Talk:Felidae/Archive 1

AFD

I can't see how this fits with the RatWiki mission, nor can I see any lulz. Silver Sloth 11:04, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Is newbie playing - leave it for a while - see if he comes up with anything? Frohlich 11:46, 15 December 2008 (EST)

If nothing goes down I would say "Fun".--Bob^{bing up} 13:25, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Better now?--"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 13:26, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Stop calling me newbie. NOW. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 13:46, 15 December 2008 (EST)

n00b okay? XD --Kels 13:55, 15 December 2008 (EST)

not really, this discussion should take place here: ConservapediaUndergroundResistor --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 14:08, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Actually no. The place for a discussion about "Rusty spotted cat" is this page.--Bob^{bing up} 14:24, 15 December 2008 (EST)

I'm talking about the discussion about stopping calling me newbie. -CUR

In truth we're pretty relaxed about what goes on on talk pages. Frequently if a discussion starts on one talk page it tends to stay there.--Bob^{bing up} 16:07, 15 December 2008 (EST)

I apologise for the Newbie bit, but you're new to us, aren't you? (& the way you were playing writing that template made me think you were new to wikis in general. Sorry? Frohlich 16:14, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Apology accepted --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 16:22, 15 December 2008 (EST)

This is not a fun article. Just leave it be. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 17:01, 15 December 2008 (EST)

If you really have an issue with it, move it back, but it isn't in line with the mission statements and I still think that it shuold be in funspace. Word stupid Phantom Hoover!^{Signing off for the night.}

The beach boys said it all in my opinion.--Bob^{bing up} 17:30, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Perhaps we could expand it to cover all species of cat. There'd be a detailed description of each, as well on evolution, which would tie it in with the mission. Right now, the only cat article we have is on domestic cats. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 19:56, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, maybe. However, until then, the current article meets none of those criteria. If it's not back in "fun" within a few hours only the talk page will be left behind... ħuman 20:08, 15 December 2008 (EST)

some more comments...

1. The article title doesn't match the usage in the article (hyphen).

2. The "Discription" section should not have a header.

3. The title should be bold the first time it occurs...

4. There's also a stray comma in the first sentence.

Now, while I could fix most of these things, an article most people doubt belongs here isn't really worth polishing. Perhaps the "main author" should cruise around a bit more and see how we tend to do things here before trying to win the mob over to get them to let a pet article survive? ħuman 20:22, 15 December 2008 (EST)

5. Binomial names are italicized... really, if someone is going to embark on a massive zoology project they might want to be better at simple things like that. ħuman 20:23, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Renamed after the above comments

This used to be the rusty potted cat article. Should the new title be singular? Felid? ħuman 02:00, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I'm still not convinced even now that it shouldn't be in fun. It's got a forced reference to Sarah Palin and another to cranks. I'm sure that I could create articles on moose, leopard, frog etc and find some way to mention either one or the other.--Bob^{bing up} 05:33, 16 December 2008 (EST)

It was in fun, but CUR moved it back. It should really be deleted, as it doesn't help the mission, and isn't funny. Word stupid Phantom Hoover!

But it could be made funny, and hence find a home in fun, rather than be deleted. weaseLOId~ 10:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

This article could be a gem. If you think it isn't that good, make it better. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 10:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)

The problem isn't how good it could be, it's relating it to our missions (analysing and refuting the anti-science movement, authoritarianism and other crank ideas). Unless there are any scientific/pseudoscientific/religious controversies surrounding felids, I don't see how it would fit into that. My suggestion is to merge felids as a section into the cat article, which is, admittedly, a non-mission effort - we do indulge in a few, but try to keep them limited. That way it can contain some factual content & some humour without causing mission/funspace problems. weaseLOId~ 10:56, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Agreed with merge into Cat. I doubt many people are going to come here looking for the term "felids" in the first place. Mind you, I doubt we'd get much interest in a scientific article on cats either, but I dunno. Maybe a "science" namespace where folks with an interest can putter around and make semi-snarky "takes" on various scientific topics. Not exhaustive like WP, but more of an entertaining presentation that fits in maybe not so much with mission, but with style instead. --Kels 11:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Such as Proailurus? Anyway, while I agree that our missions should be our focus, I see no reason not to get into other science concepts. And the fact is, the broader we get, the higher we rank on searches, which means we can inform more people, meaning that by expanding we are infact making it more likely that people will pay attention to what we say. I'm not suggesting we write articles about pop culture, I'm suggesting to broaden our scientfic reach. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 11:05, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, and I made a sandbox page where I'm editing this. Leave suggestions about it on the talk page. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 11:09, 16 December 2008 (EST)

