Jump to content

Talk:Sand cat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JagoKD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

This picture is to small to be eligible for consideration as a [[Wikipedia:Featured picture but I would love to see one taken which would be eligible for consideration. I'm all but certain a good, qualifying picture of the little critter would be a shoo-in for winning.Badbilltucker 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a domestic cat. Are these felines able to hybridize with domestic

Movin' on

[edit]

Nominate this for a move to Sand cat, seeing how "sand cat" isn't a proper noun (no matter what some people seem to think...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The logic layed out at WP:BIRD as sound. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raptor

[edit]

The article listed as a reference shows that large birds of prey (raptors) are a threat to the sand cat. A few users keep removing this, I assume because they are unfamiliar with what a raptor is. I have reverted the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F4hy (talk • contribs) 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstracts

[edit]


additional sections

[edit]

If anyone could add information about the Sand Cat's predators and prey or where it fits in a food chain, that would be an excellent addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.35.228.100 (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just one kitten?

[edit]

Why is it relevant that one kitten was born at Israel's Safari Zoo in July 2011? It is expected to join a program for breeding them in captivity for release in the wild. Kittens being born in captivity is hardly a new thing. Having this on the page seems like advertising for the zoo, and is thus counter to Wikipedia's policies about advertising. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool

[edit]

sand cats are like, really cool. Oh also, one kitten is not relevant to the article at hand. I agree with the advertising thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.153.61 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you read the article just as I spent a few minutes doing you would see the issue of "One" kitten was resolved in 2011 !!! Your opinion on how cool they are is noted though irrelevant to the Encyclopedia. Regards ZooPro 12:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrids

[edit]

I'll leave this up the admins to include this information or not, but there's been a somewhat booming breed of hybrids in the American southwest between Sand cats and domestic cats, likely from a privately owned Sand cat being bread with an American orange tabby and its subsequent descendants. I've personally come into possession of one of these hybrids and have confirmed with veterinarians that it's 1/16th Sand cat. 184.101.62.67 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wondered if the species were interfertile. Now I know.
Does your hybrid have any of the sand cat's distinctive markings? I would think that would be what commercial breeders would be aiming for. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editoral Issues

[edit]

In the "Characteristics" section is written the fragment "The ears are b[15]". Later in that section are two nonsensical transitions. The first one seems to confuse the paws and the eyes: "The undersides of the paws are protected from extreme temperatures by a thick covering of fur. They are set low, giving a broad flat appearance to the head." The second confuses the paws and the ears: "This feature makes the cat's tracks obscure and difficult to identify and follow.[17] This trait may protect the inner ears from wind-blown sand and aid detection of movements of subterranean prey." 24.84.84.252 (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: -- hey, you broke this here; could you fix this please? --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpgordon: Removed the broken line. I planned to improve this article, but really busy in real life this month. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bite force

[edit]

"The sand cat has a bite force quotient of 133.1", which is the highest of all cats.[21] that cant be right thats higher than a tiger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bite_force_quotient

Looking at the source, it is almost right. They give two different bite force quotients. For the one at the canine tip, the sand cat's is indeed the highest of all felids (136.7), whereas at the carnassial eccone (sand cat: 133.1) it is surpassed by the Pampas cat, Oncifelis/Leopardus colocolo. And yes, it is well possible that this is higher than a tiger, because it's the bite forece quotient, which is calculated in some relation to body size, and not the pure bite force as such. Robuer (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sand cat. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN Cat Task Force changes

[edit]

Looking through this article, I noticed that it listed four subspecies, whereas the latest assessment by the IUCN Cat Classification Taskforce only lists two, subsuming F. m. harrisoni and F. m. scheffeli into F. m. thinobia. I added this information to the article under subspecies when I first noticed it, and then added the subspecies's names to the taxobox to avoid confusion (since there are presently two subspecies lists).

However, that leads me to a question: should I merge the info from F. m. harrisoni and F. m. scheffeli into F. m. thinobia, as is happening in other places? There does not seem to be any really good reason to keep them separate, as all four ssp. articles are short, almost stubs, and there is no major distinction between the populations in either ecology or research.

Also, the Cat Taskforce's paper on the subject had a better map of the sandcat's range, with ssp. differentiation. Would it be possible for someone to replace the present range map with that one?

