Talk:Felidae/Archive 2

Refutation
We need a better format (and better refutations ideally) for this bit: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:Felidae&action=edit&section=9. I don't really know how to do that. User:Mei 19:18, 6 March 2009 (EST)
 * I don't. Sorry. I'll see what I can do though. -- 19:20, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Pet project or collaborative essay/article?
CUR, you need to decide once & for all whether you want this to be your personal project or a joint venture. If it's ever going to go back to mainspace, it needs to be a collaborative work with other people's input, & that includes removing some of the clutter & crappier bits. If you want to have exclusive control over it, you can keep it as a personal essay. Either way, the edit warring is tedious. 13:30, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * To be fair (!), Mei was acting a little out of line. 13:36, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * It's a collaborative essay/article, but if someone wants something removed, and I ask for a reason, one should be given on the talk page, not in an edit comment. Mei was not justifying removing huge amounts of material. I kept the edits that made sense, and asked her to discuss the ones that didn't. -- 13:37, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * But neither of you have opened a discussion. FWIW, I think most of Mei's changes were justified, particularly removing the mar gay thing, which is just childish.   13:41, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * FWIW? But surely there is someway we could stick that in there. Yes, it would have to be modified, but we could use it to raise a valid point: some people are homophobic to the point of insanity. -- 13:43, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Some people are homophobic, sure, & we've got that subject covered in quite a few relevant articles on RW. We don't need to crowbar it uncomfortably into the felidae article just because the name of a species of cat contains the word "gay".   14:19, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Which is why it must be improved, not deleted. I think it could be there comfortably, it just needs a rephrase. -- 14:23, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * There's nothing there to improve. It doesn't actually say anything about margays, just a lot of gay jokes, the net effect of which is to look childish & even slightly homophobic.  I know that's the opposite of what you meant by it, but that's how it looks.   14:38, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Wow this is pretty surreal. FTR I brought up "rusty-spotted cat" a while back and CUR only said "that stays for lulz purposes", which is not good enough IMHO. "I kept the edits that made sense" is a lie... Unless CUR has a genuine reason not to link to "convergent evolution" instead of "convergent evolution". And the margay part is just beyond the pale. I'm sorry if my changes were too dramatic but that's no excuse to rollback the entire thing without a second glance. User:Mei 15:27, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Good edits, but I will add a margay pic somewhere in there. -- 15:59, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * As the title of this section suggests. This should either be CUR's essay and only he edits it in which case he can put in whatever he likes; or it's put into mainspace where it can be improved, deleted, voted to Fun or whatever.  At the moment it's neither one thing not the other.--Bobbing up 16:19, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Move to mainspace, but if it is ever deleted, allow me to keep a copy on essay space. I.e, make a duplicate article in mainspace and leave this one alone, just in case. -- 16:22, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Nutshell time.
 * Weaseloid: CUR, you can have one or the other.
 * CUR: Yeah. I want both.
 * Bob: You should have one or the other.
 * CUR: That's a thought. Hmmm. I want both. User:Mei 18:00, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Thanks Mei. That sums it up pretty well.   14:27, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Nutshell time:
 * Mei: CUR is a moron.
 * CUR: No, I just want a duplicate article in essay space. Nothing to weird. -- 12:55, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Why a duplicate? Essay space is for ersonal opinions on the subject, not simply the version of the article that you prefer. And Mei didn't call you a moron, but she did call you out on what you want. What do you want? something in article space that bears you stamp of approval? It's like you want to own an article here. Have you tried Tripod?Totnesmartin 13:08, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm going to, when it is moved to article, make a copy in my user space just in case. That is all. A record. -- 13:10, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Because...? It strikes me (we're slow here in Devon) that you're far too close to this article. Why not just print off a copy? Then if Trent spills coffee on the server you'll still have a copy. Totnesmartin 13:14, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * CUR, if you want it moved to mainspace, you need to loosen your grip on it. This "collaborative but I'm in charge" policy isn't workable.  People are asking you for permission to edit it, then you undo most of their changes.  It's frustrating for the rest of us, & it's likely to keep this in essay territory.   14:27, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Move it into a user subpage. 14:30, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I HAVE a user subpage duplicate. Updating. -- 16:14, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Lion section
The intent is right but the writing is pants, as we say over here. Mind if I improve it? Totnesmartin 17:07, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * No, I don't. Just don't get rid of death by lions or the christian story, please. -- 13:09, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I won't. Totnesmartin 13:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Actually the "death by lion" bit is simply a cut from here. Examples of God personally killing people. (Just thought I'd mention it.)--Bobbing up 14:30, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * The whole section looks like rough notes for some later expansion. Totnesmartin 14:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, it does. I put out large amounts of raw info, like a wild bush. You prune it. -- 16:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Again you say it's our responsibility to finish things you start. That is sort of irritating. User:Mei 16:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Large ammounts of raw info? Some stuff about lions in the Bible, cribbed from another article, + a corny joke about a lion saying grace.  It's currently the least informative section, second only to the now-deleted margay bit.  Is there nothing interesting to say about lions themselves?   16:21, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm WORKING on it. -- 16:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * You're writing relevants bits for lion. This is awesome. Can I then delete the irrelevant bits? User:Mei 16:37, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * No. See, that the lion features in mythology is not irrelevent. -- 16:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It's dumb and already in another article. Does anyone but you think its relevant? User:Mei 16:47, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Totnesmartin, if I remember correctly. -- 16:49, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * You do remember correctly, you just beat me to the comment.. Comparing an animal's mythology with its reality is on-mission (Dolphin for example) - aren't we here to debunk wrongness? If people think that lions are noble, dolphins altruistic and so on, should we let it pass? If so, why? Totnesmartin 16:54, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Though about the dolphins, some instances they have saved lives when they had nothing to gain. But you're right about there being more to them than that. Rape, for example. Inter-species sex, for another. -- 17:05, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * True, but I was thinking along the New Age lines of dolphins being more or less angels with flippers instead of wings. There's a lot of that here in Totnes. Totnesmartin 17:21, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * (EC) I don't think the praying lion story really counts as mythology. As I recall, the version of it TK told at CP a while back had a bear, not a lion. 17:06, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

