![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I want to point out that catnip is listed as toxic for cat by the ASPCA https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/animal-poison-control/toxic-and-non-toxic-plants/catnip
This page states that about 2 out of 3 are affected, while this page states 75%. Nearyan ( talk) 16:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
sum1 is fukken lyin... >.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.107.138 ( talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
60.242.139.185 ( talk) 14:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
This page is now inconsistent with itself. The second sentence of the Pharmacology section states the number at 50%. Later, it states that "About two thirds of cats are susceptible to catnip." Both are sourced. How about we change it to "half to two thirds?" 75.72.93.99 ( talk) 13:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Where does plant exists? Asia, Europe, Australia? (unsigned edit from IP address 110.171.169.40)
For example, this article vaguely states that catnip is used to treat "several" human illnesses without specifying anything it's used for, its mechanism, etc. The section on cultivation is a single sentence on a particular variant; it has no useful information about this variant or actual cultivation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.155.181 ( talk) 06:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Section "Repellent" popularises a conclusion of the research in reference 13 that catnip is nearly 10 times more effective at repelling mosquitoes than DEET. The article would be improved if this statement is omitted and reader pointed to the reference itself and encouraged to make their own conclusions which can be very different from what authors of this research have chosen to publish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branko0721 ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that the final sentence of the article is unclear: Domestic house cats who do not react to catnip will react in a similar way to Tartarian honeysuckle sawdust
Does this mean that cats who don't react to catnip also don't react to the sawdust? So what? Cats that don't react to catnip also don't react to changes in sea level, or the phase of the moon. In fact, there are lots of things that cats who don't react to catnip also don't react to, so why is honeysuckle sawdust different? Or did it mean to say that cats who DO react to catnip ALSO react to Tartarian honeysuckle sawdust? In which case, why not say so directly? Mandolamus ( talk) 00:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Catnip – Just to be fair, I let my cat decide. Two piles of fresh from the garden Nepeta cataria, separated by ten feet. One was brightly labeled Nepeta cataria, the other Catnip. The cat went to the Catnip pile first, but with a bit of a redirect, the cat was still able to find the Nepeta cataria pile. WP:COMMONNAME Mike Cline ( talk) 12:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Nepeta cataria →
Catnip –
WP:COMMONNAME is a policy that states that Wikipedia subjects should be titled under the name by which they are most frequently known rather than their technical names. This policy includes a preference for common names over scientific ones (when a common name exists, as it does here). I looked and saw no significant discussion about the previous move of this article away from "catnip", so am now requesting that it be moved back there. Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk) 11:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
KDS4444
Talk
01:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
if any common name exists, it should be used instead of the scientific name. Regarding splitting, it's often a great way to produce decent content forks. It works best on articles where there is so much info on cultivars, cultivation, production, nutrition, etc. that it overwhelms botanical information. It may have been a fine decision to merge scallop/ Pectinidae, but the WP:FLORA guideline represents consensus on this option for plants. It's certainly possible that consensus has changed in the time since it was last discussed, so I encourage you to open a discussion about it on the talk page of the guideline. Rkitko ( talk) 02:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
that Mike Cline just dropped one of the greatest closures of a requested move, ever. Random person perusing this talk page in 2019 or whenever--go back and read that move closure again. It's good. Red Slash 01:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Some cats do and some cats don't, yep. And some like it but don't seek it while others hunt it out avidly. Some cats are so intensely drawn to it that growing the plant requires protection. An herb farm I worked on had a farm cat that would dig plants up all along the main farm road where it was self seeding. Where the farmer was growing his main crop he had it protected. Later, in our home garden we found that we had to grow the catnip under a wire mesh screen so that the plant was not crushed or even dug out. In time we replaced it with other Nepeta less attractive to cats, such as Nepeta racemosa -- we were more interested in the butterflies and bees drawn in.
While my note here is "original research", somebody is bound to have written about successful cultivation when cats won't leave catnip plants alone.
A separate question -- as an inherited trait, when a digger cat breeds with a don't care cat, which trait dominates, and how much intergrade is there?