CUR, no offense, but as someone who can't even be bothered to leave links to things you bring up (like, er, that sandbox page you mention?), and who also hasn't really added much here except your pet article, perhaps you should settle in for a bit before telling us what you think we should do tio "rank higher on searches" (where have I heard that before?) and expand our mission? I concur with merging this "article" into a section or two of cat. ħuman 14:02, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Well said, H, I was trying to think of a reasonably polite way of saying that. Toast 14:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, although I am arguing for a science namespace, I don't think this article should be in it. Banish to fun or merge it to cat.--Bob^{bing up} 14:21, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Fun - there's not a lot for CAT. (& CUR, stop it with the sig - either do it properly or not at all! [He'd got it directing to Human's UP]) Toast 16:10, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Da link: User:ConservapediaUndergroundResistor/sandbox --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 16:04, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Better now? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 16:15, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I'm thinking of uploading a cheetah photo for this article. Is it okay to use, say, a photo from National Geographic or an education site? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 13:11, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Probably not. We're not an educational resource (and for that matter, neither is CP), so we don't have that "out" for fair use. Maybe go over to Wikimedia Commons, they've probably got some good GOAT GNU stuff. --Kels 13:15, 17 December 2008 (EST)

There's a fine selection here all under the creative commons license. Silver Sloth 13:19, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I'm partial to the portrait one facing left. It's got that whole "Whadda you lookin' at?" attitude. --Kels 13:21, 17 December 2008 (EST)

(EC) RW as an educational resource makes me laugh. Though I'll tell you what, if the site is still around and has nicely gown in three years time, I'll try to reference it somewhere in my thesis! I'm pretty sure they won't check each reference explicitly... It can't be worse than

1. Cleese et. al., Mon. Py. Fly. Circ. 1, 8, (1969)

ArmondikoV^theist 13:24, 17 December 2008 (EST)

This leopard from CP is one of my favourite felid images, although the corresponding file has been deleted from WP Commons, so theoretically there is a question mark over its fair use status. weaseLOId~ 13:39, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Name

Should this be renamed "Felidae"? ħuman 17:25, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Quick question: is "felidae" always capitalized? ħuman 22:25, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Yes--"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 12:49, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks! I just want to be sure my copyedits etc. were in the correct style. ħuman 13:56, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for improving the quality of the spelling, Human. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"^{is the chief bickerer} 22:19, 3 January 2009 (EST)

We all make mistkaes, I live to copyedit. Sorry for calling them "spelling errors" and not "typos" in my usual (haha) diplomatic style. ħuman 22:44, 3 January 2009 (EST)

This article should really absorb cat. The two are related. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Err ... are you intentionally attention seeking? Is your life so devoid of meaning that you have to invite insult and institute controversy, or are you just a masochist? LAY OFF THE CAT!!!! Frohlich 15:36, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I'm not attention seeking, though I am a bit bored. But I really do think that this article should absorb cat. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 16:23, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I disagree. They're both about the right length for a RW article, but would be rather too long together. & They're completely different in style & focus. The cat one is a light-hearted piece, whereas this is a mostly zoological one. They wouldn't go well together. Besides which, more people are likely to search for "cat" than "felidae". Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:30, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Cat would redirect here. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 16:31, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Why ruin cat, one of our funnier articles, for the sake of your pet? Phantom Hoover 16:33, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Mesa notsa seesa howsa thissa wouldsa besa ruiningsa itsa. Itsa wouldsa justsa besa partsa ofsa felidaesa articlesa. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 16:36, 5 January 2009 (EST)

You might have realised by now: no-one cares much what you think. Frohlich 16:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Mesa justsa wonderingsa howsa combiningsa thesa twosa articlessa wouldsa ruinsa themsa.--"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 16:39, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I log off while CUR has caused strife at one place (Furry fandom) and log back in to find the idiot doing it again somewhere else. Troll! Me 16:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I AM NOT A TROLL! Really! And since when is disagreeing something that only trolls do? If it is, that Conservapedia expelled us for a good reason. (and before you accuse me of making generalizations, I would like to point out that most, if not all of the users here were at one point banned for disagreeing). And since you've annoyed me, here is teh flyquote:

