Talk:Cheetah/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

over-illustrated?

This article contains a number of pictures that don't seem to add anything to the article (largely repeating one another), and seem to be included simply because they're available. How many pictures of cheetahs sitting there do you need? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering most of the images have been in the article for a while now and you are the only person to have complained I would assume that your opinion does not reflect consensus. The article has around the same amount of images per article as does many other well developed articles. However if you think you can improve the article then do so. Regards ZooPro 23:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just keep scrolling down. There are pictures of cheetahs running round doing other things than just sitting there. --Beirne (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Races

I read once (Bob Crampsey, The First Hundred Years, Glasgow: Scottish Football League, 1990, pp. 94-96) that during the 1920s and 1930s it was not unusual for Scottish football (soccer) stadia, many of which also had tracks for greyhound racing, to stage cheetah races. This is just mentioned in passing in the book and I personally know nothing else about the practice but I was wondering if this was just a Depression fad in Scotland or if there is a history of this sort of thing in a wider context. If so it might be worth adding something about it to the articles, most likely in the 'taming' section. Any thoughts? Keresaspa (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Cheetah cub close-up edit2.jpg (2)

Is it possible to change the picture of a cheetah cub to something that looks more common? Most cheetah cubs don't look like the current picture. I'm thinking of it being changed to a picture that looks more normal and common. Any more ideas, comments, rebuttal, and thoughts are encouraged.

Plus I think we need a larger variety of pictures for the cheetah, I've only seen three cheetah cub pictures (one of which is not a close-up, the other isn't a common cheetah, and the last is one of a very young cheetah). And I agree with a past discussion creator that there are a lot of pictures of cheetahs sitting around, and maybe more pictures of them running is a good idea, or feeding on a kill etc. ~ Zeus Gold Asterri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeus Gold Asterri (talk • contribs) 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isnt a collection of images, yes the cub looks a bit odd but a cheetah cub none the less, if you feel you can improve it please feel free to change it to a better image. regards ZooPro 02:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been reported that only a six pair of cheetah in Tanzania remain. excalations in poaching are the cause of this sudden drop in cheetah populations. Over 50 poachers have be put under arrest within the last month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inciter1 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

I have changed the spelling of this article to International English from American English. It is my view that spelling should be defaulted to International English whenever the subject does not pertain to the United States. Cheetahs are found in Africa, where International English is predominant. For example, if the article were pertaining to the Jaguar population of Florida, then American English would be acceptable.

retractable claws

Cheetah claws are virtually identical in anatomy and function to those of other cats, except they lack sheaths. That's why they appear to be only partially retracted. It is a common misconception to believe that they cannot fully retract. In fact, when the claws are relaxed, though they are still visible, they are fully retracted just like with every other species of cat. There are numerous sources that confirm this. Here's one:

The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion, By John D. Skinner, Christian T. Chimimba, pp. 378, 379.

I've cited that particular source because those pages can be viewed online at Google Books:here

As stated, there are many other valid and reliable sources that confirm that the cheetah's claws function identically to those of other cats. They retract fully. For accuracy, the article should be edited to reflect this.

Incidentally, this is also true for other cats mistakenly thought to have partially-retractable claws, like the fishing cat and flat-headed cat.

Rufuslynx (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at it ASAP.Mcelite (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Use the NEWS ARTICLES listed here to improve this article

Asiatic Cheetah Blog [1].

Thanks mrigthrishna (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC) The cheetah was jast born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.160.56 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No ZooPro 11:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oddness above the table of contents.

At the top, a "}}" appears. I dont believe it should be there. But I also dont know how to banish it! 74.132.249.206 (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Banished! --Seduisant (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please add to...Cheetahs for hunting

The Nomadic tribes of the San people in the Kalahari Desert continue to use tame Cheetahs for hunting. Though they’re killers in the wild, these big cats are surprisingly easy to domesticate.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2012

In first paragraph it states "As such, it is the only felid with non-retractable claws and pads"

Then under the description it states: "The cheetah's paws have semi-retractable claws (known only in three other cat species"

76.119.117.20 (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Done - Nice catch. The correct designation should be semi-retractable, as stated in the description. The claws do actually retract somewhat, but do not become completely sheathed, leaving some portion of the claws still exposed. I've added one of several sources confirming this, and edited the lead to make this clear. The other three felids in the description alleged to have semi-retractable claws seem OK, except maybe for the Iromote cat, for which data is still scarce. Cheers! --Seduisant (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:TanzanianCheetah.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TanzanianCheetah.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TanzanianCheetah.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

