Talk:Cat/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

1 West Dakota Prize
2 Stroking a cat
3 "Moggy"
4 Pictures
5 Removed annotations
6 Eating strays
7 Limecat
8 Neutering
9 Miaow, miaou, meow
10 Classification
11 Categories
12 When cats are prey
13 Cats and dogs
14 Feral Cat info is false
15 Tortoiseshell - no merge, just clarification
16 cat linguist?
17 Cat images in Commons
18 Ghost cats
19 Is the cat domesticated?
20 Pets as a Food Source
21 Too many pictures!
22 The main picture.
23 Speaking English and thumbs
24 Cat diseases
25 Attack between cats
26 Too many photos!!! part 2
27 Etymology of "Cat"
28 Hazardous foods
29 Smiling cats
30 Sections and subsections
- 30.1 Tiny subsections
- 30.2 Simile
- 30.3 Appearance
- 30.4 Other pages
- 30.5 Fewer would be fine
- 30.6 Do it if you like
31 Cat photos/protection
32 Pictures (again)
33 balance
34 Continue the smiling cat feud here
35 When protection is lifted...
36 unprotection
37 Tendency towards deafness
38 Vegetarian and Vegan Diet
39 Felis silvestris catus vs. Felis silvestris domesticus
40 Fur Trade

West Dakota Prize

A Winner of the March 2005 West Dakota Prize

This entry is one of only seventeen that have won the March 2005 West Dakota Prize for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence. --Wetman 08:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stroking a cat

Why do humans enjoy stroking cats more so than any other animal?

Cats both visually and audibly appreciate this human gesture by purring and closing their eyes (in pleasure). This is fulfilling ;) --Redxela Sinnak June 30, 2005 06:36 (UTC)

"Moggy"

I come from the UK so I'll tell you 'moggy' (or moggies) is a term used for any domesticated cat. Usually used as an effectionate term ("awww, look at those moggies") There was even a cat called Mog in a childrens book.

Perhaps this article will clear things up: Moggy

The word "moggy" is vritually unknown in the United States. I thought about putting "and are known as moggies in the United Kingdom", but I don't know how widespread the term is. We don't really have an American version -- maybe alley cat? -- Zoe

Moggy is also commonly used in Australia

"Moggy" is probably just slang for "mongrel", which is common even in the US. LDC

"Moggy" is certainly not slang for mongrel in the UK. It means nothing else but "cat", and is an affectionate term - as "doggy" is to "dog". e.g. "Look at that poor little wet Moggy", or "I have two Moggies, a Siamese and a Persian." Mog, was indeed a highly popular series of children's books from the 1970s (and later) in the UK - written by Judith Kerr, and could be the source of the word.

Various of the articles on pedigreed cats make use of this term to indicate mix-breed/mongrel. Dalf | Talk 06:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Its a slang term, so is it 'moggie' spelling?

"Moggie" in the UK, Australia and to a lesser degree Canada, will usually refer somewhat more specifically to a non-pedigreed cat. The origin of the term is usually purported to be "Maggie" (derivative of Margaret), which is deemed to have been a familiar name for a household cat in the early part of the 20th century, having before been applied to cows and calves before (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-mog1.htm). The correct spelling is usually "moggie" by opposition to "moggy".Ramdrake 15:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

Noticed a dearth of kitty pictures, so added my own. Rosie (RIP 1983-2002) and Zazou the Wonder Kitty. Hey, they're as good cats as any. - montréalais

I add another picture which i am quite proud of. I would like to know if you know what kind of cat it is ? --Chmouel Boudjnah 11:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Great picture! It should replace the existing one. Kent Wang 18:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I replaced the main one by mine i hope the other author doen't mind it. --Chmouel Boudjnah 19:53, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removed annotations

annotations removed from article:

(Needs work: separate predator behavior from "desert" charateristics) The wild ancestor of the cat is believed to be from a desert climate, and cats display behaviours associated with such creatures. They enjoy heat and sunning themselves (need to check: don't desert creatures seek shelter?). Their feces are usually very dry and cats prefer to bury them in sandy places. They are able to stay unmoving in one place for long periods of time, usually when observing prey.

Eating strays

It would be very thoughtful if someone could give a source for the comment about eating stray cats in Africa -- without any specifics it looks like a cheap slur, IMO, and doesn't help in understanding of cats. --Fastfission 18:58, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Limecat

The limecat reference probably doesn't belong here. It is probably not of sufficient importance or global reference to belong in this definition. --/Mat 21:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. Kent Wang 17:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutering

Does anybody know more about castration of cats? Guaka 18:13, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is normally called neutering, and is strongly recommended in order to reduce the number of stray cats that must be killed. It also prevents male cats from spraying. This should probably go in "caring for pets". Andrew 07:22, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

That was known to me, but I'd like to know more. For instance: does the cat's behaviour change besides that he stops spraying? And, it seems that the neutered cats have a thinner face than normal cats..? G-u-a-k-@ 19:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)ne

Neutering usually makes a male cat more docile and less territorial. I volunteer at an animal shelter and we try to spay/neuter the kittens at about 8 weeks of age. But even when they are neutered as adults, tom cats generally become more mellow. I haven't noticed that the faces reclect the neutering though I'll have to check next time I'm at the shelter. --FWDixon 30 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)

Neutering does change a cat's personality. Usually, the male cat is calmer, friendlier, and less aggressive. This is not true for all cats, but it is the case 99% of the time. Also, castrated cats will not be as territorial. cmpope 20:04 Sept 21, 2004

I've heard from a vet that if a cat is neutered when he's young, rather than full grown, his face won't be as long. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 14:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's true of humans too. -- Myria 03:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kittens can be neutered very early on--as early as 7 weeks. Neutering changes the cat's personality somewhat--but usually towards the more social end of the spectrum. Theire face will not be as full because the removal of the testicles stems the flow of hormones, which cause the thickening of the face as well as spraying, roaming, and related behaviors. Both neutering and spaying early in life help prevent later diseases such as related cancers, not to mention stopping the risk of adding to the alrady overpopulated pet world. Also, kittens do not need to experience a heat cycle or the birth of their own kittens before being spayed.--smags 14:17 PST Oct 24, 2004

Actually, more and more vets are recommending vasectomies and tube-tying as alternate forms of ¨neutering¨.

much more humane, and just as effective at controlling the cat population. Plus most people keep their cats indoors. What is the point of mutilating them for birth control when they are going to be inside all the time?

Miaow, miaou, meow

I am puzzled: Why is the Icelandic translation of "meow" on this page? It's nice and all, but why not French ("miaou") or any of a thousand other languages? Andrew 07:22, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Why not link to meow at Wiktionary? :) G-u-a-k-@ 19:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Classification

The classification of the cat is very confusing. I think domesticus is a synonym for catus but I am not entirely sure. Any comments? Bensaccount 16:38, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same. Felis catus is the original species name used for the house cat by Linnaeus, and "domesticus" is a name that's commonly used for domesticated forms of a species, so they both denote the same thing. --Chl 23:13, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When cats are prey

The article says: "In desperate times, people have been known to resort to cooking and eating cats, as occurred in Argentina in 1996". I'm argentine. I never ate a cat. My family, my friends, my relatives, never ate cats. I had 6 cats in my house. When you say "people.... in Argentina", you are saying that all the argentines have been eaten cats. And this is not a truth. I'm sorry but that is offensive. My nick is LadyInGrey and I am from Wikipedia in Spanish.

The article treats it as a specific, one-time incident of desperation, not a generalized happening. There is no implication in that article that Argentines eat cats. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 05:58, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Lowellian; this is one example only; I do not find the reference generalized or stereotypical and therefore I do not think it is offensive. Quill 21:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

> I don't think you can support the idea that eating cats is ethically ok. Eating meat is an ethically troubling idea to many people. Eating pets is certainly problematic. user:N2lect2el

It all depends on how you define 'pets'. If in your culture cats happen to be considered pets than maybe yes - some people keep pigs and rabits as pets (and eat them anyway....). If you are starving and cats are considered pests then it's certainly OK to eat them, as it's just as OK to eat cows, pigs, rabbits turkeys or monkeys. I think my addition is valid and relevant. 213.51.209.230 17:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is "ok" to eat pets or not, I don't see why this is relevant to an article about cats at all. Maybe the section should be moved to Pet, with a few counter-arguments added for NPOV. --Conti|✉ 17:16, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The entire section is not about the ethics of killing and eating cats but more general about killing and eating animals, pets or otherwise. 213.51.209.230 18:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's no point in discussing this idea here. To understand what you are getting at User: 213, the reader has to understand some very complex ideas about ethics--which you do not explain--and has to agree with a very limited definiton of the term "ethics" on top of everything. Certainly there are "ethical systems" that would be quite upset with the idea that eating cats is Ok. A Jain wouldn't agree with you, nor would a vegan. Unless you want to include in this section a discussion of every system of thought in existance and the various positions each takes on the issue of eating cats and dogs, I suggest you leave this idea out of this article.N2lect2el 05:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cats and dogs

Article could benefit from some information on how cats interact with other pets, especially dogs, since it is fairly common to have cats and dogs (and possibly other pets) together in one household. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 05:56, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Dogs and cats have more similarities in behavior than most dog-partisans and cat-partisans admit. Cats are more social than the sterotype of the solitary hunter when not hunting. The cat took longer to adapt to the human environment because the human family is more similar to a wolf-pack. Large groups of cats can show a social structure similar to that of a lion pride except they do not hunt socially.

Although dogs are arguably one of the most dangerous creatures that most cats can face, they can fit well into the social structure of a cat colony in much the same way as a large male lion in a lion pride. Kittens are always at risk from adult male cats; a dog, an aggressive, large, and loud creature obviously has the capacity to scare off an unwelcome cat not from the colony. The dog becomes in effect another member of the colony, and the cats find the dog as the alpha-male.

