Jump to content

Talk:Cheetah/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheetah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of the genus

I’ve edited the etymology of Acinonyx, including a cite to Merriam-Webster for what seems to me a much more plausible derivation. The “thorn” business in the previous source (still cited for the species) makes no sense: it disagrees with the complete translation that follows (which is just fine), AFAICT there is no Greek kaina with that meaning, and the Latin would have come out as Acænonyx instead. There is a word akaina, but that’s not a privative a- prefix because it comes from the root ake, sharp (cf. acute, acanthus). The second part, onus, was wrong as well; I chose onyx to match the name, although onux, onyks and onuks are all possible transliterations. Breaking the name in two (immobile + claw), rather than three (not + move + claw) is more a matter of taste, but I think it’s tidier.—Odysseus1479 06:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I'm not good at writing etymology, maybe that's why these mistakes had crept in. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cheetah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2017

174.141.87.130 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to have the link for different wolves of Eurasia, rather than for the subspecies Canis lupus lupus, because the latter link is not for all the recognized subspecies of wolves that coexisted with the Asiatic cheetah. Leo1pard (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirecting African cheetah to Cheetah#Africa

What I am thinking of is redirecting African cheetah to the sub-section for Africa, that way, we can have a more valid link for African lion IMO, rather than African lion having to redirect to the whole article, since this article also talks about extant Asiatic cheetahs and prehistoric relatives, and I mean it in a geographical way. What do you think? Leo1pard (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The Subspecies section also has important information on cheetahs in Africa and this is above the In Africa section, which doesn't make the point that there are several African subspecies. A complication is that the Asiatic cheetah used to be found in parts of North Africa (see CatSG) so in this sense all cheetahs are African. On balance the geographical section as you suggest is probably better (perhaps the subspecies should be mentioned there) as the link to the top of the article is potentially confusing. Jts1882 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Motility

"The consequences of such genetic uniformity might include a low sperm count, motility, deformed flagella, difficulty in captive breeding and susceptibility to disease." Something seems to be missing here. Is this supposed to be referring to decreased sperm motility? Also, "susceptibility to disease" should probably be "increased susceptibility to disease". --Khajidha (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarah the cheetah

There's a nice videoof a cheetah running in slow-motion. It's attributed to Sarah, a female cheetah that lived in the Cincinnati Zoo. But at 0:58 in the video you can see this guy has some pretty nice testicles on him. Not so sure it's Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2CA0:BA3:413B:5A15:6A48:ED4D (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Cryptozoology

This article should be a part of WikiProject Cryptozoology. For a long time the King Cheetah was considered a cryptid until its discovery as sourced in the book Cryptozoology A to Z (page 122-123).--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Leo1pard (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Cheetah portrait Whipsnade Zoo.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cheetah portrait Whipsnade Zoo.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 20, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-01-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheetah
A portrait of a cheetah at Whipsnade Zoo in Bedfordshire. Cheetahs have small and streamlined heads. Their ears are small, short, and rounded, marked by black patches on the back and tawny edges. Their high-set eyes have round pupils, while their whiskers are fine and inconspicuous. Their faces have unique "tear streak" markings that may serve to reduce glare or define facial expressions.Photograph: William Warby
Archive – More featured pictures...

King cheetah

Can somebody please change this part "The mutation is recessive, a reason behind the rareness of the mutation." A mutation is not recessive, a phenotype is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:820E:1C30:490C:2B1D:CB5B:E859 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me look into that. Leo1pard (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Done, I changed it to "The appearance is caused by a mutation in a recessive gene." Leo1pard (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2018

168.8.170.8 (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My request is that you need to put more information about reptiles,mammals and you also need to write more details about anmials .

