Talk:Bobcat/Archive 1

3rd Paragraph needs work

The third paragraph is a bit confusing and possibly should have some references; anyone care to rework it? Please clarify how a comeback can be "slight but big", it sounds like an oxymoron. The spelling, grammar, capitalization, etc also is a bit below par. The core idea definitely seems to be interesting if it is true and can be expressed in a slightly more polished manner. Third paragraph: "The bobcat has made slight but a big comeback in the midwest. In places like illinois were its made a slow comeback. Range has been spreading north were the bobcat used to only thrive in Shawnee National Forest. In Indiana it is very rare." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.135 (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population

Question why are they called Bobcats, why the "Bob"?

Answer: Because Bobcats' tails are "bobbed".

Block quote

POPULATION:

Approximately 725,000 to 1,020,000 bobcats remain in the wild.

European Lynx

How is this animal related to the Lynx which lives in the European Alps? --Hirzel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hirzel (talk • contribs) 13:18, 14 June 2003 UTC.

Picture

The first picture (on the right above the box) is a good, old household type cat, specifically a grey tabby. Prehaps a picture of a bobcat should go in its place. Johnwhunt 23:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, but that is definitely a bobcat. Notice the very black, very small tuft of hair on top of the ears, the small beard on the left jaw (though not clear on the right), the reddish color of the cat's knee and on the inside of the leg and the chest (barely visible) the white fur. Tabbys especially greys do not have color changes anywhere occuring during their bodies and all species of lynx have white fur on their chest down to their bellies and on the insides of their legs. Take my word, it's a bobcat- I used to be a furrier and I've seen bobcat, Canadia lynx and Russian lynx pelts- though not Eurasians.--Dcrasno (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Does anyone know if the bobcat can interbreed with a domestic cat? Or are the species too different? Lord Sephiroth 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty unlikely see this discussion: http://www.exoticcatz.com/sphybridsbobcat.html --Counsel 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tail Length

I recall reading an article sometime 2-5 years ago about the bobcat tail gradually lengthening since Europeans first came to the continent. This is interesting because it has implications for why the lynx family has comparatively short tails in the first place. Unfortunately, I didn't copy the article at the time and have been unable to locate it since. Does anyone have information either about the article or its substance? Thanks. Robert J. Thomas 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about this question too, though I am skeptical about it. It almost smacks of Lamarkism, but it is conceivable that human habitat pressures / predation could have some effect. Hu 18:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Site Link

Updated the "Bobcats Fan Site" link (it moved domain)

GA Review

I have reviewed the nomination for this article to be added as a Good Article. It's very well written and meets just about all of the criteria. However, just one small set of edits needs to be finished: One criteria for good article is that it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Please review the manual of style for numbers and dates, found at WP:MOSNUM. There is some inconsistency with units of measures (metric converted to English, and vice versa), plus not all units are spelled out. It's a bit of a nitpick, but it's the only thing that I see preventing it from being promoted. The article does rely somewhat heavily on one source, but that's the kind of thing that will only come up if you decide to improve it to FA status. I'll keep an eye on the article and put the GA nomination on hold to give you some time to make those adjustments. Good luck and feel free to contact me with questions. Neil916 (Talk) 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has my recent edit satisfied this requirement? I am sure that km and m don't need to be spelled out as kilometer and meter, but I'm equally sure that "lb" or "lbs" or "lb." should be spelled out as pounds. Hu 23:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, I made some additional changes of things that were missed. Good job ona well-written article. Neil916 (Talk) 23:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the non-breaking spaces for tieing units to the measurements. Thanks, and thanks for supporting the Good Article nomination. Hu 00:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a vandalism on the page that needs to be fixed: Under "physical description" it says: "In appearance the bobcat is quite similar to the Canada Lynx but is usually significantly stupider. In color they are mostly stupid to grayish brown, but can vary." The two instances of "Stupid" should be something else but I don't know what the correct info is. Just had to report this. Indexer, newbie to Wiki 08:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well thanks wikipedia

thanks to u i waz able to write my essay!!! so i appreciatye it dearly!!! thanks truley from me kaylin a 7th grader who loves BOBCATS!!! okay thats all bye again thanks!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.96.169 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Large deer" + other