Cats and dogs are of course predators. Both creatures kill and eat almost any creature smaller than themseleves. The cat probably holds itself better against a dog than any other creature of like size. Both are wholly untrustworthy with rodents, rabbits, birds, ferrets, aquarium fish, insects, amphibians and most reptiles. Cats can probably not hurt hard-shelled turtles, but dogs' teeth might puncture a turtle's shell.

Snakes, dogs, and cats are similarly predatory; it's a question of which creature will kill the other for food, and it's the larger that will eat the smaller. The exception: cats and dogs may recognize each other as equals.--66.231.38.91 20:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feral Cat info is false

Feral Cats in Australia are very prolific pests due to their ability to adapt, survive and readily find food sources. I find it very hard to believe that for some reason American cats are startingly incompetent in this regard (something in the water?). Would there be great objections if I totally rebuked everything in that paragraph.--ZayZayEM 09:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If by rebuke, you mean change to be factual info, not a problem. If by rebuke you mean state that in the info is false in the article, that would be a problem But I do agree, I'm pretty sure the life span of a feral cat is more than 2 years (especially feral-born cats, since they retain the instincts that cats kept indoors-only tend to lose) but they are more susceptible to deadly diseases and predators... [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 15:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody's on the ball; I meant to speak to this and forgot. I've also read that cat hunting instincts are so good that a lost or abandoned domestic cat will have no problem surviving, even in an urban environment.Quill 21:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I meant change the info to true info. But i just wanted to know if North American cats are inept or something, so I didn't replace what might be true, but poorly presented, info (it is plausible to me that teh presence of larger predators & competition such as racoons, wolves, and bears could be a contributing factor)--ZayZayEM 05:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know a couple of cat-lovers who think this is true. They work with orgs. which capture, neuter, and release feral cats with the goal of the colonies reaching zpg and dying off.Sfahey 23:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other than the statement about the lifespan, which I just don't know if it is factual or not, the feral information is pretty accurate. Note it is mostly talking about ferals in an urban environment, which is fraught with danger (mostly cars, disease, lack of food etc...) not associated with ferals in less densly populated areas. I've always been under the impression that it is the feal cats in the less populated areas with native wildlife that are a problem in Australia. This is a different situation. Temperature extremes are also a problem, making most large feral cat populations occur in the southern US. Many studies have been done on the effectiveness of Trap, Neuter, Return programs here and they are proven to work better than other methods of dealing with ferals for urban environments. While cats are extrememly resourceful, it is a mistake, (and a cruel one) to assume that they will be fine when letting them roam a populated area. Farm cats (usually rural ferals) have it much easier. Therefore, maybe the information needs to be qualified as relvant to urban and suburban ferals, but it is not false. Pschemp 02:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another point is that this article seems to be littered with pro-cat propoganda. I am a cat-lover, and don't particularly like dogs — but i don't use misinformation to promote a side of the debate. --ZayZayEM 06:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just spent the last few hours reading most of the cat related articles on wikipedia. From what I can tell this article is actually better than most of them in terms of not sounding like it was written by an enthusiast. Though in terms of POVness affectionate tone is one of the lesser evils to be found. In terms of the rest of the discussion in this section. It is my impression that other than urban factors climate is a big one in determining lifespan for feral cats. Other than the Maine Coon and possibly one other breed cats are not especially adapted to north american winters. Dalf | Talk 06:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Tortoiseshell - no merge, just clarification

I see a suggested merging of Tortoiseshell and Tortoiseshell cat. I understand the reason for the confusion, but I suggest elucidation in the form of name changes rather than a merge.

Tortoiseshell can be the true tortoiseshell or Calimanco, while Tortoiseshell cat can be the Calico or tortie and white cat.

Opinions?

Quill 22:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What about keeping Tortoiseshell, adding any info on true torties from Tortoiseshell cat to it, and then moving the second article to Calico (cat) or the current redir. - Calico cat (whichever is more correct) and only covering calico/tortie and white? I think if we keep the two articles with nearly identical titles, it will confuse people. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 22:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, that's what I meant by 'name change'. Is that 'great minds think alike', Lachat? I just suggested that at Talk:Tortoise(shell?)Quill 22:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I saw your other comment right after I posted this one, so yeah. So which title should be used: 'Calico (cat)' or 'Calico cat'. The term I've heard most often is just plain calico. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 22:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd go for 'Calico cat' myself. It can't be plain 'calico' because that could be cloth as well. Quill 22:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was actually suggesting using 'Calico (cat)'. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 22:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah. well, I don't know then.Quill 22:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see further discussion at Talk:Tortoiseshell cat Quill 21:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just changed the tortoishell link to Tortoisshell cat because this article is specifically about cats and if I were intested in any other kind of Tortoiseshell I would look that up. I apologize, I did not look at the discussions first. I feel that my edit is correct, but will defer to those who have been around longer. I do have a question: why does the link to calico redirect me to tortoiseshell? Entrprs6 15:31, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Your changing of the link is correct. The redirection from calico to tortoiseshell was discussed elsewhere, and the consensus was that there isn't enough info on calicos alone to warrant a seperate article, since the same genes etc cause both colorations. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 15:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

cat linguist?

Are we supposed to take the "Cat linguist" section serious? There have been a number of edits after this one but no changes. Is not the phrase "The cat equivalent of "hello"/"welcome" would perhaps be transliterated something like "mg^hg^hg^hao," ridiculous? On the lighter side (tongue in cheek): if we are going to transliterate the catish vocalizations we ought to at least list the following seperately since they don't vocalize in the same manner: American shorthair, Burmese, Persian, Russian blue....Liblamb 22:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about a separate page for "Cat Trivia" or some such? There are probably a few items from the main page that could move there to tighten up the main page. --Mmm 04:35, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is a universal "cat hello" (possessing several cats who have different tonalities for greetings, annoyance and "FEED ME NOW"). And I'm certainly not in favour of cat dialects being examined (unless of course supervised by a genuine cat linguist)--ZayZayEM 12:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cat images in Commons

I would like to suggest that we keep the images that we use or plan to use for the cat articles in Commons. So they may be available for all wikipedias in all languages. This will not change the way we add pictures to pages, as we will call then as they were local but MediaWiki will find the image never the less. --Svasti 16:51, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Ghost cats

There are quite a few tales world-wide featuring ghost cats - should this be detailed in an article entitled Ghost cats. In addition how about a page of Cats and superstition (which would include familiars, ghost cats, Egyption mythology etc.).

I was also thiking of a similar article on Dogs/Canines and Superstition (Cerebus, Hounds of the Baskervilles, Demon Dogs, Hyenas in Africa) is this valid Wikipedia content?--ZayZayEM 12:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is the cat domesticated?

I worry about the overwhelming urge to write "was domesticated" in the first line of this entry. Is the cat really a "domesticated" creature? The term "feral" is probably more appropriate--or "potentially feral" or maybe even "tame." But I really don't think it is right to call a cat a "domesticated animal." When it is inside, the cat might be a cuddly furball; but once it gets outside, it's a killing machine. When abandoned by their owners, most cats quickly revert to "wild" behavior, and stray cats that have "gone wild" are very hard to recondition as pets. Again, I don't think the term "domesticated" is justified. I've changed it, or qualified it, in the first paragraph several times and it always comes back. I agree with the section later on in the article that says that cats and humans have a "mutualistic relationship," but as John Wayne said in (I think) Rooster Cogburn: "No one really owns a cat--they just live with you for a while."

Please reconsider the idea that cats were "domesticated" 7500 years ago. The cat sleeping on my couch right now finds such an idea highly offensive.

I generally agree, but is this point moot? The line, now in the second paragraph, reads "The cat has been living in close association with humans (although never entirely domesticated as dogs are) since at least 3500 years ago". That makes it clear that cats are not strictly "domesticated" in the classic sense of the word (smacks of animal husbandry). Hu 22:07, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

I'll accept your revision, Hu. I'm the one who made the point moot by adding the part that reads "The cat has been living in close association with humans (although never entirely domesticated as dogs are). . . " What I'm really worried about is the recurrence of the idea (which will probably pop up in the first paragraph any moment now) that humans conquered the cat 7500 years ago. I don't think we've fully domesticated the cat yet.

I have edited the page to soften the degree of domestication. At first I had not seen the section on domesticaton. Hu 22:28, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

The definition of domesticated: to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans. Certainly the keeping of cats for rodent control fits this definition and so I would argue that the according to this the cat IS fully domesticated. Cats as pets are living in intimate association with humans and do provide advantages to those humans. Cats have been domesticated more recently than dogs but any biologist will tell you that felis catus is a DOMESTIC species. The former latin name was felis DOMESTICUS. We need to stick to a strict interpretaion of the facts here folks, whatever your (or your cat's) personal feelings. Pschemp 03:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fact is the species was changed away from domesticus, not to it. Fact is that huge numbers of cats are feral and many or most of those have no contact with humans any more than a racoon raiding garbage, and often less. I don't think people would say racoons are domesticated. So cats considered as a group are semi-domesticated or quasi-domesticated.

It is also a fact that M-W defines domesticate as "to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans". Cats meet this criterion; therefore, cats are domesticated. It's a simple matter of definition. Note also that feral is defined as "having escaped from domestication and become wild"— in order to claim that something is feral, you have to first make the assumption that it was as some point domesticated. The claim that cats are merely semi- or quasi-domesticated doesn't obtain under scrutiny of words' definitions. I think the point you are trying to make is that the way that cats have been domesticated is qualitatively different than for dogs, and this is of course because ancestral wild cats were different from ancestral wild dogs. This doesn't change the fact that both dogs and cats are domesticated, though. Nohat 07:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Hu: the short name was changed to be more scientifically logical, not because cats aren't domesticated (and domesticus is still in the long form). I'm sorry but I've spoken with Biology PhDs here and they say cats are a DOMESTIC, (not quasi or semi) species. End of story. They fit the definition of the word. If you don't agree, I'm sorry but the article here needs to be NEUTRAL point of view according to wikipedia and your opinion that they are not domesticated is not a NPOV. Their domestication is a scientifically accepted fact. Yes they were domesticated for different purposes and yes it was more recent, but it did happen. Note, feral DOGS exist too, but that doesn't mean they aren't domesticaed. Also I don't think your statement that "many or most cats have no contact with humans" is factual or proveable. If you are going to say that, please show me the statistics. It is true that feral cats are a problem in Australia, but that is not true of the cat population in other parts of the world. btw can you please sign your posts? Pschemp 01:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concur. I will add a couple of cents' worth:

1. Feral cats are a problem in Australia, but so are feral pigs, bovines, camels, dogs (as Pschemp mentioned), goats and other domesticated animals. Why single out the cat?

