Talk:Pallas's cat

Taxonomy

I have seen a number of references to this cat placing it in the genus Octolobus, rather than Felis.

http://www.lioncrusher.com/animal.asp?animal=64

http://www.cathouse-fcc.org/pallas.html

http://www.indiantiger.org/wild-cats/pallas-cat.html

Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 41(4), 2005, pp. 691–700 "EXPLORING THE ECOLOGIC BASIS FOR EXTREME SUSCEPTIBILITY OF PALLAS’ CATS (OTOCOLOBUS MANUL) TO FATAL TOXOPLASMOSIS"

So unless there is some really recent taxonomy work done here I think this should be amended. Stray 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Those all use the older taxonomy. The most up-to-date is in Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed, and is reflected in this article as well as much of the rest of the Felidae. (It's not done 'cos I'm busy doing other work....) - UtherSRG (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Note the taxonomic note on IUCN's listing: http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/15640/all - UtherSRG (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Another image

For when the article gets large enough to support a second image. ~ BigrTex 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pallas Athena?

Why is it called pallas' cat? Arthurian Legend 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the authority of the binomial name.... - UtherSRG (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

If this cat is named after a person (P. Simon Pallas?) or deity (Pallas Athena?) or something like that, wouldn't the correct name be "Pallas's Cat"? "Pallas' Cat" is only correct if it's named after several people/deities/misc. named Pallas. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The cat is named after the naturalist, and Britannica list it as "Pallas's Cat" [1]. WP:MOS#Possessives gives both forms as acceptable for Wikipedia. We don't therefore _need_ to rename the article, although it wouldn't violate the MoS if it was renamed. Tevildo (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

On doing some checking, every other article we have on animals named after Pallas has the "s". I've proposed the move through the appropriate channels. Tevildo (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And it's done. :) Tevildo (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The cat's name is Pallas' Cat and that is the proper grammar. I checked two zoos and they have it named that way. http://cincinnatizoo.org/blog/animals/pallas-cat/ http://www.greatzoo.org/amazinganimals/asiancats/pallascats Pashta (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Internet

In RuNet manuls are popular. Better to add this here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Dozer (talk • contribs) 06:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While it has started in the Russian speaking internet, they became popular in other places too (especially Imageboards) - no wonder, who couldn't love such a concrete ball of fur :3 --87.123.118.135 (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cross breeding?

Can they breed with the common domestic cat? Bizzybody (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Pallas apparently thought so, although not on the basis of any real evidence, and his reasoning seems to have been faulty. So far as I can tell, however, nobody has actually tried it to find out. Which leaves a scarcity of referenced info that we could add to the article on the subject. Anaxial (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Pallas's cat → Pallas' Cat – The cat's name is actually Pallas' Cat per every zoo I checked, including the World Assosociation of Zoos http://www.waza.org/en/zoo/visit-the-zoo/cats-1254385523/otocolobus-manul and the Cincinnati Zoo http://cincinnatizoo.org/blog/animals/pallas-cat/ – Pashta (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Pashta and Andy M. Wang: I believe you mean Pallas's cat → Pallas' cat? — Andy W. (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• The American english spelling is Pallas' cat, the British english is Pallas's cat. Both are correct. It's still the same cat. Therefore, I suggest to just place the {{British English}} template or smaller version on top. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason to think this is a country-specific variation, and the article spells "recognize" with a 'z' consistently and shows no other telltale sign of country-specific spelling that I notice, so it would seem to be either in American English or using Oxford spelling. MOS:POSSESSIVE simply says that either form is acceptable. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support move to Pallas' cat. The common names of mammals used for article titles are pretty consistently those found in Mammal Species of the World, where "Pallas' Cat" is given as the common name (see here). Weak support because while following MSW for common names is more consistent, MSW names are in no way official, nor even necessarily commonly used (commonly used being what WP:COMMONNAME is all about). The IUCN Redlist is referenced in the taxobox as the source for "Pallas's cat" (and the IUCN also lists "manul" as a common name, which does appear to be fairly commonly used). It doesn't really matter one way or the other; neither title is wrong, and the current title is used consistently throughout the article and is sourced (IUCN source would need to be replaced with MSW if the article is moved). Plantdrew (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Possible application of WP:RETAIN for British English, and also no overwhelming reason to change it.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The case for a move in terms of usage is borderline at best, so retain the British spelling. Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