Word CHEETAH comes from Sanskrit word Cittaa for the same animal and is used in many Indian languages that derive parentage from Sanskrit like Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati etc.. The Sanskrit word Cittaa in turn comes from word Citta meaning mind (http://veda.wikidot.com) or heart (center of feelings) which is considered to be the fastest and hence the fastest animal is named after it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIMVHA (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What a load of bulldust. ZooPro 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can point to a more reliable source than we already have, rather than just speculating, I have to agree with ZooPro. The derivation is completely different in the American Heritage Dictionary, which is currently cited. Don Lammers (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement in ths article is "derived from the Sanskrit word citrakāyaḥ, meaning "variegated", via the Hindi चीता cītā". The dispute here is not what a particular word means, but what word it was derived from. According to the current source (an English dictionary), it was not derived from Chittaa, so the meaning of this word is irrelevant. In addition, you are pointing to the main page of a source, not the page that supports your point of view (which I can't find, though that may be more a reflection of my search abilities). Finally, given a choice of sources, I think I would point to the English dictionary as the more reliable source anyway. Don Lammers (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sanskrit word citrakaya is also used for lion in Apte Sanskrit Dictionary (www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/aequery/index.html) Also see ( www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/mwquery/index.html) for meaning of cita which you did not find earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIMVHA (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

neither are reputable or acceptable. ZooPro 10:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

When I studied Sanskrit, Apte Sanskrit Dictionary was considered standard in India, the motherland of Sanskrit. Please list out names of reputable Sanskrit Dictionaries so that I can cite them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIMVHA (talk • contribs) 15:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak to reputability of the dictionaries, as I have not expertise in this. However, neither one returns anything for "cheetah", which means neither are suitable as sources for speculation about the derivation of the word. It may be that the use of citrakaya for lion should make us somewhat suspicious of the American Heritage Dictionary (or maybe not, since they are both large cats), but even if we raise this suspicion, that does not support anything like "which is considered to be the fastest and hence the fastest animal is named after it". this sounds much more far-fetched than coming from "variegated", even if that is sometimes used for "lion". Don Lammers (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sanskrit word citrakaya is made of two words, citra meaning picture or picturesque and kaya means body, thus entire word means one with picturesque body. There is absolutely nothing to suggest a cat, big or small.

Nor is there anything to suggest cat, large or small, in your unsupported suggestion. I think cheetahs have very picturesque bodies, and personally I like your definition better than "variegated". As I said, I'm not arguing about the meaning of the word(s). The current source suggests a derivation. You have provided no alternative source for derivation, and your speculation sounds like pure mumbo jumbo. Don Lammers (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I only meant that word citrakaya can be used for anybody not necessarily animal from big cat family. By the way, cheetahs do have picturesque body but then same word is used for lion (in dictionary). Nobody would dispute that lions also have picturesque body. Thus your derivation is not free from doubt to say the least. If you consult a sanskrit knowing person he would surely agree with me. In fact I came to know of my etymology of cheetah from a Times of India article but unfortunately I did not keep its record.

Further you say you are not arguing about meaning of words. Words can not be separated from their meanings. The very purpose of words is to convey meaning. It is the meaning that makes bunch of alphabets a word. SIMVHA (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have checked ALL of the available options in your two sources looking for the English word "Cheetah" and for the sanscrit "Cittaa", and I get no results at all. As far as I can tell there is no evidence in these sources that either "Cheetah" (English) translates into anything in Sanscrit or that "cittaa" (Sanscrit) translates into anything in English. You have to do better than this. If you don't have a definition match in the source, then you need to cite a source for the derivation. Even if you get that far, you need to still cite a source for "The Sanskrit word Cittaa in turn comes from word Citta meaning mind (http://veda.wikidot.com) or heart (center of feelings) which is considered to be the fastest and hence the fastest animal is named after it." This source indeed says that citta means mind. It's a big jump from there to say all the rest in your statement. Don Lammers (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it amusing when you accept Cheetah from Sanskrit citrakaya or Hindi cita ( the fact you have cited in your earlier comment ) but not from Sanskrit citta ( meaning interalia mind, heart ( not in physiological sense ), thought which imply sheer speed ). Problem it seems is that I am debating with those who are unaware of intricacies of Sanskrit or plainly resistant to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIMVHA (talk • contribs) 06:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you are amused, but obviously you fail to understand the nature of Wikipedia despite having edited on and off for several years now. Original research (i.e., your own opinion) is not allowed (see WP:OR) and entries must be verifiable from an external source (see WP:Verifiability). You may or may not be correct, but it does not matter if you can't point to someone else saying so. I found support for the current etymology here, here, here, here, here, and here (that last one is probably cheating because it's a sister project) in just a few minutes, but in all of the above you have not pointed to a single external source that supports what is obviously your own opinion.

I have no opinion as to which derivation is true (nor does it matter). I do not know Sanskrit or Hindi at all, let alone know any of their intricacies. If you want to do original research on the subject and publish your opinion on how the intricacies of another language eventually translated to English, that's a very good subject of a scholarly paper, but it is NOT appropriate for Wikipedia. If your paper is accepted by enough people for the opinion to make it into the English dictionaries and etymology texts, then we can point to those texts and change this article. Until then, neither my opinion or yours matter -- only what we can point to for verification. Don Lammers (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a great fan of Wikipedia and I respect what you've said above but I must also point out that WI in Devanagari script( used for Sanskrit) on Wikipedia earth sign was being depicted wrongly for many years, only recently the error was rectified. What were Wikipedia editors doing then ? SIMVHA (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Recessive gene cause of rare king cheetahs

