Talk:Cat/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Cat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

I added a citation needed note to the statement that cats live on all continents including Antarctica. I know dogs were removed from Antarctica in the 1990s under the Antarctic Treaty, and in my time there I have not seen or heard of any cats being kept on the Antarctic continent. They do live on the sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island, but that lies over 1000 km from the continent. It may be that some Antarctic station does keep a cat, but I think such a claim should be referenced. StephenHudson (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The text has two refs already, but they seem to cover the sub-arctic. (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The text seems to be taken from this page: [1] which lacks the Antarctica part.Hardyplants (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this was wrong. I didn't realise that the sub-Antarctic islands were not part of Antarctica proper. I've reworded the sentence and this is now hopefully correct. Thank you very much for the comment, StephenHudson. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When 6.0 goes final, we might want to mention 🐈 and 🐱. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Any pointers to a raw image, or further description, of those? Google - x1f408 finds nothing... -- Quiddity (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This will depend on the font, of course, but you can get PDFs of possible renderings at unicode.org. ⇔ ChristTrekker 03:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In U1F300.pdf specifically. I don't think it warrants a mention here though (there are new entities for "tomato" and "hamburger" and hundreds more...). -- Quiddity (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Kk - basically, the cat pictures suck. Surely we can find some cuter ones, which still portray the same species in a domesticated environment????? Stakingsin (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The cat pictures are amazing. Basically, there is no need for new cat pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.82.8 (talk • contribs)

Ha ha, well for the most part I thought they were pretty good. My favorite is the hissing cat (be sure to click for the larger version). I even looked at the country of origin, and I think s/he was from somewhere in South America. You may enjoy, as I did, looking at the pictures used by all the other wikipedia other-than-English-language cat entries. Of corse, none is as cute as my cat Kika (pronounced Kee-ka) Gandydancer (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly dissagree about the cat pictures and would like to make a point: A cat is just as cute as a kitten and if that is not your opinion then you have misjudged how you would feel if you were a 17 year old cat who had lived a happy life with your owner and then a cut little kitteen poked it's head in and your attention came to a stop, you didn't have the treats you liked, you did'nt get that essential every day hug, the kitten was the owner's new bed heater and you were shot into that hard wicker basket from out of the shed that smelt of unfermiliar scents, you were not played with and that kitten was happy you were jelous because that kitten was now the light of your owners life and you were the ditch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.236.144 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no pictures of red tabby cats.--Tatiana 14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)--Tatiana kitty 14:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How would people feel about adding a picture of a hairless cat, or the wire coated kind for variety? -- chew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.94.211 (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

At least five years ago, I had a cat that loved dry cat food. He would eat it until he barfed. He also had diarrhea. I had to keep him inside to keep him out of a neighbours place and bowl. Anyway, the answer then on the internet most readily available came from a veterinarian on a mailing list. Salmon treats diarrhea in cats. Strangely enough, you can't get only Salmon in cans for cats. Luckily, when I got him over diarrhea with Salmon, Tuna did not cause the problem, and Tuna is quite a bit cheaper than Salmon; cheap enough for 59cents a can when it is on sale.

Anyway, what brought me here is that I picked up a stray with mild diarrhea. The cat she is joining in my home can't stand the smell of Salmon, so if she ever gets diarrhea, then I will hav no clue what to do. The new one likes salmon better than dry cat food (WITH CORN MEAL FOR CARNIVORES!).

It's two success stories; one simple realization: Some cats are strictly carnivores. I hav one that is and one that isn't. The one that isn't would hav a weight problem if I didn't keep her intake down to a handful per day. Both of them like canned turkey. Once the problem is gone, maybe I should stick to that to avoid risk.

In any case, I really want to delete a weak sentence about milk causing diarrhea, and seeming to say that all cats are lactose intolerant. I know that is false. I can't feed milk to cats that are being fed dry cat food: They will reliably get diarrhea. I can feed it to cats on fish. I did it; no diarrhea.

216.234.170.88 (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I never had a cat lick my face, before. Hands: yes, face: no. I am using salted salmon for human consumption. The other option is too cheap to be good. I tried the unsalted, first, and she did not like it as much. 216.234.170.88 (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement comes from this 1996 review by Bradshaw, I have quoted the relevant piece for you if you can't get access yourself. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Bradshaw JW, Goodwin D, Legrand-Defrétin V, Nott HM, JW (1996). "Food selection by the domestic cat, an obligate carnivore". Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Physiol. 114 (3): 205–9. doi:10.1016/0300-9629(95)02133-7. ISSN 1096-4940. PMID 8759144. {{cite journal}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); |first3= missing |last3= (help); |first4= missing |last4= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Cats are unable to digest high concentrations of sucrose, and show an aversion to sucrose solution after only 6 hours exposure to a concentrated sucrose solution that induced diarrhoea (3). As the ability of the cat to taste sugars directly is undoubtedly limited, it is thought that they were responding to taste cues from impurities in the sucrose used. A similar aversion may also develop to other sugars, including lactose; limited disaccharidase activity in the small intestine allows these substrates to pass into the large intestine relatively unchanged, where microbial dysfermentation occurs (35). The diahorroea and attendant discomfort that can result are presumably the triggers for the aversion to develop.

Don't forget Dr. Fred McMeowie, It's been a while but the show continues with good marks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.46.177 (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought (and google concurs) that the binomial name is Felis Domesticus. I cannot edit this yet, so I came here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cement22 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Zinbielnov (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Felis Domesticus in not the correct binomial name, if you follow the refs in the article or do more searching on google that will help clarify the issue. Hardyplants (talk)

Is it really neccessary to have a picture of a kitten eating a rabbit's face? Totally unneccessary and graphic. And it's a "Cat" article so you know a lot of kids will visit the page. Please take it out. Meme3234 (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what cats do, they're carnivores. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Cat page of Wikipedia has a section titled: Impact on birds

This section is, at best incomplete. The Humane Society of the United States says that blaming cats for a diminishing bird population inappropriately absolves humans of the responsibility for major local and global problems that impact bird nesting and migration patterns: deforestation and the reduction of wetlands and wild spaces for agriculture, timber, and for human developments.

Importantly – by omission, this section might also foster violence against animals. In an article that starts out by depicting human violence against cats for just this reason, The Humane Society of the United States says,

"Worldwide bird populations are in free fall, and the National Audubon Society has concluded that nearly one quarter of the 448 species of land birds who breed in North America may be slipping toward extinction. Reports by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other wildlife protection organizations agree that habitat loss and degradation are the primary causes of this decline. But the National Audubon Society, along with the American Bird Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation, also identify free-roaming cats—including tame pets allowed to wander from home and feral cats who live outdoors—as a contributing factor. "

The HSUS article further argues that:

"We can't accept our cell phone towers, seaside homes, superhighways, skyscrapers, and suburban sprawl, and still feel justified killing animals who don't jibe with our opinion of what the natural world should look like. Like many wild species, feral cats challenge us to combine our best methods for protecting all animals—while acknowledging the limits of our control over ecological systems."

HSUS link: http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/

Even birding publications have made clear statements of the fact that human development causes habitat loss. Humans living in those developments are also responsible for the cruel abandonment of un-neutered domestic cats. Humans who target cats for their natural behavior are not facing up to their own responsibility either locally or globally.

Example articles: "Over the last century, human encroachment and conversion to agriculture have dramatically reduced these habitats." retrieved on 10/20/2010 from http://www.birdfellow.com/journal/2009/04/03/. Here is another one, "Sadly there is much human encroachment to the mountain and much timber has been extracted. " retrieved on 10/20/2010 from http://www.africanbirdclub.org/countries/Africa/hotspots.html And one more from a World Wildlife Foundation article: "A number of species of the brightly colored bird with a cartoonishly oversized head and sharp beak are considered threatened or near-threatened as a result of human activities, including deforestation." retrieved on 10/20/2010 from http://www.wwfblogs.org/travel/page/4/

If this article is to discuss an impact on birds, it needs to clarify the root of the most signicant impacts on bird populations are the activities of humanity both locally and across the globe – interrupting nesting and migration patterns and destroying habitat for dozens of species to suit our own interests.

Further, it would be responsible if the article were to discuss TNR and other humane, positive programs for controlling cat (and dog) populations, rather than academically – although perhaps unintentionally – fostering an argument that has clearly caused more abuse than good will in the past.

Tabby2 (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} "and are currently the most popular pet in the world."

More evidence should be required than one article, or this line should be removed.

Romulus16 (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I back this request.... Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The source, Scientific American, is verification for the information. Scientific American is a reliable source. I think we need something that contradicts the information. ~~ GB fan ~~ 09:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Scientific American destroys the myth of God and religion. Of course its a reliable source ;). Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've untranscluded the above request, as the request seems to be resolved. Scientific American is a pretty strong source, and should be sufficient for this statement. If anyone has counter-evidence (like a highly reliable source that lists some other animal as more popular), then we could change the statement. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

SciAm is a reliable source, but since this statement looks likely to be challenged, a possible solution would be to attribute it: According to Scientific American, they are currently the most popular pets in the world. How about that?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. ~~ GB fan ~~ 16:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you give a cat a saucer of milk or cream they will drink the lot then pester you for more. Ok they might be eating something bad for them but you'd think they'd learn... And don't cats feed their kittens on milk? 91.109.0.108 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A good majority of mammals are lactose intolerant as adults, why should cats be any different? The production of the enzymes needed to break down "milk sugar" are not needed later in life after the young are weaned, and the production on those enzymes later in life is a waste of energy and nutritional resources. Hardyplants (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that because cats willingly consume milk this means they must not be lactose intolerant? My sister is lactose intolerant and continues to eat ice cream purely for the taste, even though it eventually gives her diarrhea and abdominal pain. She eats it knowing it's going to cause these problems. Unlike her, cats don't have the ability to understand that milk = possible gastric upset later. It's up to their owners to make the decision whether to feed it to them. Just because they eat it doesn't mean they aren't intolerant. :) Autumn Veil (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. As stated in many articles, cats associate directly what foods effect them in what ways. If a cat is fed something and gets diarrhea, the cat will attempt to avoid the same substance when it encounters it later. My cats are 10 year old females who very rarely get any milk. When they do, there is no diarrhea in their litterbox. Bologna has given them diarrhea one time they ate it many years ago and since then they still will not eat even the smallest piece of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saremei (talk • contribs) 10:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with how this article approaches the topic. First, I did not see in the citations anything saying "lactose intolerant" or anything of that nature. One was a study on how different foods affect feline blood sugar, and (admittedly, I only read the abstract on this one) the other addressed food selection, but I did not make it a point to mention lactose intolerance. Let me know if you have access to the full article. From personal experience, I grew up on a dairy farm, where we kept cats in the barn. After each milking session, we'd fill a tray with milk for the cats. They drank it, they did not suffer ill effects. The way lactose intolerance is stated in the article implies that a significant proportion of cats have issues with digesting milk. It states, in a factual manner, that "they are lactose intolerant." This is either an oversimplification or wrong. If you covered your bases, saying that cats may loose their ability to digest milk over time or that some cats are known to develop lactose intolerance, then you might be alright, but the way it is stated is definitely not correct. I have owned several cats over the years (more than 15), and I have never known a single one of them to have a problem with digesting milk.

Lee Anderson, AF Cadet & EE Student (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Lead

• WP:Lead would suggest that the lead should have fewer paragraphs. In particular, there's something odd about a para that has "also" in it's opening.
• Cats rely more on smell than taste, and have a vastly better sense of smell than humans. Does any mammal hunt by taste? Seems odd. Also, can repetition of smell be avoided?

• Nomenclature and etymology

• why does only French get a pronunciation, I'd lose that.
• Including Basque is a bit misleading. The others may well have derived from Latin, but Basque isn't Indo-European, so this must either be a borrowing (rather than derivation), or, less likely, coincidence
• Inconsistent and sometimes incorrect capitalisation throughout. Wildcat is variously capitalised or lower case, felid is incorrectly capped, Jungle Cat is capped, House Sparrow isn't, please check all capitalisation issues
• A group of cats is referred to as a "clowder"... This para needs full referencing. I've never heard of "clowder" or "gib". If these are indeed current names, where are they used? If they are technical terms, say so. "molly" or "queen" — I suspect that she-cat is more common outside the fancy than either of these
• "kitten" (which is also an alternative name for .... What's the point of the list, nothing to do with cats

• Taxonomy and evolution

• I thought there might be a reference to this?
• Linnaeus bit seems odd, the text says 10th edition, but ref and link are to 12th. Also you don't need a retrieval date for a book or journal which exists as a hard copy. I don't think Carl will rewrite this any time soon

• Genetics no GA concerns
• Anatomy

• You need to make it clear where you are talking about domestic cats, and where, as with much of the anatomy, it's Felis in general
• Why the comparison with humans for vertebrae but nothing else? seems incongruous

• Physiology no concerns
• Senses

• 5.8 cm² in area needs US unit conversion
• catnip, Silver Vine and Valerian one lc, two capped

• Health

• Diseases subsection unreffed, should be easy enough to find something

• Behavior

• seven to 28 hectares (69 acres) only partly converted to imperial

• Ecology

• South Island Piopio; Chatham Islands Rail;[ Auckland Islands Merganser;[172] and the common diving petrel[1 inconsistent capitalisation of species. Zino's Petrel is another species driven close to extinctiom by cats

• Domesticated cats

• why is number of recognised breeds only given for the US?
• sweet voice points to human voice. Is this intended?
• First para of "Waste" is unsourced and a bit"how-to"
• Style of coat pattern and body types subheads makes them indistinguishable from the items listed under each heading

• Feral cats

• Why is only US data given?

• References

• checklink some links don't work
• Refs generally OK, although if this was FAC I might query how RS some are. You are inconsistent with author names, sometimes you give first name (or initials) followed by surname, sometimes the opposite. It's also preferred to write journal names in full, not abbreviated
• Some binomial in the references are not italicised, I fixed a couple but not all

• Images

• I feared that this might be jam-packed with icky pictures, but in fact I would only query the second white cat image, which adds nothing
• I edited the captions (removed forced image sizes, unnecessary repetition of article title, remove full stop when not a complete sentence)
• my edits

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Failing in absence of any responses

In Turkey it's not called a qadi. It's spelled kedi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdbMonkey (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Reis, P. M.; Jung, S.; Aristoff, J. M.; Stocker, R. (2010). "How Cats Lap: Water Uptake by Felis catus" (PDF). Science. 330 (6008): 1231–1234. Bibcode:2010Sci...330.1231R. doi:10.1126/science.1195421. PMID 21071630.