High elevation / Nepal

The article cites a paper stating that in Nepal they live at up to 16K feet. On a recent (11/2/16) episode of Nature (PBS, S35E04, "The Story of Cats (1): Asia to Africa)", researchers were tracking a Snow Leopard in Nepal at 20,000 feet. Their remote camera captured a Pallas's cat marking and rubbing in the Snow Leopards territory. I'm unsure if this reference is good enough to change the elevation cited in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B153:AD89:0:1D:375D:5001 (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thickest cat

Their coat is the thickest among all the cats.

References

Hi Bhagya, is this controversial ?--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Not controversial, but ALREADY mentioned. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm moment for me. BhagyaMani Thanks for the catch. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, can you please point me where has this been mentioned earlier ? I am unable to find it. regards. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

In the same section, 3rd sentence : "... stocky posture and long, dense fur makes it appear stout and plush." -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

yes, but it just states they have a dense fur. Not that it is the thickest in the cat family. I still feel the line should be mentioned specifically.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The snow leopard has also very dense fur with long guard hair. But none of the authors who described fur of either species ever claimed that the one or other is the 'thickest'. If there was, then provide a WP:RS, i.e. author, date, title, publisher, page no. Not just a vdo. And please don't break the referenced paragraph. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

What does thickest coat even mean? Does it refer to the length of the hair or the density? I'd be surprised if larger cats in cold environments (snow leopard or Amur tiger) don't have longer hair. If it refers to density then that is something that would need to be properly sourced if the claim is to be the thickest/densest.   Jts1882 | talk  07:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Joofjoof (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Captive Pallas's cat

• ... that the Pallas's cat (pictured) was detected at an elevation of 5,593 m (18,350 ft), the highest record to date?
  • ALT1:... that the Pallas's cat (pictured) has up to 9000 hairs per cm² of fur?

Improved to Good Article status by BhagyaMani (talk). Self-nominated at 16:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC).

• The article was promoted to GA on January 14 and timely nominated. A QPQ is not needed, as the nominator has only one DYK credit. Both hooks seem to be sourced, but the book cited as the source for the second one doesn't appear to include the number 9000. (Btw, I personally find this number unrealistic.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

See page 666, 4th paragraph in Heptner & Sludskii. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Page 666. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have found the number in a book called Felines of the World [2] and on the Russian Geographical Society website [3]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• @BhagyaMani: I will approve the nomination, but I think the first hook is not clear enough. It is not clear what the record is for. (Actually, I think ALT1 is much better cause it includes the number 9000. Should I maybe just approve ALT1?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

5,593 m the highest elevation where a Pallas's cat has been recorded to date. What is needed to make this more clear, in your opinion? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, maybe it is clear enough, or maybe not so much. If is were "In 2016 the Pallas's cat (pictured) was detected at an elevation of 5,593 m (18,350 ft), the highest record to date", then it would sound clearer. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• This map, created by the nom, needs to be updated. Given the cat was found in Uttrakhand's park called Gangotri National Park as the article notes, the map should include these updates as well as other updates. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Anyway... I am going to approve ALT1, but is the "58,000/in²" part necessary? I'd prefer if it were simply:
  • ALT1:... that the Pallas's cat (pictured) has up to 9000 hairs per cm² of fur?

--Moscow Connection (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed 'in 2016'. It seems that the 1st hook was not clear enough because of these 2 words ? If that solved the problem, I much prefer to use this hook, as the source is newer. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't really like it... Now when you removed "in 2016", it is even worse. Maybe the exact date or place would be needed for the hook to sound better, I don't know... I just don't like the way it sounds... --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you want me to change in this 1st hook to improve it? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I like ALT1 better anyway. And there's another user who voted for it.
By the way, I've expanded the article a bit. I initially thought that the meme was the reason you expanded the article and promoted it to GA. And that you intentionally chose a hook that included the number 9000. But now it seems it was just a coincidence. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandarax: What do you think about the version without the "58,000/in²" part in parentheses? It the part really necessary? It looks bad cause it splits the sentence in the wrong place, leaving the last part of the sentence rather unattached. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's standard to include conversions for all quantities. You can remove it if you want to, but most likely someone would add it again somewhere along the line before or during its Main Page appearance. (Although it is a little more complicated than the usual {{convert}}, so maybe nobody would bother.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I'm removing the part then. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