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2018

New research on cheetah speed became available in 2013, published in journal Nature - "Locomotion dynamics of hunting in wild cheetahs", A. M. Wilson, J. C. Lowe, K. Roskilly, P. E. Hudson, K. A. Golabek & J. W. McNutt, Nature volume 498, pages 185–189 (13 June 2013. Although the cheetah is recognized as the fastest land animal, little was known about other aspects of its notable athleticism, particularly when hunting in the wild. The above study used a new tracking collar of a proprietary design, containing a combination of Global Positioning System (GPS) and inertial measurement units, to capture the locomotor dynamics and outcome of 367 predominantly hunting runs of five wild cheetahs in Botswana. A remarkable top speed of 25.9 m s−1 (58 m.p.h. or 93 km h−1) was recorded, but most cheetah hunts involved only moderate speeds. The study recorded some of the highest measured values for lateral and forward acceleration, deceleration and body-mass-specific power for any terrestrial mammal. To our knowledge, this is the first detailed locomotor information on the hunting dynamics of a large cursorial predator in its natural habitat. Reynard28 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Domestication Is Misleading

Please remove the numerous references to Cheetah "domestication". Domestication requires multi generational control over a species in a successful breeding program where subsequent offspring lose their ability to survive in the wild and become dependent upon man's provision. This has never happened, historically. Even in modern times where zoos and conservation agencies have had moderate success using technology to improve captive birth rates, we are still far from being able to do so reliably and the cheetah remains on the endangered list for a reason. Historically, cheetahs were obtained by captive trapping of young adults because breeding them was so difficult. There are numerous references to this online as well in libraries. I do not feel the need to list exhaustive references here. Making a pet of a wild animal should not be confused with the larger impact of the mass process of domestication upon a species. Please could someone correct these misleading references? 96.33.110.66 (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC) 8/30/18 K R Koole

I see nothing about domestication in the articles recent history over the past few months. If you want to suggest an addition, please include citations to reliable sources in your proposal. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Uncertainty over subspecies

PRehse Careful, the cheetah, like the lion, is one of those species which the Cat Specialist Group had trouble with. It is possible that there are only two valid subspecies, a northern subspecies comprising the Asiatic, Northeast and Northwest African cheetahs, and a southern subspecies comprising the Southeast and Southern African cheetahs, similar to the case of lions being divided into a northern subspecies (including North African and Asiatic populations) and southern subspecies (though issues like that of genetic admixture have to be treated with caution).[1] Leo1pard (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

So what? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
As in, big trouble for anyone wishing to use classifications by the Cat Specialist Group about which types are subspecies or not, as if they can be used definitely. Leo1pard (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Again: so what is this about? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That you have to be more careful about what you often do, because the CSG admitted that there are a number of things which they aren't sure about, but often, you act as if that's not the case. Leo1pard (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't need a personal teaching by an amateur!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
How disrespectful. Nobody on Wikipedia knows everything. If you've been editing articles, and someone wants to talk to you about some errors that you made, like what I mentioned about the cheetahs, is this how you're going to treat that person? Leo1pard (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O’Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News (Special Issue 11). ISSN 1027-2992.

running time of cheetah with maximum speed

[1]]ɱ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi04101997 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

see it once

thi is wrong because Paratarsotomus macropalpis is fastest animal on earth it is discovered by scientists in 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:419D:2ECD:5B05:698D:DB1D:2596 (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

According to the Paratarsotomus macropalpis article it "the world's fastest land animal relative to body length". The cheetah is faster in absolute terms.   Jts1882 | talk  11:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Author names in text

Hi Tallis40: I don't mean to be disrespectful to authors when removing their names from the content itself. But if we used the names of every 202 authors currently ref'ed in this page, the text would become unreadable. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this needs further discussion.
Tallis40 wrote in edit summmaries:
  • Names are very important, or even crucial, in this context, for one central reason: there is no ONE definition of ANY of these terms, and most of them lack a clear acoustic definition, and regardless of acoustic definition(s) the use of terms vary between authors. It is crucially important to point out that the terms given here are the ones used by Eklund, Peters, Munro, Weise, or indeed Estes, who also seem to be edited away. Otherwise the reader will get the wrong impression about these terms.
  • No edit done, but if BhagyaMani insists on crediting researcher there *must' be something added about the terminology problem with regard to vocalizations, which indeed was part of this entry just a couple of days ago (when both Eklund and Estes were mentioned). To provide a list of terms without mentioning that those are the terms used by a specific and small group of researchers is misleading and would never be allowed in academic publishing (even at 101 level).
In general, an encyclopedia should be presenting the facts as known and the names will be left in the references. Primary research papers have different requirements. This changes when someone makes an exceptionally important contribution to a field or when there is some controversy where different sides must be presented. The earlier version written with the names stated didn't seem to indicate any controversy over the use of the terms. If there is one it should be stated clearly and then the names on both sides can be mentioned. It should also be borne in mind that if there is some controversy, those involved have a conflict of interest (WP:COI). Perhaps any changes should be discussed here first.   Jts1882 | talk  16:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, Jts1882! And for pointing out the WP:COI editing. Despite this, I don't think it necessary to remove the refs to the published articles. But I removed the cite webs, as no additional or different info about vocalisation of cheetah is provided at these websites.