A paper that probably should be included in the article. NW (Talk) 01:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. First link is dead, here are add. materials, egs laboraory page about it --Adam majewski (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Could somebody pls help my son has just asked me if i know how tall a british shorthair cat grows for part of his home work. Now to be honest i have not got a clue so if anyone could be so kind to help a father in need pls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.218.220 (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

For your consideration:

As far as I know, cats are crepuscular (most active in twilight) as opposed to nocturnal (most active at night). [The Wiki article "Crepuscular" reflects this, as does the practical observation that cats play-hunt most actively at dawn and dusk]. The words "nocturnal" and "crepuscular" each occur once in the article, however "nocturnal" appears much more prominently, while "crepuscular" is mentioned parenthetically. I wouldn't even comment on this except that I think the clarification would be noteworthy for cat owners and others.

Zinbielnov (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the main article "Cat" under "Nomenclature and etymology" it says that the word "kattepus" is dialectal Swedish. It is not. It's Norwegian. The common Swedish diminutive for cat is "kissekatt" and whether this has anything to do with the term "puss (as in pussycat)" i cannot say (but i doubt it).

My point is: "kattepus" is Norwegian, not dialectal Swedish. It should be removed from the article.

Hellcop666 (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That claim does have a reference - to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. New York: Gramercy Books, 1996: 1571.. And I looked on the net, and found a source saying Norweg. pwse, puns, a call-name for a cat; Swed. dial, pus, katte-pus, kisse-pus, a cat (snippet view only, here.

So, whilst I'm not doubting you, I'd ask if you could please provide some reference, so a suggested rewording with references.

Please reply, and when ready please reinstate the tn|edit semi-protected}} request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  09:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The correct nomenclature is Felis silvestris catus as the domestic cat is a sub species of wildcat having the ability to mate with other wildcat this being the main destiction by which plants, animal and fungi species are distinguished. The reference used to call if Felis catus is over 250 years old and when referencing scientific work the most recent references and work should be considered. Within a 1 minuet search I've found these articals on the actual genetics and breading on the domestic cat which clearly state it can and does breed with other sub species of wildcat and state the binomial name of the domestic cat as Felis silvestris catus. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

• Argued to a standstill earlier, see the archives. Of course the name Felis catus is wrong, but until the scientific community admits it there is nothing that will convince editors here. Abductive (reasoning) 01:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Most other articles have just one animal representing the species. Maybe two (in the same photo) if they are sexually dimorphic, but multiple photos are discouraged. ScienceApe (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The image has been a perennial problem until consensus was reached on the collage. Check the archives. Abductive (reasoning) 10:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed a picture of one cat is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.202.172 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Check the archives. [7] [8] The underlying problem was finding a high-quality image which met all requirements. Cats are hard to photograph. Abductive (reasoning) 09:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Good grief! Isn't it common sense that anyone turning to a Wikipedia article on "Cat" would likely desperately require several lead photos on cats? They may for example have found a stray Turkish Angora or Chartreux and be asking "Is this in fact a cat, or is this something else?" Probably more photos--with detailed captions--are called for, actually.Markdf10825 (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is a featured picture of a cat that may meet the requirements; [9]. Abductive (reasoning) 01:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Quotation: "....when cats walk, they use a "diagonal" gait; that is, they move the two legs on one side of the body before the legs on the other side. This trait is shared with camels and giraffes."

Correction:

• What is being described here is called a "pacing" gait and not a "diagonal" gait. Cats, when walking, use a pacing gait and when they speed up it changes to a diagonal gait.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.213.227 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. This has been corrected. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks 70.26.151.169 (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Searching "domestic cat" results in a redirect to "cat." I believe "domestic cat" is more suitable for two reasons. The first being that "cat" could be a wild cat or a domestic cat, and is therefore too wide. And second of all, the scientific name is felis domesticus, which translates to "cat domestic." I just believe that domestic cat is more suitable because that is what it is, not just a cat. Pumagirl7 ^{Leave a message} 15:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This had occurred to me too. On the one hand, this article distinguishes wildcats from cats, and a more symmetric wording would be to distinguish wild cat from domestic cat; and there is a Wikipedia article called big cats, giving a precedent for the use of "cat" in the broader sense.

On the other hand, this article disagrees with the assertion that the scientific name is felis domesticus. The article says:

The most common name in use for the domestic cat remains F. catus, following a convention for domesticated animals of using the earliest (the senior) synonym proposed.[25] Sometimes the domestic cat is called Felis domesticus[26] or Felis domestica,[23] the term coined by German naturalist Johann Christian Polycarp Erxleben in 1777. These are not valid taxonomic names, and Linnaeus' binomial takes precedence.[27]

On two hands at the same time, this article both distinguishes between domestic and feral cats and calls both of them domestic:

Although wildcats are solitary, the social behavior of domestic cats is much more variable and ranges from widely dispersed individuals to feral cat colonies.... (treating feral cats as a case of domestic cats)

yet

Domestic cats use many vocalizations for communication, including purring, trilling, hissing, growling, snarling and several different forms of meowing.[8] In contrast, feral cats are generally silent. (treating feral cats as distinct from domestic cats)

So some standardization needs to be agreed upon, but I'm not sure just what. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This move was proposed some time ago and rejected. See /Archive 10#Requested move. howcheng {chat} 20:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Whats wrong with the yawning cat? I don't understand why it is a problem.. was there not previously another picture of a cat yawning? I think yawning is a behaviour...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesington (talk • contribs) 20:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, each image that is placed directly links to the adjacent text - this wasn't the case with the yawning cat. Mato (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose this image as the new lede. The arguement i have heard for the collage is that many people what pictures of their cats as the lead image and the collage is a compromise. I think this image has more going for it as it is considered a featured picture. Thus we have more of a case in defending it. LittleJerry (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. The collage is unneeded. If folks want to post their cats somewhere just to show them off, as opposed to adding information, they could be posted to the users' own pages OR instead put into a different article (suggested by Berean in the previous section) in order to display the varieties of colors, coats, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it may have more to do with the fact that the collage illustrates several different species of domestic cat. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a great picture, and more like the ancestral cat than any that appear in the collage, but they are all domestic cats. One who saw only this picture might wonder about some of the animals in the collage, but one who has seen the collage would not doubt that this picture depicts a cat. Therefore the collage is preferable. The tabby pattern appears in the picture of whiskers, and has its own section, so it has not been neglected. Ornithikos (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The other ones have their own section too. The article is filled with pictures of different cats of different coats. Why is it needed in the lead? No disrespect, but I think the collage is just a way for cat lovers to show off their favorite cat than to add anything of value. If the editors of the dog article can settle on one picture so should this, and the domestic dog is far more diverse in shape and size. Cats only different in coat length and patterns, hardly significent. LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Cats rely more on smell than taste, and have a vastly better sense of smell than humans." I think the first part of this goes without say, no animal "relies" on taste to hunt; should this not be replaced with "hearing?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.4.3 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose snakes rely on taste, since they use their tongues to track prey. However, this could be better phrased. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The comment about cats relying "more on smell than taste" truly makes no sense for cats, though it might for snakes, and substituting "hearing" would be unwarranted. Cats have excellent hearing, smell, and low-light vision, but which they rely on more depends on what they are doing, where, and when. Better to say nothing that the senseless or unwarranted, so I reduced the sentence to the basic fact that cats have a better sense of smell than humans do. Ornithikos (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are so many photos in this article that it loads like a snail stuck in molasses. I recommend removing ALL the photos, then slowly add back the most appropriate ones and see what the effect is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, get rid of the extra white cat; the sleeping cat; the cat allegedly watching birds; and the "purring" track that adds nothing but "fat" to the article load time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

At the very least get rid of the "cat watching birds". The sleeping cat can probably go too.--Asher196 (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the suggestions made by Bugs & Asher and also recommend removing:

• File:Ojo de gata trim.jpg
• File:Cat eyes 2007-1.jpg
• File:Cats having sex in Israel.jpg
• File:Domestic cat (Felix catus) fur skin.jpg

...and consider breaking the Coat patterns & Body types sections out (with their photos) & forming a new article from those.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Good ideas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep the one of the cats having sex in israel, it makes me laugh. I love the other guy looking away. I have no probles with loading this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesington (talk • contribs) 10:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Even with the image and sound removal, this is still the slowest loading page I've come across.--Asher196 (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I just downloaded IE9 and the page loads quite fast now.--Asher196 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} A little grammatical change

I believe in the first sentence it should read "small, furry and domesticated, carnivorous mammal" instead of "small furry domesticated carnivorous mammal"

The adjectives should be separated with commas. 76.1.229.84 (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Added commas, slightly differently though. Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's no less grammatical without. —Tamfang (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

207.255.133.26 (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Please change the scientific name (Felis Catus) to the proper name (Felis Domesticus) because improper knowledge may lead some children to believe false information.

The taxonomy differences are explained in detail in the taxonomy section. Are you suggesting that the explanations are improper? ...and if so, please include reliable sources which support your argument. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Cat and Domestic cat are separate articles. —Tamfang (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The separation appeared recently and makes no sense to me. The word "domestic" appears in the Cat article 108 times! Either the articles should be reunified, or the information about domestic cats should be consolidated under Domestic cat, leaving Cat to contain only information common to all cat species. Ornithikos (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We already have an article Felidae along with multiple sub articles (e.g. Felinae) detailing the information common to all species and species sub-groups of felines (cats). VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the first sentence of the article: "The cat (Felis catus), also known as the domestic cat or housecat[5] to distinguish it from other felines and felids, is a small, furry, domesticated, carnivorous mammal that is valued by humans for its companionship and for its ability to hunt vermin and household pests." The domestic cat is F. catus, and this is the article for F. catus. I agree that there should be no separate article "Domestic cat" and that the two articles should be merged. Vidor (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with a merge. Domestic cat should simply be deleted.--Asher196 (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The information in Domestic cat violates no guidelines and is relevant to a legitimate topic with a sizeable audience. Deleting such information would have no justification. Ornithikos (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Domestic Cat has acquired a section titled "Effect on local ecology". The same information appears in the Cat section titled Ecology. Since almost everything currently in Cat applies to Domestic Cat, most of the rest of Cat could be recreated or copied with equal legitimacy, until the same article effectively exists twice. Ornithikos (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Domestic cat page was created as a redirect page in 2002. Just 2 weeks ago, User:Alan Liefting added content to the page, changing it from a redirect to an article. I have left a message on his talk page and have asked him to comment here. --Tea with toast (話) 00:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the Cat article before and after the "Domestic cat" section was separated into a new article, I believe that the separation was appropriate since the "Cat" article was too long and "Domestic cat" has enough content to stand on its own. I believe that the "Cat" article should have all the basic content describing those aspects that can apply to both feral and domestic cats. I think it is appropriate that we now have Domestic cat and Feral cat to further describe those types of cats. To smooth out the separation, we need to comb over the "Cat" article and look at those 108 mentions of "domestic cat" to see what really should be written. We will likely need to alter the lead, and what is left of the "Domesticated cats" section of this article. Also, there should be a note at the top of the article: "See also: Domestic cat". Those are my suggestions. --Tea with toast (話) 01:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That might be progress, but it is quite a large project, which would involve countless debates about what goes where, plus lots of dissension, editing wars, rehashing of resolved topics, and general carrying on. The article was indeed quite long, but how long is too long? How long should a person's legs be? Perhaps separating the articles has created more problems than it solved. If so, it should be rolled back before more of those problems materialize. Ornithikos (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Domestic cat ∪ Feral cat = Cat, I will return Domestic cat to a redirect. This article is fine the way it is, and the Feral cat article has precedence. Speciate (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

With the Cat article reunited, I can see the problem that may have led to its subdivision. The article, though called Cats, is already about the domestic cat, yet it contains a section called "Domesticated cats". The article focuses first on Felis catus in itself, and most of what it says applies to the species wherever and however it is found. Next, "Domesticated cats" focuses specifically on the relationship between Felis catus and Homo sapiens. Then comes "Feral cats", which describes how that relationship can go awry.

It's a logical progression, but having a "Domesticated cats" section in an article about domestic cats is confusing. What about renaming the section "Cats and humans", or something similar, to clarify its relationship to the rest of the article. As an analogy, an article on the English language could usefully have a section called "English and French" that focuses specifically on that topic, even though you can't really say much of anything about modern English without implicitly reflecting the influence of French.

One could say that "Feral cats" is about cats and humans too, but I think that the feral cat question is big enough to get top billing. The goal shouldn't be a perfect compartmentalization, but a reasonable progression of ideas, each with an unambiguous title. For example, you could say that "Poisoning" is about cats and humans, but it binds so well to Health that it might as well stay there. I propose only changing the section name, then letting well enough alone. Ornithikos (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Title of section could be Cats as pets or Cats as companion animals or Cats in the home. Speciate (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Cats as pets" is the most general of those three, because not everyone finds cats companionable and not all pet cats live indoors. Two paragraphs at the beginning of the section would need to be moved elsewhere, given that keeping cats as pets does not usually include wearing or eating them! Ornithikos (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

People are making this more complicated than it needs to be. The article, though called Cats, is already about the domestic cat No it isn't--or it shouldn't be. The article should be about Felis catus, the species that people speaking English are talking about when they say "cat". It should progress as noted above, with sections on the biology of Felis catus, on "domestic cats" (cats kept as pets by humans, whether that be in the home or as "outside cats"), and "feral cats", those being cats that are not kept as pets by humans. Easy, simple, logical. Vidor (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That would solve the problem where it starts: by eliminating the ambiguity caused by calling this article Cats, when properly speaking every Felid is a cat. Calling the article Felis Catus would be consistent with the many other pages about cat species. You would need two redirects, from Cat and Domestic cat. At first I thought this was the perfect answer. Then I remembered that the current article refers to the domestic cat, not Felis Catus, over 100 times outside the Domesticated Cats section. That's one of the factors that bolluxed moving that section to its own article.

Fixing all those references would be difficult without making the article read like a taxonomy thesis, and they firmly establish that the article under whatever name is about the domestic cat. That's why the internal Domesticated Cats section is recursive. As a trial, I will rename it Cats and Humans, which is the only proposal so far that stops the recursion without requiring any other changes. No one objected to that idea, and I don't object to other ideas, but they would require supporting work that has attracted no volunteers. Ornithikos (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The articles for very common and well-known species aren't generally titled with their formal Linnean names: Horse, Dog, Pig, Goat etc. AnonMoos (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, don't rename it Felis catus, because the only people that call Felis catus are scientists, as AnonMoos points out above. Call it Cat. The article should certainly specify that this species, which English-speakers call "cat", is Felis catus. But it has to be named Cat. Vidor (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

actually in Turkish myth cats said to be having 9 nives not 6, the citation page does not have any mention of Turkish version of the myth(completely irrelevant article from guardian)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.140.221 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I clicked on the external link, and it does indeed say that in Turkish and Arabic traditions, cats have six lives. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just type "9 canli kedi" in google, and also try "6 canli kedi" ("cat with 9 lives" in Turkish), whoever written that article has no idea about Turkish version, I am Turkish never heard about 6 lives. Moslt likely person written the article found about the arabic version and "wisely" assumed Turkish version should be same, After all Turks are Arabs to most westerners right ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.140.221 (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think cat-myths in all of Europe state they do have 9 lives. Besdomny (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes cats are said to have 7 lives in Germany. 84.134.169.253 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph on trap-neuter-return in the Feral cats section was evidently provided by an advocate. It does not just describe the practice neutrally, as an encyclopedia should, it makes an impassioned case for it, which is continued in similar terms in the reference provided. Other opinions also exist.

