Talk:Maine Coon/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

New external link

Re: the new external link (to the German breeder) - is it getting towards being advertising? Nickj (t) 23:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

  • I did a little bit myself, but more needs to be done. Praetorian42 14:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think this article needs be cleaned up, but that's just my opinion. I did remove the tag becuase it was interferring with the article. It was partially blocked by the picture and made the article look bad. I have no problem with discussing tis first, but Prae made some big changes and blanked large parts of the article out. I don't think the article is too long, I really don't. So I think we need to discuss any future edits like this here first. No hard feelings.Gator1 15:53, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • The notice didn't interfere with anything on my computer. It's probably just your browser. That's where notices go, and if you disagree with notices being placed in articles, you should see Wikipedia:Template messages. Don't remove notices unless the reason the notice was placed has been rectified by common consensus (IE: More than just your opinion). I don't think you can argue this-- the content of the old article is unencyclopedic. The behavioral section was just the ramblings of someone describing the activity of a particular cat (and doing so in an unprofessional manner). For more on why the quality of the article needs to be increased, see Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Cleanup. It has nothing to do with length, but quality (specifically point of view and professionalism). Also, it is in need of copy editing as there are several misplaced modifiers, comma splices and awkward sentences- many of which I fixed but you reverted without even checking. There are also factual errors ("naturally occurring one from New England" -- Domestic animals are never "naturally occuring") which you also reverted. For a model article see Siamese (cat). Praetorian42 16:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed the problem with the notice box overlapping the breed box (It was in IE 6 Only). I just wrapped it in a div. Praetorian42 16:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If the notice is just on my computer, I can accept that, but I must immediately tak eissue withone ting. I'm not sure if you know much about the COon, but is was oirigianlly anaturally occurring bred. Unlike most other breeds, the original traits were NATURALLY occuring and were not bred in with selective breeding. You are jsut plain wriong on this one and I must revert. I have nver seen you on this page before, and, frankly, you are being abit presumptious by coming in hre and making alot of major changes without consuting with people who know the subject matter. While the current traits are kept a part of the bred by selective breeding, they origanlly ocurred through natural processes as the breed relaly did adapt itslef ot Maine/New Engladn winters.
  • As far as the edits to the behavrial seciton, I will admit that it needs some editing, but simply blanking out th eentire thing is a little much. The fact is I have a Coon and mnay if not all of the things that were ont here were DEAD on what our cat does, so it's not just some crazy person's ramblings. please discuss here first befroe making any more changes. Please.Gator1 17:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to see how toerh peoplef eel here. I've beena littl while and no one has ever commented on how the article needed so much work (see below). Let me clarify my point on th naturally occurring language. yes, the breed is a domesticated cat, but for a long time, the characterstics of the cat were nturally bred in. The bushy undercoat is great for keeping their bellies of th snow, but thweir back has short hair, so that it doesn't get too tangled int he brush. The mere fact that this cat can do great in Maine winters is evidence of th e fact that these characteristics were naturally bred in before they were preserved through selective breeding. Your blanket statement that Domestic animals are never 'naturally occuring'" is simply not true. Many of these cats are feral and many of the above described traits were not created by man originally. I think the modified language fairly and accurately combines both of our edits and I hope you se tht and don't start an edit war on a page you've never spent any real time on. Thanks.Gator1 18:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • With respect, the fact that a user is new to a page is no basis to complain about thier edits. It is the nature of Wikipedia that anyone can edit as they see fit. The inclusion of the tag and the copy editing were entirely valid.
The article clearly did need some cleaning up. It's making more sense now. "The breed has naturally occurring features" didn't really mean anything - all species have naturally occuring features. TheMadBaron 18:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Final point, (I swear) after all your edits, do you sitll really feel the tag is necessary? If so, what do you think this needs to remove the tag? I for one vote to remove it now that you've made significant edits and I hope that others will join me so that we can get that consensus you had mentioned.Gator1 18:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's much better. The fact is that the breed is not "naturally occurring," but has "naturally adapted" meaning that the species is a domesticated animal, and its appearance somewhere can never be natural, but what the cat adapts into can indeed be natural. The article could still stand to be improved a bit, so I'm going to leave the tag up for another couple of days to see if anyone else has anything to add/change. Praetorian42 19:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Instead of simply declaring that "[t]he article could still stand to be improved a bit" and leaving the tag there. Why don't you let us all in on the secret and tell us HOW or just make the edits yourself, ou weren't shy before. Please! Why do we have to guess at what you think is wrong with it? (Not a rhetorical question). I think it's a really good piece now and while nothing is perfect I think enough work has been done on it to remove your tag. But if I do you will put it back and get mad, so just tell us what you think should be done or edit what needs to be done to your satisfaction. Thanks for all your work, believe it or not I do appreciate thatsomeone else is putting their time into the article, as evidenced by the fact that I've not challenged/ reverted almost all of your edits. please just let us in on what you think is wrong now so we cna move on insread of waiting an arbitrary period of time.


Again, no disrespect intended, but it sounds to me like you're being a little overly protective of 'your' article. I think it could benefit from further editing, and that the tag should stay, for now.
For a start, what does "Cold New England winters have made this cat very well adapted to cold weather" really mean? Are we talking about natural selection here? If so, say so, and tell us how that's come about. See sites below that's why they're there.
What are the sources for the possible origin of the name (which sound a little dubious)? See below for this one as well.
There are other areas which could undoubtedly benefit from rephrasing. The fact that individual editors might not immediately know how to improve them does not detract from that observation, nor does the clean up tag detract from the article. On the contrary, give it a few days, and it will probably be much improved. TheMadBaron 20:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Just to prove the point, I've edited somewhat.... tell me that any one of those changes doesn't improve the flow of the text, and I'll happily argue til the cats come home. :) TheMadBaron 20:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to let this bother me anymore. I for one don't think those things are important enough for me to to scramble and find that for you and certainly don't think they're important enough to have that ugly tag marring the page. I am not going to waste my time coming up with info that others think is important. You want it? You find it and put it on the page. A simply google search (or looking on those web pages I found) would answer all your questions, but I have better things to do than to fix problems that only other people feel exist. If you don't want to take the time either that's fine, let it rest for a couple days but that tag should be gone by then. I'm done talking about this. AM I protective? yeah, I've put time into this article and I hate to see it being tagged like this when it really is not deserving of a tag. It needs work. Sure, all pages do, but its hard to say an article that is not this short needs to be cleaned up. I've looked at the other pages on the clean up list and this page is simply not like those. This entire episode just seems unjustified as this apge has existe din its previous form for so lon without ANY complaints and only compliments. Oh well, I'll wait it out, maybe you or Prea can make more of your changes and then we can move on. Oh and great edits! What's you point? I can go to any page and improve it, does that mean it needs to be tagged? That's my point, I have no problem with almost of all these edits, but to tag it isn't justified. We don't tag every page that needs some (now) minor edits and you're now only making minor edits. Take the tag off and I'll happily and quietly watch your great edits all day.Gator1 20:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Allright Igave in and find out some of the things you think the article needs. Polish them up any way you se fit, but I think they answered your questions. Let me know and no hard feelings. Kay?Gator1 20:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


Well,the good news is that I think you've answered my questions very well, and I think the article is much better for it - so much so that I'm going to remove the tag. The bad news is that I think we've just worked together to prove that Praetorian42 was right to add the tag in the first place. :P If Praetorian42 puts it back, and gives reasons, then they might well be worth listening to....
If you are aware of articles more deserving of a tag than this was, you should certainly tag them - the tags improve the standard of Wikipedia - there's no need for anybody to take them as a personal insult. TheMadBaron 22:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing personal about it. However, for the record, I didn't make those changes becuase I thought they were in any way necessary, I made them to get you off this pages back and remove the tag. It worked, so let's move on.

  • Much better. =) Praetorian42 20:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


The cleaned up article looks good, however I think the following info removed from the old behavioural characteristics section may perhaps have a place:

  • Tend to trill when happy or startled.
  • Some Maine Coons enjoy playing with, but not usually in, water. They may dip toys in their water bowls before playing with them, or just tip the water bowl over. They may also "fish" in their water bowl.
  • Maine Coons can occasionally be a bit mischievous when bored, such as deliberately pushing things off tables and the tops of fridges with their paws.

The above I think are general characteristics, and the following is a characteristic of my particular Maine coon cat, but I don't know if it's generally applicable to coons:

  • Some of the males tend to be quite goofy, and a bit clumsy.

Is there a place for any of the above in the current revision of the article? -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think so and I would support you putting it back. It was really just two people who wanted it out (actually only one person changed it) and used the cleanup tag to extort the changes. If you put it back I will support you.Gator1 12:41, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • The reasons I removed those behavioral characteristics are twofold: 1) They may be considered too specific (this article isn't supposed to be comprehensive, but just to give an overview of the breed), and 2) Were phrased casually. Maybe if the wording were improved and the characteristics generalized a little bit more, it would be OK. 64.238.113.82 16:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's a problem with this article being comprehensive - in fact, I think it's a good thing for an article to be comprehensive, as long it remains interesting and correct. And along with their physical characteristics, their behavioural characteristics are what make them unique, so I don't think it's problem to include more details in this section. I think the phrasing of the first 3 points above is okay currently (or at least they seem okay to me), but I don't know how to improve the phrasing of the last one, so I've left that out. However any changes or improvements to the phrasing of the additions are most welcome. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 09:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice pictures

What a fascinating article! I have never seen a Maine Coon and I am just amazed that such a beautiful cat exists. Thank you for the picture of the Maine Coon cat next to the normal housecat. I did check the links, but do wonder if it would it be possible to find more pictures of the Coons along side their diminutive cousins?  :-) Aloysius Patacsil 04:59, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have a picture of Maine coon with another cat, unfortunately it’s a rather large black and white mix breed of some kind that weighs about 15lbs… next to a pedigree (at least looks like a pedigree) Maine coon of 20lbs, obviously the difference in size is not striking. --BerserkerBen 01:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I'd love to see it. Thank you. Aloysius Patacsil 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Health risks?