Please change Palestine to Israel

Why does it mention Palestine instead of Israel?? Please change it to Israel. Its sickening that some individuals take advantage of the wikipedia platform in order to advance their anti Israel agenda. If some would argue Israel was created in 1948, way after the Cheetahs extinction, then one can argue that Israel was founded before Iran (1979) and Syria (1961).


Distribution and habitat

... In Eurasia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Syria, and the Ganga and Indus river valleys in South Asia sheltered large numbers of cheetahs.[33]

EDITED VERSION

... In Eurasia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria, and the Ganga and Indus river valleys in South Asia sheltered large numbers of cheetahs.[33]

 Not done. It really depends on what the cited source says. The editor who added that was expanding the article from cited sources and there is no evidence of editing with an ideological agenda.
User:Sainsf added that in this edit. @Sainsf: you have access to the cited source; what does it actually say?
In my opinion, no countries should be mentioned at all, because cheetahs have no notion of political boundaries. Instead, the region covered by these countries should be described. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The cited source is available online and indeed mentions 'Palestine' as historical range country of the cheetah, see 2nd column on page 25. Just edited this ref. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

“Palestine”? What is that mythological land?

Cheetahs used to be in Mandate of Palestine or now, Israel & Jordan. “Palestine,” Mordor OT Narnia is a mythological land. AlonTree (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Material in Wikipedia has to follow reliable sources. The cited source says Palestine (on p23). If the source mentioned Morder or Narnia, the article would have reflected that sourced information. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Changing citation style without concensus

According to WP:CITEVAR: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. I don't think the recent changes to use {{sfn}} are an improvement and think they should be reverted until there is consensus for such a change.   Jts1882 | talk  08:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree: this change is no improvement and should be reverted. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the trouble. I was unaware of this. You can revert the changes I made to the citation style, I am not sure how to perfectly undo it without changing a few other things I fixed between edits. I plan on improving this article for FAC, and will be putting this up for a peer review soon. Probably that would be a good place to discuss the style. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The reason I didn't revert it immediately was because that would revert the many good changes you have been making. Your work here and at Ocelot is appreciated. The footnote style editing isn't used much in articles on species and biological taxa, it's more appropriate for biographical works where major works are cited many times. Unfortunatly the citation and other edits are mixed across many sections so selective reverts is not possible. I think the best approach would be to revert todays changes (different=934022022&oldid=933939004 these edits) and redo the other changes. I can help with that.   Jts1882 | talk  10:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you :) I'm fine with the revert, I'll redo the lost changes later (any help in any part of improving the article is more than welcome). The reason I went for the sfn citation style was that I have around 5 book sources with many useful chapters (see [2] and [3] for instance) that I plan to use significantly in the article to give it the requisite broadness of an FA, but I was unsure how to cite several chapters from a single book (I will be using almost the whole of the book, do I go for page ranges separated by semicolons in just one citation or write multiple citations for each chapter of each book?) Then I saw the sfn citation style in Wolf, and remembered its use in an FA I had worked on with other editors (Bluebuck). Thing is, if not sfn, what would be a good way of writing citations in my case that would also look neat enough for FA standards? I am open to suggestions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, if there were a large number of books being repeatedly cited, that could be a justification for switching the citation style to use {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}}. That is what this discussion is for, to establish consensus. However, as the article already has over 200 citations that seems unnecessary, at least at this stage (the feature article reviewers may feel otherwise). Another option is to use the {{r}} or {{rp}} templates, for instance first use[1]: 44  and second use.[1]: 144–156  There is further information at WP:IBID, WP:CITESHORT and {{Harvard citation documentation}}.   Jts1882 | talk  15:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for all the help Jts1882. I have seen {{r}} or {{rp}} templates at places but I had never thought of using those. They fit in perfectly here, will use them in the article from now on. Please revert the citation style changes as you feel right, I will pick up my work on the article after that. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sainsf: See Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#citing_different_pages_of_the_same_book for another approach, putting the short citations in the main reference list. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Jts1882. I will read it soon. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Mills, Gus; Mills, Margaret (2017). Kalahari Cheetahs: Adaptations to an arid region. Oxford University Press.