(unident) But's its funny. And so it has a bear, not a lion. Big deal. Find the link, and I'll say that it's a varient, unless you want a bear article. I got the joke from a teacher at my school, and it is part of popular culture. I have also seen a varient with a lion in Boy's Life (the Boy Scouts magazine). -- 17:10, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * (blatant stereotyping)Any joke told by a teacher is not very funny(/blatant stereotyping) We've all heard it, and it was funny the first time, but that was long ago for everyone here except you. really, we can ditch it, and whether its about lions, bears or velociraptors is irrelevant. Totnesmartin 17:16, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "And so it has a bear, not a lion. Big deal." = You call that relevant? Fuck off. I'm removing it. User:Mei 17:17, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Mei, stop calling everything a non-sequiter. Totnesmartin, it's a fairly good joke, and ANY joke is only funny the first time. But we include them anyway. It stays. -- 17:21, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I didn't say "non-sequiter". Or even "non sequitur". It's an old joke. It isn't about lions. It goes. User:Mei 17:23, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It's about anything one wants it to be. Therefore, it can be about lions. -- 17:26, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * But it isn't really about lions. It's just a joke that uses a wild animal as a prop.  And it's lame.   17:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * The lame jokes are the best jokes. It makes you groan and say, 'Groan'. It is good. Bad jokes are good. -- 17:29, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "Bad jokes are good" = You're an idiot. And you didn't even tell it smoothly. "He said (the man)"? Fuck off. User:Mei 17:31, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I dont want to meddle with this essay nor get into an edit war but personally I dont think the joke is really all that funny. It like a Dad joke or a grandad joke you hear when your still a wee lad. Ace McWickedRevolt 17:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I made it a bit better. Who here can improve the flow (without deleteing it)? -- 17:34, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * (EC) "Bad jokes are good".  Occasionally, but in RW they should only be used occasionally when they're really relevant, & this one barely qualifies (OK, it mentions a lion, but it adds nothing to the subject).  That's the problem with this article: it's very scrapbooky.  It has some interesting facts, but lots of random half-jokes & references which are really off-target, & "speaking of lions, I know a funny story about a lion" style sidetracks.  It's already longer than it needs to be, & would be better if all the fluff was trimmed off so it was just an article with some information about felids & maybe a little bit of relevant snark.   17:37, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm leaving the lion section alone. Any suggestions (only suggestions now) about what else to get rid off? -- 17:39, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * We're keeping the Sarah Lion part. It is hilarious. User:Mei 17:41, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

(unident) **** off. -- 17:42, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Can you improve the flow without deleting it please?? Quark!! User:Mei 17:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * CUR you have to discuss your deletions! User:Mei 17:49, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I tried to improve it, but I think it was lost in the shuffle.  17:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * My fault. -- 17:57, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Hey if other people like it can I restore it? I thought it was funny. User:Mei 18:01, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Maybe we should just go with the flow on this. Might I suggest sections on Lenny the lion, the cowardly lion in Wizard of OZ, and the lion bar. When we eventually move the article to fun it will be readily stocked with fun topics!--Bobbing up 18:03, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm hoping for mainspace, but fun is acceptable. -- 18:06, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Paws off the rusty-spotted cat section, Mei
The domestication article is good enough to have stood the test of time. It is the oldest section. Leave it alone. -- 18:10, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "it is the oldest section" = so what? It's pointless catcruft. User:Mei 18:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Thank you for discussing it. We can, and should, give background information instead of solely focusing on evolution. If you only present evolution and do not give background information, it becomes propoganda, not an actual article. -- 18:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "it becomes propoganda" = the stupidest thing I've ever heard. "background information" should be defined otherwise some idiot might think it means "anything I want to be in the article". User:Mei 18:16, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Basically that part isn't useful or funny or cute. So what's it for? User:Mei 18:17, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Are we going to be domesticating the rusty-spotted cat? User:Mei 18:17, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * You could. -- 18:18, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It is funny, it is useful (it gives a comparision to domestic cats), and while we're at it, why not delete half the other articles you don't find amusing? Are you a sock of human or what? -- 18:18, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Human has been nothing but polite to you CUR. It isn't funny or useful. It's just you talking about cats. If you want this to be in main this is the kind of change you want to happen. User:Mei 18:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * And you wouldn't know that unless you're human. And that was focusing on you're assertion that you, and you alone, know what is funny. @teh Weasel: what's your problem with chromosomes?! Evolutionary science! -- 18:33, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "you wouldn't know that unless you're human" = idiot. Chromosomes = still there. Read it the article. User:Mei 18:34, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That's what I added back in, silly. -- 18:35, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * There were still there . Read the fucking article. User:Mei 18:36, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * In a small attempt to defuse this situation I would like to state that it seems like CUR wants this to be a collaborative effort but only the sections that he wants people to work on. In other words - do as CUR wants. That means that this becomes CUR's essay. You need to relax CUR and let oters work on this also. Ace McWickedRevolt 18:42, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * See above. This has already been said many times.   18:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Ah yes, I see. Obviously we have no resolution then. Ace McWickedRevolt 18:53, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Narnia is woo. -- 18:46, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Explain. User:Mei 18:49, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Highly junk-filled version of a real lion. No killing of kits, no pride, just woo. -- 18:50, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Woo = exploitative pseudoscience you idiot. User:Mei 18:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * No, woo = woo. Otherwise there would be no dolphin woo. -- 18:54, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Woo ≠ anthropomorphic fantasy. People who live in glass houses. User:Mei 18:55, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Works of fiction are not woo. stuff that's noot true but someone says it is is woo. You might as well say Hamlet is woo because there's a ghost in it. Totnesmartin 19:07, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

WTFIGO
This piece of shit's talk page has an archive, f'fuck's sake. I move that CUR retakes sole ownership of the essay - on pain of its deletion - so that this editorial "discussion" may cease forthwith. --Robledo 18:56, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * So do several other pages. -- 18:58, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Aye

