seems to me to deserve a citation of a source to back it up. Not arguing over the figure, although I'm not sure about it. I'd rather just have a good reference found. LinaMishima 18:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite source: 2yr lifespan for urban feral cats