Talk:Maine Coon/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.

Contents 1 New external link 2 Cleanup 3 Nice pictures 4 Health risks? 5 New picture 6 Weight 7 Pictures 8 TFD

New external link

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

Cleanup

• I did a little bit myself, but more needs to be done. Praetorian42 14:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• I do not think this article needs be cleaned up, but that's just my opinion. I did remove the tag becuase it was interferring with the article. It was partially blocked by the picture and made the article look bad. I have no problem with discussing tis first, but Prae made some big changes and blanked large parts of the article out. I don't think the article is too long, I really don't. So I think we need to discuss any future edits like this here first. No hard feelings.Gator1 15:53, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• The notice didn't interfere with anything on my computer. It's probably just your browser. That's where notices go, and if you disagree with notices being placed in articles, you should see Wikipedia:Template messages. Don't remove notices unless the reason the notice was placed has been rectified by common consensus (IE: More than just your opinion). I don't think you can argue this-- the content of the old article is unencyclopedic. The behavioral section was just the ramblings of someone describing the activity of a particular cat (and doing so in an unprofessional manner). For more on why the quality of the article needs to be increased, see Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Cleanup. It has nothing to do with length, but quality (specifically point of view and professionalism). Also, it is in need of copy editing as there are several misplaced modifiers, comma splices and awkward sentences- many of which I fixed but you reverted without even checking. There are also factual errors ("naturally occurring one from New England" -- Domestic animals are never "naturally occuring") which you also reverted. For a model article see Siamese (cat). Praetorian42 16:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• I fixed the problem with the notice box overlapping the breed box (It was in IE 6 Only). I just wrapped it in a div. Praetorian42 16:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• If the notice is just on my computer, I can accept that, but I must immediately tak eissue withone ting. I'm not sure if you know much about the COon, but is was oirigianlly anaturally occurring bred. Unlike most other breeds, the original traits were NATURALLY occuring and were not bred in with selective breeding. You are jsut plain wriong on this one and I must revert. I have nver seen you on this page before, and, frankly, you are being abit presumptious by coming in hre and making alot of major changes without consuting with people who know the subject matter. While the current traits are kept a part of the bred by selective breeding, they origanlly ocurred through natural processes as the breed relaly did adapt itslef ot Maine/New Engladn winters.

• As far as the edits to the behavrial seciton, I will admit that it needs some editing, but simply blanking out th eentire thing is a little much. The fact is I have a Coon and mnay if not all of the things that were ont here were DEAD on what our cat does, so it's not just some crazy person's ramblings. please discuss here first befroe making any more changes. Please.Gator1 17:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to see how toerh peoplef eel here. I've beena littl while and no one has ever commented on how the article needed so much work (see below). Let me clarify my point on th naturally occurring language. yes, the breed is a domesticated cat, but for a long time, the characterstics of the cat were nturally bred in. The bushy undercoat is great for keeping their bellies of th snow, but thweir back has short hair, so that it doesn't get too tangled int he brush. The mere fact that this cat can do great in Maine winters is evidence of th e fact that these characteristics were naturally bred in before they were preserved through selective breeding. Your blanket statement that Domestic animals are never 'naturally occuring'" is simply not true. Many of these cats are feral and many of the above described traits were not created by man originally. I think the modified language fairly and accurately combines both of our edits and I hope you se tht and don't start an edit war on a page you've never spent any real time on. Thanks.Gator1 18:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• With respect, the fact that a user is new to a page is no basis to complain about thier edits. It is the nature of Wikipedia that anyone can edit as they see fit. The inclusion of the tag and the copy editing were entirely valid.