An anon user posted this:

"- A genetic predisposition towards hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has appeared in a portion of the Maine Coon population. If left untreated this condition can result in sudden death of what appears to be an otherwise healthy animal. - - Because many vets will only test for this condition if a heart murmur is detected (which is not a reliable indicator), Maine Coon owners should insist on regular cardiac ultrasounds of pets between the ages of 3 and 6, when the pets are at highest risk."

I have never heard of this and I wanted to see if anyone else had. I reverted because I think something like this needs a reliable cite, because I know that with all pure breeds of cat (or dog) there are at least as many rumors of health risks as there are actual health risks. Any info on this would be appreciated.Gator1 21:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it might be real - the primary health problems seem to be Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (google query), and hip dysplasia (google query). (Example of medical overview). And according to this site they occasionally also get Polycystic Kidney Disease.-- All the best, Nickj (t) 09:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a pity, but it *is* real. See http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7533 for example. However, as can be read there, there's hope for a genetest within years (partly maybe even within months). PKD is not as much as a MC disease, but nevertheless a lot of MC breeders test for it. Occurs less than 1% (possibly bred-in Persians), whereas over 40% of the Persians has PKD, according to Lesly Lyons (UC Davis). A test for genetic Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) also has been introduced lately, but occurence is not clear yet. But... the fact that breeders test for things, is not the same as the breed being infected. HCM and HD are realistic diseases however. I disagree with the remark about testing pets between 3 and 6. HCM can and does occur between 6 months and 12 years. Instead, insist on tested breeding stock (however, this doesn't belong in the wiki, I think). Tebokkel 11:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

New picture

I added this picture, because it illustrates well, I think, the "mane" reference above and while the tri-colored cat was interesting, the white coon above (as well as the text) already illustrates that they come in a variety of colors, other than tabby.Gator1 20:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Weight

I agree, you don't need the "over" in the weight section. I've seen two or three 25 pounders at cat shows, and even here in Texas we haven't been able to grow a Maine Coon much bigger without being fat. Pschemp 06:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

(I finally figured out it was the "/" on the end of the URL that was messing up my standards links...) [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 14:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

Do we need to discuss the picture situation? It seems that it's getting a bit crowded. Do others share this sentiment and, if so, how many pics should we have and which ones? I don't think any should be removed until we discuss this but I also suggerst that a freeze be put on anymore being added. ThoughtsGator(talk) 13:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree...no more for the time being and there are probably too many already. Pschemp 16:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So if there are too many. Which ones should I take out. I could just remove the most recent ones and leave three, but that seems a bit arbitrary. Any thoughts? My vote: 1st 3d and 4th ones. 1st shows the "ruff" or mane" the third shows the size and the 4th shows a different color. The 2d isn't all that amazing to me and the last one just looks like a domestic cat on someone's porch (interesting colors though, but the 4th one takes care of that). Any thoughts or votes?Gator(talk) 16:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the many beautiful pictures. I would like to request that you please do not remove the pictures; they are informative and provide many a therapeutic moment in the private hell of my office. Aloysius Patacsil 17:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You're vote is noted, but the fact is that this is an article about the cat and the number of pics are starting to clutter it up. If we have to choose betwen the article and the pics, we need to choose the article. We can, however, move those pics to the talk page, I have no problenm with that.Gator(talk) 18:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Allright, after talking with Madbaron and getting his OP, here is my proposal:

Remove two of 5 pictures below. I think three is a good number as it is not longer than the page is wide and fits in one line. I propose removing the last picture, because it's fairly low quality and just looks like a normal blackand white cat and the second picture, as it is also low quality and (as madbaron pointed out) is a bit superfluous. I think the first picture is a good exampe of the ruff or mane and is the only one that gives good close up of what these cats look like, picture three is a good example of the size difference (even though it is low quality) and picture four is a good example of the different colorings the Coons can come in.

That's my proposal. If there are no other objectons within 24 hours, I'l just go ahead and do that. Thanks.Gator(talk) 16:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


How about a sub-page e.g. Maine Coon/images or Maine Coon/gallery for the images that don't make the cut on the Maine Coon page? It's be a shame to lose those extra ones, and by placing them on a subpage then people can see more images if they want, or not if they don't want to. Also I've been meaning to upload a picture of my Maine Coon, but if we're in culling phase maybe it's a bad idea... -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I don't see why we can't set up a gallery.Gator(talk) 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and created a gallery page at Maine Coon/gallery with the pictures there. I'll next remove the extra two pictures from the article and remove the extra three pictures from the gallery page. I will then post links to the gallery page on both the article and talk pages so people can see them. I would encourage everyone to post their coon images to the gallery page. If you would like your pic to be put in the article, I propose that all future images be posted tot he gallery page first and then discussed before putting them in the article so that we can avoid this problem in the future.Gator(talk) 16:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Gator1, thank you for the notice and for creating the gallery! It looks great! Aloysius Patacsil 23:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There's been some reverting of the gallery and adding all of the images to the article despite our discussion and, seemingly, good compromise. I'm willing to open the floor to discussions again if someone feels that the gallery should go, but please discuss this issue here first without just making those kind of major changes without talking about it.Gator (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a storage bin for pet snapshots. On its own, Maine Coon/gallery is not an encyclopedic topic. (See WP:NOT.)
  2. Subpages (or psuedo-subpages) are not used in the main namespace.
  3. If it is decided that there are too many pictures in an article, which is perfectly valid, then the images can be stored on the Wikimedia Commons and linked to using the {{Commons}} template, as I explained in my edit summary. (In the mean time, including them in the article is superior to this archaic gallery on a seperate page. Personally, I don't find eight images to be a problem when the gallery function is used.)—jiy (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and the policy cites. I disagree (it;s not a separate page but is annexed to this one) and we discussed this matter and came to a consensus. Anyone else?Gator (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In what way is Maine Coon/gallery not a seperate page? An article space has been allocated and it has its own page history (as I have already said, subpages are disabled in the main namespace, so it is not simply "annexed" to this article; it's a seperate page). What exactly are you disagreeing about? WP:NOT plainly states: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Maine Coon/gallery clearly falls under this description. If you disagree with policy, then address it on the appropriate policy's talk page. Even if we pretend the page is within policy, there is still good reason to merge it with Maine Coon, because it overlaps with that topic.—jiy (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It's connected because it entitled Maine-Coon/Gallery, not Maine Coon Gallery. I disagree with your interpretatiosn of policy. Despite what many believe, policy is not always black and white and indicudual editors are not the supreme sources of proepr policy interpretation. I agree and don't think anyhting should change. The gallery was created as a result of duiscussion and compromise that you did not feel the need to take part in, but are being permitted to do so now. You and I have both made our points, let's let others chim in.Gator (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I repeat: it is not connected, because the subpage functionality is disabled in the main namespace. From Wikipedia:Subpages: "For Wikipedia, the User, Talk, and Wikipedia namespaces have subpages turned on; the main (article) namespace does not have this feature turned on, as strictly hierarchical organisation of articles is discouraged..." You are right that policy is not always black and white, yet you have not substantiated how my interpretation is flawed, or in other words why Maine Coon/Gallery is somehow exempt from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.—jiy (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, seriously, we should let others in on this, we've both made our points perfectly clear.Gator (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, your points are not perfectly clear to me, because basically all you have said is "I disagree" with little justification. But OK, let the others speak.—jiy (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I've made myself as clear as I think is necessary here. Now please let others talk.Gator (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone care to change the current arrangement? Anyone at all?Gator (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone?Gator (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - been on vacation or would have put my input in earlier...I totally agree that the separate Gallery page is the way to go, and was discussed on this page and agreed upon. All those pictures in the article are superfluous and just clutter it up. I think Gator is right with his interpretation, there is no need to be a nazi about policy. I personally find someone coming in, previously not involved and then doing something contrary to consensus because of such a narrow policy interpretation, without discussion offensive. Pschemp 23:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Since having a seperate gallery page is apparently the consensus, I have created one the Wikimedia Commons and linked to it from the article. This is consistent with WP:NOT's "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files", as that is precisely what the Wikimedia Commons is meant to be used for. This method is also the norm on many other Wikipedia articles, see for instance Cat, Sunset, etc.—jiy (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You know darn well that wasn't the consensus the consensus is to keep it how it is. Please just leave this exactly how it is. Please stop and just honor what the people on this page want. You did wxactly what you wanted to do in the first place, which is clearly not what people wanted. I know you think that you know what the policy dicates but myself adn others disagree adn you jsut ened to honor that and stop all of this. I'm begging you now. Just let it go.Gator (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact is jiy, is that you came in, did something contrary to a consensus you weren't part of, and did it without discussing it first. You can throw irrelevant details around as much as you want, but it doesn't change the basic facts. Please leave it and go terrorize some other page with "policy". Pschemp 15:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an image gallery, as has already been pointed out. That's a policy, a consensus arrived at by all of Wikipedia, and trumps a consensus of editors working on an individual article. I know, it sounds really shitty the way I put it, but if I pussyfooted around it (no pun intended) it would just obscure the issue. Trying to say that Jiy's opinion doesn't matter because he 'isn't part of the consensus', even though what he's stated about WP policy is self-evidently correct, is claiming ownership of this article. And he has done the right thing by going ahead and creating the gallery where it belongs on Commons. --Last Malthusian 18:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
As I said before, if JIY had used some tact and discussed it on the talk page and not got into a total snit when his edits were reverted, it probably would have been a non-issue. No one HAS to do the polite thing, but it is appreciated and sure does go a long way for avoiding unnesesary conflict. Pschemp 22:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think that all large-scale edits should be explained on the talk page without waiting to be asked, but that's me. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and that certainly applies when following well-established policy. And I don't see any evidence of Jiy getting 'in a snit', certainly compared with, say, accusing someone of 'terrorizing' an article. --Last Malthusian 23:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Well the large scale edits were not explained at all on the talk page, they were rather nastily attached to my talk page instead. Only after the impolite personal attack on my reverts was the discussion put over here where it belongs. And then yes, I was impolite, having been attacked out of the blue like that. If someone "boldly" edits an established article in a manner contrary to what was hashed out by public consensus earlier, with complete disregard for it then they may be "being bold" but they can reasonably expect issues when they don't try some polite explaning. I don't give a crap anymore where the pictures go as long as they aren't junking up the article. Pschemp 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
If this (quoted from be bold) had been done, theis whole thing could have been avioded. "In many such cases the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily.
If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references."
"The next time you decide to revert someone, please check the diff to see if they made any other useful edits besides the one you are reverting for." Besides what I already pasted verbatim here, this is the only item I originally posted to your talk page. You call this an "impolite personal attack" that was "nastily attached" to your talk page? Please. It was a reasonable criticism of your action (and it's interesting to note that Gator1 later reverted in the same uncareful manner).
I did check the diff. Always do.Pschemp 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, maybe you did check the diff. I have no way of knowing. What I do know is that my lowercasing of the "Health Considerations" header, my removal of stray div tags, and my use of the infobox class were all reverted, and "rv - the whole point was to keep the pics in the article to a min! see talk page" was provided as the reason. All I'm saying is please be more careful. Wikipedia:Revert: Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face—"I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back".—jiy (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in hindsight I should have posted on the talk page, and I even considered doing so. I knew about the discussion before committing my edit, but assumed an edit based on policy would trump any local consensus. But in my edit summary I didn't make it obvious what policy my edit was based on, this was my mistake. I assumed that when I originally merged the Maine Coon/Gallery into Maine Coon, my use of the MediaWiki gallery function would make the number of pictures in the article less offensive. This was a bad assumption on my part. In hindsight I should have created the external Commons gallery originally instead of merging the gallery to begin with. It was a mistake. Ultimately I should have let AfD decide the fate of the gallery before touching anything at all. These were all mistakes on my part, and I apologize for them. It's time to move on.—jiy (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Pschemp 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Geez, you go on holiday, and whilst you're away people start fighting over kitty porn ;-) Personally, I've voted merge + delete for the gallery page. Some form of gallery is a good idea, and I had thought that the Wikipedia would be an acceptable place for it, but if the decision is that the commons is the preferred place for galleries, then we I guess we should relocate those images to the commons. I would suggest moving some of the images into the main article, but with the 4 images already in the main article, maybe more images would make it too crowded? I just wish the "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Maine Coon" bit was more obvious, or as easy-to-use as the previous gallery link, in that it made it clearer that "hey you, if you click here you will get a gallery of Maine Coon pictures" (and if it used a larger font, that would be good too). -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, which is why I created a new template that changed 'media' to 'a picture gallery' and changed this one to use it, though I've left the font size issue alone. It's such an obvious thing to do (use variants of the Commons template to say what's there) that I'm wondering if the community took a decision at some point not to allow variants on that template, but I couldn't find it at Template talk:Commons so I just went ahead and did it. --Last Malthusian 10:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Cool! I took that new template and ran with it, hope you don't mind. I've left-aligned it to make it more obvious, increased the font size, change the image to be of a camera instead of some silly abstract logo, removed all links except the one to the image gallery, made that link longer, and put it all on two lines to make it shorter. Hopefully now it should be far more obvious and noticeable than the previous template. Of course, please feel free to update the template if you think anything doesn't work of can be improved in some way. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I've replied to this mainly on Template_talk:Commons, but I think I should add that while I certainly support the clearer wording and the picture, I think the style should remain the same as the infoboxes for the other sister projects. I've edited it accordingly for the moment. Also, even though this is currently only in use here, I think we should continue to discuss the template at the template's talk page, if only because this talk page is too damn long already. I'm about to copy this and any related discussion over to there. --Last Malthusian 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