The section on King Cheetahs states that the markings are due to a recessive gene and that this is "why it is so rare"... Perhaps someone with better knowledge of genetics can help out here but the fact that a gene is recessive doesn't necessarily mean that it, or it's "symptoms" are rare. If enough of a population carry the gene that it's effects can be quite common. I know this isn't the case with the king cheetah.. but the wording is surely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchin Man (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"The mutation is recessive, a reason behind the rareness of the mutation. As a result, if two mating cheetahs have the same gene, then a quarter of their offspring can be expected to be king cheetahs." - This is ambiguous. Since the gene is recessive, a king cheetah has two copies of the gene. A regularly marked cheetah may have no copies of the gene OR may be a carrier with one copy (and appear marked as a regular cheetah). If a king cheetah mates with a plain (non-carrier) cheetah, then NONE of the offspring will be king cheetahs, but they will all be carriers. If TWO carriers mate, then 1/4 of their offspring may be king cheetahs. If a King cheetah happens to mate with a carrier, then half the offspring will be king cheetahs, and the other half will be carriers. If two king cheetahs mate, then all of the offspring will be king cheetahs. This assumes that the mutation is caused by a single gene, and that it is stable. Traits cause by recessive genes are not necessarily rare, but they can be. The mutation that causes the gene may be rare. In this case, spread of the trait will be further confounded by general mortality among cheetahs. Also, no doubt, king cheetahs are more likely to be poached, and have been for as long as cheetahs have been hunted.

Suggestion: "The mutation is recessive, a reason behind the rareness of the mutation. As a result, if two mating cheetahs carry the "king cheetah" gene, then a quarter of their offspring can be expected to be king cheetahs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 16:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2012

I would like to edit grammar Lolman200616 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Vacation^nine 20:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2013

There is a mistake in this article about ability to acceleration: "and has the ability to accelerate from 0 to over 100 km/h (62 mph) in three seconds.[9][10]"
First of all source [9] doesn't contain information about cheetah's ability to acceleration and source [10] isn't absolutely reliable source of information. Secondly simple calculations (rectilinear uniform accelerated motion for the first part of the distance and rectilinear uniform motion for the second part) with parameters: distance 100m, total time 6s, max velocity 100 kmph shows that required time for acceleration from 0 to over 100 km/h (62 mph) is about 5s.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/03/wow-11-year-old-cheetah-breaks-land-speed-record/ Karavadgoo (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

With the age and edit count of your account, you should be able to edit this page yourself. Be bold RudolfRed (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, just a non-mathematician here, but it doesn't make sense that you can calculate accelleration by knowing only top speed and distance. I am not claiming that the BBC article is correct (though it does support the statement -- see WP:CITE), but from the article we don't really know where in the course the cheetah reached top speed. It could have been after 25 meters or 50 meters. Unless I am toatlly mistaken, the accelleration would be different in the two cases (in fact, by a factor of two). I also note that the fox news article quoted above (which is no more reliable than BBC) does not support any statement about accelleration -- only about top speed. In fact, it says "Sarah covered 100 meters at 61 mph (98 kph)", but doesn't even tell us whether that was after reaching top speed or from a standing start. Usually "land speed records" are NOT from a standing start, so the article says nothing about accelleration, leaving the BBC as the sole source for such information, and your calculations at original research (see WP:OR). Don Lammers (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

cheetahs can get up to speeds of 75 miles per hour — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlaff skyler (talk • contribs) 22:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013

please add reference to the following to "In Popular Culture" In the Asterix comic book "Asterix and Cleopatra", Cleopatra has two cheetahs that exhibit a great deal of curiosity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterix_and_Cleopatra

202.167.15.165 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Doesn't seem to be a notable example. GoingBatty (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013

Dear editors for cheetah-wiki.

In the article: A cheetah with hardly any spots was shot in Tanzania in 1921 I would like to add the recent sightings of this color-morph at the end of the paragraph: "Other color variations" Something like: This colour-morph has recently been photographed in Kenya.

Links: (original article) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134975/The-lesser-spotted-cheetah-Rare-big-cat-traditional-markings-sighted-wild-time-nearly-100-years.html#ixzz1tB9odDWJ

And: http://www.kenyanphotosafari.com/spotless-cheetah/

PieterOliehoek (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. GoingBatty (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2013

Change "has the ability to accelerate from 0 to over 100 km/h (62 mph) in five seconds." to "has the ability to accelerate from 0 to over 100 km/h (62 mph) in three seconds." Zoological Society of London is a better source than the Fox News source currently used. Phil.wasag (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for suggesting an improvement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

Remove "while" from the last sentence of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.123.161 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Northwest Africa?

Re: "Northwest Africa (Algeria, Djibouti, Egypt, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Tunisia)". Someone ought to do something about the geographical descriptions in this article. I don't know the best way to fix them. For starters, Egypt and Djibouti are definitely not "Northwest Africa".HowardJWilk (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Mr. Jairam Ramesh is no longer incumbent Ministry of Environment and Forests — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.122.215 (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheetahmen

How come there's no mention of the Cheetahmen here? They are literally half-human and half-cheetah creatures. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cheetahmen I think the Cheetahmen would be worthy of mentioning in this article. Would you agree? --I Am the Pony Boy (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead photo license

The lead photo of this article is not available under a free Creative Commons license; it exists on Wikimedia Commons due to a loophole that permits GFDL-licensed images. I'm not contending that there is any policy violation here, but I think it would be a good idea -- especially since there are so many good freely licensed photos of cheetahs on Commons -- to replace the lead image with something licensed CC BY, or CC BY-SA, or in the public domain.