"Me" (specialty not in breast cancer), I've managed to read your rants and found propaganda supporting tax-payer funded abortion and higher taxes, so admit it, you're easily taken in by Hollywood Values. Denying this calls into question all of your credibility on the fact that faith helps resist breast cancer. Liberals don't like it, but the beauty of logic is that it doesn't matter who accepts or denies it. The logic remains as truthful regardless. We often hear complaints about a person who doesn't "practice what he preaches," but a worse and more irrational behavior is a person who doesn't "preach what he practices."!-- Read my posting below and contribute to this encyclopedia, or go rant somewhere else.--aschlafly 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC) --ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 16:51, 5 January 2009 (EST)

P.S.: Something weird happened to my sig up there. Can't fix it. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 16:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

It was the space in front of it. ħuman 16:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)

"This article should really absorb cat. The two are related" and so they link to each other. That's what related articles on wikis do - not "absorb" each other. ħuman 16:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Fine. But I AM NOT A TROLL! I'm an elf :-). --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 17:01, 5 January 2009 (EST)

For the record, it is my opinion that Cat currently exists in state of sublime perfection and should certainly not be absorbed by any other article. If anything, it should be doing any absorbing (absorbtion?) around here. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:04, 5 January 2009 (EST)

No thanks. And as before: I AM NOT A TROLL! I am an elf :-) --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 17:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Some common abuse seems called for here, but I'll forgo it. Me 17:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

An elf, I see. Vanya, Noldo or Teleri? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:11, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I'd say some uncommon abuse. 17:12, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Sorry

Couldn't help it. Apparently, that's what the picture was for. Neveruse513 16:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Can o' Worms

I dont mean to open yet another can of worms (particularly where CUR is involved) but while we actually seem to be keeping this entry is it needed to have a section on just the Cheetah? Is it just CUR pandering because it seems a little incongruous . Ace McWicked^Revolt 16:52, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Huh? I'm not advertising, if that's what you mean. I merely did the cheetah after the rusty-spotted cat. --"CUR^talk 16:55, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I think the question was along the lines of: Are you going to do this for the other 38 species in the selfsame article? Neveruse513 17:05, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Yes. --"CUR^talk 17:07, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah but CUR you have that whole Wolf/Cheetah garbage going on so I wondered. And do we need a whole load of cheetah pics? Personally I think the page should be nuked. Ace McWicked^Revolt 17:08, 11 February 2009 (EST)

The page is there. And I happened to be able to find a lot of cheetah pics. And it is as on topic as the cat article is. So please leave it alone. It should not be nuked. --"CUR^talk 17:16, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Keep this up, Ace, and I'll start thinking you actually care about RW. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:13, 11 February 2009 (EST)

The only thing I dont care about is what you think RA. Ace McWicked^Revolt 17:17, 11 February 2009 (EST)

That's Count RA. Stupid time Phantom! 17:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I'd say keep the intro and make it a fork page to each of the species. Neveruse513 17:18, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I support the nuclear option. Quick question: Has anyone other than CUR said we should keep this? Mei 17:22, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I'd say do nothing. At least teh cheetah section mentions evolutionary bottlenecks. No need to fork out unless CUR writes his promised 38 sections... ħuman 17:23, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I am planning to have more things in there related to evolution. Though help would be nice. --"CUR^talk 17:24, 11 February 2009 (EST)

It should be cannibalized, not nuked. Neveruse513 17:25, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Where would we put it? --"CUR^talk 17:26, 11 February 2009 (EST)

There's, like, half a paragraph of useful text in the whole thing. And it should go somewhere in cat. Mei 17:26, 11 February 2009 (EST)

If we're going to have respectable cheetah info, I'd say it should go in a cheetah page. Neveruse513 17:27, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Wouldn't that be an even bigger can of worms? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:29, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I don't feel we should have a cheetah article. I think it would just serve to hold more wankery by CUR. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:35, 11 February 2009 (EST)

That was my intial thought RA, hence my opening this can. Ace McWicked^Revolt 17:37, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Mmmmmm, worms! ħuman 17:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Then perhaps this article should merely be improved, not deleted? --"CUR^talk 17:42, 11 February 2009 (EST)

We already did improve it a lot, and it's still just fancruft. ħuman 17:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Does every new article go through this? --"CUR^talk 17:45, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Fun or Essay or best: merge into our already-existing Cat article...why do we need two separate articles on felines to begin with? TheoryOfPractice 17:55, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Mainly because domestic cats and wild cats are two very different subjects? I wouldn't have a huge objection, though I prefer it as is. --"CUR^talk 17:57, 11 February 2009 (EST)

