Talk:List of experimental cat breeds

Move

I'm moving this (on the assertion that the move will not be controversial) to List of experimental cat breeds, since that term is common and can be sourced, and away from List of minority cat breeds, which is a made-up term, and doesn't work in this context. Every rare breed, including some established for centuries, is in the minority compared to "moggies" (mongrels) and common purebreds like the Siamese. We could and perhaps should have an entire separate article at List of rare cat breeds, based on sourced population information (and should probably exclude experimentals from the list, since they are rare by definition, but mention them as group in passing); this would match the category structure we already have under Category:Cat breeds. It also does not make sense to apply "minority", a term usually reserved for human ethnicities, to domestic animal breeds; no one writes of "cattle minorities", "minority horse populations", or "minority breeds of dog". Some other potential alternatives also do not work, e.g. "provisional breed", which is a term used by specific registries for competition classification purposes (any particular breed may be provisional in one registry, fully accepted in another, and rejected by all others). While "experimental" is also used in this way by some registries, the term has broad applicability outside them, to all forms of experimental domestic animal breeding, and is not limited to cat breeding; we could easily have a List of experimental dog breeds, etc. "Exotic breed" is a misnomer; "exotic" really means "from a foreign source", and is thus entirely relative. To the extent that "exotic" has a special meaning as a term of art in pet-keeping and animal-control circles, it refers to wild animals, and F1 hybrids, kept (often illegally) as dangerous pets; it does not relate to the topic of this article (except as foundation stock for some of these breeds, but that's also true of no-longer experimental or "rare" breeds such as the Bengal cat). "Designer breed" is generally a pejorative, and fails WP:NPOV, though I have redirected it here, with {{R from pejorative}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of experimental cat breeds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100515175127/http://www.the-dwarf-cat-association.com/ to http://www.the-dwarf-cat-association.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Perfold

I think Perfold (PerFold) should be removed per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. A Google search on perfold cat standard -wikipedia [1] brings up no info that I can see indicating that this is a real breed, recognized by anyone (not even Rare and Exotic Feline Registry, Catz Inc., or other super-permissive registries). This appears to be WP:NFT stuff, a "backyard breeder" experiment being marketed for money. It'll also need to be removed from List of cat breeds, since, well, it's not a breed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it from both lists. I can't find any reliable secondary sources about this at all, just WP:UGC / WP:SPS like Revolvy.com, FantasyCats.com, the blacklisted site PetsWorld.in, Pinterest; breeders' promotional spam; and sites regurgitating our own breed lists. Have listed the Perfold and PerFold redirects for deletion at WP:RFD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"Elf cat" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Elf cat and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Elf cat until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Alleged breed "Australian Satin"

I reverted this addition to the article by an anon, since it cited no sources:

The Australian Satin is a rex cat with a satin sparkle it comes in shorthair and Longhair. It is derived from a recessive mutation discovered in Domestic cats in Australia. The foundation cats were bred to Munchkins cats as the founder was already breeding munchkins and domestics were the allowed outcross. This breeding allowed for pedigree record keeping, whilst the genetic inheritance was learned, although the end goal is a cat without the dwarf gene.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Tiffanie contradiction of other article

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

List of experimental cat breeds#Tiffanie directly contradicts Tiffanie cat. See Talk:Tiffanie cat#Contradiction between two articles for discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

PS: The "Tiffanie (Burmilla Longhair, Asian Semi-longhair)" should probably just be removed from this article, after the "Australian" contridiction is resolved. The main Tiffanie breed has been long accepted in half a dozen registries and is no longer experimental.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This list badly needs sourcing work

Did some cleanup work here a while back, but it needs a lot more. About 1/3 of the entires are completely unsourced. I do not count as "sourcing" the fact that the list of nominally accepted breeds at REFR mentions some of these names but without any pages of information about them at that site (all that indicates is that REFR is aware that someone somewhere asserts that they are working on a breed by that name, but REFR has no details about it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Celestial

Apparently Livre officiel des origines félines (LOOF) has approved an experimental breed called the Celestial, a dominant-blue-eye mutation that doesn't have the lethal birth defects of the now-extinct Ojos Azules. It's mentioned in the final section of the latter article, though I don't have any further information about it at present.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"Stone Cougar" removed

