Talk:Kitten

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cats Portal This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject. 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Responses from RfC Posting 2 Foxes 3 evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet 4 Perceptions of cuteness 5 Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten 6 Cuteness 7 NY Times 8 Perceptions of cuteness 9 news about kittens 10 I FOUND A KITTEN 11 Contradiction? Or perhaps I'm misreading...

[edit] Responses from RfC Posting

(note formatting... similar to VfD... intended to make tabulation easier)

• Remove the evil alien kitten eater. Please remove it! Feco 03:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The age of the kitten in the picture at the top of the page should be changed....that kitten is way older than 6 weeks....probably closer to 12. At 6 weeks the eyes are generally only just opening all the way and are still blue...they don't change color until around the 8th week, and this kitten's eyes are clearly green.

In addition, as a PSA, the very young tan kitten in the developmental section should definitely NOT be out in the open at such a young age (based on the amount of eye openeing...6-7 weeks). At this stage they have not had innoculations (the shots won't take until 8 weeks at the earliest)...unless this was a feral (and byt he condition of the fur, it doesn't look like it), putting it out in the open is a risk to the kitten's health.

---

An interesting article, however somewhat vexed. Do kittens in the wild seek out vetinarians, for example? :-)user:sjc

OK, it's a point. I guess I figured anyone checking up on kittens would likely be involved in looking after them or rescuing them. Maybe more developmental details can be supplied by someone into ethology, and the vet stuff minimized. user:zadcat

The vet stuff, as you mention, is useful. Perhaps we should simply add material about kitten development in the wild - may be separate it out from the Care and Feeding of Domestic Kittens by Devoted Kitten Foster Mommies and Daddies. - montréalais

I like the flying kitten! :) Nevilley

The cat is a domestic animal and MOST kittens are raised in a household with hot and cold running vets... something useful to add in here might be statistics and facts on what happens to feral kittens (death rates etc) because the numbers have got to be very different... KJ

---

What about moving the info about cat kittens to under cat? // Liftarn

---

Here's a pic taken by my neighbor today -- she's agreed to release it under GFDL so use as desired (sorry, that's as large as it gets). One-day old litter of kittens:

---

'Kitty' currently redirects to here. As there are multiple defns of kitty, should it really? --Kesuari 06:52, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Foxes

Aren't baby foxes also called kittens, or just kits? RickK 06:57, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Pups? // Liftarn

[edit] evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet

I'm not really sure this link should be in the 'see also' section. It really has nothing to do with kittens, but with Canadian politics. (I'm posting this comment so the issue is up for discussion, just in case anyone decides to engage in a revert-war) Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Is that actually a serious article? Looked like a hoax to me.

EliasAlucard|Talk 01:48, 21 May, 2005 (UTC)

I think the link should stay. Someone interested in kittens might be interested in that article.- SimonP 00:12, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

The other article is not a hoax ;) - Lucky13pjn 01:32, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a hoax (though it is about Canadian and not British politics). DJ Clayworth 05:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see justification for it being in the 'see also' section, since it's not actually related... maybe a brief mention at the end of the article would suffice? Lachatdelarue (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be linked from the kitten article at all.

EliasAlucard|Talk 14:23, 21 May, 2005 (UTC)

Neither do I, Elias, but other people think it should be, so I'm working for a compromise. Lachatdelarue (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've written it up in a short paragraph in a new Trivia section at the end of the article. Other miscellaneous kitten-related tidbits can go here! Samaritan 05:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay I take your word that it's not a hoax, but what has a politician to do with kittens? Please give me a valid reason, or else I don't think it belongs in the article. And no, I'm not going to read that entire article because I don't find it interesting and a waste of time.

EliasAlucard|Talk 10:41, 22 May, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting or not is irrelevant. Why? Because A) It's not trivia. B) It's not cat/kitten related. C) It's about a politican that was called something as stupid as "evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet". It's an article about politics. Not kittens/cats/animals. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject. It's like putting a George W. Bush trivia section (or in the see also section) in the evil article just because he has been called evil by people who dislike him. It doesn't belong in this article. Period.

EliasAlucard|Talk 21:11, 23 May, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Elias above. Kittens have nothing to do with the political kerfuffle in Canada; it doesn't deserve a mention in this article at all. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

fwiw, it does illustrate how readily and universally Western culture considers kittens cute, and unthinkable as food... Samaritan 19:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I just discovered that Bush in fact was in the evil article :) But anyway, it's still an invalid reason to have that whatever his name is politician in this article, because it's not part of the subject. Bush being evil is an opinion. He has done stuff that can be considered evil. This guy is not an "evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet" and therefore doesn't justifiy a link to his article from this one.

