Talk:List of longest-living cats

Rework request

There is a cat living at 28 in Altötting, Germany (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95q2uWLP-H0). I wanted to add it, but I realized I'd have to re-number the entire list. Somebody should rework this page not to include the (arbitrary and basically useless) rank, which seriously hampers editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:29C4:9800:30BF:940:6CA3:4147 (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Using primary documents as "proof"

I've reverted the restoration of Poon, the cat whose documentation consisted solely of papers uploaded to Commons by an editor here. "Reliable sourcing" means that the source must have been published, and these veterinary records were not published anywhere. And because they haven't been published, I don't see how they can support inclusion on this list. There's also the question of authenticity. When the cat was first added to the article, the documentation was a scan of a hand-written 5-page document that proved (if it proved anything at all) that the cat was still alive in 2006. But now, that evidence has been augmented with a sixth page, the additional page being a scan of a computer-generated piece of paper. Is it authentic? I'm sure the uploader will say that it is. But how do we really know? I think we'll need to see some reliable sourcing before Poon is added back to the list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we can't use primary sources. Another problem is, how do we know that cats reported as being a particular age several years ago are still alive? The table assumes that they are unless it has been reported otherwise, but how do we know that this cat, for instance, is still alive? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't. The statistic of interest should be called something like "Last known age". And of course, that column should not be using the automatically-adjusting {{age in years}} template. Is there any objection to me making that change? NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Not from me; that sounds like a good plan. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: Go fur it :P Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Will the jokes get better if I do a good job of it? NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

sadly no, the article's a cat-tastrophe Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yikes! I've set you up for two bad jokes in a row. I think I better paws to reconsider. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgive newness here...

I would submit that the newspaper and other referenced links for most of these cats do not substantiate age either. In court, this kind of evidence would be considered "hearsay" rather than direct proof. Simply because a journalist reports what an owner says does not make the statement more true than a primary document claiming the same data (date of birth, in this case).

If I had to choose between direct documentation and an indirect source such as a newspaper article, I'd vote for direct documentation, even with the small possibility of forgery. If forged documents have been a real issue on Wikipedia, then perhaps some documentation standards could be developed.

For full disclosure, I'm the one who uploaded Poon's documents, which were original veterinary records that my wife kept from the time she picked up Poon from the Hong Kong animal shelter in 1997 until her most recent vet visit in Maine last year. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, though worked as an editor for the Annals of Emergency Medicine for many years, so understand the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistEscape (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The relevant standard here is explained at Wikipedia:Verifiability, ArtistEscape. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Larry. I just read the guidelines and they help clear things up for me. For what its worth, based on the verifiability standard, I think many of the references in the existing "oldest cats list" are insufficient. ArtistEscape (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, folks. I'm the person who is going to change the ages into "last known ages" (so that we are not implicitly assuming that every cat is alive unless reported otherwise). Real life took me away from Wikipedia for a while, but I'm now about halfway through reviewing the sources and I have to agree with ArtistEscape -- very few of these sources inspire confidence. Some are based on veterinary estimates; others are based on hearsay reported to the cat's current owner. And even for those that give exact dates of birth, there's little evidence that the reporter did anything other than take the owner's word for it.

After replacing the age data with "last known age", I intend to modify the introductory text in some fashion to make clear that we are looking at "reported ages", not "verified ages". I also though I might add a sentence or two alerting the reader that many (most?) of the data is either approximate or is based on estimates and hearsay. Another thought is to add a new "Notes" column, where we can let the reader know which entries have actually been verified by some authoritative agency.

Your thoughts on this will be welcome. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Non-English sources

I've noticed that only three of the cats listed are from countries where English isn't the main language (and those three are sourced to English-language publications). I suspect that the list is missing many non-English speaking cats...I mean cats in non-English speaking countries. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

possibly true

Greetings, my family once had a cat named Oreo 2-2-1988 to 4-14-2011, 23 years old. No documentation for verification of age but mom knows the cat's age. Timothy McGuire (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Even with verification this would be no more than anecdotal. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the only proof of age is Mom's memory. I love everyone I know (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Not breeds

Tabby, calico, tortoiseshell and black cat are not breeds. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