Article too long

This article is over 188,000K, its far longer than other mammalian species articles. Compared that to lion, cat and wolf at 142,000k, brown bear at 141,000K, tiger at 140,000k and dog at 131,000K. There is no reason why this article can't be trimmed and summarized. LittleJerry (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll shorten the section Taxonomy. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the table in this section can be shortened considerably by removing all those details that are not relevant for taxonomy, e.g. range countries + where it was reintroduced, captive breeding programmes and other content that is either detailed in other sections of this page or on the pages about the subspecies. But before I do so : let me know what you think. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought this would be an issue so I was planning to cut down a few sections (mainly Subspecies) but thought of finishing adding details first. No worries, I'll bring it down to 140K. Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 11:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: We are down by 30K at least, let me know where else we could cut things down. I will try shortening Reproduction, but the bulk of the article size is mostly refs, may be we should cut them down unless they are necessary? @BhagyaMani: could you let me know why you undid my changes in Habitat, I was trying to condense the material. Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 13:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, seems I edited this very shortly after you did; no bad intention. I merely edited refs. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The page still has close to 155,000K. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@BhagyaMani: It's fine.. maybe undo your changes to that section (these 2 changes [4] and [5]) so that my edits are restored and then edit the refs once again? And do let me know if you have any suggestions to cut down the material, as the readable prose size (59K characters using DYK check tool, Wolf for example has 67K) appears decent to me now (I will still condense it in places) and I observed it does not account for most of the unwanted article size (we can easily cut out 10K more if we remove unnecessary refs). Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 13:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Re-shortened + re-edited refs. For further shortening, I suggest to remove refs to newspapers. In most cases, these are anyway repetitions of peer-reviewed articles. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay then. I would probably still aim for <45,000 K but I don't think its a big deal now. LittleJerry (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Article length in Wikipedia is best measured by word count, the word count is reasonable (~9,500 words).

The file size ('WIKITEXT') is NOTHING MUCH TO DO WITH IT, because many normal edits (such as adding references) greatly increase the size without materially increasing the read size of the article for the reader (which is what counts), while only improving the article quality. Good articles, such as this one, normally have large wikitext. GliderMaven (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Its reasonable now because there has been much trimming. LittleJerry (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I looked back through the history, it didn't seem to have made a lot of difference to word count, my concern was more that you were looking at the wrong metric, and making edits that might actually be harmful based upon it. I haven't managed to go through all the edits. GliderMaven (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for your input everyone @LittleJerry:, @BhagyaMani: and @GliderMaven: but I am confused now. I tried my best to make this article comprehensive enough, got my hand on a few really good sources that explain this topic so well that I had to improve our Wiki article using them, and I was worried about the article length but I saw Wolf and a few others with ~10-12k word count so I went ahead. Then this concern was raised and we had to cut a lot out. It's my request to everyone, before I take this to PR and then FAC, can you explain to me properly if...
  • I made any mistake?
  • Was the part I cut out today too much for the article or should that be put back for comprehensiveness and also because most of it doesn't occur elsewhere on Wiki? The word count if I remember right was <12k yesterday.
  • Are 200+ refs an issue?
I want it to do well at FAC and I really should learn from my errors as this is my first big article and I plan to take on big and important articles like this one in future. Thank you. Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 15:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
200 refs aren't a problem, lion has more. LittleJerry (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani:, @LittleJerry: and @GliderMaven: I think the point above that some edits may have done more bad than good as we looked at it the wrong way could hold weight. I mean there are FAs like Passenger pigeon which are way longer and didn't face issues so I can't see why this should except if there is loss of focus, which I'm sure there isn't. So I'm going to open PR now after some cleanup and after I re-add a bit of material which I think should be there for proper coverage. Please discuss anything you wish to at the PR where we can get better consensus instead of here. Thanks, Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 23:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, like I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure why the length of related articles should decide how long a given article can be. Passenger pigeon is longer than any articles about extnant pigeons, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Error in Etymology section

