Jump to content

Talk:Cat: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 117: Line 117:
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 08:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 08:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
== External links modified == this is gay


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Revision as of 16:47, 15 April 2016

hello its me

hello its me

Template loop detected: Talk:Cat/ArticleHistory Template:Vital article

Good article despite tags

@Proud User: There was a note left at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Cat about concern about the promotion of this article to GA status despite citation tags and other questions about the sourcing. Would it be possible to address these citation issues to avoid a possible WP:GAR? I'll also ping Dunkleosteus77 and Burklemore1 who might be interested in this. Thanks folks! delldot ∇. 16:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the problems Burklemore1 (talk · contribs) referred to have been fixed. Just look at the GA nomination page. --Proud User (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that after I looked at the article I saw a lot more problems that were not addressed. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll organise some review without the need of initiating a GAR, but upon looking at it again the article seems to have a lot of problems. I could try and attempt a thorough review here if you would like. The sources are so far the most concerning and so cooperation from multiple editors will help. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Cat User Box

Hi, I created the following cat user box if you want to add it to your user page: Template:User cat IQ125 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user likes cats.

IQ125 Hello! This is a nice userbox, but I am afraid this is not the correct place to present it. Please add it to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Animals#Cats, many can view and use it then. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the tip. I added it to the list! I did not realize how many were already created; however IMHO mine is the best -:) Take care IQ125 (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016

Hi! I would like to suggest that on breeds, add "Blue Point Siamese". These are much different than normal siamese cats in behavior and appearance. 71.75.131.25 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Blue-point siamese cat redirects to Siamese cat. Would need a reliable source to suggest that it deserves listing as a distinct breed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Domesticated Argument

Hello, I am seeking input and building a consensus on a point stated in the article. I notice the introductory sentence of the article states "The domestic cat (Felis catus or Felis silvestris catus)". This is an issue with me. The generic term "cat" can be either domesticated, i.e. (Felis Catus) or wild (Felis silvestris catus). This being the case, we should not use the word "domestic cat" in the introductory sentence.

"Scientists say there is little that separates the average house cat (Felis Catus) from its wild brethren (Felis silvestris). There’s some debate over whether cats fit the definition of domesticated as it is commonly used, says Wes Warren, PhD, associate professor of genetics at The Genome Institute at Washington University in St. Louis. “We don’t think they are truly domesticated,” says Warren, who prefers to refer to cats as “semi-domesticated.” Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/ask-smithsonian-are-cats-domesticated-180955111/?no-ist"

What do you think? IQ125 (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that this article is about domestic cats because:
  1. The hatnote above the article says "This article is about the cat species that is commonly kept as a pet. For the cat family, see Felidae. For other uses, see Cat (disambiguation) and Cats (disambiguation)."
  2. The infobox is titled "domestic cat" and under "Conservation status" it says "Domesticated."
  3. The second sentence of the article says "They are often called house cats when kept as indoor pets or simply cats when there is no need to distinguish them from other felids and felines."
  4. After a look at the "taxonomy and evolution" section, you can see it explains the evolution of domestic cats, not wild cats.
  5. The "anatomy" section explains the anatomy of domestic cats, not wild cats.
  6. There is an entire section about "interaction with humans" that explains how humans keep them as a pet.
  7. The images in the article are definitely not of wild cats.
  8. There were actually two entire discussions (here and here) about how this article is about domestic cats and not wild cats. --Proud User (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree we already have established historical concensus for this article being about the domestic cat only. Leave hatnote and opening paragraph as has been in historical version, for reasons noted above by Proud User. This is a Good Article and a former Featured Article; we need to restore accurate established text. Having had a resuced feral as a pet, I agree with statement that all cats retain some 'semi-domesticated' status. That line has already been drawn in society however, and there is no need to force this article to reflect an artificial difference. Inquire please of animal control officers and veterinarians. We are not keeping Jaguars and Cougars as pets. Nor do we even approach them, nor feed them nor pet them. The lash of a wild cat is deadly. Hopefully, most days our kittens and cats are tame, hence they are domestic and able to be kept as house pets. This is entirely an artifical premise that wild cats are the same as tame / domestic. We are not allowing wild animals in cat cafés. Fylbecatulous talk 13:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not mind making this article the default domestic cat only article. May I suggest a new opening sentence as follows:

The domestic cat (Latin: Felis catus), as opposed to a feral cat (Latin: Felis silvestris catus), is a small typically furry carnivorous mammal.