Not sure about this. To begin with, the deer are a family, and a "large" member would mean, say, a moose, which I very much doubt a Bobcat can kill. Or are adult ("large") white and mule deer meant? Even here, I'd be impressed. Can we get a specific cite and maybe a quote? Marskell 20:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you bring it up perhaps large is the wrong word. The claim is from Whitaker (p. 494), though he implies adult deer ("bobcats and lynx are indeed capable of killing full-grown deer, though they seldom do except...") The context I used it in was merely establishing that they hunt prey of a wide range of sizes, but it should still probably be changed for accuracy. The survival section which you also mentioned is based mostly on the Feldhamer reference which is where the tracking stats come from, I'll add the note to the previous paragraphs as well. Thanks. --Chroniclev 05:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've answered my own question, with the new article abstract cited. I just left it as plain "deer" in the intro. Marskell 09:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, are all of the physical numbers taken from Cahalane? The first sentence has the cite but not the rest. Thx for taking care of the other fact requests. Marskell 09:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home range + seasons

Three papers suggesting home ranges vary little or not at all with seasons.[1][2][3] To this point, it's the only thing I've found that directly contradicts, rather than slightly varies from, what was on the page. Marskell 18:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll change it, though it's curious how specific the source was in giving changes in range size seasonally. My understanding is it may vary a lot by location, but your three sources should probably be taken over this, which I think cites only one study on this topic. --Chroniclev 03:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than suppressing your specific info, I rendered the point uncertain:

"Reports on seasonal variation in range size have been equivocal. One study found a large variation in male range sizes, from 16 square miles (41 km2) in summer up to 40 square miles (100 km2) in winter;[citation needed] other research in a various American states, however, has shown little or no seasonal variation."

Note the fact flag. I also tagged the sentence about males tolerating overlap, because it might surprise people. Marskell 09:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excess detail?

I removed the following as over-specific: "There have been several accounts in Delaware and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania of encounters with Bobcats. Many sightings have been in suburban areas with large undeveloped plots of land with uninterrupted access along undeveloped stretches of creeks. These areas are only 20-30 miles from Philadelphia."

I'm not especially bothered if people want to keep it in. (But do source it.) Marskell 08:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for future ref

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:xCn9H22ueHsJ:www.cites.org/eng/cop/13/prop/E13-P05.pdf+Deletion+of+Bobcat+Lynx+rufus+from+Appendix+II+CITES+CoP&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca

To-Do?

Looking good. Thinking about comprehensiveness...I always wondered why it was called a Bobcat and there is nothing in the article about the etymology of the name. Also is there any native American legend/folklore about it? We did a bit of this in Common Raven and I like getting some aboriginal lore etc in Australian animals too. I'd just place material in the Taxonomy section and make it Taxonomy and name or something. I can hunt around for this if no-one else wants to.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's named for its tail, apparently, which physical characteristics mentions. We can hunt around for mythology. Other last to-dos: spruce up reproduction and edit the lead to increase coverage but reduce over-specifics. I also want to exhaust a google scholar search on Lynx rufus. Marskell 11:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to make of [this]....sorta folklorey but weird....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and [this]...

