Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 17 April 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus---Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents

[edit] Proposed change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)

There is a current proposal to change an animal-related naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

N Not done - no consensus on what moves, if any, ought to be made. As Alai suggests, WP:CFR may be the best venue for this discussion. Neıl ☎ 10:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal for name uniformity

As things currently stand, the main article regarding the subject of this WikiProject is Felidae. However, the category which represents this subject is Cat:Felines, and the stub category is Cat:Feline stubs/{{feline-stub}}. I propose that we go for a more uniform naming - i.e we do one of the following 2 choises:

  1. Felidae → Felines
  2. All three of the following moves:
    Cat:Felines → Cat:Felidae
    Cat:Feline stubs → Template:Felidae stubs
    {{feline-stub}} → {{felidae-stub}}

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The common name is far more useful. --129.98.215.240 (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Technically, only one half of the family are felines. the other half are pantherines. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
So do you think they should all be renamed to the Felidae forms (option 2)? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Neither. Create a pantherine set of categories for the members of Pantherinae, and leave the rest alone. Barring that, go with #2. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is simply not what the word 'feline' means. Change the categories to a more accurate name if that's useful, but I don't think it's a good idea to change the article name so that it doesn't match the topic being discussed. Anaxial (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is a discussion which took place in October about the stub category name, fwiw. Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, for a number of reasons. First, using scientific names as category names makes more sense than common names. We use common names for articles because Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. However, categories are there to assist editors, and in that sense scientific names make hierarchical categorization MUCH easier (since we don't have to go looking for various common names).
I'm a little confused as to the suggestion that the word "feline" does not mean the taxonomic family Felidae. That's exactly what the category says it means. Feline redirects to Felidae and Category:Pantherinae is a subcat of Category:Felines. It seems some are implying that "feline" refers to Felinae, which the above issues, not to mention the Dictionary.com definition, seems to contradict. Justin chat 19:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong wikiprojects are not the correct venue for discussing category renaming. Take the permcat to CFR in the first instance, and if renamed, the stub category is sure to follow. (This has just recently been discussed at SFR, indeed, so please let's not have the appearance of venue-shopping.) Alai (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this cfr should be relisted. And btw, categories are for non-editors too, no? --Eliyak T·C 07:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there's a lot to be said for making it clear that there are two types of "felids" in existence: "felines" and "pantherines". Exactly how that is done might be a question, and we should take common usage into account and be very careful with redirects and dablinks. I'm curious why Feline doesn't redirect to Felinae, or failing that, why there isn't a link to Felinae at Feline (disambiguation). -GTBacchus(talk) 23:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Talk:Cat play and toys

User:Tabby needs help adding sources to this article. —Viriditas | Talk 12:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standard for galleries?

Across several cat color pages, like the one I've worked on (Bicolor cat), we've been hit by lots of people putting in their own cat instead of the ones we have, and have created a gallery at the bottom to display the range of colors. Might I propose that the following become officially the guideline for how to do so on cat articles? I know various wikiprojects have their own style guidelines , so I thought I'd bring it up here (I don't know much about wikiprojects, really, so let me know if this is wrong):

  1. Image galleries should contain no more than 4 images per section, though they may contain as many gallery sections as required - this is because 4 images is the most that will fit without wrapping at 1024x768, which is what the majority of people on the web use
  2. Image captions should explain what the image is showing: instead of "Charlotte the cute cat", something like "A tuxedo cat displaying a goatee pattern"
  3. Images should be as depersonalized as possible: instead of "Mister Kitty shows off his perfect Tuxedo coat", something like "A typical tuxedo coat"

What do you think? The gallery on bicolor cat right now serves as a guide to the extensive variation of what can be called "bicolor" - without it, it might be easy to assume that black and white is the only bicolor pattern cats come in, or that tuxedo is the only pattern for bicolored cats. At the same time, it's not an indiscriminate collection, because I keep a close eye to make sure each image shows something different. Kuronue | Talk 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians' cats

Images of your cats are now being collected here. Please contribute. I was going to make WP:CATBOOK, modeled after WP:FACE but thought it best to restrict the gallery to my user space for now.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template help

