Cat is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Cat has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 5, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 19, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted February 23, 2006 Featured article review Kept March 3, 2007 Featured article review Demoted October 3, 2007 Peer review Reviewed September 30, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed December 20, 2015 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cats Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Mammals High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Other talk page banners

This says "it leads to the extinction of bird, mammal, and reptile species". Shouldn't it be THE bird mammal and reptile species?

This term stands for several species of birds, reptiles and mammals. To use "the", one would need to clarify which bird, mammal and reptile species went extinct - obviously, it's not referring to all such species. beforeAdapter (talk · contribs) 2022-03-20T17:22Z

"Valued by humans for companionship and its ability to kill vermin, the cat's retractable claws" uses incorrect subject-verb agreement, implying that the cat's claws are valued for companionship. This should be corrected to ""Valued by humans for companionship and its ability to kill vermin, the cat has retractable claws which"

A short description here is pointless. WP:SDPURPOSE states it is to either describe or disambiguate, neither are needed here. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. All the pages on cat + other carnivore species have short descriptions, needed or not. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is disambiguating that this article is about the animal. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K 78.208.166.195 (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not mentioned that cats make an important contribution to the removal of negative energy? See, for example, [1] (reviewed and fact-checked by a veterinarian). Furthermore, they were venerated in ancient Egypt, one of the most important civilizations in the entire human history; see Bastet.
Before writing me the usual standard response "do you have a recent academic source that we consider reliable that talks about this?", I would like to underline that it's like proving the divine strength of love; it's not possible to do academic research on this, because love is a non-ordinary and non-calculable force. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catster is not a reliable source. They copy information from Wikipedia and their vet 'fact checking' process is a farce, they pay someone to use their identity/name to give a vestige of authority to what they write.

> I would like to underline that it's like proving the divine strength of love; it's not possible to do academic research on this, because love is a non-ordinary and non-calculable force.

Academics often write about things they don't have proper evidence for but instead anecdotal experience, there are also other branches of academia that would deal with such a subject outside of veterinary medicine. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: thank you very much for your reply; you're right, the source is unreliable. However, what I wrote remains true, and there are certainly high-quality academic sources on this subject. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are you can add it yourself with a reference to one per WP:BRD. But yes, avoid catster and pretty much any pet website that sells products they all have the same business model of search engine optimisation. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: how can I independently recognize the reliability of a source that's little known in this encyclopedia? JacktheBrown (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were talking about academic sources, books and journal articles published by a reliable academic publishing are very reliable and some of the best sources we have. If you don't recognise the publisher/journal it may help to do a brief search on it to see if it is a predatory company (one that does little fact checking and instead receives payment from authors for income). Traumnovelle (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: perfect, thank you very much (yes, of course I was talking about academic sources). JacktheBrown (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't require sources to be notable and qualify for their own article if that is what you were referring to with: 'a source that's little known in this encyclopedia?' Traumnovelle (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: "...if that is what you were referring...". Yes, I was referring to this. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, non-falsifiable? —Tamfang (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that it seems like this article only depicts short haired varieties of cats except for this one instance. I think replacing an image or two in the infobox, and perhaps a few of the photos in the body, with examples depicting cats with longer coat lengths would be beneficial given there is such little representation that subset of the species currently in the article.

Given the potential can of worms that could be opened up by unilaterally replacing photos in this article, it'd probably be beneficial if we could get some proposals here and come to a consensus before anything is updated in the article. RachelTensions (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Kitty cat has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 25 § Kitty cat until a consensus is reached. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]