2. I do not see how it must follow that because cats have instincts that allow lost or abandoned pets to survive easily, that is proof that they were never domesticated? "Wild" kittens are verily easily tamed; I appreciate your cat's feelings, Hu, but the cat sleeping on my bed at the moment informs me that she is indeed a domesticated creature and has no intention of returning to the bushes in which she was found.

Quill 09:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The cat simply finds humans a convenience. Human structures keep cats safe from such enemies as snakes and raptor birds that would eat cats if given the chance. Human environments often have food that attracts rodents and insects that cats devour, and if there aren't such natural prey in a house, the cat might find table scraps or commercial cat food that substitutes for prey. The cat likes the warmth of human habitations and human bodies. The cat is smart enough to recognize that humans big enough to eat them don't do so, and that any affection that we show them is a great bonus worth reciprocating for getting more of the same. We can want them in our houses, which is something that we can't say about mice, rats or cockroaches that the cat would gladly devour.

Cats have taken much of the role in human lives that dogs have taken. If the cat is not quite like a dog in what it can do, then it is as close as any other animal is likely to get to filling the role of a dog as a companion. It may not need us, which makes it in some respects more independent than most other domesticated animals (examples: cattle or sheep), but that hardly makes it less tame. In its role as a companion it is as least as tame as a horse and not quite as tame as a dog. If a horse is 'domesticated', then the cat is even more so, even if it has lost fewer characteristics of a 'wild' animal.--66.231.38.91 20:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course cats are domesticated. This notion that they are not is ridiculous. It's likely a by-product of the cat owners need to see his pet as superior in a world where dogs are more popular.--198.93.113.49 20:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Pets as a Food Source

I appreciate AirIntake's efforts, but I'm not sure this new article has the best name. Will anyone find an article titled Pets as a Food Source? Can we perhaps come up with something better? Quill 20:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it does need a change. I think we can all agree though, that it's better having it separate from this main cat article, as it really is a touchy subject that one should be prepared for before they read.--AirIntake 18:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've renamed the Pets and work animals as a food source page to Taboo food and drink. I also added a couple sentences here which shouldn't offend anyone, but give some context. --Zenyu 17:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Too many pictures!

Maybe the article was once low on pictures, but it's now crowded and messy. IMO, the density of pictures should be reduced and the better pictures should be increased in size so that they're more visible. -- Oarih 19:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would agree that there are too many. Worse than that, they are pretty much random and don't illustrate the article. Looking them over, most are low quality, poor composition, and unremarkable. The only one I find very decent is the eye one, which should be moved to the eye section (and probably to the left, as the face is facing right, and right-facing creatures should go on the left when laying things out). The one attacking the mouse isn't too bad either. Surely we can find nice, illustrative cat photos or illustrations. DreamGuy 19:25, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. When I viewed the article for the first time just the other day, I was quite "offended" by the carpet and the mess surrounding the cats in the cat1.jpg and cat2.jpg pictures - both of which were donated by the same Wikipedia user! Those carpets need a good clean! (My recent addition could have done with being cropped and touched up a bit also - I'll do this now). --Rebroad 17:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh great, now I have people I've never even met bitching about my housekeeping. - Montréalais 22:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I put in some new pics, adjusted sizes, and deleted a bunch too. We might look for something a little more representative for the cat breed section, and the mummy mask is a little blurry but at least it relates to the section instead of just being random cat pic. DreamGuy 19:59, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

The main picture.

I don't think that the main picture in this aritcle is very repersentitive of cats. While it is a nice picture, the positon of the cat doesn't allow for a very good profile. I think that the main picture should have a cat that is quartering toward the viewer. Also the cat pictured is a thin breed with a wedge shaped head. There are in general three types of head shape for cats, Wedge, Intermediate, and Round. I think the picture should be swithced to the intermediate type as it would be(as it is in real life) a neutral between the two. With body size I sujest a medium cat with medium build. If anyone knows of a high quality picture that would be acceptable please mention it. And thats my comment for the moment --Silver86 23:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I put a new one in that I think is better... and, being wider than tall, makes that box thing slightly less stretched out.DreamGuy 19:59, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I like that picture better.--Silver86 03:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speaking English and thumbs

- sorry, i don't really know how this works, but 1) my cats speak english; and 2) even if you don't believe that, they have thumbs that they use to pick up and throw things. i'd be happy to prove this, but why has no one mentioned these yet??? Did I do this right?

WHAT ABOUT CATS WITH THUMBS??????????????

[above comments by unregistered user on IP 67.80.8.96]

(I added new topic header and moved them together so they weren't in two separate locations) DreamGuy 22:35, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

thanks dreamguy. I was new. ok, i still am. i can't figure out where the thumbed-paw cat mention should go in here, but ..well let me see what the entry for Hemingway has before I continue to make a fool of myself. Seems to me, domestication of cats is still in a primitive stage, in that there are many well-developed "breeds" of dogs but only a handful of classifications of cats. People like Ernest and myself have recognized this and take pride in the characteristics of their own cats, and try to recreate them in the generations ahead. I could try putting a picture up if someone tells me how. sorry i can't pick a name for here 67.80.8.96 17:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cat diseases

I think there should be some direct link on the main Cat page to the Cat Health category (among others). Also, I notice that there are articles on feline leukemia and feline immunodeficiency virus, but not feline hepatic lipidosis (aka fatty liver disease), which is another serious health problem for cats. I know a smattering about FHL, but certainly not enough to start an article about it.

Perhaps it would be good to also add some comment on Toxoplasmosis -- I noted that there is a mention that "only cat bites" are dangerous to humans, but I think the risk of birth defects due to toxoplasmosis is worth noting as well.

Attack between cats

The article describes attacks between cats as something benign. Yet, it is my experience that cats who fight sometimes end up with damage to the eyes, and it's not infrequent to see cats that have totally lost an eye (and I think that they can lose both, but then, a blind cat may not have that much of a life expectation). Perhaps somebody knowledgeable about this should mention it. David.Monniaux 07:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Too many photos!!! part 2

See above for comments on their being too many low-quality photos of editor's pets in the article for no reason. For some reason we've been hit with a rash of them in the last few days. I deleted some, made one smaller (submitter for some reason had made it by far the largest photo on the page), and kept another. But the problem here is that photos should be here to illustrate something and be good, clean images without bad backgrounds and such. If you are putting a pic of your cat here, odds are good that it's not really the best photo to illustrate the article. If you are here to improve the content, consider looking for good photos on freely usable sites (like I did to get some of the ones here). If you are looking to have vanity snapshots of your precious, please don't. DreamGuy 10:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that all pictures here should have a reason and be of a minimum quality standard. However I disagree that this isn't the place for editors pets. The most free use pictures anyone has are pictures they made themselves. This ensures that we never face copyright issues. I also believe that providing an appropriate picture for inclusion is an excellent way to honour a passed pet by donating their picture to assist science. --68.149.9.253 21:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of places to get free use photos. The best ones from this page came from http://www.sxc.hu/. If this page were lacking in photos I could understand the argument that amateur photos of poorly-framed and posed pets might be better than nothing, but the vast majority of recent additions are really bad photos when we already have quite a few good photos here. And Wikipedia is absolutely not the place for people to honor lost pets. Photos (and other additions) are supposed to be made based upon notability and appropriateness, not just because you love your kitty. You may as well be arguing that all your pets deserve articles of their own. DreamGuy 19:02, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Photos should be judged on their quality and suitability, not where they came from. I think my contribution is very appropriate of a domesticated cat obviously wanting something, probably food, i.e. interacting with a human. We should make the pics fit the text. I don't think there are too many photos, probably still space for another couple, --SqueakBox 19:34, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

For instance it is totally inappropriate to have a pic of a wild looking cat hunting in relation to domstication. We should have domestic cat pics for that, such as the one of the cat looking as if it wants to be fed (domestic cats get their food by looking pretty, not by hunting, --SqueakBox 19:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, phoitos should be judged on quality and suitability, but people who posts pictures of their pets are not being objective in deciding what is appropriate and what is quality. For ewxample, your recent change mentioned right above. Completely inappropriate. The photo you posted is a rather low quality image of just a cat's face, with no encyclopedic use at all. If you'd look the actual article, you'll note that the image you removed so you could place yours there was illustrating a section about domesticated cats becoming feral, and was specifically on topic for that section. Complaining that it didn;t look domesticated enough when the whole point is that it's about domesticated cats gone wild shows that you are not making sound judgments here. And the article is EXTREMELY crowded at this point, claiming that more could be added is completely bizarre. There are so many right now that the text has a hard time flowing around all of them and still beig readable. If anything, we should yank a bunch of the ones here. DreamGuy 20:02, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm with DreamGuy on that one, I don't in any way see how that picture could be better over the hunting cat one. The hunting cat one was of high usability for the article. However, the tailless cat picture is interesting trivia because people are always under the conception that cats have tails. It's not my pet on that picture though. The resolution is fairly high, and size-wise it's cool and not heavy on the 56k users. In my opinion though, if there's a lot of text in an article, it needs more pictures; an article with little text/content would be overloaded with pictures, but in the case of this cat article, there's so much text that it needs a lot of pictures in order to be more viewer friendly. People need pictures as a variation. Imagine reading an article of this much content without pictures, it would kill the eyes with text. There needs to be a balance and I think the one we have now is relatively fair and that we haven't crossed it... yet :)

EliasAlucard|Talk 22:24, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think a Manx cat photo might be good for the section discussing different types, but I don't think this one is very good at all. It has a distracting background and seems to have poor tonal range or sharpness or something. The Manx (cat) article has some better photos (still not as good as we probably should have, but better). Want to pick one of those to be used here? DreamGuy 20:43, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, I'll provide a new one of the same cat in a minute, you put it into whatever section you think fits best, but I agree that the one I uploaded wasn't of best quality considering the other cat. Hang on :)

EliasAlucard|Talk 22:45, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

How's that one for a change? I agree though that it should be in a better part of the article where it has some connection to a context. However, I don't think we should reuse pictures from the Manx article for variety reasons; it's not fun seeing the same picture over and over again.