Cleo was rescued from the RSPCA shelter as a six month old kitten in April 1996 (adoption certificate verifies) so she was born in late 1995 and is still alive today making her over 22 years old. Cleo is of no particular breed and lives in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 58.6.197.135 (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Has any of this been reported by a reliable source (WP:RS)? NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Meetsi was rescued nearly freezing to death in an early spring snowfall in 1994 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. She was microchipped (with the date) 24 years ago and we confirmed our vet still has the original records from her first visit. According to this list, she is the 3rd oldest cat in Canada and the 8th in the world currently living. Cjoypenner (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Has any of this been reported by a reliable source (WP:RS)? NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2018

I would very much like to have my cat 'Lyness' added to this list. She recently passed at the age of 21. Her birth date was Feb 9, 1997 and date of death was April 12, 2018. My source is birth information we obtained when we adopted her from the Jacksonville Florida Humane society and we have a certificate of date of death from Paws Whiskers and Wags in Atlanta where we had her remains created. Thank you very much for your assistance with this request. Downeyrl (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Has any of this been reported by a reliable source (WP:RS)? NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2018

Molly age 22 born 1996 still alive short haired american torti 2601:5C2:8500:2DF2:D8D1:274B:66DA:E77C (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Has any of this been reported by a reliable source (WP:RS)? NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding a cat who is 20 years old and living .

I have a Himalayan colorpoint who is born in Dec 1998 . How can I add him ?

Messedupinspace69 (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to ask. I have responded on your talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a cat born November 1997 and can prove via microchip records, how can she be added? AmandaJM1967 (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

My cat treacle 22 she pass away on weds Harrycherry13 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please don't add your own cat ...

Unless you have reliable, published, secondary sources you can cite.--Tacyarg (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Change to article name. The is not a list of oldest cats as the article claims to be, this is only a list of the oldest publicized list.

The is not a list of oldest cats as the article claims to be, this is only a list of the oldest publicized list. Most pets do not have a reliable source to document them. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to have a pet live above age 20 in America. It is unjust for me to be able to prove my pet is of age but an editor decides that my source is not valid. Also, since my cat has been deleted, it is unjust to keep in a cat that has notes claiming the owner may have falsified their age. Why is that cat still there than? 2600:1700:EBB0:DA40:49B7:BB29:1DAE:E7F5 (talk) 16:36, 8 December 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the IP editor makes a good point here, about the list not really being of the oldest cats, but rather the oldest cats as reported in (primarily English-language) sources - and those might be quite different things. I raised this issue in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest cats. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2018

Cat Name: Pebbles Birth Date: April 8 1987 Death Date: December 23 2008 Age: 21 years 8 months 15 days Breed: Tabby Country: United States 74.70.202.86 (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Can I add my cat?

I had a cat who lived to 21. I would love to add him, my parents would love to see his name on here. Can I add him? Beepbooponetwoop (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Only if the info was published in a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. RobP (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Beepbooponetwoop: See in particular WP:RS and WP:AEIS. Whether a claim of age was verified would be a factual analysis and evaluation matter, ergo an independent, reliable, secondary source is required. That said, 21 isn't that old for a cat; most "cat people" probably know of a cat at least that old. I grew up with one (neighbor's cat) that had a birthday same month as mine, and he was still alive when I was in my 20s. It's not very remarkable. I.e., it's not encyclopedic. Documented world-record holders are encyclopedic. The entries in this list that are under 25 should probably be removed as trivia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Redefining the inclusion criteria to cats 25 and over would partly address my long-standing concern that only a small proportion of cats over 21 are featured here, because of unevenness in reporting in reliable sources, inasmuch as a 25-year-old cat is more likely to be reported about than a 21-year-old one. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. This whole list is extremely dubious, but let's limit it to cats who were actually (allegedly) very old. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019

Katana 23 8 months UK 82.4.16.245 (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2019 (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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

For consideration

https://wbbm780.radio.com/articles/meet-tiger-31-oldest-living-cat-illinois August 3, 2019
It's a RS but there is a contradiction in the article and they never mention documentation. Mapsax (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Title

As I said in my move rationale "To say "oldest cats" sounds like it refers to which species or breeds of cats have been around the earliest. But to say "longest living cats" definitely refers to which particular cats lived the longest which is what the article is about." Wubzy (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally it's "longest living" that suggests to me something more like "longest living breeds", while "oldest" is unambiguous: it's also how this kind of record is often presented in books.

Would be interested to hear other editors' opinions.Svejk74 (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Needs a ton of work

While I have seen many people say this list is dynamic and will never be fully accurate, I think it does the entire community a disservice to just leave it full of false information. For some, resources are not cited, the ages don’t line up with the resources, the ranking is not in order, etc.