The etymology section has an error. It has a phrase reading चित्रय (cītra); cītra is not correct. The Sanskrit says citraya instead (all short vowels, plus a syllable is forgotten too! How does this happen?). I'm posting this up because I cannot edit this article. 153.33.60.3 (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This spelling is referenced by sources. Please check them. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Easy: चि ci त्र tra य ya. It's very basic Devanagari. And anyway, cītra चीत्र​ is totally unattested; it is not a word. Therefore चित्रय must be the correct one. If you want an alternative argument, we can turn to diachronics. Just off the top of my head, I say with full confidence citraya is more correct: citraya > *cittaya > *cittaa > cītā; compare *cītra > *cītta > *cīt. 153.33.60.3 (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, the source cited does not say cītra; it literally says "kitraya" (it seems to me that the dictionary uses ⟨k⟩ for what's usually ⟨c⟩—unusual, but it is what it is) 153.33.60.3 (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's still wrong, but in a different way now: it should be "citraya," not "kitraya." The dictionary contrasts ⟨k⟩ from ⟨k⟩, which represent what is normally ⟨c⟩ and ⟨k⟩, respectively (this is evident from looking at other entries). Why that is, I know not. It does the same thing with ⟨m⟩ for normal ⟨ṁ⟩, and ⟨t⟩ for normal ⟨ṭ⟩; it uses a weird transliteration, and for the sake of uniformity with Wikipedia's standard for Sanskrit transliteration it should read citraya. 153.33.60.3 (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems चित्रक citraka is a better etymology anyway, considering one of its meanings was "hunting-leopard" or "Cheeta [sic]" in Sanskrit.[1] According to the source cited in the article, citraya simply means "painted," which in my opinion seems weaker than "Cheeta." 153.33.60.3 (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/citraka

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

Taming:

change: Kublai Khan (1260–1294 BC) to: Kublai Khan (1260-1294 AD)

Kublai Khan's reign was not BC.

[1] 100.11.21.132 (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I'm surprised that survived since it was introduced in April 2020. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kublai_Khan

Edits to Social organization

Under Social organization we have some similar information regarding cubs/coalitions.

  • In most cases, a coalition will consist of brothers born in the same litter who stayed together after weaning, but biologically unrelated males are often allowed into the group; in the Serengeti 30% members in coalitions are unrelated males.
  • If a cub is the only male in a litter he will typically join an existing group, or form a small group of solitary males with two or three other lone males who may or may not be territorial. In the Kalahari Desert around 40% of the males live in solitude.

I have grouped these two portions together. And now, the following info regarding coalitions is together. But, the original sentences

  • "If a cub is the only male in a litter he will typically join an existing group, or form a small group of solitary males with two or three other lone males who may or may not be territorial. In the Kalahari Desert around 40% of the males live in solitude. A coalition generally has a greater chance of encountering and acquiring females for mating, however, its large membership demands greater resources than do solitary males."

had two sources, and I have split the sentences, although I copied both sources, Nowak and Hunter. I don't know if the sources need to be adjusted, as I can't access many pages of "Wildcats of the World" (Luke Hunter). Please review and help, if you can. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Tribe of Tiger, that book is available for download on zbooks. [6]. LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
LittleJerry, thanks, I will check this! Very kind of you.... Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi protection reason

From the log it appears the page is semi protected since 2010. The discussion at WP:RFPP seems to no longer be in the archives, and there are no notice as why the page is protected even here.

Anyone remember the cause and whether it is still applicable ? CrocodilienAnonyme (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a pretty popular page and was probably vandalized pretty frequently before being semi-protected. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that was ten years ago, but I guess there are no reason it’s vandale attracting status changed.

SilverTiger12 May I pet you as a thanks ? :D CrocodilienAnonyme (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) cub.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 16, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-11-16. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheetah

The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) is a large cat native to Africa and central Iran. Cubs are highly vulnerable to predators during the first few weeks of life, and predation is the leading cause of mortality among cheetah cubs. A study showed that in areas with a low density of predators (such as Namibian farmlands) around 70 per cent of the cubs survived beyond the age of 14 months, whereas in areas like the Serengeti National Park, where several large carnivores exist, the survival rate was just 17 per cent. This cheetah cub was photographed in the Phinda Private Game Reserve in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, amid long grass.