In 2008, Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Moeller advised that we should stop uploading new GFDL images. This image was uploaded in 2012.

The reason this is a problem is that it introduces pitfalls for potential reusers of the file. Unlike almost all files hosted on Wikimedia Commons, this file cannot be readily used alongside other freely licensed files. This is not merely a theoretical concern: Wikimedia Foundation staff used this file in a presentation, which now appears will need to be deleted from Commons (or modified to eliminate the photo) for this reason. It would be better if a highly prominent photo in a highly prominent article did not lead our readers and potential media reusers in this direction.

Here is one high quality image that might serve as a replacement -- but I have no preference, if there are others: commons:File:Hunting Cheetah.jpg (see also many other photos here: commons:Category:Acinonyx jubatus) -Pete (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the suggested replacement file. Given the potential for reuse, I think it's a good idea. I'll come back tomorrow, and if there is no further comment, I'll make the switch. --Seduisant (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Pete for bringing this matter again. I fully agree with you, and due to the same reasons we disallowed "GFDL 1.2 only" and "GFDL 1.2 and an NC-only licenses" from commons:COM:FPC on 18 October 2012. The same proposal was raised at Wikipedia too; but failed. See Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed raised by Colin too. I think it is better to avoid GFDL only licensed files from our article lead pictures whenever possible. It will definitely force our photographers to reconsider their decisions. Jee 02:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the statement "this file cannot be readily used alongside other freely licensed files" is accurate. Wikipedia itself is a testament to the fact that GFDL images can be used alongside CC images and dual-licenced images and text. Embedding this in a document, for example, just requires the GFDL licence requirements are met (i.e. attribution, licence indicated and full licence text embedded in the document). These requirements are just about practical for a PDF or book, but clearly ridiculous for a slideshow or many other media formats. But as long as Wikipedia allows GFDL-only images to be used (this one has a CC licence but it is NC), then I believe image choice for articles should remain an editorial decision. We use the best image. I fully sympathise with the aims but believe deprecating GFDL-only image use on Wikipedia needs to be a community supported policy. Too many people currently think Wikipedia is a free-to-read website (like the BBC News) rather than that a free-content project. -- Colin°^Talk 08:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Colin:, I completely agree this is an editorial decision. The image should only be replaced if there's an equally desirable photo available under a more flexible license -- the article's quality should not suffer. I haven't worked on this article before, so I leave it to others with more knowledge of the topic to make any decision. -Pete (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies - I didn't spot this discussion before making an edit to the page that changed the lead image. (Thanks Pete for pointing me towards this discussion)!

I've changed the file to a photo that looked good from thumbnails, but it may well not be the best one to use here. Please do make sure that the lead image here is compatible with the CC license that the content is made available under, though - I'm currently trying to fix the problem with the licensing of a PDF of this page at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Multimedia Project - Wikimedia Foundation that includes the photo that is -NC licensed, and it's a right pain to deal with. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cheetah, there is nothing wrong in changing that picture. Jee 02:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request 21 August 2014

The following sentences were added in the "Diet and Hunting" section on 27 July 2014:

Cheetahs can run at a very high speed. In just two seconds they can run at a speed of 75 kilometers per hour. Means at a speed of 37.5 kilometers per hour in just one seconds.[41] The top speed of cheetah estimately recorded at 90 to 128 kilometers per hour. But there are some disputes between them. But cheetahs refused to run when their body temperature reaches at 40.5°C.

Please change them to something that makes sense. Or possibly roll back those changes entirely, since it all seems like repeat, conflicting, and/or unsubstantiated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.158.1.165 (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree with whoever wrote this, the aforementioned section just seems like a lot of poorly worded repetition. If it is felt that the information presented in it is necessary, then rewording it would be nice. Something along the lines of "Cheetahs can run at very high speeds, accelerating at 75 kilometers per hour in just two seconds. Cheetahs reach a top speed, in a full on sprint, somewhere between 90-128 kilometers per hour; however this causes the cheetah's body to heat up very quickly, and upon reaching 40.5°C they can no longer run." Even in this revision there's some bulk that could be done away with, such as "at a full on sprint", however it's easier to follow. Lastly, I would argue with the removal of the portion that states "the top speed of cheetah estimately recorded at 90 to 128 kilometers per hour", or at the very least have it match up with the information stated in other areas on the site. In the opening statement it clearly states "The cheetah can run faster than any other land animal— as fast as 112 to 120 km/h (70 to 75 mph)", with a number of verified sources to back it up, so there's no reason to change it for this portion. I also did remove the portion that stated "but there are some disputes between them" simply because it seems redundant, there's no way to test this to a point where there's no error, so of course there's going to be some debate. Hauser.120 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauser.120 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Cheetahs on the Edge (Director's Cut).ogv to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cheetahs on the Edge (Director's Cut).ogv will be appearing as picture of the day on September 8, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-09-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A video shot at 1200 fps documenting the movement of a cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) over a set run. These felines run faster than any other land animal — as fast as 112 to 120 km/h (70 to 75 mph) in short bursts covering distances up to 500 m (1,600 ft) — and can accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 3 seconds.Video: Gregory Wilson

Suggestions

It might be helpful to add a citation about the dating of the population bottleneck or about specific evidence of the bottleneck.