In my initial edit, I didn't use the converter. This was added shortly after my nomination, 1st to the template, then to the page itself. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I also support ALT1, but prefer updating the map as I described above before DYK is finalized. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that an update of the map is warranted. But the latest published map dates 2020 and shows the polygon in Armenia as 'possibly extinct', which is not correct any more. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Approving ALT1, which I think is both educational and entertaining. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again to User:Moscow Connection : the Pallas's cat got 15,532 page views while on the front page on 30 Jan 2021, wow!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed statement in "Distribution and Habitat" section

The "Distribution and Habitat" section formerly contained this sentence:

The continental climate in this region exhibits a wide range of air temperatures from −50 °C (−58 °F) in winter soaring to 80 °C (176 °F) in summer.

This statement IS sourced, just read the ref'ed source. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sourced, as noted below. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Since the reference cited does not support this statement, and the highest documented temperature ever recorded on Earth is 134 F/56.7 C (in Death Valley, US in the early 1900's), I removed the statement. Reference: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/highest-recorded-temperature/

@BhagyaMani: I am also having trouble believing this temperature range. I attempted to read the tiny text of the source...which page is this located on? The source covers 31 pages.....Thanks for your help, we met on the Jaguar article. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

See pages 684 + 688. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: Thanks, my friend, for directing me to page 684, which supports the 80 C temperature. I see that page 688 supports -50 C. I am an older person, squinting at an iPad screen, and I had difficulty reading the tiny text. Forgive me for being surprised that a mammal can survive at 176 F, which is only 36 F below the boiling point (212 F) of water! I know that as WP editors, we must summarize "verifiable information" versus what may be "true". Still, do you think this is sensible? You obviously have a good understanding of mammals...how does this lovely cat survive such an extremely high temperature? I can understand them cuddling up in sheltered locations to survive extremely cold temperatures, but how do they even breathe the air at 80C? Deep, cool shelters, perhaps, but I would think they must emerge to hunt. Sorry to bother you with my questions. Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: I have now increased the page size, so I could read the reference on page 684 more closely. In the second paragraph on the page, it states that the habitats have a "large amplitude in annual and daily temperatures. For example, in the Kazakh upland, the amplitude of annual temperature may reach 80C."

The key word here is "amplitude". Here is the definition: "Temperature amplitude is one of the important climatic factors, used to measure the difference between the highest and lowest temperature in the same geographical area over a certain period of time (one day, one month). or a year, ...)" [4]

So, the source is saying that there is a temperature variation of 80C, between the lowest temperature and the highest. The article states, as supported by page 688 of the same source, that the lowest temperature is -50C. Then we add the 80C "amplitude", which brings us up to 30 C, which is approximately 86F. This seems logical and reasonable. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and correcting. But this website is out of context? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, I don't think the "context" of the website is an issue, the reference explains the definition of "amplitude" in this particular context, of temperature, much better than the wikilink you added. As noted in the wikilink,"This article is about amplitude in classical physics " which does nothing to help our readers understand amplitude in regards to this article. Pallas's cat is not about classical physics, and I am absolutely puzzled as to why you would wikilink to this particular article. We are allowed to insert simple maths into articles, so for our middle school and high school range readers, it is helpful to state the entire range of -50C to 30C. Why not do so? Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree to introduce an external website for an explanation or definition of a term that is explained in a wikipedia AND a wiktionary page! That is what internal links are for !!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882, Elmidae, FunkMonk, Hemiauchenia, William Harris, and Casliber: please have a look at this diff and then tell me : have you ever seen on any of the many pages on your watchlists that an external website is referenced for the explanation of a term, when a respective wiki page exists about this same term ? In this particular case : either amplitude or wiktionary:amplitude. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Frankly I wouldn's use "amplitude" here at all, and yes, mostly because article Amplitude does a bad job of explaining that it frequently is used merely for "range between recurring extremes". I mean, that is the same thing as "measure of change between peak and trough in a single period", but oh boy... physicists. Not a great fan of the current formulation in the article either though. I'd suggest something like: Annual and daily air temperatures range from −50 °C (−58 °F) in winter to 30 °C (86 °F) in summer, a range of 80 °C (176 °F). Simpler and no possibly confusing links needed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Elmidae Yes, that was my point... Amplitude is confusing, when used in this context. I prefer your suggestion. I included the word "amplitude" in my original edit, to counter the accidental (and repeated support for) misinterpretation of the source. "Animals" (barring extremophiles) cannot survive at 80 °C (176 °F), on this planet, even in a GA-rated article. I had to argue, twice, with BhagyaMani, regarding this outlandish statement, which caused me to add TMI per "amplitude". Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hello B., I have seen them used in the dog-related articles, just before I delete them for not being a WP:RELIABLE source. This source is a non-scientific website, with no author given nor references provided, and therefore cannot meet the definition of a reliable "source" per WP:SOURCEDEF. In my opinion, for a GA-rated article it is not acceptable, and there needs to be a better source found. William Harris (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • William Harris I was informed that the website was "out of context" and didn't comprehend the issues, so thanks for this good explanation, per RS. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree that this ref compromises the GA status, which is why I removed it, but was reverted, alas! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, I apologize. But my non-RS definition was preferable to the classical physics-based Amplitude, which did not assist the reader in their understanding of temperature ranges. As noted above, I support User:Elmidae's suggestion, which avoids Amplitude entirely. Perhaps we can agree on this...and I will make the change and attach the proper source and pages. I accept that a poor quality ref is undesirable, but a GA that proclaims that air temperatures reach 80 °C (176 °F), and that Pallas's cat and their prey were happily existing in this environment is also problematic.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Your revert