If no one objects, I can complete the merges plus add information from the IUCN paper.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this is just the kind of case where we generally subsume subspecies articles into the species article (or don't split them off in the first place). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Had the very same thought this morning too to merge the info under scheffeli !! But please WP:PATT it, since we experienced so much neglect of proper attribution already in the lion subpages. The edit history is rather short, so shouldn't be a big deal to find the additions there. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PATT seems simple enough; thanks for pointing it out. Also, the IUCN subsumed scheffeli under thinobia, not the other way around. Honestly, I can do most of the merging, but getting the IUCN paper's range map is beyond my technical skills.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant: merge info from scheffeli into thinobia. Sorry for confusion. I wonder anyway whether it's necessary to have pages for the subspecies at all, since they are so short. So I suggest to place all into the main page and instead redirect the subpages to the main page's taxonomy section. How's that? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually rather not. The subpages might be small now, but they have the potential to grow.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically: yes. But in practice, may take deeecades. Funding is so very sparse for projects on LC assessed species, so that currently, there is only one ongoing in North Africa, and one in the pipeline in Iran. I don't expect lots of new info in the near future. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a lot of work at Felis margarita thinobia, adding a lot of material taken from scheffeli and harrisoni, as well as from the main page. It could probably use some clean up, but it is long enough now that I'm not sure it's still a stub. Take a look!--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Surely not a stub any more. Next, we should remove content of the harrisoni and scheffeli pages so that nothing gets lost in the process. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I managed to incorporate all the info & refs from harrisoni, so I'll blank it already. F. m. scheffeli still has some I haven't used yet, but I'll get to it next.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got the info from F. m. scheffeli merged; the edit summary is a mess due to an edit conflict. Also blanked scheffeli.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was all in regards to locality records for thinobia. Missing, I think, is a section on behaviour and ecology. Do you want to work on this? There is quite some info in Heptner and Sludskij that may be appropriate to add. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. Is that source available online? I could try to do it today, but only if I have the time- I have school to focus on first. Otherwise, thanks for expanding the articles. Although if I have a lot of free time this weekend, I may take a go at the lion articles...--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mammals of the Soviet Union is available online at the archive.org. You can get to the five volume from here or go directly to the sand cat entry.   Jts1882 | talk  13:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SilverTiger12: see the list of references, there are several articles available for free download. For thinobia, Geptner and Sludskij provide exteeeensive info.
Jts1882: am glad you are watching. I'm trying to bring the main page into better shape. Would you have any idea who can be asked to review this for an eventual uprating to B- or A-class? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sand cat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aven13 (talk · contribs) 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I'll review this article. Aven13 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, also for the initial comment. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a first read-through, it seems like an excellent article, with only a few flaws. Let's go through the checklist.