 * Robledo 18:56, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Nay

 * 18:57, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * wtf would that solve? User:Mei 18:58, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

CUR just needs to make up his mind on whether this is his or a collaboration

 * Ace McWickedRevolt 18:59, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * 19:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT) Sigh. Collaboration, but can we TRY to keep this PG? And can we keep the on-mission parts? -- 19:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * User:Mei 19:02, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Totnesmartin 19:04, 8 March 2009 (EDT) And can we ditch everything except the on-mission/lulz parts? And bring the mating lions back, that's not rude, unless you're another lion with a hangup.
 * No. Background information makes it less boring. -- 19:06, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Less boring for who? I want to be entertained and read interesting arguments at RW, not just read stuff about cats. I can go to Wikipedia and read much more in-depth stuff there about cats. Totnesmartin 19:10, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Again with the "background information". I agree with martin FTR. User:Mei 19:07, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * If we always ditched everything that wasn't precisely on mission, we wouldn't have the goat article. Or half our other content. Background informaton would be a bit on info about the creature. Then we would get into more on mission topics. Consider it an intro. -- 19:08, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Do we do intros? Totnesmartin 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, we do. Because I've seen our articles. Every well done article has an intro, ours are well-done, therefore, we have intros. I also propose that no-one- including me- edits this until we have decided what to do with it. When it is open for editing again, all changes must be approved by the mob for a period of one week. -- 19:14, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Stop proposing stupid things. I propose we edit this article like a normal article which is what you supposedly want it to be. User:Mei 19:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Okay, but keep the margay joke. If you don't like it, ignore it. Doesn't mean everything you don't like has to be deleted. Your arrogance is appalling. As is mine, admitting. -- 19:21, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Give me one real reason to keep it and I will. User:Mei 19:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Whoa there CUR, Goat is extremely on-mission! Ace McWickedRevolt 19:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Sorry, what I meant was, do we do articles that are just intros? Because this article seems to be mostly intro peppered with on-mission bits - it doesn't make a point. half the cheetah section, the entire rusty section and a chunk of the evolution section are just waffle. Why are they on RationalWiki? There's a ton of websites that say this better than you could. What are you trying to achieve? Who is it for? Totnesmartin 19:24, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * No. It's not. They do make a point. Or at least try to. No, almost all of the cheetah section is on point, and the rusty-spotted sectin mentions genetics. They are on RationalWiki because a user wrote it. Yes, there are. None could say it better than I could. I am trying to achieve a wonderful article. It is for you. All of you. But part of the contract, so to speak, is that we all add to it. Not simply subtract, which gets on my nerves. Add. Add goat. Don't subtract not-goat. Add goat. -- 19:31, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "None could say it better than I could." = I must have a chat with you sometime. "Don't subtract not-goat" = I hate having to explain why you shouldn't delete my rubbish. User:Mei 19:35, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I meant we. Typo. As for rubbish, why not simply bury it under a heap of goat? You are allowing something that bothers you to distract you from adding goat. We all are. -- 19:37, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "why not simply bury it under a heap of goat?" = why not delete it? And stop saying "simply". You are not impressive. User:Mei 19:41, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Pardon my language, but Christ on a fucking bike, why are you fighting to keep stuff that nobody else wants? Why is it so important to you that it stays, because it's certainly not important to the article. And please don't go "it's important". Why is it important? Totnesmartin 19:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm giving up. Just discuss and let's try to work something else. I will try to be yeilding. -- 19:46, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Can we delete this frigging gallery now then? User:Mei 19:49, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

"Add, don't subtract" isn't workable. If an article contains a load of lame filler, & people are prohibited from removing it, they are really not motivated to add anything of value to it.

If you want to prevent anyone from deleting any of what you write in this article/essay, there are two ways to achieve that. One is to make it exclusively your own essay. You can edit it as you wish & the rest of us will leave it alone, but it will remain in essay space. The other way is to write informative, interesting, relevant & witty content that people actually won't want to delete. However, if everyone is telling you that something is tedious, unfunny or pointless, you have to acknowledge that you've failed to do that.

If you want this to be collaborative at all, you need to listen to what other people are saying, & not keep setting all these conditions. 19:51, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Aye

 * -- 19:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Nay

 * Its a silly joke - remove. Ace McWickedRevolt 19:21, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Hell yes remove it. User:Mei 19:23, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That f'in lame joke is still in this "article"?  ħ uman  19:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Not any more. Now it's 'My oh margay." A bit better.
 * 22:48, 8 March 2009 (EDT)


 * jokes are silly.