TFD

Now he's tying to delete the tmeplate after failing to get his way here. Gator (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick update: Somehow, despite a vote of 5 to keep, and 3 to delete, this template was deleted. This decision is currently up for review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Template:Commonsgallery, so if you would like to provide some input, please do so there. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Longest Cat Record

The external link to the longest cat on record (according to Guinness World Records), is not functional. Does anyone have a link to this record/picture?

You can find it at the website for Verisimo Maine Coons, www.verisimocats.com, the cat in question was of their breeding and there are photos and links on their site.

Sources needed

This article needs to have it's sources cited. Right now nothing is. --Lendorien 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether it counts or not, we just found out our cat is Maine Coon, and everything on the article is absolutely spot on, including the eerie playing with water trait. Not sure how you can verify these facts as they are things owners have found out and passed on, not things studied intensively by teams of behavioral scientists who then released their findings to science journals --User:Roysten Crow
Lendorien: could you be more specific? History, ancestors and diseases are referenced, so at least not "This article", but at most parts of it are not referenced. Tebokkel 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

image cleanup

This article had a gratuitous amount of images, and was beginning to look like a dumping ground for pet photos. I removed several extremely poor-quality images with bad exposure and composition. I carefully chose and placed the remaining images to preserve both the widest variety of coat colors, coupled with the best photographic quality, and aiming for a balanced amount of one decent image per section. For a stub such as this, that is more than enough. VanTucky (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that having an image of a "Rare All White Maine Coon" as the primary image for the article is probably a bit misleading. --Spam38 (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It at one point had a brown one. I think somebody swapped in a picture of their cat. Either way the "rare" tag is only visible if you look at the image's page. This sort of thing happens often in articles that use free images. People look at it and put in their own. It's why some of the articles have a huge gallery at the bottom. At any rate, white is not a normal color so it'd probably be best to move it, and put in a normal color. The old pictures are probably in Wikimedia commons.--Marhawkman (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is beginning to, yet again, become a breeding ground for photos of people's pets. I suggest another round of photo cleanup... Ms. Sarita (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Enh... that's kinda the point to free use photos. We might need to add a gallery at the bottom if there's too many.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, I don't believe the point of fair use photos is to overuse them and/or so that people can merely put up any photo of their own cat on Wikipedia. The page looks far too cluttered and the amount of pictures, in my opinion, interrupts the flow of the article. I also don't believe a gallery would be of any use either. This isn't a breeder's site. This is an "encyclopedia"...or so I thought. Not to mention that photo galleries are discouraged per WP:IUP. The article, to me, looks a hot mess; I suppose I will begin cleaning everything up (including the photos) and finding citations when I have a little more time available. However, I will try to keep as many of the images as I can. Maybe we can extend the article or find out why pictures of Maine Coons with "white boots" and "tufts behind the ears" are so significant to the breed. But thanks for your response. Let me know if you have any more thoughts. Ms. Sarita (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
honestly the captions were done by somebody who was probably bored. I don't really think they have any importance. Feel free to change them. Hmm... Maybe we should caption two to illustrate the difference between summer and winter coats. I don't the the Gallery thing as an issue. Why? Galleries are permissable if the galerry itself benefits the article. Here it would be a group of examples of what Maine Coons can look like. this would allow us to relocate all the pics that aren't really needed in the rest of the article.--Marhawkman (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

External links

The external links I removed from the Maine Coon article are not allowed at Wikipedia for several reasons: i) not encyclopedic ii) commercial iii) lack information to enhance the article iv) are on the blacklist Spam_Blacklist. Please do not put them back. See Wikipedia:External links for more information, thank you Chessy999 21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop abusing the spam blacklist. The pages you removed, are not listed on that list, otherwise it would not have been possible to enter them in the first place. I've left out the Burke's listing, as I *do* agree that it's low quality. The polydactyl page however, contains valueable information about polydactyls and is as such a reference and source for the article. I've changed the link to a subpage of the polytrak database, however, it would not surprise me if the siteowner changes that link back, as we're now deeplinking without the menu's. Tebokkel 07:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Chessy999 on those three links. The oral history doesn't belong, and the other two are inappropriate because the article already has links to existing wikipedia articles Polydactyly and Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Zubdub 09:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Friendliness to Strangers

I have observed that Main coons are incredibly friendly to stangers- unlike other cats that usual hide and run away from them. Anyone feel that might be worth commenting on?Mdriver1981 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

no. it's a variable personality trait. unless you can find some documentation regarding this....--Marhawkman 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No, this is not something that has been scientifically proven. I own a Maine Coon and he is not friendly with strangers at all; he is skittish and will actually charge and hiss/growl at some of them if he feels that they are a threat to himself and/or his owners (i.e., myself and my boyfriend). Although you have made an excellent observation, unless you can find a reliable source that notes this particular behavioral trait along with the breed of the cat, I wouldn't add it. Miss Sara G 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Here too, our 'coon is also quite skittish, though he will be very friendly to certain, seemingly random people. Friendliness is almost certainly an individual personality trait 71.156.103.213 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, im not 100% sure my cat is even a Maine Coon, but I belive that it is due to the fact that it has almost all of the psychical and behavioral characteristics of a Maine Coon, (playfulness, VERY large size, fur pattern and structure, ect.), but if he is a Maine Coon which I highly believe, he always comes up and damn near greets visitors. Even those he hasn't met before. Hell only hiss and act hostile if the person does something to provoke or antagonize him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.201.243.238 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Eating alone