And maybe if this were an encyclopedia that would matter...TheoryOfPractice 17:59, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I think the merge would be to the detriment of the cat article. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:58, 11 February 2009 (EST)

(EC)Agreed. Cat is one of the best articles here. Z3ro^talk 18:00, 11 February 2009 (EST)

then Essay, fun or Nuke? TheoryOfPractice 17:59, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Is it particularly funny? Mei 18:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Personally, I don't have a problem with this staying in mainspace (as a one-off); just with the suggestion that we should have more like this, plus taxoboxes & zoology projects & suchlike. I don't think it would be a good direction to go in re the site missions. Unfortunately the science debate fizzled out without really drawing firm boundaries about this knid of article. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:05, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Creationists hate zoology, & most of the zoology project would be on genetics and such. We already went through this, remember? I have added numerous details about cat evolution. I have added snark. I have mostly-single-handedly constructed this article from scratch. Please don't delete my wiki-life-work. I am trying to beef it up. I cannot do that when putting my energy into fighting to keep it here. Give it time. Give it time. --"CUR^talk 18:09, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Is it particularly funny? Not really. Nor does it debunk or attack silly beliefs. TheoryOfPractice 18:08, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Well, neither does cat. --"CUR^talk 18:09, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Cat is funny, and cute. This is not. Mei 18:12, 11 February 2009 (EST)

(EC)No, but it's funny and is, to the best of my knowledge, something that a lot of people worked on as more of a community project, and not one user's (ahem) pet project--and therefore was never the subject of a prolonged and tortured debate. The people, by not speaking, have spoken on Cat...TheoryOfPractice 18:13, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Does it matter if it started as a pet project? Doesn't just about everything not directly mission related? The fact that something is a pet project shouldn't be grounds for deletion. Other users have helped me here. But eventually it will draw community support, if it is allowed to grow freely. --"CUR^talk 18:24, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I don't see a lot of community support bubbling here, but really, whatever. I say merge with cat, I've had my say, do whatever you want. TheoryOfPractice 18:30, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Every article has a start. This one just has an uphill climb- like myself. But it is taking leaps and bounds, assuming I can find another book on cats (Wild Cats of the World is due at the library) --"CUR^talk 18:34, 11 February 2009 (EST)

DON'T PISS WITH CAT!. _and marmite 18:36, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Of course not. But what else can we do? Mei 18:45, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I say merge the bits relevant to the cat article. Just looks silly to A) Have 2 cat related articles and B) one of said cat articles talking about Cheetahs for no real reason. Ace McWicked^Revolt 19:17, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, there's a reason all right. Do you wanna go ahead with the merge? TheoryOfPractice 19:19, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I would say yes, making a separate one for Cheetah. Lets see what everyone else says first though before going off half cocked. Ace McWicked^Revolt 19:21, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I would like to point out that I wrote the bit on cheetahs before I knew about therianthropy. So that explanation doesn't work, now, does it? The reason was that they were simply the first one to get an entry, after the rusty-spotted cat. And what ever happened to 'do whatever you want?' --"CUR^talk 19:22, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Consistency is a liberal obsession. And given the choice between conferring with a user like Ace and letting you do whatever you want....TheoryOfPractice 19:25, 11 February 2009 (EST)

You are a liberal. I think. And look above. There was no special reason for the bit on cheetahs- except for their evolutionary history. --"CUR^talk 19:30, 11 February 2009 (EST)

You shouldn't do that--think, I mean--I'm no liberal. My politics skew much, much farther to the left than anything that most liberals would support. But that's not important here. The cheetah stuff reeks of your little obsession, and given that this is not an encyclopedia, I don't see the point: delineating the evolutionary path of every species on the planet is too huge a project for us and does little to advance our stated agenda...TheoryOfPractice 19:33, 11 February 2009 (EST)

The cat article is a mostly-just-for-fun piece about domestic cats that people have as pets. I can't see much in this article that could be merged into it without looking very out-of-place. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:29, 11 February 2009 (EST)

In that case my vote goes for Essay space. Ace McWicked^Revolt 19:31, 11 February 2009 (EST)

EC x 320!) Ace has it right. _and marmite 19:32, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Thirded. TheoryOfPractice 19:34, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I moved it. I hope I didn't break anything this time. Mei 19:39, 11 February 2009 (EST)

And it was so....

