Talk:Kitten

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cats Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Cats. 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 Perceptions of cuteness 2 Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten 3 Cuteness 4 NY Times 5 Perceptions of cuteness 6 news about kittens 7 I FOUND A KITTEN 8 Contradiction? Or perhaps I'm misreading... 9 Citation Issues 10 How to CAre for kittens is unencyclopedia 11 Request for comment: Every time you masturbate . . . God kills a kitten 12 Factual accuracy disputed? 13 Small Error 14 I don't like Image:Kittens.jpg 15 Can we put my picture up 16 Rabbits 17 Kittens as a general term 18 No mention of "kitten piles"? 19 Stray cat section 19.1 $ 27,000 Phiippine kitty house 20 Another small error 21 lactose intolerance 22 Kitten Diet 23 Geneva's Kittens 24 Is it me? 25 A kindle of kittens

[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. McGrauw (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)

I read about the '"perceptions of cuteness" discussion on the wiki kitten page in the Wall Street Journal, Wed. August 15th edition, and was thrilled. The cuteness of kittens/cats is one of my favorite subjects, to the annoyance of everyone who knows me. I do agree with another poster's comment that the pics of the kittens on this page aren't necessarily the best. Feel free to use this picture of my kitten PJ. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pj_blinds.jpg I believe when one sets his/her eyes on this image, there can be no question of the cuteness of kittens. Earnest t. bass is legendary and also a good example. J mools 06:13, 20 August 2007 (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)

There already are such places for "Kittens in Popular Culture"; one's called B3ta, where this originated.

• 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)
• Keep Wikipedia is not WP:CENSOR Censored. No consensus appears to have been reached in earlier discussions (not enough editors involved). I am restoring the link and will defend my position if prompted. Significant internet meme, directly relates to kittens.--ZayZayEM 06:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Remove the meme is not directly related to kittens, any more than All Your Base is "directly" related to military bases, or Star Wars Kid is to Star Wars. Even if it were, it is likely of no use to anyone looking for information about kittens, as it's not information about kittens. It would be appropriate for an article on memes, on fark.com or some such. -Superbeecat 01:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per ZayZayEM and WikidSmaht. Bsroiaadn^Talk 01:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Remove with prejudice this meme contains no information about kittens. This is an encyclopaedic article about kittens, and the link doesn't add any useful info about kittens. It may have its place as a link in the article about masturbation, though.--Ramdrake 11:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus developing, and I'm worried about an edit war starting. I do believe that everyone here has a good-faith argument- would anyone object to mediation on this issue? -Superbeecat 18:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation, RfC, whatever. No problem here.--Ramdrake 18:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put in a RfC -Superbeecat 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - Not a link that adds any encyclopedic value for readers, who come to this article to learn about kittens. Tim Vickers 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

major cultural phenomenon

[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)

This comment actually made the WSJ [1].

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)

Animal shelters are crap, just give it to a farmer or something, they always like to have kittens around. Edit: I hope you are able to keep it though 24.196.115.179 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard stories of farmers doing away with cats (drowning and such) when they weren't wanted, so I'd be extremely careful about giving a kitten to a farmer. -- Noneofyourbusiness 04:08, 23 July 2007 (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)fdf

[edit] Citation Issues

Since this article is protected (understandably so, as I can see from prior topics here) I cannot change it myself, and I'm not registering to do it when other users can. However several facts here are unsourced and have been for at least several days now. At this point they need to be removed, and not put back up until someone can link to a verifiable, reliable source. Right now they are either original research or personal opinion, neither of which belongs in an encyclopedia article. Given the wealth of information in both book form, internet form, and pamphlets and other information avaliable from respectable animal care organizations on this subject there is no reason any claim or 'fact' should be unsubstantiated especially in regard to care but also in other sections.

Where did this "up to six weeks of age" nonsense come from? Not is it wrong as far as I'm concerned, it contradicts the rest of the article, which talks about kittens up to a year of age.

