Talk:Fishing cat: Difference between revisions

	Fishing cat was nominated as a good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Mid‑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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indonesia Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Nepal Low‑importance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

This line in the article, Prionailurus viverrinus viverrinus or Felis viverrina viverrina, India, Southeast Asian mainland, Sumatra repeats two words. Is this correct? Ronbo76 14:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a conflict? Which edit is correct? Ronbo76 13:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said that

WP:BIRD's logic, and I have stuck with that. But discussions on WP:Mammal have all failed to reach a consensus to make any change, and so making such a change is against the community, so I am reverting. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure, saying WP:BIRD applies to mammals and offering demonstrable authoritative sources to support your contention in discussions, that would be fantastic to have. No, what you've done is nothing like that (and for years now, you've not been able to do that), instead you've enforced WP:BIRD on mammal pages with reverts and nothing more than your stated personal fondness for the so-called logic of the WP:BIRD style. The community long ago reached consensus -- as referenced on

WP:MOS -- and while they were trying to reach consensus, they fully took into account the WP:BIRD arguments that you've made. You were in those discussions, and your view wasn't accepted. The change I made simply was to go with the community's consensus and nothing more, even though you personally don't like it. But is it relevant whether one "likes" it? There is an answer to this question. Beyazid (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a distributed content dispute affecting a large number of articles. I recommend continuing all the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals#Capitalization re-visited. Thanks! BigBlueFish (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UtherSRG, This is regarding reverting of this edit 243896305. I am agreeable in principle to your argument that other language names for the animal is not required in the English version of wikipedia. However, when the article is about an endemic animal, exception has to be made, I guess. English version of the wikipedia is the source that most people come to in order to get information. If the article cannot be used to connect the local name of the endemic animal and the English and scientific name, then a vital piece of information is missing. Note that the local people have been referring the animal with those names, before English name is given and scientific categorization is made. Besides we are not going to have names for the animal in ALL other languages; Only As much names as the number of languages spoken in the locales it lives.

I am going to revert your edit once more without any prejudice. However, if you are still steadfast in your opinion, then please feel free to undo my edit without prejudice. I will not be reverting it again, but I like to hear a third party opinion on this matter. Ritigala Jayasena (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a way to incorporate a small number (five or less) of the most common names into the article, without it being a laundry list, it would be acceptable. This isn't the first time this issue has come up. In general, we keep to what is relevant for the language of the article, and a long list of foreign words generally aren't relevant. Look around at a bunch of other articles you think might have significant common names in other languages, and you'll find them generally absent or sparsely given. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at this article and wondered why the Fishing Cat does not have the WikiProject Mammals here like other animal pages I follow. While not a member of that project, if no one objects I will place their project tag here. Morenooso (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cats is a subproject of WikiProject Mammals this has recently been discussed here hope this helps. ZooPro 07:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it does but it is the standard discussion heard on other talkpages. I agree somewhat that only the most direct projects should have their banner on the talkpage but that any and all should be allowed. Several animal pages have several and the Wikiproject California, which I am a member of, has a lot of subprojects whose banners co-exist on the same talkpage. Still, I will defer to you because you seem to have a good handle on this matter inre this article. Morenooso (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link at the bottom of the page to an article about the "domestic" fishing cat in Russia is in error. It was tamed rather than domesticated (domestication meaning to alter a species over time as in the change from wolves to dogs, aurochs to modern cattle, etc, while tame meaning a wild animal that has been trained to tolerate human presence, but is still the same wild animal) and according to the owners' web site no longer lives in the apartment.

Perhaps more importantly the link does not support the article in any way and seems to be more of an afterthought. If the link is to be kept should there not be a section about this animal's stay in captivity? Or at the very least, a link to the "official" site for that particular individual animal (That being http://johndevis.com/)? I'm not sure the individual animal, though certainly an exotic pet, is really notable as per WP's definition. Any other ideas? Keep it, change it, remove it? KrisWood (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This comment addressed in particular to Seduisant)

I recently added a link to the Turkish Van cat, as I believed that it would help to improve the article. My reasoning for this was that both cats are notable for their love of water, and while searching for the Fishing Cat I came across the Turkish Van cat article (a search on Google for 'cat water wikipedia' doesn't list the Fishing Cat in the results, while the Turkish Van is the first hit). It seemed logical therefore to insert a 'not to be confused with' distinguishing link between both articles in case anyone else searching for one could only find the other.

If you disagree with this then that is fair enough; Wikipedia is, after all, a collaborative effort and not everyone will agree on everything. But to describe it as vandalism seems a trifle patronising, I'm afraid. --86.11.5.235 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fishing cats may mate at any time of the year, although most commonly between January and February. " there is of course zero time between January and February. I imagine this should read "most commonly in January or February." Would someone who knows for sure edit this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.51.156 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your right. The wording could be improved. I was WP:BOLD and did it. Probing Mind (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fishing cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201124505/http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/61/61rbz407-415.pdf to http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/61/61rbz407-415.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PresN : how nice of you to make a new map!! But am afraid, you missed a few sites, where Fishing Cat has been recorded. Can you add them to the map?? Most coords are provided in the refs, but let me know if you need any. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right, I did; I was only adding the "Extant" spots and not the "Possibly Extant" spots, but I missed a few small ones in India and near the mountains. Not sure they'll be very visible at normal scales, but I'll give it a shot tonight. --PresN 13:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 'possibly extant' ones are not that important. Nice would be, if you can add sites with records like the Chotiari Dam area in Pakistan: 26°09′51″N 69°00′15″E / 26.164275°N 69.004096°E / 26.164275; 69.004096; Ranthambore NP in India and the sites in the Nepal and Indian Terai. Am going to add a few new ones in Thailand, where you missed the Khao Sam Roi Yot NP. Perhaps you can split the map into 2 parts, one for Indian subcontinent and the other for Southeast Asia, showing from Myanmar to Cambodia ?? --

I've added the missing parts according to the IUCN map, and reuploaded as a larger version so that they can actually be seen. --PresN 02:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

From various secondary sources, I have found recently that fishing cat is classified as Endangered not vulnerable. Anyone please confirm and change its status.

• Heba Aisha the IUCN Red List website still currently says vulnerable here (21 June 2016). If you have any more recent reliable sources I suggest you list them here for people to review. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The IUCN status is Vulnerable, which is one of their three threatened categories, along with Endangered and Critically Endangered. Is it possible that the other sources are using endangered as a general description (=IUCN threatened) rather than referring specifically to the IUCN category? The fishing cat is "endangered" in a general sense, but not "Endangered" according to IUCN criteria (note cases). —  Jts1882 | talk  15:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible is also that these various secondary sources are websites that have not been updated since 2016. I've seen a blog referring to the outdated status. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]