This would allow uninformed readers to understand instantly what this article is about and that there is a second article about wild cats. IQ125 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if you replace "feral" with "wild," as it says right in the first sentence of the feral cat article that they are a type of domestic cat. Nope I think the hatnote at the top does the best job of disambiguating it. --Proud User (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Dog article has similar concerns which they appear to have overcome. I suggest we borrow from this article and state - The domestic cat (Felis catus) is a domesticated member of the Felidae family which has been selectively bred for millennia for various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and physical attributes. After all, do we really need to be told in the opening sentence that cats are furry? We can then go on to mention wild cats or other related animals. DrChrissy (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DrChrissy: According to WP:MOS the introduction of an article (especially the first sentence) is supposed to be written in a manner that assumes the reader is not familiar with the subject. If you were unfamiliar with cats, what would be more important to you: knowing that cats are usually furry or that they were selectively bred for millennia?--Proud User (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Proud User:. I have looked at WP:MOS and WP:LEAD and I can not find any such directive to editors. Please could you supply a more specific section or preferably a quotation. DrChrissy (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DrChrissy: WP:BEGIN states "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is."--Proud User (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-specialist" is very, very different from being "unfamiliar". It seems to me that anyone old enough to read Wikipedia may be a non-specialist but they will be familiar with cats and the fact that they are furry is totally redundant. If we write for those "unfamiliar" with cats, we should also be stating they have 4 legs, 2 eyes and just one nose.DrChrissy (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Proud User: and any other editor of this article. This may be useful in expanding or updating the domestication section of this article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your interest: What is a Feral Cat? IQ125 (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The video does not say that feral cats are not domesticated, it says that feral cats may develop a fear of humans. "Domesticated" means originally breed to be with humans; however, not all domesticated animals live with humans, and (like it said in the video) may develop a fear of humans. Feral cats are by all means domesticated. --Proud User (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not watched the video, but by definition, a feral animal is domesticated. Our own Feral article states "A feral animal (from Latin fera, "a wild beast") is an animal living in the wild but descended from domesticated individuals." DrChrissy (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: *Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718134211/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/housecat to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/housecat

*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100713133619/http://www.imom.org/spay-neuter/pdf/kustritz.pdf to http://www.imom.org/spay-neuter/pdf/kustritz.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

== External links modified == this is gay

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cat relativess

Cats relatve is the bear. Most people thin that the bear is not its reliative but it is. Me have poof write hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.67.124 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@71.10.67.124: Can you find a reliable source that says that? --Proud User (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016

The article "cat" is extremely complete, but I have doubts regarding the introductory section or the following reasons : a) the first paragraph sets felis catus within the scope, first and foremost, of breeding associations. This is both morally dubious and historically inaccurate. Further, to introduce the cultural concept of "breeds" in the first paragraph as an empirical statement of fact is again, questionable. (Though a hint of doubt is allowed with mention of the competing commercially active cat fancying associations). The breeding of specific morphological traits in cats is a commercial activity, one that occurs to the detriment of cat health. Further, cats conforming to breed standards defined by these commercially interested associations form a minority of the global population of domestic cats. As such, breeding and cat associations may well deserve there own section, but do not deserve mention in the first paragraph! International Cat Care (http://icatcare.org/), a non profit organisation (to which I am not affiliated) has some excellent, and critically, disinterested, advice on this subject. I suggest, that all articles discussing domestic cats in terms of cat fancying breeds be reviewed, in the light of the excessive harm being caused to these animals, and the exploitation of Wikipedia by commercially active or interested groups in this subject. The extract in question, which I request be moved into an appropriate subheading follows "There are more than 70 cat breeds; different associations proclaim different numbers according to their standards. The International Progressive Cat Breeders Alliance (IPCBA) recognizes 73 cat breeds while TICA (The International Cat Association) recognizes 58, CFA (The Cat Fanciers' Association) recognizes 44 and Federation International Feline (FIFE) recognizes 43"

I note that the 1st paragraph has since been suitable modified, removing explicit reference to cat breeding organisations. A good move.