EliasAlucard|Talk 21:20, 23 May, 2005 (UTC)

If we're going to have a link to the masturbation thing, we may as well have the kitten-eater link. Ditch both, or neither. -Joshuapaquin 01:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The masturbation picture, is relatively famous, and it's actually cat-related... well, in a humorous way anyway. The evil reptilian kitten eater however, is just an expression. Aside from that, it's not related to kittens in any way. It was just a retort from some politician, to another politician, and meant in a derogatory way.

EliasAlucard|Talk 03:53, 16 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Well, its inclusion in the article is relevant to Canadians. The politicians in Canada are all evil reptilian kitten eaters. It's a proven fact. :) - Anon

I'm not going to take that seriously. I'll consider it as a joke, because I strongly doubt that Canadians eat kittens and are evil reptile creatures. Sounds too much like V to me.

EliasAlucard|Talk 04:07, 16 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, uh guys, well I'm a new member, anyway i just found a kitten out in the street. I had it for like a week and I thought that maybe wikipedia would help me-- it did. Well that's not my point though. I thought that the discussion would give me more informations related about kitten -- there are. Well anyway as i was reading this page, there are a bunch of stuff that shouldn't be here, because they don't really gives the viewer information. But they're acceptable and fun to read. ---But i was shocked when i found evil reptilian kitten-eater from another plant. I mean how the hell could someone post that up, that is sooo unrelated to kittens. I mean... COMMON.. okay i m pissed thinking about it.. okay? I just want to ask you guys IF you guys want to delete that WHOLE section on reptilian kitten-eater from another plant. Soo would you guys vote to delete it or not.. even though i'm sure that you guys don't want this article here. PLEASE VOTE if you guys vote yes, we will delete this whole section evil reptialian kitten eater. Zhukeeper|Talk 3:19 AM, August 8, 2005

It's not linked from this article anymore, and frankly, I don't care enough about that stupid article to even vote for or against it.

EliasAlucard|Talk 12:27, 08 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is the discussion page\. I just think it is more logical to talk about kittens in the kitten discussion page rather than talk about news or politics. Dont you agree? I mean we shouldn't even be talking about deleting this section on this page in the first place. What I'm saying is that if you want to talk about politics go to the politics discussion page or talk about it in your personal email or instant messager. To perfect wikipedia we need to get rid of the crap. Don't you guys agree? Imagine if you don't know anything about kittens, wouldn't you rather read something in the discussion page related to kittens than people socializing? When i opened the discussion page, I thought that you guys were discussing about kittens and your first hand experiences with them. Look if you guys want to socialize. Please just use your email. Zhukeeper|Talk

Well said, Zhukeeper. I perfectly agree with you. EliasAlucard|Talk 05:24, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks EliasAlucard for your response. We'll delete the "craps" in this page by the end of August. Okay? Maybe I should try to make a website just for Wikipedia chatting or something. Thank you for reading this. Zhukeeper|Talk 8:33PM August 8, 2005(GMT)

I don't think this needs to be deleted, we can archive it though, in case anyone would ever bring up the reptilian kitten eater article as a link, from the kitten article, we can clearly direct them to consensus, and not go through the hassle again. Also, please sign your messages, in order to not confuse them with anon users.

EliasAlucard|Talk 12:55, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't argue about deleting this section anymore it is the "discussion page" -- I'm just trying to say that members should post USEFUL things in the discussion page, rather than socializing like what we are doing right now. But then--whatever-- as long as the actual article don't contain things like evil reptilian-eater, I wouldn't complain anymore. I'm sorry if i did anything wrong, it wasn't intentional, I just forgot how to sign my signature on wiki--I'm not that bright as you can see. I just noticed yesterday that you need to sign on to leave your signature. Please forgive me for being ignorant-- I'm a newbie at this. you're the first guy,EliasAlucard, that i've talked to in wiki -- thanks for all your time, willing contributers.I'm absolutely in love with Wikipedia. If Wikipedia was a women -- I WOULD MARRY HER... Zhukeeper--Zhukeeper 08:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh ,hey, I added some detail about kitten eye development. I deleted one sentence in paragraph one and added a paragraph about eye developement for kitten. It is under kitten development, second paragraph, "Kitten open their eye..... far more acute." Well, the rules said to cite the information and stuff so yeah... I copied this paragraph from http://www.purina.ca/cats/kittens.asp?article=127 Please tell me if I did something wrong....... (This is my first time editing an actual article.)

