Talk:List of cat breeds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Restructuring Proposal[edit]

I suggest that this list be restructured more along the lines of the list at List of dog breeds with the various recognizing organizations (FCA, TICA) listed across the top instead of things like 'year discovered' or the list of breed traits. --TKK bark ! 01:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tikuko: I realize this was posted a long time ago, and attracted no input at the time, but it's worth getting back to. While there's no reason at all that the cat breeds list should lose information just to conform to the layout of some other list, both lists need more or at least better features, and better arrangement (and there are many other breed lists, also with different features we can improve from). The sport wikiproject have some some pretty impressive things with template development, and we could learn from them.
What really needs to happen is the formation of WP:WikiProject Breeds, and a meeting of minds across all these domestic animal topics, on much more than breed list article format. Montanabw and a few other folks and I were working on a draft notability proposal, but the work stalled out due to lack of enough people involved. A project to centralize this (and no, we don't need a proposal to force extant wikiprojects and taskforces to become it's taskforces; listing them on the page as related projects is sufficient). I don't see this idea as being some kind of "authority" structure (like WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:MED, or WP:MILHIST), but something much like WP:WikiProject Sports and WP:WikiProject Tree of Life – just a place to centralize some resources and discussions that could help/affect all of these breed topics (including plant breeds/cultivars, though I think we'd largely defer to WP:WikiProject Horticulture and WP:WikiProject Agriculture and focus on animals, since that's what lacks centralized support when it comes to domesticants.
One idea I got from being at a recent-ish WikiConference was using WP:WikiData more effectively for these things, e.g. storing basic breed and breed standard info in WikiData so it can be generated on-the-fly into whatever tables we need (and to aid translation - if the Germans add database entries that correspond to ours, etc., we could get people from dozens of different Wikipedias adding info to the data set, which would be a great boon for things like obscure breeds about which very little is available in some languages (including English, for many of them). Collaboration like that won't be possible if every group of horse, cat, rabbit, whatever breed-interested editors are all just sticking to their own micro-topical wikiprojects, 24/7. :-) Some additional pings to people who edited the draft notability guideline: Fuhghettaboutit, JTdale, Mlpearc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You rang? Keep in mind that [[u|Pigsonthewing}} is the guru of wikidata, which I think can be embedded into infoboxes for each article. As for breed lists, the reality is that each animal has different politics as well as the general concepts of what is or is not a standardized breed, a "recognized" breed (which is entirely a "political" question for some animals and some nations, notably the AKC... ) a landrace breed, a feral breed, a designer crossbred, a not-a-breed-just-a-type or not-even-a-type-just-a-mongrel or whatever. Total effing quagmire... so I guess my take is that a WP breeds might be a good place to exchange ideas and general concepts, but if anyone has hope of standardizing any of this, good luck with that exercise in futility. (smiles). Montanabw(talk) 17:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of progress was made the notability guideline draft. I'm sure something can settle out that will be better than the present mess. I liken it to the early days of trying to figure out what a reliable source was, and then trying to figure out what a primary, secondary, and tertiary source are, when these words all mean something different in different fields. Regardless of that question, it would be nice to have centralized place to exchange ideas on breed list ideas, templating solutions, etc. the way the sports project and various others have (e.g., the rail and transit and road project have really sophisticated stuff).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Just got pinged. I have been pretty inactive on WP recently, sorry. A WikiProject Breeds sounds like a fabulous proposal to try and workout some of this. I have to say I am utterly in opposition to the above proposal about listing by organisation in any article, because breed organisations tend to be a quagmire of politics and feuding. Breeds don't get recognised because President A can't get on with President B, and Committee A doesn't like Committee C. And so forth. JTdaleTalk~ 14:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh, JTdale "quagmire" is an understatement, and you also forgot about ex-spouses, sibling rivalry and simple lunacy... LOL! Montanabw(talk) 05:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, but adding them in a column would be a good idea. The various breed registries are, after all, the main sources, so we'll both improve the list's informativeness and improve its WP:V compliance by including orgs and their standards. Most of this info can already be gotten from the infoboxes at the cat breed articles.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Developing this into an article, not just list, on cat breeds[edit]