Bit of stuff about Bob Cat Medicine [here]. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could try and add "The Sedona Indians of Arizona believe the natural characteristics of the animal are amplified in people who (???) - eg Bob Cat Medicine allows perception of secrets and hidden things." (?) Not really my area this cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The Sedonaexperience does not look like it meets RS, and the scouts page is iffy. Here's one.[4] Marskell 15:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice story - I can imagine there's some literature out there just its too esoteric to have made it online. I'll leave a note on the WP Native American page..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few things on mythology. Most of the stories simply refer to it as the lynx, though you can infer from location it means the bobcat. The best source from what I can find seems to be Claude Lévi-Strauss' Histoire de Lynx. I'll try to add some stuff from it later, or when I can. --Chroniclev 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Chroniclev. I'm muddling about in photoshop making a range map. With that and this new section, we'll have a very complete page. Marskell 11:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but "in many variations, is found in the native cultures of both North and South America". Do you mean Central or Mesoamerica? Or is there another cat spoken of in South America along the same lines? Marskell 11:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that. It does say South America but spends most time on North American tales and simply says that parallels have been recorded in South American cultures, so they may not be native (records are generally obscure). Also, the second paragraph on tracks and the one claim on hunting I can't answer for, although I'll see if I can rewrite the former if there is no source for it. --Chroniclev 18:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rm'ed the one sentence from hunting, which was partly redundant anyway (that it's a good climber is rightly sourced, I think?). Range map added. The para on tracks has specific numbers, so we do need a source. We'll also need to make another pass through mythology, but otherwise I think this is Featured article ready. Nice! Marskell 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, to add one thing again, we should also be very careful with taxonomy. This has come up on both my cat FACs. With good reason, because it's "hard" science. Is Fire Effects Information System an appropriate source here? What's the book about? Marskell 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done on the map. Fire Effects Information System is a publication from the US Dept of Agricultural, so it's in the public domain (pp. 83-92). I'll let you decide...however it seems that source has become redundant by other sources for taxonomy. Anyway my main reference on that info was Zielinski. --Chroniclev 03:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think at one point half the cats out there were classified in Felis. I've added one extra source for the info. All I get googling "directly registers" is wiki-mirrors. Marskell 09:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/tracks1.pdf - for directly registers. I'll add it in later. Marskell 14:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think we're good on tracks, after edits today. Marskell 17:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that length and weight primarily is noted in SI units (kg and m), and secondarily in feet and pounds (the opposite of the current scheme). Even though this species main habitat is North America, Wikipedia is an internationally used tool and the metric system is standard in most parts of the world (of course with the notable exception, the US). I consider this to be a primarily cosmetic change, but nonetheless, it makes the article easier to read for e.g. a European (the cats habitat might justify the current layout though). --Gandoon 13:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be possible to work this in somehow: http://www.xkcd.com/325/ (-: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.228.6 (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking + very last to-dos

I have decided not to blue link place names at the level of country/continent. I'd been thinking of this for a while, but have never systematically done so. I can imagine a non-North American following a link to Iowa to find out where it is, but I doubt anyone needs to follow a link to Mexico or Canada on a page of this sort. Marskell 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The nose of the Bobcat is pinkish-red, and has a base color on its face, sides, and back as gray, yellowish, or brownish-red"--I find this sentence hard to decipher. Base colour meaning skin colour? Marskell 11:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I assumed it meant skin color from its context (after nose color), but it may mean the base of the coat (?). It seems to be its own term in any case, but I can't find what it refers to. --Chroniclev 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yea, I'm generally a minimalist with wikilinking ;) --Chroniclev 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization?

Is there a reason that the word "Bobcat" is capitalized throughout the article? Shouldn't it be lower-case in most circumstances? MrCheshire 02:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of species common names is incorrect and has been reviewed several times in WP:FAC and WP:MOS; It should not be capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence. Bugguyak 13:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Why is "Bobcat" always capitalized? --Yvesnimmo 02:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions and capitalization of species was and has been seriously reviewed several times at WP:FAC and WP:MOS; others can explain the reasoning, but please don't change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Doosan Infracore donated to Wikipedia? Gene Nygaard 06:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been thoroughly vandalized, given the nature of the new content and this being a featured article.. someone with more know how might wanna fix it and ban whomever edited it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.47.237 (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merely added lower case letters for "bobcat". I believe that reflects proper Wikipedia grammar standards. I did not know that represents vandalism. I apologize if I accidentally contributed to vandalism. CVW (Talk) 12:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CAPS says that common names should not be capitalized except at the beginning of a sentance. This article is still incorrect. Bugguyak (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, other articles are also incorrect in this regard, e.g., Common Pheasant. I am not clear about the history of this, so I will investigate before I start correcting such articles. TableManners (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go read WP:BIRD. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BIRD approach to other fauna was supported in the discussions in July and August that led to the WP:MOS language. It was recognized that "For specific groups of organisms, there are specific rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms." The common names of birds are specifically listed as an exception along those lines. Those who want to use uppercase for mammals are the ones that need to show "current and historic usage" supports their views and find consensus at WP:MAM, like how birders got it by showing that authoritative sources of their specific group of organisms. Not a single one of the sources I've looked at that could be plausibly cited as a strong reference has supported uppercase. Right now lowercase is Wikipedia consensus style on this topic. There is no justification for reverts.Bugguyak (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ornithology convention on common names of birds does not apply here.Bugguyak (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. He asked about Common Pheasant. 2. the logic hold sound weather or not it's a bird or not. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just did, and requested a citation. This explains bird, but why Bobcat? Bobcats have no wings:). TableManners (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a logical stance. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not logical. Let us look to similar pages for consensus such as Talk:Cougar#Consensus_on_capitalization --Bugguyak (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's logical. You dont' have to like it, but it's logical: capitalizing species common name elevates it to a proper noun and distinguishes 'red squirrel', which could be any squirrel with red fur, from 'Red Squirrel', a distinct species. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalization_of_common_names_of_species for a more current discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. It is still incorrect and against established convention. You have been out voted on this issue on other mammal article discussion pages. Your reverts are not justified here either. Even your example red squirrel is not capitalized if you would have bothered to look at the article. Bugguyak (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement and layout