It could also be useful to provide a citation that highlights the lack of genetic diversity in cheetahs. I know I have read studies where multiple microsatellites in the cheetah genome have been mapped and it has been shown that there is little to no variance in these microsatellites.

There have been recent studies to show that free-ranging populations of cheetahs are relatively healthy, whereas captive populations are more likely to suffer from infectious diseases. It could be beneficial to discuss this in the article.

In the conservation status section of this article, it is noted that the decline of the cheetah is most likely due to factors other than genetics. It might be helpful to support this by adding that captive cheetahs tend to have higher susceptibility to diseases than cheetahs in the wild despite the fact the cheetahs in the wild stem from the same gene pool, suggesting that conditions in captivity are the cause of vulnerability of these cheetahs.

Wagner.925 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Suggestions

I would like to point out that under the Diet and Hunting section, in the third paragraph it is mentioned that "the cheetah has an average hunting success rate of around 50%" with "The Cheetah in Genetic Peril" as its source, however, after browsing the article a number of times, I never found a single reference to them being successful in 50% of hunts. The closest I could come up with was in the opening statement where it states that cheetahs have a higher success rate than lions, but that's still far from saying it's 50%. The primary reason I bring this up, is because after reviewing another article, "Locomotion dynamics of hunting in wild cheetahs", their data states that the cheetah was only successful in 25-26% of its hunts on average. With about 20% of hunts in grassland and 31% in dense cover being successful respectively.

Another suggestion would be adding warthogs to the dietary section of cheetahs, as again, according to the above mentioned article, one of the cheetahs they sampled that was in high vegetation areas was often observed eating them.

It would also be very interesting to include more detail on the population bottleneck, I'm sure a lot of people don't know anything about it, aside form those that study animals, and it would be very interesting to learn about.

Lastly, to play along with a few other things briefly mentioned here, it has been shown that one of the plausible reasons for increased susceptibility of captive cheetahs to diseases is stress. Captive cheetahs in North American zoos had higher fecal glucocorticoid concentrations, and a larger adrenal corticomedullary ratio, indicative of stress, than those of free-ranging Namibian cheetahs. These two populations originated from the same gene pool, so any susceptibility to diseases is likely not a result of low genetic variability, which bodes well for cheetahs as a whole. Hauser.120 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hauser.120: Thanks for your suggestions. The article has been revamped, you may consider taking a look. You have a few points more, which we will consider adding. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Edit Request

I suggest creating a subtitle about captive cheetahs with under the relationship with humans section of the article with the following text:

Recent research has suggested that cheetahs in captivity actually experience more illness and have lower reproductive success than cheetahs in the wild. For example,a new study found that the Helicobacter species, a bacterium that often causes disease in cheetahs, that was so prevalent in the captive species actually does not typically cause as much harm to cheetahs in the wild, suggesting that cheetahs are not actually predisposed for this diseases, but rather that some factor of being in captivity is the cause. One suggestion as to why there is such a marked difference between the health of captive and wild cheetah populations is that cheetahs are maladapted to captivity. It has been hypothesized that captivity can lead to increased stress levels which in turn causes poorer health and lower reproductive ability. In a study comparing the adrenal cortices and corticoid concentrations in captive and native cheetahs, it was found that captive cheetahs had larger adrenal cortices and higher corticoid concentrations. This strongly indicates that stress is a factor in the lower health of captive cheetahs. Although it is still unknown as to why exactly cheetahs in captivity experience such increases stress levels as compared to their wild counterparts, one theory suggests that the stress is due to the fact that cheetahs are designed to run, but in captivity they do not have room to do so. Another theory as to why captive cheetahs are so much worse off than wild cheetahs invokes the red queen hypothesis in order to explain the discrepancies between wild and captive cheetahs. Wild cheetahs are exposed to a number of parasites whereas captive cheetahs are routinely given medication to ensure that they are not infected by parasites. However, these parasites may actually aide in the suppression of the inflammatory response in wild cheetahs, a trait which the parasites evolved in order to survive within the host, thereby making them less susceptible to certain types of diseases.