EliasAlucard|Talk 22:45, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Rmmm, that one's got problems too... The background is less cluttered than the other, but it's still distracting, and the cat's facing away. The lighting is rather poor too. I see from the other image you added and talk on the Manx (cat) page that you own some... can't you find some neutral or natural background to plop one down on kind of sidewise and then make a noise to attract the attention so he/she looks at you when you take the pic? I just don't see the value in low quality photos here.

Also, this one and the other photo are adding things that dont; go along with any text on the page. If you want to talk about white cats having a greater likelihood of being deaf, write something in the actual article first, and then MAYBE put a photo of a white cat. That photo doesn't really show deafness, it just shows a white cat. Same thing with the Manx cat. I don't even see any mention of it in the article. Please, please consider improving the article itself before you think up rather flimsy reasons to add your own photos, otherwise I really have to question your motivation for placing these here.

The blue eyed cat is definitely cute though, even if I'm having difficulties understanding why it's there. DreamGuy 21:06, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't own the Manx cat, but I own her two kittens and one of them is deaf because he's white. I was hoping that by adding the white deaf cat and explaining briefly about the genetics that someone more in knowledge of this could add more info about it. I honestly don't know why this happens to white cats, just that it does. And that white cats have a tendancy (not always) to be born with blue eyes. Also, it's trivia, it doesn't necessarily have to be ten pages more about it :) But about the Manx picture, I get your point about not the best quality in the world, it's somewhat grainy. But when resized to the thumb version, no one can see the difference. And I believe everyone knows how a cat looks from the face, so it's better to show it from behind, but it's not my cat so I can't take more pictures of that one. The white cat with blue eyes IS actually deaf, so I guess it's a good picture of a true story picture trivia. I wish he weren't though, because it's a pain in the ass having him deaf :/

EliasAlucard|Talk 23:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Etymology of "Cat"

Does anyone know the etymology of the word "cat" in European languages and why this term replaced the Latin "feles" in most Romance languages? --[[User:JonMoore|—Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 13:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hazardous foods

The article dog has a list of foods (like chocolate) that can be dangerous to dogs. I don't see a similar list here at cat. (Some of the dog hazards apply also to cats). Should this be added? RJFJR 17:27, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

That could be useful, I think. So, like, what, chicken bones and so forth? DreamGuy 11:15, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think such a list should be mandatory, because it's important. Although, I must say, my cats have eaten chocolate lots of times and nothing has ever happened from what I've noticed... but on the other hand, I'm no expert :)

EliasAlucard|Talk 13:43, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Having known many cats, I would say the majority of them like chocolate, and individual ones like many other foods you wouldn't initially expect (custard and marmite to name two!). On the matter of poisonous foods, I had heard that citrus fruits were particularly dangerous, but since I can't find any mention of this online it could be a hearsay. What I did find from a quick search are-

1 mention of chocolate, onions, grape and caffine.
2 mentions apple, apricot, chocolate and alcohol
3list of plants. not exactly food, but vitally important never the less (as i know from sad experience)

While there is much mention online of chocolate being "poisonous" (and to a similar extent of cows milk), I think part of this is due to an excusable lack of perspective. Taking into account my experience, (although limited to moggies, which could have a better tolerence of abnormal foods due to genetic heritage) I would highlight that most foods in large enough doses are dangerous to cats and humans. After all, proportionally, a full bowl of milk is to a cat what a 2 litre jug is to a human. (Could you drink that and not feel ill?)

So in short, maybe any information on these lines should-

state any foods that have been claimed to be dangerous (to be on the safe side),
mention that this is without scientific confirmation (unless of course someone finds some),
have a strong emphasise on 'individual suseptability', so owner should be cautious when/if introducing any new food, and *highlight a perspective of proportion in doses

--Myfanwy 00:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Smiling cats

If cats can smile, then I think a picture of one doing so should be included. But honestly, I don't see in any way how the cat is smiling on that picture. It just seems like an average face. Although, I must say that I've seen pictures on kittens where it really really looks like they're smiling.

EliasAlucard|Talk 08:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

The picture is also too poor quality to include. Kiand 10:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sections and subsections

"the heck with this, even as subheads they look bad, removing them until new ones can be made that doesn;t give a new heading every two paragraphs, it makes the table of contents box way too long"

Why remove them man? The article needs more sections and subsections. It's easier to find subjects in the article if there are sections/subsections. And so what if the table of content is a bit long, I've seen much longer table of contents than that.

EliasAlucard|Talk 17:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tiny subsections

As I explained above, it's ridiculous to have a new section every two paragraphs or so. Your way frequently gave a new section sometimes after a single paragraph.

Simile

It's like having a book where every paragraph is its own chapter.

Appearance

It looks ridiculous, makes it more difficult to read, it confusing because the sections didn't make sense.

Other pages

And if you seen table of contents larger than that those articles probably need editing too.

Fewer would be fine

I agree some new sections would be good, most likely as subheads, but different ones, and not nearly as many. I'll do it later if nobody else comes up with good ones.

Do it if you like

By all means, think up maybe three subsections total for the characteristcs section and put them in, but what you had made no sense as sections (as you had them) or subsections. DreamGuy

I can agree that there were too many, but you didn't have to remove them all?

EliasAlucard|Talk 18:17, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think theres enough as it is now, before it was insanely huge, and most of them were for sections that were way too small Kiand 16:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guys, check this article: Terri Schiavo. That's a good example of what I meant when I said I've seen longer.

EliasAlucard|Talk 18:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Cat photos/protection

No more edit warring over cat photos or I'll protect the article. I've added a link to a page where you can post your favourite cat photos to your heart's content. - Nunh-huh 01:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added a speedy delete image tag on this Smiling cat picture. It should be deleted any moment soon. I guess this is the only way to get rid of that picture in order for it to not destroy the entire future of this article. This way, I guess we can continue editing the cat article because it needs more editing! Also, the new cat gallery is redundant because we already have this one, so I'll add that for deletion as well.

EliasAlucard|Talk 09:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's clearly not a case for speedy deletion. If you want it deleted, go through images for deletion. Though I don't think that that will get you far. - Nunh-huh 07:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was {{isd|Image:new image name}} and that's for images.

EliasAlucard|Talk 09:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is just one IP, and what the guy is doing is bordering vandalism. Wouldn't it be better to warn and block him than to protect the whole article? Also, we have commons for galleries of images now, we should rather link to the commons gallery of cats. --Conti|✉ 10:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm unprotecting it now. But an edit war, if one resumes, will result in the blocking of both people involved. Don't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours! - Nunh-huh 18:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pictures (again)

If you do a google search on [cats slow blink smile -"blink 182"], you will come up with over 160,000 pages that discuss what animal behaviorists describe as the feline equivalent of a smile. This article includes a passage describing the cat 'smile'. The picture illustrates it.

If you do not think that a picture is professional, please ask the editor to replace the picture with a higher quality one. Simply removing it is far too controlling for a collective effort such as Wikipedia. Its exactly the kind of thing that starts an edit war.

If you believe that there are too many pictures on a page, then actually attempt to get a consensus. Simply removing it is far too controlling for a collective effort such as Wikipedia. And no, Simply popping up a sockpuppet or two is not considered a consensus.

Grow up a little. If you have do dominate and control something, then don't pick a collective-based project to control. There is nothing wrong with the pictures that I or EliasAlucard have posed. People *are* interested in seeing what a cat without a tail looks like, or what in the world a 'smiling cat' is supposed to look like.

Sockpuppets? Sockpuppets?

Do you think I'm 13 or something? Or that I have sockpuppet accounts that happen to be administrators, or happen to edit on completely different subjects, from different locations, at different times?

I have a static IP here, which is shared with a few others, one of which edits anonymously, a lot, on language topics. However, its still a static IP, and you'd be able to see that nobody else at that IP has EVER edited this article.

We have a number of users who want rid of the image, and you who wants to keep it. The article is image heavy. The image in question is poor quality, and has no copyright tags. There is enough concensous to delete it, except you who doesn't seem to understand the concept of a majority.

Oh, and as goes my spelling - I'm dyspraxic. I can't comment on others spelling of certain words.

Another issue is that that cat is *NOT* blinking. Its *NOT* smiling. Its just a cat. Nothing else. Looks like it was taken on a cameraphone.

Kiand 22:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are the only one who wants to include the picture. Everyone else who commented on this is against it, this is a very clear consensus against you. I removed the sentence about smiling because it indeed does not make too much sense without the picture, and even with it it just says that cats can appear to be smiling, which is not a very impressive fact. And some random words involving cats and smiling getting alot of google hits does not prove that much. So please don't add that image until you actually get some people beside yourself to support it. --Conti|✉ 22:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Check the history again, you have failed to count anyone who is siding with me. The google hits not only prove that some animal behaviorists have studied this phenomenon, it shows that there are people who *are* interested in it, and would like to see the picture, no matter how loudly the *few* of you are that object. Have your tantrum. The facts speak for themselves.

This is a *collaborative* effort. If I have information to present that I can (and have) show that people are interested in, I have the right to contribute. Just because *you* don't like it doesn't mean the information is irrelevant, nor does it mean no one else is interested.

You do not own Wikipedia. Go read up on how it is supposed to work.