If you're okay with it EliasAlucard, I would like to copy this http://www.purina.ca/cats/kittens.asp?article=236 and place it in the article. Is it a violation to copy parts of webpages? Oh, there's a lot of info about kitten in http://www.purina.ca/cats/kittens.asp Please reply. Thank you--Zhukeeper 07:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel so lonely, EliasAlucard.............................19 September 2006 ZhuKeeper

This topic really upsets me because my kitten was eaten by an alien once. I think you should think before you just go posting something because it "sounds funny." In the future, please be more considerate of others on the WEB. Clearly, you have never had a pet kitten because otherwise you would never have posted this.

[edit] Perceptions of cuteness

I am ambivalent about the old meme reference in this section that the below poster complains about. However, I do have a real criticism:

The line "here are good evolutionary reasons to expect humans to find juvenile humans, and perhaps juvenile animals in general, cute." should definitly either expound on the alluded-to "good reasons", or at the least link to somewhere in wikipedia where these reasons are enumerated and explained.

-B. McGraw (not logged in)

---

I think the whole perceptions of cuteness section should be removed to improve the focus of the article. What things people find cute and possible reasons for that is an interesting question, but it is an anthropological question and serves only to muddle this article.

In any case, the "Every time you masturbate..." joke should be removed. It was popular among internet humorists for a while, but not really worthy of note outside of its own article; also, it is an off color joke and goes completely against the tone of the rest of the article.

Any thoughts?

Hey.. i was looking for imformation on how to take care of abandoned kittens and came acrossed the discussion board.. i cant believe like a page was devoted to whether or not an article should linked on the page.. who really cares... i hope yas rnt losing sleep over it...(n)... i dunt mean to sound like a biotch... but its boring to read about all the complaints... and the point of the board is to write about cats/kittens.. atleast thats what the impression i got .. could b wrong though (anon)

The reference to the "Every time you masturbate..." joke should be removed. It does nothing to enhance the article. And every time some kid looks up kitten on wikipedia, a parent has to answer questions about masturbation. It's offensive, if nothing else. Wabazana 07:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• In response to the first anon, this page is actually for discussion on how the article can be improved. Some off-topic comments are usually tolerated but long discussion threads are generally seen as disruptive.
• In response to Wabazana, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. However, I do agree that this particular reference is a bit of a systemic bias towards nerdy references. I've boldly changed it to refer to Hello Kitty (which was already in 'see also'), which I think we can agree is going to be more familiar to the average reader. --Last Malthusian 09:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Lovely though it is, is "perceptions of cuteness" really encyclopaedic? Rsynnott 17:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting. It's written in a neutral point of view. And as regards verifiability, if 'kittens are cute' isn't common knowledge, then I don't know what is. So yes, I for one think it's encyclopaedic. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten

Since a link in 'See also...' to Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten has been inserted and reverted at least twice each now, can we get a quick survey on whether editors feel it should be in or not before this gets any more heated?

• Myself, I honestly don't care. Abstain. --Malthusian (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Renesis has persuaded me otherwise. Remove. --Malthusian (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's a major cultural phenomenon relevant to the kitten's percieved cuteness/innocence and popularity with humans. While I don't object to the replacement with Hello Kitty in the text, I think it still deserves mention. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove I don't care whether the article exists or not, but it certainly isn't relevant to "Kitten". Link to kitten from the article, but no reason to link the other way.

1. People researching kittens are not likely to find anything on Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten relevant.
2. There is only one editor fighting to keep it.
3. That editor has reverted removal of the link, saying "If you're going to remove it, come up with a better reason than thinking it's 'silly'." That is a good reason. Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia of Silliness
4. Even if it was relevant, it's not relevant in the context of the current content of the article. If there was references to every use of "kitten" in the world it would be fine to list it there. But, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Once again, editors who have added or reverted removal of this link are not taking into consideration that, while the article itself may be notable or encyclopoedic and should link to Kitten, the reverse is not true: the article is not relevant in the context of the subject Kitten anymore than it is relevant in the context of the subject Internet. -- Renesis13 18:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I say Keep or place it in an article or section about Kittens in Popular Culture.-RomeW 07:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Just adding here after more than half a year, because there was a link relating to this in the article again. Definitely remove, as I concur with Renesis13. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 01:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuteness

This article has a problem with people vandalising it, stating how cute they find our pictures. May I humbly request that someone find pictures of uglier kittens to stem these unseemly outbursts. --Malthusian (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• So it's a copyvio. Guess that solves that. Poor kitten... --Malthusian (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if the fat kitten was at the top? I don't think that's one's too cute. Or cute at all, really. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but a) it looks a bit weird, b) we'd have nothing to illustrate the 'Cuteness' bit. Maybe we could use another one from the Commons? This one and this one in particular are criminally cute. I would have uploaded one myself last night, but couldn't figure out whether you could link directly to images on Commons or whether you had to upload them to Wikipedia as well. --Malthusian (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The fat kitten was taken off a site called ratemykitten.com. According to his owner, his name is "Earnest T. Bass" and there are several more pictures of him as a kitten and an adult cat on the site (just search "Earnest"). I'm not sure the uploader knows this. ~ Hibana 00:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that I know his name I feel bad about making fun of him. Poor Earnest... -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the first picture. Anyone who feels particularly strongly that the ginger was cuter, feel free to revert, this would look bloody silly at WP:RFC :-). I almost think it would be a good idea if we used this priceless picture of Earnest with his mother at the top of the 'Birth and development' section, and used a different one in 'Cuteness', but a) I don't know if all the pictures on ratemykitten.com are public domain (as the one we have of Earnest supposedly is) and b) he does look really, really stupid in that one, and we all know how embarrassing it is when our mothers show friends what we looked like when we were young. --Malthusian (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a party pooper, leave the cute kittens alone!

[edit] NY Times

I read a Times article about cuteness the other day, it was really good but I lost the link. Does anyone have a subscription to NYT online? It mentioned penguins and a baby panda, among other things. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perceptions of cuteness

I have removed this section. I am not sure that it does not present an entirely Eurocentric view, nor can I see that it is sourced sufficiently well so as to be reliable. If anyone can rewrite the material in a way suited to an encyclopedia entry, by all means try, but I am unconvinced that the subtopic has encyclopedic merit. —Encephalon 12:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it seems fairly irrelevant to me and (while kittens may be popular worldwide) it seems a bit like point of view/original research, as it's offering opinions as to why they're "cute" (perhaps that'd be better explained on the page for cute? Someone appears to have reverted the change for no apparent reason, too.

Additionally, in the section on caring I feel the sentence "Humans can NEVER replace momma cat." is somewhat defensive, and feels out of place on an Encyclopedia, particularly along with the US colloquialism "momma". While it's an important point, something based on the preceding sentence, like "It is best to leave a kitten with it's mother if at all possible, as humans generally cannot replace a queen" is perhaps better. ElectricSkrill 11:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] news about kittens

should there be an article about some thing that happens to kittens in the paper or something like, Kitten's Head Ripped-Off In Argument

A Metro East, Illinois man is accused of yanking the head off of his girlfriend's kitten during an argument.

Madison County prosecutors charged 21-year-old Jacob Thornton of Bethalto with felony animal torture Friday [August 4], a week after he killed his live-in girlfriend's kitten.

During the argument, authorities say, the girlfriend left the apartment with her son but returned to find the headless kitten in the front lawn.

The kitten was eight- to 12-weeks-old.

Thornton's bail was set at $30,000. The charge carries a possible five-year-prison sentence

No more than we cover individual murder cases in the article human. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can find no reference about requesting removal of comments, but to me this anonymous comment is a thinly-disguised attempt to troll and upset. The question makes no sense and is in itself barely an excuse to post the graphic details of the incident. If anyone knows the correct way to remove, it's a request from me. TygerTyger 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. It seems a legitimate question, even if the answer is 'no', and the most 'graphic' part of the article is the word 'yank', which isn't very. I think we should assume good faith in this case. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I FOUND A KITTEN

I found a kitten and my mum wouldn't let me keep it any ideas how to persuade her?

Probably the best way to try to convince her to let you keep the kitten would be to indicate that you would be willing to do most of the work involved in keeping the kitten. This means cleaning up the litter box as needed, making sure the kitten has enough food and water, and that sort of thing. Even that might not work, though. It's possible that the place where you live has restrictions on whether or not you are allowed to have pets. I know lots of places have those sorts of rules. You might ask her why she told you that you couldn't keep the kitten. If you can't keep the kitten, it would probably be a good idea to take it to the nearest animal shelter. There it has a much better chance of remaining healthy and having someone else adopt it. Good luck, in any event. Badbilltucker 14:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction? Or perhaps I'm misreading...

In the last sentence of the introduction, it's stated that a group of domesticated kittens is called a "kindle." Exactly one sentence later, we read about a "litter" of kittens. Is "kindle" widely used? Joyous! | Talk 22:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A litter is a group of kittens who were all born at the same time to the same mother. A kindle is any group of kittens. -- Vary | Talk 22:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)