Talk:Cat

Query

Reference 61 does not seem to support (at least directly) the rather dramatic claim in the text. It seems to ignore the issue. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Etymology and Catti

https://scotsblood.wordpress.com/about/the-ancient-catti-chatti-tribe/ and various other sources show that a germanic tribe, after losing a battle with the Romans, partly emigrated to the northern tip of scotland where they killed off the existing wildcat population, and their name then became synonymous with the cats, adopting their image in their emblems. Caithness and various other clan and local names have "cat" in the name. This would indicate that the Chatti or Catti tribe had something to do with the adoption of the word Cat in old english. 86.178.96.111 (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Cat #1 redirects here

I agree that it is undesirable to have for technical reasons Cat #1 redirects here at the top of the page, but people searching for that album will be kinda surprised to find themselves here, so we should probably help them out. Troll Control (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Troll Control, thanks for the opinion. My first reason is that it's covered in the explanation: someone who got brought here and didn't know why would see the link "for other things called cat, see this page". They wouldn't need to know that the reason they got brought to Cat was that Wikipedia can't handle titles with a # in them-there's no need for an explanation at all, just the disambig statement.
My other concern is basically that if we have a lot of articles with disambig statements saying "for the item named X # 1, see [page]" someone might start trying to create products/companies with this name system as a promotional method so they get a disambig link at the top of common Wikipedia articles, perhaps ones related to their product business (e.g. "Bakery #1 redirects to Bakery for technical reasons" would put one company at the top of the wikipedia article for their industry). So I'd rather establish a precedent that this doesn't happen. How does that sound? Blythwood (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I've asked for more input on your proposal [1] Troll Control (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

OK no response from over there, I think due diligence has been done, I'll take it out. Troll Control (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The taxonomy section could use some expansion and clarification.

I'm not even close to being well-versed in biology, so I'm not touching it with a ten-foot pole. But the whole section abruptly ends with a statement that cats were recently reclassified as a separate species by an IUCN task force--based on someone else's recommendation--with no discussion of what factors led to that reclassification. This is especially jarring since the section does mention genetic evidence that cats are a subspecies of F. sylvestris, which seems to have been influential as recently as 2007.

From a lay reader's perspective, it looks similar to the situation with dogs, in that the domestic variety has flip-flopped over the years between species and subspecies, but dogs appear to have basically settled around being a subspecies of wolf for now, primarily based on genetic evidence. Does this just mean that domestic animals are really hard to classify and there isn't any real consensus either way? Are their social factors within biology that account for the difference--maybe dog scientists weigh genetics more heavily that cat scientists, for example? Has there been a breakthrough in cat genetics since 2007, or some new and better evidence which emerged since then? How have cats managed to break the species barrier despite having barely changed since domestication (if the following section is anything to go by)? It would be nice to see questions like this addressed in the taxonomy section, IF sufficiently definitive answers exist and there are sufficient sources to cite them. Lingvaristo (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

ItzEviexx (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello ItzEviexx (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Can I please have my privilege to edit I did nothing wrong

ItzEviexx (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be a subspecies?

Dogs are commonly treated as a subspecies of grey wolf (Canis lupus familiaris), but shouldn't cats be a subspecies of either the African wild cat or European wild cat? Since dogs fall within the grey wolf clade and are thus the same species, cats should fall within the wildcat clade and are thus the same species as wildcats. Why are they treated as their own while dogs and most other domestic animals are treated as a subspecies of their wild counterparts? 24.150.136.254 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)