As a registered user with over 1000 edits, I know how it is supposed to work more than an unregistered user who has done nothing more than add an image which there is no concencous to keep repeatedly. The same goes for the others here. Kiand 22:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you know how it works, then act like it. This is a *collective*. I have already demonstrated the merit of the contribution.

Anon user, something like 6 or 7 different editors have no removed your photo as inappropriate for this article. We all disagree with your false claims that this photo has merit. Each of us have a long posting history here. For an anonymous user with no history to claim that other people are sock puppets is quite ridiculous. Please accept that this photo will not stay on this article, and stop trying to enforce your view on all of the other people here. It's absurd for you to keep putting in a rather large image of an unremarkable cat doing nothing of interest with distracting junk in the background. Your cat may be the most important cat in the world to you, but it's certainly not an encyclopedic cat. DreamGuy 22:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least you are discussing this now, so I'll refrain from reverting you. But as I am writing this yet another user has reverted you, so I think the minority on this issue is you and not us. If you have facts on people being interested in this, and even more importantly studies which have been done about this, please give us a link to them, not just a kind of random google search. --Conti|✉ 22:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and we have a rule here on wikipedia that forbids anyone to revert an edit more than three times in 24 hours. So I would like anyone involved in this to follow this rule, or else they might be blocked up to 24 hours. --Conti|✉ 22:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Here is some info (from http://www.icanimalcenter.org/volunteer/pdf/GreenCatManual2005.pdf)

"Perhaps one of the most wonderful of feline body signals, but one that is most often missed by even the most observant of cat owners, is the slow eye blink. According to Roger Tabor, in his interesting and informative book, Cat Behavior, a Complete Guide to Understanding How Your Cat Works, 'Blinking is a very powerful communication as a reassurance signal and is commonly used between cats when they are sitting or lying in a hunched-up, sphinx-like position. I have used the blink to relax house cats, feral cats, and even tigers in the wild...it is important to put them at their ease by allowing them to read the signals that tell them you are not a threat." (It is also a great way to say "I love you" to your favorite feline companion.) A continuous stare has the opposite effect on cats. It is threatening and unsettling and is used effectively by cats in maintaining territorial distance. This explains why a cat that enters a room of strangers, all of whom are cat lovers except for one, will choose to approach the non-cat lover, the only one who is not staring at him.'"

I can add more info as needed, please let me know.

If it is just the quality of the photo that is in question, just say so. I can certainly change that.

No, its suitability for inclusion is also in question. You've now reverted many more times than the 3RR allows, BTw. Kiand 23:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ContiE, can you please protect my edits? I do not understand why I should not be allowed to contribute. I have made it clear that my contribution is valid, and that people are interested.

At the very least, it seems that my edits should be allowed to stand until the issue is actually decided. Its not like I've posted a pornographic picture and vandalized the text. This is a legitimate contribution. To simply remove someone else's contribution without at least discussion is to treat it like vandalism. It is contrary to the purpose of the collective and is an abuse of individual power.

(reseting indent for page expansion reasons) But we have had a HUGE amount of discussion. And have decided the image is not suitable. Also, this 'Collective' - Wikipedia is not a Communist state. You also agree to the 'be edited mercilessly' clause at the bottom of the page by pressing edit. Kiand 23:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page is protected now (it wasn't protected by me by the way), so no one can edit it at the moment, and it will be unprotected when the problems here are resolved. You are of course allowed to edit Wikipedia, but you also have to live with the fact that people will disagree with you and yes, they might revert you. If that happens, we have to get some consensus. If about 7 people clearly think you are wrong, and you can't get someone or some facts on your side (the site you cited doesn't say much about smiling cats), please accept that the consensus is against you at the moment. You can't and shouldn't force your opinion on others, an should accept if others think not the way you are thinking. --Conti|✉ 23:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The previous link describes the eye motion, and the corresponding emotional state of the cat, and includes a reference to a published book by a well known animal behaviorist.

These links provide more background information, explicitly describing the cat 'smile', using the word 'smile':

From http://www.thecricketcage.com/CatThoughts/CatsSmile.html

"A cat smiles by slowly blinking its eyes. Usually they are very relaxed when they do this though not always. Catch a peaceful cat lying in the sun from the window, look him in the eye and slowly blink. He will usually slow-blink back. It also seems to mean everything is okay and if you communicate this way to a cat, he will relax and trust you."

From http://www.understandinganimals.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=1951

"When your cat stares at you next time, look back and blink slowly - your cat will probably blink slowly back at you. This is the cat equivalent of a smile and a way of showing trust and affection. You might have seen your cats do this to each other."

From http://www.coopercrier.com/opinion/columns/2004/11/26/ccatwell.html

"When I greeted him, he gave a cat's smile-a benign, slow blink."

OK, great, the quotes you are adding here describe a feline behavior that indicates a state of contentment. Content humans curl up the corners of their mouths, content cats blink slowly. No problem. But the sentence you are trying to add to the main article claims that content cats look like they are curling up the corners of their mouths: "The motion of the cat's cheeks lifting as the lower lids raise appears to many people as though the cat were smiling." That's the part that I don't buy, and I think that's what others mean when they say your cat's not smiling. Yes, it's partially closing its eyes. No, it doesn't look like it's curling up the corners of its mouth. FreplySpang (talk) 00:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Take another look at the caption under the picture. It reads 'A cat "smiling" with partially closed eyelids.' I put the word 'smiling' in quotes for this very reason. In no way have I stated that the cats mouth does anything. In fact, I don't even think it is physically possible for a cat to alter the corners of his/her mouth while the mouth is closed, even if he/she tried to.

I have shown that credible sources believe a connection exists between the slow blinking cat and a state of contentment in the cat.

I have shown that people call this a cat 'smile'.

Thus, how is it in any way inaccurate to state 'A cat "smiling" with partially closed eyelids,' as I have? I suppose I could be more explicit and state 'A cat in a state of contentment with partially closed eyelids, which is called by some people a "cat smile",' but is this not what the main article is for? If this redundancy is desired, then so be it. I am fine with that.

Whether or not the contribution of the muscles directly below the cat's eyes (i.e. the cheeks) are mentioned in the article is also immaterial to me. I added it because it made sense to me that this particular feature of the motion made the expression easy for people to anthropomorphise. If you don't like this sentence, edit it. That too is fine with me. The real issue here that is apparently *burning* some people up is whether or not this is my cat.

After all, if the wording was the issue, the wording can be reworded. I have no objection to that. If the picture is unprofessional, I can supply another one. Will the outspoken people here be contented if I were to supply a fantastically professional, utterly demonstrative picture of the described phenomenon? Perhaps. But not if it is a picture of *this* cat. Perhaps I am wrong. We will see.

Ahh, the joys of edit wars. I agree with the anonymous user. ugen 64 03:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any information you want to add about supposed smiling and blinking and whatnot should be written up for the article as part of the article with sources and then edited/improved upon/deleted as decided upon by the editors who contribute to this page. Forcing it in there when it is highly question would have been bad enough, but there was no attempt to even add it to the article, it was just put in a cutline to a really amateurish photo that the user was putting in at an extremely large size. DreamGuy 05:07, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you are quite wrong. This picture first appeared in the (21:34, 14 Mar 2005) revision. Check the paragraph that includes the photo markup. Before, the paragraph read:

After the edits, it read:

"The unique sound a small cat makes is written "meow" in American English, "miaow" in British English, 'miaou' in French, and various ways in other languages. The cat's pronunciation of "miaow" varies significantly depending on meaning. Cats can also produce a purring noise that typically indicates that the cat is pleased, though rarely cats have been known to purr when distressed. Since the purr is not a vocal sound, it is possible for a cat to meow and purr simultaneously, though this is typically only done by particularly vocal cats. In addition to purring, happy cats may blink slowly or partially close their eyes, though obviously a cat blinks at other times as well. The motion of the cat's cheeks lifting as the lower lids raise appears to many people as though the cat were smiling (see picture). Most cats also growl or hiss on occasion."

The 'purr' of a cat had been previously mentioned in the paragraph, but no information regarding the emotional interpretation of the purr was present. Many sites overstate that cats may purr when distressed; some even to the point that one might leave the site thinking that a cat's purr is just as likely to indicate distress as it is to indicate contentment. Adding content to clarify this seems useful and appropriate. Hardly the "highly question" [sic] "forcing" in of content that you are charging. The remarks regarding other physical indications of a cat's contentment (i.e. the slow-blinking cat "smile") are a natural progression of this topic.

TO be arguing now that it's unfair that the information wasn't allowed in is a complete whitewash of what really happened -- there was no attempt to put information in, there was only a photo that kept getting shoved in with a completely oddball cutline attached that made no sense. DreamGuy 05:07, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

By not allowing me to contribute because of your fixation about whether or not the cat in the picture belongs to me, you are overstepping your boundaries as a contributor. If you had an issue, you should have said something about it instead of blindly removing the picture. Blindly disallowing other users from contributing is how you start edit wars. You should know this by now.

If you honestly want to add info, add info, don;t try to force a photo in. Claiming that you'll get a better photo also ignores the point that it's not just that the photo was amateurish, but also that it doesn't illustrate anything in the article. DreamGuy 05:07, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

The photo illustrates the point, and many people are not aware of this behavior, which merits the illustration. The fact that I had to post so many different sources to give this subject credibility shows how many people are unaware of this behavior in cats.

If you have demonstrated that your primary concern is whether or not I own the cat in the picture, then it is quite worthy of bringing up. I highly doubt you would accept a more professional, more demonstrative picture featuring the same cat. Your preoccupation with whether or not this is my cat and the amount of irritation this seems to cause you may indicate that you have some kind of issue with other people 'getting what they want'. Maybe you should see a counselor.

Don't try to act all innocent and persecuted over how people won't allow information in, because that clearly was not what you were doing and only someone who was not here at the time and doesn't bother to look at the history could be so naive to fall for that line. DreamGuy 05:07, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you cannot see it, but you are being quite unreasonable in your exclusion of my contributions. My objections are valid.