  • "Its way of moving is distinct: with belly close to the ground..." Add an 'its' before the word "belly".
Done. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "head-and-body" in the intro to a more exact term. Is it head-to-tail? Head to the bottom of its torso?
No, not head-to-tail. Usually this term refers to length from tip of nose to root of tail, i.e. measured without tail. So I added length of tail to make this info more clear. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "First sand cat known to science". Maybe change to "first recorded sand cat."
Can do if you insist. My reason for formulating it this way was : I'm pretty sure that the nomads in the Sahara sighted and encountered sand cats looong before the French explorers discovered it. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Aven13 12:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It retreats into burrows when climatic conditions are extreme such as temperatures of -5 C or 52 C." Where did these numbers come from? Are they two temperatures that have been observed to make the cat retreat into its burrow, or are they the maximum and minimum temperatures that the cat can withstand?
I'll have to check + will revise as soon as possible. Sure is that the Sunquists used a reference, which i'll add instead then. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised; the part about temperature has definitely not been observed in the Sahara by Dragesco-Joffé (1993). Neither by Abbadi (1991) in Israel, who did not refer to temperature at all. The Sunquists (2002) indeed remarked on temperature range in deserts, but did not state that these have an effect on the cat retreating underground. In contrary: it hunts at night, i.e. when temperature has dropped.-- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sand cat kittens were sighted and photographed in this area in spring 2017 that were hidden beneath a tuft of Panicum turgidum grass". Fix the tenses in this sentence.
Done. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "salt cedar".
The link to salt cedar redirects to the genus Tamarix, but not to the species T. aphylla, which is why I linked this species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the distribution and habitat section, you don't need the entire list of sightings of sand cats - that isn't going to be interesting to the average reader. Sentences like "In the late 1980s, four sand cats were radio-collared and tracked over a few months in southern Israel's Arabah Valley" aren't needed. Just listing the general area where the cats live is enough. (Besides, this fact is brought up again later in the article.)
In a previous version of the lead, I had written in the 2nd paragraph : " To date, it has been recorded in >several albeit disjunct localities< in Morocco, .."; but someone thought that the words between > < are superfluous. I do NOT think they are, as to date, there is no evidence for a contiguous pop across the Sahara. That is why I listed all the localities to emphasize this circumstance. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although the cat is known to science for more than 150 years, it was recorded for the first time in Chad only about 5 years ago. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, no record does not mean absence, but certainly a lack of survey effort !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about reincorporating >several albeit disjunct localities< into the habitat section? You would be able to cut it down to a paragraph or two. Something like "it has been discovered in several disjunct locations in Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Chad, etc." (Just an example, but you should be able to heavily cut down on the length of the section). Aven13 13:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the hunting and diet section, the long lists of specific animals found in the animal's feces isn't really necessary. Just say the general groups of animals it eats and move on.
  • "In Israel, the sand cat was thought to be endangered by predation of larger carnivores such as caracal (Caracal caracal), wolf (Canis lupus), and domestic dog (C. familiaris)". What does "it was thought" mean? Was this disproven? Is it true? (Also, link wolf and domestic dog.)
The sand cat has not been recorded in Israel since 2002 and is thought to be locally extinct. The Arabah Valley, where above mentioned study was carried out, has been transferred to Jordan. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the threats section has only one source at the end. Add at least one more in the paragraph.
I'll see what I can find. What do you think about referring to the underground nuclear tests carried out in Pakistan in the area where sand cats used be caught in the 1960s? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note: The photos are one of the strong points of this article (they are very cute). One more in the behavior and ecology section, showing a burrow, the cat moving, or the scratch marks on a tree would be nice.
I'll check the media in commons. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most images in commons show captive sand cats, but none showing a burrow, moving or other behaviour. An option would be to display external photos, like from the website that I just added to External links. Please let me know what you think. I'm afraid: no trees in deserts suitable for leaving scratch marks. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. Oh well. Aven13 12:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now. Stay tuned for more. Excellent article. Aven13 17:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

  • "In 2012 and 2014, sand cats were offered for sale in Baghdad". What happened to them? Released? Bought? Found?
Revised + added this info. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It buries its feces, covering it with feces." The pronoun is incorrect here.
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has a reputation to even kill venomous snakes." The "even" here should be moved after the word kill.
Done. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the intro, it says "chiefly living in sandy and stony deserts". Are there any records of the cats actually living outside of a desert?
No record I know of outside a desert. You mean 'chiefly' is redundant? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there are no records of it outside of one.
Removed the word chiefly. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "at the age of about one year" to "around the age of one year" or something equivalent.
Done. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the exact month in the sentence about the kittens being photographed instead of saying "spring", which can vary from region to region.
Done. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't really think it's necessary. (Nice idea to add some of the habitat section down to the threats section, by the way. Makes it a much better read.)

Alright, very nice job. There are only two more things I can see that need some fixing.

  • For the habitat section, in the beginning, you group together all the info about the cats in the Western Sahara; for the second paragraph you group together all info about the Arabian peninsula. If you can group together the 4 or so sentences involving the middle east into one paragraph that would be good.
Done + revised sequence a little. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the hunting and diet section, you can put all of that info about the specific types of animals down in a note at the bottom or something similar. Just saying what general groups of animals they hunt on is enough.
Done. And decided to not remove the details, but commented them out. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After those two are done, we should be ready to promote to GA.

I have a few more unused references, but can add these later. There'll anyway be reason for updates in the future, as there are some projects running or going to be initiated. I will also slightly revise the section on characteristics. But if YOU think that the present version is suitable for GA promotion, that's super fine with me. Then I can work on these revisions for the next step, e.g. FA. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

[edit]
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Yes. Quite well, in fact.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Yes.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    References very cleanly laid out.
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Good citations.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Not that I can tell.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Yup.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Most definitely. I feel like an expert on sand cats now.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    The only part of the article I'm somewhat hesitant about, the article is very wordy, but it isn't all too important.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Yes.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Yes,
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Absolutely adorable images.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Pass.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass, with flying colors. If we're being honest, this article was already GA when you submitted it. Of course, every articles can use more revisions, but the article is definitely GA at this point. I hope to see you again. Thank you for the good read. Aven13 21:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fails newness criteria