This revert: [5] of 23:57 8 February 2021. A GA (and DYK) is a fine thing and a wonderful accomplishment, but as we have seen at the Jaguar article, (an FA in 2006) the article/information is not set in stone, and "frozen" for all time. An article may benefit by some additional minor improvements to the text. These improvements would not have prevented the Pallas's cat article from being promoted to GA, but are nonetheless helpful, in my opinion.

As one example, please consider that many sentences began with the word, "its", which made for rather stilted reading. In my recent edit, I did not change (or intend to change) the meaning of the information in this excellent article, I only made changes for a smoother flow of readability. Surely, this is permissible...it would be absolutely unkind for a GA reviewer to expect true perfection, prior to elevating an article to GA status.

You have the ability to research and organize a scientific article....please allow minor, friendly and supportive editors to do a bit of work on the prose. My edits were not intended as criticism of your work, but as support for a thoroughly interesting WP article. It took me a good bit of time to make the changes, and I dedicated the time, because I considered your work on this article to be worthwhile, and I wished to support you (and Pallas's cat). I ask you, with great respect, to reconsider your revert. Kindest regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, Tribe-of-Tiger, I saw your edit that BhagyaMani reverted and my initial thought was that it was not an improvement. The article was reviewed as a GA very recently, so please trust that the reviewer- and BhagyaMani, who has long worked on carnivoran articles- knew what the proper format & grammar is. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, SilverTiger12!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

SilverTiger12 (and a note to BhagysMani) Thanks for your polite comment, but at this point I don't trust this particular GA review, and I am starting to lose faith in BhagyaMani, whose name I have known and respected for several years. I had to argue with BhagyaMani twice, before they realized that Pallas's cat does not live in a 80 C/176 F environment, an environment which doesn't exist anywhere on this planet. (See the long Distribution and Habitat section above, if you are truly interested in fairness). And the GA reviewer didn't catch this glaring error either...along with some rather sad prose problems. At the top of this talkpage, it says this is a GA article, "If you can improve it further, please do so." Well, this seems to be a joke. Obviously, a GA article is assumed to be perfect, and if a normal editor attempts to make changes, as I did prior to discovering the 176 degree problem, their delicate and careful prose edits are entirely reverted (on 23:57 8 February) because "This version passed 2 reviews, for GA + DYK". That's what BhagyaMani wrote as a Ed sum, when they reverted 1.5 hours of my careful prose-only copyediting. I guess I have learned a lesson...GA & DYK & FA are more important than providing decent WP articles. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Re lede : comparisons with other species are NOT relevant in this summary and not used in any other FA or GA page I know. The focus of lede is always and only the title's species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, well, would it have damaged you to explain this in an edit summary? Why are rounded ears so very important that they should be in the lede? What about "Its claws are unusually short. Its stocky posture with its long and dense fur make it appear stout and plush." or something like that? Which are frankly, less helpful than a size comparison to a domestic cat. If comparisons that assist the reader are not allowed in FA or GA articles, I suppose its a good thing that they are (hopefully) rare. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Cladograms