If you'd like to start over,m write up something about what you think the blink/smile thing should be and let the other editors edit it mercilessly (per the warning on the submit page). If it somehow survives fact-checking and noteworthiness by other editors AND happens to be legitimately long enough to require a photo AND you have a good photo THEN maybe you can put a photo in about it. DreamGuy 05:07, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with other people editing. I do have a problem with being prevented from contributing because someone has a fixation on whether or not a picture I've contributed features my cat, and ignores whether or not it illustrates a point worth illustrating.

Bad photo put in for vanity reasons with info not related to the article...DreamGuy 05:07, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

You have illustrated my point perfectly.

...and missing verifiable information and so forth will be removed, whether you like it or not, and if you can't deal with that fact (as is evident from your probably 50+ blind reverts, most of them violating Wikipedia policy)... DreamGuy 05:07, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

When others are blindly rejecting my contributions, restoring them can hardly be called a blind revert.

...then Wikipedia is not the place for you. DreamGuy 05:07, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have shown again and again the contribution being made, and its validity. If you cannot get past your silly, childish issues about whether or not I am 'getting what I want' by posting a picture that features my cat, then perhaps a more appropriate venue for you is a psychologist's office.

I believe the information presented by anonymous is partially valid. It is also obvious that anonymous and DreamGuy are too emotionally involved at this point to be objective. I'd like the information along with a quality photo added, with the agreement that neither anonymous or DreamGuy will edit this page with respect to this information. These two have expressed their opinions and it is time to move on.--AirIntake 05:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can agree that DreamGuy is a bit bossy over this article, and that he should calm down a bit. But I can't take away from him that he has a valid point in this case. Cats can as far as I know NOT smile. If they can, prove it; provide a good and reliable source that confirms this assertion. Otherwise, I don't think that picture should be added because I can not see a smile. Looks like a normal face of any cat. If anything, that picture should be deleted and not allowed to be put back up on Wikipedia because it is destroying this article with edits and reverts.

EliasAlucard|Talk 08:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Then we should allow the information without the picture. I wouldn't call it smiling anyways. I'd say it's more of a squinting when they are content. I have seen this behaviour in many cats so I believe that some of the information is indeed valid. --AirIntake 17:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved AirIntake. It is true that the calling it a "smile" is a misnomer. My guess is that the reason people have started calling this a "cat-smile" (see links, above) is because it is the feline equivalent of a smile in a person. However, lots of people will think 'corners of mouth turning up' when they see the word "smile" in the context of a "cat-smile," even though it is really just about the eyes squinting.

It seems that exactly what happens to a cat's face when it is "smiling" is not intuitive for many people, and it is for this reason that I think we should include a picture. To clear up the confusion, we can go with a better tagline. Currently, the tagline reads "A cat 'smiling' with partially closed eyelids." Perhaps a more suitable tagline is "Cats 'smile' by blinking slowly and squinting their eyes." What do you think?

The previous picture was of unacceptable quality. A more appropriate higher quality image is needed.--AirIntake 22:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having just looked at the page for the first time (linking from Lamest Edit Wars Ever, of course), I would say that the pictures currently on the article are just about perfect, and there's no need to remove, add or amend any of them. The 'cats as a food source' section is one-sentence and more than a little pointless (and what do civet cats have to do with that heading?) and as soon as the article is unprotected should be iced. Proto 09:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is getting pathetic. Will the page ever be unlocked? Where are the mods? I think the argument is settled now....

Based upon the comments of the anon user, ignoring what other editors say in the matter I sincerely doubt the argument is settled. The person is unrepentant for his or her previous actions and still insists that a section needs to be added. I don't think the argument is over until you promise that you will accept the judgment of the multiple other editors on the page who all agreed that your edits were unacceptable and live with what the consensus says even if they disagree with you. That's where the problem really was, not with the long rationalization you put above that had little or no relationship to what actually happened on the article. DreamGuy 23:37, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I second that. Seriously, can't we just delete that picture? I bet my balls that when the Cat article will be unlocked, someone will add it back and start another revert war. It serves best as being deleted, and if someone adds it back, delete that one too.

EliasAlucard|Talk 19:41, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Way to go everyone! Because of the blind reverts by both the anonymous user and supposedly 'experienced' Wikipedia editors, the page is now dead in the water. Great job! (unsigned, but by [User:204.9.108.233])

The many people (what was it, seven or eight of us?) removing the photo did not do "blind" reverts... it was removed for a specific reason, and a very good one at that. Frankly, it's much better being locked than it is having people putting in really poor quality photos of their pets for no reason. The article can move forward again when it becomes clear that the person who tried to cram their kitty down our throats with 30 reverts a day and so forth and started it up again after being back from a block either agrees to follow consensus or is no longer around. The anon comment above (with it's peculiar viewpoint) is probably just the same user waiting to pounce when the page is unlocked. DreamGuy 02:51, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

No, the comment above is not from the same anonymous user. It is from another editor that doesn't wish to be singled out in the future for disagreeing with DreamGuy.

Why don't we just unlock the page and let the 3 revert rule do its work? If the lone ranger comes back, it'll get blocked again after a little struggle. Fine. --Yath 03:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow. It is somewhat disappointing to see this sort of thing. It seems to me to illustrate a fundamental flaw in the 'wiki way'. If someone wants to vandalise the page, the only thing that can be done to stop it is to stop all edits. There has to be a better way... This page has been protected for nearly 4 weeks. Perhaps there should be different levels of protection? Imagine if it were protected from all edits apart from those from users who have a decent history of non-reverted edits. Psychofox 00:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I guess someone is trying to prove a point by vandalizing the discussion page. You know, I am truly, *truly* at a loss to understand just what has happened here. How on earth are my edits in any way on par with what this moron is doing? I added legitimate information regarding the behavior of cats. Really, its legitimate, look at all the links I have posted above. Cats honest to God blink slowly and squint their eyes when they are happy. The page didn't have any information on it. This guy is putting the word 'tits' in random places. Fantastically mature.

And about the cat.... So DreamGuy thinks I'm selfish if the cat in the picture is mine. Thats kind of odd, when you think about it --- all the pictures on wikipedia must be submitted by users. If I am going to submit a picture to illustrate information that I submitted, why should it not be a picture of my cat? Must the cat be someone else's before the information that has been illustrated is legitimate? No, they have nothing to do with eachother. You can post garbage and illustrate it with a picture of your cat or someone elses cat. You can post legitimate information and illustrate it with a picture of your cat or with someone else's cat. I have been bending over backwards to try to prove that whomever the cat belongs to is not what is to be evaluated, rather it is the information that is being added that should be evaluated. I have already said that I would post a higher quality picture if the quality was too poor.

I am also at a complete loss to understand how it is not considered a "revert" when someone singlemindedly decides that my edits are not going to be allowed. If you want to discuss it, then discuss it. But again and again, my edits just got removed. Of course I am going to try to restore them.

Honestly, if any of you were really interested in educating the public about cats, you'd be interested in including this information. How often have you (presuming you are a person who is well familiar with cats) been told by non-cat-people that cats are dull, boring decorations? We all know that these people just don't know how to read a cat's expressions. The slow blink is important in this regard. And yes, people really don't know about it, or what it looks like.

If the unreasonable people who are so concerned about the cat being mine would just stop and think for a second, we could get past this. I am all to happy to submit a higher quality picture, and to edit the text until everyone is happy. Does this really need to continue? Is what I'm doing really against the spirit of wikipedia???

Yes, what you were doing was against Wikipedia spirit. You kept putting a really lousy photo that something like seven editors told you would not be allowed in the article and got completely belligerent with people. And, as far as it being a photo of your cat and claiming that editors submit pics of their cat, this is untrue. The vast majority of the photos in the article are put there by people coming through websites that have free for public use photos be pro and semi-pro photographers so that we'd get high quality images. I uploaded a bunch of them. I have two cats. My cats are not in the article. Why? Because it's a question of QUALITY. You were adding your photo solely for vanity purposes and did not at all even try to discuss the actual topic you are now debating, you just blind reverted anyone who took your photo out, no matter who did it or how many people told you you were wrong. That's completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. DreamGuy 22:05, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. This revert war got very personal. Certain editors disliked the picture, which I agreed with, but then blindly reverted anything related to the picture, without having a proper discussion (yes, it was blind reverting because the information posted was not intended as vandalism, the correct course of action would have been to leave the info in until it was discussed). It was obvious from the beginning that you had actual information to add, and tried to be heard, but some very vocal editors decided to ignore that information because of their feelings about the picture. If you don't (or are not allowed to) add the information after the page is unlocked, I will, because I feel that it is valid and should be included for Wikipedia readers. I also believe that DreamGuy should get rid of his feelings towards personal cat pictures. We are not allowed to post copyrighted photos, so if I want to illustrate a fact, I will check photos of my cat to see if any apply. She was my cat, so I know the context of the picture much better than just some random cat pic I found. I may have a picture of my cat doing the 'blink of contentment', and because it's a personal pic I can be sure that's why she's making the face and not because she had gas or a thorn in her paw etc. Personal pics ARE acceptable IF they apply to the article, PERIOD. I'd like this page unlocked ASAP, this continuing feud is just wrong. --AirIntake 14:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, nobody "blindly reverted anything related to the picture" -- all that was ever added was a photo and a cutline. The photo had to go, making the cutline pointless. And the cutline made no sense and the anon user didn't try to explain it rationally, he just reverted 30 times in a row. That's vandalism, pure and simple. I also believe that DreamGuy should get rid of his feelings towards personal cat pictures." This is false, as I don't have feelings about personal photos, I have feelings about BAD and INAPPROPRIATE photos. People have submitted pics of other people's cats that were not good for one reason or another, and better ones were found if the topic was worth illustrating or else they were removed completely. Of course personal photos are far, far more likely to be poor quality and inappropriate, because the person submitting it has his or her ego and vanity caught up in it. "Personal pics ARE acceptable IF they apply to the article, PERIOD." That's also false. It's a question of applicability and quality. Anyone can make a weak attempt to argue that their photo of their cat is somehow related to the article. If what you say were true "PERIOD" then this article could be 8,000 crappy at home poor lighting, grainy photos of pointless cats. You HAVE to take into account if the submission is a good submission or not, not just unilaterally declare that it is AUTOMATICALLY relevant. I'm afraid that your view of what happened here does not match at all what really happened. DreamGuy 22:05, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

"The previous picture was of unacceptable quality. A more appropriate higher quality image is needed.--AirIntake 22:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) " <- As I said before... Try not jump to conclusions DreamGuy. I am quite aware that picture quality is important, and this quote wasn't the only time I've said it. --AirIntake 21:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Its interesting to note the difference in the number of pictures between this article and the dog article; there are quite a few more pictures on the dog page than the cat page. I can't help but wonder if the explanation for this discrepancy is because minimalists like DreamGuy are so particular and hard to please about what kind of photos will be allowed on this page (17 vs. 8, and at least one of those photos was submitted by DreamGuy). I have seen other people try to submit photos, only to have them quickly removed. I guess I just don't fear the terrible "8,000 crappy at home poor lighting, grainy photos of pointless cats" tragedy as much as DreamGuy.