Does anyone know why they do not like to eat alone? I have a Maine Coon and he always wants me in the room while he was eating and they are very persistent and ignoring them simply won't do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebel.crusader (talkcontribs) 08:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

cats are social? it's likely a personality quirk.--Marhawkman 10:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Some cats just like to eat when the people they trust are around. When felines eat, that's one of the times when they feel the most vulnerable (because they're distracted). Having their people around them while they eat may give them a sense of security...it's like you "have their back" in case something were to go wrong. My Maine Coon is pretty independent (a characteristic I hear is pretty common amongst the breed) and will eat whenever he wants to, regardless of our presence. But we have noticed that most of the time, when we sit down to eat, he'll stop whatever he's doing/wake up and go to his food dish. Miss Sara G 12:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Our Maine Coon is also like this. We have her food bowl on top of the dryer (so our dog will leave it alone), the dryer being next to a toilet in our 1/2 bathroom. Whenever someone is using the facilities, Squirt loves to jump up to her bowl and eat. When the person is done with the facilities, she jumps down. DougSnow 11:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oldest Natural Cat Breeds

If Maine coons are not native to North America, what does it mean to say they are one of the "oldest natural cat breeds" there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.242.164 (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. A natural breed is one not carefully bred by people, but I have no idea whether this would be older than most.--Marhawkman 10:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rare white cat removed from infobox

I removed the all white Maine Coon image from the lead infobox, and put it further into the article. I replaced it with the most common, a brown/grey tabby. The image is stunning indeed, but it is rare, and the article must lead with an image of the most common characteristics. It would be better to have an image with the whole body showing, purrferably standing. Showing all it's features-- ear tuffs, body shape, paws, tail, etc. ←GeeAlice 06:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maine_Coon

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cat-MaineCoon-Lara1.png

Enjoy! I'm gonna use the Lara1 pic for the box.--Marhawkman (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nice, but eyes are dull, and especially the tail is not in view at all. I brightened and clarified it. ←GeeAlice 03:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I added one that shows the whole body with tail too. Not in the infobox, but under the characteristics section. At least there's one with the tail showing. I also removed the close-up of the red cat in the health section, it really didn't tell anything. But, I exchanged it to head shots of three show quality cats in its place. I also removed the one that showed the size difference, it was a nice concept, but the image is too small, cannot be clarified, it's out of focus, and too compressed. ←GeeAlice 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Aw... It was large enough to make a decent thumbnail. The other changes are nice though.--Marhawkman (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yay! I got my pupils back!
I know! I really didn't want to remove it. The concept is great, yes it's okay for a thumbnail, but I wanted to look closer, and assumed so would others. It can go back. I hesitated over and over and over again to remove it, so that might say something. lol. You want it back in? ←GeeAlice 05:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to mention the eyes too. I gave it back it's pupils, and tried to clean it up more. It says "reduced" in the image title, do you know if there is a larger one? Being reduced tells me there is one. I could fix it up much better if I had the original. That one looked like it was re-worked one too many times. What do you think? ←GeeAlice 05:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Erm did you resize it? the picture appears to be narrower now. I suspect it was initially uploaded at a larger size, and a smaller version was added. I've never seen it though. I don't think the original was reworked to make the reduced version just compressed(and not of a great quality to start with). It appears to be under unfavorable lighting and a rather hasty snapshot.--Marhawkman (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's narrower because I cropped the right side to focus on the subjects, instead of more poorly lighted furniture. I agree it looks like a hasty snapshot, but you can do wonders with them if they are of a good size. With the exception of very poor focus problems. As that's of the NASA/CIA/FBI calibre of software. lol. I guess cropping off the right side wasn't really necessary, come to think of it, because it put the Maine Coon in the center of the image. <shrug> ←GeeAlice 06:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That looks good. Actually what I said earlier referred to it looking shrunken left-right.--Marhawkman (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
how's that?--Marhawkman (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. :) ←GeeAlice 23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This Whole Page

sounds like a maine-coon fan club and people just describing how much they love their cat and what their cat specifically does

"they may engage in mischevious behavior such as knocking things off of tables and counters"

24.16.192.56 (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

lol, true. I think most cats do that anyway. I'll remove it. ←GeeAlice 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Convergent Evolution

"Maine Coons are similar in appearance to both the Norwegian Forest Cat and to the Siberian, however this may be attributed to convergent evolution — the shaping of unrelated species by similar environments, selecting for similar characteristics, resulting in similar animals."

Evolution is a macroscopic change in a species. The processes of natural selection and selective breeding are distinct from evolution. The difference within cat breeds does not constitute evolution; in fact, they're all one species, if they had evolved they would be distinct species. This is not a case of convergent evolution. "Convergent Selection" if you must, but not evolution. 121.44.193.86 (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the same process. Evolving doesn't necessarily result in the creation of a new species.--Marhawkman (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cats portal

A summary of this article appears on a rotational basis in Portal:Cats under the "Selected breed" section. Any improvement to this article's lead section should be copied to the relevant entry on Portal:Cats/Selected_breed. --165.21.154.90 (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

White Maine Coon Problem

Why is the Rare White Maine Coon photo in the "Behavioral Characteristics" section? Im sure something like that says, "Rarely, a Maine Coon will turn white under periods of stress", or along those lines. Shouldent that be under "Physical Characteristics?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.201.243.238 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's there because the pics were scattered around the article. It's not really connected to that section. that particular cat was born white.--Marhawkman (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
is there any reason to deem it "rare" besides the photo-taker's high esteem/pride for his/her own pet? While not exactly a dime a dozen, for a quarter you can find quite a few "rare" white maine coons everywhere. Tendancer (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not that hard to find a solid white cat. However, this particular breed has very few of them.--Marhawkman (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but still, wouldn't it make more sense if you switched the picture of the white Maine Coon with the playful Maine Coon picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.31.222.139 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Citation for that "rare" claim? Smoke would be an example of a rare color in Maine Coons; white meanwhile, is a dominant color and common for this breed. It seems most cat/dog pages are becoming too replete with folks posting pictures of + adding uncited claims as to the beauty/rarity of their own pet. That's all well and good, but degrades the quality of an encyclopedic article. Tendancer (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well... I'm not entirely sure about that one. the breed standard pages never mention rarity. Breed history pages sometimes do though. The ones I've seen all state that Brown Mackerel Tabby is the most common color. Does this qualify as "rare"? Maybe, maybe not, but it means that pure white is abnormal.--Marhawkman (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
By that logic then all colors besides "brown mackerel" is "abnormal". In short, there's no cite white is rare/unusual/abnormal--because it's false and white/pure white/adulterated white is a common color for Maine Coons. It looks to me like it (among 4/5 others ones) snuck onto the article simply because some owners wanted to include thier pets' pictures on the page, and used things like "rare white" as a sophistry for inclusion. 198.185.164.128 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually there's no reason NOT to let people put up pictures of their cats. Free use images are not restricted in their use. The only requirements are, not cluttering the article(we don't have that many), and being appropriate to the article(in an article on a cat breed any pictures of cats of that breed are acceptable).--Marhawkman (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've also never seen a breeder page or breed standard page for a main coon that actually had a white cat.--Marhawkman (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
google "maine coon breed colors" and the very first page links to pics of white maine coons. Google "main coon colors" and the very first page links to colors of white maine coons. Sorry I just don't find that observation plausible, even if it satisfied WP:CITE and it does not ("i.e. I haven't seen a picture personally therefore it must be rare?"). This article is based served if we clean up the page and keep only pictures that satisfy breed requirements--as this is a page on Maine Coons, not "gallery of people's cats that look like maine coons". 198.185.164.128 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I did. I see one white picture among several dozen. The other dozens were primarily tabbies. The one I found was listed as "best other color". So no, white is not a "common" color.--Marhawkman (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now your all drifting from the point. Im pointing a flaw in the page, and a solution to fix it. All this talk about white no being rare and all that jazz is pointless. Im just saying, why would you get into an almost completely unrelated argument, one of which that most of everybody here agrees on at that, instead of fixing a problem?