You beat me to it, the move that is. My boss was lurking around my shoulder and had to pretend I was doing, you know, that work thing. Usually that just consists of shuffling papers around my desk until she moves off in search of other time-wasters. Ace McWicked^Revolt 19:46, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Now that this is in essay, someone who cares should move the marijuana margarita cat picture to the tequila cat section. ħuman 20:05, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I am moving this back to mainspace. It does not belong in essay space. I am sick of this. Would you just leave it alone? For Darwin's sake! This is ridiculous! Just because you don't like an article means that you have to move it?! What's next?! Quark?! --"CUR^talk 20:06, 11 February 2009 (EST)

CUR, SEVERAL editors agreed to the move--rather than nuking it outright or truncating it and merging it with cat. For you to move it back against that sort of consensus would, in my opinion, be somewhat abusive of sysop powers. TheoryOfPractice 20:10, 11 February 2009 (EST)

It is not an abuse of Sysop powers as regular editors can move it, but the consensus was move to essay and CUR that means don't move it back. - User $\pi$ 20:12, 11 February 2009 (EST)

There was no official consensus- just a lynch mob of three editors opposed by one. Not a consensus in the least. And TOP, you really need to stop your little vendetta against me. I know you dislike me. That is no excuse to persecute my work. --"CUR^talk 20:34, 11 February 2009 (EST)

What's the authorship status now that this is an essay? Is it still collaborative? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:14, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I put collaborative but if CUR wants to take full control he can as far as I am concerned. - User $\pi$ 20:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Collaborative, but I am in charge of it, and when can it get moved back? It has enough on evolution to make it to mainspace. And I can't shake the feeling that you're only doing this since you know it will annoy me. Paranoid, but probably accurate. --"CUR^talk 20:17, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Collaborative, but I am in charge of it wait, what?, and when can it get moved back? When it's not what it is? TheoryOfPractice 20:18, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Why? Why can't it be in mainspace? Because you don't like it? I want a solid, concrete reason why it is less suited to mainspace than cat, goat, quark, etc. --"CUR^talk 20:21, 11 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) Just paranoid really. I am in charge of it = why? That isn't what collaborative means. Mei 20:19, 11 February 2009 (EST)

As in I hold a fair amount of power over this article, but would get bored if people didn't improve it. And after some of the conflicts with TOP, it does make me wonder. --"CUR^talk 20:21, 11 February 2009 (EST)

CUR you have two options either this is your essay, or this is a collaborative essay and you get equal say. It is not going back into the mainspace unless it is significantly improved especially in the direction of our mission. - User $\pi$ 20:21, 11 February 2009 (EST)

CUR, we have an article on cat so this article is a double up against an existing article. It also goes on about Cheetahs for no reason. I think the evolution stuff was added because it was threatened with deletion previously. It serves little to no purpose in the main space when our mission guidelines are taken into account. Several editors have expressed their opnions and you are the only one that wishes it kept mainspace. Hence the move. Ace McWicked^Revolt 20:23, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Cheetahs have the most interesting evolutionary history. That was why I did them first. And it doesn't matter why the large amounts on cat evolution was added- what matters is that it is there. And as Weasel said, the cat article is mostly fun. This is more serious. --"CUR^talk 20:29, 11 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) Would MOAR evolution on cats count? Because that's what my most recent edit was, before I got involved in this. I was attempting to make it more on mission, but my work was interrupted when you started bringing up this subject again. If you gave me a while, it would be very much on mission. But you didn't. --"CUR^talk 20:26, 11 February 2009 (EST)

CUR, refuting people who argue against evolution would be on-mission. Something funny about cats and evolution would be on-mission. Something that looks like a fifth-grader's homework project on cats of the world is not on-mission. TheoryOfPractice 20:29, 11 February 2009 (EST)

TOP, it looks like a perfectly fine article. It cannot grow and prospher when it is in essay-space. If it is in mainspace, if you give me a while, it will start heading towards feline evolution. --"CUR^talk 20:32, 11 February 2009 (EST)

And if this were an encyclopedia-type resource where people went for factual information on a broad variety of topics, I'd say "go for it." But this is not that sort of resource, and there's no need to trace the complexities of the evolution of every damn species on the planet here. TheoryOfPractice 20:34, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Thats what I was going to say. We dont need pages and pages about the evolution of cats. Ace McWicked^Revolt 20:36, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I'm not suggesting we do that. But felines have a particuarly interesting evolutionary history. Cats are excellent examples of evolution. Are we going to throw away this vital resource to rebut creationist claims? We can point out all the reasons why the family Felidae refutes creationism. If you don't like the way it is structured, you have the opertunnity to make it better- but that is more easily done in mainspace. --"CUR^talk 20:38, 11 February 2009 (EST)