Lose the gallery
("Other Felidae pictures") It's mostly just lolcats, which would be better suited in the cat article's gallery, if anywhere. One of the cheetah pics could be moved up to the cheetah section. Only keep the margay pic if you're going to say something about them other than, like, it contains the word "gay" hurhurhur. 19:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I like this idea. Does anyone else agree. User:Mei 19:30, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * No. I included latin names, which wouldn't work in the cat article. Though I wouldn't put up a huge fuss if you did. -- 19:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "Though I wouldn't put up a huge fuss if you did." = That resolution didn't last long. User:Mei 19:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * We aren't done discussing it. When we finish, I will go along with the mob. But more than 3 should vote. -- 19:51, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * We need more people for a better cross-section. So far only Mei and Weaseloid have commented, and Mei opposes anything I do or say, so of course he voted against me. Weaseloid, as usual, has a fairly good reason, which I have since corrected and is therefore not quite as valid. Notice the quite. He has a point, but not as much of a point. And I might be able to dig something up on margay's. And someone should work that joke into the section. -- 20:27, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "Mei opposes anything I do or say" = my opinion still counts. "someone should work that joke into the section" = I swear to god CUR.. User:Mei 20:30, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Or some varient of the joke. I mean, it is just waiting to be made fun of! Some reference, even in passing, should be made. Or not. If no one will do it, then it doesn't have to be done. See, I'm being flexible. And you didn't deny it Mei. No wolf votes are encouraged here. -- 20:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "you didn't deny it Mei" = Didn't deny what? User:Mei 20:34, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I dont really like the gallery either. CUR - no offense but its seems like your flogging a dead Felidae on this article. Ace McWickedRevolt 20:33, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Which is why, temporarily, I moved it. But there must be some way to fit in more of those pictures. There must be a way for everyone to be happy here. Here is my proposal- we keep the gallery, but rid it of all things with captions. IE, only non LOLcats. And they must have a latin name. IE, restricted area, so to speak. -- 20:36, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Boo to that. We don't need a herd of lolcats. User:Mei 20:38, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Quality
If this "article" was a tenth as good as Bovidae it would be happily nibbling goat buds in the mainspace...  ħ uman  19:49, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Nibbling goat buds is illegal in 14 states. --Kels 20:37, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Bovidae is quality? I just made that up on the spot, as a goaty response to this. Totnesmartin 06:24, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Jesus on an easter stick
Let's just move this to the mainspace and let CUR gently fondle himself over how we edit it.  ħ uman  01:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Or move it to user space where he can tinker as much as he likes and nobody else will care. Totnesmartin 05:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't mind if it goes back into the mainspace so long as someone beside CUR edits it. If we put it back and he starts getting possessive over it again... - User   05:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * He always will be possessive over it. The subject is very close to his heart, what with all that therian stuff. He'll never let it go. I'm tempted to move it now, while he's still in bed. Totnesmartin 05:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * You might want to be a bit nicer to the therian, he's defending atheism as it not being a religion on the forums. Anybody care to pile onto a fundie conservative there? -- 09:40, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'd say move it to fun and edit it there.--Bobbing up 06:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Leave it where it is & ignore it? 06:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm releasing it. I'll edit it a lot, but no more edit wars. Anything I like that is deleted will be moved to my user page. Ceasefire. -- 09:36, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

What's the plan?
Assuming we're working towards putting this back in mainspace, we should probably agree on what we want to do or say with it. My thoughts are that we can't write about all 40 species of cat, & if we're picking a few to write about, it should be to illustrate mission-related things like evolutionary patterns, not just choosing ones that are cute.

The cheetah stuff is mostly pretty good re founder's effect & adaptation to lifestyle etc. The lion section maybe has some potential if we go into more detail about lions in culture & religion. Sand cats is kindofan obscure topic, as is rusty-spotted. Maybe the "other felidae species" gallery could be reinstated, not as a dumping ground for lolcats like it was before, but to put in one picture each of some interesting cat species (without funny captions, unless they really are funny). That way it gives a space to showcase the diverse (& cute) range of felids without writing about each in detail. 18:03, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * i have scheduled for two more days of edit warring. Mei 18:06, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Suggestion. The contents currently goes
 * CHEETAHS
 * EVOLUTION BOTTLENECK
 * Maybe it should really go
 * EVOLUTION BOTTLENECKS
 * CHEETAH
 * ? Mei 18:29, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Seriously Mei 18:43, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Cheetahs first, then bottleneck - as far as I know cheetahs are the only example of a genetic bottleneck among cats. Totnesmartin 06:23, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * How about
 * EVOLUTIONARY STUFF
 * CHEETAH BOTTLENECK
 * BREED MYTHS
 * other things
 * This avoids havig irrelevant information about different species. Mei 12:36, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Lions
I see that Article says that, "Lions are the most social of cats, aside from domestic cats, living in groups called prides ...." Is it true to say that Domestic Cats are social Animals in the same way as Lions? Or that they are More Social that Lions?--Tolerance 19:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Good point. From Wikipedia, "Despite cohabitation in colonies, cats do not have a social survival strategy, or a pack mentality. This mainly means that an individual cat takes care of all basic needs on its own (e.g., finding food, and defending itself), and thus cats are always lone hunters; they do not hunt in groups as dogs or lions do."   19:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I think it should just drop the silly reference to domestic cats, they aren't all social. Some are quite nasty to other cats, people, etc.  ħ uman  20:02, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes they're semi-social with people while we feed them - if we don't they go off to someone who will. Totnesmartin 06:21, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Re-add
Both rusty-spotted cat and sand cat had to do with evolution- sand cats because they were believed to be the ancestor of domestic cats, and rusty-spotted cats because of the chromosomes. I am readding them. -- 09:57, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Not the rusty. Mentionining that it has chromosomes is completely irrelevant - don't all life forms have them? Totnesmartin 12:00, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * The point of putting the gallery back in was so that we can illustrate these odd species without needing to write about them. See my comments above.  Re myths that different breeds of domestic cat evolved from different species, that's probably best dealt with all together in one section rather than detailing manul, sand cat, etc. separately.   12:04, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "because of the chromosomes" = I read that and that's not good enough. sand cat ancestry = ditto. pointless section just for manul = you've gotta be fucking kidding me CUR. I agree with weasel. One section for breeding myths. I'm revertin gyou. Mei 12:30, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, but it shows how closely the Prionfelis genus is interelated and how little they have changed. I'm going to revert you and combine them into a section called 'other cat species.' -- 12:47, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "it shows how closely the Prionfelis genus is interelated and how little they have changed" = which of my three objections did that address CUR? All of them? From here it looks like your main argument is "I'm going to revert you" Mei 12:55, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It shows how the chromosones relate to our mission. And check the see also on the sand cat, its hilarious. -- 13:01, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * So you're only addressing the rusty cat objection. Unsurprised. "it shows how the chromosomes relate to our mission" = no it doesn't. it just waffles about chromosomes. Besides we have a new and better proposal for sorting this from Weaseloid. Stick to that. Mei 13:06, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I stuck it under a subpage. -- 13:08, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Latin names
They're academic & distracting. I don't think we need them. We're not trying to compete with wikipedia here. 15:30, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * But we are academic- we are trying to educate here. That's why we should have them. -- 15:31, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * We are academic? Not really.  RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia.   15:37, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * We are trying to teach about the anti-science/authoritarian strand in culture, not just be a general encyclopedia. We are not trying to compete with Wikipedia. it'd be prefereable to link to the WP articles on the various cats if people want to learn more. Totnesmartin 15:34, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Roll up roll up. Cast your vote below. Mei 15:35, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * True, but we must appear to know what we are talking about. If we look like them, arguing without background knowledge, we cannot educate. -- 15:39, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * We're not primarily an educational resource. Not sure which "them" you mean.  Using Latin names just to show how smart we are is argument from authority.  It's also geeky & likely to put off casual readers.   15:56, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

aye
-- 15:36, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * KlapauciusEsteemed Constructor 15:59, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * For I think we can afford the ones and zeroes to put the scientific names of species in our articles. Heck, the title of the article is a scientific nomen thing. No need to go overboard, though, the common names are probably best for most textual uses.  ħ uman  19:00, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

nay

 * Mei 15:35, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * 15:37, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * 15:58, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Totnesmartin 16:32, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