Can the community not do any better than this? I’d have to assume this could be a pretty popular article if the information within it was confirmed or at the very least organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedal45 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there are problems with the article, Daedal45. Incidentally, I reverted your edit because one of the improvements that was made to the article at some point was to only give ages at the time the source was published, rather than assuming that the cat was still alive in the absence of evidence either way. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Name change suggestion

Changing the page name to "List of oldest recorded cats" or similar would make the name more accurate. 86.3.48.191 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think qualifiers like that are probably better off staying in the lead section, seems like that's what WP:NCLL recommends:

"For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list"

Davepeta (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This warning about edit warring comes first hand

To editor Kurross: Unless you get blocked for vandalism, you're likely to get blocked for edit warring because you keep returning to a revert you prefer. This is the pro forma discussion start which is needed to block you from editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Baby's date of death

Toby816, could I ask which source you got the precise date of death for Baby, which you recently added, from? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Given there's been no response yet, I'm going to revert this edit for now. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Some rankings incorrect

Numbers 24, 25, 26, 29, and 30, all have birth dates listed in the 1980s. 24 says it is 29 despite being born in 87 and marked as living. 25 and 26 both say they're 28 despite 25 being born in 85 and 26 being born in 87, and both are marked as living. 29 and 30 both say they're 27 despite 29 being born in 86 and 30 being born in 89, and both are marked as living. It is advised to either remove their mark as living or fix their current age and ranking in the list. JacobEC1999 (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, JacobEC1999. The table doesn't report the cats' current age, as we can't know whether any of them are still alive. The table instead reports "Age reported in most recent source", which I think is the best we can do while being compliant with WP:VERIFY. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Date and age

We need to replace the "Age reported in most recent source" column with just an age column that uses age templates like {{birth date and age}}, {{death date and age}}, etc., to calculate ages. The current column is confusing, including to editors, who try to "update" values in it to provide correct-to-present ages for living entries without providing a new source with a new date as the name of the column unhelpfully requires, e.g. as DeweyTheCat2014 did here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

But wouldn't that assume that all of the cats are still alive, absent a source stating that they're not? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that's a fair assumption to make. DeweyTheCat2014 (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Only a fraction of the cats in the list are claimed to still be alive, and those claims remain made until we have a source about their death, so there is no reason not to provide a correct age calculation for them while they are still listed as living. If we think there's a problem with claiming them to still be alive in absence of evidence of death, then we have a more serious matter to deal with in the table than showing age calculations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Excessive colorizing

This table has become very hard to read because of the excessive use of color. This can be rectified by making "Unvalidated" uncolored and making the few "Validated" entries light blue or something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Martin Mystère (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Someone could tweak it, but the goals here are fourfold: don't assault the readers's eyes; don't use unnecessary color by colorizing the "unverified" default; don't create an accessibility problem for people with poor eyesight by using a rich color with black text on top of it that is harder to read; don't create a different accessibility problem for the colorblind by using colors in insufficiently different luminosity if one or more of them are perceived as grey or some other hue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Update: I ran it through the colorblindess simulators at https://www.toptal.com/designers/colorfilter and it seems to be okay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Rechange the colors

Unvalidated - Uncolored Validated - Unknown Living - Green 120.28.224.22 (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Already taken care of. And please don't create redundant talk page threads; this was the same discussion as the one immediately above it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Cola 'living' status

Cola the cat likely passed away at 28 years old as there is no record of her celebrating any birthdays past 2013, and she spoken of in the past tense in more recent article [1] 2600:1702:5210:25D0:620:DC66:226D:DF0 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Death is very, very likely by now, since that was over a decade ago and the cat was alread 28. However, the source in question is not using past tense; it reads One cat named Cola, from Kent, even reached an impressive 28 years, and may even be the oldest British Shorthair cat!. The "reaching" of the age is in past tense, but "may even be" is present tense (past would be "may even have been").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Terminology

This article uses the terms "confirmed," "verified," and "validated," but it's not clear to me what the differences are in this context. Would it be possible to use fewer terms or define the terms used? 174.172.196.33 (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

They seem to mean the same thing and just one term should be used consistently. Not sure which to prefer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Title of page

Why is this named "List of oldest cats" when other articles are titled like " List of longest-living.." Is there a reason for this and does it matter? Thanks - TyjuX45 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)