More easily done in mainspace = wallpaper lie. What's to stop you improving it where it is? Mei 20:41, 11 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) If I cared at all, I could edit it just as easily in this space, I think....and I would argue that most animals, if you look hard enough, have interesting evolutionary histories--i don't see how tracing the evolutionary history of cats will do anything in particular to rebut anti-evolutionist claims as opposed to tracing the histories of dogs or elephants or humans or squid. TheoryOfPractice 20:42, 11 February 2009 (EST)

If you don't care, then you wouldn't mind it being in mainspace, would you? It doesn't hurt the wiki. Why not simply leave it alone? It doesn't hurt anything. It helps somewhat. Why not just leave it be? --"CUR^talk 20:46, 11 February 2009 (EST)

We already have the article. It already has some things on evolution. Why not simply make it better? I'm just seeing a bout of lazy from a few editors who don't particuarly like me wanting to do this. If I saw a group consensus, I might be more willing to listen. But I haven't. I've seen Mei, TOP, and Pi simply gang up on me. --"CUR^talk 20:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)

(EC)First off no change can be made to the article in main space that can't be made in essay, that argument is ridiculous. Second, the evolution of the horse (why is there not more on this) comes up frequently in evolution/creation debates. If you can find me a creation or evolution debate, argument or discussion the centred on Felidae I would be more sympathetic to its inclusion in the mainspace. - User $\pi$ 20:44, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Did you read the section on evolution? --"CUR^talk 20:46, 11 February 2009 (EST)

CUR, not for the first time, you are really starting to fuck me off. You give a shit about Felidae, no one else fucking does. Thats why your getting so indignant over this pathetic fucking article. Ace McWicked^Revolt 20:48, 11 February 2009 (EST)

CUR, you need to take a deep breath and walk away from your keyboard for a timeout. I hate to have to bring it up, but you are on probation, for an issue very close to this one. Why not go find some other interesting critters (from an evolutionary perspective) to work on at the zoo project? ħuman 20:59, 11 February 2009 (EST)

EZ edits

It doesn't hurt the mission. It helps somewhat. What is the problem with it being in mainspace? I already debunked the idea that I was merely writing it because my theriotype is a cheetah (I didn't know when I wrote the article). So why can't it stay? Because you don't like it? Or because you don't like me, TheoryOfPractice? --"CUR^talk 20:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)

READ THE TALK PAGE - ALL OF THE ABOVE. Ace McWicked^Revolt 20:51, 11 February 2009 (EST)

You never actually answered my question. Dahm, now your starting to piss me off, you Cheney. --"CUR^talk 20:53, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Fuck you CUR. Ace McWicked^Revolt 20:55, 11 February 2009 (EST)

WEll, FUCK YOU TOO, YOU DICKHEAD! --"CUR^talk 20:58, 11 February 2009 (EST)

CUR as I said the section on evolution is not sufficient, why is the knowledge of Felidae evolution important in debunking pseudoscience over a general knowledge of evolution? I have explained why it is important for horses. - User $\pi$ 20:55, 11 February 2009 (EST)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

Pinto's5150 Talk 21:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks, beans. This article has been contentious since day one, about 8 weeks ago, when it was created as rusty spotted cat. It has been babied along, but never became useful. In fact, it seems CUR only adds things when people insist he try to get it "on mission" to try to keep it in the mainspace, then he leaves his poorly-written, badly spelled "work" for others to clean up and goes off to, frankly, irritate people elsewhere. CUR, if you want to convince people this belongs in the mainspace you need to do two things - one, something along the lines of explaining why Felidae (overall) are a really good example of evolutionary principles, and, two, make clear and strong arguments for your case, not repeat the same empty phrases over and over again. ħuman 21:08, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Thank you Human for being more succinct than I was and I apologise to the community for losing my cool. Ace McWicked^Revolt 21:11, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Could someone unblock me so I can get back to dealing with this? Pi was rude enough to block me for insulting Ace- which, I would like to point out, he did as well. - unsigned, IP of CUR