What's the plan??
This is chaos. We're all pulling in different directions. The issue of who "owns" this essay still seems to be contentious, & now there are duplicate/fork versions of it flying around. Personally, I'm trying to move this towards going back into mainspace, as a collaborative article. I think Mei is doing the same. Other people have suggested we leave it alone to CUR as it's in essay space. The proposed additions page is alarming. I'd hate to see CUR or anyone else spend time writing about every cat species when I don't think we can realistically put them all in here. Can we try to agree on where we're going with this & some general boundaries of what it will & won't contain? 16:24, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I think we should close editing entirely until we resolve these issues (which to cover, ownership etc). FTR yes I do want this to be mainspace eventually. I am against trying to cover cats based only on CUR's preference. Mei 16:27, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Which is why only one of my species is currently in the que line. The others are ones I am ambivalent about or really don't like. -- 16:29, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * But it shouldn't be about which ones you like, unless you want it to be an essay forever. Totnesmartin 16:31, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * EC We need to choose species based on whether they are truly relevant and interesting. I don't think any of the ones here fit that. Mei 16:31, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh wait. I meant the ones in the subpage. Mei 16:32, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Wild cats are examples of evolution into a new species within the human time period. Leopard cat can go. Sand cat and manul used to be believe to be ancestors of the domestic cat. Rusty-spotted cat is an earmark, but could be discarded if necessary. Lynx are goat-fodder, as its too easy to make puns out of the name. -- 16:34, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * So far I see cheetah as a definite stay, lion maybe, sand cat less so, european wildcat probable and anything else either much less so or not at all. And if I get one more edit conflict I will stick a custard pie in the face of whoever invented the wiki. Totnesmartin 16:38, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Domestic cat ancestors
Sand cat, manul and euro wildcat are all about the same thing - possible ancestors of Tiddles. Merge all three into one section? Totnesmartin 16:39, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That's an excellent idea. Mei 16:42, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * CUR: "Wild cats are examples of evolution into a new species within the human time period." Ummmm REally?--Tolerance 16:41, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Okay. One section it is. Actually, how about a random cat generator? An extra section would be selected at random from a list of species. NOTE: This is just a random crazy thought. -- 16:43, 10 March 2009 (EDT) - :::::::::Yes. They quickly were domesticated and evolved into Felis catus, from Felis silvertris. 16:43, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * (EC) I think the general section about felidae should be expanded, with more info about evolution, diversification, adaptation. This can include some examples of individual species mentioned in passing, without needing to give each of them a full section.  We can then have the stuff about cheetahs as a case study (& maybe lions too but only we have more relevant info on them than we do now).  Then we have the gallery, illustrating either one picture of every cat species (arranged by genus), or just a few diverse examples (as it is now).  How does all that sound?   16:46, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Fantastic. I have merged all the ancestors of Tiddles into a section, you might want to check it out. -- 16:49, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * (ECX2)Must have meant wild cat --> domestic cat. Although in Britain the process is reversing as wild cats are interbreeding with stray moggies. And dom cat is F. s. cattus ATM, I believe edited out - taxonomy is actually complicated. Totnesmartin 16:47, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * CUR he said "examples of individual species mentioned in passing, without needing to give each of them a full section". I would agree with this since it's neater. What do you say? Mei 16:54, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, I would. As long as some info was included, that would be fantastic. I also think that rusty-spotted cats might be domesticated in a few years if people try. -- 16:57, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Define "some info". What do you mean about RTC? Do you mean it would fit this section? Mei 17:01, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, I do. They are already partially domesticated. They can be as domesticated as the common house cat. -- 17:02, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

This is going to be a fan page for the RSC basically isn't it. I give up, write whatever you like but don't expect it to end up on mainspace on your terms. Goodbye. Totnesmartin 17:05, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * No really. Define "some info". And I think we should stick to things that are already domesticated. This smacks of shoehorning your favourites in. Mei 17:07, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Some info= about one paragraph. Okay, we can cut the rusty-spotted cat. Just mention it in passing and include a picture in the gallery. -- 17:08, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * This is fucking stupid. I renounce this essay and all offshoots thereof. Goodbye. You're a dick. Mei 17:10, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

(unident) Are you happy now? I have reduced the RSC to about one sentence in the entire essay. There is no picture. There is not section. There is a sentence about how the African wild cat isn't the only one that can be domesticated, and it is mentioned alongside the serval, the Savannah breed, the leopard cat, and the Bengal breed. No fan site. -- 17:13, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Domestication
By far the most widespread pet cat throughout the world is the common domestic cat, thought to be descended from self-domesticating wildcats in the Near East, approximately 10,000 years ago. Wildcats, a single species consisting of several subspecies, are native to parts of Europe, Africa and Asia. Domestic cats have been known to interbreed with wildcats, and it is now disputed whether they are truly two distinct species, or the domestic cat is simply another subspecies of wildcat. There are now almost a hundred breeds of domestic cat, most of these having been selectively bred within the last hundred years or so. The African wild cat is the candiate for the ancestor of the domestic cat with the most evidence behind it. It, and only it, is the proven true ancestor of Tibbles. It was domesticated by the Egyptians, probably to serve as mouse control. Quickly, they became objects of worship, to the point at which those who killed a cat would be killed as well. If a cat died, the family would shave off their eyebrows. Baset was a cat goddess. All this suited the cats quite well. The African wild cat is not the only cat that can be domesticated, however. The rusty-spotted cat is easily domesticated when young (reportedly making an affectionate, playful, and highly expressive pet. ) , and the leopard cat was crossbred with the domestic cat to create the Bengal breed. In addition, the Savannah breed was produced by crossing servals and domestic cats.

