Talk:Cat

Definition of "cat" downsized

This is getting ridiculous. Big cats are cats, they are included in the definition and covered by WikiProject Cats. But they have been written out of the hatnote and lead to make the word "Cat", on Wikipedia, to just mean house cats. I made a perfectly reasonable editorial attempt to rectify this, and it was soon reverted. Can the regular editors who own this page please explain why the larger cats are no longer cats according to the world's largest and best encyclopedia? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I thanked Georgia guy for the prompt revert, because I fully agree that an int link to the big cat page is not at all appropriate in the lead of this page, as discussed already in January!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That discussion was never completed and not determinative, and this has become a mess of a topic-page seemingly controlled by page-owners. Big cats are cats, and to totally remove them from the definition of cat on Wikipedia arguably does both the encyclopedia and the reading public a disservice, gives an erroneous definition, and purposely limits a word which should not be repeatedly downsized but expanded with early descriptors and links. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The cat or domestic cat is ... defines the article content in the opening sentence. There is no need to discuss other cats, big or small, in the lede. The hatnote refers people to Felidae for other cats and there is no need to distinguish between big and small cats there. They are all felids or cats sensu lato. The disambiguation page handles cats more generally. The definition of cats isn't "downsized" on Wikipedia, it's just this article is about the domestic cat. The latter might be a better name for this article, but good luck trying to change that.   Jts1882 | talk  16:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Your explanation will hopefully close this debate!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Is A house cat is valued by humans ... for its ability to hunt rodents an accurate statement? Too often this capability is just an irrating habit we must tolerate when we choose to share a cat's home.   Jts1882 | talk  16:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This statement is certainly accurate in the context of agrarian communities, see e.g. Cats in ancient Egypt. I once had a cat that was very efficient at keeping the mice living below the terrace in check. But perhaps city folk who keep their house cats indoors don't care much for their hunting instinct. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The idea of cats being merely domestic pets and companion animals, devoid of the duties of vermin control is a fairly recent development. It was not until the later half of the 20th century that there were any viable alternatives to cats for dealing with invasive rodents, etc. There is undoubtedly a large grey area on when the people started making the distinction. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The lead of the 'Felidae' article: "Felidae is a family of mammals in the order Carnivora, colloquially referred to as cats. A member of this family is also called a felid or feline. The term 'cat' refers both to felids in general and specifically to domestic cats." This lead requires that the hatnote and lead of this page mention big cats as well as domestic cats. "Cat" is the common name of 'felidae' (check the n-grams provided elsewhere or work one up). Readers will be helped if big cats were in the hatnote and in the explanatory portion of this lead. As with the past discussion, I have no idea why this is being resisted. Can someone explain without going into personal cat stories (and I've got those too). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You've provided the answer in your own question: "... colloquially referred to as cats." "Felidae" is formal, "Cats" is colloquial (informal). Per Wikipedia Guidelines WP:FORMAL articles should be written in formal, using informal only where it helps for clarity. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The felidae article uses the word 'cat' throughout. Why? Because almost nobody in real life uses the word 'Felidae', and the word 'cat' has to be used for the clarity you mention. Remember, all I am suggesting is that the article big cat be mentioned and linked in the hatnote and in the lede, which seems reasonable. How is it unreasonable? That's a serious question which has yet to be addressed in any of the discussions, although I've asked it in several ways. The only answer so far is that the word 'cat' always means domestic cat, when clearly it doesn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You are conflating two different things. Yes, cats is used in more than one sense and is widely used for all members of Felidae, which is why it is known as the cat family. Then you ask why no mention of big cats? You haven't given any reason why you want a specific mention big cats (5-7 species) while ignoring other small and medium wild cat species (> 30 species). They are all covered by mention of felids. Why do you want a specific mention of a non-natural group of cats for which there is no agreed composition?   Jts1882 | talk  12:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Because they have a centralized article, Big cat. Do the medium-sized cats have a centralized page, or are they only divided among their names (Lynx, Bobcat, etc.)? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The 'central' page for the big cats that I consider the relevant one is Panthera. The one for the small cats is Felinae, and see all the links therein to the pages on the different genera. And BTW: all these pages are better maintained, in particular referenced, than the one you insist on linking to. As mentioned already by Jts1882, 'big cat' is a group, for which there is no agreed composition. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