The third paragraph, while containing valuable information that deserves thorough coverage about the impact of cats on their environment, appears unfairly weighted in appearing in the introduction, and appears politically motivated in this light. A separate section or inclusion in an existing section covering cats and their interaction with the environment (positive/negative and neutral) is desirable.) The UK based RSPCA even argues feral cats can have a positive impact on the bird population "Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease, or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds." http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx Either balance the paragraph with appropriate statements of both neutrality and value affirmation concerning cat interaction with the environment, or move the entire paragraph into an appropriate subheader. To be clear, the text in question follows, "Cats have a high breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, they can be bred and shown as registered pedigree pets, a hobby known as cat fancy. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, requiring population control.[9] This has contributed, along with habitat destruction and other factors, to the extinction of many bird species. Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within specific regions and may have contributed to the extinction of isolated island populations.[10] Cats are thought to be primarily, though not solely, responsible for the extinction of 33 species of birds, and the presence of feral and free ranging cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reintroduction in otherwise suitable locations."

Would it be possible to modify the third paragraph, in order to show broader balanced reach of understanding and less activist inclined rhetoric, with the following:

"Like many small and medium sized mammals, cats have a high breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, specific morphological characteristics can be bred and the cats shown as registered pedigree pets, or breeds, an activity which is an aspect of cat fancy, the appreciation of domestic and feral cats. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large over population of feral cats in some regions of the world, requiring population control, both for the well being of cats and for the well being of their local environment.[8] In other regions of the world, feral cats may be considered part of the native animal population, although proximity and interbreeding between feral and wild cats has proven to be a source of controversy in specific regions such as Scotland (ref: http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/mammals/land-mammals/wildcats/). Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within specific regions and may have contributed to the extinction of isolated island populations in Oceania.[9] The presence of feral cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reintroduction in otherwise suitable locations. However other studies suggest that where feral and domestic cats have a long established presence, such as in the Middle East and Europe, they do not have a detrimental effect upon bird or small mammal populations. (ref : http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx)"

What do you think? 176.153.196.167 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Unclear what changes you want made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

pppppppppppppppppoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppp 38.111.117.18 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC) nkkjjjjjjjjjjjjjj[reply]

 Not done the faeces of the species are already discussed under the Physiology section. MPS1992 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--206.57.217.137 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Bold texthttps://www.reddit.com/r/cats/ Template:Vital article[reply]

Good article despite tags

@Proud User: There was a note left at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Cat about concern about the promotion of this article to GA status despite citation tags and other questions about the sourcing. Would it be possible to address these citation issues to avoid a possible WP:GAR? I'll also ping Dunkleosteus77 and Burklemore1 who might be interested in this. Thanks folks! delldot ∇. 16:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the problems Burklemore1 (talk · contribs) referred to have been fixed. Just look at the GA nomination page. --Proud User (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that after I looked at the article I saw a lot more problems that were not addressed. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll organise some review without the need of initiating a GAR, but upon looking at it again the article seems to have a lot of problems. I could try and attempt a thorough review here if you would like. The sources are so far the most concerning and so cooperation from multiple editors will help. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Cat User Box

Hi, I created the following cat user box if you want to add it to your user page: Template:User cat IQ125 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user likes cats.

IQ125 Hello! This is a nice userbox, but I am afraid this is not the correct place to present it. Please add it to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Animals#Cats, many can view and use it then. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the tip. I added it to the list! I did not realize how many were already created; however IMHO mine is the best -:) Take care IQ125 (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016

Hi! I would like to suggest that on breeds, add "Blue Point Siamese". These are much different than normal siamese cats in behavior and appearance. 71.75.131.25 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Blue-point siamese cat redirects to Siamese cat. Would need a reliable source to suggest that it deserves listing as a distinct breed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Domesticated Argument

Hello, I am seeking input and building a consensus on a point stated in the article. I notice the introductory sentence of the article states "The domestic cat (Felis catus or Felis silvestris catus)". This is an issue with me. The generic term "cat" can be either domesticated, i.e. (Felis Catus) or wild (Felis silvestris catus). This being the case, we should not use the word "domestic cat" in the introductory sentence.