By the way, sorry I haven't posted my updates yet --- I'll likely get to it by this weekend. Thanks again to all for the support. 216.52.110.253 02:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The photos on the Dog page are all much higher quality than the one you submitted, and at much smaller sizes than what you tried to use. They are also higher quality than the photos that routinely get deleted off this article besides yours. DreamGuy 15:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that DreamGuy's picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cat_mummy_mask.jpg) isn't exactly the epitomy of ungrainy, well-lit high-quality. Quite the opposite, really. 216.52.110.253 02:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course the difference there is that 1) It was taken inside a museum, where they prohibit flash photography, lighting, tripods and other techniques to get better quality photos (you have no excuse for your pic), 2) it actually illustrates the article, 3) it's not there out of vanity, 4) when i submitted it I straight out said it wasn't the greatest and wouldn't care if someone had a replacement for it, as long as that replacement looks better and still illustrates that section, 5) Nobody felt the need to remove it so they must think it's fine, unlike the MULTIPLE people who removed your crappy photo (who you ignored) and remove other bad photos added here. So your whininess here is misplaced. DreamGuy 15:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

OK. We've got to do something here. To the 'pro-smile' anonymous user, from here forward, I'll refer to you as John Doe, or simply John. I'm not really good at conflict resolution - but I'll give it a go. Firstly, I can sympathise with your position. I have posted a couple of pictues myself, of my own stuff, and I am quite proud of them. See Poker Chips and Widescreen, for example. I think there is nothing with this per se. I refered to your reverts previously as vandalism. Please allow me to apologise for this. I guess I was a little upset. I love wikipedia, and am just sad to see this sort of thing. Detractors of the project would cite this dispute as an example of the weakness of the wiki concept. What you are doing is not against the spirit of wikipedia, clearly you are trying to help. I am desparate not to offend you, lest we remain deadlocked. What I would personally say about the 'spirit' of wikipedia, is that things have to be done by consensus - there will always be places where people disagree. In this case John, it does seem to me that you are simply in minority and should defer to the majority, it's nothing personal. Here is the big question. Is it your position right now that if the page was unprotected, you would restore the photograph. For example, would you be willing to live with a textual passage describing Cats smiling without the image? Please help me restore my faith in the power of wiki!!! Psychofox 21:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

John, I've found another reference for you. Anita Frazier refers to an 'eye smile' in her book "The New Natural Cat" as a sign of contentment and satisfaction. I think it would be reasonable to slip a short piece of text in about this to the Cat article. I'm afraid I don't like the pic though, just doesn't look like it is smiling to me... Here is a cool example of a copyrighted pic of a Cat 'smiling' [[1]] Get one like this of your Cat, and maybe it would fit in to article like Cat_(Body Language)? Psychofox 21:41, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Psychofox for being reasonable. I will post a potential candidate in the discussion page over the weekend.

balance

No, this isn't a metacomment. I think a paragraph has gotten separated from its predecessor in all the editing fun. Towards the end of the "Characteristics" section, there is a paragraph that begins "This however, does not affect the breed's balance system." The preceding sentence is about growling and hissing (or maybe smiling), none of which have the least little thing to do with the balance system. Is there some other place where the paragraph about balance makes more sense? Otherwise the non sequitur should be edited out. FreplySpang (talk) 23:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was there due to a picture of a Manx cat. Manx cat don't have tails, and it doesn't affect its balance system despite this. I had put it in context with the cats' balance part about how they land. However, DreamGuy removed it, and this made the article b0rked... seriously, delete that stupid smiling cat picture because it's destroying the article with vandalism. Anyone who uploads it should be banned and anyone who adds it in the article should be banned too. It's the only way of not having the article reverted back and forth all the time.

EliasAlucard|Talk 09:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Continue the smiling cat feud here

As that section is huge now, I think it should be splitted a little. Anyway, the last picture posted by Psychofox is this one: [2]. I can't argue that this one doesn't look like a smiling cat. I've seen this kind of smile before, however, I cannot say that I've seen this on anything beyond kittens. It seems that the kitten age is the only period of time where cats can smile. Am I wrong? EliasAlucard|Talk 10:14, 7 May, 2005 (UTC)

That kitten looks like it's opening its mouth for a yawn. Anyway, my problem with the smiling cat issue is that it looks like original research. And misguided research at that. A very few people think their cat's face looks like it's in a smile sometimes. Ok, doesn't mean the cat's happy. Cats do have a happy blink, but this other smiling stuff is just off the wall and meaningless. We might as well let everyone's favorite kitten story in a la "sometimes cats like to bat around wadded-up church programs, well my Fluffy sure did!" --Yath 08:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you or anyone else please provide a very credible source here on the internet that actually claims that cats can smile?

EliasAlucard|Talk 12:36, 7 May, 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that the kitten pic I provided looks like it is yawning, and I don't suppose for a second that it wasn't. However, several 'dead tree' references have been provided previously in this discussion. The expression credible sources on the internet' seems to me to be an oxymoron... :-) As I see it, what we are looking at now is introducing a short piece of text which says something like, for example, "Humans can form tight emotional bonds with their pet cats. Although many people regard this an excellent example of anthropomorphism, some owners believe their cats will return a smile with a smile. See Cat_(Body_Language) article." Such an article might include some pictures (you are happy with this John?). Rather than debate whether this is even going to be mentioned, maybe we should work on editing my suggestion? From Original _research: We have that is permissible to include "claims which have few (or possibly just one or two) adherents (e.g. Shakespearean authorship theories" provided that "they are verifiable and sources are cited". Given that the discussion mentions several books which refer to the concept, it would be great if could just come to a consensus about a suitable short piece of text, stick it in, get the article unprotected, move on and continue improving the whole cat article. My fingers are crossed. Psychofox 16:50, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That kind of text looks satisfactory, especially if the bulk of the subject can be kept in another article. It does seem to me to be raging anthropomorphism, and cats smile about as frequently (and predictably) as Terri Schiavo did. --Yath 17:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that DreamGuy should calm down the quality issue. It's not like every picture uploaded here on Wikipedia is of superior quality with a super high resolution. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for quality. I just think that he shouldn't make such a big deal out of it. The main reason I didn't want the smiling cat picture there, is because I find it hard to believe that cats can smile. Give me proof, and I won't mind if the picture would be uploaded and used in the article, despite the poor quality.

EliasAlucard|Talk 00:52, 8 May, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I consider most of the past discussion to be moot. As far as I can tell we are nearly at the stage where we are ready to move on here. Without wanting to sound overbearing, I hope that noone else continues with this discussion other than to move it forward by editing my suggested small snippet of text, or by doing something similarly constructive. Many contradictory things appears to have been said by both sides in this discussion, however I have no interest in enumerating them. Please let's be rational, forget it, and move on. By the way, I'm proposing that we can scrape together enough material for a Cat (Body Language) article, but this is by no means certain. We shall see. I envisage a description, for example of why cats arch their backs etc. So, to be more precise, what I am proposing is that

* We create a new article Cat (Body Language) done

* We add a piece of text to the cat article, probably under the domestication section, which states "Humans can form tight emotional bonds with their pet cats. Although many people regard this an excellent example of anthropomorphism, some owners believe their cats will return a smile with a smile. See Cat (Body Language)."

* A new, high quality image illustrating a 'smiling' cat to be placed on newly created article, along with a suitable explantory text, to be decided, and to include references.

* New photo to be uploaded with the correct copyright tags, (I can help out with this if you want)

John, Dreamguy and any other interested parties, it would be very helpful if you could explicitly agree to this. Again, my fingers are crossed. Psychofox 03:38, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your willingness to move forward, and for your discussion. I know this entry is long, but please read it if you are going to read any of my comments at all. I would like to clear up some confusion.

I think that one of the reasons that this issue has become so convoluted is because of the misleading nature of the phrase "cat-smile." Literally, cats do not smile. This is a big point here, so I will say it again, cats do *not* smile.

The phrase "cat-smile" is a misnomer; it is a misnomer because the word "smile" is typically defined as (from dictionary.reference.com) "A facial expression characterized by an upward curving of the corners of the mouth and indicating pleasure, amusement, or derision." Thus, in order for cats to actually smile, the corners of the mouth would need to turn upwards to indicate pleasure, etc.

The picture that Psychofox has referenced shows a cat whose mouth corners look as if they are turning upward. However, as many of you have pointed out, this cat is merely yawning, and the appearance of the corners of the mouth turning upward is merely due to the shape of the cats mouth when viewed from this particular perspective, during this particular activity. It is not an indication of pleasure. Thus, this cat is *not* smiling, rather the shape of the mouth of the cat in the picture resembles a smile. These are different things.

