Talk:Cat

Cat[change source]

This article is hardly what I'd called "simple".

It uses Simple English, and when it doesn't, it explains what the non-Simple English means, so it belongs here on Simple English Wikipedia.

Multiple meanings - one or many pages?[change source]

In other Wikipedias, different meanings are usually in different articles. User:62.233.244.34

I need to go see what rules and suggestions are written about this. I definitely want to see suggestions on how a page should appear, that has more than one meaning of a word.

For words which can be described without long descriptions, I think that keeping them together on one page is best. When a user is not sure which meaning is wanted, I think they may have to compare the descriptions. If the descriptions are on separate pages, it will make comparing them hard. But if one description is very long it would be hard to move over it to the next description. So long descriptions should be on a different page. Shenme 15:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple version of the WINAD article may address this. I realize I'm posting 4.5 years after the last post. - PhilipR (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple...[change source]

Simple English aims, tries and hopes to be simple. It also tries to be accurate. What goes on is a struggle between the two. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A gloss on this: the section "Birth and after" has been written particularly with children in mind. Although they are just one of our three target audiences, on this particular subject their needs are paramount. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on spelling[change source]

I noticed that another editor had changed to US spelling (along with helpful edits). I went back to the former text and counted more British than US spellings. So I've changed the article back to British spelling, but leaving "encylopedia" (because that form is most usual from British publishers these days). I think that's in line with WP policy, but no doubt I'll be corrected if I'm wrong... Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be encyclopedia, I'm not sure. ChocolateLover193 (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Birth Defects[change source]

It has been commented previously that the terminology birth defects is offensive. I do not believe there is a simple English equivalent. If there is one please change the passage accordingly. Caponiman (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The term is quite normal, and well understood. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cats are carnivores[change source]

1. You can see cats eat grass occasionally, but probably not for direct nutrition. They don't have the specialised teeth and digestive system for that. The grass does have a function or functions, which are not definitely known. The grass may help them to regurgitate fur balls, and there are several other possible explanations.

2. Cat food from tins or little biscuits is much higher in protein than dog food of the same type. Both cats and dogs are correctly called carnivores because overwhelmingly that is their mode of life. The fact that they are not quite 100% carnivores does not justify the use of the term 'omnivore'. An omnivore is, for example, a chimpanzee, which we now know for sure eats leaves and fruit, and deliberately hunts, kills and eats certain monkeys (also honey on rare occasions). That is a correct use of omnivore for an animal once thought to be entirely vegetarian. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]