"Scientists say there is little that separates the average house cat (Felis Catus) from its wild brethren (Felis silvestris). There’s some debate over whether cats fit the definition of domesticated as it is commonly used, says Wes Warren, PhD, associate professor of genetics at The Genome Institute at Washington University in St. Louis. “We don’t think they are truly domesticated,” says Warren, who prefers to refer to cats as “semi-domesticated.” Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/ask-smithsonian-are-cats-domesticated-180955111/?no-ist"

What do you think? IQ125 (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that this article is about domestic cats because:
  1. The hatnote above the article says "This article is about the cat species that is commonly kept as a pet. For the cat family, see Felidae. For other uses, see Cat (disambiguation) and Cats (disambiguation)."
  2. The infobox is titled "domestic cat" and under "Conservation status" it says "Domesticated."
  3. The second sentence of the article says "They are often called house cats when kept as indoor pets or simply cats when there is no need to distinguish them from other felids and felines."
  4. After a look at the "taxonomy and evolution" section, you can see it explains the evolution of domestic cats, not wild cats.
  5. The "anatomy" section explains the anatomy of domestic cats, not wild cats.
  6. There is an entire section about "interaction with humans" that explains how humans keep them as a pet.
  7. The images in the article are definitely not of wild cats.
  8. There were actually two entire discussions (here and here) about how this article is about domestic cats and not wild cats. --Proud User (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree we already have established historical concensus for this article being about the domestic cat only. Leave hatnote and opening paragraph as has been in historical version, for reasons noted above by Proud User. This is a Good Article and a former Featured Article; we need to restore accurate established text. Having had a resuced feral as a pet, I agree with statement that all cats retain some 'semi-domesticated' status. That line has already been drawn in society however, and there is no need to force this article to reflect an artificial difference. Inquire please of animal control officers and veterinarians. We are not keeping Jaguars and Cougars as pets. Nor do we even approach them, nor feed them nor pet them. The lash of a wild cat is deadly. Hopefully, most days our kittens and cats are tame, hence they are domestic and able to be kept as house pets. This is entirely an artifical premise that wild cats are the same as tame / domestic. We are not allowing wild animals in cat cafés. Fylbecatulous talk 13:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not mind making this article the default domestic cat only article. May I suggest a new opening sentence as follows:

The domestic cat (Latin: Felis catus), as opposed to a feral cat (Latin: Felis silvestris catus), is a small typically furry carnivorous mammal.

This would allow uninformed readers to understand instantly what this article is about and that there is a second article about wild cats. IQ125 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if you replace "feral" with "wild," as it says right in the first sentence of the feral cat article that they are a type of domestic cat. Nope I think the hatnote at the top does the best job of disambiguating it. --Proud User (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Dog article has similar concerns which they appear to have overcome. I suggest we borrow from this article and state - The domestic cat (Felis catus) is a domesticated member of the Felidae family which has been selectively bred for millennia for various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and physical attributes. After all, do we really need to be told in the opening sentence that cats are furry? We can then go on to mention wild cats or other related animals. DrChrissy (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DrChrissy: According to WP:MOS the introduction of an article (especially the first sentence) is supposed to be written in a manner that assumes the reader is not familiar with the subject. If you were unfamiliar with cats, what would be more important to you: knowing that cats are usually furry or that they were selectively bred for millennia?--Proud User (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Proud User:. I have looked at WP:MOS and WP:LEAD and I can not find any such directive to editors. Please could you supply a more specific section or preferably a quotation. DrChrissy (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DrChrissy: WP:BEGIN states "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is."--Proud User (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-specialist" is very, very different from being "unfamiliar". It seems to me that anyone old enough to read Wikipedia may be a non-specialist but they will be familiar with cats and the fact that they are furry is totally redundant. If we write for those "unfamiliar" with cats, we should also be stating they have 4 legs, 2 eyes and just one nose.DrChrissy (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Proud User: and any other editor of this article. This may be useful in expanding or updating the domestication section of this article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your interest: What is a Feral Cat? IQ125 (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The video does not say that feral cats are not domesticated, it says that feral cats may develop a fear of humans. "Domesticated" means originally breed to be with humans; however, not all domesticated animals live with humans, and (like it said in the video) may develop a fear of humans. Feral cats are by all means domesticated. --Proud User (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not watched the video, but by definition, a feral animal is domesticated. Our own Feral article states "A feral animal (from Latin fera, "a wild beast") is an animal living in the wild but descended from domesticated individuals." DrChrissy (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: *Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718134211/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/housecat to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/housecat