The article clearly did need some cleaning up. It's making more sense now. "The breed has naturally occurring features" didn't really mean anything - all species have naturally occuring features. TheMadBaron 18:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Final point, (I swear) after all your edits, do you sitll really feel the tag is necessary? If so, what do you think this needs to remove the tag? I for one vote to remove it now that you've made significant edits and I hope that others will join me so that we can get that consensus you had mentioned.Gator1 18:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• That's much better. The fact is that the breed is not "naturally occurring," but has "naturally adapted" meaning that the species is a domesticated animal, and its appearance somewhere can never be natural, but what the cat adapts into can indeed be natural. The article could still stand to be improved a bit, so I'm going to leave the tag up for another couple of days to see if anyone else has anything to add/change. Praetorian42 19:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Again, no disrespect intended, but it sounds to me like you're being a little overly protective of 'your' article. I think it could benefit from further editing, and that the tag should stay, for now.

For a start, what does "Cold New England winters have made this cat very well adapted to cold weather" really mean? Are we talking about natural selection here? If so, say so, and tell us how that's come about. See sites below that's why they're there.

What are the sources for the possible origin of the name (which sound a little dubious)? See below for this one as well.

There are other areas which could undoubtedly benefit from rephrasing. The fact that individual editors might not immediately know how to improve them does not detract from that observation, nor does the clean up tag detract from the article. On the contrary, give it a few days, and it will probably be much improved. TheMadBaron 20:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to prove the point, I've edited somewhat.... tell me that any one of those changes doesn't improve the flow of the text, and I'll happily argue til the cats come home. :) TheMadBaron 20:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Well,the good news is that I think you've answered my questions very well, and I think the article is much better for it - so much so that I'm going to remove the tag. The bad news is that I think we've just worked together to prove that Praetorian42 was right to add the tag in the first place. :P If Praetorian42 puts it back, and gives reasons, then they might well be worth listening to....

If you are aware of articles more deserving of a tag than this was, you should certainly tag them - the tags improve the standard of Wikipedia - there's no need for anybody to take them as a personal insult. TheMadBaron 22:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice pictures

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

I have a picture of Maine coon with another cat, unfortunately it’s a rather large black and white mix breed of some kind that weighs about 15lbs… next to a pedigree (at least looks like a pedigree) Maine coon of 20lbs, obviously the difference in size is not striking. --BerserkerBen 01:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I'd love to see it. Thank you. Aloysius Patacsil 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Health risks?

An anon user posted this:

