This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Persian cat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nabidin.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I've tagged this page with {{
Disputed}}
for a variety of
WP:Verifiability failures. In only a few minutes, I was able to find cases of:
and other problems. Where I did not fix these outright (e.g. the false assertions that
Ankara, Turkey is part of
Greater Iran, that "Iranian Plateau" is synonymous with Greater Iran, and that the cats originate from Greater Iran generally, rather than from Iran and Turkey as the sources actually state), and where they were not already flagged (e.g. the various {{
citation needed}}
tags), I have flagged them with {{
dubious}}
or {{
clarify}}
, with |reason=
parameters with brief explanations of the issues. I'll give other editors here some time to clean the stuff up before I wade in with the editorial machete. Please note that all of this was from just skimming the text for typos and stuff; I would guess that I've identified less that 50% of the severe problems in the article. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs.
15:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web|...|archive-url=
http://web.archive.org/web/20101229160852/http://www.iams.com/cat-breeds/persian_cats.aspx}}
. I'm not sure it will necessarily be reliable – I have actual period sources, like illustrated articles from the original Crystal Palace cat shows and such – but citing it so it can be read means readers and editors can evaluate it. In the course of doing research to improve the
Manx (cat) article (I've literally spent over US$300 gathering sources), which badly, badly needs an overhaul, it's become clear that a very large number of mainstream cat books, Cat Fancy magazine articles, and other secondary and especially tertiary sources are full of complete
b.s. that they simply cannibalize from one another. One book or article misinterprets something in an older one and phrases it summary of the misunderstood old source poorly, and then a third repeats that with further corruption away from the meaning the original, like a game of
Chinese whispers. A large number of them are not
reliable sources but it takes a lot of research to determine on which breeds they have unreliable information and where the error crept in, and what the actual facts are. I'm sure you've noticed at least some of this problem yourself. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉
Contribs.
20:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)In the movie Over the hedge there is a cat named Tiger in it who is a Persian. I added this to the popular culture section. 68.54.8.249 ( talk) 19:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I have contributed a photo of a 19+ year old female, in the final days of her life. This is really rare for this breed, to live so long so I hope that it is valuable enough to remain here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
References
At least two sources being depended on for various alleged facts in this article fail WP:RS:
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Additional source fail:
— SpeedQweef 13:53, 21 March 2018
References
References
I live in the United States, and I can definitely say that in my (somewhat limited) experience, at least in my area, Persian cats aren't terribly common, with short-haired cats or even the "Maine Coon" being more common. Also, as the citation needed tag already attests to, there is no citation for this. Are there any objections to just removing it? 2600:1015:B104:A4C8:D63D:7EFF:FEE4:39A6 ( talk) 20:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guys,
Can somebody please change the old broken link with new PDF link under Breed standards for TICA?
Thank you very much.
Nirajrm ( talk) 14:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Persian cats are well known for their distinct facial structure; large owl eyes [1], a flat face, and a smaller mouth cavity compared to average domestic cats. With selective breeding being on the rise in recent years, this facial structure has grown on people's hearts. Brachycephalic Persians can come in four types of severity; mild, moderate, profound, and severe. This facial abnormality can lead the Persian to experience daily hardships and results in the Persian being more susceptible to diseases and infections. Nabidin ( talk) 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabidin ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
On January 10, 2024, the editor SMcCandlish updated the existing MDY script for the article previously updated in November 2021. I can't see any documentation that YYYY-MM-DD has to be used for references in this article. If this documentation about YYYY-MM-DD exists for this article on Persian cat where is it situated?
Incidentally, for the Cat article, the DMY format has been in place for many years for all the references in a consistent DMY format. A hidden note for the Cat article states: "Per MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:DATEVAR, articles should conform to one overall spelling of English and date format, typically the ones with which it was created when the topic has no strong national ties. This article was created with American English, using international date format (DD Month YYYY), and should continue to be written that way. If there is a compelling reason to change it propose a change on the talk page."