Photograph credit: Charles James Sharp

Recently featured:

Why does this include their ESA conservation status?

I thought it was standard procedure to list the IUCN Red List, and, if applicable, CITES designations, for the conservation status of any animal species, which reflect worldwide consensus. Why use an American system for a species that's not even found in the United States? --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point !!! It is NOT at all needed in the box. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

Please remove these three phrases: 

neglect of cubs by mothers
Cheetahs are poor breeders in captivity, while wild individuals are far more successful
Though she tries to make minimal noise she usually can not defend her litter from these predators.

and replace them with these three: 

maternal neglect
Wild cheetahs are far more successful breeders than captive cheetahs
Despite trying to make minimal noise, she cannot generally defend her litter from predators.

"Maternal neglect" is a common term, and while most results (unsurprisingly) are human-related, the concept itself isn't. "Can not" is not normal, a common is beneficial, and the identity of "these" predators isn't given. All three phrases are shorter without losing anything of significance. 120.21.112.28 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 16:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Cheetahs in India

Two sets now present in Kuno national park, MP India and historical range. 2604:CA00:138:33BB:0:0:C61:3212 (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect units used for acceleration

"The researchers suggested that a hunt consists of two phases—an initial fast acceleration phase when the cheetah tries to catch up with the prey, followed by slowing down as it closes in on it, the deceleration varying by the prey in question. The peak acceleration observed was 2.5 m/s (8.2 ft/s), while the peak deceleration value was 7.5 m/s (25 ft/s)."


The incorrect units used m/s and ft/s are of speed, not acceleration. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity with time and has to include a time squared component. It is written in the SI system as m.s-2 (ft.s-2 archaic). KlinkyWik (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It's also not clear where the numbers come from. One of the Wilson et al (2013, Nature) papers says the average deceleration in successful hunts was -7.5ms-2, while Fig 3d shows it can reach double that. Fig 3d also shows accelerations up to about -12ms-2, although I don't see an average mentioned. The RS paper says the fastest (GPS-derived) linear acceleration was 7.5ms-2". There is also a ridiculous amount of precision in that paragraph when describing the maximum speeds. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Cheetah Reintroduction in Saudi Arabia.

1. https://www.arabnews.com/node/2297351/saudi-arabia?fbclid=IwAR0YCqNJtTk0Qktrpv9gpPMd8nXAduamuyqQCB5mNjpuY38-wq0zoyTy_n0_aem_th_AUpbsfGMfvl5ZZVjP3EEPLQ3w5GER4JILERfs-JYVNBriBQVKWdBa05hRVhS6QalpCY&mibextid=S66gvF

2. https://www.saudigazette.com.sa/article/632156?fbclid=IwAR2Sfb3wCFOwVzhiExjF7Q34I6U9AETuMhiI9PYIn_yEearSeHv9NfewN3c_aem_th_AUppqgthZEFNtkwJq_cBHkDMbrAm_MBBGbG7nyVIyJ_vGaeIvRqT1QUkVYUJGSvWFBo&mibextid=Zxz2cZ Ovie11 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2023

Please change: 

is a large cat native to Africa and Southwest Asia (today restricted to central Iran).

to 

is a large cat native to Africa and central Iran.

This would bring the introductory sentence back to what it was before a change in February 2023. [7]

The current wording is far too confusing – it sounds like we're saying that today it only lives in Iran, instead of Africa and Iran.

194.105.229.8 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 00:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Just two references (+pdf) of the many scientific research articles that would better inform this page

In connection to this sentence "... it has evolved specialized adaptations for speed, including a light build, long thin legs and a long tail" which lacks any serious/significant information, with references, on physiological and anatomical adaptation for speed.