I've just noticed this statement. I'm sorry about adding references to this without consulting people. I see the uncited statements are not related in any way to the reason the page was semi-protected, so are these changes OK with the other editors here? I could revert my additions if anybody objects. Tim Vickers 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. OK I removed the "up to 6 weeks" claim, as the linked dictionaty def. merely claims they are young cats. I doubt there is a firm line between kitten and cat, and people are bound to use the term slightly differently around the world. Are there any other concerns? Thanks Tree Kittens 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, how could anyone object to adding references? Looks tip-top to me... Tree Kittens 03:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to CAre for kittens is unencyclopedia

Wikipedia should not be giving advice, which is what " Caring for domestic kittens" really is. This section should be deleted or at least better worded and that domain best left to the appropriate Wikibook.--ZayZayEM 06:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment: Every time you masturbate . . . God kills a kitten

This dispute is about whether a link to the "Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten" meme is appropriate for this article. 19:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors involved in dispute

• 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)

• Keep Wikipedia is not WP:CENSOR Censored. No consensus appears to have been reached in earlier discussions (not enough editors involved). I am restoring the link and will defend my position if prompted. Significant internet meme, directly relates to kittens.--ZayZayEM 06:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Remove the meme is not directly related to kittens, any more than All Your Base is "directly" related to military bases, or Star Wars Kid is to Star Wars. Even if it were, it is likely of no use to anyone looking for information about kittens, as it's not information about kittens. It would be appropriate for an article on memes, on fark.com or some such. -Superbeecat 01:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The meme is directly targeted at kittens.--ZayZayEM 05:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. Please see below.--Ramdrake 12:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Remove: this meme contains no information about kittens. This is an encyclopaedic article about kittens, and the link doesn't add any useful info about kittens. It may have its place as a link in the article about masturbation, though.--Ramdrake 11:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, this sentence has two nouns (God, kitten) and two verbs (masturbate and kill). Should it also be linked from God, killing and masturbation? I don't think so, somehow...--Ramdrake 22:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Making absurd arguments is fallacious. The meme has been deemed to be encyclopedic (you can always nominate it for deletion), so calling this article encyclopedic really isn't an argument.--ZayZayEM 05:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • That's only because arguing that this meme specifically purports to kittens is absurd. The meme is simply there to say Every time you do something morally reprehensible, there are consequences, even if you're not aware of it. There was a variation which, instead of talking about kittens being killed, talked about a professional sports team losing a major game, which proves the point that this isn't about kittens, that kittens is just hyperbole. Whether this meme is encyclopaedic or not isn't the point; the point is that it's not about kittens at all, kittens just serve to illustrate the message.--Ramdrake 12:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• I have to agree with Superbeecat. It is not necessary or desirable to list every cultural reference to a subject. See also sections should include related info, this meme is at best tangentially related and at worst barely connected. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think "Hello Kitty" is also a valid canditate for See Also. The every time meme is not so much about god or killing as it is about kittens being cute and masturbation being gross/immoral. Linking to it from masturbation sounds okay too. The reason why it is in the "See Also" section is because it doesn't currently fit in with the current article content, this should be rectified by expanding the article content, not removing relevant links. --ZayZayEM 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This RfC is up specifically to address whether it is relevant or not, and I believe we have a good faith disagreement which has been outlined above. I hope we can leave this section open for OUTSIDE comment and reach consensus. -Superbeecat 08:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • this isn't arbritration. RFC isn't about resolving disputes, It's about discussing/commenting. I'll comment wherever and whenever I feel appropriate. --ZayZayEM 08:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, RfC is for establishing consensus around certain issues. You are of course fully entitled to your opinion, but more importantly: will you abide by consensus?--Ramdrake 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        • And consensus is reached by discussing/commenting... i digress. I will abide by consensus, if I feel it has been reached. My main concern is not enough editors being involved to reach consensus. And I would prefer if this RfC was restarted, involved editors contacted, and allowed to refresh their comments on the matter. Some may have changed their minds either way, it really doesn't serve a purpose to cut and paste material already contained on this talk page.--ZayZayEM 02:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Links should provide information on subjects related to the subject of the article, which are not linked directly in the text. This article does not discuss masturbation, or the possible moral consequences of masturbation. Therefore, this link does not relate in any way to the subject matter of the article. Tim Vickers 17:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten's only relevance to this article is the fact that it has the word 'kitten'. The link doesn't belong here. shotwell 08:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that the link should not be included. Kittens may or may nor be relevant to the article in question; the phrase in question is clearly not relevant to an article on kittens. Tree Kittens 07:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. 'Censoring' , ¿ZayZayEm? -But no one's mentioned masturbation, such a concern's only a projection... Is a single link 'major' anything, WkidSmaht? I check Google, for "popularity". The link does not add info about kittens per se; the link originated with B3ta.com as a complex artistic statement about emotional manipulation and popular obsessions; kittens are not iportant to the message. We could list every 'important, popular' picture of a kitten on Wiki...- but we don't; We 'could' link to every great piece on B3ta - but we don't. This link does belong in Wiki however - in Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense ∆v∆ Hilarleo 11:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

---

• sigh*

IDC. The Censor Ship has boarded. The link certainly doesn't belong as BJOADN - It's its own wiki-article, not deleted and not nonsense. I do believe the kitten article is missing a lot about kittens' usage in popular culture from Buffy TVS to Nermal to teh intarnet (even Canada).