I tried editing the template(sample:Abyssinian (cat)) to look more like the dog template, with organizations on the left col. and link on the right column. But my hackjob didn't turn out right and the right col. extended beyond the right border. Can someone look at this version of the code and find out what's wrong? There is no sandbox, so you have to save it and refresh one of the cat breed page to see the layout. Thanks. --165.21.154.90 (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's still not quite right. I'm working on it, though. Will add a sandbox for future testing once I'm done. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Finished. Enjoy. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the work. One more request. Is there a way to make the "Breed standard" bar not show when neither no standard or status is filled in? For a breed that is not a cat fancy created breed like the Van Kedisi. Having a "Not recognized by any major registries" statement seems inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.90 (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems like they are recognized as Turkish Van by some registries. So that won't be a problem for now.--165.21.154.88 (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just stick something in the otherstd field. Doesn't necessarily have to be a specific breed standard - "naturally occurring" will suffice for a case like this. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I just fixed it in the sandbox, but I made other changes and would like some feedback. --165.21.154.94 (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed infobox change

Old box
An Abyssinian looking at you
Alternative names
Abynominator
Country of origin
Egypt
Breed standard
CFA : standard
FIFe : standard
TICA : standard
ACFA : standard
ACF : standard
CCA : standard
Proposed box
An Abyssinian looking at you
Alternative name : Abynominator
Origin : Egypt
Breed standard
CFA : standard
FIFe : standard
TICA : standard
ACFA : standard
ACF : standard
CCA : standard
Characteristics
Activity level Image:3o5dots.svg
Grooming needs Image:1o5dots.svg
Independence Image:5o5dots.svg

Alternative names, nicknames, and origin fields are put together to reduce the number of horizontal bars. Characteristics field idea taken from here. If people think it is a good idea, we can discuss what fields are appropriate.--165.21.154.94 (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As interesting as I find their content to be, I don't think Animal Planet could be considered a reliable source, or at least not reliable enough to place their information in a prominent infobox. Is there a better source for this kind of information (characteristics)? Or can we determine where AP got their information from?
The aesthetic/layout changes seem fine; no objection to that. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no. I don't intend for us to copy their actual rating, just the idea of the graphical representation. Rating of individual characteristics would have to be based on the usual policies and guidelines like WP:V, WP:RS etc.--165.21.154.94 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Just changed color scheme to match the (relatively) new Animalia color. See Wikipedia_talk:Taxobox_usage#Another_color_for_animal-taxobox.3F.--165.21.154.93 (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The horizontal bars don't look to bad with the new color.--165.21.154.93 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I assume the lack of objection as consent? I'm dropping the alt name and origin formatting. Just going to implement the characteristics section. And I would like to increase the default image size. 200 is alright for portrait shots but too small for landscape. Maybe an optional image width field. --165.21.155.10 (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Do we have a reliable source to take characteristics values from? It's only worth implementing if we do.
  • Size: Infoboxes should generally be a standard width. Partially just so that they don't overwhelm the screen at smaller resolutions (800x600, or smaller portable interfaces). We also try to encourage the habit of "click the image for larger and credits" by using the default 180px wide thumbnails everywhere. I'd recommend against increasing the size, from the current 200px. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The source would depends on individual articles. More popular breeds would probably have more reliable source describing their characteristics while others might only have breed standards/description to go by.--165.21.155.17 (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If the scale of characteristics doesn't come from a single site, we would have to apply original research in order to interpret the data into this 1-5 scale. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Template:Cats: Audio requests parameter added

Following the precedent I set with Template:Birds, I have added a |needs-audio parameter to the template (the equivalent of |needs-photo). This can be seen in use on talk:cheetah. Richard001 (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected hoax article

American Keuda is tagged as a suspected hoax. I don't really know the subject area and was hoping an expert here might weigh in. I was unable to find any reference to this alleged breed in reliable sources. Anything I found traced back to either wikipedia or to the "The American Keuda Cat Association". I do not believe it is an actual hoax, but its notability is certainly suspect. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hybrid cat

I created the article hybrid cat but I do not have time to edit it a lot not will be able to when I am not at school but if you could edit it put in more info then that would be amazing. Now the article has only two sentences in it. but it has two refrences and two external links. You can reach me at my talk page User talk:Miajmw.Miagirljmw14 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected this article to Felid hybrid since that article already exists and covers the same subject. Coaster1983 (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the request in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats, it might be appropriate to have a separate article for domestic hybrids. It could be expanded to include both domestic/wild hybrids and domestic/domestic crosses(not sure if these are considered hybrids). 220.255.x.x (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not see that request. It probably would be a good idea to create a new article on domestic/wild cat crosses. The Domestic Cat & hybridization section in Felid hybrid could be moved into the new article. That section would then be condensed into a one or two paragraph summary. Coaster1983 (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)