Williams, T. M., et al. "Skeletal muscle histology and biochemistry of an elite sprinter, the African cheetah." Journal of Comparative Physiology B 167 (1997): 527-535. 

https://williams.eeb.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CheetahMuscleHistology_WilliamsEtAl1997.pdf

Hudson, Penny E., Sandra A. Corr, and Alan M. Wilson. "High speed galloping in the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) and the racing greyhound (Canis familiaris): spatio-temporal and kinetic characteristics." Journal of Experimental Biology 215.14 (2012): 2425-2434. 

https://www.originalwisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/10/Hudson-et-al_2012_High-speed-galloping-in-the-cheetah-and-the-racing-greyhound.pdf Richard Hawkins (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay... so why aren't you gleaning information from those sources and uptaing the article? - UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Because this page, unlike any other I have worked on is closed. Richard Hawkins (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
If you are extended-confirmed, you should be able to edit it as it is semi-protected., not full protected. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
As SilverTiger12 said. In addition, if you are not able to edit it, you can propose specific changes here via the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Taxonomy incorrect?

NCBI lists cheetahs being in Acinonyx, a sister clade to Felinae. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=32536&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock Aredridel (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The ASM's MDD lists it in Felinae. https://www.mammaldiversity.org/explore.html#genus=Acinonyx&species=jubatus&id=1005979 We generally follow the IUCN and ASM. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
IUCN lists it in Acinonyx: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/219/124366642#taxonomy 172.56.193.150 (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh, doh, no, that's genus not subfamily. IUCN doesn't list it (at least in the red list) Aredridel (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The NCBI does place Acinonyx in Acinonychinae, which reflects early classifications separating the cheetah from the other cats based on its "non-retractible" claws. This classification fell out of favour on morphological grounds (the claws are sort of retractible after all) before molecular data showed the cheetah to be more closely related to the puma and jaguarundi. The NCBI disclaimer saying "The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification" is pertinent here. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Cheetah limb bones robustness

About my last edit:

That is exactly what I said. I don't think I expressed it in the best way. Correct? The length of a cheetah's femur in relation to body mass is 87 mm/kg⅓. That of a greyhound is 69 mm/kg⅓. In addition, the diameter of the midshaft of cheetah bones is larger than that of greyhounds relative to the length of the bone. For example, in cheetahs, the diameter equals 8.07 % of the femur length, and 7.53 % of the femur length in greyhounds. The diameter equals 7.27 % of the tibia length in cheetahs, and 7.02 % in greyhounds. (Relative diameters are personal calculations from length and diameter averages also made by me; See Hudson 2011).

There is a popular belief that cheetahs are too fragile, but this is not so true. There are more graceful animals out there. An animal that can accelerate quickly (0-97 Km/h in less than 3 seconds), needs strong limb bones. Don't you think so?

Also, cheetahs seem to have a more elongated calcaneus than greyhounds which would help them to generate more torque on the ankle joint.

LeandroPucha (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

where do cheetahs live

their habit 207.89.46.249 (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's in the article: Cheetah#Distribution_and_habitat. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect map of India

Map of India has severe inaccuracies and seems to have been done with mala fide intentions. Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab and Aksai Chin which are inalienable and integral part of India as held by Govt. of India, are shown either as parts of Pakistan and China or marked as separate territories. Even if the map is drawn keeping in mind UN disputed territories resolution, disputed territories of Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Aksai chin should have also been marked separately, which isnt the case. Also Punjab state of India which clearly isnt disputed by any other UN member is marked as a separate country/territory which is highly objectionable. Kindly take note of it and revise the map Mohitkumar0121210 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you are asking on the wrong article. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Its not the wrong article, map of cheetah habitat clearly shows India on the right. The distortion of the map is clearly visible and needs a rectification Mohitkumar0121210 (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I too thought that you asked on the wrong page. But since you insist, just go ahead + change the map yourself. Then we can decide whether your changes are acceptable. – BhagyaMani (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I've replace the range map with a cropped version of the same image that avoids the issue. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
well okay, since you've cropped it out, I think it doesnt need complete replacement anymore. Its acceptable for now but could require India's addition in the map in future since cheetah population in India has reached 26 after reintroduction from Africa Mohitkumar0121210 (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2024

The species of the cheetah is not considered a large cat since it cannot roar. I request we change the page to say that cheetahs are considered small cats but are about the same size as felines considered as large cats. Thanks you 2601:80:477F:82F0:AD97:6C0E:7435:C972 (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Large cat as in size. Note that it does not state the cheetah is a Big cat, which is used to refer to the cats you’re talking about The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheetah/Archive_3&oldid=1249340749"