All of this can be found in various sections of the Wikipedia manual of style, found at WP:MOS.

I'll repeat it here for convenience.

Image placement

There are two principles when deciding whether to place an image to the left or right of the page:

If the image has a direction, make it face into the page
Where possible, alternative between left and right placement

Always consider whether the position of an image can be changed - does it necessarily have to go in that position in the text? Can an image be omitted to allow placement to alternate?

Image size

Images should not be different sizes unless there is a strong reason for it, because it will make the layout choppy, and thus more difficult and less pleasant to read. If necessary, crop an image to focus on the important part (e.g. tall grass image in this article should be cropped and then displayed at a smaller size).

Sections and headers

Again, two principles:

Avoid orphan sections (I'll explain)
Avoid making sections for single paragraphs

Orphan sections are where only a single subsection is contained in a section. This offers no differentiation between chunks of text (which is the purpose of having headings in the first place!) and only makes the table of content difficult to read. In situations such as these, it makes sense to either raise the subsection to the level of section, or, if the heading is not particularly informative, or not essential to navigation in the text, omit it entirely.

Making sections for single paragraphs simply unnecessarily bloats the TOC and should be avoided. FA criteria state this very clearly: "a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming". One common mistake is for editors to try to create hierarchies several levels deep. This also tends to make the whole article less readable and more choppy. The wise man restrains the number of levels in his header structure.

82.71.48.158 15:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYU

Not sure where you want to put this, or if you guys want it in the article at all, but the bobcat is the mascot of New York University. RogueNinja_talk 00:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would belong in the NYU article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Yesterday, I perused and edited the article in order to add lower case letters for "bobcat". That reflects established Wikipedia standards. Apparently, that is considered vandalism. I want to apologize for these possible mistakes. CVW (Talk) 12:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed. Wikipedia will always be substandard until the capitalization debate is over since lower case is correct. Bugguyak (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. Others of us find lowercase to be incorrect, that a species common name is a proper noun. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just my opinion. MOS:CAPS says that common names should not be capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence. This article is still incorrect. Bugguyak (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is opinion. Any fact doesn't need a manual of style, only opinions do. And that section of the MOS is under review for revision. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You For Clearing That Up. I Eagerly Await The Outcome Of The Review. Bugguyak (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this. Is there any real world manual of style that says to capitalize Bobcat everywhere in a sentence? TableManners (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By manual of style, I mean general purpose, not esoteric. TableManners (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobcat as game

I undid this revert as while it might be true that "Some states still don't allow it to be hunted at all..", it is also true that some states (read: more than one) do allow bobcats to be hunted. Various department of natural resources have closed seasons on many game animals from time to time. This search at google indicates that many states allow bobcats to be hunted. Just wanted to justify my revert of the revert. TableManners (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is considered a game animal in most states in the US and is classified as a furbearer with bag limits and seasonal hunting in the western portion of the United States. Bugguyak (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pixie-Bob/American Bobtail

both the Pixie-Bob and American Bobtail are bobcat domestic hybrids —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froperson (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization again

WP:MOS has been clear for quite a long time that "Common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case". This not only is WP:MOS but it's the style of professional science journals, print encyclopedias, dictionaries, style manuals the world round. I've had a string of reverts suddenly for changing the bobcat article (and other cat articles) to this consensus style. And what are the reasons for the reverts? First, UtherSRG says in one edit summary that WP:MOS doesn't "force" the change (Not true: WP:MOS is clearly prefaced at top: "Editors should follow it", and only the rare occasional breach should be necessary). Then he says that WP:BIRD is the reason and that I shouldn't make "large scale changes without consensus". So, in that editor's view.... WP:BIRD forces a non-bird article to be uppercase (although WP:BIRD itself says "In general, these are only suggestions, and you shouldn't feel obligated to follow them"), and using the central repository of all wikipedia consensus on stylistic issues -- WP:MOS -- is grounds for being reverted.