I don't see it as a problem. the pics AREN'T sorted by topic. --Marhawkman (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's all fine and dandy that you don't see it as a problem but why is it that in almost EVERY Wiki page, the pictures are sorted by section, but not in this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.4.37 (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not a requirement. Pics that correlate to a specific section have been placed there. Others are just there for decoration.--Marhawkman (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a white maine coon with a blue eye and gold eye titanbjm@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.132 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin

Fanciers.com says that most breeders believe the breed originated in matings between perhaps pre-existing shorthaired domestic cats and overseas longhair. CFA says that the most likely history is that the Maine Coon developed from the cross of domestic shorthaired cats and longhaired cats brought back by sailors in their travel.[1] This book states that DNA evidence made it clear that the Maine Coon is a cross between the Norwegian Forest Cat and an extinct domestic cat. The current article reads like the Maine Coon's long hair is purely the result of selection pressure on domestic shorthairs. --Dodo bird (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good, someone found the source of that statement. thanks for putting it back. :)--Marhawkman (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It was there for a while, but user:4coons replaced it with a fact tag, asking for "Full citation... to actual source and documentation". What does that mean? --Dodo bird (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to look for the original DNA study, but the sources cited in the book are google-proof. Not sure how reliable the book is.--Dodo bird (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He's adumbass Read his talk page. citing a book is perfectly fine. HE can't read the book to confirm it, but that doesn't exclude it as a source.--Marhawkman (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dmanskater11/RedsoxRocker

Please do not revert the article again, unless you have a fair reason of doing so (which can be discussed here or on my talk page). The image that you have selected is of poor quality and is not representative of the Maine Coon breed. In addition, the article also has plenty of pictures to substantiate itself and your addition throws the section off-balance and makes it look far too cluttered. If you have input, please let me know. I'm sure we can work something out to where we are all satisfied. Ms. Sarita (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed images

The following images have been removed from the article:

I simply could not incorporate these images into the article. Besides the size of the article restricting how many pictures we can comfortably place, these specific images are either of poor-quality (one does not even show the face of the cat) and/or are not of encyclopedic value. One is found in the Wikipedia Commons link at the bottom of the article. I have placed these images here in case we can expand the article and thus add more room to put the pictures back in. But I would prefer to find better quality images instead of these. Ms. Sarita (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I liked the first. the other two just didn't seem to have anything to add. #1 is a great example of Summer coat.
I would rather not see the first image back in the article, or any of these images for that matter. The first image doesn't really add anything to the article either. I'm sure that there are other good representations of the breed's summer coat out there. Ms. Sarita (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
but not in the article. could we just keep that one until we find a better one?--Marhawkman (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You can do whatever you want to. No one is the owner of this article. But honestly, I would like to see this article get to GA status and with that photo (or any of the photos on the list) in the article, it'll never get there. I'm extremely busy, but see if you can't find another photo that is of good quality, that is a good representation of the summer coat of the breed. Try that first, but if you can't find anything, you are more than welcome to put it back in. But I may remove it again once I begin on the full revision of the article. Ms. Sarita (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the first photo is to show what tufts of fur behind the ears look like. It is an excellent example of this in addition to being a good representation of summer coat. If the face were showing, the tufts would be hidden. Zicoon (talk 21:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
However, tufts of fur behind the ears are not characteristic/typical of the breed. Putting it into the article is implying that it is. Also, there is more than one way to take a picture of these "tufts" and still have the face showing. You can most definitely show the tufts, but have a focus on the head of the animal. But, honestly, all I see is a top-view of your pet, which is not very encyclopedic. In addition, there is no mention of the significance of a summer coat in the Maine Coon, which means that the photo/caption is not warranted. But, like I said to Marhawkman, anyone can do whatever they like, but I will probably remove the photo again once I begin revising the article so that it has a chance of attaining GA status. Cheers. Ms. Sarita (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The revision is almost complete. I just slaved away at it for the past couple of days, trying to finish it, and am currently working on revising the lead section. Then I am finished. I am afraid that two more images will need to be removed; I just couldn't fit them into the article smoothly:

  • Image:Nala.JPG
  • Image:Maine Coon tufts.JPG
  • An image that was previously removed and placed back in the article also, unfortunately, did not make it into the revision: Zico - Maine Coon with tufts of fur behind his ears.jpg

If anyone feels that one of the remaining images should be replaced by one of the images listed above or another image altogether, please feel free to let me know. I will post the revision up by tomorrow night and will then nominate it for GA status within the next week (so that we can work out any discussions). So if anyone has any problems, leave me a message ASAP so we can avoid a quick-fail during the GAR. Thanks! – Ms. Sarita Confer 11:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision

The revision of the article is currently underway. I am going to attempt to get this article up to GA status. I am revising everything, including prose, section naming, images, and references. I have been working on this for the past week and a half and will try to have it completed within the next couple of weeks (hopefully). If there are any suggestions you may have, please let me know here or on my talk page. Cheers! – Ms. Sarita Confer 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

did you add the army of "Citation needed" tags?--Marhawkman (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did. In the revision, I am working on finding citations for that "army" of necessary cite templates. That entire section had only four references supporting it, and the section below it has been tagged since June. As I was looking at that "army", it made me realize that the article needed to be entirely revamped. I was able to find many more references for the revision. – Ms. Sarita Confer 07:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The revision is taking a little longer than expected due to my time being consumed by exams and research papers. I'll try to have it completed within the next few weeks, if not sooner. – Ms. Sarita Confer 12:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Size

The weight range given for females seems to be too low. Does anybody know whether this is the case?Boobaloob (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I have found, that weight for females is pretty accurate. – Ms. Sarita Confer 18:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nala.JPG

Resolved

Why do you feel that this image is better than travismainecoon.jpg? Whether or not the Nala.jpg is more photogenic than others is an opinion, not fact. There is another image that displays the full body of the Maine Coon (introduction image) and an image that displays the "fluffy tail" (the image in the "Health" section). But now, we do not have a good image mentioning the "ruff" and the subject of your image is contained in a large empty space whereas the travismainecoon.jpg image is obviously the subject of the photo. Let's get a consensus here before we decide on anything further. So far, three separate editors have disagreed with the introduction of the Nala.jpg image. Let's see if others would like to discuss it before we incorporate it into the article. I appreciate your patience. Thanks. – Ms. Sarita Confer 20:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Photogenic" is an opinion, yes. Someone said above that they are using "photographic quality" to determine what pictures to keep. The the new picture has much better "photographic quality" than the former. This can easily be seen when having both pictures side by side. The new photograph is more life-like-- the textures of the fur and the cat is presented in a more complicated manner, especially by the way the light hits the fur on the left side of the cat, which adds to the softness. Also, it's evident that the new picture was taken with a higher quality camera, and since the image has a higher resolution, it's easier for people to see a typical example of a Maine Coon cat. In the article, the picture comes into play at this part:
"The Maine Coon is considered a semi-longhaired, or medium-haired, cat. The coat is soft and silky, although texture may vary with coat color. The length is shorter on the head, neck, and shoulders and longer on the stomach and flanks. Although not required, there is usually a noticeable "ruff" of fur surrounding the neck and upper chest of the Maine Coon. The coat is waterproof and lies against the body of the animal. Minimal grooming is required for the breed, compared to other long-haired breeds, as their coat is mostly self-maintaining due to a light-density undercoat. The coat is subject to seasonal variation,[18] with the fur being thicker in the winter and thinner during the summer. The Maine Coon has extra tufts of fur growing between the toes and the tips of the ears."
The new picture shows detailed physical characteristics of ALL of the above. With a full-body and face picture, it shows the "silky coat" (as per the photo quality...you can especially see the fur texture around the back and down to the hind legs). You can see some parts of ruff of fur around the neck and face, since the cat is looking back toward the camera. You can see the "light-density undercoat." In short, the new picture, Nala.JPG, gives a much more substantial example of what the article is trying to convey at the section in which the picture is inserted.
I'd like to get other people's opinions as well.
Wo0ter08 (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
You have made some excellent points WoOter08. And image quality has more to do with the subject of the picture and how the animal is positioned in the image, not just how many megapixels a camera has. If that were the case, the size comparison image would have been removed long ago, but other editors believe that the image is important and extremely relevant to the article. In addition, as I have said before, three separate editors have disagreed with your opinion. *I* am willing to compromise in maybe replacing the image of the two-year-old male Maine Coon at the beginning of the article with the image of your cat. The image you have chosen to replace is important in displaying the "ruff" that many Maine Coons possess, since some people don't know what a "ruff" looks like, but everyone knows what a bushy tail looks like. Therefore, I'd like to see the "ruff" image kept, if that's possible. See what I'm saying?
But first, let's get the opinions of at least the other two editors and see their reasoning before we come to a decision. Also, if we decide to replace one of the images, can you either crop out the empty space surrounding the cat or take another picture with the cat looking straight at the camera so we can see the eyes? I am assuming this is your pet or a relative's/friend's pet since I've never seen anyone so hellbent on getting an image into an article. :-) But, I could be wrong. I wish I could have made the article longer so that we could incorporate more images, but unfortunately, it wasn't possible. Thanks for responding. I appreciate it. I'll hold off on the GA nomination until we can get consensus. – Ms. Sarita Confer 02:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware that megapixels and size don't have much to do with the issue at hand, but I'm just trying to say that you can almost feel the texture of the Maine Coon cat in Nala.JPG because of the quality of the picture. I feel that the picture is a better representation of characteristics of Maine Coons, but I'm OK with the picture replacing the two year old Maine Coon instead. I can't take another picture of this cat because she passed away from HCM, but I'll crop out parts of the background and upload the new one. Here it is:
Image:MaineCoonGirl.jpg
Wo0ter08 (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree about the texture of the cat's fur and your image displaying this better than the other image. This is why we are discussing it. Thanks for cropping the image. We'll use it if necessary.
I'm sorry to hear about your cat. That is hard. I'd be inconsolable if/when my Maine Coon dies. – Ms. Sarita Confer 03:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
When observing the photograph, it shows much more about Maine Coons and is more relevant to the topic of the article than the other photograph, in my opinion. Unlike the fur of most cats, Maine Coons have softer coats with thinner strands of hair for fur. The new photograph poses as evidence to this information that's in the article, that I reiterated here. I don't get a sense of this texture from other other photograph, and I'm sure that people who don't know much about Maine Coons can better understand this characteristic. The texture of the fur is only one thing- the image also demonstrates other key physical characteristics with the well-defined Maine Coon ears, face, tail, etc.
Wo0ter08 (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who reverted the addition of the Nala.jpg image, and I'm very impressed with the points you've made, Wo0ter08. My initial idea was to ask if you might be able to create another image of Nala, since some of the images we currently have in the article illustrate specific anatomical points about Maine Coons but aren't really the best photos we could have. I feared, correctly as it seems, that this might not be possible... I am so sorry about your cat. I know only too well how it feels to lose them. I lost one of my buddies about a year and a half ago, and I still miss him.