One is that feral cats are just living the normal life of cats, who go wherever the rodents are, much as city pigeons are just living the normal life of pigeons, which are actually rock doves who like to live on cliffs. Human life unavoidably provides lots of food for rodents, exploding their populations, and lots of clifflike buildings; so naturally we find ourselves joined by cats and pigeons. The choice is theirs. Every species reproduces beyond what its environment can support. That's life; it's not our problem.

This opinion is just one of many, and so is the opinion that trap-neuter-return is a wonderful idea that should be practiced universally. One thing the article could point out is that those who would practice trap-and-neuter must ensure that they really do feed the cats that they release, not for a little while, but throughout their lives. A neutered cat, if returned to the wild, would lack the hormonal drives necessary to establish territory and thus procure food. Without lifelong human support, it would soon starve. Ornithikos (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Few argue that feral cat's aren't a problem, but there is a variety of ways to deal with it. Re-domesticating adult feral cats is not easy,[10] as I have witnessed firsthand. TNR is somewhat analogous to the containment policy developed by Truman and JFK in foreign affairs. You keep the problem from spreading so it just naturally shrinks. Feral cats don't live long without a caretaker, just two years (though many TNR programs do include just such a caretaker) [11]. Cats have evolved with us, and with time they have changed to the point that they are dependent on us.[12] To a point, an appropriately sized feral cat population can be important to the urban food chain, eating disease-harboring rats that will eat anything human's discard; this is only possible however if the cats receive supplemental food.[13] The sources and the scientific facts support this point, it's not just someone's pro-cat bias.--Ipatrol (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well put, but my objection was not to the position advocated, but to the advocacy itself. I tweaked the wording to avoid advocacy while saying the same things, and to note the importance of followup support as part of a responsible TNR operation. What I worry about is people who want to neuter and abandon. Hopefully resorting to facts alone will satisfy everybody. Ornithikos (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

All mention of feral cats in the article seems to mainly refer to continental USA. On remote islands or places like Australia or New Zealand which never hosted any form of feline prior to the introduction of cats their arrival is usually an unparalleled disaster. In Australia alone feral cats have been implicated in the extinction or endangerment of numerous small mammal species and the survival of several species of rare marsupial (ie. the Mala Lagorchestes hirsutus) is entirely dependent on the provision of cat-free habitats through building enclosures. In these contexts feral cats can be regarded as a form of pernicious pollution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.236.57 (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Feral cats in an urban environment should not be confused with cats as an invasive species. Feral cats are part of the urban ecosystem everywhere in the world, where they beneficially control rodents and destructively overpopulate unless something controls them. TNR strives to establish a better equilibrium by diminishing their fecundity while preserving their appetites; TCE can also be effective. Cats invading an ecosystem where nothing like them ever existed typically have disastrous effects, as does any species that invades any ecosystem, which every species does at every opportunity. The Feral cats article gives detailed coverage to the phenomenon of cats as an invasive species, but avoids demonizing them, as NPV requires. Ornithikos (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How come the prominence of cats on the internet isn't mentioned? Cats must be one of the most common things used in 'funny images'. I believe it was even joked about in that one commercial. Just my personal guess - it's because they always seem so 'expressive' (but that obviously wouldn't be included in the article). 67.10.113.37 (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the prominence of cats on the Internet is not mentioned because that is not a fact about cats, but about the Internet, which has not changed cats themselves at all. The Internet can facilitate ailurophilia, cat adoption, and the coordination of groups that help with cat problems, but that isn't special: the Internet facilitates essentially everything! Ornithikos (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an ingenious response. The myth about cats having nine lives has not changed cats themselves at all either, but it is a connection between cats and human culture, and we wouldn't argue that "it's not about cats at all but about myth-making" . The prominence of cats on the internet is a cultural phenomenon and has been mentioned in a number of articles: http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2009/02/10/cat_internet/ 203.196.81.85 (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I should like a more profound description and picture of the cats mouth and teeths. Since it is the only organ(?) that keeps him alive it should be considered more importance.

Sorry for the bad English.

Sincerely,

J.P. Clifford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpclifford (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am staying at my brothers house and my cats are staying in the garage until we get into a place. His cat was sneezing when we got there and when they took it in the house it seemed to get better. Both my cats are now sneezing and coughing and the one is acting very tired. I am worried that there is something seriously wrong but cant afford a vet until next week. The fact that his cat got better when it went in the house does anyone know if there might be something in the garage that they might be getting into or is it just a cold because they have never been outdoor cats before. There are no chemicals of any kind in the garage nor is there antifreeze. That is why I am confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.180.170 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

i want to know giant panda facts in hindi please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.189.101 (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking your question at Talk:Giant panda. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Due to the state of this article being locked, at least at the moment that I am posting this, only admins can edit it. But that doesn't mean other members can't suggest improvements. Here, non-admins can post requests for minor changes and edits in the form of a bulleted list; new suggestions should be placed at the end of the list. When an admin carries out or dismisses a suggestion, it should be deletd.

-Paragraph 3, line 2 "includes the use a variety of vocalizations" should be changed to "includes the use of a variety of vocalizations" for grammatical purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrProfessorQ (talk • contribs) 19:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done – Thanks very much for pointing this out, MrProfessorQ. If you stick around for a while, you will shortly be able to make updates like this yourself. This article can be edited by autoconfirmed users, which means more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits. You don't need to be an admin (I'm not). – Wdchk (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The common Slug is instant death for cats. They carry some bacteria that cannot be cured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.253.2 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Source, please. --Seduisant (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

According to this article, it has been assumed that the Theory of Evolution has been proven as fact when in fact it has not. Due to this fact, the article has listed as irrevocable fact that the cat "evolved" from other species. This does not include the alternative theory of Intelligent Design; therefore, a neutral POV has NOT been maintained. If and when the Intelligent Design theory concept of how the "cat" came to be is added, the NPOV Tag may be removed. Removal of this tag before then will result in reporting. Matthewgibson3321 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any references from mainstream scientific sources? If not, that's why it's not cited. We don't have to give equal weight, we give due weight according to reliable sources. Mainstream science does not consider Intelligent Design to a scientific concept but a creationist rejection of evolution (ID does not have a monopoly on creationism, by the way). Because mainstream science does indeed consider evolution to be proven fact (see for example the E. coli long-term evolution experiment), Wikipedia follows suit. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if ID has no real acceptance among biological scientists, then discussion of it belongs on articles specifically about evolution controversies, not on 5,000 different articles on various species. As has been said before, Wikipedia is not "neutral" between the hypotheses that the earth moves around the sun and that the sun moves around the earth... AnonMoos (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do I get the feline that we're going to see meow of this later? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

At least you didn't say "purrfect". —Tamfang (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, the earth moves around the sun?129.139.1.69 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This article at The Atlantic - amid plenty of interesting points about T. gondii - makes note of cats being popularized as pets by bohemians in Paris and London in the later half of the 18th century, which if further (i.e., well) sourced, would be an important point in the history section.

Certainly most people have heard about the Egyptians, but the article goes from their religion to now with nothing in between. Keeping them for their own aesthetic value / companionship among the middle class rather than keeping rats out of the food supply among the farming class certainly began somewhere. Any stories about prominent ones being kept by medieval rulers would also be interesting. 101.229.79.243 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Suggesting change to: 8.6 Reproduction

I think this picture:

should be replaced with this video:

because the description under the picture is a bit hard to understand without seeing it.

Helenecatty (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think editors would be willing to add a video of a sexual act. — Abhishek  ^Talk 12:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya, a picture of one cat mounting another should not be posted on wikipedia. No matter how funny or 'informative' it may be.MilkStraw532 (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, such a picture was already there, with no objection, and there is longstanding consensus against censoring such images. This discussion is about having video footage available instead of the still image. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. Obviously, that might offend people. Whereas the pictures [over in this article] are completely encyclopedic and contribute value to the internet as a whole. They're 'informative' too, but funny might be 'stretching' it. Haha. And no, I didn't have anything to do with that article (other than commenting on the horror), but the ridiculous 'butthurt' on this particular talk page over a basically harmless addition is making me laugh. 24.1.252.60 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone is tallying !votes, note that 24.1.252.60's "Right...that might offend people" above is clearly sarcastic, and the editor he/she is in favor of using the video. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"It's offensive" is a poor reason, however "videos use up more bandwidth, and we already have a picture illustrating the same concept as well as the video would for most of our users who wouldn't bother to open it because most people don't care to watch cats humping" is a good reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If people don't want to see it they don't need to open the file. I see that in the catarticle from Suriname uses the video (http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мачка), that the article from Bulgaria also included the video (http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Котка) and so on (you can see the rest of the articles that is including this video in the video description). I just want to point out that it is encyclopedic, not sexual as one person said. --Helenecatty (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of those arguments against using the video are bogus for consensus-judging purposes, for numerous reasons:

1. Without clicking it to animate it, the video preview is essentially identical in form and informativeness and blandness to the original still image (albeit they are of different cats). The article as such would be basically unaffected by the change.
2. Other-language Wikipedias use this or similar videos in their versions of this article, without problems; I'd also bet good money that there are similar animal mating videos used in other English Wikipedia articles, but I have better things to do that go look for them, since it isn't isn't important anyway, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
3. Footage like this is entirely routine on the Discovery Channel, National Geographic shows, Animal Planet, etc. There's nothing unusual or non-mainstream about it, and certainly no suggestion that it is indecent, obscene, or otherwise restricted.
4. Videos do not use up more bandwidth unless they're actually played, and if they're encyclopedic, we don't care anyway; Wikipedia and commons provide a large number of videos, and as has been said at WP:Village pump a million times, bandwidth is never a valid argument against anything that improves the encyclopedia, unless the change in question demonstrably causes technical problems, which using a video link on this page obviously won't.
5. Even the most psycho-conservative religious nuts do not propose that animal mating is in any way "offensive" or "dirty". The fact that there are a few individuals who for personal reasons are very squeamish about anything to do with reproduction is of no concern here, as they are not forced to watch the video. Cf. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
6. The fact that there are people who find animal mating of personal prurient interest is irrelevant; this is true of virtually everything, from shoes to clowns.
7. Only children (and perhaps childlike adults who have spent their entire lives indoors and never been exposed to nature) would consider basic animal mating footage "funny" (unless something funny happened in the footage, like the animals fell over). Even the slew of "funny animal videos" TV programs never present footage like this as humorous, and a quick review of the "tee-hee" comments on pages of such footage at YouTube clearly indicates they're all from either kids or idiots. Normal adults tend not to think that way. Those that do have no effect on how we create an encyclopedia, anyway.
8. There's nothing excessively explicit about the footage; there is no undue focus genital details or something else that might make the footage of non-encyclopedic value in the context. It is not a WP:GRATUITOUS problem.
9. There's been no suggestion that the footage is not typical and illustrative, nor that it is fake, so it has no WP:neutral point of view, WP:verifiability or related problems.
10. No argument could be made with a straight face that the mating habits of a species are, alone among all its biological and behavioral details, somehow not a matter of encyclopedic interest.
11. The supposition that most readers would not bother to watch the video is irrelevant, per WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL. Most readers wil never read the Cat article at all, but this is no reason to delete it.
12. And, most importantly, Wikipedia is not censored, as a matter of WP:Policy. We don't even use disclaimers.

The only valid potential objection that has been raised so far is that having it be a video might not be any more encyclopedically informative than having it be a still. This is a very weak argument, since a still does not show how cats mate, only what position they take when doing so. It's like arguing that footage of a race car in action cannot be encyclopedic because a still shows what it looks like and we all know that it rolls on its wheels.

The real reasons to not use this particular video are a) the video quality is very low by modern standards; and b) the still of it is much less clear even at thumbnail size than the original image this video would replace, so the replacement would actually degrade the quality of the article on one level to ostensibly improve it on another. A better video should be found. That said, I have no objection to the video being added instead of replacing the original image, as long as a better one is eventually found, and does replace the image, to remove the redundancy.

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your points about arguments against posting this video. Displaying feline mating behavior in a video form can be scientifically informative. However, I'm not sure the video quality is that bad; it seems to show the behavioral aspects in sufficient detail. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SMcCandlish -- I can't view the video right now without futzing around with software downloads and configurations (which I don't want to do), and the JPEG thumbnail is clearer and more relevantly informative than the OGG still thumbnail... AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully with everything said by Candlish, and am surprised that I have nothing to add. I would like to point out those who haven't even watched the video yet to go ahead and watch it as I think a squeamish person would be more turned off by the idea of the video than the video itself. That said I support adding this video in addition to the photo.AerobicFox (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

<sigh…> ok, another example to add to the list. Why do we even need the still image? The pertinent aspect of cat sexuality is not that they fuck - sexual intercourse is a commonality among higher vertebrates - but rather that cats have a fairly unique breeding interaction. --Ludwigs2 19:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am currently arguing for a relaxed attitude to censorship (i.e. acknowledging that we do it, and then discussing case by case if and how we want to do it) in an Arbcom case. In this case I fully agree with SMcCandlish. There is no reason for censorship, but the video is of such a poor visual quality that it cannot replace the photo. Hans Adler 20:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's not worth arguing the point here (I'm not overly concerned about the image, and although I'd like to have a rational discussion about it just to hash it out, I suspect any such discussion would attract a whole lot of irrational input that would be counter-productive). I'm voicing it for form's sake more than anything else. No worries. --Ludwigs2 20:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I support adding the video, either in addition to the still image or as a replacement for it. Ideally I think we should have both - the image is clearer than the video still, but I think a total of four illustrations for this short section would be too many. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the video should be added in addition to the keeping of the photo, and the future replacement of both if a better video is found. The video does better illustrate the biting material, but the low quality of the video also makes the image better in terms of a quality viewing of the subject. Thus, keep both until a video is found that is better quality and illustrates the subject as well as both of them do together. Silverseren^C 12:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Quality of this video is terrible (zoom in - zoom out - zooom in - zooom out) so in this situation picture is a better idea Bulwersator (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything at all wrong with having either a photo or a video of mating cats if they illustrate the subject. Unfortunately, yes: the video quality is pretty crap, it's difficult to see the female's position, and most of the duration is the tom trying to figure out what he's doing. Photo is a better option until a decent video is available. ~ Kimelea (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Domestic cats are known to eat plants. Therefore, domestic cats are omnivores, not carnivores.

