From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Cat is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Cat has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 5, 2005.

Communication and Behavior[edit]

Article needs some points added, such as scent transfer, bunting, and allorubbing. Anyone qualified?

How about licking themselves when undecided? "When in doubt, wash" says National Geographic — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I take the same approach myself. MPS1992 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Felis silvestris catus vs. Felis catus[edit]

F. catus is an semi-archaic classification synonym to F. silvestris catus. (The sidebar states that it's a subjective synonym, which are classification names that some would argue overlap perfectly, while others may have differing ways of differentiating the two nomenclature. Basically, exact classification is up for debate.) However, the opening of this article states that domestic cats are F. catus and free-ranging ferals are F. silvestris catus as though that's an objective and widely used way of using those nomenclatures, which is untrue. I'd like to see a clearer opening statement stating F. catus and F. silvesris catus are both appropriate and synonymous names for domestic cats, and perhaps linking to the explanation of the differences listed lower in the article (which unlike the opening, is actually correct). I would be happy to rewrite the opening myself but I'd like permission before doing so given the importance of this article.

In addition, if the two terms are truly subjective synonyms rather than true synonyms, that needs to be reflected in the Taxonomy paragraph as well, with actual sources. -- 05:47, 9 August 2016‎ 2601:192:4603:28c0:195b:5327:9f4c:7599

I'd like to add that feral cats ARE domestic cats--they are the exact same species! I don't know who wrote that part of the article but their assertion makes absolutely no sense. I think I'll stick with Felis sylvestris catus to distinguish them from African wildcats even though if you want to get technical that's the same cat too. They cross-breed with absolutely no trouble at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

tigers and lions cross breed fine( tigons and ligers, and they're different species. So, why can't cats and wildcats crossbreed? (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


I write a lot of articles on infection, bacteria and other medical content. But for an article to be encyclopedic, and as uncomfortable as the topic of cat diseases can get, I mean no harm and I am adding information in good faith. If there is a problem with the content that I have added, please feel to comment here or on my talk page The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Some food cats can not eat24.14.248.89 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Cats are allergenic to milk and chocolate

Cats are not allergic to milk. And the toxicity of chocolate is already mentioned in the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
After weaning, milk is not necessary in a cat's diet. Their ability to digest lactose reduces. Cats can even become intolerant to ordinary cows' milk, resulting in the diarrhea. By the this talked about in the article?? (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Cat Fathers Improvement[edit]

The article states that male cats have no involvement in the raising of kittens, but this requires further research. The statement is not accurate, both based on my own findings with my cats and articles such as this one, which is just one of dozens: If there's not much research on the subject, then it would be good to rework this section (the section pertaining to cat's behavior of bringing home prey to humans) into a more generalized summary, rather than absolute language. I think it's been well understood that males most certainly can take a role in the raising of offspring, and in my personal experience, they will absolutely bring food home to their young ones, which flies directly in the face of the article quoted here. Hopefully more research on male cat behavior becomes available soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Quora and our own personal findings and experiences are really not good sources to use in Wikipedia articles. If something is well understood then it will have been noted in a reliable source somewhere. The best sources are indeed peer reviewed academic studies, but this article cites many sources that are not quite so highly-rated, so we don't necessarily have to wait for more research. We do have to wait for something more formal than Quora and personal observations. MPS1992 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Depictions in art (gallery)[edit]

In the interest of averting an edit war, I'm opening this thread and inviting Alexiszerflin and Bluesphere to comment. My take on it: the gallery is not a great idea. Some of the images are interesting, but we're presenting them devoid of context. The topic "Depictions of cats in art" is definitely worthy of better coverage including multiple images—as it stands, the article has precious little to say about this, and that's a shame—but there should be accompanying text and the images should be selected to illustrate that text. I can even imagine spinning off a standalone article someday.... RivertorchFIREWATER 13:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Rivertorch - Same thoughts, actually; the section violates WP:NOTGALLERY. I already told Alexiszerflin that that section cannot stay since it's a simple collection of thumb images with no prose justifying it. But he insisted on reverting my edit to the point of violating WP:3RR. Already warned him in his talk page about it.
@Alexiszerflin: Please do participate in this discussion before contesting my edit again. Bluesphere 15:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that the gallery should not be included. This is a Good Article, let's keep it that way. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what purpose it serves, if it contributed to information content then I could support it; but there is no need for a gallery of images. It's not like there is a shortage of cat pictures on the internet. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Many animal articles have galleries such as this - often called "cultural depictions". I agree with Rivertorch that the gallery is acceptable, but it simply MUST be placed in context and supported with appropriate text. DrChrissy (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Evolution presented as fact[edit]

This article is flawed in that it discusses the theory of evolution as if it were fact. In doing so it commits the same logical fallacies that are normally found in narratives that assume the existence of something as the basis for explanation of something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

See Evolution, Evidence of common descent, E. coli long-term evolution experiment... The diversity of dog breeds (some of now require almost as much trouble to cross-breed as lions and tigers) is another clear example of Experimental evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Maximum running speed[edit]

Please add info about cats' maximum running speed. (It is 29.6mph according to .) --2A00:23C0:5700:FD00:E570:FA1:410F:B757 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Surely the maximum permitted running speed is dependent on the track gauge being used by the cat in question?
On a more serious note, is a WP:RS ? It says "Animal descriptions are from Wikipedia", which would make its use in this article WP:CIRCULAR. MPS1992 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
MPS1992 is correct. We need a reliable source. I can't find an impeccable source, but this might suffice. It lists its own (rather old) sources, including a 1974 issue of Natural History, but it doesn't indicate which sources apply to which animals. Frankly, some of the entries at the bottom of the chart aren't confidence-inspiring. (Snails: how do you know if they're even in a hurry?) Someone felt it was good enough for this article but I'm not so sure. RivertorchFIREWATER 08:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have spent over an hour trying to find an RS for this and I have failed. I very much dislike the speedofanimals source (what does "feels like" mean?) and as RiverTorch mentions, the Natural History list does not inspire confidence - it does not tell us how the speed was measured for example. DrChrissy (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of "cat"[edit]

The statement at note 39, regarding a presumed Late Egyptian origin for "cat" from čaute, feminine of čaus is spurious and should be deleted; the French dictionary cited is not authoritative on the ancient Egyptian language and does not constitute a useful source. Bottom line: There is no such word in the ancient Egyptian language, in any phase. See thus, L. Lesko, A Dictionary of Late Egyptian Index, 295, cat (my) with relevant entry in ibid., vol. 1, 179; A. Erman and H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache, vol. 6, 86, Kater (mjw) and Katze (mj.t), with relevant entries in ibid., vol. 2, 42; Walter Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, 55b, ⲈⲘⲞⲨ (cat). Crum also cites a few newer words for cat in Coptic, which are presumably loans (ⲔⲖⲎ, p. 102a; ϢⲀⲨ, p. 601a) but these also do not support the etymology proposed at n. 39. Bespantheos (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Multiple English-language dictionaries indicate an unknown ultimate origin for the word. Is the Dictionnaire français-gaulois source available online? Without knowing exactly what it says, I think the current wording may be too strong. How would you feel about substituting "possibly" for "presumably"? RivertorchFIREWATER 06:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)