Aaaaaannnnnddd I had prepared an excellent response to human's query, but when Pi blocked me, I had to copy and paste the address to use a proxy, and I forgot my piece of work. But back to my probation- the terms appear to not be being followed. I believe on of the terms was to avoid personal attacks. Would we please try to do that? And there was a long period where it wasn't contentious, where everybody was working happily on it. Sooner or later, this should go back to mainspace. I see I have no choice but to let it be for now- but when I am done with my lenghty section on the evolution of the domestic cat, this issue should be brought up in a civil manner. Until then, I suggest that we merely add goat to this article until it collapses under its own weight. --"CUR^talk 21:21, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I tried, but it says the block id can't be found. Odd.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:16, 11 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) It was a 10 minute block at 2 mins past. You should be clear again. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:18, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Christ on an Easter stick, CUR, Ace had already blocked himself! And they were five minute blocks! (followed by a ten minute "cool off" block for CUR, who unblocked himself) ħuman 21:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, but Ace didn't also de-sysop himself. That's what kept me from making my well-thought out reply to your amazingly civil query. --"CUR^talk 21:23, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Aw, did someone desysop you? Might have been for unblocking yourself when you were blocked for a good reason. or could have been for probation violation. I dunno, let me check the logs... ħuman 22:09, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Ah, I see. Most judicious, Pi Guy. He desysopped you for the duration of your ten minute "cool down" block. You can still reply to to my query (did I ask a question?) anytime. ħuman 22:11, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Goals

For the restoration of this article to mainspace, I think in general we can agree on some basic principles:

1. The article should focus on evolution primarily. The manner in which the cats have evolved should be the central focus, not a slapdash addition to the front.
2. The article should not salivate so obviously over how awesome the author(s) thinks certain kinds of cats are.
3. The jokes should be funny. (It would eat you. It would charm you to the point at which you would be unable to move. Come on now.)

Any others?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:27, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I full agree with Tom. Work on this in essay space until it is of mainspace quality. - User $\pi$ 21:30, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I agree. But how am I salivating? Oh, and I got rid of the joke. I never actually liked it. Let's start working! RationalWiki Project Zoology has its first official project! Anyone want to join? You get a cool looking insigna to put on your user page. --"CUR^talk 21:34, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Iz already haz 1. - User $\pi$ 21:37, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I'll help you some.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:42, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Do we have to get rid of all of the cheetah article, even the parts on evolution? --"CUR^talk 21:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Read again. I left the parts on evolution. Mei 21:45, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Cheetahs are one of the most studied species. Does it do them justice to leave out everything but the parts on evolution? People are more likely to be interested if we leave the rest in. --"CUR^talk 21:46, 11 February 2009 (EST)

They are still more likely to be interested if we quote verbatim from Seinfeld. Mei 21:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)

(Undent)(EC) Cur, you're starting to sound like Ken. Don't worry about people being interested; worry about writing a good article that's on-mission. TheoryOfPractice 21:48, 11 February 2009 (EST)

This is experiancing divergent evolution. It will sometimes cross-reproduce, sharing its genes with this essay. --"CUR^talk 16:21, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Anyone else have 'Kielan-Jaworowska, Zofia. Mammals from the Age of the Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution, and Structure. New York: University of Columbia, 2004?' --"CUR^talk 16:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Some actual questions about the article

In the introduction: Did they really spread on "land bridges" or did they ride on continental drift?

How is the word "cat" used in the introduction? Does it mean "domestic cat" or "big cat" or "ancestral cat" or something else?--Rationalist 16:58, 12 February 2009 (EST)

All cats to the second question. First question- I am not quite sure about that, that is how I found it on WP. I need to check out a book on cat evolution. Until then, I'm going to glean tidbits from the species accounts. --"CUR^talk 17:37, 12 February 2009 (EST)

"However, specific claims will be laid out"

Passive voice makes baby Jesus cry. Think of the children. TheoryOfPractice 17:17, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry. I'm awful at wording. By the way, do you know of any other creationists claiming this? Could you get a screenshot of the CP 'article?' --"CUR^talk 17:18, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Which CP article? The cheetah says f-all about evolution. TheoryOfPractice 17:21, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Their article on the cheetah. --"CUR^talk 17:22, 13 February 2009 (EST)

yes, yes--nothing in the current version re: evolution. just the usual fastest mammal/hunting style stuff. TheoryOfPractice 17:24, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Darn. Perhaps one should ask teh fly? Or maybe you could try checking out some other sources, while I work on other things in this essay? --"CUR^talk 17:27, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Hey, Boy Wonder, why not look at our Article of the Weak--it's in there, what you want..TheoryOfPractice 17:29, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I already looked. I couldn't find much of anything. --"CUR^talk 17:31, 13 February 2009 (EST)

look here and maybe answers in genesis...TheoryOfPractice 17:39, 13 February 2009 (EST)

AiG was the first thing I checked out. Nothing. They disappoint me. --"CUR^talk 18:28, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Nothing there either. What is keeping them?! This is usually something they drive home! --"CUR^talk 18:30, 13 February 2009 (EST)

IUCN.

