Talk:Cat

copyvio

I removed the one sentence on this page which might be considered copyvio and removed the vio report. --Aspectacle 00:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it says ...in mulltiple places... in Naphui Quarter. But, i just want to say that I saw him on a corner right before the phoenix Mesmer boss in the mission, just rolling around.--‎FireTock 15:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's my cat!

That's my cat Bitten! Katy had me take a bunch of pictures of him and she modeled him using his fur as a texture. <3 - Linsey talk 04:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Once Bitten twice shy? :) Wish it were tameable, though at the top of my list would be the rabbit in pre-searing. I was so excited when I first saw it, then so disappointed when it wasnt charmable. Killer wabbits ftw. THe mini made up for some of that I guess. 189.33.71.211 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Category

I recommend a new category, such as "Scenary" for things like this that are cool parts of the scenery to look at. Perhaps the Rabbit (Proph) and oxen (Factions) could be there as well. --136.142.214.19 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The rabbit can be targeted and the oxen can not. And you can kill the oxen, it's actually pretty fun. Paddymew 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

keep?

I'm wondering whether we need this article, since it's essentially just scenery (it can't even be killed, like the oxen can). We've deleted a similar article before, see Talk:Fish (passive), but since that was quite a while ago and opinions can change, I'm wondering what anyone else thinks. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd remove it, there is no article about doylaks either. And they are far more numerous in the game. Also, cats are just animated meshes like a bush or tree. A player cannot interact with it. Morgoth Bauglyr 20:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what? Dolyak_(creature) --JonTheMon 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's about the concept of Dolyaks in general. Not specific instances of them. It's not like our readers needs to be told what a cat is. w:cat exists. Backsword 20:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

/delete Drogo Boffin 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'd say dolyaks are more relevant/appropriate than cats/fish since there's a dolyak NPC and dolyak-riding Stone Summit. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yer the yaks play a part of a few npc and enemy groups... the cat however does not (ohh and someone needs to clean up the frog while were at it) MrPaladin talk 20:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Miniature

I think this would be an awesome mini, anyone else think so?Thrain Talk 03:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It couldn't be a miniature, It has no walking/movement animations as it just lies there rolling about on the ground. Pariah talk 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It has no need for walking/movement, if it rolls as it follows you around. DO A BARREL ROLL! Paddymew 09:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

deletion

im against it its a cute cat and maybe cat fans wnat to find it? 127.0.0.1 20:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it's based off of Linsey Murdocks cat is enough to make it slightly more than an article about background scenery, and thus more relevant than Fish (passive), and Cow. I'm against deletion as well. Ryuu - talk

I third the motion. This page is no different than the page for things like Oxen, in fact, this page has more to it than that one. I vote it stays. Pariahtalk 05:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Water Buffalo is more significant than the cat because it's capable of "interacting" with players - they're susceptible to AoE damage and apparently drop items; it just can't be targeted.