174.62.67.119 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Have a look at the Physiology section and the associated references. Cats are obligate carnivores and not omnivores because they can not survive on diets without relatively high quantities of protein. –TheIguana (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, cats eat plants because it causes them to vomit, so they can dispose of their hairballs. Shouldn't you know at least that much? 74.36.129.181 (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Cats are known to eat grass because it helps with their digestion for the fiber contained, but it's a very minor part of their diet. They are still carnivores. Wikicali00    36:0 04:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This article was tagged last month as too long. I think the reasons are pretty obvious. I'd like to make a suggestion (not an edit request - a suggestion that ought to be discussed here) about how we might remedy this. I'm looking especially at the section about breeds. We have very long, detailed descriptions of every cat breed when each one already has its own separate article. As far as making the article a more comfortable length, might a good place to start be trimming the section about breeds? Sleddog116 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, If we could put the breeds topics into their articles then we could shorten up the article quite a bit. also for the section on humans and cats could be dealt with. It could even be made into a new article. They also talk a lot about the specific cat characteristics, and we can shorten that up a bit too. Thanks for bringing that up. Karicats7 22:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just want to add that this article has 56kb of readable prose according to the page size tool, which is not so long that the article necessarily has to be split or reduced, per WP:LENGTH. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be shortened, but I just thought I would mention this. Buttonwillowite (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the length of this article really that important? Does "length = quality"? Seriously, I like this article long as it is. --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By the way, if you want one section to be an independent article, I recommend WP:RFC. --George Ho (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, GH. I took another look at the article, and it seems entirely reasonable to have an article of this length on a broad topic like cats. If there's consensus (or no objection in the next couple days), I will probably remove the banner from the article. I just don't see a good reason to keep it there, and it looks ugly. Buttonwillowite (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed that for you. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is true that it can be lengthy and still be a good article, but, do we really need all of that information in one single article when there are other articles already addressing these topics. Karicats7 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If an article of subtopic doesn't exists, and if you consider splitting a section into a new article, please read WP:N. If unsure, go to notability noticeboard to ask which subtopic of "Cat" deserves its own article. Actually, to be honest, not all subtopics of this article are easy to search. Tiger and jaguar are easy, but who is typing "relationship between humans and cats" or "<what cats eat>" or "<how cats breed and feed kittens>"? I don't think every subtopic of cat is notable enough to guarantee an article. However, let's hear other people's opinions. --George Ho (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please fix this link? Looks like a copy and paste goof.

Here's the last one from the archive:(http://web.archive.org/web/20090307030050/http://animal.discovery.com/guides/cats/body/extended.html)

71.184.110.84 (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks (sorry it took so long - I shelved it on my to do drawer). Materialscientist (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The lede now says that domestic cats are primarily nocturnal. Is this true? As a source it cites the Animal Humane Society, but that's just the FAQ section of a web site. It's not really authoritative. I had always thought that the scientific consensus was that domestic cats--most felids, really--were crepuscular, i.e. most active during dawn and dusk. --129.199.158.132 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good article indeed,but I think this article is very long and needs to be straightened out a little. For example, I would probably put the history at the beginning. I think all the sections are important, but there should be less information so there would be a little less to read. I think there's a simple Wikipedia page, but I don't know if that one may be too simple to read. Also about the pictures: all of them are good and has to do with what the author is writing about, but it would be OK if there was less. Woofy13457 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean {{very long}}, {{overly detailed}}, and {{too many photos}}? --George Ho (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In the bodies of both the Cat article and the article on African Wildcats, it is asserted, with citations, that the African Wildcat is the progenitor of the Housecat. The caption on the picture of the African Wildcat in the Cat article, however weasels a bit, stating "The wildcat Felis silvestris is a close relative and possible ancestor of the domestic cat." (emphasis added) Intentional? Correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.231.186 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Karicats7 suggested that a section of "Cats and Humans" be split into a new article. For now, I'm abstaining this proposal, as I would like to see your opinions on this. --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Approve. The article on cats is getting rather long, and I think that cat-human interaction deserves an article of its own. Diamantina (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. This is a sub-topic of the general topic. It fits with the overall theme of the article, adding depth and relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.116.93 (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Approve. This article has been through hundreds of users wanting to add more and more things. I mean about 1/3 of the article is just references. Even though references are a very good thing in avoiding plagiarism, a lot of it really just isn't useful. So, I am also saying some work can be put into making this article much better, so that it doesn't bore the reader to tears with how long it is. If someone is interested in "Cats and Humans" then we can just put a link to the page on the cat page. Karicats7 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Disapprove. The whole section is smaller than some other sections, thus a stub may pop up. --76.20.130.244 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done → see cats and humans.

@ 198.53.116.93: the #cats and humans section is still there, but trimmed and with at {{main article|cats and humans}} template.

@ 76.20.130.244: the article cats and humans isn't a stub. benzband (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Since everybody and their mother seems to want to add pictures of their cats to this article, I've created an edit notice for picture addition/replacement guidelines. Feel free to improve that as needed. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 00:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this but it should be more generic so that it can be added to any cat page. I'm constantly removing images from bicolor cat for example. It seems everyone with a cat wants its image and name to be on wikipedia. I would also suggest mentioning there is no need to provide the name of the cat, the encyclopedic value of the photo is the depiction of the animal/markings, not its name. SpigotMap 01:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

By more generic I'm referring to "This article gets more than 10,000 page views a day". I'd go as far as to say "This article already has enough images" but that's just me. SpigotMap 01:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The wording in the sentence below (from the first section) implies that cats have actively evolved better hearing to catch their prey. Evolution is not an active process, and it cannot be proven that cats have better hearing because of any one particular reason. It should probably be reworded to the matter that better hearing allows cats to be better predators.

Current sentence: "This is because the usual prey of cats (particularly rodents such as mice) make high frequency noises, so the hearing of the cat has evolved to pinpoint these faint high-pitched sounds."

Could be changed to something along the lines of: "The usual prey of cats (particularly rodents such as mice) make high frequency noises, being able to pinpoint these faint high-pitched sounds gives cats an evolutionary advantage."

Dirtmcguinness (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh thank God, someone concerned about Lemarkian vs Darwinian differences, instead of a young earth creationist. I'll get right on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dirtmcguinness -- We should certainly avoid implausible "just so" stories or unnecessary searching for teleological effects. However, in this particular case, there seems to be a fairly simple cause-and-effect relationship, so I don't see any real problem with the current wording... AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Cats can also be poisoned by another lily, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargazer_lily which are very popular cut flowers in the UK. The vet's office has a big warning poster about this type of flower, so it would be of benefit to British cats if this could be added to the poison section. thanks.

Update -it's the "Poisoning" section & sorry, forgot to sign - Kath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.194.1 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In Turkish, "Pisik" or "Püsük" means "cat". To call a cat, Turks say "Pisi pisi pisi ... !"--98.196.234.69 (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a source, then you make include it. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It probably originated as onomatopoeia in an unknown ancient language that was not written down. Standard dictionaries (OED1, AHD3, etc.) tend to suggest an origin (for the English word) in the Germanic language grouping... AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Turkish language has made relatively few contributions to the English language (and vice-versa), and then largely on Turkish items (yogurt) or institutions (seraglio). Something so basic as a synonym for one of the names of a cat is highly unlikely. "Pisik" or "Püsük", if related to the English word "pussy (cat)", would likely be a Greek or Romance loan-word in both languages. Pbrower2a (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Modified text to say that "catling" was current in the early modern era of the English language. To say it was current in "medieval Britain" is inane; English was spoken as a native language nowhere else in the world, then.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Time to refresh the cat poster at the begining of the article. I have replaced it with a new one that I have prepared using some of the best pictures I could find. I leave here the image together with a possible alternative. Some help is needed to identify the beatiful portrait of the black cat. I have lost the track of the file! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the alternative to the article image because it shows a walking cat; all the other cats pictured are sitting or lying down. Could you incorporate File:Felis_catus-cat_on_snow.jpg into a new composition based on the article image, perhaps by replacing the black cat at the lower right with the walking cat? I think the alt as it currently stands has a weaker composition than the article image-- cats looking off the page and one too many images to be useful at the current size. Thanks for your efforts. --Martinship (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Martinship on all points. While the black kitty portrait is nice, it's not helping the article be more encyclopedic, which the walking cat will, and they are about the same shape of picture. Meanwhile the alt. proposed and shown here, File:Cat poster 1.jpg, is too "busy". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to respond so late. The only problem with the proposed change is that we will have an exagerated number of tabby cats. Will that be ok? Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

They're all shorthairs! Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Chiming in again. Given the huge number of cat breeds, the poster is too small and has too little variety. (All shorthair, two tabbies, all very common breeds.) I'd double the number of pictures and include longhair and exotic breeds. And just to emphasize variety, there needs to be a picture like this one that demonstrates how big some cats can get. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Since article Cat genetics is short, and the genetics section of the present article is long, it seems to me swapping them would better fit in with Wikipedia:Summary style. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's valid; but I'm not in love with the replacement. This article doesn't need a definition of 'genetics' or summary of what it's good for. (I'll need to think a bit about what to put there.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I made some changes to both articles. I think it makes sense now Bhny (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes; good going. That done, I figure the article is still too large and the next targets for stricter application of WP:SUMMARY should be behavior followed by anatomy. Maybe taxonomy after those. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a well known and important part of most cat's behaviour. I am very surprised it is not mentioned. 109.148.78.160 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that normal cats have a "fear of water"; rather, they have a dislike of having their bodies be immersed in water. AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well you pick up a domestic cat and take it near water and see what happens. It's not a dislike, it's a morbid fear. The thing with scratch, bite and panic doing anything to escape. As far as I can find out it's because of oils in their fur. The importance of a cat to not get wet has evolved, resulting in an instinctive terror of it.31.53.208.88 (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it thinks you might throw it in, then of course there's going to be a problem! However, if you allow the cat to approach the water on its own at ground level, so that it feels that it's in control, then usually there will be no "morbid fear of water" (and sometimes the cat might not even care too much about getting its paws wet). Rather, the cat will simply act to prevent its body from being immersed in water... AnonMoos (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can cite some reliable sources, go for it. I doubt that you'll find anything so conclusive as an evolved fear of water. There are in fact several domestic cat breeds that appear either to enjoy or at the very least not mind water. As for wildcats, there are many felines that swim, play in water, use water for cooling, etc. --TimothyDexter (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are a (very) few breeds of cat that do not have this fear, Turkish Van being one well known one. However these breeds represent a VERY small percentage and so do not represent the majority AT ALL. It can be proved by taking a young domestic cat that has never before in its life become wet and thus have no experience to base a dislike. If this cat is taken to a body of water, the cat will enter a blind panic, proving the response is instinctive. Instinctive responses such as this are always based on fear, so a domestic cat has an instinctive fear of water. I will attempt to find citations for this for you. However, I've noticed on Wikipedia, that what is classed as a "reliable source" often is very far from being so. Page editors often reject very reliable sources simply because they disagree with them. 109.157.98.96 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fairly certain your point's simply untrue, but certainly sourced & unrefuted studies would be worthy of inclusion. 101.229.79.243 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've often heard that cats are afraid of water, but it completely contradicts my own experience. Both of my cats are actually attracted to it. I've even seen pictures of cats happily swimming. I'd suggest avoiding this topic unless you can attribute it to a serious source. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet, there are plenty of examples of cats, who are comfortable with the water. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

My cat is afraid of water if you carry it to water. But if you let him go there on his own, he is fine with it. 19maxx 67.237.38.68 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If we're just going to present unsourced and anecdotal evidence here, I'll point out that my cats are licensed scuba divers. --64.118.218.181 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not unheard of, but I'm going to insist that you source any claims of feline literacy.--Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Cats are strong enough (just look at such powerful analogues as jaguars, tigers, and the Asian fishing cat) to be powerful swimmers. They simply have more hair for their size than those larger creatures, and they easily water-log. Once they water-log the water overpowers them and weakens them. Hypothermia can quickly set in, and the cat drowns. For a short time a cat can swim, probably to get back to the land. Add to that, cats are land creatures whose vision isn't good on or in water.

Licensed scuba divers? Cats in wetsuits and well-adapted helmets might never get wet. In any event, such behavior is learned. Scuba diving is very different from unassisted swimming. There are enough cats that freakish behaviors are possible, but this is Wikipedia and not the National Enquirer. Pbrower2a (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

While reading through this article, I noticed three statements that might not be accurate. I have only personal observation to cite for any of these, so I am not going to edit the article. I will do some digging to see if I can find some citations.

1. The article states that cats don't sweat. Cats do sweat from their paw pads when they are distressed; you can sometimes see this at a veterinarian's office, where a distressed cat walking on the examination table will leave damp paw prints.
2. Hunting behavior. Th article states that cats are solo hunters. That may be true most of the time, but they do sometimes hunt together.
3. There's a statement that male cats have nothing to do with raising kittens. That may be true for some males, but not all. I've seen (neutered and intact) male cats take part in raising kittens, even kittens that weren't theirs, by playing with, grooming, and cleaning the kittens.