Deleting a link for reasons of "that article is silly/undesireably" is censorship, and fails to address that the article in question has been accepted as having encyclopedic value (again, if you disagree nominate it for deletion).

Valid is the concern of relevance. I'm sufficiently convinced that perhaps the meme is sufficiently irrelevent (particularly by the two nouns/two verbs statement) to preclude its inclusion.

See also's should be avoided in articles as they fail to provide context. Far better would be a prose section that deals with kittens in pop culture and/or kittens as icons for cuteness.--ZayZayEM 12:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

I believe that we have reached consensus that the meme stays out (due strictly to issue of relevance). Is this a fair assessment? - superβεεcat  17:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The saying is actually regarding masturbation rather than kittens. It probably was meant as a joke for "awareness" on what happens when someone masturbates. Because of that, it might not have a place on the Kitten article, but rather on the Masturbation article, if there is one. Savie Kumara 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• One more comment about The purpose of "See also s":
  • They are not for expanding information about the article they are linked from. Such a page not having any information regarding kittens is not relevant to a discussion as to whether it should be linked to here. See also s are used to link to matter that has relevance to the topic at hand, but (unless a major feature) not directly mentioned/linked to in the main text. For instance the article on Devil facial tumour disease links to Hela because both a groups of sort of "immortal cells", despite no mention of this link in the main text and neither article really containing any information on each other. The great thing about a wiki is taht we can make such links. My initial reversion to include the "every time..." link was simply a matter of me reverting what I saw as a breach of anti-censorship.--ZayZayEM 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove: The article gives no information about kittens. It is also not informative about the "use" of kittens in popular culture - which is no different to the "use" of other cute baby animals and so only worth mentioning via a link to Cuteness. Thehalfone 08:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove it simply isn't relevant. This has nothing to do with censorship. Links are for related information, or to explain the meaning; there is no more reason to link to kitten than to God. using it for every word in an article can approach WP:point. DGG (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

---

this RFC is closed. Consensus is clearly against inclusion on grounds of irrelevence. If you have been referred here from an RFC listing, please be kind and remove this from the listing.--ZayZayEM 02:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual accuracy disputed?

Hello. If the factual accuracy of this article is indeed disputed, would the editor who added the tag please tell us what the problem is? ...or remove the tag. Thanks Tree Kittens 04:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'm going to remove the tag now as none of the above discussion concerns factual accuracy as far as I can tell. If facts are indeed disputed, feel free to add the tag again with an explanation on the talk page. Thanks. Tree Kittens 05:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag was in reference to six week claim among other unreferenced details. References seem to have been supplied, or uncited claims removed. Tag may no longer be needed.--ZayZayEM 04:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small Error

I cannot edit the page, but the word "weeks" is missing: "As they reach three to four of age..."

Thanks, fixed. Tim Vickers 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't like Image:Kittens.jpg

Could someone please replace Image:Kittens.jpg with an image with a bit more contrast? Those look just like cottonwood fuzz and oil stains on asphalt without my glasses. Thank you. ←Ben^B4 10:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've cropped it and altered the levels a bit. Tim Vickers 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we put my picture up

Its cute, and nicer then the one up atm

It looks inappropriate on content (the subject should be the kitten only) and its relevance looks dubious (what is it supposed to illustrate?).--Ramdrake 20:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuter than the photo of Loki on my userpage? I so don't think so. :) Tim Vickers 20:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw Loki cute, but Rileys better! Does anyone wan to see a picture of my old cat Boris, he was soo cute, its doing a half tuck :P? Also its supposed to illustrate a kitten stupid. user:srstorey

Loki was only seven weeks when that photo was taken. Anyway, the point is that we need a photo of a kitten, not of a person and a kitten. Tim Vickers 20:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter, if Im in the picture? Btw if you call someone photogenic, is that a compliment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srstorey (talk • contribs) 20:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Most of the picture is not of a kitten, it is out of focus and badly-cropped. This just isn't lead image quality. Sorry. Tim Vickers 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What a bitch. Can it atleast go on the page? And also you look like Xander from Buffy.