Wagner.925 (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wagner.925: Thanks for your suggestion. I think most of what you have suggested is already there in the article, please take a look. You do have a few points more, which we will consider including. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Tear stripes

"These stripes serve to enhance the cat's facial expressions, especially its snarl, during which the black outlines of the lips become a continuation of the tear stripes. There may be a considerable advantage to the cheetah having a fierce-looking snarl, as it depends largely on its snarling and posturing to intimidate a competitor, rather than its ability to attack. The fanciful suggestion that the tear stripes exist as an anti-glare device does not seem plausible." Paul Bosman and Anthony Hall-Martin: Cats of Africa. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. ISBN 1-560-98-760-X

I don't have the courage to edit the Wiki article, but I suspect that the anti-glare theory may be just an old myth that has been repeated so much that it's taken as a truth. I think this idea of enhancing facial expressions should be mentioned in the article. Harjasusi (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Overhaul

I have a fair bit of out of date information and encountered several errors while taking a look at this article. I am going to go through the entire thing and check it all. Any help is welcome and would be appreciated. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"tear-streak" lines

What are "tear-streak" lines? By the way, the "New section" button isn't working.--80.141.14.20 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The "new section" button just worked fine for me. The "tear-streak lines" - look at any picture of a Cheetah's face. They're the very dark lines that run from the inner corners of the eyes down either side of the nose. They are not the result of actual tears. Jeh (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Apology

I recently deleted an editor's comment on here and I would like to sincerely apologise. Jeh has correctly brought to my attention that it is extremely frowned upon to edit another's posting here. This was never my intention. I actually thought I was editing the main article itself. I do hope I did not cause offense. Sorry.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Meaningless "reference" inserted by IP

IP inserted this "reference" at the top of the page, replacing the talk page header template. This resulted in a footnote indicator at the top of the page that was not a footnote to anything, as it was the very first thing. Nor is this even a properly stated reference. Since we're not supposed to remove things from talk pages, I've moved it here to the end of the page. Also nowiki'd the IP's text so it doesn't pretend to be a reference when it isn't. Jeh (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

<ref>St. Louis Zoo </ref>

- the above "ref" added by 75.87.146.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 2015-09-12T22:09:58‎ UTC

Collecting refs

I am entering this section simply to collect refs into this thread so these do not keep appearing after the last posting.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cheetah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150320111736/http://savechinastigers.org/news.html to http://savechinastigers.org/news.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Other color variation section

I'm voting to have the variations listed with no citations removed. I seriously feel it degrades the article and exceptional work done on this article over time. Please voice your opinions before I or another editor removes the variations with no citations or validity.Mcelite (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Mcelite I agree. Sorry, I have removed it already keeping back only the properly cited parts, I did not see the discussion here until now. "Messybeast" is not so reliable a source. I have rearranged the information. Actually I am attempting to make this a GA keeping and adding only well-sourced info. This nice article deserves better work. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 04:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

In some ways this is a great shame. If this wide range of colour variations truly exists, then it would be one of the widest I know for mammals. However, without a source it is not verifiable.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy I tried a lot to find about the color morphs; I found only a handful of facts that are now included under Description. I do not understand this lack of information. Indeed sad. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Improving this article - Inputs needed

Hello everyone! I am interested in this article and wish to improve this so that it meets GA standards, and becomes a FA one day. This is an important article and I see that much rewriting and reordering is required here. There is unsourced material at places, the coverage could be increased and the text could be better arranged. I have access to much literature which I would like to add to the article. I have already worked on Taxonomy, Genetics and Description sections, but from here on I believe we need more deliberation as to what to keep, how to present it and several other points which require consensus. Please see my work on this, and give constructive suggestions to help me with this. I am not sure whom to ping, so I am notifying only those who I think might be interested here: DrChrissy, Mcelite, Dunkleosteus77, Burklemore1, Donlammers, Jeh, ZooPro.

Your recent edits have twice moved "purring" from its own section to the more generalised text at the beginning of the section. Perhaps you would like to explain why you have done this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I observed that the discussion on purring has a lot of citations supporting it, and the citation to the acoustic analysis of agonistic vocalizations focuses on four other sounds (moaning, growling, hissing, spitting). So I considered it best to discuss purring separately, moreover it could be explained better as I compared the vocalizations of cheetah with those of other big cats - a good introduction. If editors do not agree with this, we can alter this arrangement. I think I should mention an issue I noticed - the listed sounds chirping and churring are not mentioned in the publication mentioned above (that is the source which just precedes the list, so it is generally assumed that the listed items are supported by this source). The citations may not have been properly added, but the info given is true according to literature with me. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 18:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I tweaked a sentence and moved the citation so that we have 2 general references to vocalisations in the list, rather than for just a single vocalisation. Does this address your concerns?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks better. But citations 90 and 91 were the same, and Munro was named incorrectly - I have fixed it now. I have two proposals:

• We should repair the subheadings in the intro of Ecology and behaviour, they are wrongly placed and misleading. I request that the well-sourced info added by me be retained, and the previous info (the last 2 paras: Males are often social and may group together for life, usually with their brothers in the same litter;...while in some parts of Namibia they can reach 1,500 km2 (580 sq mi)) be removed as much of it has already been added by me. DrChrissy, I think you should have read what I had added and carefully added back the info - this could have avoided the redundancy.
• The book by Estes (listed under references) has details about olfactory, tactile as well as visual communication apart from vocalizations. A few other sources also elaborate on these types of communication, which have not yet been discussed in the article. Should I now add this info to the text? I propose to rename Vocalizations as Communication for the meantime and add all the info to this section till we decide how to arrange the facts. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Your criticism of me is not deserved. You made massive changes in a stable article. I disagreed with several of these so I manually reverted much of this per WP:BRD so we could discuss the changes and arrive at consensus. This, to me, seemed the easiest and most understandable approach. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Back to content discussion. Which sub-headings do you disagree with and why? DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean to criticize you, I am really sorry if I offended you. All I wanted to say is that let us keep the article readable as much as we can all the time. OK, so the trouble is with the subheading "Males", because following it is the description of female home ranges. If we need subheadings, the first para of "Territories" should be under "Males" and the second under "Females". And we should try to avoid repetition even as we are discussing what is best for the article. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Figure in Taxonomy and phylogeny