And not only reverted. I was disturbed now to see UtherSRG -- an admin -- has even threatened on his talk page that I need to be "straightened out" because I decided to edit articles to make them match WP:MOS.[5] Huh, what is that suppose to mean?

What is the acceptable number of articles I have permission to edit to sync them with WP:MOS before it is considered "large scale" and therefore in some way an unacceptable volume of edits? Three, ten, one? None?

There are three basic scenarios and edit histories for Felidae articles:

Among most heavily trafficked pages -- tiger, leopard, jaguar, cheetah, cougar -- all fauna are in lowercase because the idea of them being uppercase was rightfully shot down as eccentric and the number of participants involved prevented UtherSRG from enforcing WP:BIRD with reverts, as is his style
Among mid-level articles, there is a sprinkling of sometimes being uppercase sometimes lowercase
Among the more minor pages, UtherSRG reigns instead of WP:MOS and enforces his view with reverts because not as many people are around to see it (for example, ones I've just recently edited like fishing cat‎, rusty-spotted cat, flat-headed cat etc.) And now those who are so WP:BOLD as to consider editing them "need to be straightened out".

Great. Beyazid (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common names are not capitalized. This was hashed out on this article and others before it with UtherSRG. He is wrong. You are following established protocol while Uther is not. I can't beleive he is an admin with poor behavior like you described above. Bugguyak (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this go for article titles as well? (Flat-headed Cat ==> Flat-headed cat.) I don't care either way, but if it changes the article titles (via page moves), the navbox templates will need to be changed, too (fix the redirect). Regards. --Old Hoss (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also go for titles. And others have made efforts like that (see Talk:Snow_Leopard#Move for example) but the same old eccentric and nonsensical enforcement of WP:BIRD comes up with heavy-handed reverts. Beyazid (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! The WikiDrama! Well, if WP:BIRD have their own, why not see if WP:MAMMAL can come to some consensus? I could only find this archived discussion, so maybe it is worth a shot to revisit discussion there at WP:MAMMAL. All I care is for some consistency, one way or the other. Regards. --Old Hoss (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Because other WikiProjects have come to a consensus, but WP:Mammals has yet to reach a consensus, there should be NO ACTION taken to make changes on a contended issue. I am AGAIN restoring the articles to as they were before Beyazid editted them. If you want to make a large change like this, reach consensus first, then make the change. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney, there's no justification for reverting edits that make an article match WP:MOS. WP:MOS is consensus style on wikipedia.

That archived discussion went to a full blown WP:MOS hashing out of the capitalization issue for animals at the end of last year (archived here). The current language in WP:MOS is from the consensus that came out of it and nobody should be slapped with reverts for making edits according to it. The WP:BIRD stance as a model for non-bird articles was acknowledged, discussed, not accepted. There's the flexibility for the situation where: "For specific groups of organisms, there are specific rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms." That's true of birds, where common names often are all capitalized, but isn't true of mammals. The WP:BIRD justification is nonsense. How can you say that "there is no consensus" and then flip it to WP:BIRD style when, a) WP:MOS is consensus, b) WP:BIRD is no sort of default style that is in anyway applicable to a cat article?

And by the way, it's bogus to suggest "reach consensus first, then make the change". As in Talk:Cougar all over again? It just turns into a game where UtherSRG pretends over and over that consensus is never reached, playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT even though it has been. Many multiple editors pointed out caps were wrong there and fixed it intermittently over time (as they have on dozens of articles)... didn't matter, reverted by UtherSRG whenever they came along. More editors come along and eventually a lengthy discussion took place for many pages and the editors seem just about all in agreement ... doesn't matter, UtherSRG continually reverted the numerous people who tried to fix it. A vote takes place over it -- and mind you, WP:MOS is already perfectly clear and the sources are overwhelming that this shouldn't be an issue ... UtherSRG's stance lost 10 to 2 and didn't matter, he continued to revert. The article had to be fully protected for two whole weeks and the episode even went into the hall of fame for lamest edit wars ever -- all based entirely on his adamant, disruptive personal belief in WP:BIRD. Nonsense and WikiDrama you wouldn't believe Old Hoss. I thought getting about to the business of having article match WP:MOS wouldn't be an issue and I think these reverts are utterly inappropriate. Beyazid (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not to be out of line, but I need to have this settled so I don't have to go through all of the templates I'm doing and fix redirects, etc. I went ahead and took the initiative to start a formal discussion here. Let's settle this while we still have our sanity! --Old Hoss (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is something that needs to be taken care of ASAP because it's getting very distracting looking the watchlist and seeing editors going at it. A decision needs to made very soon.Mcelite (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