(
)
Sand cat
Sand cat

Improved to Good Article status by BhagyaMani (talk). Self-nominated at 14:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • BhagyaMani, DYK nominations need to be made within seven days of the qualifying event, whether newly created, newly expanded, or newly listed as a Good Article. In this case, the article was listed as a GA on May 9, but not nominated until 29 days later, on June 7. If it were a few days late, we might be able to extend the deadline, but this was 22 days, over three weeks—far past any exception granted over the years. I'm sorry that this one hasn't worked out; I hope you'll try again at DYK, though next time within the seven days. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BlueMoonset. I didn't know and apparently missed this info about the deadline. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carried out...Conducted is much much better

[edit]

Thanks very much...conducted is much better than "carried out. I have no desire to argue with your horror at "due to a lack of in-depth studies targeting wild sand cat populations" versus "as only a few in-depth studies targeting wild sand cat populations were carried out". I may say "lack of"...you may say only a few ..but it conveys the same meaning to the reader, IMO. Some studies were made,...if no studies of any sort had been completed, I hope that is what the article would, of course, say. But please, please don't end a sentence with "carried out." This is why I asked the rhetorical grammatical question, concerning where things were being carried. Thanks for providing "conducted", which I respect as a good choice, since you were unhappy with my changes. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few is more a statement of fact while lack of is making a judgement. I also disagree on conducted over carried out, but neither is needed. I'd also replaced targeting with examined. How about as only a few in-depth studies have examined wild sand cat populations. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm: studies do not examine, but PEOPLE do. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical problems

[edit]

Under Hunting and diet, first paragraph, last sentence: "The Toubou people recounted of sand cats coming to their camps at night and drinking fresh camel milk."

This is very poorly worded. "Recounted of" is absolutely poor English grammar. "The Toubou people of Northern Africa reported that sand cats came to their camps at night and drank fresh camel milk." This is much better, but if you prefer to leave out "Northern Africa", for whatever personal and editorial reasons, please, at least, allow one of these grammatical sentences: "The Toubou people reported some incidents of sand cats coming to their camps at night and drinking fresh camel milk." OR "The Toubou people reported that sand cats occasionally came to their camps at night and drank fresh camel milk."to remain.

Surely, we should supply a two word modifier "Northern Africa". Please let me know why this was objectionable. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the reference but I suspect recounted was used to indicate that this is a word-of-mouth telling of a story, possibly part of folk-law. Reported suggests something more formal, such as a report in a newspaper or scientific journal. If my guess is right then The Toubou people tell stories of sand cats coming into their camps at night and drinking fresh camel milk might be better (or recount for tell). —  Jts1882 | talk  09:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct : word of mouth, but not based on structured interviews. Dragesco-Joffé spent a lot of time with the Toubou during his several visits to the Ténéré. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Cat in Israel

[edit]

I read recently of a wild Sand Cat being seen in Israel, and photographed. If so, it isn't locally extinct, as the article says. I didn't note any details since I wasn't aware of the statement here at the time Chrismorey (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Chrismorey can you provide the citation? Duck Dawny (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't aware of the article when I saw it. An internet search gives:
https://www.treehugger.com/rare-sand-cat-kittens-born-in-israel-4860737
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sand+cat+israel+video&view=detail&mid=42864E38D9F8EE32211842864E38D9F8EE322118&FORM=VIRE
Chrismorey (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have notable citations from credible sources you can add the information to the article. Duck Dawny (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

F. m. tocchii

[edit]

These may be proposed taxonomy instead of one more commonly accepted at the time of this edit, but discussions pertaining to that topic is a matter of phylogeny and not the editing policy of wikipedia. Removing contents that is not of the nature of original research but with a reference to a published article in a peer-reviewed open-access academic journal appears to be arbitrary and subjective.

Tuareg people and snakes

[edit]

Among the Tuareg people of the Ténéré desert, it has a reputation of efficiently killing venomous snakes.

@BhagyaMani: What is the source for this statement? This sentence has no ref, and is featured only in the lead section. From Special:Diff/954253204, I understand that you have inserted this info. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 00:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Dragesco-Joffé (1993) is the source for this statement. He also took photos of a sand cat killing a snake. I amended the sentence in the lead, as I think it is not relevant what the Tuareg think about the cat's diet. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

[edit]

I merged/redirected the two subspecies articles into this one, as they were essentially just partial, sparser duplicates of this article. Also, I added an image that is specified to be of one subspecies to the taxonomy section, so if anyone can find an image specifically of the other subspecies (F. m. margarita), that'd be useful. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sand_cat&oldid=1224315360"