Are you seriously making fun of how someone else looks when there is a picture of you on the same page. The pic is definitely not appropriate. 60% kid 40% cat. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How am I making fun of him? Xanders cool, so shut up.

I'm happy being compared to this Xander person, Google shows he's not that ugly - so no worries. Why not try to take a better photo of your kitten? That would solve the problem of composition and quality. Tim Vickers 21:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What about this one

Cute, but terribly out of focus and blurry. What camera are you using? Tim Vickers 21:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My phone, its 2mb. Also he was moving alot

That will be why. Try zooming in on the photo of Loki as a comparison, you need to produce a similarly sharp, well-composed image for people to even consider including it. Tim Vickers 21:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What about this

No. Tim Vickers 21:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why?? Its well Clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srstorey (talk • contribs) 21:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Kitten is, once again, blurry. You can't see most of the animal and it is poorly-lit. These just aren't very good photos. Tim Vickers 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rabbits

Young rabbits are also sometimes known as kittens. "Kits" is probably more common, but (for example) Watership Down refers to them as "kittens" throughout. 86.143.48.124 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kittens as a general term

Is there are disambiguation page for kittens as a reference to the immature forms of other animals (rabbits, for example)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.122.115 (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of "kitten piles"?

I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention "kitten piles", i.e. the habit of litters of kittens to sleep in a large "pile". (presumably to conserve heat) I'd add information myself but I have no idea where I could find some citable sources for the info; the only knowledge I have of this is firsthand from several litters of kittens. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stray cat section

Why in this article, rather than Feral cat? Tim Vickers 01:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] $ 27,000 Phiippine kitty house

On September 15, 2007, a P1.3 million cattery ($US 27,000, 400-square meters) was built by pet lover Baby Tabeta in Antipolo City, Philippines (with another 200 cats cared for in Pasig City house. The kitties were named after Filipino celebrities Sharon, Gabby, Diether, Richard, Jericho, Toni, Sam and Angel. The cat house has 4 spacious cages with insulated roofing, tiled floors, metal screens, jalousie windows, a sun porch and areas for bathing, grooming and isolation.

4 servants care for the 200 cats. A female cat (called a Queen) gives birth to 4 litters (8 kittens) yearly. To keep the population low, male cats are castrated while the females are spayed. Baby Tabeta stated that “Cats are more loyal and grateful than a lot of people.” Mark Twain submitted the reason for this: “Of all God’s creatures, there is only one that cannot be made the slave of the leash. That one is the cat. If man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat.”^[1]

[edit] Another small error

In the sentence "Kittens should not be fed cow's milk because it does not provide all of the necessary nutrients and cats are lactose intolerant" the word "most" should be added before cats. Not all cats are lactose-intolerant, just most of them. Thanks

Penguinface 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Penguinface

Could you find a reference for that? Than I could add that to the article. Thanks. Tim Vickers 18:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I did some looking into this and all the sources I can find say cats can't digest sugars. Reference 15 says there is some individual variation in lactase secretion, so I said "generally intolerant". Tim Vickers 20:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lactose intolerance

I've removed this. See [2] -- Kendrick7^talk 02:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kitten Diet

Will someone please add a good idea for a supplemental kitten diet to this article or atleast one about kitten care? I tried to a while back but the kitten page is pretty is pretty much owned by an administrator and if he doesn't seem to know you then he'll wipe what you added and block you from editing. Thanks. 137.240.136.86 16:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a How-to manual. Wikipedia should not be telling you " a good idea for a supplemental kitten diet". Please contact a vet, or RSPCA, they can help you. Or visit your local library or pet shop.--ZayZayEM 16:16, 1

December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geneva's Kittens

Is it POV to assert that Geneva's kittens are the cutest kittens in the world? I would like to generate concensus on including this statement in the article. Do you think that they should have their own article, perhaps entitled Teh Kittehs of Geneva? I can submit photographs or does that constitute WP:OR? 72.85.145.17 (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it me?

Or do I hate Kittens? I don't think they're cute and I'd rather put one between two pieces of bread with some HP sauce. Does anyone think I'm mad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I find snakes crocodiles and rats cute. Personally I like kittens, But that is POV and doesnt belong here. T.Neo (talk) 12:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by 72.183.251.20 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A kindle of kittens

The article currently says that "groups of domestic kittens are referred to as kindles", citing an article in Time Magazine. However, the Oxford English Dictionary labels that usage as "obsolete", and indeed the latest quotation they have for it is from 1688. Webster's Third lists it as "now dialect".

I've removed the sentence from the article.  --mconst (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)