Thanks for adjusting size of the cladograms, whiz ! Looks a bit squeezed now, but that doesn't matter to me. I had tried to reduce font size of sublabels or add a line break, but that didn't work. Is there any way to perhaps reduce font size for sublables already in the template ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting permission for an edit

@BhagyaMani, Jts1882, Elmidae, William Harris, and Casliber:, I would like to ask permission to edit a paragraph, if you please... In the first paragraph under Characteristics, first, we have an overview of the fur. Next, two sentences regarding facial features. Then, transversal lines on lower back. Cmts per hair tips. Then, back to facial attributes. Then, back down to the back and tail, followed by fur in winter vs summer and then the details regarding fur composition. This info skips around. Surely each type of information should be more closed grouped together?

Here is my proposed edit:

The Pallas's cat's fur is light grey with pale yellowish-ochre or pale yellowish-reddish hues. Some hair tips are white and some blackish. Its fur is greyer and denser with less markings visible in winter than in the summer.{[provides an overview]}

The forehead and top of the head is light grey with small black spots. It has two black zigzag lines on the cheeks running from the corner of the eyes to the jaw joints. Its chin, whiskers, lower and upper lips are white. {[facial features]}

It has narrow black stripes on the back, consisting of five to seven dark transversal lines across the lower back. and its grey tail has seven narrow black rings and a black tip. {[back and tail]}

The underfur is 40 mm (1.6 in) long and 19 μm (0.00075 in) thick, and the guard hairs up to 69 mm (2.7 in) long and 93 μm (0.0037 in) thick on the back. Its fur is soft and dense with up to 9,000 hairs per cm² (58,000/in²). {[underfur]}

Of course, the bolded comments would be removed, and the sentences condensed into a single paragraph. Also, the last two citations to Geptner1972, could also be "condensed". Please let me know what you think, and if I am allowed to make this edit. If I am not allowed to make this edit, please explain why. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Not being one of the "cat people", it would not be appropriate for me to comment. However I advise that Heptner is one of the greatest of the "heavy-weight" mammalogists, and WP:BOLD. William Harris (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

William Harris, despite my username, I am not a cat mammologist, I am a prose-reading, logically minded gnome...and I read references for pleasure. I mean no disrespect to Heptner/Geptner, or even to BhagyaMani,I merely wished to reorganize this information...I did not remove any words or information. I did not condense any info, I only wanted to make it clear that I wouldn't retain the paragraph breaks, as shown in my example, and I made this as clear as I possibly could!Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed a heavy-weight, and Sludskii too!! I do not agree to condensing anything in this paragraph because the content IS ALREADY condensed compared to the very detailed description by Heptner & Sludskii. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

BhagyMani I am very sorry that you were unable understand that my "condensing" referred to the paragraph breaks, and the paragraph breaks only. If you had read carefully and compared, you would have seen that I didn't remove any information whatsoever, I merely rearranged it. Fortunately, the two editors below actually read what I wrote.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The proposal isn't to condense anything, it's just reordering the existing sentences into a more systematic sequence. The general characteristics of the fur are dispersed throughout the paragraph and the proposal is to move two general sentences and place them before th more specific sentences dealing with parts of the body. I support the change. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jts1882 here; "condense" in the original request seems to refer to deleting the returns between the sentences as written (merging them into one paragraph), not removing any of the text. Makes sense to me, but it seems a very minor point to argue about. Anaxial (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed a minor point! The more so as reviewer Chiswick Chap – one of our most experienced reviewers with about 100 reviews, perhaps even more – did NOT criticise structure and phrasing in this section. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As explained below, my "condense" comment referred to the paragraph breaks in my example, I did not remove any of the original information, I merely rearranged it in an orderly fashion. I tried to make this clear, by stating "the sentences [in my example should be] condensed into a single paragraph. My thanks to Jts1882 and Anaxial for reading carefully and comprehending my simple explanatory statement.