Marina M. (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

All of these claims require citations to reliable sources. Your personal anecdotes don't qualify, and may be mistaken anyway. E.g., the cat's paws may have been damp from grooming; what appeared to be two cats cooperatively hunting may have been two competitively seeking the same prey; and the grooming behavior may have been friendly, not parental; to address all three of your observations in order. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Under "Cats and Humans" the following claim is made:

Additionally, cat consumption can be found in parts of Australia where residents have taken up the practice to reduce the feral cat population.^[1]

The claim made in the article is not supported by the reference. The reference provided is quite clear on the context of the cat consumption. 203.45.39.201 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope it's true, but in any case this article already gives too much space to a topic better handled in Cat meat. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The evidence we have from that source is that some Aborigines eat wild cats and that one person served a cat dish in some kind of food competition, and suggested that people eat more feral animals. That's not enough to claim people are eating cats for population control.--Dodo bird (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm addressing the small question of what the present article should say, not the bigger question of whether the topic should be kept out of Wikipedia in general. This article should be brief and vague on the topic, for example, "It is less common for people to eat Cat meat than the meat of other domestic animals". Meaty questions of particular countries, cultures or purposes belong in that article and its talk page. Regardless of how the fine points of culinary motive may play out, this is the wrong article for the details. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean meaty meaty questions, right? Anyway, since there is a Cat Meat article, your idea has obvious merit. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement that cats are primarily nocturnal is false. They are crepuscular. 129.1.215.84 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated in an edit summary, "Beneficial changes helping a new line to survive/breed more is evolution defined." There is no other way to describe cats' ancestors having an advantage which passed on because it allowed them to survive and breed better than those without that advantage except as "an evolutionary advantage." The only way one can disagree is to be completely (even willfully) ignorant about evolution. It is no more original research than calling the picture of the cat skull in the Anatomy section as such, or noting that 2 + 2 = 4. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the lede summarizes the article. I've recited the ref that discusses the evolutionary advantage of cats' (and other animals') hearing, even though per WP:LEDE because it's discussed elsewhere in the article we shouldn't have to. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Having every confidence my cat can hear squeaky voices because her ancestors were the ones who were most able to feed on squeaky rodents, I don't see why this particular article, and particularly its lede, need discuss whether it was a matter of differential reproduction or a gift from Bastet. She can hear squeaks, and she likes mice, and not in the same sense in which I like cats. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unlike written in the article, it is believed/said by Turkish that cats have 9 lives, not 6. And there's also an idiom in Turkish: "like a cat with nine lives." Please note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.86.194 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The article this is cited from does not define what constitutes it as being the most popular pet in the world and is simply an opinion based on the number of estimated cats in the world, of which a large portion are feral. Just a minor discrepancy I saw in the last paragraph of the introductory page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.199.19 (talk • contribs)

I gather Scientific American is a reliably source (?). If you have an issue with their methodology I guess you'd have to take it up with them. I have clarified in the article that the statement is according to them, however. Яehevkor ✉ 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

some one put cheetohs is a cat.can some one chage that please--Kittylover101 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Kittylover101 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Kittylover101 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done, removed Cheetoh from the cat breeds template (not a recognized breed). Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

When I searched for Cheetoh on their website, their Standing Rules, on page 55 (p. 59 of the PDF) reads "701.4.5 The following is a list of the names and current abbreviations for experimental breeds as of 05/01/12: ... XCT- ExperimentalCheetoh". Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The links to [grunting] and [trilling] go to articles that don't fit cat vocalization. Hillbillygirl (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The tales under the header "Reproduction" are actual but false. It has appeared to me that most cats in this western world have instincts wich are broken. They look like a cat but the animal is not there. May be I have been the lucky one to receive an unspoiled cat. It is a tabby which in a struggle whit her mother when she was a kitten happened to save her original instincts, be it far away. This cat has only two times of heat. One in March and one in September. This remembers her tropical anchestry, because having kittens in the winter does not make sense. A cat is a very sensitve animal, wich perhaps gave the Egyptians the motive for holyness. But as such the animal is the most tortured animal in western society. It has become a fleshball with a nice skin. But, yes humans are the measure! Left the question: "What humans?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.80.250.145 (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the characters of the British sci-fi sitcom Red Dwarf is called Cat. Has anybody considered mentioning that in this article? --68.103.31.159 (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would we, we have a Cat (Red Dwarf) article? This article is about the species not the fictional character. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

68.103.31.159 -- He's listed on the Cat (disambiguation) page which is linked at the top of this article, but that's as far as it's useful to go... AnonMoos (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL 74.198.164.64 (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The BBC reports.... Cats are one of the top threats to US wildlife, killing billions of animals each year, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Define wildlife? Are we talking birds and rodents? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Written by a cat hater? :P —Kri (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In any case, the study ("The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States" by Scott R. Loss, Tom Will, and Peter P. Marra, Nature Communications) was only published on Jan 29th, so it's not necessarily reasonable to expect it to be incorporated in the Wikipedia article the same day... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to know if you know of what breed this cat is? It looks very much like a cat my mother has, but she doesn't know of what breed it is! :P Thanks to anyone who can help me! —Kri (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of cats don't necessarily belong to any particular "breed", and that's a low-resolution picture of the head only. I don't think you can tell much from that image other than that it appears to be a white shorthair... AnonMoos (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Perhaps it's difficult to tell, and perhaps that's also all that can be told about my mother's cat as well. Anyway, thank you very much. —Kri (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following link to the Ensembl Genome browser to the 'External links' section:

• View the cat genome in Ensembl

193.62.194.245 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Normally I am very hesitant to add new external links to an article but I think this is better than some of the ELs already on the article. If no one objects within 24 hours of your request I will go ahead and add it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Done Appears non-controversial, added.  — daranz [ t ] 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The terminology in the dis-ambiguation header of the article suggests that this article should really be at Domestic cat with Cat re-directing to Felidae. Any thoughts on how to word it?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pedigree has nothing to do with anything but breeding. A feral or pet cat can be pedigree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.114.140 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The passage on laser pointers "replacing string" is problematic (never mind bizarre that the two involve disparate types of play) because it cites a doctor who says it is virtually impossible to harm a cats vision with a pointer. First off as a layman I still say BS on that, no doubt a high power unit from wicked lasers or a similar source pointed directly into a cats eyes WILL cause damage and if not I'd like to see a research paper documenting otherwise. Even a low power unit directly into their eyes could cause temporary impairment. I'm going to assume the doctor meant there was virtually no chance of harming the cat with a low power laser during normal play, i.e;, you are directing the spot on objects, NOT the cat's face. I think the passage should be clarified to explain this lest people take from the article an invitation to use a laser around a cat irresponsibly. Batvette (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The articles Brian Whitlock and Jordan Dale Lucas have been nominated for deletion. You might want to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Brian Whitlock beat his dog. Not to mention, this talk page is specifically for the article Cat. You may want to put a notice about Jordan Dale Lucas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to ask - all of the cats I have had eat plant matter (to encourage vomiting), say ferns, long grasses, particularly plants with waxy membranes on the leaves - yet I cannot find this on the page. Do any of you have data about this? (Or perhaps point me to the place on the page about this I may have missed.)? My vet (when we had our first cat) said this was very normal and was a way of 'cleaning out the gut'. But can any of you confirm (or deny) this?

Ekhmuel (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Ekhmuel

I'm not sure that this claim is tenable, even if a source is given:

The ultimate source of the word is Afroasiatic, presumably from Late Egyptian čaute, the feminine of čaus "wildcat".

These are my concerns:

• The source is a dictionary of Gaulish, and the author is an expert of Gaulish, presumably. What is his source for Late Egyptian? Is it possible to cite that source instead?
• Felis chaus, is the scientific name of the jungle cat, found in many places in the world, included Egypt. But the name was given while observing a Caucasian population, and was probably not chosen with reference to Late Egyptian. Strange coincidence, but possible. Since it is strange, it needs more attention.
• In Middle Egyptian the usual word for cat is mjw, whose feminine is mjwt. In some old dictionary these words might have been transliterated as mau, maut, similar enough to čaus, čaute to be suspicious.
• The French version fr:chat cites the Online Etymology Dictionary that is not a reliable source, even if it is usually accurate. The claim there is that the cat is called kadis in Nubian, kadiska in Berber. Based on which source?

Sprocedato (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I recall a mention on a British panel show (QI) that the origin is the latin "catulus" (puppy, whelp). Some minor searches I did indicate that "catulus" indeed mean this, and that "cattus" was not used until at least the 600s.

Another source, Tufts University (which uses a set of dictionaries), no entry for 'cattus', an entry for 'catulus'. Lewis and Short is a fairly solid textual source as a Latin dictionary, so I feel this is quite a likely etymological sequence.

75.182.99.60 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

We know that Latin 'cattus' and related words spread to the European languages in the first centuries of Christian Era. We do not know the route. Latin 'catulus' may or may not be related. It is attested much earlier. The origin of the word 'cat' has been searched in the Egyptian language, because we know the role that cats had in the Egyptian culture. But the actual facts in support to this hypothesis are not clear to me, and I'm not sure that the dictionary of Gaulish of Jean-Paul Savignac is a reliable source for this etymology. At least, I'd like to know the exact words used by Savignac and, if possible, his source. Otherwise, it is safer to say that we have no idea what the origin of the word 'cat' is. Sprocedato (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The citation that cats are the most popular or liked pet in the world is not anywhere in the article that the sentence cites. If anything there is no way to determine what pet is most popular and I would put money down that whoever put this into the article is some cat lover that feels the need to force their love of cats on everyone else. But again there is nothing in any scientific journal or study to indicate cats are the most popular animal as a pet. Even if you define pet as an animal on your property which is what most cats are (simply living beside you somewhere on your land and not really your pet). So it should just be deleted altogether as there is nothing to change it to that would make sense or be relevant. 76.98.90.132 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's in the second sentence of that citation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it really neccessary to include a picture of a cat eating a rabbit's face? I get it, they're predators and disruptive to wildlife, but a photo like that is just inflammatory that incites hate not knowledge.

I mean 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year, I don't see a single photo of a dog bite on the dog Wikipedia page. Meme3234 (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it's in a section titled "Impact on prey species", and a photo like that I think is perfectly appropriate to illustrate cat predatory behavior. For comparison, the article Lion includes two pictures of lions around dead prey carcasses.—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The picture is disgusting and extremely disturbing to unsuspecting users. Surely a less disturbing photo can get the point across just as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.56.186 (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's disgusting, but that's a subjective judgment on my part, as it is on yours. Kelvinsong is quite right about the parallel with the lion article. To expand on that a little, cats and lions are both members of the same family, and both species are fierce carnivores, so it actually would be rather odd not to depict that fact for both of them. Wikipedia articles—including their illustrations—should reflect reality, not a sanitized version of reality, and certain aspects reality are often quite disgusting. Some people probably don't find it disgusting at all. (And presumably it's not disgusting to cats!) That said, you're free to propose a specific replacement image. Rivertorch (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What about this picture is disgusting? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

If its not a problem please add a illustration:"Diagram of the skeleton of a cat" to section: Anatomy

Przemek Maksim (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. My take: it's a good image but better suited for Cat anatomy (where in fact it's already found). It's really too large with all its numerical key to fit comfortably in the anatomy section, which is only a summary of what's in the separate anatomy article anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought this photo of two cats, trying to figure out how to open a door, might illustrate curiosity, and be suitable for gallery. Wondering what others think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I like cats, so I'm prejudiced in favor of photos like that one. I guess I have some reservations about it, though. For one thing, it's dark and a little blurry; this might be fixable, but as is it doesn't look good in thumbnail form. Secondly, what it illustrates is basically that the cats are curious about something on the other side of the door. The photographer may know that they wanted to open the door, but it doesn't specifically illustrate that very well. Rivertorch (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Seconding Rivertorch... If I'd seen the picture without the above commentary, I'd think the cats were investigating a noise (or something)... nothing here to suggest the cats are trying to figure out how to open the door. Sorry. --Seduisant (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanx for your views. I'll take this up with the kittie's agents who promised ("guaranteed"! was the exact word) that these cats were photogenic, plus I'll write a letter of complaint to the photographer, easy, since it was me.:)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If you could get one of them to reach a paw towards the doorknob, that would be really cool. Rivertorch (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The lede is more than four paragraphs. Per WP:LEAD, the introduction must be no more than four paragraphs. --George Ho (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

With the recent rise in cases of permithrin poisoning in cats in the uk, may I poiltely suggest the following addition in the poisoning section please?

Permethrin is approved for small animal flea control, large animal topical fly control, crops, ornamental plants and human use. Permethrin is found in shampoos, dips, foggers, spot-ons, and sprays for small animal use but can be toxic to cats in very small doses. Despite this it is still often marketed for flea control for cats in the form of powders or collars. The lethal dose can be as low as 10mg/kg, collars contain up to 18% or 460+mg

source:^[2]

^[3]

81.99.105.114 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. — Reatlas (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I read the wikipedia page for Philodendron, and it says that there is not necessarily evidence of the plant being toxic to cats; however, in this article, it states that it is toxic. I think that claim should be removed.

--thujone -- 21:53, 28 September 2013‎ 76.169.139.212

These sources—[14][15]—indicate that the toxicity is there but cats don't usually consume enough to suffer renal failure. Both articles probably could make that clearer. Rivertorch (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Cats are actually omnivorous mammals. Can you please change where it says carnivorous mammals to omnivorous mammals? Because it has been proven that cats eat vegetation when meat is unavailable. They don't completely rely on meat proteins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.65.100 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the lead sentence of carnivore, which carries two citations, a carnivore is "an animal that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue". This would appear to be entirely consistent with the feeding habits of cats. Rivertorch (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

65.184.65.100 -- Cats occasionally nibble on plants, possibly for some kind of supplemental purposes, but plants never make up cats' basic main food. A cat which is fed on a natural all-vegetable diet will get very very sick and eventually die, which doesn't sound too much like being an omnivore... AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Cats are what is known as "Obligate Carnivores". This means that they *must* eat significant amounts of meat, and do so frequently. Meat sources contain taurine, which is an essential nutrient for cats. A dietary deficiency of taurine will cause a cat to become blind over a span of only a few months. Many other carnivorous animals are not 'obligate'. If you want to change anything, you should change "carnivorous" to "obligate carnivore". User:dpasek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.24.11 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC) I wasn't logged in, I am now, and take credit for this paragraph. Dpasek (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Why people used to feed cats with milk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.53.133 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You might try asking at the reference desk. Rivertorch (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Cats like *cream*. Some cats really crave the taste of the milk fat. I have one cat that absolutely begs for half-and-half. I give her only small amounts, and then she seems satisfied. Several of my cats will also steal butter or cheese. I have to keep a close eye on the cats when I have these food items out. Dpasek (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

" The female will utter a loud yowl as the male pulls out of her. This is because a male cat's penis has a band of about 120–150 backwards-pointing penile spines, which are about one millimeter long;[156] upon withdrawal of the penis, the spines rake the walls of the female's vagina, which is a trigger for ovulation. This act also occurs to clear the vagina of other sperm in the context of a second (or more) mating, thus giving the later males a larger chance of conception.[citation needed]"

Yes, indeed, a citation is needed here. I believe the quoted part amounts to urban myth, hearsay not supported by direct observation.