As I can't see documentation for this Persian cat article stating that references have to be in the YYYY-MM-DD format, I have therefore again updated the script tonight for the existing MDY format, which had been in place in this article for several years. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 22:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
[emphasis in original, and the material linked to is a summary of the pertinent material at MOS:NUM plus some technical notes]. The documentation continues:
Date format compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style: CS1 uses Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Dates, months, and years ( MOS:DATEFORMAT) as the reference for all date format checking performed by Module:Citation/CS1.Where the template documentation mentions YYYY-MM-DD at all (in that specific template's documention or at the generalized Help:Citation Style 1) it is illustrative of what happens or doesn't happen when that particular format is used. Even if someone were to get the wild idea to go change the template documentation to mandate ISO format in citations, this would be immediately reverted, and template documentation cannot magically trump site-wide guidelines anyway.
In actual practice, there are very close to zero articles in which YYYY-MM-DD has been consciously, consistently established for these citation dates, much less affirmatively supported by a consensus discussion. Rather, various editors at the page inconsistently use MDY or DMY (hopefully but not always in compliance with the rest of the article), while other editors use ISO form because their citation tools just default to it. Virtually no actively edited article retains consistent dates for long. MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:CITESTYLE both implore us to normalize such chaos to a single consistent form within the article, and there is never a reason to consistentize in the direction of YYYY-MM-DD because it is not a human-friendly format, and is confusingly inconsistent with all other dates in the article, including other dates in citations.
PS: As with other style matters, one has to separate "How I prefer to write for particular specialized purposes off-site" and "How WP prefers that we write". In my own work, I often make use of ISO date format, but only for material in which that format is helpful (e.g. in Linux and other software documentation where this format is more or less a standard, and in a genealogy project where people with different date format preferences are readers but their GEDCOM database softare generally works on an ISO-dates basis to avoid the "what does '2/8/1805' mean?" problem and the problem of it being too hard to support every input variation along the lines "8th February 1805", "FEB-8-1805", "8 Feb. 1805", etc., etc., etc.). It is a perennial proposal to have WP switch to a univeral ISO standard and use templates or the parser to reformat them on-the-fly to suite particular articles or user preferences, but the implementation of someone along those lines in the 2000s to early 2010s cause so much strife there is a lot of resistance to the idea. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Persian cat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nabidin.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I've tagged this page with {{
Disputed}}
for a variety of
WP:Verifiability failures. In only a few minutes, I was able to find cases of:
and other problems. Where I did not fix these outright (e.g. the false assertions that
Ankara, Turkey is part of
Greater Iran, that "Iranian Plateau" is synonymous with Greater Iran, and that the cats originate from Greater Iran generally, rather than from Iran and Turkey as the sources actually state), and where they were not already flagged (e.g. the various {{
citation needed}}
tags), I have flagged them with {{
dubious}}
or {{
clarify}}
, with |reason=
parameters with brief explanations of the issues. I'll give other editors here some time to clean the stuff up before I wade in with the editorial machete. Please note that all of this was from just skimming the text for typos and stuff; I would guess that I've identified less that 50% of the severe problems in the article. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs.
15:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web|...|archive-url=
http://web.archive.org/web/20101229160852/http://www.iams.com/cat-breeds/persian_cats.aspx}}
. I'm not sure it will necessarily be reliable – I have actual period sources, like illustrated articles from the original Crystal Palace cat shows and such – but citing it so it can be read means readers and editors can evaluate it. In the course of doing research to improve the
Manx (cat) article (I've literally spent over US$300 gathering sources), which badly, badly needs an overhaul, it's become clear that a very large number of mainstream cat books, Cat Fancy magazine articles, and other secondary and especially tertiary sources are full of complete
b.s. that they simply cannibalize from one another. One book or article misinterprets something in an older one and phrases it summary of the misunderstood old source poorly, and then a third repeats that with further corruption away from the meaning the original, like a game of
Chinese whispers. A large number of them are not
reliable sources but it takes a lot of research to determine on which breeds they have unreliable information and where the error crept in, and what the actual facts are. I'm sure you've noticed at least some of this problem yourself. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉
Contribs.
20:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)In the movie Over the hedge there is a cat named Tiger in it who is a Persian. I added this to the popular culture section. 68.54.8.249 ( talk) 19:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I have contributed a photo of a 19+ year old female, in the final days of her life. This is really rare for this breed, to live so long so I hope that it is valuable enough to remain here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
References
At least two sources being depended on for various alleged facts in this article fail WP:RS:
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Additional source fail:
— SpeedQweef 13:53, 21 March 2018
References
References
I live in the United States, and I can definitely say that in my (somewhat limited) experience, at least in my area, Persian cats aren't terribly common, with short-haired cats or even the "Maine Coon" being more common. Also, as the citation needed tag already attests to, there is no citation for this. Are there any objections to just removing it? 2600:1015:B104:A4C8:D63D:7EFF:FEE4:39A6 ( talk) 20:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guys,
Can somebody please change the old broken link with new PDF link under Breed standards for TICA?
Thank you very much.
Nirajrm ( talk) 14:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Persian cats are well known for their distinct facial structure; large owl eyes [1], a flat face, and a smaller mouth cavity compared to average domestic cats. With selective breeding being on the rise in recent years, this facial structure has grown on people's hearts. Brachycephalic Persians can come in four types of severity; mild, moderate, profound, and severe. This facial abnormality can lead the Persian to experience daily hardships and results in the Persian being more susceptible to diseases and infections. Nabidin ( talk) 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabidin ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
On January 10, 2024, the editor SMcCandlish updated the existing MDY script for the article previously updated in November 2021. I can't see any documentation that YYYY-MM-DD has to be used for references in this article. If this documentation about YYYY-MM-DD exists for this article on Persian cat where is it situated?
Incidentally, for the Cat article, the DMY format has been in place for many years for all the references in a consistent DMY format. A hidden note for the Cat article states: "Per MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:DATEVAR, articles should conform to one overall spelling of English and date format, typically the ones with which it was created when the topic has no strong national ties. This article was created with American English, using international date format (DD Month YYYY), and should continue to be written that way. If there is a compelling reason to change it propose a change on the talk page."
As I can't see documentation for this Persian cat article stating that references have to be in the YYYY-MM-DD format, I have therefore again updated the script tonight for the existing MDY format, which had been in place in this article for several years. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 22:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
[emphasis in original, and the material linked to is a summary of the pertinent material at MOS:NUM plus some technical notes]. The documentation continues:
Date format compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style: CS1 uses Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Dates, months, and years ( MOS:DATEFORMAT) as the reference for all date format checking performed by Module:Citation/CS1.Where the template documentation mentions YYYY-MM-DD at all (in that specific template's documention or at the generalized Help:Citation Style 1) it is illustrative of what happens or doesn't happen when that particular format is used. Even if someone were to get the wild idea to go change the template documentation to mandate ISO format in citations, this would be immediately reverted, and template documentation cannot magically trump site-wide guidelines anyway.
In actual practice, there are very close to zero articles in which YYYY-MM-DD has been consciously, consistently established for these citation dates, much less affirmatively supported by a consensus discussion. Rather, various editors at the page inconsistently use MDY or DMY (hopefully but not always in compliance with the rest of the article), while other editors use ISO form because their citation tools just default to it. Virtually no actively edited article retains consistent dates for long. MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:CITESTYLE both implore us to normalize such chaos to a single consistent form within the article, and there is never a reason to consistentize in the direction of YYYY-MM-DD because it is not a human-friendly format, and is confusingly inconsistent with all other dates in the article, including other dates in citations.
PS: As with other style matters, one has to separate "How I prefer to write for particular specialized purposes off-site" and "How WP prefers that we write". In my own work, I often make use of ISO date format, but only for material in which that format is helpful (e.g. in Linux and other software documentation where this format is more or less a standard, and in a genealogy project where people with different date format preferences are readers but their GEDCOM database softare generally works on an ISO-dates basis to avoid the "what does '2/8/1805' mean?" problem and the problem of it being too hard to support every input variation along the lines "8th February 1805", "FEB-8-1805", "8 Feb. 1805", etc., etc., etc.). It is a perennial proposal to have WP switch to a univeral ISO standard and use templates or the parser to reformat them on-the-fly to suite particular articles or user preferences, but the implementation of someone along those lines in the 2000s to early 2010s cause so much strife there is a lot of resistance to the idea. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
References