However, I was mighty confused by William Harris and BhagyaMani references to Heptner. All of the article's references (which were, of course the ones that I copied into my proposed edit, state the name as Geptner. I have just now gone back and looked at the title page, etc., of the source document, which shows the name as Heptner, not as Geptner. This GA article has 13 references which are incorrectly cited to Geptner, instead of the correct name of Heptner. Perhaps there is some good reason to spell this name with a G instead of an H, but if the book spells the name as Heptner, and the well-respected author is known as Heptner, shouldn't the citations have the correct name?Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Anaxial, yes indeed, my "condense" comment referred to the paragraph breaks I inserted, in my example edit. I intended the edit to still read as one paragraph. I did not remove any of this high-quality information, but merely proposed rearranging in a logical manner. This may seem to be a minor point, but we are encouraged to improve articles, even GA articles. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The "minor point" I was referring to was whether it should be one paragraph or two. Your suggestion for the edit seems reasonable and I see that it has now been done. Anaxial (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

His Russian name is Гептнер, transliterated Geptner, pronounced also Heptner. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. But, given the fact that the reference book shows his name spelled as Heptner, shouldn't the citations reflect the same spelling? I know this will be a time consuming change to make, but I am absolutely willing to do so, in honor of the article. I consider to be a bit problematic, as both you and William Harris have referred to him as Heptner, and he may be better known, in the English speaking world as Heptner. I think this would be a good service to our readers, and I am willing to assist. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The reference used is the English translation of the book published by the Smithsonian, which uses Heptner. This makes the citation incorrect. The citation should be to the Russian version using the Russian name and publisher or the English translation using the English name and publisher. The latter is, of course, much more useful for verifying the information. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

BhagyaMani After some research on Google, etc., I retract my objections to the Geptner/Heptner situation. I am willing to admit my misunderstanding of the situation, as I am unfamiliar with Russian...perhaps you will understand that the different spellings look a bit strange. You obviously have a better understanding concerning Russian names, and I respect your ability.

As an exchange of faith, could you possibly give credence to my own previous Good Faith "English prose" corrections that you reverted in the past, as well as the current logical organizational corrections that I have made to one paragraph of this article? I have no desire to disparage your accomplishments, or those of Chiswick Chap, but these articles are complex, and benefit from the efforts of several editors, working towards a common goal. Please accept my desire to help WP by doing my part to edit the prose and the organization of individual paragraphs of this article, as I have done for other articles.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani, Jts1882, Elmidae, William Harris, Casliber, Chiswick Chap, and Anaxial: With much trepidation, I have made the edit, as stated above. I did, of course, remove/condense the paragraph breaks, as was proper. The last two units of the information have the same citation, but at this point, I am hesitant to condense them into a single citation. I think this may be for the best, as I will attempt to add the actual page numbers from the 31 page Geptner source, so readers don't have to hunt for the page.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, and no need to ping everyone all the time. Page numbers are however essential. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, Pinging is a tedious task for me, so thanks very much! I am unaccustomed to working on such an active talkpage, and followed an earlier example to excess. I am sincerely grateful to BhagyaMani for taking on the task of adding page numbers, as they are thoroughly conversant with the source material. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting permission/approval for another edit, a paragraph break

I wish to insert a paragraph break into the second paragraph of the lede. The original wiki text shows a long white space after "South Siberian Mountains". The next line began with "In these regions". [6] This text markup usually indicates that a paragraph break was intended, but not actually inserted. I believe that a paragraph break is required, to differentiate between topics/information.

In my proposed edit, the paragraph break results in: Paragraph #2, which describes specific countries/geographical regions. Paragraph #3 describes the specific attributes of the regions, camouflage, shelter and prey. I merely wished to insert a paragraph break, yet this small, logical change was reverted, so I reinstated it. I apologize for having to address this minor matter on the talkpage, and I have tried to explain in a proper manner, with Diffs. This seems to be the only way I can gain permission to edit this article. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Chiswick Chap, for the "thanks" for my talkpage edit above, and to BhagyaMani, for allowing my article edit to remain. This is a wonderful, but complex article, and I am honored to provide some editorial assistance. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

First mention of Pallas

@BhagyaMani:, when do you intend on first mentioning Pallas? Because in my opinion it should be in the etymology section, considering that's where the cat's name comes from. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The name "manul" long preceded the name "Pallas's cat", correct?