The queen's yowl is not caused by male withdrawal, but is an orgasmic response caused by stimulation of the queen's clitoris. The queen gets her onset of orgasm *first*, then whacks the tom upside the head, causing him to withdraw, and probably causing his penis to become flaccid so that the barbs no longer grip. Penetration is not necessary to stimulate orgasm in a queen, and practically any vet or knowledgeable cat breeder can tell you this backed by direct observation. Orgasm is required for a queen to ovulate and this is easily proven by demonstrating the effect of 'false pregnancy' which can be caused by direct stimulation of the clitoris in the absence of a tom. Only a single orgasm is necessary. The queen will drop out of estrus within a day or two and it will take 6 weeks or more for the next estrus cycle to begin. Without the stimulation to orgasm, either artificially or by copulation with a tom, the queen will take two weeks or so to drop out of estrus, then will come back into estrus again within about another two weeks. user:dpasek Dpasek (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. If you can dig up a source for that, we could add it to the article. In the meantime, how do you suggest proceeding—removal of the entire passage? Rivertorch (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

sourcing that will be tough 174.114.11.60 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to allow the humane society website as a reference for trap, neuter, release then you also need to use the website of people for the ethical treatment of animals which clearly states they have tried TNR and find it to not only contribute to more cruelty towards cats, but also is terrible for the environment and only contributes to more overpopulation of feral cats which contributes to only more suffering. So either remove the part of the article hailing TNR as effective or add Peta's position that it makes the problem worse and causes much more suffering for the cats (which almost never die of old age) and also the animals around the cats which generally have no defenses against the cats and end up suffering because of cats being in an environment they werent meant to be in. Just because people sometimes degrade the environment through overharvestjng of resources doesn't mean we should let our pets do it too. There are only rare circumstances where this program is appropriate which is also mentioned by PETA. It doesn't necessarily mean euthanizing is always the answer either although if implemented correctly, and thoroughly, it is the only method which reliably rids the environment of feral cats which are a man made pest. So TNR is actually a well intended program that greatly enhances animal suffering and worse overpopulation of feral cats. And here is my resource which is just as reliable as the humane society website.

http://www.peta.org/issues/Companion-Animals/trap-neuter-return-and-monitor-programs-for-feral-cats-doing-it-right.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.196.247 (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No one here is ancient Egyptian but I don't believe that people worshiping cats back then is in the same form of what we now known as cult today. The history is sometimes naive but cult in modern day is not. Anyway, why don't we just take that controversy away and say what is really verifiable? i.e. What happened?

How about "Ancient Egyptian worshiped cats"? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In the study of ancient religion, the word "cult" refers to a manner of worshipping or focusing religious devotion, and doesn't have much in common with the Scientology / Moonie / Jim Jones Temple meaning of the word... AnonMoos (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

AnonMoos is right; see cult (religious practice). Scholars frequently refer to the cult of a particular deity—the cult of Bastet, in this case—meaning the organization and practices surrounding that deity. Egyptian religion was made up of all the cults in the country. To say cats were worshiped is actually less correct. Cats were involved in the cult, so they were "cult animals", but I don't know that any of them were worshipped as representatives of a deity the way the Apis bull was. The cat mummies found in Egypt seem to have been raised specifically to be killed and mummified. They were more like offerings to Bastet than the objects of worship. A. Parrot (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This statement should be deleted because, while narrowly true, it is a huge disservice to the cats who will be abandoned because the abandoner thinks "in the wild" means "outside" and "perfectly capable" means "all of them do". Most don't: "Pet cats that are abandoned will not easily fend for themselves outdoors. Unfortunately, most of these cats and their offspring will suffer premature mortality (death) from disease, starvation, or trauma."(http://www.state.nj.us/health/animalwelfare/stray.shtml)98.118.24.253 (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it would help if the adverb "perfectly" were removed? I think it would. I see your point, but the main gist of the sentence has to do with cats' not having evolved after domestication. Rivertorch (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It is closer to what we mean, that domestic cat can hunt well enough for itself, but it stays a broad claim.

but the main gist of the sentence has to do with cats' not having evolved after domestication.

How about "domestic cats are still capable of surviving in the wild."? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could say that domestic cats can adapt to the wild by reverting to feral within a generation in the absence of significant human interaction. Fully domesticated "house" cats may have difficulty surviving in the wild if abandoned because they have not learned some critical skills. Feral cats have a much shorter life expectancy than those that are well cared for. Feral cats: 3.5 years or so, House cats: 15 years or more. Alley Cat Allies may have some reliable reference material. Dpasek (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Lifespan is just part of the picture. You also compared two drastically different environment and there is a limit on how long a "perfectly capable" cat can last in the wild.

Is 3.5 years really hellish for cats? What if they can pass on their gene and the population can spread, but die young, are they capable? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Reproduction" section.

The size of a litter averages three to five kittens, with the first litter usually smaller than subsequent litters.

I've female persian cat, 1st litter, having at least 7 kittens.

Persian cat mom with 7 kittens

DarkerFate (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: the article discusses the average litter size. One cat by itself isn't notable. --Stfg (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Are cats born precocial or altricial? This article does not yet provide clues to answer that question. The altricial page says that cats, dogs, and humans are; this page doesn't answer the question about cats.

Maybe we should consider answering this question in a more general way.

Chris (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends which other species you compare cats to, I suppose. Cats are born with eyes closed because they have no real use for sight in their first week or two of life, and if having vision encouraged them to leave the nest or den which their mother had established, this would be more likely to decrease survival than increase it. Compared to herd animals which are required to be able to move with the herd soon after being born, cats are obviously immature at birth... AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference #42 is showing up for me as "Caucasian Large Mammalian Fauna" followed by some special, non-printable characters. — RC Howe (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed now, and the reference checked and verified. Rivertorch (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to point out, as a student working on my degree as a Veterinarian, that some of the information in the physiology section is false. Cats, do indeed sweat, they have sweat glands in their paws. So it would be more accurate to say cats have minimal ability to sweat, with glands located primarily in their paw pads.

http://www.cathealth.com/how-and-why/how-do-cats-sweat

http://pets.thenest.com/cats-sweat-5555.html DaAdorableOne (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out - and supplying references - Arjayay (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat#Nomenclature_and_etymology it is stated "Attested only from the 16th century, it may have been introduced from Dutch poes or from Low German puuskatte, related to Swedish kattepus, or Norwegian pus, pusekatt."

The thing is that the word "kattepus" is used in norwegian, not in swedish. The closest word in swedish is probably "kissekatt". A sort of childish, nickname for a cat, or house cats in general.

This article is semi-protected, so I can't change anything. I'm also not sure about how Wikipedia works, but maybe someone with edit rights can change the article.

Best regards, an ethnic swede — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.129.225.7 (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with all current and past dialects and accent of Swedish? Do you have any citations? I personally would write that it is d

This whole box should just be removed as its information is just completely false and promotes a misunderstanding of the concepts it mentions. Pedigree has nothing to do with human interaction beyond breeding, a feral cat can be pedigree as the term has to do with it's breeding/looks and not training/behavior. As well Feral cats also include any domesticated cat placed in wild conditions, it's socialization level has no impact on if it is feral or not. A cat that lives completely wild but likes to hang out around people is still feral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.230.117.254 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the article Conservation status, which apparently is a standard system to gouge the risk of a species becoming extinct, the given "Domesticated" in the info box, below the Conversation status headline, is not a valid level of risk. Since domesticated house cats are widespread the level probably should be "Least Concern" -- 20:35, 21 March 2014‎ 2a02:8108:1c80:b18:a841:264f:1042:715e hi riley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.209.181 (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This article doesn't provide much information on the pregnancy of cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 September 2013‎ (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Cats have excellent hearing and can detect an extremely broad range of frequencies. They can hear higher-pitched sounds than either dogs or humans, detecting frequencies from 55 Hz up to 79 kHz, a range of 10.5 octaves; while humans can only hear from 31 Hz up to 18 kHz, and dogs hear from 67 Hz to 44 kHz, which are both ranges of about 9 octaves."

Change to frequencies low to high, as below, please:

Cats have excellent hearing and can detect an extremely broad range of frequencies. They can hear higher-pitched sounds than either dogs or humans, detecting frequencies from 55 Hz up to 79 kHz, a range of 10.5 octaves; while humans can only hear from 18 Hz up to 31 kHz, and dogs hear from 44 Hz to 67 kHz, which are both ranges of about 9 octaves.

Its a small edit, sorry I can't do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.220.29 (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2014‎

Not done: The units are different for those two values, so it is already in the same ascending order as the other ranges. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Before releasing them back into their feral colonies, the attending veterinarian often nips the tip off one ear to mark the feral as neutered and inoculated, since these cats may be trapped again. Volunteers continue to feed and give care to these cats throughout their lives."

Tattoos are also used to indicate that an animal was neutered without cutting off ear tips. One line or 2 lines around the area of operation and/or "N" or "S" for neuter and spayed respectively on the inside of ears is also used.

http://www.mypetsdoctor.com/tattoos-indicate-spay-neuter

http://www.anticruelty.org/tattoo/

http://feralcatproject.org/documents/ocm/ocm_procedures/procedures_prep_tattoo.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.220.29 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2014‎

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Could you provide the words you would like to add? Probably based on the information in the third document which is clearly about TNR cats. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Haven´t seen anything about cats being mostly reptilian based predators, with the occasional bird and mouse.

The issue with birds, is that IF cats where REALLY bird predators, then they should not have much issue with the occasional crude egg. However, they do, the cells within an egg not being quite correct.

Haven´t seen anything either, about cat´s NOT being fish consumers, which should be obvious, house cats, do NOT swim and IF they where water predators (dot dot dot). Then that question is, what is it, in FISH, that makes a cat eat that? Fish liver perhaps? Hard to find ´licks´, or is it some narcotic in the same form and manner that fermented mangoes are for elephants?

You suppose cats evolvolved out of catfish? jeje, ehhhh, no.

Anyone doing these very SMALLISH real issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.36.69 (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"However, because of modern phylogenetics, domestic cats are now usually regarded as another subspecies of the wildcat, F. silvestris." So why is the species name still Felis catus in the scientific classification box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Their genus, species, and subspecies name would be Felis sylvestris catus, which can be shortened to F. catus. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this picture http://imgur.com/edAbfEa to the section about eyes. Specifically this picture is a good visual example of the slit eyed nature of domesticated cats and would be a good addition to the article. The specific section that is relevant is as follows. " Unlike some big cats, such as tigers, domestic cats have slit pupils.[75] These slit pupils can focus bright light without chromatic aberration, and are needed since the domestic cat's pupils are much larger, relative to their eyes, than the pupils of the big cats.[75] Indeed, at low light levels a cat's pupils will expand to cover most of the exposed surface of its eyes."

Thank you! Gagdad (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. - 09:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have some concerns about the information given for cat lifespans. I began to research this issue when working on the lifespan of feral cats, & added related comments to the discussion section on the Feral Cat page. I've now received a study that sheds some further light on the issue, especially about the lifespan of pet cats.

The text under Cat Health now reads:

"The average life expectancy for male indoor cats is around 12 to 14 years,[92] with females usually living a year or two longer.[93] However, cats have been reported as reaching into their 30s,[94]with the oldest known cat, Creme Puff, dying at a verified age of 38.[95] Feline life expectancy has increased significantly in recent decades.[96] Having a cat neutered confers some health benefits, since castrated males cannot develop testicular cancer, spayed females cannot develop uterine or ovarian cancer, and both have a reduced risk of mammary cancer.[97] The lifespan of feral cats is hard to determine accurately, although one study reported a median age of 4.7 years, with a maximum of 8.3 years.[98]"

Lifespan of pet cats

The figure of 12-14 years as the average lifespan of male indoor cats was referenced with an article by Taylor and others et al (found online here: "Some nutritional aspects of ageing in dogs and cats", E.J. Taylor et al., Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (1995), vol 54, pp. 645-656.). However, the article does not say what it is supposed to have said. In their study researching appropriate foods for aging cats and dogs, the authors mention in their introduction that cats "have an average life expectancy of 14 years yet the oldest recorded cat is known to have lived for 36 years" (page 1). The reference given for these facts is a study of J.E. Mosier done in 1978. (Canine and feline geriatrics, Proceedings of the American Animal Hospital Associations's 46th Annual Meeting, pp. 129-133. Indiana: AAHA.) So the average lifespan is simply given as 14 years; not 12-14 years. Further, there is no difference given for cats being indoors or outdoors, or for males or females. The comment is also a single reference to a study done in 1978, which is fairly old. We can do better.

The statement that female indoor cats usually live a year or two longer is referenced with a book by Dan Poynter (2002). The Older Cat: Recognizing Decline and Extending Life (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Para Publishing. p. 25. ISBN 1-56860-076-3. Poynter is not a scientist or cat expert, but a writer and publisher who has self-published many volumes of books under his publishing house Para Publishing, this one included. Assuming the author is quoted accurately, I don't expect this to be an authoritative source for saying that females usually live longer than male cats.

The statement that feline life expectancy has increased significantly in recent years is referenced with this study by W. Kraft (February 1998). "Geriatrics in Canine and Feline Internal Medicine". European Journal of Medical Research 3(1–2): 31–41. ISSN 0949-2321. PMID 9512965 However, nothing is really indicated as to the starting point, or any final conclusions on the actual lifespan of cats. At the article abstract (unfortunately truncated; found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9512965), the author noted that as for humans, at least in developing countries, the life span of dogs and cats seems to have increased in the last 15 years. I was finally able to get a copy of the original study to find out what it said. It was a comprehensive study of cats (and dogs) treated at the Department of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian's University, Munich, comparing data from four years beginning in 1983 and ending in 1995. For cats, the average year of death rose from 7 years in 1983 to 9.4 years in 1995. There were also increases in the number of cats over 20 years of age. Intact male cats lived 5.1 years on average, compared to intact females at 6.2 years. Neutered males lived 10.4 years on average, and spayed females 10.1 years. These numbers are quite a bit lower than those originally given here. They support that neutering extends the life of both sexes of cats, and show age variations by sex but not in the way that it was stated in the current text.

A study by Levy and others in 2003 (found online here: "Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population", Julie K. Levy et al., JAVMA, Vol 222, No. 1, January 1, 2003.) referred to a figure of 7.1 years as the average age of pet cats. This was based on research done in 1984 by Nasser et al. (abstract: "Study of the feline and canine populations in the greater Las Vegas area.", Nassar R, Mosier JE, Williams LW. Am J Vet Res. 1984 Feb;45(2):282-7). The average age of 7.1 is comparable to the starting 1983 data from the Kraft study.

I located some more recent estimates in the Banfield Pet Hospital's State of Pet Health Report in 2013.^[4] Using data of the cats over one year old euthanized in its over 800 animal hospitals in 43 US states, they came up with an average lifespan of 12.1 years (ranging from 10.7 years in Delaware to 12.7 years in Massachusetts)(page 1). They said the estimate had risen one year since 2002.(page 2) As this data includes only cats receiving medical services (and from this provider), it wouldn't include cats dying of old age at home, killed on the road, or those without any medical intervention, but it is interesting and offers something more current than other studies mentioned. Also not sure why they didn't include data from cats euthanized under 1 year old.

