Talk:Kitten/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Milky Way

I tried the 1940 film called The Milky Way makes this stub aslo it was not cause of "The free little kittens" but it cause to much cat movies of that. That cause Category:MGM cartoons or that category stub was the archive real. Became as the cat movie still no just this. But the cat movie is so hard. Kept me for the cat movies such as well. Unknown to catch the previews of the films. Just the Milky way kept for my kittens well go up in the sky or I will cry. But the 1 is my fault. Who goes with kittens are free.--69.219.229.227 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Just 1 idea. If you know this wass kittened this time. Only kittens will be in the sirval times. Make sure that kittens make nonsense for that. No equal stub of that time.--69.219.229.227 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

---

There is one job of this. If I have defeat this time. It does not worked. But still a equal part of that 0 kind f result. Just keep this results.--69.219.229.227 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No real summbions

This is kind of real stub of kittens. They can do stuff of that. If you have a kitten. You should take care of that. But they are completed archives. Such as this archive was completed for 9 mintues. Just display that kind of that message it taked me. All this was complete this archive. New stub. You can take care of a cat.--69.219.229.227 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perceptions of cuteness

I am ambivalent about the old (les chatons sont tros vraiment cute!)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)

• Puppies are cute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.15.5 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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 bitch... 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 '"changes 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)

---

Kittens are cute because they are small and they make a cute noise known as a 'meow' i also like puppies -i remain anonymous- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.24.149 (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

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)
• Keep. it's related to kittens, isn't it? The ilovebigcats (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2009 (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 minor

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.

You have an article about kittens and don't mention they are cute? You are missing something! Or may be it is obvious :-) See also puppy and duckling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.82.208 (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

I don't like Image:Day-old kittens.jpg

File:Day-old kittens.jpg

Could someone please replace Image:Day-old 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)

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)

This should definitely be mentioned somewhere, if only as a link to rabbit at the top of the page.–MDCollins (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Stray cat section

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

$ 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.”

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)

lactose intolerance

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

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)

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)

Add a Korean link

I translated this item to Korean language for the Korean Wikipedia. Please add the link( http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/새끼_고양이 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Podor (talk • contribs) 00:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Done^^Yknok29 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Blurry photo

thumb|right|350px This image is not good enough quality for the article, it has poor exposure, motion blur and out of focus. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Weaning

I think it should be included in the main article around what time kittens are able to move on from their mother's milk onto kitten food. Artemisboy (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

How to care for kittens may be unencyclopaedic, but how kittens are cared for is not. 207.194.133.9 (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we see that the how-to section has been identified as a problem for years yet it hasn't been fixed. It doesn't belong in this project as it is and should be deleted if no one will rewrite it. While we're discussing it, what would be the strategy for rewriting it? The section's topic is just wrong for WP. Jojalozzo 18:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The title of the section implies how-to content, but in fact a lot of the material is straightforward, factual and reffed (most of the first two paras). There is certainly some how-to material (the last sentence, and some of the previous para). Mostly this could be avoided by changing "should be" to "is" etc; some material could be removed, but I don't think wholesale removal is appropriate at all. We do need to change the section heading, though I'm not sure what to.

It seems to me that we oughtn't to throw the kitten out with the bathwater: it wouldn't take much effort to improve it.Richard New Forest (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No one's done much if anything to fix this for years. The section was tagged 5 months ago and no one did anything. I deleted it and all that happened was it got put back with no changes. In light of that, arguments for keeping it because it's easy to fix don't sway me. I can give it a week before re-deleting it. Jojalozzo 22:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No. This section includes reffed, encyclopaedic material, and the presence of how-to material in the same section does not mean it should all be deleted. Why not improve it yourself? I'll do it if you don't and I have time, but I don't see the need for arbitrary deadlines. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding content - semi protected article

Could someone please add after 'A kitten opens its eyes for the first time.' on the second image? The chances of the kitten happening to be outdoors and staring into a camera on the instant of it opening its eyes for the first time ever seems a trifle unlikely... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.156.254 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 8 October 2010

---actually the chances that a kitten just BAM all the sudden opens both eyes is slim, this note should be removed entirely, the eyes slowly open over the course of a few days to a week, sometimes one opening at a faster rate than the other even. I suggest the caption be changed to "kitten with partially opened eyes" since in that pic , the eyes are not "open(ed) for the first time" nor are they fully opened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aen13 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hedgehogs and skunks are not rodents

In the second paragraph of the current edit it discusses how other animals, "the young of some rodents, such as rats, rabbits, hedgehogs, beavers, squirrels and skunks" may be called kittens. Neither hedgehogs nor skunks are rodents (see their wikipedia page for their correct cladistic classifications), so it would be better if it read "the young of some other small animals". I can't edit it because the page is semi-protected, but if someone could give me access or make the edit themselves I'd appreciate it. Fievos (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made the edit you requested. Thanks for bringing this up. --Seduisant (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And I went one further and removed the sentence entirely. It was unsourced and removed long ago. Wknight94 ^talk 01:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary online has a reference to the use of 'kitten' for other animals, this is the link (you may not be able to view it without having an account), but the definition is simply:

b. transf. Applied to the young of some other animals.

Weasels, beavers, minks, deer (!) and rabbits are given as specific examples in the citations. It seems to imply there's no fixed rules for which animals can be called kittens, so it may be too loose to include.Fievos (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of kitten

The etymology of "kitten" is wrong. It came from Old French chitoun, which was the diminutive of chat cat. It is not an Old English diminutive at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.172.2 (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right: the OED gives this etymology, and does not give any occurrence before Middle English either. The OED does not comment on whether "chitoun" was a diminutive, so we can't really include that. I've corrected the article. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification 70.26.148.198 (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The OED does not mention it for "cat" or "kitten", but under "cattle" it mentions that the Parisian French word began with "ch" and the Norman French equivalent with "c", this being the source for the English word "cattel" (while Parisian French is the source for the related word "chattel"). If this also applies to "kitoun" and "cat", perhaps these too came through Norman French. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Kitten

The article says that "A kitten or kitty is a juvenile domesticated cat",but any kind of cat,domesticated or wild are called kittens,they are all the same except slight behavior difference.