If that is the case, "Manul" should be the correct title of the article. Pallas did not "discover" the cat, the animal was known and referred to as "manul" long before Pallas ever laid eyes on it. --Halflauren (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The possessive can mean many things, depending on context. In the case of "Pallas's cat", it refers to the fact that Pallas was the one who formally described the cat for scientific purposes. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Manul seems to be more commonly used than Pallas's cat per Ngrams and Google Trends. Plantdrew (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm good with moving this to "Manul". Do we need to make this formal or shall we just do it? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It should go through a formal move request. I had tried to search with apostrophes, but Google Trends stripped them out, which may have an impact on the results. Plantdrew (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Pallas Cat Working Group - external links

Hello! I noticed that there are 2 external links: Pallas's Cat Working Group http://www.pallas-cat.wild-cat.org/ and Pallas's Cat Study and Conservation Program https://savemanul.org Indeed, initially savemanul.org was the website of the Pallas's Cat Study and Conservation Programme of the Siberian Environmental Center NGO. Now this is the official website of the Manul (Pallas's Cat) Working Group.

At the same time http://www.pallas-cat.wild-cat.org is outdated and now does not have attitude to the actual Manul Working Group.

So I suggested the changes (as the person from the MWG) Yazula (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What exact changes do you want made? I will add them if you give the name of the organisation and the link. Alternatively, you can make the changes yourself. You've declared a potential conflict of interest here, so I see no reason why you can't edit the article and use your expertise. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the websites.

• https://savemanul.org/ is the site of the Manul Working Group (MWG) or Pallas’s Cat Working Group (PCWG) (see the About Us page).
• http://www.pallas-cat.wild-cat.org is still a valid link but now needs a different title. The HTML page still has the title "Pallas' Cat Working Group" in the metadata, with a description of "Pallas's Cat: news on conservation, distribution and habitat, ecological research, library with videos and publications". The copyright at the bottom is to the "Wild Cat Network". Perhaps the metadata description is best, although a bit long.

A bare link to the latter is another alternative. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Common name origin

The article states The common name 'Pallas's cat' was coined by William Thomas Blanford in honour of Peter Simon Pallas. However, the reference cited for this (Blandford's Mammalia) doesn't say that, so Cherkash tagged it as both fv and cn (though fv implies cn, so I removed that extra tag). Do we have any other indication that this was the first time this species was called Pallas's cat? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

If we can't find a replacement reference for Blandford being the origin of the name, then I suggest revising to something like As early as 1881 in Blandford's Mammalia, the English-language common name 'Pallas's cat' was used in honour of Peter Simon Pallas, who formally described the species. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct is that Blanford did not explicitly honour P.S. Pallas when coining the name. So I revised the sentence. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC); corr by BhagyaMani (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but I wasn't taking issue with "honour", but the denotation that Blandford was the one who coined the term. As far as I can tell, we know only that that is an early instance of that name being used; we don't know if it was the first time it was used in print. I suspect that's a similar thought to why Cherkash tagged it in the first place. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Authors before Blanford (1888–1891) used either the Latin name, e.g. Radde & Walter (1889), Severtzow (1858) + Hodgson (1842), or 'Manoul' like Brandt (1841) in French. You are welcome to check and proof me wrong. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: Please abstain from removing the fv/cn tag(s) until the sentence and whatever claim it makes is fully supported by references. Right now, nothing in that sentence is supported by the given reference. There are two claims in that sentence: “given by Blanford” and “given in honor of Pallas”, so there should be references for both of them in order for that sentence and its claims not to be challenged. Please also remember that the onus is always on the editors who want to keep the information, to provide supporting references - and not on other editors to “prove them wrong”. I’ve re-added the tag, please don’t remove it until the text/references relation is fixed in this case. cherkash (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per strong consensus. No such user (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Pallas's cat → Manul – Per WP:COMMONNAME and the discussion above that demonstrates that "Manul" is by far more common. UtherSRG (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Cats has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Mammals has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject China has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Nepal has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. In 38 of 58 post-2000 references listed, the name Pallas's cat is used in the titles, whereas only 8 use the name Manul in titles, of which 3 are non-English sources; and 2 use both names. In addition to those using a vernacular name in titles, at least 2 use Pallas's cat in texts, namely Kitchener et al. (2017) and Ross et al. (2020). Hence Pallas's cat is by far more common in English. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pallas's cat is the English language common name, although manul is used in some international journals. The IUCN, MSW3 and ASM-MDD all use Pallas's cat (or Pallas' cat in MSW3). —  Jts1882 | talk  09:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I clicked through from the Ngrams page to its Google Books link for "manul". Many occurrences of "manul" are in Manul process (some kind of printing), some other personal names, Latin binominal nomenclature O. manul or F. manul, and results not in English despite the search supposedly being limited to English pages. It is not a large proportion of occurrences using it as a common noun for the cat. I would not take the Ngrams at face value. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only known as "manul" in other languages; all English language sources refer to it as the "Pallas' cat". 149.119.106.169 (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, Pallas' cat remains the English common name. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ENGLISH. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as Pallas's cat is the most common English name. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead section