GeeBee60 ( talk) 13:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that discussion of other plants that affect cats is not suitable for the lead of the article. The article is about catnip, it's not about "what attracts cats". It's not so bad within the article body (although a bit questionable), but is really going off on a tangent within the lead. Thoughts anyone? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not "fine." Escape_Orbit is correct, though I'd take it further: the article is an attractive coatrack for increasingly tenuous factoids (FFI: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles). It's become something on the order of
The entire article is <18K — even with four illustrations! — yet the "catnip alternatives" nonsense is spelled out THREE times. The depth is oversell that points up the fanboy fetish for trivia. Because catnip is so unusual, the article probably should go to that third tier (particularly because of the name), but any further runs into undue weight and jargon.
In an ideal world, there'd maybe be an article like
Feline hallucinogens. Until that happy day, any such detail is cat-related trivia, and therefore belongs (if anywhere) in
Felidae and/or
Cat — certainly NOT here.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
02:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree somewhat. Furthermore, the aside that "alternative plants exist which attract the other one-third" is misleading, as it suggests that all cats that don't respond to catnip can respond to the alternatives. Based on the paper cited, this is not true. The paper simply gives proportions of cats that respond to different stimulants. They do not say anywhere that there are no cats that do not respond to any of the stimulants. A simple statement that "alternative stimulants exist" would be better in my opinion. Secondus2 ( talk) 12:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
this section implies theres SOME effect as it says catnip fell out of use (as a human medicine) with the invention of more available drugs. only it fails to ever mention WHAT effect.
also it actually says it was used for a bunch of (undisclosed) things, but this is not the same as having (a bunch of) effects.
at the same time, while the section specifically dedicated to the effect on humans contains no information on this topic, the lede does mention two effects. perhaps better to a) move them from the lede to the section dedicated to them, or b) delete the section as useless and leave the relevant info in the lede. 89.134.199.32 ( talk) 21:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC).
Just starting this as a section following recent edits. Firstly to point out that the content in question, alternatves to catnip for cat consumptions, has indeed been questioned and removed before, as this talk page makes evident. A compromise has been reached before, but it still remains a problematic inclusion. My take is;
I would therefore suggest it should be removed. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
tqb}}
blocks for comparison. Probably would need that for an RfC anyway, though I doubt one of those would be needed to resolve this. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
12:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I want to point out that catnip is listed as toxic for cat by the ASPCA https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/animal-poison-control/toxic-and-non-toxic-plants/catnip
This page states that about 2 out of 3 are affected, while this page states 75%. Nearyan ( talk) 16:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
sum1 is fukken lyin... >.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.107.138 ( talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
60.242.139.185 ( talk) 14:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
This page is now inconsistent with itself. The second sentence of the Pharmacology section states the number at 50%. Later, it states that "About two thirds of cats are susceptible to catnip." Both are sourced. How about we change it to "half to two thirds?" 75.72.93.99 ( talk) 13:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Where does plant exists? Asia, Europe, Australia? (unsigned edit from IP address 110.171.169.40)
For example, this article vaguely states that catnip is used to treat "several" human illnesses without specifying anything it's used for, its mechanism, etc. The section on cultivation is a single sentence on a particular variant; it has no useful information about this variant or actual cultivation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.155.181 ( talk) 06:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Section "Repellent" popularises a conclusion of the research in reference 13 that catnip is nearly 10 times more effective at repelling mosquitoes than DEET. The article would be improved if this statement is omitted and reader pointed to the reference itself and encouraged to make their own conclusions which can be very different from what authors of this research have chosen to publish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branko0721 ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that the final sentence of the article is unclear: Domestic house cats who do not react to catnip will react in a similar way to Tartarian honeysuckle sawdust
Does this mean that cats who don't react to catnip also don't react to the sawdust? So what? Cats that don't react to catnip also don't react to changes in sea level, or the phase of the moon. In fact, there are lots of things that cats who don't react to catnip also don't react to, so why is honeysuckle sawdust different? Or did it mean to say that cats who DO react to catnip ALSO react to Tartarian honeysuckle sawdust? In which case, why not say so directly? Mandolamus ( talk) 00:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Catnip – Just to be fair, I let my cat decide. Two piles of fresh from the garden Nepeta cataria, separated by ten feet. One was brightly labeled Nepeta cataria, the other Catnip. The cat went to the Catnip pile first, but with a bit of a redirect, the cat was still able to find the Nepeta cataria pile. WP:COMMONNAME Mike Cline ( talk) 12:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Nepeta cataria →