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

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

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

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

New picture

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

Weight

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

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

Pictures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In what way is Maine Coon/gallery not a seperate page? An article space has been allocated and it has its own page history (as I have already said, subpages are disabled in the main namespace, so it is not simply "annexed" to this article; it's a seperate page). What exactly are you disagreeing about? WP:NOT plainly states: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Maine Coon/gallery clearly falls under this description. If you disagree with policy, then address it on the appropriate policy's talk page. Even if we pretend the page is within policy, there is still good reason to merge it with Maine Coon, because it overlaps with that topic.—jiy (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's connected because it entitled Maine-Coon/Gallery, not Maine Coon Gallery. I disagree with your interpretatiosn of policy. Despite what many believe, policy is not always black and white and indicudual editors are not the supreme sources of proepr policy interpretation. I agree and don't think anyhting should change. The gallery was created as a result of duiscussion and compromise that you did not feel the need to take part in, but are being permitted to do so now. You and I have both made our points, let's let others chim in.Gator (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I repeat: it is not connected, because the subpage functionality is disabled in the main namespace. From Wikipedia:Subpages: "For Wikipedia, the User, Talk, and Wikipedia namespaces have subpages turned on; the main (article) namespace does not have this feature turned on, as strictly hierarchical organisation of articles is discouraged..." You are right that policy is not always black and white, yet you have not substantiated how my interpretation is flawed, or in other words why Maine Coon/Gallery is somehow exempt from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.—jiy (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry - been on vacation or would have put my input in earlier...I totally agree that the separate Gallery page is the way to go, and was discussed on this page and agreed upon. All those pictures in the article are superfluous and just clutter it up. I think Gator is right with his interpretation, there is no need to be a nazi about policy. I personally find someone coming in, previously not involved and then doing something contrary to consensus because of such a narrow policy interpretation, without discussion offensive. Pschemp 23:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Since having a seperate gallery page is apparently the consensus, I have created one the Wikimedia Commons and linked to it from the article. This is consistent with WP:NOT's "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files", as that is precisely what the Wikimedia Commons is meant to be used for. This method is also the norm on many other Wikipedia articles, see for instance Cat, Sunset, etc.—jiy (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The fact is jiy, is that you came in, did something contrary to a consensus you weren't part of, and did it without discussing it first. You can throw irrelevant details around as much as you want, but it doesn't change the basic facts. Please leave it and go terrorize some other page with "policy". Pschemp 15:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an image gallery, as has already been pointed out. That's a policy, a consensus arrived at by all of Wikipedia, and trumps a consensus of editors working on an individual article. I know, it sounds really shitty the way I put it, but if I pussyfooted around it (no pun intended) it would just obscure the issue. Trying to say that Jiy's opinion doesn't matter because he 'isn't part of the consensus', even though what he's stated about WP policy is self-evidently correct, is claiming ownership of this article. And he has done the right thing by going ahead and creating the gallery where it belongs on Commons. --Last Malthusian 18:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, if JIY had used some tact and discussed it on the talk page and not got into a total snit when his edits were reverted, it probably would have been a non-issue. No one HAS to do the polite thing, but it is appreciated and sure does go a long way for avoiding unnesesary conflict. Pschemp 22:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that all large-scale edits should be explained on the talk page without waiting to be asked, but that's me. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and that certainly applies when following well-established policy. And I don't see any evidence of Jiy getting 'in a snit', certainly compared with, say, accusing someone of 'terrorizing' an article. --Last Malthusian 23:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the large scale edits were not explained at all on the talk page, they were rather nastily attached to my talk page instead. Only after the impolite personal attack on my reverts was the discussion put over here where it belongs. And then yes, I was impolite, having been attacked out of the blue like that. If someone "boldly" edits an established article in a manner contrary to what was hashed out by public consensus earlier, with complete disregard for it then they may be "being bold" but they can reasonably expect issues when they don't try some polite explaning. I don't give a crap anymore where the pictures go as long as they aren't junking up the article. Pschemp 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If this (quoted from be bold) had been done, theis whole thing could have been avioded. "In many such cases the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily.

If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references."

"The next time you decide to revert someone, please check the diff to see if they made any other useful edits besides the one you are reverting for." Besides what I already pasted verbatim here, this is the only item I originally posted to your talk page. You call this an "impolite personal attack" that was "nastily attached" to your talk page? Please. It was a reasonable criticism of your action (and it's interesting to note that Gator1 later reverted in the same uncareful manner).

I did check the diff. Always do.Pschemp 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe you did check the diff. I have no way of knowing. What I do know is that my lowercasing of the "Health Considerations" header, my removal of stray div tags, and my use of the infobox class were all reverted, and "rv - the whole point was to keep the pics in the article to a min! see talk page" was provided as the reason. All I'm saying is please be more careful. Wikipedia:Revert: Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face—"I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back".—jiy (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in hindsight I should have posted on the talk page, and I even considered doing so. I knew about the discussion before committing my edit, but assumed an edit based on policy would trump any local consensus. But in my edit summary I didn't make it obvious what policy my edit was based on, this was my mistake. I assumed that when I originally merged the Maine Coon/Gallery into Maine Coon, my use of the MediaWiki gallery function would make the number of pictures in the article less offensive. This was a bad assumption on my part. In hindsight I should have created the external Commons gallery originally instead of merging the gallery to begin with. It was a mistake. Ultimately I should have let AfD decide the fate of the gallery before touching anything at all. These were all mistakes on my part, and I apologize for them. It's time to move on.—jiy (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Pschemp 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

TFD

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

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