*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100713133619/http://www.imom.org/spay-neuter/pdf/kustritz.pdf to http://www.imom.org/spay-neuter/pdf/kustritz.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

== External links modified == this is gay

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cat relativess

Cats relatve is the bear. Most people thin that the bear is not its reliative but it is. Me have poof write hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.67.124 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@71.10.67.124: Can you find a reliable source that says that? --Proud User (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016

The article "cat" is extremely complete, but I have doubts regarding the introductory section or the following reasons : a) the first paragraph sets felis catus within the scope, first and foremost, of breeding associations. This is both morally dubious and historically inaccurate. Further, to introduce the cultural concept of "breeds" in the first paragraph as an empirical statement of fact is again, questionable. (Though a hint of doubt is allowed with mention of the competing commercially active cat fancying associations). The breeding of specific morphological traits in cats is a commercial activity, one that occurs to the detriment of cat health. Further, cats conforming to breed standards defined by these commercially interested associations form a minority of the global population of domestic cats. As such, breeding and cat associations may well deserve there own section, but do not deserve mention in the first paragraph! International Cat Care (http://icatcare.org/), a non profit organisation (to which I am not affiliated) has some excellent, and critically, disinterested, advice on this subject. I suggest, that all articles discussing domestic cats in terms of cat fancying breeds be reviewed, in the light of the excessive harm being caused to these animals, and the exploitation of Wikipedia by commercially active or interested groups in this subject. The extract in question, which I request be moved into an appropriate subheading follows "There are more than 70 cat breeds; different associations proclaim different numbers according to their standards. The International Progressive Cat Breeders Alliance (IPCBA) recognizes 73 cat breeds while TICA (The International Cat Association) recognizes 58, CFA (The Cat Fanciers' Association) recognizes 44 and Federation International Feline (FIFE) recognizes 43"

I note that the 1st paragraph has since been suitable modified, removing explicit reference to cat breeding organisations. A good move.

The third paragraph, while containing valuable information that deserves thorough coverage about the impact of cats on their environment, appears unfairly weighted in appearing in the introduction, and appears politically motivated in this light. A separate section or inclusion in an existing section covering cats and their interaction with the environment (positive/negative and neutral) is desirable.) The UK based RSPCA even argues feral cats can have a positive impact on the bird population "Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease, or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds." http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx Either balance the paragraph with appropriate statements of both neutrality and value affirmation concerning cat interaction with the environment, or move the entire paragraph into an appropriate subheader. To be clear, the text in question follows, "Cats have a high breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, they can be bred and shown as registered pedigree pets, a hobby known as cat fancy. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, requiring population control.[9] This has contributed, along with habitat destruction and other factors, to the extinction of many bird species. Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within specific regions and may have contributed to the extinction of isolated island populations.[10] Cats are thought to be primarily, though not solely, responsible for the extinction of 33 species of birds, and the presence of feral and free ranging cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reintroduction in otherwise suitable locations."

Would it be possible to modify the third paragraph, in order to show broader balanced reach of understanding and less activist inclined rhetoric, with the following:

"Like many small and medium sized mammals, cats have a high breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, specific morphological characteristics can be bred and the cats shown as registered pedigree pets, or breeds, an activity which is an aspect of cat fancy, the appreciation of domestic and feral cats. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large over population of feral cats in some regions of the world, requiring population control, both for the well being of cats and for the well being of their local environment.[8] In other regions of the world, feral cats may be considered part of the native animal population, although proximity and interbreeding between feral and wild cats has proven to be a source of controversy in specific regions such as Scotland (ref: http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/mammals/land-mammals/wildcats/). Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within specific regions and may have contributed to the extinction of isolated island populations in Oceania.[9] The presence of feral cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reintroduction in otherwise suitable locations. However other studies suggest that where feral and domestic cats have a long established presence, such as in the Middle East and Europe, they do not have a detrimental effect upon bird or small mammal populations. (ref : http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx)"

What do you think? 176.153.196.167 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Unclear what changes you want made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

pppppppppppppppppoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppp 38.111.117.18 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC) nkkjjjjjjjjjjjjjj[reply]

 Not done the faeces of the species are already discussed under the Physiology section. MPS1992 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--206.57.217.137 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Bold texthttps://www.reddit.com/r/cats/[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cat&oldid=715412880"