Other species, however, have been thought to be cat ancestors. The sand cat (Felis margarita) has the distinction of having being named after a cocktail. It used to be believed by some scientists that sand cats were the ancestors of Persian cats, based on distribution and the fact that both both have hair on the pads of their feet. However, this did not stand up to scientific investigation. The only possible ancestry for the domestic cat that has stood up to genetic testing is the African wild cat.

Because of the manul or Pallas' cat's (Felis manul) flat face, it was once thought to be the ancestor of the Persian breed. This has not been confirmed by genetic testing, and is probably untrue. The coat color of the manul is widely variable, with it being anywhere from gray in Felis manul manul to reddish in Felis manul ferriguneus. Unsuprisingly, due to its bulk, it is a poor runner, and prefers to hide when chased. An excellent reason why it is not the ancestor of the Persian breed is that the few captive specimens are viscious, yelping like a small dog instead of hissing. As such, the manul would make an extremely poor pet, thereby negating all chances anyone being able to domesticate it. In addition, Persians have slitted pupils, and manuls have round ones.

Comments
Would the fact that Pallas' cats have round pupils while Persians have slitted ones be worthy of inclusion? 17:21, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Most certainly. Do you have a link? I just added it. -- 17:23, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It's better than it was. Inevitably it contains some trivia, some of which is interesting (the Egyptian eyebrows thing) & some of which really isn't (sand cat's Latin name comes from an expedition leader, not interesting or relevant).  Also, "the manul would make an extremely poor pet, thereby negating all chances of it being an ancestor of a rather easy-going breed" is flawed logic, & no better than the theory that they were related, based on appearances.  The real evidence here is in the genetic studies.  See what I wrote below as a possible alternative for this section.  I've kept the best points of this, plus added a couple of other notable things re domesticatic cats & wildcats.   19:00, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I hope it's gonna get rewritten...  ħ uman  19:01, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It is open for revision. Please leave the manul picture, though. -- 19:22, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * The pictures are in the gallery, that's enough.  ħ uman  19:36, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Anyone going to revise this? -- 19:43, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Yay
17:18, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Weaseloid's suggested version
''Here's my suggested alternative to the above. I've added some things that I think are important or interesting, & left out some bits that I don't, plus put it in what I think is a more logical order & kept it closer to the point. Might need a little bit of snark/wit to be added.''  18:52, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Domestication
Added to text.

yea

 * Definitely. Mei 19:12, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * 19:27, 10 March 2009 (EDT) Could use more background information, but excellent. I've copied a large portion of the text into my idea, and I hope you don't mind.

Comments
Hmm, that reads a lot like RW article text...  ħ uman  19:03, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I think it's pretty much there. A few links maybe. Mei 19:12, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Perhaps instead the above should be rewritten to read better? -- 19:21, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Reads fine to me. Far better than the above draft.  ħ uman  19:28, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * No, the above draft should be rewritten. I.E., we merge the two copies. -- 19:29, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Tweaking your version is what I initially tried to do, but since I wanted to add things, take things out, make it a more logically flowing order, I ended up rewriting the whole thing. Which of the things I've cut do you think need to be readded to it?   19:33, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Could you sneak some of the trivia about the manul and the sand cat in there? Both are fairly important ideas. I suggest that we include the latin name of the sand cat and say it has the distinction of being named after a cocktail, and that the manul looks like garfield. -- 19:38, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * In addition, my draft provides the explanation that there's no way in hell anybody in their right mind would try to make a pet out of a manul. They cannot be domesticated, pure and simple. -- 19:39, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Sadly, CUR, what you are suggesting is putting all the parts that didn't work back in. And trivia =/= important.  ħ uman  21:19, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

I've added my version to the text - arrogant I know, but Mei & Human seemed in agreement with it, plus now it's back in mainspace so anybody can edit it, add to it, rewrite it. I've included your citations, & mentioned in passing that manuls aren't domesticatable. I don't find the Garfield & Margarita jokes particularly funny myself, but whatever, it's not a dealbreaker for me. Opinions on the Latin name thing seem to be about an even split, but if you do add them to the gallery, do it consistently, not just for a few of them. 20:41, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Move to mainspace, for crying out loud?
CUR has relinquished "control" above, and I think it's time to move this to the mainspace and just have it be a normal RW article that anyone can edit and improve. Meaning, those edits do not have to be "approved" by CUR, of course. I understand he will still be heavily involved in its development, but he can't tell people not to do things unilaterally, demand certain images stay or go, or insist on keeping lame jokes - any more than any of the rest of us can. Please for everyone who cares to comment.  ħ uman  19:35, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Voting to move it to main and let it develop on its own

 * Move to main  ħ uman  19:35, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Move Let's end this saga already. - User   19:39, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Move. Mei 19:40, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes please.  19:46, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Move, but with the qualifier that if CUR starts flexing his will over it again that it is nuked immediatly as it has caused waaaay more trouble than it is worth and turing CUR into a TK (no offence - I just call it as I see it) Ace McWickedRevolt 19:45, 10 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Moved.  20:34, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * CUR is actually under court order not to edit war on such topics.  ħ uman  21:21, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Best of Science
Anyone but me think it should be there? -- 11:32, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Prolly not. TheoryOfPractice 11:37, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * ... -- 15:11, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Why do we have the exact same material in two places?
That makes no sense at all. One article is enough. TheoryOfPractice 15:38, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Because we don't even know if the article is going to stay (the new article, that is), you don't have community support, and there's no reason why the main article should exclude valid information just because it appears somewhere else. -- 15:40, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It's not just "valid information from somewhere else," it's the same freakin' thing, word-for-word. Don't be dense, CUR. TheoryOfPractice 15:43, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Then I'll reword it. Or I'll just delete the article. Or make it into a list. -- 15:44, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Snarkification
This needs improvement. Any help would be nice. -- 18:25, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * So why put it in your user space? I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but your attitude of "it's collaborative but I am in charge" isn't a practical or a friendly one.  I'm putting it back in mainspace; please leave it there.   05:24, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Quick!
Now CUR has gone, can this overlong, off-mission screed be deleted?-- 12:17, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
 * No.  19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. TheoryOfPractice 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Essay space I reckon. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 20:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dump it on ASK and let them deal with it. Totnesmartin 20:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. 20:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Martin, that's funny. 21:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many a true word, etc. Totnesmartin 21:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My head is sore. I cant deal with this so someone delete or vandalise or something with this page. All I can do is piss/vomit all over it. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 21:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If we want it out of mainspace then essay or fun. I'd say fun.  Remember that "Fun" was created for "anything else" - it doesn't have to be "funny".  And if it's there it's open to edit/move/delete which it theoretically wouldn't be in essay.--Bobbing up 21:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm making a temporary leave from my wiki-break for this. First of all, I find it underhanded and sneaky of you to try and delete this the third day I'm gone. Second of all, we have articles such as star, zoology, reptile, amphibian, and countless articles that do less to refute pseudoscience or are less funny. Fourth of all, it's already been voted on.