These sources don't have any references comparing the lifespan of indoor cats to that of outdoor cats, so that aspect can be taken out.

New content: "The average lifespan of pet cats has risen in recent years. In the early 1980s it was about 7 years, rising to 9.4 years in 1995. U.S. data from the Banfield Pet Hospital suggest a lifespan of 12.1 years in 2013, with regional variations from 10.7 years in Delaware to 13.2 years in Colorado. (Next follows current statement re very old cats.)

"Spaying or neutering significantly increases life expectancy: one study found neutered male cats lived twice as long as intact males, while spayed female cats lived 62% longer than intact females. Unneutered cats in the U.S. are 4 times as likely to be hit by a car as a neutered cat, and are 3 times more likely to require treatment for an animal bite." (Next follows current statement about health benefits of neutering.)

Lifespan of feral cats

Levy's 2003 study (mentioned above) is given as a reference for a median age of feral cats of 4.7 years, with a range of 0-8.3 years. This is an inaccurate representation of what that article says.

To the contrary, the article stands for the proposition that feral cat lifespan compares favourably with that reported for pet cats. The article says, at p. 45, "Despite widespread concern about the welfare of free-roaming cats, many of the animals in our study survived for a number of years. Most cats (83%) still remaining on site at the end of the observation period had been present for > 6 years. This compares favourably with the mean lifespan of 7.1 years reported for pet cats, particularly as almost half of the cats in our study were first observed as adults of unknown age."

Levy et al. discuss the same study in a later paper, providing another point of comparison: "Most (83%) cats still remaining on site in 2002 had been present for > 6 years. This compares favourably with the finding that only 42% of the pet cat population in the United States is more than 5 years old."^[1] (Levy refers to the AVMA U.S. pet ownership and demographics sourcebook, 2002;20.)

It took me some time to find where the 4.7 number came from with its range of 0-8.3 years. Table 2, "Disposition of 155 free-roaming cats included in a trap-neuter-return and adoption population control program" (on page 43), lists the "Duration on Campus" of cats with a number of outcomes. Cats who died, only 6% of the cats studied, were shown at a median of 4.7 years duration on campus, ranging from 0.3-8.3 years. Remaining cats (15% of the cats studied) were listed as having been on campus for a median length of 6.8 years. The largest group of cats, 47% of them, were adopted out, and their median time on campus was 0.4 of the year. This table is not an indicator of the median age of the cats but the length of time that the cats were found on campus, a length of time that could well predate the age of the cats. It is irresponsible to use this figure of 4.7 in the way it has been used.

I added a more detailed explanation in the feral cat article, but I think I'll just keep it simple here: "Despite widespread concern about the welfare of free-roaming cats, the lifespans of neutered feral cats in managed colonies compare favourably with those of pet cats. Neutered feral cats in managed colonies can also live long lives." (with references). Canadianknowledgelover (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a mistake under section 10.1 - Census. The number 220 million mentioned by the source refers to domesticated pets (not just cats) in Europe only. Worldwide domesticated cats is over 600 million, as mentioned in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/science/29cat.html?_r=0

Please fix this.

Thank you! Effy Shaf (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... actually the European IFAH reference:

• http://www.ifaheurope.org/companion-animals/about-pets.html says: "Worldwide there are 223 million dogs and 220 million cats (excluding strays)."

but then there is:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3101986 - 400 million
• http://english.pravda.ru/society/family/09-01-2006/9478-cats-0/ - 500 million
• http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/science/29cat.html?_r=0 - 600 million

So I guess we need to decide what we want to say here...

Probably, the best we can do, is say something like "estimates of the total number of domestic cats worldwide range between..." and quote all our sources. I also don't think it's correct for us to describe these figures as "census".

It might also be better if we could find some stronger, academic sources, since newspaper stories, as half of these are, are ok, in that we assume, as reliable sources, they have checked their sources, but secondary sources directly quoting academic/scientific studies might be preferable. Begoon ^talk 22:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Found these, having trouble finding others.nada te ama como dios viva la cruz

• Urban Carnivores: Ecology, Conflict, and Conservation by Stanley D. Gehrt, Seth P. D. Riley, and Brian L. Cypher; JHU Press, 12 Mar 2010. - 600 million
• The Welfare of Cats, by Irene Rochlitz; Springer Science & Business Media, 17 Apr 2007 - 200 million

So, seems we have enough sources to justify something like"general estimates for the global population of cats ranges from 200 million to 600 million, with some specific figures including 400 and 500 as well."

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. Begoon ^talk 22:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed, for the second time, this picture from the first section of the article because it was clearly out of context. Being a nice image, with an informative caption that's not duplicated in the article (as Rothorpe has explained in his talk page) is not a good enough reason for keeping it there. An encyclopaedic article (any article, for that matter) is an ordered set of text and pictures where the latter serve to complement and illustrate specific features referred to in the text. That was (is) indeed the case of this particular article, with one exception: the picture I have removed. Please understand that pictures do not serve to decorate articles but to illustrate them. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that no longhair cats are pictured. —Tamfang (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. Perhaps one or two longhairs could be added, more variety can't hurt. Though we need not go so far as to have every breed and subtype depicted. As long as we don't get carried away there is always room for more. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm removing the "citation needed" tag from the phrase "carnivorous mammal" in the topic §. All the necessary documentation is right next to it in the infobox:

• Kingdom: Animalia
  • Phylum: Chordata
    • Class: Mammalia
      • Order: Carnivora
        • Family: Felidae
          • Subfamily: Felinae
            • Genus: Felis
              • Species: F. catus

(And the local species representative is fighting the inside of a cardboard box right next to me as I type.) --Thnidu (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

These terms have next to nothing to do with one another yet are treated as connected terms by the article. A feral cat can indeed be Pedigree and just because a cat was completely raised inside doesn't make it "pedigree". Pedigree relates to a registered or tracked breeding condition; like proof that for the past 3 generations all sires/mothers were of the same breed. Feral relates to the cat living in more "wild" conditions; e.g. a house cat living in a forest or just a cat that grew up in a city but never had an owner. As well their tameness or reactions to humans has no impact on if it is a feral cat or not, as it relates to care/ownership. Technically a house cat that is abandoned is also feral. So just to repeat Pedigree = a term related to how the animal was bred; Feral = a term related to how the animal lives. And thus that stupid "Classification based on human interaction" chart should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.179.153 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the table "Classification based on human interaction" removed. Brain696 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This leads to a 404 page not found error.

Cats have relatively few taste buds compared to humans. Domestic and wild cats share a gene mutation that keeps their sweet taste buds from binding to sugary molecules, leaving them with no ability to taste sweetness.^[1]

Aethalides (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't 404 for me.

Emeraldminecart (talk) 2:59, April 10 (UTC)

Aethalides (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a disambiguation page for "cats." Where else to find Cats (musical)? Rissa, copy editor (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There is one given in the hatnote at the top of the article already: Cats (disambiguation). That's the usual place for placing links to disambiguation pages. Did you not see it? - BilCat (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section called Hunting, under behavior, please add a reference to the new university-led scientific study about a way to mitigate cat predation on songbirds. Here is a suggestion of what to add, perhaps following the text that mentions that solutions are characterized as elusive. POSSIBLE TEXT to add: A new device that mitigates cat predation on songbirds was tested in a controlled field study at St. Lawrence University and reported on in the Global Ecology and Conservation Journal, which states that the new, novel "Birdsbesafe®" cat collar cover is highly effective as a conservation tool, with significant reductions in birds captured by cats that wear it, and is "strongly suggested" for use by pet owners. The patent pending device is made in the U.S. END OF POSSIBLE TEXT.

CITATION to use: Here is the link to the scientific reference: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989415000050. If you are Wikipedia editor, you will know better than I do how to make a reference citation appropriately.

OTHER CITATION forthcoming: A multi-year-long scientific study of the same device, at Murdoch University in Australia, is being reported in the journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science. It appears that it is not yet finalized, but will be shortly. This study also confirms the usefulness of the device in protecting birds from cats. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159115000222 Perhaps it can be referred too in the near future.

COMMENT ON CITATIONS: I mention this second study because it is available to the public to see, and confirms the important value of the device as a conservation tool, and gives weight to the scientific interest in international use of this remedy.

COMMENT ON POPULAR INTEREST: For a measure of the popular interest: note that reference to this new device and the science study in the U.S. has recently been made in Audubon magazine online, as well as the European website "ornithomedia.com" for ornithologists and others interested in the global problem of cat predation on birds.

MY INTEREST: I follow the topic of cats and birds closely out of interest in protecting birds, noticed the Audubon article and read the related science studies and other online references. I have no Wikipedia editing experience, but this suggestion seemed appropriate. I do have a relationship with the owner of Birdsbesafe LLC, but I would rely on the editors of this page to judge the inclusion of this device on its merits and scientific studies thereof.

Thank you for your time.

Birdwatchinggirl (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Birdlovinggirl

Birdwatchinggirl (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit proscribes a method of doing something. The encyclopedia doesn't proscribe, it describes. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added text which describes the efficacy of the device but without it being "a method of doing something" or advertising. THe reference is to the scientific study, not the device.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

At least some cats have a sense of humour (admittedly of a fairly basic kind). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Please cite a mainstream academic source for such claims. Wikipedia does not engage in original research, but requires citations for new claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Cats can be playful, which might be confused with a "sense of humour", I guess. But I haven't heard one tell a joke. - BilCat (talk)

If domestic cat is not a subspecies of Felis silvestris, then neither is African wildcat, because African wildcats and domestic cats are phylogenetically closer than Asian and European wildcats.^[1] So unless the scientific name of African wildcat is changed to Felis catus lybica, change this to Felis silvestris catus. Editor abcdef (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

? Phylogenetics are much more reliable than common usage, common usage only applies to title names, not scientific names. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed an image of a cat with abnormally coloured eyes. I left an edit summary justifying this deletion, as per WP:BRD, but other editors disagree with this reason and are reverting my edit without bringing to this Talk page. Why should this article use valuable image space to show just one of hundreds or thousands of abnormalities in cats. There is an entire article Cat health which already includes an image of heterochromia! The cat article should present the "normal situation" to correctly inform the reader. At the moment, the caption does not even indicate this is an abnormality or give the correct technical name for the disease!__DrChrissy (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No opinion on the photo, but you misunderstand the BRP cycle. You removed the photo (bold), another removed it (revert), then it's brought to the talk page (discuss). The photo should stay until there is a consensus. Яehevkor ✉ 21:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down in the details of the WP:BRP process. The fact is that I have brought the deletion/inclusion of this image to the Talk page. Please discuss whether this image of an abnormal animal should be included in this article. That is the issue.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That is the issue, but that issue is overshadowed by edit warring. Agree with Rehevkor above that removal of the photo was the B of BRD and therefore the burden was on DrChrissy to take the discussion here and not to repeat the removal. It looks like you've officially crossed WP:3RR which means an automatic block if reported. That could probably be avoided by self-reverting the last one, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Good, then you can stop deleting the image. I see no problem with it myself - the article summarises cats, "abnormal" or otherwise. Perhaps a sentence should be added mentioning the condition in the health section - the image can be moved there. Яehevkor ✉ 10:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I still see no reason why this one condition should receive such a focus of attention. Please justify why this photo should be included. e.g. is this a particularly prevalent condition in this breed of cat? At the moment, it appears the only justification for this image is its "cuteness".__DrChrissy (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone actually said "cuteness" is a reason? Where is that from? LxRv (a.ka. Rehevkor) 19:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Heterochromia is an unusual but completely natural genetic trait; and common enough in cats to be worth noting in the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, well let's get some facts on the disorder and present it in the text with appropriate sources. New information should not be introduced in caption images. And the Health section is far more appropriate for this image than presenting this condition as if it is "normal". To be balanced and comprehensive, this section should include reasonable discussion of other disorders with appropriate in-line citations.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "disorder" it is a genetic trait. The cat suffers no disadvantage from being Heterochromatic. The section it belongs in is the Anatomy section, alongside other noted cat traits such as Polydactylism. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

On the Cat health article, heterochromia is listed as a "genetic disease"...but we could play semantics all day. For those interested in wider discussion of this image issue, I have raised it here [16].__DrChrissy (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Researcher Elizabeth von Muggenthaler believes that purring may be a healing mechanism. Using recordings of purring cats, she measured the frequency of their purrs and found a range of 25 to 150 Hertz. This frequency range is the same as the therapeutic frequency range used by doctors for a number of purposes including the following:

   Healing fractures.
   Relieving pain.
   Reducing swelling.
   Easing muscle strain.
   Increasing flexibility.
   Easing breathing difficulties.
   Encouraging bone growth.
   Treating wounds.

She reasons that purring may have evolved to serve these functions in cats. After all, for a sit-and-wait predator, like the cat, having a mechanism of self healing would be a significant evolutionary advantage. In the wild, cats spend most of their time resting and sleeping to conserve their energy for the hunt. Purring during these periods of rest may keep them in peak condition by helping to prevent muscle atrophy, keeping their bones strong and speeding recovery from minor injuries.

24.50.151.151 (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC) http://www.azvets.com/why-do-cats-purr/

Purring can also mean a cat is agitated Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In the section "Impact on prey species" the page currently reads: "To date, few scientific data are available to assess the impact of cat predation on prey populations." A more (grammatically?) correct version of this would be "To date, little scientific data is available to assess the impact of cat predation on prey populations." 128.221.224.207 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but "few data" could be correct. Few data means there are few specific instances of data (that could each have a lot of information, but there still aren't enough instances to make any conclusion), while little data means each instance of data has little information (even though there could be a lot of instances). Now, if the sources cited favor little data over few data, that's another issue (though I do not have proper access to the sources and so cannot make that call). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Another edit "The semiferal cat, a mostly outdoor cat, is not owned by any one individual, but is generally friendly to people and may be fed by several households. Feral cats are associated with human habitation areas and may be fed by people or forage in rubbish, but are typically wary of human interaction." this should just be removed or completely reworded.

The idea "Mostly outdoor" doesn't apply as a semi-feral urban cat may sleep in buildings everyday. As well the cats friendliness to humans does not apply for either term, it's reactions to humans have nothing to do with these terms. A completely feral cat can have no issues/ignore humans, even allow themselves to be pet, and a semi-feral cat can actively attack humans. The difference is the environment they are exposed to; Feral lives wild in wild settings, semi-feral lives wild in human environments.