I've deleted that unsourced and unsourceable mini-section. This is one single breeder's "backyard breeding" experiment with a Chausie crossbreed, and there are no sources available for this that are not promotional material from the breeder, repetition of that material in social media by someone else, or repetition of WP's own unsourced claims. The claim of recognition by REFR is false; I checked.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The only independent source I can find (but not reliable – it's the blacklisted PetHelpful.com) simply says this is a nickname of the Chausie.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Same here [2].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"Seltic" removed

This was even worse than "Stone Cougar": there are zero google hits of any kind for "Seltic cat" other than WP, and stuff copying it. This was probably a hoax. The one claimed "backyard breeder" registry that was said to recognize this has been defunct since 2015, and no "Seltic" was ever listed on recoverable versions of their website, so it's not even verifiable that an experimental breed of this name once existed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"Jungle" removed

Yet more completely unverifiable claims; there's no source I can find on this alleged breed, and TICA has no information about it despite claim being made here of an application for recognition. That entire entry appeared to be sore confusion about what "jungle cat" means (Felis chaus), and a bad misreading of REFR's information on Jungle Curl (an entry we should retain but repair to actually agree with the source; I'll do that next).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hemingway Curl

REFR recognizes something called the Hemingway Curl or Canadian Hemingway Curl. It is on their accepted breeds list [3], and also mentioned here [4], but they do not presently have any detailed information about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Rare and Exotic Feline Registry is not one of the cat breed organizations that WikiProject Cats accepts for establishing breed notability (they seem to acknowledge every backyard breeder's new "breed"). SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The entire purpose of this list is to summarize experimental breeds that can be proved to exist (or have existed) with some coverage (i.e. they do not fail WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NFT), but which are not notable enough for stand-alone articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"Poodlecat (Pudelkatze)" removed

Rm. another unsourceable entry, especially since it makes what appear to be WP:BLP claims about a German woman. There's no sourcing available for this that isn't regurgitation of WP's own claims (WP:CIRCULAR). The only independent sourcing I can find for either term (and not reliable sourcing, but blog/forum stuff), indicates "poodlecat" is simply a nickname for cats with the rex mutation, so I have redirected it to Rex mutation#Cats. A cat (apparently just a single one, but maybe there was a breeding attempt) in Germany called Pudelkatze is mentioned in the history of Rex mutation#Named mutations, but I can find no evidence of any breed establishment (extinct or not), so I've redirected the German term to that section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Pantherette

I have sourced that section to the extent possible, which is poorly. It can be demonstrated to have been an actual breed-establishment attempt in the 2000s, but all the evidence suggests it was abandoned some time after 2006.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It, and many other entries here, should probably be removed for lack of sourcing and/or lack of recognition by the cat breed associations that WikiProject Cats has chosen to follow (TICA, FIFe and affiliates, and CFA I believe). Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeat: the entire purpose of this article is to briefly cover breeds that can be demonstrated to exist or have existed, which are within WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE but which do not pass WP:NOTABILITY. "the cat breed associations that WikiProject Cats has chosen to follow" is not a policy, it's a general rule-of-thumb that is likely to indicate whether a breed is notable (can have a stand-alone article about it). That's ultimately determined by WP:GNG not a wikiproject opinion; e.g. Ojos Azules has a stand-alone article despite lack of recognition and now being extinct, because real-world controversy about its genetic health problems caused enough independent coverage to pass GNG. Anywa, one of the main purposes of list articles (other than the few constrained by WP:LISTCRITERIA to notable entries only because of their breadth) is providing a spot for encyclopedically relevant basic information about things that are not notable enough for stand-alone articles. (E.g. List of Sharpe series characters exists because zero or nearly zero of the entries in it should have stand-alone articles, but all of the information, in that summary form, is encyclopedically pertinent to cover somewhere. Just not with a zillion separate articles.) If this article had such a notability criterion, then it would simply need to be deleted entirely, since it would no longer serve any purpose and would just be reiterating bits of other articles and duplicating the functionality of a category and navbox template. As for various entries needing sourcing (at all, or better), that's what I'm already doing; see the rest of the recent talk page. PS: I'm pretty much the most active editor in the wikiproject anyway; I know what it is doing and why.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)