 * Now, I know I'm not going to convince you to let it stay, but at least be honest about why you want it gone. You view it with contempt because I made it, not because of content. As far as you are concerned, I wrote it because of therianthropy, nevermind the fact that I didn't know the word when I started on the article, or that it was originally about rusty-spotted cats. -- 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh god, it's back. Kill it! Kill it with fire! -- 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you say. It stays or I stay, you choose. -- 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Comment retracted.
 * There's got to be some sort of ad hoc rule I can make up about blackmail. How about I block you, and then we dispose of the article as we please? -- 21:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't hold us to ransom. We could delete it and block you. We're just pissed off with all the drama. Totnesmartin 21:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him for 5mins, anyone wanna extend be my guest but for FUCKS SAKE! Enough of the fucking drama CUR. Sweet creeping jesus, your gone for five fucking minutes. Enough already or I'll set the fucking komodo dragons on you. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC) And another thing CUR, there was NOTHING underhanded. This conversation has been going on for aaaaaaaages, months even. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 21:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather pissed at half of the people active now. I'm gone of all of three days, and already you people are trying to stab me in the back by deleting the Felidae article. We've got star, amphibian, zoology, crustacean, fish, reptile, and bird, just to name a few, that are less funny and on mission than Felidae. Yet no one advocates deleting them. At the very least, be honest with yourselves: You want to delete it because of a dislike of me, not because of any noble desire to purge this wiki of bad articles. -- 22:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That must be why I put mission tags on Valles Marineris earlier today. You had nothing to do with that. Totnesmartin 22:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So... your solution to this is to send a message on the intercom to everyone on the wiki? Damn CUR, most of us don't give a crap about your drama, don't drag the whole fucking wiki into it. 22:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, because Ace blocked me. If there was a special block alert group, I'd've used that. There wasn't. I would have chosen something different, but the new intercom doesn't include configurable groups. Oh, and blocking me for things like that is sort-of discouraged when I can't unblock. Sorry if I annoyed anyone. -- 22:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You said ypu were leaving CUR but you come back to make more fucking drama. PISS OFF YOU FUCK IF ALL YOU CAN DO IS BITCH AND MOAN. I didn't want to delete and it wasnt going be but now I am seriously considering nuking it myself. Enough of your bullshit. You're like a leech on my spine. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 22:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It does have configurable groups, and you can't send messages while blocked or vandal binned. -- Nx  / talk 22:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As soon as this is resolved, I'm leaving again. PISS OFF YOU FUCK IF ALL YOU PEOPLE CAN DO IS AS SOON AS SOMEONE IS GONE DELETE AN ARTICLE THAT YOU'RE TOO COWARDLY TO DELETE WHEN THEY'RE AROUND!!!!!!!!!!! Ace, it was about to be deleted, I saw this as the only way to keep it from being deleted. I wasn't the one making the drama, the people who all piled on top of this aarticle as soon as I was gone were. YEs, I contributed, but I didn't start the ball rolling, I'm a reluctant partipant. -- 22:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CUR are you fucking stupid? This felidae shit has been going on for as long as you have been here. delete, dont delete, delete, essay, fun, delete. It has gone on with you here and without. And whats with the "I am leaving" but as soon as someone touches my articles "I AM BACK!" bullshit? Ace McWickedbitch and moan 22:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For Fuck's Sake, stop it, all of you! The reason CUR dramas keep happening is because people keep forcing them. Not just CUR but everyone else. CUR's temporary departure would have been a good time to ignore this stuff & get on with other things, but no, you have to open up old wounds & start flame warring all over again. CUR's reaction can hardly be a surprise to anyone. Why not just ignore this article & leave it to fester alone? 22:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with grumpy. You guys don't help the situation. EddyP 22:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This looks like a bunch of people deciding to poke what they know is a sore spot, and then blaming the kid for saying "ow". --Kels 22:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I, for one, was not in favour of deletion. Essay or Fun were my suggestions. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 22:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason why it's a big deal? Will it cause problems if it's left where it is, assuming there's not a lot more editing or talk surrounding it?  I'd say that's the really relevant thing you need to ask at this point, especially compared to the fuss that deleting it would bring, and since CUR went through a lot of trouble to get it out of essay space, that probably wouldn't be much better. --Kels 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont know, I flew of the handle a little. Hangover you see. Sorry to the community for doing so and, Kels, you're right. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