The figure showing lineages in "Taxonomy and phylogeny" does not include the domestic cat Felis catus. Is there a reason for this?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I am following this source here. It does not include the domestic cat in the tree, and I did not interfere with the classification. I could not find other sources depicting the Felidae cladogram clearly. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Family Felidae is actually very difficult to actually classify. The fossil record of felidae is very poorly understood. It's very interesting how successful many of the species are, yet little of their past is known or accurately depicted. The cats are in fact a mysterious form of carnivore with no true evidence in evolution as to when they truly came into existence, and for what we can tell really haven't changed much at all.Mcelite (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for these replies. I am not a taxonomist, but I have a good friend who is. Whenever I ask him about a taxonomy question, he almost always replies (humorously, but with more than an element of truth) "It depends which book you read". Perhaps this is a case of that. I think many pet owners and others would like to know where our domestic cats fit into this. I've had a look on the internet, and I am wondering whether we could adapt one of these.

[3]

[4]

[5]

DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DrChrissy and Mcelite. I am accustomed to antelope articles, so this is something new to me. I am no taxonomist either, expertise was never really needed in any of my previous works. My rule of thumb is to follow a credible source in giving the cladogram. As this is an important article it would be really helpful to add one here. DrChrissy, thanks for your efforts, the info looks true to me but since the sources themselves were not reliable and could have copied from others I searched for other studies. I could have used the Johnson 2006 source but I do not have it in full. I think this source will surely help; the only problem is that the phylogenetic trees differ a bit in the Felis lineage. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I was not suggesting those as RS - I simply searched for images of feline lineages which included the domestic cat. Certainly, we would need more reputable sources to support an image. Given that we both feel we are not experts in this, we probably need more voices here. In the meantime, do you have a feeling for whether a 2006 source is likely to represent today's view? I have no idea how quickly these things move on. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Give me about a day to gather myself I have some deadlines to make. Then I can actually look at the cladogram seriously, and look at the sources. We may not be able to use an online source for this specific occasion. We may end up having to use a journal article or published felid biology book.Mcelite (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mcelite, please take your time, this certainly needs some deeper research. DrChrissy, often some sources do not grow old till some contradictory theory emerges; I myself have not been able to find many sources on cat phylogeny besides the Mattern 2005 (mentioned above), Johnson 2006 and Werdelin 2010 sources. While Mcelite is busy with the Taxonomy part, could you and I go over the other parts of the article? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I finished a complete version of the correct cladogram not sure why it had the African wildcat with the Sand cat, but that is the correct format after looking at all the correct sources. The journal article provided was exception help. I'm on pain meds at the moment so it took me a minute to get it formatted correctly because I'm doped up temporarily. Please ask if there are any questions, but long story short from what we can see the African wildcat is the closest relative to the domestic cat genetically. It doesn't mean that the domestic cat evolved from the African wildcat but that they are the most genetically similar.Mcelite (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all your efforts Mcelite. The cladogram was a bit misarranged, I have fixed it now. What needs to be done next? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well done both! Great work! DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy:, @Mcelite: Could we work a bit faster? Sorry if I expect too much from here, but I wish to know if I can resume expanding the article. My web connection is poor and I am busy, but I will try to work on this whenever possible. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What's next that needs to be done at the moment. I'm still recovering so my medicine makes it a bit hard for me to concentrate at the moment so it takes me longer to get stuff done.Mcelite (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, please take care. Others are there to help me. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There are still a few problems with the cladogram. The Lynx label was on the root rather than the lynx lineage. I have moved it to the correct position. Two other issues remain. First the internal arrangement within Felis is unusual and doesn't accurately reflect either cited reference, the original Johnson et al (2006) complete living felid species study, or other more recent studies from the O'Brien group. As an aside, the Werdelin et al (2010) reference didn't show the domestic cat as it wasn't recognised as a separate species in the generally accepted taxonomy at the time (this has recently changed). Second why is the leopard cat lineage, the sister lineage to the Felis cats omitted? If Felis is to be included, the small cats of the leopard cat lineage should be too. I can add this and update Felis. but wonder if it is appropriate to put the full tree here in the article on the cheetah. An alternative is just to indicate the two lineages on the tree, reducing the lynx one too, so the emphasis is on the position of the cheetah. Jts1882 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016

The sentence "The typical speed in a sprint is 112 km/h(70 mph)." has been proven to be wrong many times. There are also multiple places later in the article under the sub heading recorded values that make this false claim. Contrary to popular belief the fastest speed a cheetah has been recorded at is 61 mph and has an average top speed between 55 to 60 mph. This even confirmed by source 109 linked to the article. Bip0plarbear (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bip0plarbear: Thanks for pointing this out. I have clarified these points now. According to the sources, the speed 112 km/h is the most reliable measurement during a short burst of speed, typically when the cheetah is just going to grab its prey. I could not find many reliable sources apart from a book by Richard Despard Estes that give the average speed during the chase. This book gives it as 64 km/h, which I have added for now, till we come across more sourced information. The article cited in ref. 109 is suitable as a source for Sarah's record, but not for the average speed; we don't know where from they got it. Another point to be noted is that the speed recorded by Sarah is a non-hunting speed over a pre-determined run, not natural as in wild cheetah. Please let us know if you wish to have more fixes. Thanks, Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2016