In any case, I see your point about the quality of the image and would support substituting it for the two-year-old Maine Coon picture. I don't see that particular image as essential, and I believe you've made a good case for its inclusion. It's a good picture of a lovely cat, and I think that in can fit well in that spot. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions Kafka Liz. I was actually thinking that replacing the image of the two-year-old Maine Coon is not the best substitute. It is the only image we have that displays the facial features up close and personal. I played with the article a little and found that I could move the show cats image up a little bit and incorporate the Nala picture into the "Cat shows and popularity" section. What does everyone think of that? Let me know and I'll have that done ASAP if you two feel it's a good fit. – Ms. Sarita Confer 01:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine, as far as I'm concerned. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
That would be alright with me as well. Thanks for taking the lead to this issue, Ms. Sarita, and thanks for your suggestion Kafka Liz. I was also wondering, under the Health section, would it be possible for me to add that feline hypertrophic cardiomyopathy very likely leads to arterial thromboembolism in which the rear legs become paralyzed? There are many sources that this information comes from. The article mentions that hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a serious health problem and specifically describes the biology of it, but it doesn't really say what the problem means in the end. Since this is a very prevalent problem in Maine Coons, it would probably be good to put on this Wiki page to provide more information about what the disease actually does to the cat. Also, the link to HCM isn't specific to felines, and the results of HCM in felines is different from humans (ie blood clots breaking off from the heart and blocking the arteries to the rear legs). Wo0ter08 (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Dammit...I knew I was forgetting something. So, the image has been added, the information about HCM added, and the Wikilink fixed. I'm glad we were able to resolve this. I will be nominating the article for GA status within the next week or two (I want to give it some time because I don't want edit wars to happen again during the review, causing it to meet the quick-fail criteria). Just a warning, if a related issue with the images comes up during the review, I will most likely remove the Nala.jpg image because I still feel that there is nothing entirely special about it...but I don't believe this will be the case and I don't think the images will be a problem. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Cheers! – Ms. Sarita Confer 04:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I don't think anyone will have a problem with the image, now that the article isn't drowning in them. Thanks for all your work, Ms. Sarita, and you too, Wo0ter08, for your help with the health information. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. I'm sure the images won't be a problem. At least, I hope not. ;-) Thanks for all of the suggestions Kafka Liz. Much appreciated. – Ms. Sarita Confer 00:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Winter Climate Physical Adaptations

Ms. Sarita (and anyone else who wishes to challenge the information that I have introduced to this article): The adaptations for harsh winter climates is a very important and highly relevant part of the Maine Coon's physical attributes and should be included in the Wikipedia article. I don't understand why you are so keen on removing them. While I am grateful that people are interested in maintaining this article in good condition, I feel that your personal attempts at controlling this article and obtaining good article status for it have gone too far and are too self-serving. You are acting as if you own this article, and not just in regards to my edits. I have placed the Winter Climate Physical Adaptations back in, this time with the citations that you requested. I put considerable research into this and have compiled the information from many sources. I have many more additional references for the information that I have introduced, but citing all of them would be unnecessary and excessively clutter the article. If you challenge any of the information, please discuss it and state your challenges here instead of just yanking it.

As for the photo: I have placed it back where it was until you removed it in your major edit a few weeks ago. It is very relevant and serves a double purpose of illustrating both ear muffs and a summer coat in addition to showing other attributes of a Maine Coon. The ear muffs (tufts of fur behind the ears) characteristic is seen in a significant number of Maine Coons, and there are other photos on the web of Maine Coons with ear muffs. Perhaps if people knew what they were called (i.e. "ear muffs"), we could more easily find more such photos. For some reason you don't like that photo, perhaps because the cat does not meet your criteria for a show cat, or perhaps because you don't find the photo pretty enough, but that does not give you the right to all of a sudden repeatedly target it for removal. Just because ear muffs are not mentioned in the show standards for Maine Coons (in my opinion they should be, because it is a very endearing quality) does not mean that it is not a significant physical characteristic of Maine Coons. Keep in mind that many Maine Coons do not have ruffs or lynx tips either. Frequency of lynx tips (and quite possibly ruffs) is increasing only because of selective breeding. Please set your personal opinions and biases aside, as I don't want to see an edit war. Zicoon (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Zicoon: Personally, I'm offended that you have falsely accused me (and others) of ownership of the article. There is plenty of evidence in this talk page that says otherwise. I could say the same about you (since you seem to be so adamant about having an image that is unnecessary to the article), but it is not constructive. I am more than willing, and have stated, that I am a compromising editor and want nothing than what's best for the article. And I'm sure that you feel the same.
Regarding the image, I have addressed my concerns with it (see above), but you refused to have any part in the argument. Your reasoning behind why I am cautious of the image is wrong. Your cat looks identical to mine (at first glance, I thought someone had "stolen" a picture of my cat and put it in the article), so if there is any personal bias on my part, it would be in favor of your image. Let me remind you that your image was not the only one removed during the final revision. Why is your image necessary but an image of, for example, a polydactyl Maine Coon (which are plentiful) not necessary? I don't understand why you believe that an image of "ear muffs" and a "summer coat" is critical to the article. Perhaps you can enlighten me and also explain to me why "ear muffs" are so significant, in your opinion.
As far as the information that you have edited, it needs to be sourced, per the verifiability policy. That is not a personal opinion of mine. It's how Wikipedia operates and if you input information such as you did with your edit, it could potentially be seen as original research. I am only abiding by Wikipedia's policies, so I have no idea why the hostility has arisen. The GA process is usually lenient, but since I plan to try and take this article to FA status, having unsourced information would bring strong opposition and would possibly lead to its denial and/or unnecessary work. If you have sources, then this obviously isn't an issue.
I appreciate you expressing your frustration and I don't wish to see an edit war either, as it could end up with both of us blocked. But I feel like it must be your way or the highway, whereas I have been open to compromise. So, please, don't point fingers. Let's talk it out. – Ms. Sarita Confer 09:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: I have revised the paragraph, references, and moved images around. There was a lot of redundant information, and some unencyclopedic terminology has been removed (e.g., "huge"). I have incorporated your image and, sadly, removed another image to avoid cluttering the article. I am wary of the amount of the word "snow" in the paragraph. Perhaps you can implement some different words? In addition, I am not seeing any references that say why "earmuffs" are specifically an adaptation to cold winter climates. You may be wondering why the reference was removed. It is simply because it is unreliable. Who is the author? What makes him/her an expert on Maine Coons? Even this author is citing information from various websites but s/he did not provide a citation to the "earmuffs" reference. Why not? Perhaps a better reference can be found. Hopefully you can find the time to address this. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. – Ms. Sarita Confer 10:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The ear muffs reference and picture should be removed. The citation for ear muffs points only to a glossary entry which is not breed specific. Google returns 2,300,000 pages for "maine coon" but only 2,300 for "maine coon ear muffs". I couldn't see one image of a maine coon with ear muffs in Google's first 10 pages of image results either. It's not a breed characteristic and not particularly common.
Since the picture is notable only for the ear muffs it should be removed. If a picture of the summer coat is desirable then I would prefer to see the same animal in summer and winter coats to highlight the (often amazing) seasonal difference. Also it is unprofessional for Zicoon to keep reinserting an image of a cat they apparently own. Zicoon, if you must have a picture of the ear muffs then I think you should find one that you don't have a personal stake in. - 219.89.169.104 (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You know my stance on this, from my writing above. What irritates me is that User:Zicoon refuses to take part in a debate and/or to improve things within the article. As long as s/he gets his/her way (i.e., the image is in the article), all debates are then ignored. It's frustrating, at best, because I try to compromise, but I don't feel that it is mutual. – Ms. Sarita Confer 04:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any real evidence that "earmuffs" are traits of Maine Coon cats? If not, that information doesn't belong in the article and should be removed because of it's unreliable value. Once a reliable and relevant source is found, it should be put back in. 24.187.54.113 (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking at The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Cat Breeds (Angela Nixon) (2005), there is no mention of ear muffs, and none of the images show the ear muffs. At this point, I would say that we have consensus that the image is not representative of the breed. Unless Zicoon replies to this discussion, I will remove the image and the text referring to the ear muffs in 7 days, at 3:28 1-2-2009 (UTC). --Terrillja talk 03:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my Maine Coon has "ear muffs", though not quite as large as the ones in the photo. And I have met several other Maine Coons with ear muffs. They do vary in size, even over time on my cat, and perhaps many people just don't notice them or pay particular attention to them. I have not personally seen ear muffs on any other type of cat. I don't believe that the information on ear muffs should be removed. Surely there has to be mention of ear muffs on Maine Coons somewhere. 75.172.179.99 (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the unreliable information and source. Until a better reference is found, it should stay out of the article so as not to hinder the article's encyclopedic value. 24.187.54.113 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking over the above discussion again, and the recent edits to the article, I feel that I need to make a few comments. Ms. Sarita, yes you have been displaying ownership of the article. You should read ownership again. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Zicoon's original adaptations paragraph, and yet you couldn't resist immediately yanking it in an uncivilized manner, and then failing that, adding your own touches to it. Also, "huge" is a proper English word, why would it be unencyclopedic? Does Wikipedia maintain a list of unencyclopedic words? "Huge" seemed to be the appropriate word in the context in which it was used. Changing the photo size to 175, which is 5 under the default size of 180 is vicious and can only be seen as an immature attack. I'm a little surprised that Zicoon has not responded, but then again, I wouldn't want to be involved in an edit war either. I can say a lot more also, but I'm going to try to stay out of it. 75.172.179.99 (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To the anonymous user above: I have read WP:OWN several times. You have your own opinion, and if you feel as if I am "owning" the article, so be it. I won't attempt to sway you either way. There were many things wrong with the paragraph that Zicoon put into the article, and I fixed them, while still keeping the full intent of what Zicoon wished to write. Note the part on the edit page where it states: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. In other words, I have as much right as Zicoon or any other editor to edit a section of information. "Huge"? "Large" seemed to be a more appropriate word. I'm sorry if you feel that this is unacceptable. Your mentioning of the photo size is petty, at best. I won't even comment on it. Change it back if you feel it was "vicious" and "immature". The fact of the matter is, I was more than open for compromise. And I want nothing more than what's best for the article. Again, I'm sorry for feeling that way. The image and the information has been incorporated into the article, but many people feel that the image and the "ear muffs" information should be removed. And I agree. What the hell is it that you want me to do? How about this: I will stay out of this particular argument and let others decide what to do. Let me know when this has been resolved so that I can nominate it for FA status. – Ms. Sarita Confer 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have upset you, but I felt that someone had to say it. I found my copy of Maine Coon Cats by Carol Himsel, and yes, there are photos of Maine Coons with ear muffs in it. Also, I feel that the original caption under the photo, where it said "ear muffs (tufts of fur behind ears)", added clarity to the photo. Without the extra text people who don't fully read and absorb the article may think that someone is trying to be cute, and referring to ear muffs as a clothing accessory. 75.172.179.99 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You are mistaken in thinking that I am upset. I'm not. Sorry. You do whatever you feel is best for the article, as will I. Not only was your attack against me, personally, unwarranted, it was not constructive in the slightest. I have done nothing but try to work with other editors, but you are only here to accuse and attack. I'm not down with that at all, which is why I said that I am removing myself from this particular "debate". Happy editing. – Ms. Sarita Confer 09:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So what's with the revert? I don't see any reason for the change. Is there one?--Marhawkman (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't everyone just get along! I think "earmuffs" are common enough in the Maine Coon population to be brought to the attention to an unknowledgeable seeker of information. My M.C. and my Aunt's both have earmuffs. Anyways I redid the last edit to include back in the photo with the earmuffs. Hopefully this characteristic will not be ignored. I am indeed glad to see all the discussion and devotion to bringing forth all this info on Maine Coons. Thanks to everyone who contributed and who will continue to contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archinitidon (talkcontribs) 19:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize for not responding sooner. Unfortunately I frequently have extended periods without internet access. I also want to thank those that have defended my contributions. To those who have been against my contributions, I hope that we can quickly and amicably resolve this and move on and work in a co-operative and friendly manner.