fuck
That looked like consensus fora bit. I should read slower. Mei 23:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I like RationalWiki, but one thing that pisses me off about it is that this is the most controversial article on this site. It is an article about fucking cats, people. Leave it alone already. - User   23:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your sig is a subversion of your sig. My head hurts. Mei 23:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * it was until you fixed it http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Felidae&curid=76138&diff=359567&oldid=359565 Mei 23:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I like Mei's truncating of the article.
That is all. TheoryOfPractice 00:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Let's all listen to Mei. Mei 00:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we just merge this bullshit with our already-existing article on cats?
Please? TheoryOfPractice 17:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I discussed it, and it was rejected rather unaniomously. By the way, I'm making a Fun:Lion article for that piece of text you deleted. -- 18:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you and I might actually agree on something, Wolf-Boy. My suggestion: article is "Felidae," stuff in the "Cat" article gets woven into a "Domestic Cats" section within it, with the gallery of all our kitties getting merged into the Fun: Cat article. You're in charge of implementation. Make it so. TheoryOfPractice 18:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird, huh? I'll need permission from the mob first, the last thing I need is a vandal bin. -- 18:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The mob doesn't care. If anyone bins you over this, drop me a line, I'll unbin you. Now shoo. TheoryOfPractice 18:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They did the last time. . . -- 18:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FUCKIN' HANDS OFF CAT IT'S PURRFECT AS IT IS! 19:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I see then. Move along. TheoryOfPractice 19:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thing is: if CUR getteth his hands on it, it'll go all not snarky but silly. I'd rather move it to Fun than let him near it! 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) So we have an article on cats, and an article on cats, and an article on cats. TheoryOfPractice 19:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * YUP!; that's about the size of it. [[File:Winking0001.gif]] 19:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Damn ECs) Point made? I think the best course of action is to simply readd the two old sections and from now on, discuss removal of sections on the talk page before acting. -- 19:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly: point made. It's stupid to have all those articles. This should just be vaped once and for all. TheoryOfPractice 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, kill this foolish tripe. 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * NO. No more than we should kill Bovidae. -- 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Restore this page now, please and thank you. -- 20:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * NO. Will someone go kill bovidae, too?  20:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. TheoryOfPractice 20:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Asses. Not only have you desecrated the goat, you've deleted on-mission content that NO ONE EXCEPT YOU THREE WANTED TO DELETE! Also, does anybody but me find it rather 'odd' that they waited until they thought I was gone and desysopped? -- 20:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CUR, stop digging yourself further into the impatience of everyone. No-one thought or cared whether you were around. 20:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And you're still retired according to your User page: so you're obviously a figment of our imagination. 20:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When people start threatening to delete my articles, I'm going to come back, everybody knew that. -- 20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not "your" article, it's RW's. As long as you continue to think of an article here as "yours", your pestilence continues.   21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Lions
Who wants to make a different lion picture and put the old one by the lions section with the caption: "Lions, enjoying themselves." -- 21:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably you do.  21:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I won't due it if it will create a bigger fuss. -- 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A bigger fuss, you whining, screaming brat? 21:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

delete
apparently we don't have consensus. so let's make one. Mei 23:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you so keen to delete this, after all the work you put into it?  23:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we define consensus? Is it WP-style,with 10+ votes for delete, and less than 10% opposing? Or is it something else entireley?
 * I want to see the back of this issue. if theres any good text in it we can add it to the cat article. That no one wants to do this speaks volumes imho. Also CUR can't own cat so the arguments would be settled Mei 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus on RW = lots of ranting, and sometimes joyful resolution. Mostly, it does not resolve.  01:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

vote for delete

 * Mei 23:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh please g od, let this article die. 23:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 23:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC) If CUR hadn't jumped back in above when this issue got re-raised I wouldn't be for deletion.
 * Doesn't sound like a valid reason. This article is a collaborative work, not CUR's property, & deleting it is not an appropriate way to punish CUR.   00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a good reason. I saw no purpose to it, but the person who suggested "Now that CUR is gone let's do it" took the wrong approach.  Now that CUR is back, we get to hear him whining his irrelevant reasons for keeping it.  But you're free to disagree unless 2+2=4 ;)  00:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

vote for keep

 * 23:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 23:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave it alone already. Why do we keep having this argument, it is not really about the article. 00:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jaysus! Keep it. It's hardly a caustic entry. Totally harmless. Taytopacket 00:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain or other
I don't think this is the only article we have which is not mission-centric so there is a precedent for such articles. Nevertheless, keeping this one would be one more precedent. I would therefor say that we should either keep it or move it to fun. I would also point out that the reason that we are having this argument is that we have no science mainstpace - something which I have argued fruitlessly for in the past.--Bobbing up 07:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just one of many articles that aren't especially relevant - but then it's not irrelevant either. The only reason we're all on this page is because of CUR whining and crying all over the shop about it. Get some distance mate, it's only a page on the internet. Anyway, abstain on the deltion debate. Totnesmartin 08:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
So far it is ambiguous enough to keep. Now fuck off and enjoy the summer, CUR. 01:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait for Ace to come out of his stupor. He should be up and around anytime.   02:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I quote Ace: "Fuck off, my hangover hurts." PS also quoting Ace: "Fuck off and die, CUR".   Correct me if I'm wrong.  03:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For goatness' sake, leave the damn thing alone. It's not as if we can't afford to keep it, and I would rather we left it here than put up with CUR's interminable whining. 07:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually don't give a shit whether it stays or not. However, "Cur's interminable whining" could use a look.  What a whiny fuck.  07:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * KILL IT KILL IT KILL HIM IT! Fall down
 * It is decided, then. Fall down doesn't want it, we keep it. -- 18:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope for your sake that was a joke Cur. Mei 20:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont fucking care either way. What this "wait for Ace" shit? Fuck that. I am involved in a long and serious bender and there is no hope in sight Die bad robots die, enough of my twitching limbs and shaky hands. I am having dinner with my girlfriends parents in 15 minutes and I havent slept for two days. I think my nose has come away and we are still a long way from sleep. I need a shower and some tequila. Speak soon, bye lover. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 04:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. My mistake initially was thinking that 'I'm leaving' meant something other than 'I'm staying'. Apologies.-- 09:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

merge
Is anyone really opposed to putting what matters from this into cat? What's lost in that transfer? Nothing except Cur's imaginary ownership rights. Seriously Mei 20:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose.  21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose. And the Fall down stuff was a joke, yes. -- 21:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What's lost is the delightful whimsy of Cat. 22:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. This might be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it isn't anywhere near cat. -- 22:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)