Centralised discussion

Please all note that an appropriately centralised discussion has been formed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals#Capitalization re-visited. I suggest all discussion nonspecific to bobcats is directed there, in the aid of a more productive, reasoned and followable discussion. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Cohabitation?

In this admittedly unscientific article, is a description of "a family of bobcats ... at least two adults and three kittens":

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-bobcats5-2008sep05,0,5420133.story

There's a photo that looks like it might be a male and female adult, or (female) adult and juvenile from a previous breeding season, lounging together.

This doesn't jive with all the descriptions of the species as solitary.

Is there any documentation of offspring remaining with mothers for multiple seasons, or male care of offspring?

76.201.168.94 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)corny cat story reader[reply]

Deer

Rephrase food range that the largest bobcat individuals (only) are (even) able to take deer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.168.94 (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization redux, ad nauseam

Apparently, the Wikipedia guidelines are consistent with the RULES (these are rules,not guidelines) for capitalization as described in the Chicago Manual of Style and Scientific Style and Format (Council of Scientific Editors) to mention a few, yet some adminstrator continues to revert the much needed corrections to the incorrect use of an initial capital for common names. This insistence on the incorrect and easily refutable capitalization is puzzling. The inability to apply these basic rules of capitalization reflects poorly on the article and Wikipedia.

The use of Canadian Lynx is also incorrect. The correct common name for this organism is Canada lynx. Canada is capitalized as it is a proper noun; lynx is lower case as it it is not. If Wikipedia strives to meet scholarly standards for naming organisms, it should refer to the appropriate code for nomenclature for that taxon. Most major taxa of vertebrates have established common names. Adhering to these in technical usage, which I assume Wikipedia strives to do, ensures we are speaking of the same organism and facilitates managing data on these species.

I came across this article when helping my young nephew write a report on the bobcat. He repeatedly capitalized common names, consistent with the article. This insistence on incorrect capitalization is a huge disservice to children, who are just learning the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lara Avara (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds for the logic behind capitalizing species common names. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals has failed to choose to decide either way, while several mammal subprojects have adopted the usage used at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. Arguing on a specific article is pointless. Instead of arguing with us, why not investigate why Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds makes sense to some people, and does not to others, and use that as a teaching point with your nephew, instead of telling us we're wrong. We have done our research. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raised importance rating

[6] An attempt is made to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.[7]SriMesh | talk 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobcat encounters

So, what does one do if one encounters a bobcat on the trail? I saw a bobcat on a trail in Yosemite National Park last November, up off of Glacier Point, and couldn't remember if protocol was to make myself big, or stay still, or run. The other 2 hikers didn't remember either. Fortunately, the bobcat found something it found more tasty that the 3 of us and pounced before we had to make any big decisions. It does seem that bobcats aren't known for attacking humans, but is there a standard protocol to follow? Like the "make yourself big, make eye contact, make loud noises and DON'T RUN" for mountain lions?98.97.91.198 (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian lynx references

References to Canadian lynx should be changed to Canada lynx. A Canada lynx is a species. A Canadian lynx is any lynx living in Canada. A Bobcat living in Canada would be a Canadian lynx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephendmccloud (talk • contribs) 02:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domestication

The article (like most online sources) makes it very clear bobcats are wild and ferocious animals. At the same time there seems to be an increasing number of succesfully "adopted" bobcats. A search on youtube for example returns at any time at least 20 cases of pet bobcats (and God knows how many cases of owners that don't bother to share videos). While 20 or even 100 is nothing compared to the population of US, could that be an indication bobcats are more tolerant to human interaction & co-habitation than other wild animals (such as wolf, fox, lynx). I wonder if there's any connection between this and bobcat's remarkable adaptability (combined with the aanimal's habitat extending into populated areas). 81.96.127.72 (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]