But the "central" page is about an unnatural group, based purely on size, which is arbitrary and subject to different interpretations. There is usually agreement that the five Panthera species are big cats, along with the puma, which is more closely related to the domestic cat than the lion. The cheetah is often included and some people include clouded leopards. There is nothing other than size that unites these cats as a group and the broader definition includes cats that would be considered medium sized. The medium sized cats don't have a page because they are an arbitrary group consisting of the lynx and caracal lineages, plus puma lineage cats that haven't been designated big cats, and maybe a few others. A small cat page would have similar issues. However, there is a perfectly good natural division of pantherine and feline cats, which is close to the big cat/small cat division but is of evolutionary significance. This is a far more important division and should be mentioned before the big cats.   Jts1882 | talk  14:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It is a functional group, established by the consensus of biologists and zoologist over many years of study and research. Size was a consideration in establishing this definition, but not the only consideration. Wikipedia does not have the mandate the second guess the definitions established by the experts, so it is futile to dispute that fact here. We report the facts, we do not define them. You can take the matter up with the Association of Biologists if you believe that you have information that they have not considered. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Big cats is not a functional group described by experts, unless restricted to Panthera (5 species) or roaring cats (4 species). It is a popular term used by lay naturalists and conservationists, which has some utility because of our fascination with large carnivores. I'd be interested to see a scientific definition of big cats if you can find one. I'm tempted to ask the Association of Biologists, but it doesn't appear to exist.   Jts1882 | talk  16:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You obviously did not look very hard. A internet search for biologist's associations, took only a few seconds and gave me several dozen national and international professional biologist organizations. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Now you are backtracking. You capitalised "the Association of Biologists", which means a specific name of an organisation, not just any association of biologists. You specifically said I should provide this association with information they haven't considered in making their determination on what a big cat is. So I ask again, can you support yoru claim that experts have decribed a functional group called big cats?   Jts1882 | talk  18:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is already well sourced on that point. You only need to read them. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. I did read the sources in the article and they don't support your comment about experts, from real or imaginary associations. Anyway, this is going well off-topic for this talk page and doesn't address the primary point. An article on the domestic cat doesn't need to deal with a subjective topic like big cats. If you can justify your point about the expert defined big cats, which you seem unwilling to do, it belongs elsewhere.   Jts1882 | talk  20:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

We have disambiguation, including by hatnotes, for a reason. This page being one of a zillion cases of a word or name having more than one potential referent in readers' minds doesn't make it somehow special. We already have an article on the much more general concept of "the cats", and it is Felidae.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

that many?

Resolved

I know that there are a lot of cats in the US, but: 94.2 million million cats owned sounds like more than I would expect. Gah4 (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That was a typo, and has already been fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2019

In the cat page, under the sub-heading 'Impact on Birds' there is an inaccurate statement... The sentence reads: "Domestic cats are, however, known to be a contributing factor to the decline of many species, a factor that has ultimately led, in some cases, to extinction. The South Island piopio, Chatham rail,[207] the New Zealand merganser,[211] and the common diving petrel[212]

The Common Diving Petrel is not extinct... it is "of least concern", so I was just trying to edit out that part.

I hope this helps. Scott Harkness (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The current wording is the article is somewhat ambiguous. It could mean that cats have led to a decline of the common diving petrel ("Domestic cats are, however, known to be a contributing factor to the decline of many species [...] "the common diving petrel are a few from a long list"). The other three examples in the article are extinct, however, which means having the common diving petrel in the same sentence is misleading at best.

It's unfortunate that the reference (no. 212 Status and Conservation of the World's Seabirds) does not have an online preview via google books so I could verify what it says. I do note that the article common diving petrel makes no mention of a decline due to cats/other predators, just that numbers are declining.

I'm not going to make a change at present, and leave this section open for someone else to review. On balance, I would say I lean towards removing the common diving petrel, but I would like a further opinion. NiciVampireHeart 16:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Since no one else has chimed in, I've gone ahead and removed the common diving petrel due to my reasoning above. NiciVampireHeart 13:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like the reasonable thing to do. People add nonsense to "major topic" articles like this all the time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Briefly checked on this, and thought it unlikely that cats swim across to islands to hunt seabirds :) -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Many of the these birds are on relatively isolated islands where they have been vulnerable to introduced species, notably cats and rats. I don't oppose the deletion here (unless more specific information is added), but the additions are not entirely bogus.   Jts1882 | talk  20:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Reclassification

Since Linnaean Taxonomy is sometimes inaccurate, and it's inaccurate this time, as cats are descended from the African wild cat (Felis lybica), they should be reclassified as a part of that species, which makes a domestic cat a subspecies or a clade like Felis lybica catus. We need to reclassify so that we can still connect the taxonomy to phylogeny, which makes taxonomy able to be converted to exact phylogeny. Smith131072 (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read the section on Taxonomy and references therein. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's mandate to re-classify species. Taxonomy is established by professional biologists, WP merely records these facts. Mediatech492 (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomy and phylogeny are different things. Ideally the taxonomy follows the phylogeny but there are reasons where exceptions are made, notably domesticates and stem taxa, but also some taxa where tradition is strongly entrenched. What we put on Wikipedia has to be based on taxonomic sources, not what we think is the best answer based on phylogenies.   Jts1882 | talk  12:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I note that the description in the article is not entirely accurate. Opinion 2027 fixed the first available name for certain wild species with domesticates with an older name, but left open the decision on whether the domestic form was considered a species. Gentry et al recommended that domesticates be considered species, on the grounds that they are clearly distinguishable forms, but this was not a decision of the commission. Some taxonomic authorities have followed this advice, others haven't. Thus, following the IUCN SCG the domestic cat is a species, but the dog is still considered a subspecies of grey wolf (at least for now).   Jts1882 | talk  12:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)