BhagyaMani, please mind WP:OWN. I share the above concerns by Tribe of Tiger that passing a GA review does not mean that the article should be set in stone. Concerning your revert of my edits in the lead:

1. Its rounded ears are set low on the sides of the head. This unremarkable characteristics is not worthy to be in the lead at all, let alone in the second sentence. It came as an astonishment to me as a reader: why is this so important?
2. The Pallas's cat's pupils are rounded, a unique feature among the Felinae. I don't find that very remarkable either, but it is simply incorrect. As we see in the article body, Among the Felinae, it shares this trait of round pupils with Puma, Herpailurus and Acinonyx species.
3. It is common to introduce a native range for wild species early in the article, so that the reader knows where it stems from. However, here, we have to wait to the middle of the second paragraph, and then in the form of enumerating a dozen mountain ranges. I summarized it as "mountainous regions across central Asia" in the first sentence, gave the easternmost and westernmost points , and we an leave the exact list to the body.
4. Why is it important for the lead that In the early 19th century, it was reported to occur in Tibet, and in the Transcaspian Region in the early 20th century? Those bits of history should be saved for the body.

No such user (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This was your very first edit on this page. I don't recall that you contributed to any other of the pages on cats and mammals in general. So I wonder whether you are familiar with the GA and FA criteria at all? And if so, what makes you confident that shortening the lead is an improvement of this page's GA status? − BhagyaMani (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I am familiar with GA and FA criteria, thank you, and also know that a lot of stuff can slip through GA reviews, such as the one I listed above. I am also quite familiar with MOS:INTRO and have edited hundreds of article lead sections in various fields. Why don't you address the substance of my arguments instead of questioning my qualifications? I'm just a random person on the internet, just like you. No such user (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that brevity is usually a virtue in the lede, and personally I do like the shortened version better. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Everest

Hello @BhagyaMani: Did you intend to revert my addition of WP:SECONDARY? My edit summary was terse, elaborated "Seimon appears to be an unreliable PRIMARY in something called Cat News. It's really an international organisation's journal, and SECONDARY for it" Invasive Spices (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Had you bothered to download the article, you would know by now that Cat News is the journal of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group (SG), hence is NOT unreliable as all articles published in this journal are peer-reviewed by other members of this SG. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I did. You continue to not notice that this supports Seimon's reliability. That was my intent. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, then I misunderstood. But still I think this cite news is redundant. Or do you see any other of the 25 Cat News articles referenced in this page "supported" by a 2ndary source ? And what makes a news release by WCS more reliable than the article itself? – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Or do you see any other of the 25 Cat News articles referenced in this page "supported" by a 2ndary source ? They should be.

And what makes a news release by WCS more reliable than the article itself? That is true. It doesn't add much. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

First description in non-Western literature?

The intro says that the first description was by Peter Simon Pallas in the 1700s. While that may be true taxonomically speaking, it seems unlikely to me that there was no earlier written description of this animal by any of the civilizations within its habitat range (Persian, Arabic, Chinese, etc.). I've slightly changed the wording for lack of further information, but identifying the true first written account might be a good project for someone with the inclination to pursue it. Nicknimh (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Once YOU found an earlier than Pallas's description, you are welcome to add it and change the wording. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)