This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Another possible explanations is" (sentence 3, paragraph 2 of Hunting and Feeding section) to "Another possible explanation is" Must be changed for s/v agreement. Trishedits (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that in the multilingual discussion of the various words for what we in modern English call a "cat," examples are given in the vernacular of many Western societies, all of which that use the Romantic alphabet. There are no examples given for, say, Chinese, which in Pinyin is "mao," or to transliterate from Korean Hangul, "goyang-i." I don't think the Asian or Eastern European words that need to be transliterated into the Roman alphabet should be omitted in the Western versions of Wikipedia. It's just my opinion that a discussion of what cats are called should include these other, non-Western societies. Kelelain (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Estonian word for cat is kass (pronounced as "koss"). Perhaps it could be added to the list of non-English ways of saying cat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18B:8000:3158:CC0:8002:C8ED:3CF6 (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The section titled "Taxonomy and evolution" has this link: "Main article: Cat evolution." However, this doesn't link to a main article called "Cat Evolution," it links to Cat gap. There is a section here about cat evolution but it's very short, only three paragraphs plus one about the saber-tooth cat which isn't even related to the cat.

Is there supposed to be an article called "Cat Evolution" somewhere? I understand the importance of the "Cat Gap" but I'm left wondering what happened to cat evolution. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe "epitaph is used correctly here:

"...a first- or second-century epitaph of a young girl holding a cat is one of two earliest depictions of..."

I can't find any definition of "epitaph", even in the Wikipedia article, that includes the possibility of a picture or other graphic.--23.119.204.117 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

merriam-webster.com/ says: "An epitaph is the an inscription on or at a tomb or a grave in memory of the one buried there," so presumably it's a grave stone with a carved image of the girl and her cat plus whatever was written there. How about "engraving" in place of "epitaph"? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Random house dictionary defines vermin as "noxious, objectionable, or disgusting animals collectively". Calling an animal noxious and disgusting sounds very derogetory to me and is full of speciesism. Words like this is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Even in the vermin page there have been questions raised on related issues by many users including me. We could use an alternative word without the derogetory tone at least, I suggest "pest". Smk65536 (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Pests are also "noxious, objectionable or disgusting", so your solution doesn't solve any problems. Further, the usual explanation for the reason that cats became domesticated (i.e., associated with humans) is that they controlled vermin that were attracted to stored food. There's no reason for us to deviate from the standard description. And you can't impose your penchant against "speciesism" here. We use the terms most people use when discussing something, we don't alter them to address political controversies that don't pertain. BTW, "speciesism" is the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals. If anything, it's the cats that are the "victims" of speciesism here, not the vermin. Because food, water, companionship, shelter and all the mice you can eat is apparently exploitation. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say that pests are also "noxious, objectionable or disgusting"? On dictionary.com it says "an annoying or troublesome person, animal, or thing; nuisance". This tone is far lighter than that of vermin. The speciesism I am describing is about using derogetory words to describe certain animals. The word "pest" is no less common. To address your aside, why are you portraying the beneficiaries of human activity as victims? Your argument is suggesting the victims are those harmed by cat ownership. Smk65536 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's use real dictionaries instead of the Internet. In a real dictionary vermin is defined as "wild mammals and birds that are believed to be harmful to crops, farm animals or game, or that carry disease" or as "parasitic worms or insects". (This from the New Oxford American Dictionary.) It's not a term of abuse, it is exactly the correct technical term we want to use in this article. - Nunh-huh 05:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

dictionary.com is not a "fake dictionary" on the internet, it is based and partners with many paper dictionaries. The first definition is from Random House which is quite a prominent paper dictionary, whose meaning is clearly derogatory. Smk65536 (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This is pointless semantics. "Vermin" is the correct term in this context, and there is nothing derogatory about it. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to believe so but the dictionary definition I gave says otherwise. This also matches my experience where vermin is often used as an insult. Smk65536 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mediatech492, vermin is the correct word to use here.--Asher196 (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I vote "pest." Most of our readers are going to assume "vermin" means cockroaches, mice, rats and other small disease-carrying animals. And besides, if "vermin" means animals that are "harmful to crops, farm animals or game," then just about all animals fit that category to one extent or another including dogs, farm animals, birds, deer, etc etc. People even. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If that's what most of our readers assume, then they will have good reading comprehension and will have correctly understood what the theory says: that cats hunt disease-carrying animals and those that would deplete stores of human food. People, by the way, are not vermin. You know....except in the opinion of Hitler. - Nunh-huh 06:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

But if the word "pest" reduces ambiguity and the derogatory tone, then isn't it better? Your WWII example also points to a derogatory/racist usage of vermin.Smk65536 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The real problem is that "vermin" is vague, leaving it open to unintended interpretations such as that of Smk65536. This could be improved by replacing the word with a more precise phrase such as "rodents and other pests". As a minimal fix I have linked the term to the Vermin article so it is clear what the intended meaning is. Augurar (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything vague about "Vermin" in the context given here. It is not in any way misleading. "Pest" is no improvement, if anything "Pest" is more vague and therefore an inferior alternative at best. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please swing by and help improve this new article! :D--Coin945 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please consider creating this proposed article on an extremely notable topic. (Sources are included).--Coin945 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Cat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

92.4.207.221 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

cats are incredibly intelligent. they have part of the human brain on the right of the REMORSE LOBE.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this article should be nominated as of this moment, but the clarification and citation tags should have been addressed beforehand. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cat/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I was looking for the size of the territory of cats and as I wanted to check the reference I found that what was written on wikipedia wasn't exact, even that it was false. Wiki says that cats "[...] are known to establish territories that vary considerably in size, in one study ranging from 7 to 28 hectares (17–69 acres).[117]" wich is not what the study says. In fact the study itself says that result shows home range area of cats about 7,89 ha (mean) at night against 2,73 ha (mean) in the day in urban zone and around 2,54 ha (mean) at night and 1, 70 ha during the day in rural zone. So if we make a blend of those data we can say that the area is about 2 ha the day and a litle more at night which is quite different from the "7 to 28 ha" written on wikipedia. That's all I wanted to say! =) NB : sorry if I made the talk page wrong, I'm a litle in a hurry. Poxalis

I'd like to start off by saying thank you. I love cats (you can tell if you see my user page) and I never got around to this article.

@Proud User: I don't mean to bother you, but it's been a week. Are you going to start soon? Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 01:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I have done some of the recomended changes with this edit and future edits made by me. --Proud User (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. In the future, please come to this page and say that you've done a task

It can pass

• Is this article written in American English? If so, add the template {{American English}} to the article's talk page  Done
• Why'd you use American English and the metric system? It'd be better if you used American English and imperial units or British/Australian/etc. and the metric system; you don't need to do this for GA though
• You should reorganise the article; usually, articles would arrange sections as: Taxonomy and evolution/Nomenclature and etymology (the two are interchangeable), Biology (Anatomy, Physiology, Senses, Health, Genetics), Behavior, Ecology, and Interactions with humans (Cats and humans, History and mythology)  Done
• Merge the Cats and humans and the History and mythology sections since they both talk about the interactions between cats and humans  Done
• Consider putting the sections Anatomy, Physiology, Senses, Health, Genetics under a Biology section (optional)  Done

First reading

General comments

• In the lead, change "...with strong, flexible bodies..." to "...with a strong, flexible body..."
• In the lead, change "...to extinction of..." to "...to the extinction of..."  duplicate of Comment #4
• In the lead, change "...to extirpate a bird species within a specific region..." to "...to extirpate bird species within specific regions..."
• In the lead, change "...contributed to extinction of..." to "...contributed to the extinction of..." Appears to already have been done. --Proud User (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• In the lead, change "...7,500 BC...8000 BC..." to "...7,500 BCE...8000 BCE..." (this is more of a religious preference, so it's okay if you don't do it)
• In the lead, are cats really the most popular pet? Are you going off of households with cats (in the US) or number of cats (in the US)? If households, dogs are the clear winner Fixed.--Proud User (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• In the lead, change "African wildcats" to "Near Eastern wildcats" to avoid confusion (since you said African wildcats split in Asia); this is optional
• In the lead, do any of the listed cat associations have a Wikipedia article? If they do, wikilink them
• In the History and mythology section, change "...Quanhucun in China..." to "...Quanhucun, China..." and wikilink if there's an article on it
• In the History and mythology section, it says "Direct evidence for the domestication of cats 5,300 years ago in Quanhucun in China has been published"; published by who? Specified. --Proud User (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• In the History and mythology section, change "...first- or second-century..." to "...first-or-second-century..."
• In the Nomenclature and etymology section, change "...a prepubescent juvenile..." to "...an adolescent..."
• In the Nomenclature and etymology section, change "...or forage in rubbish..." to "...or forage for food..." since "rubbish" means "junk"
• In the Anatomy section, change "...very small cats (less than 1.8 kg (4.0 lb)) have been reported" to "..., very small cats, less than 1.8 kg (4.0 lb), have been reported"
• In the Anatomy section, well actually in the entire article, round numbers to the nearest whole number instead of providing decimal places  Done

The conversion template used in the article automatically provides conversions that contain decimals, even if the number being converted doesn't have a decimal. For example {{convert|6|miles|km|abbr=on}} produces "6 miles (9.7 km)." --Proud User (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Issue fixed. --Proud User (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to {{convert|3.9|kg|lb}}, where it should be {{convert|4|kg|lb}}

• In the Anatomy section, change "...allow them to pass their bodies through any space into which they can fit their heads" to "...allow them to pass their body through any space into which they can fit their head"
• In the Anatomy section, don't wikilink scissors
• In the Anatomy section, you did a good job at explaining technical jargon, but separate the word from the explanation with a comma instead of a semi-colon (paragraph 4); this is optional
• In the Anatomy section, change "...also found on the paws of big cats and of dogs" to "...also found on the paws of big cats and dogs"
• In the Physiology section, wikilink "pant for heat relief" to [[Thermoregulation#Endothermy]] or [[Endothermy#Avoiding overheating]]
• In the Physiology section, you contradicted yourself when you said "...they can survive on a diet consisting only of meat..." and "...a diet composed only of meat may cause calcium deficiency" (isn't that fatal?) Removed second sentence mentioned. --Proud User (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• In the Senses section, removed "Indeed"
• In the Senses section, change "...whiskers (vibrissae) over their bodies..." to "...whiskers (vibrissae) over their body..."
• In the Health section, it says "Non-neutered cats in the U.S. are four times as likely to be hit by a car"; why? The claim itself was nonsense and wasn't even mentioned in the citation given, so I removed the claim entirely. --Proud User (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• In the Health section, change "favourably" to "favorably"
• In the Poisoning section, change "Phenol-based products (e.g. Pine-Sol, Dettol (Lysol) or hexachlorophene)" to "Phenol-based products (Pine-Sol, Dettol/Lysol or hexachlorophene)"
• In the Behavior section, what does "Free-ranging cats" mean? Did you mean "Outdoor cats" or "Feral cats"? Clarified.
• In the Behavior section change "...may be more active in the morning and evening (crepuscular behavior)" to "...may be crepuscular, meaning they are active (at dawn and dusk/in the morning and evening)" or "...may be more [[crepuscular|active in the morning and evening]]"
• In the Behavior section, change "...varies, usually 12–16 hours, with 13–14 being..." to "...varies usually between 12 and 16 hours, with 13 to 14 being..."
• In the Behavior section, change "Some cats can sleep as much as 20 hours in a 24-hour period" to "Some cats can sleep as much as 20 hours"
• In the Communication section, change "...of whole body, and kneading of paws..." to "...of the whole body, and kneading of the paws..."
• In the Communication section, change "...social signal mechanisms in cats, e.g. with a raised tail acting as a friendly greeting, and flattened ears indicating hostility" to "...social signal mechanisms in cats; for example, a raised tail acts as a friendly greeting, and flattened ears indicates hostility..."
• In the Grooming section, change "...which makes them quite rigid" to "...which makes them rigid"
• In the Grooming section, remove the clarification needed template, I don't understand why that's there  The reason for the tag was "[Citation] Missing publication date," which is no reason to use a {{clarify}} tag.
• In the Fighting section, change "...cuts to their ears and noses" to "...cuts to their ears and nose"
• In the Hunting and feeding section, remove the clarification needed template, I don't understand why that's there
• In the Hunting and feeding section, why is there a paragraph on the cat righting reflex? It seems off-topic. Consider moving this to Senses, Anatomy, or History and mythology (last paragraph) section
• In the Hunting and feeding section, change "The perhaps best known element..." to "Perhaps the best known element..."
• In the Hunting and feeding section, change "Domestic cats select food based on its temperature, smell and texture, disliking chilled foods and responding most strongly to..." to "Domestic cats select food based on its temperature, smell and texture; they dislike chilled foods and respond most strongly to..."
• In the Hunting and feeding section, change "...aluminum foil/Christmas tree tinsel..." to "...aluminum foil..." (optional)

Images

• For File:Cat tongue macro.jpg, wikilink "papillae" Done
• For File:TapetumLucidum.JPG, wikilink "tapetum lucidum" Done

References

*For ref no. 19, add the parameter |language=Spanish  Reference 19 appears to be in English

It appears someone else has fixed it (if you look in the Article history, no. 19 was in Spanish on Dec. 2)

No wait, it was just moved to no. 230 ("Gatos fueron domesticados en China hace 5.300 años")

Anyways,  Done. --Proud User (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• For ref no. 236 (Al-Thahabi), add the parameter |language=Arabic Done
• In the History and mythology section, there's no ref for the Norse depictions
• In the History and mythology section, there's a citation needed template Fixed
• In the Nomenclature and etymology section, there's two citation needed templates  I removed those claims altogether because I could not find reliable sources to back them up.

To pass GA, just take care of the citation needed templates

Photoshop?

The image at File:Cat eating a rabbit.jpeg (labeled "Carrying a rabbit" in the article) looks a bit "off" to me. Is there any chance that it was photoshopped? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The metadata stored within the file suggests that it came directly from a camera and not a program like Photoshop. The photo itself was originally posted to Flickr by "Eddy Van 300," who claims to be a professional photographer. However there is no way to know for sure if the image was edited or not. --Proud User (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I think the problem you are seeing is that there is no shadow on the rabbit just below the cat's mouth where we would normally expect it. Furthermore, if you look at the cat's right eye (left in the image) it appears to be darker, indicating it is in shadow and the light is coming from the right of the image. If this were the case, we might expect the rabbit to be darker - especially in those areas of its body closer to the cat. There is a way that all these "suspicions" would be negated and that is a technique called "fill in flash", where a flash is used in daylight to eliminate shadows. Indeed, there is a white line on the cat's left eye which might indicate a flash gun being used. A professional photographer would certainly be aware of this technique. Another consideration is why would someone photoshop the image? Domestic cats eat rabbits all the time - why would someone want to photoshop this? I do have one concern - the tail looks rather long for a rabbit!DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120127052854/http://elcomercio.pe/impresa/notas/vidas-gato/20100307/423959 to http://elcomercio.pe/impresa/notas/vidas-gato/20100307/423959

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)