There should be an article, not just a list, of breeds of cats (Yes, I have checked the "cats" subject too). About the most common, or the biggest, or something. I personally know too little about the subject to make an article myself :( —Mew
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:57, 22 November 2014‎

@, @DrChrissy: Here's a draft action plan to make it happen:
  1. Build up the lead a little more, to at least WP:STUB level, with proper sourcing, with a particular focus on history rather than statistics (i.e. no more than 3 "breed counts", whatever the largest ones are). NB: I would recommend that this be done in British English (despite being American myself) because of the strong national tie; formalized, standardized cat breeding was established in the UK, as were the first cat shows (the primary impetus of both establishment of new breeds and interest in cat breeds), and the largest number of recognized bred cat breeds (other than new experimental ones) were established in the UK, despite the exotic-sounding names of so many of them.
  2. Then move the page to Cat breed over the redirect there (using {{db-move}} if necessary), and adjust all the other redirects to point to it, and the current name (and Cat breed list, etc.) to point to the list section in the moved article.
  3. Build up the lead enough that it started to need sections and could stand on its own as at least a B-class article.
  4. Sandbox a compacted "just the facts" list, formatted as an actual embedded list (with * markup), not a table. It would include just the major breeds (defined by some criteria, probably something like:
    • those recognized by more than one registry
    • but not just as provisional/experimental
    • not classified by any registries as sub-breeds – but mention notable sub-breeds inline, e.g.:
      • Manx (and long-haired variant Cymric): ...
    • not extinct
    • not just a landrace
    • Draft wording for the list section's intro/caption: "This is a list of major cat breeds. It is limited to those recognized by multiple major registries[note 1] as distinct breeds, with published, non-provisional/experimental breed standards." See List of cat breeds for additional breeds and more detail.)" Footnote: "Major registries are defined here as notable, independent, nonprofit, membership organisations with a national or international scope, devoted exclusively to cat breeding, pedigrees, and showing." It might need to be smoothed a bit, but I crafted that carefully enough that it should be sufficient to keep out PoV-pushing of about a dozen kinds (or at least permit its removal form the short list).
  5. Copy the long list presently in the article into List of cat breeds, overwriting the redirect there (noting, with a link, in the edit summary that Cat breed was the page it came from, for history/attribution reasons), and give it a concise WP:SAL stand-alone-list lead (like what we have right now), with pointers to Cat breed as the main article, then change Cat breed list, etc., to point back to List of cat breeds.
  6. Merge the sandboxed concise list and caption (with pointer to the large list) into Cat breed, overwriting the original copy of the long list.
If someone had sufficient enthusiasm, focus (i.e. nearly non-stop time), writing skills, and research material, this could be done in 1–3 days (in which case, the shuffling around wouldn't be needed – just write the new B-or-better article and concise list in a sandbox, copy it over the redirect at Cat breed, point the non-"list" redirects at that title instead of at List of cat breeds breeds, and at the list article create pointers to the new main article. I have all of these except the non-stop time; I'm totally swamped right now. Thus, this really could take months to years, depending on how many other editors want to work on it, and this is why I suggest the stepwise approach. PS: All of this can happen independently of development of and between the larger, table-based, stand-alone lists. The concise one would just have key basic information.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Known for their intelligence[edit]

When going through the breed pages, practically every single one of them says the breed is notably intelligent, and thus the statement has no value. Which cats are the dumb ones? If all are intelligent no one is. Clearly the pages are all written by enthusiasts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it's nonsense promotionalism from breeders. However, this won't be the place to address that. Raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats to hopefully inspire some cleanup efforts.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we put an image on the The cat breeds without photos?[edit]

Without them, we Wikipedia isn’t that great — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohiorocksyeah (talkcontribs) 19:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Cat breeding" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cat breeding and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Cat breeding until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]