For instance, I can say "the burn pattern in my grilled cheese resembles the Virgin Mary." This does not mean that my grilled cheese actually is the Virgin Mary. It just *looks like* it. Another example: I might frown terribly when struggling with a bowel movement. In a photograph of this activity, my face might look as though I was very angry. However, I am not angry, I am straining, and the picture of my face *looks like* the face of an angry person.

Why then do people say that a cat is "smiling" then, when cats cannot actually "smile" as it is literally defined? Succinctness. When someone says that a cat is "smiling", what they mean is that the cat is happy, and that there is a physical indication of this in the way the cat is blinking. It is easier to say "Kitty is smiling" than it is to say "Kitty's eyes are blinking in such a way that indicates she is happy." And the phrase was born.

This is not my discovery, nor is it my research. I agree that internet links are not valid factual or authoritative resources. We all agree that books, however, are. I have listed a book by Roger Tabor, a well known animal behaviorist. Psychofox has referenced a book as well. These books explicitly describe this phenomenon, and its correct interpretation --- no additional conclusions need be made. Are additional references really needed?

Please let me know if I have in any way not been clear or convincing. Here is a summary of what I have been trying to communicate:

Cats do not smile.

A cat indicates its contentment by blinking slowly.

Some people call this a 'cat-smile' for succinctness, even though this is an activity of the eyes and not the mouth.

This is accepted by animal behaviorists and is not a product of my research.

Not everyone knows what this 'cat-smile' looks like, and many are confused by the phrase 'cat-smile'.

I do not think that this topic merits its own article. Take a look at the dog article. There is plenty there on dog behavior (see Dog Society portion), much more than I have inteded to write about cats and their displays of contentment. It would be equivalent to opening up a new article just because someone tried to write a few lines about how dogs sometimes wag their tails to indicate that they are happy.

I propose the following:

A few short lines describing the eye blink and what animal behaviorists have said it means.

A new, high quality picture (with appropriate copyright tags) to clear up any confusion about what is meant by the 'cat-smile'.

I'm glad that this discussion has moved away from who owns the cat to the more important issue of what content will be submitted to this article, quality standards, etc. Thanks again to those of you who were willing to lend me a hand of support in the midst of this witch hunt. I am quite impressed by the people who were willing to stand up for what is right, even when it may not have been so popular (or advantageous) to do so.

Thanks John. A couple of quick housekeeping items. It is standard in these discussions to indent your reply using a number of colons appropriate so that your comment is indented beyond the point to which you are reply. For example, I have used two here, becuase in your last point you used one. Also, you should always sign your contribution by placing four ~ signs in the row at the end. This is expanded out to show the time and your IP, so that you leave a fingerprint other than the one in the history. These two points make it easier for everyone to follow the thread. Also, please consider creating an account. You will not be banned, and you are not posting anonymously anyway. Did you know that your IP (216.52.110.253) address already reveals your employer, for example.

Anyway, have a look at the external links I've added to the Cat (Body Language) article. I think there is easily enough material here for an independent article, and I will be working on it. Feel free to help, since as a dog man myself, I may be unable to keep a neutral point of view :-). I have already noted in the discussion page that it could eventually be a candidate for merging with cat. I basically agree with your five point summary above. Since you have now agreed not to re-add the original photo, it may be possible now to have the article unprotected.

John, given that we now agree that a cat smile is actually a cat blinking, I am not convinced that any photograph would be able capture this. Hopefully you accept that if a poll of editors finds any new image to be unrepresenative, it should be removed? It would seem to be me that video is required? I presume you agree that if a decent article on Cat (Body Language) exists, it would be the suitable location for such a picture. Take a look at [3] doesn't this suggest to you that if we are to illustrate any cat body language signals, that there are much more interesting ones, certainly for the main cat article. Psychofox 14:25, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

When protection is lifted...

Suggest including a link to Cats in Ancient Egypt -- article needs editing for style, but has plenty of information. –Hajor 14:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Done Psychofox 17:21, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm in the process of improving the Cats in Ancient Egypt article. I'm making good headway in terms of readability, grammar, the removal of irrelevant information and conjecture, etc, but there are some facts that I've been unable to verify. Help is appreciated! --Urbane legend 29 June 2005 11:56 (UTC)

I've completed my rewrite; in case anyone's interested! --Urbane legend 1 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

Good job. It is a lot better. Psychofox July 4, 2005 13:47 (UTC)

unprotection

Psychfox has asked for the article to be unprotected as the dispute as been resolved, and this page certainly seems to bear that out, so I've unprotected it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Hooray! Now, I hope everyone behaves themselves. :-) Psychofox 16:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Things look good. Many positive edits have been made to the Cat page, since it has been unprotected. My apologies if this seems harsh, but I just don't understand why the two protagonists in this sorry affair continue to wind each other up! Just leave it alone. When John comes up with his new image, he will reference it here first and we (i.e. anyone who is interested, including presumably himself) will discuss whether it is appropriate to add it to the Cat or Cat body language articles. This is the mature way to deal it. I have yet to flesh out the Cat body language article - it is however, on my list.

Dude, what are you talking about? There has been no "bickering" since the protection was removed.

EliasAlucard|Talk 18:19, 12 May, 2005 (UTC)

What would you call this? [4] Psychofox 19:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't notice that. Well anyway, I've said it before and I still think that DreamGuy should knock it off with all his talk about quality. He's really blowing it out of proportions. While I'm all for quality, I'm not of the opinion that every picture every uploaded must fill some sort of standard of accepted quality. When the pictures are resized into thumbnail size, they're all looking equally good, no matter how high resolution or whatever they have otherwise. Most encyclopedias I've checked (real ones) don't have pictures with high resolution. And as for DreamGuy complaining about the Dog page having much higher quality than the Cat article... well, it's quite funny actually, since the Dog article has pictures of not that high resolution (although most of the pictures looked decent), and more than twice as much pictures than the Cat article. I guess dog owners are allowed to upload more pictures than cat owners. I'm not trying to start a dispute here, but I guess I've already have.

EliasAlucard|Talk 02:48, 13 May, 2005 (UTC)

Quality is subjective. I certainly appreciate DreamGuys perspective. Resizing does little to improve the quality of a poor quality image in my opinion, because I would judge quality based on relevance, composition and lighting. Of course, that's just my opinion. In general, images stay or go based on majority decisions where everyone subjectively judges the image. What we have agreed on here, is to judge any future image on the topic in question by consensus in the discussion page. Dreamguys vote will carry just as much sway as yours, mine, 'Johns' or anyone else who cares. Psychofox 17:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Tendency towards deafness

Tendency towards deafness is no characteristic of the cat per se, Sonett72. Genetically, this happens only in white cats with blue eyes. Therefore it belongs into the section varieties.--Fenice 13:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarian and Vegan Diet

I think the article is a little to absolute in saying that no cat can ever go vegetarian. Personally, I think it's a terrible thing to try as a diet, but a lot of people would assert a cat can do so healthily, particularly if they are the right age, and in good health, and it's done early. Taurine can be, and is synthesized from from vegetarian sources, in high concentrations. So, it's not the same as simply giving them some milk, as the article seems to imply now. At one time (say a century ago) it was literally impossible for a cat to be a vegetarian, without dire consequences, but now I think that has changed. A vegetarian diet may be a terrible idea, but it's probably less bad than a "natural" diet of living wild animals (with all their diseases and potential for the food to "fight back"). So, does anybody object to expanding the section a bit. If it's a verifiable fact that I'm wrong, I won't add it. Otherwise, I will add it after I gather a few source url's, hopefully with stats on success (which is hard, given the political agenda of some sources). --rob 00:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Cats can not synthesize taurine from vegetable sources. That is a fact. Ask any vet. You stated "A vegetarian diet may be a terrible idea, but it's probably less bad than a "natural" diet of living wild animals..." - Why deal in such absolutes? I know of no cat owner that sends his/her cat out to hunt for its own food!--FWDixon 13:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, it depends which vet you ask. They can't absorb as well as animal sourced Taurine. But, it's much better today, than it was in the past. There are in fact cats today, who are vegetarian, who don't go blind. I wouldn't do it. It's definately not recommended. Any edit to the article would have to say the mainstream opposition to it, and major risks. In any event, wikipedia trys to avoid "ask any vet" as a source. If (still an if) I do make the edit, I'll have more back-up than "ask any vet". Also, my reason for the "live wild animal" example is to talk of what is possible. You seem to confuse this article with a "how-to care for a cat article". It's not. It's a source of *facts* about cats. Currently, it states as absolute fact no cat can ever be vegetarian, under any circumstance. That's not a fact. --rob 16:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Well, it depends which vet you ask.", Well I've had cats for more than 40 years and have been a volunteer at the local shelter for quite some time and every vet I've ever spoke to insists that cats can not be fed a strictly vegetarian diet and remain healthy. And your snide remark about my "not understanding" the article hardly fosters intelligent discussion.--FWDixon 18:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's settled. Whatever you say goes, no proof required. Frankly, I'm not an advocate for vegetarianism. So, I won't bother here. --rob 21:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, all the cats my family's ever had have been susbtantial eaters of bread and cheese (although we're not vegetarians). Something probably should be mentioned about cats craving/seeking food with salt, but I don't really know where. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Felis silvestris catus vs. Felis silvestris domesticus

For what it's worth, Google finds 2120 references to Felis silvestris catus, but only 18 for Felis silvestris domesticus. From that it appears that catus is by far the most widely used name. --Mmm 07:06, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

I added a section on scientific classification which briefly explains the history of scientific names for the domestic cat.

I couldn't find out who (if anyone) published the name domesticus. It wasn't Linnaeus (who used Felis catus) nor Schreber. If you know, please add it to the section on classification. Gdr 15:24:44, 2005-07-30 (UTC)

It was Erxleben. Now added. Gdr 11:37:16, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

Google is not a reliable resource you can be looking for a certain thing and get something totally different Dudtz 8/19/05 7:11 PM EST

Fur Trade

Why no mention of cat fur in the fur trade, surely this commercial activity has some relevance to cats.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/t/Talk%7ECat_Archive_1_5fef.html"

Category: Talk archives