When I added references to the paragraph on Winter Climate Physical Adaptations, I included a reference to the article The Maine Coon: Monster or the Best House Cat Ever? by Unwirklich Vin Zant. This article not only mentions "ear muffs" by name (which is rare, because most people don't know what tufts behind the ears are called), but is well written and includes a great photo of a Maine Coon with visible ear muffs. Unfortunately the reference to this article was removed leaving only a reference to the definition of "ear muffs", which gets some people unnecessarily worked up.

Here are some other quotes I found on the internet on ear muffs, though not by name:

"They have tufts of fur behind the ears, long hair on the back of the legs and hair between the toes." The Temperament of a Maine Coon Cat by Darlene Zagata

"Maine Coons tend to have angular heads with squared-off jaws and tufts of hair growing at the tips of the ears and sometimes behind the ears as well." Characteristics of the Maine Coon Cat by Greg Marlett

There is no denying that many Maine Coons have ear muffs, they're just often smaller than the ones in the photo. That photo is truly a great example of ear muffs. And even on that cat, the ear muffs have at times been essentially unnoticeable. Even in our Wikipedia article's photo of the "Three show-quality Maine Coons" Image:Фото кунов.jpg, if you zoom in closely, you will notice that the right-hand Maine Coon has ear muffs. (The other two likely also have ear muffs, but it's harder to be absolutely certain from this angle.)

The ear muffs definition references Iams' Glossary of Cat Terms.[1] It just so happens that the Maine Coon in the photo on the "Iams Cat Breed Guide - Maine Coon Cats"[2] page has ear muffs (click on the photo to get the larger version). Wikipedia encourages "collecting and organizing material from existing sources" (aka "source-based research") (see original research), thus in an effort to try to appease those demanding better references, and until I (or someone else) can find a more acceptable all-in-one reference, I propose referencing "ear muffs" with Iams' definition of "earmuffs"[1] and a photographic reference such as "Iams Cat Breed Guide - Maine Coon Cats"[2] or some other photographic reference such as one of the Maine Coon books.

I propose using a space between "ear" and "muffs" because it is much more commonly spelled like this in the cat world and for consistency with Wikipedia's LaPerm article. Incidentally I agree with the use of the word "silky" in LaPerm's definition of ear muffs as "longer, silky hair on the backs of the ears", but unlike here, LaPerm editors haven't been required to provide a reference for every detail.

I also want to discuss the rest of the Winter Climate Physical Adaptations paragraph and some of the associated edits, but am out of time and will have to do that later. Zicoon (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

cool. That was excellent work and I agree with you. I'd love to see what else you wanted to say.--Marhawkman (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I know I said that I would stay out of this, but I wanted to say something to Zicoon. I think you did an excellent job in finding sources and defending your point. I applaud your efforts. My only concern is that by mentioning the "ear muffs" in such a way that it is a physical winter climate adaptation, people will begin to wonder why all Maine Coons do not have this feature. I believe that it needs to be stressed that this is not a typical characteristic of the breed (which is what the breed description section is normally used for). I believe everyone here wants this to be resolved in a civil way (which I have been attempting to do) as quickly as possible. Hopefully you have not taken my criticism and opinions as an attack, because they have not been. I hope that you stay active in this discussion, so that we may clear this out of the way and begin on improving the article. Thanks for your time. – Ms. Sarita Confer 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a maine coon cat with "earmuffs" here in Brasil. Cats here are not common as pets because here there are many stray cats here. People how do like cats here do like with much hair because the stray cats all have little hairs. I have seen other maine coon cats here with earmuffs from the person where my cat purchased. 69.20.226.229 (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So, there has not been any discussion regarding this section in the past few days. Is it safe to say that this has been resolved? – Ms. Sarita Confer 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add my thoughts on this topic, take it or leave it. Why was the picture of the Maine Coon with the ruff around the neck replaced by the one with "ear muffs?" Although so-called "ear muffs" may exist in Maine Coons, it doesn't seem to be all that common. The trait isn't mentioned at all in Marilis Hornidge's "The Maine Coon" and I don't see the feature shown in any of the pictures in the book. Shouldn't the pictures in this article depict more common and signature features of the cat to provide general knowledge? Here's what Hornidge writes about the Maine Coon's neck:
"The neck is embellished by a ruff, which may indeed look like an Elizabethan ruff going all the way around (although this is rare), or may look like a hood with a ruffle under the chin." (32).
Here's what she writes about the Maine Coon's ears:
"The ears, being proportionately large and wide at the base contribute to the wild look, as do the outstanding tufts of fur springing from the inside of the ear and seeming to fill it. These tufts are much fuller and longer than those of any other breed. The tufts on the tops and tips of the ears, which are almost vestigial in some and so heavy as to be reminiscent of the lynx and bobcat in others, are a genetic puzzle to breeders and an enchantment to photographers. They add another grace note from the wild and times past to the Maine Coon's appearance." (33).
She makes it known that the ruff around the neck is a signature trait to Maine Coons. As for the ears, she describes the tufts on the inside and tips, but there's nothing about tufts growing on the outside, or the back side, of the ears. Wo0ter08 (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, Wo0ter08! Unfortunately, the "ruff" image was removed to incorporate the "ear muff" image. I cringed as I made the edit, but it seems that there are several others who believe the "ear muff" image is critical to the article. I would say the "ruff" is a more typical characteristic of the Maine Coon than "ear muffs", but I have removed myself from the discussion. Since the "ruff" image would be most appropriate in the "Breed description" section, and there has been much debate over the "ear muff" image, there is not enough room to allow all images. I no longer have an opinion either way. I simply want this resolved and I am only giving you my explanation for what happened. You have argued excellent points. Hopefully, your argument will be taken into consideration by others. – Ms. Sarita Confer 06:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Besides, the Ruff is visible in several of the other pics. I personally don't see how the fact that a single source doesn't echo a point of view renders that point of view obsolete.--Marhawkman (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is that "ear muffs" are not a common physical characteristic of the Maine Coon cat. People come to this page to learn about Maine Coons. Because we can only put a limited amount of pictures on the page, that space should be utilized to facilitate in the understanding of main and general characteristics, not what only a few Maine Coons have.
Also, the way in which the paragraph is written makes it seem that the ruff around the neck is only a winter adaptation. This is obviously untrue and should be changed. Wo0ter08 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up: I have removed the Iams reference at the end of this particular paragraph (the one that contains the glossary). Per the GA review, this is only citing a glossary. Not that Maine Coons possess "ear muffs". A new reference, stating that Maine Coons possess "ear muffs" will need to be found. – Ms. Sarita Confer 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for the heads-up, but please read my previous discussion entry again. Zicoon (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to discuss the changes that were previously made to the original Winter Climate Physical Adaptations paragraph, and the changes that I have made now. I have made several compromises and leave some of the things that I feel less strongly about in the form that they were changed to. I did change back (at least partially) some of the things that I felt more strongly about.