I don't think the trivia that it's based on Linsey's cat is important enough to warrant keeping the article, hence its "trivia" status. If the page is kept, it should be kept on the basis of the main part of the article, not something like that trivia note. If we want the note to stay somewhere, we can put it on the Linsey Murdock article with an image if necessary. I don't think the article itself is significant enough to keep. -- pling 13:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm having quite a few different thoughts about this, and I can't seem to collate them all together. When I think about one thing about this, I forget another. Anyway, I shall try my best. I think this is kind of like a little "easter egg" within the game itself. I mean, when you come to think of it, this is the only cat within the game that I can think of right now. Obviously there's lions etc. which are from the cat family, however this is the only cat-cat (if that makes sense). The same goes for dogs. AFAIK, there are no "dogs" in the game, only animals from the dog family such as the wolf. It's good to see modern day things in an ancient-like style of game (despite cats being around since ancient times, but you understand what I mean). However as was previously mentioned, this is actually just part of the scenery, you cannot interact with it. As I stated, I can't really remember everything all at once, so I will try to think of things and come back and contribute them to this discussion. -- Lacky 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I vote it stays too its infoand some people might like to know about it --Atlantis29 16:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep the cat,Get rid of the Rat I vote it stays as per most comments above.(We like Bitten,and it rolling.DO A BARREL ROLE!)--Neil2250 16:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really convinced by the arguments for keeping it. It's encouraging to see people discuss content issues, but something more than a vote and a signature would be more useful (for me, at any rate) when discussing deletion. — pling 17:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious, Am I to take it there's no article on the Ashford Rabbit? Perhaps we need an Easter Egg category these sorts of things can go in, so nobody has to whine about it being irrelevant or not and curious folk can still learn about these things. Easter eggs are inherently irrelevant as it is, so it would be expected in such a category. Anyway, I'm strongly against deletion as I said farther above, It's good to have little things like this on here for the curious. I didn't know it was Linsey's cat until I found this article myself. Pariahtalk 05:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, pling does raise a point. Also, realistically, this article won't ever be viewed on an important basis. I'm for making a note of (hopefully along with the image) it on the Linsey Murdock article, and also for adding a note regarding it on the pages of every area the cat appears in. That would satisfy me enough to "allow" for it's deletion, despite the fact that I adore cats. Ryuu - talk 08:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Srsly.

Needs to be restored. Im starting a Petition for reverting because think.in-animate or not.it has trivia and its in more than one place.Sign here to Restore,Further down for Keep Deleted... --Neil2250 , Render Lord 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Restore

1. The Fact it does no harm here means it should be restored.--Neil2250 , Render Lord 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
2. The wiki needs to be as comprehensive as possible, and this is something that moves and is seperate from the rest of the scenery, as well as looking like a living thing. Paddymew 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
3. i don't see a reason why it should be bothersome to have an article called "cat" with appearances of it and background trivia like that it's based on Linsey's cat. unlike the landmarks it doesn't have anything to do with the lore, but it's some nice scenery nonetheless. it could get a category for being a passive animal or something as well. —ZerphaThe Improver 19:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep Deleted

1. Information regarding it should probably be adding to other articles as discussed above, but I still agree that it's redundant trivia. Should we start documenting every kind of tree you can find within the guild wars scenery, simply because "This is wiki and we can"? Frankly, your argument is irrelevant, it's not that "it won't do any harm", it the simple fact that there's no decent reason why we should have this article. What, and what doesn't appear in the main namespace as it's own page is extremely important, and we can't start making exceptions. Ryuu - talk 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No voting

Instead of starting a "petition", I would rather people just discussed and sought a consensus. Content decisions such as deletion aren't carried out through voting or petitioning. -- pling 11:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

and they arent deleted only because some made up admin wants although discussion says otherwise 127.0.0.1 11:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, they're not. -- pling 11:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not add this kind of information to the Easter egg page? Just make that place the central location for information not really worth a page? It's an easter egg, after all. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 11:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That would work, however if you were to do such things, you probably should also start a project to start properly documenting all the possible easter eggs in the game, since I'm sure there's many undocumented ones. It would, indeed work though. I can understand why people want to retain this page in some form, really, it's just that it doesn't deserve it's own page. Again, as mentioned, and suggested above, the Linsey Murdock article would be an excellent alternative. Ryuu - talk 02:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Easter Egg information is a nice little complimentary thing, but yes, it doesn't need a page for each thing. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 06:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to state that I think the deletion should be reverted. Unlike the scenery dogs, roosers, fish, and so forth, this has a relatively fine trivia. Perhaps, however, a compromise: An article for the documentation of all passive animals - i.e., "Animal (passive)" which would hold a gallery of all the passive animals, and locations and what kinds of animals there are. There are frogs, turtles, cats, dogs, birds, fish, pretty much a kind of every pet in the menagerie, and a good number more. The wiki is for documentation but documenting all passive animals on their own articles would be silly, however having an article for all of them would be less ridiculous. (also, I added a section title for this part as it isn't really a "keep deleted" bit) -- Konig/talk 19:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)