Catnip –
WP:COMMONNAME is a policy that states that Wikipedia subjects should be titled under the name by which they are most frequently known rather than their technical names. This policy includes a preference for common names over scientific ones (when a common name exists, as it does here). I looked and saw no significant discussion about the previous move of this article away from "catnip", so am now requesting that it be moved back there. Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk) 11:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
KDS4444
Talk
01:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
if any common name exists, it should be used instead of the scientific name. Regarding splitting, it's often a great way to produce decent content forks. It works best on articles where there is so much info on cultivars, cultivation, production, nutrition, etc. that it overwhelms botanical information. It may have been a fine decision to merge scallop/ Pectinidae, but the WP:FLORA guideline represents consensus on this option for plants. It's certainly possible that consensus has changed in the time since it was last discussed, so I encourage you to open a discussion about it on the talk page of the guideline. Rkitko ( talk) 02:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
that Mike Cline just dropped one of the greatest closures of a requested move, ever. Random person perusing this talk page in 2019 or whenever--go back and read that move closure again. It's good. Red Slash 01:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Some cats do and some cats don't, yep. And some like it but don't seek it while others hunt it out avidly. Some cats are so intensely drawn to it that growing the plant requires protection. An herb farm I worked on had a farm cat that would dig plants up all along the main farm road where it was self seeding. Where the farmer was growing his main crop he had it protected. Later, in our home garden we found that we had to grow the catnip under a wire mesh screen so that the plant was not crushed or even dug out. In time we replaced it with other Nepeta less attractive to cats, such as Nepeta racemosa -- we were more interested in the butterflies and bees drawn in.
While my note here is "original research", somebody is bound to have written about successful cultivation when cats won't leave catnip plants alone.
A separate question -- as an inherited trait, when a digger cat breeds with a don't care cat, which trait dominates, and how much intergrade is there?
GeeBee60 ( talk) 13:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that discussion of other plants that affect cats is not suitable for the lead of the article. The article is about catnip, it's not about "what attracts cats". It's not so bad within the article body (although a bit questionable), but is really going off on a tangent within the lead. Thoughts anyone? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not "fine." Escape_Orbit is correct, though I'd take it further: the article is an attractive coatrack for increasingly tenuous factoids (FFI: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles). It's become something on the order of
The entire article is <18K — even with four illustrations! — yet the "catnip alternatives" nonsense is spelled out THREE times. The depth is oversell that points up the fanboy fetish for trivia. Because catnip is so unusual, the article probably should go to that third tier (particularly because of the name), but any further runs into undue weight and jargon.
In an ideal world, there'd maybe be an article like
Feline hallucinogens. Until that happy day, any such detail is cat-related trivia, and therefore belongs (if anywhere) in
Felidae and/or
Cat — certainly NOT here.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
02:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree somewhat. Furthermore, the aside that "alternative plants exist which attract the other one-third" is misleading, as it suggests that all cats that don't respond to catnip can respond to the alternatives. Based on the paper cited, this is not true. The paper simply gives proportions of cats that respond to different stimulants. They do not say anywhere that there are no cats that do not respond to any of the stimulants. A simple statement that "alternative stimulants exist" would be better in my opinion. Secondus2 ( talk) 12:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
this section implies theres SOME effect as it says catnip fell out of use (as a human medicine) with the invention of more available drugs. only it fails to ever mention WHAT effect.
also it actually says it was used for a bunch of (undisclosed) things, but this is not the same as having (a bunch of) effects.
at the same time, while the section specifically dedicated to the effect on humans contains no information on this topic, the lede does mention two effects. perhaps better to a) move them from the lede to the section dedicated to them, or b) delete the section as useless and leave the relevant info in the lede. 89.134.199.32 ( talk) 21:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC).
Just starting this as a section following recent edits. Firstly to point out that the content in question, alternatves to catnip for cat consumptions, has indeed been questioned and removed before, as this talk page makes evident. A compromise has been reached before, but it still remains a problematic inclusion. My take is;
I would therefore suggest it should be removed. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
tqb}}
blocks for comparison. Probably would need that for an RfC anyway, though I doubt one of those would be needed to resolve this. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
12:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)