I have no doubt that the paragraph can be considerably improved, but please be courteous and propose or discuss any significant changes here before making them, or at least explain why you are making them.

The sentence on the Maine Coon's tail was unnecessarily too heavily edited. The characteristics of the Maine Coon tail as being long and raccoon-like were removed. I am adding these back in because over and over, I see references to Maine Coon tails as being long and raccoon-like. Quote: "The resemblance is partly in the Maine Coon’s tail, which indeed is long, bushy, extravagant, and sometimes ringed—remarkably like a raccoon tail."[3] It also seems that a change was made to the wording in an attempt to keep the sentence short, but in the process added a repeat of the word "tail" to the sentence in a manner that I believe reads a little odd ("A bushy tail prevents the tail from ..."). I attempted to correct this while honoring the previous editor's intent of keeping the sentence short. I also believe that curling or wrapping the tail around themselves, and using it to keep warm, needs to be explicitly mentioned. Quotes: "Don't you think that this would also be a big factor in keeping the thin parts of the face warm since the cat could curl the tail across its face?"[4], "as they curl up, they could insulate the parts that are sparsely furred"[4].

The mention of polydactyls' paws being especially suited for walking on snow was apparently needlessly removed (or at least without discussion). I've added it back in. The reference that I previously used was, quote, "because the paws are usually double-wide in size. They can walk through snow more easily, hence another nick-name of snowshoe cat; but most often though, they are simply called polys."[5] The author, Beth Kus, has an authoritative bio (see bottom of [5]), but I'm guessing that the reference was removed from the article because it points to a geocities web page. So I'm changing the reference: "I don’t think anybody would argue with us, that the increased area - the area mass increase compared to the weight mass increase of the polydactyl’s feet - would give them a greater capacity to walk on snow. That alone would be sufficient selective advantage that it would not surprise me at all that polydactyl was very prevalent." [6]

On a related note, and in response to the question as to why an image of a polydactyl Maine Coon is not necessary: An image of a polydactyl would be great! Especially an image of a polydactyl walking on snow! Even more especially the photo of Dirigo's Dazzle walking on snow (http://www.geocities.com/heartland/2250/thumsnow.jpg).[5] I love that photo! Anyone care to see if we can get permission to put it up on Wikipedia? And yes, I believe that we can find the room to add another relevant photo.

I don't see why "and further aid walking on snow" was removed from the toe tufts sentence (again, the removal was not discussed), so I added it back in. Clarity is removed without those extra words. It's in the reference. Quote: "Why tufts on the feet? Same reason, it gives you more structure on the foot for support on the snow. It's like putting on a snowshoe. Tufts are light, yet they distribute the weight on a larger surface so the feet don't push down in the snow. And, of course, for warmth as well."[4]

The revised sentence on ear furnishings was unclear and made it sound like they were optional, whereas to my knowledge they are not (unlike lynx tips, ruffs, and ear muffs which are all optional). I changed it back to my original sentence but added the words "ear furnishings" with a reference to the Iams' Glossary of Cat Terms.

I added the words "lion-like" back to the mention of the ruff. As with raccoon-like tails, this is a common description and clarifies the text. Quote: "They may a have a ruff (like a lion’s ruff) of fur around their neck."[7] Moved mention of lynx tips back into the optional adaptations sentence.

As I have discussed on 31 December 2008 (above): I changed the spelling of "earmuffs" to "ear muffs". I am using a combination of the photo on "Iams Cat Breed Guide - Maine Coon Cats"[2] and Iams' "Glossary of Cat Terms"[1] as a reference for ear muffs.

I stayed up much too late doing this. Zicoon (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't make any further edits to the section. I'm over this entire argument. Just to clarify my edit, the Iams reference did not state anything about "ear muffs", so it was moved. We still need a reference stating that "ear muffs" are a characteristic trait of the Maine Coon and that they are a physical adaptation to winter climates. I was unable to find anything. This is the only thing holding the article back from GA status. – Ms. Sarita Confer 18:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The Maine Coon in the photo in the Iams reference has ear muffs and this reference is presented only because you have not been happy with the multiple textual references that I have found so far. Zicoon (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Zicoon, please do not proceed to tell me what I am "happy" with or unhappy with. As another editor has pointed out, using a photo and a glossary term would be considered original research. The references that you have found so far are not reliable and I have explained why. I'm sorry if this is so disconcerting to you. And I'm sorry that the Iams reference is not reliable and did not say anything about "ear muffs". But that is not my fault. This has nothing to do with my opinions on reliable references, but about Wikipedia's policies. Since I plan on attempting to get this article to FA status, the references would be a problem. I honestly don't see why this is still an issue. – Ms. Sarita Confer 19:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Zicoon, I will add my thoughts to Ms. Sarita's. Using a combination of a photo and a glossary is asking for an accusation of original research. If these "ear muffs" are so famous and common in Maine Coons, there must be a reliable source stating that somewhere... You seem to care a lot about this article, and so I would hope that you are interested in helping it to become GA and then FA status. However, this cannot be done when original research, iffy sources and fact tags are present in the article. Ms. Sarita has done a lot of very good work on this article, and it would be nice for other editors to help her, instead of simply accusing her of claiming "ownership". She is not trying to own the article, she is simply trying to improve it with good sources. Please provide a reliable, non-original research source for this claim of Maine Coons having "ear muffs", or this claim may have to be removed. Dana boomer (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
My research is not original research, but it is source-based research, which is allowed and encouraged by Wikipedia.
There are plenty of references to Maine Coons having ear muffs out there (see my 31 December 2008 discussion above for some of them), it's just that ear muffs are not explicitly mentioned in the cat show standards for Maine Coons, which most Maine Coon descriptive material is based on, and the term "ear muffs" is unknown to most people and so ear muffs tend not get explicitly mentioned but are instead lumped together with ear furnishings (often also lumped together with lynx tips and collectively referred to as ear tufts). Thus I have so far been unable to find a reference that Ms. Sarita is happy with. Incidentally there are many photos of Maine Coons with ear muffs available from sources that everyone would be happy with, including printed books on Maine Coons. As I have said previously, there is no denying that many Maine Coons have ear muffs.
Seeing that Ms. Sarita has much more time, and internet access, available than I have, and apparently much more of a willingness to work on this article than anyone else, it would be nice if Ms. Sarita would stop taking a negative approach and redirect her energies in a good way and contact some Maine Coon organizations and authorities and try to find a reference for ear muffs that is to her liking. I'm open to alternate wording in the meantime. I'd like to get this resolved amicably.
I will also continue to try to locate a source that everyone can be happy with, but I don't have anywhere close to the amount of time and resources that Ms. Sarita has. Also keep in mind that I frequently have extended periods without internet access, so please don't expect quick responses from me. Zicoon (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the only thing holding this article back from GA status (see the GA review below) is the earmuffs portion and its questionable ref, how about we remove it for the time being, the article gets its GA status, and when a proper reference is found, we can add it back in. If it really is a common trait and one that is recognized to be specific to the breed, then there should certainly be a reference out there to support it. Holding the article back from GA status just so a picture can be kept is just petty in my opinion. When you (or anyone else) finds a proper reference, we can add it back in, but for the benefit of this article as a whole, can we just do what is needed to get it to GA, rather than hold it back on one small detail?--Terrillja talk 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with me, my time, or my resources. Please do not make me the scapegoat. It took me 10 minutes to conduct several Internet searches for "ear muffs" or anything similarly mentioned. I don't have as much free time as you'd think. I simply know that reliable sources, and using them correctly, are the way to go. Read WP:OR, specifically where it states, "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research..." Using an image (such as one in the Iams breed profile) and a glossary of cat-related terms together to cite "ear muffs" is a characteristic physical trait and/or a winter climate adaptation of Maine Coons, according to the original research policy, is considered original research. Neither reference specifically states "ear muffs" as being a trait of the breed. And I have yet to see a reference that states this is a trait due to the Maine Coon's adaptation to cold climates. This has nothing to do with me taking a negative approach or finding a reference that is to my liking. If you truly do wish for this information to be in the article, prepare to put in the work. I have tried to find you a reference, but was unable to, so please stop the accusations. – Ms. Sarita Confer 19:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
If one of the above editors (Terrillja or Ms. Sarita) would like to remove the information in question from the article, I will be happy to pass the article to GA status. The information can of course be added back in when it is properly sourced by non-original research. Also, the picture itself doesn't have to be removed, but I would like to see the part of the caption referring to "ear muffs" removed until a source can be provided for the info in the text. Dana boomer (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I will leave this decision up to Terrillja. I know that if I remove the information, I'm going to get chewed out for it. Hopefully this can be accomplished so the article can get its GA status and I can begin working on the PR. Thanks for everyone's input! – Ms. Sarita Confer 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done I kept the picture, which will hopefully keep Zicoon happy, removed the Iams reference and the "ear muffs" bits and the part about lynx tips keeping the ears warm, since they just stick up. I moved the lion-like ruff up to the rest of the fur characteristics, where it makes more sense. Hopefully my edits will be satisfactory for the article to get its GA status and keep moving towards FA. As always, drop me a note on my talkpage if you have anything you need to talk to me about. --Terrillja talk 03:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)