Please change "far more healthier" to "far healthier" in order to avoid redundancy. Munjaros (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Seduisant (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Maximum speed - Correction needed! / 2015 Attenborough survey

New GPS-computer based survey shows max. speed is 58 mph rather than 70mph. link--Grga (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Grga: This seems to be the only report regarding this (try a Google search), reporting the findings of a single study. I wonder if we can neglect all the sources we have at present and use just this source. May be we should just mention this as a contrasting revelation till we have more findings of this kind, instead of cutting out the "70 mph" for the "58 mph". Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: I have seen Attenborough's film on this. Attenborough explained the history of cheetah-speed measurings: There were only 2 measurings (1957-Severin, 1965-Sharp), both were quite amateur estimates (here you find the same as Attenborough said: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/gmis9911.htm). All the references just refers this 2 cases. One more measuring happened by National Geographic Channel in Cinncinatti ZOO in 2012 on one cheetah by camera http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120802-cheetah-sarah-cincinnati-zoo-fastest-record-science-usain-bolt-olympics/ resulted 61 mph, that is also much close to the Attenborough study result of 58mph examined 367(!) cheetahs. Attenborough survey went first on air Feb. 2015. I'm a bit shocked, that a so fundamental survey happened, and it is not yet updated. Otherwise I agree not simply replace 70mph to 58, but shortly explain this speed-measuring story, but making clear: the 2015 GPS analyzed 367 cheetah survey by Sir Attenborough is significantly the most reliable and up to date data now. --Grga (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay Grga, I was busy elsewhere. I see your point, this should be included in our article. I have tried a mention in "Recorded values" [6], and in the lead [7]. Please check the diffs and let me know if you are happy with the changes. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Attenborough's research has some serious flaws though. There is so much you have to take into account which he doesn't do in his research. The age of the animals, the conditions they ran in (e.g. muddy grass, dry grass, against a head wind, with the wind etc.). There have been other film recordings of cheetahs hitting 70mph plus, and even I have personally seen a cheetah be clocked at 73mph. The fact is recording hunting speed is not the exact same as encouraging or recording a cheetah in the wild going full out. That is why Attenborough's research isn't useful in determining maximal speed, but good for hunting speed to a point. A cheetah that has made a mistake is far more like to put out more speed than a cheetah that has had a perfect hunt or a cheetah that has decided to give up on the chase.Mcelite (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you Mcelite. I felt this was just like any other study, but if your suspicions are true, then we shouldn't be including this in the article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sainsf I have ripped everything apart form web of knowledge to springer link, Jstor, and various other outlets relating to anything about Attenborough's research. There is nothing there but the news website citing what he said. No indication of how the data was recorded, when it was recorded, the conditions the animals ran in, the distance from their prey they were, etc. all of which plays a major roll in how fast the cats are going to go. I guess to put in the simplest terms for others to understand is if the cheetah gets a good surprise on a prey item, and it only reaches a speed 50mph before it gets caught. Well the cheetah doesn't need to go full speed if the animal it's chasing hasn't even reached it's top speed. This gives false data impression therefore we can't use what he says about top cheetah speed.Mcelite (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts Mcelite. If the study was not published in any peer reviewed source, things we base information on at Wikipedia, this can't be included. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Fastest land *animal*

The article states that the cheetah is the fastest land mammal. The word 'fastest' has a link to the world's fastest animals, which names the cheetah as the fastest land *animal*. I propose that the title of Fastest Land Animal is more appropriate than fastest land mammal, and the article should be edited to state the former. I would've edited it myself but the article is locked. Seb0910 (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done This looks logical, and I am sure the sources are consistent with this. Perhaps we were focusing too much on "mammal" to consider "animals" as a whole. Thanks Seb0910. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Maximum speed - Correction still needed?

I found a source instead of this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929235/Cheetahs-slower-thought-Big-cats-speed-actually-58mph-70mph-accepted-decades.html This one is the one I found: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7453/full/nature12295.html and here is the PDF: https://www.wildlabs.net/file/541/download?token=RxH90APn What do you think, correction is still needed then? User:WelcometoJurassicPark (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright I was able to look at the entire article. It is a very good article but it's focus is on hunting locomotion focusing on 5 adult cheetahs. The research article itself even states that cheetahs have been recorded running faster speeds than what was recorded from the five adults he focused on. 1). Five is a low number for this type of study to determine the capabilities of both the African and Asian cheetah 2). It is good for this to be a strong source detailing hunting locomotion of the cheetah. It would incorrect to say top speed is 58mph that is the fastest they recorded from five adults. There are some things I wish they would have included in their study such as weather conditions, the animals ages, etc. because it all matters.Mcelite (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)