International Union of Concerned Nudists? Indian Underwear Committee of Naples? TheoryOfPractice 17:19, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I believe it stands for International Union of Conservation something-or-other. It regulates trade of species and is has legal powah. --"CUR^talk 17:23, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Figure it out and put it in the article--maybe w/a link to their page on cheetahs? TheoryOfPractice 17:27, 13 February 2009 (EST)

'Let's not poke it with a stick'

I never thought I'd say this- but thanks, ToP. --"CUR^talk 14:04, 14 February 2009 (EST)

you're welcome. TheoryOfPractice 14:24, 14 February 2009 (EST)

btw- what is keeping creationists from commenting on low genetic variation in cheetahs? They should be paying an awful lot of attention to this. But it is just a footnote. --"CUR^talk 14:27, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Your whining can be intolerable to even the strongest of minds, especially your conviction that you have ever provoked a HCM of more than 5. Stupid time Phantom! 14:08, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Can't I thank someone for doing something without you critizing me? --"CUR^talk 14:09, 14 February 2009 (EST)

It is a theoretical situation. Please provide other examples of my criticism of you. Stupid time Phantom! 14:13, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I'm afraid that that command does not compute. --"CUR^talk 14:16, 14 February 2009 (EST)

sudo Provide other examples of me criticising you. Stupid time Phantom! 14:19, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I think you have, but I cannot come up with some on the spot. Though my comment was more in passing than a judgement on your behavioral trends. --"CUR^talk 14:25, 14 February 2009 (EST)

CUR

If there is no creationist material on cheetahs, what is that section for? User:Mei 14:31, 14 February 2009 (EST)

There most certainly is material on them- just not as much as I expected. I expected it to be a major talking point. It isn't. --"CUR^talk 14:35, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Perhaps they're keeping shtum about cheetahs because of the genetic bottleneck. Totnesmartin 15:07, 14 February 2009 (EST)

There's also a large and prominent section on "rust-spotted cat" for some reason. User:Mei 14:44, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, we are going to keep it there because of lulz purposes, as well as 'ceiling cat' --"CUR^talk 15:46, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Deletion template

1. Unless there is an active discussion on the deleting the article don't put the template on the page.
2. It is essay, so it is to going to be deleted any way.

So Mei knock it off. - User $\pi$ 20:22, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I would say there is active discussion. The template add seemed astute to me. But I'm not wedded to the idea. Do as you please. User:Mei 20:25, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Why on earth would you propose to delete this? ħuman 22:58, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Keep in mind that much of the discussion above took place when this article was in other places. ħuman 22:59, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I didn't add the template. I just objected to it being removed without explanation. User:Mei 17:52, 15 February 2009 (EST)

The explanation is implicit - with the article moved to "essay", deletion becomes irrelevant. ħuman 18:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)

It was moved to keep it from being deleted. --"CUR^talk 13:59, 15 February 2009 (EST)

You can't see the wood for the trees, can you? I moved it. It was moved because it wasn't mainspace material. "to keep it from being deleted" is the end of the sentence that begins "CUR agreed because he wanted--". Thank you and good night. User:Mei 17:52, 15 February 2009 (EST)

If it was to be deleted, you wouldn't be the only person advocating it. You cannot delete an essay unless everyone agrees to it. Or it violates some major rule. --"CUR^talk 17:56, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Another comment for the non sequitur collection. User:Mei 18:00, 15 February 2009 (EST)

No it isn't. There does need to be some consensus (currently standing at 3 admins in favour and none against as a bare minimum) before something is deleted - except attack pages etc, which this isn't. Totnesmartin 18:08, 20 February 2009 (EST)

"Everyone wants to delete it. But you can't delete it unless everyone wants to" = non sequitur in my book. & deletion template ≠ deletion. User:Mei 18:44, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Gallery

Should we make a gallery of Felidae photos (only one cheetah pic, and lots of ceiling cat). --"CUR^talk 09:44, 21 February 2009 (EST)