Active discussions

Kill rate?Edit

The cheetah success rate as cited in reference 8 is incorrect. I read the article and it makes no mention of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunTzuWarmaster (talkcontribs) 15:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

They do have a 100% success rate with Thompson Gazelle fawns.--Snowleopard100 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that? Mokele (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There would be no citation as its dead wrong. Cheetahs have a 50% kill rate of most animals including Gazelle, I have seen footage of a gazelle fawn escaping from a cheetah and it lived to tell the tale. ZooPro 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind putting the link on here? Was it a adult? Many sites like and books say they have a 100% rate with gazelle fawns. I will be checking a couple books for more information. Will be getting back soon.--Snowleopard100 (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Its like banging my head against a brick wall. So I will try and put it as blunt as possibe. The website u gave is CRAP, is stolen from alot of different articles and the information misinterpreted. You would have to be the stupidist person on earth to believe any animal has a 100% kill rate of anything. As for you giving other editors wrong information about wikipedia policy and guidelines i suggest you stop as you are misleading editors. You clearly have NO knowledge of anything to do with felines or carnivores at all and merely think they are cute and cuddly. This is an encyclopedia not a childrens book. ZooPro 12:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to further my point that website references wikipedia; that itself is unreliable unless referenced (still couldnt find the information in the article anyway). It also contradicts itself multiple times, prob written by a cat mad idiot who knows nothing about the animal itself other then "its fast and has spots' ZooPro 12:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I would consider the cheetah outreach as good information.
Thanks--Snowleopard100 (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a peer-reviewed scientific publication, therefore is useless. Mokele (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, and I agree with you. The only problem is getting information that is peer-reviewed.--Snowleopard100 (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hunting success rate is definitely 50%. A great source of information that includes peer reviewed publications is the Cheetah Conservaation Fund web site. About the Cheetah section includes a virtual tour that covers the cheetah's history, biology, ecology and conservation efforts. The section What We Do covers some of the work being done on behalf of the wild cheetah, and a library of resources with scientific publications. Thanks! Crocsetal (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


I do not speak well English and I have no references others than me, but in the link that in posted Snowleopard100 the 50 mph speed for the small thomson's gazelle is overestimated in reality she turns around seen 50-60 mph and 70 mph of the cheetah

Concerning the fastest of African gazelles, on the other hand the speed of springboks, Grant's gazelle is good of 60-70 mph in reality, it runs faster than the thomson because they are bigger on legs and so high and fast that the cheetah and its gazelles / antelopes make of grants jumps and are very good also in long-distance race, it is reference athlets for the ferverts of athletics.

The gazelles of thomson runs to the same speed as the leopard. But it is especially the female cheetah which hunts her, this small gazelle makes exactly zigzags very fast masi in a straight line it is overtaken by the cheetah, nevertheless thommy can run on a distance longer than cheetahs--Angel310 (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheetahs have over sized lungs so they can run long distances at 70 miles per hour without running out of breath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm I will do some digging before replyin to this comment. ZooPro 14:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay I cannot understand most of what your saying as it does not make sense, you contradict yourself a number of times in your comment, I will follow suit with the advice left on your talk page and ask you to please stick to editing your native language, please dont edit the page unless it is in complete and fully understandable english and you provide legitimate sources. ZooPro 14:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pronghorn Antelope have a top speed of around 80 mph (130 km/h) [1] ! It is the fastest antelope Pronghorn, moreover it is bigger tall at the shoulder than the cheetah contrary to the Thomson gazelle, it is Pronghorn which affects the fastest record of the ground mammals to 80 mph (130 km/h), and a beautiful reference to prove it to you. The cheetah does not exceed 75 mph 120 km/h, it is enough to compare their measurements, to see that she is better.

Springboks and Impalas are also recognized for their extraordinary jumps.-- (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the speed, we have multiple citations from reliable sources topping out at 62 mph. The reference pointed to here is a state web site (not a scientific book or site), and it's hard to justify changing the speed based on this single statement. It is not the fastest antelope, as it is not a true antelope. It is generally cited as the second fastest land mammal -- certainly making it the fastest prey species. I see no reason to change the Cheetah article to "second fastest" unless there is a lot more scientific consensus around the speed of both species. Don Lammers (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am Jesus-Christ, I know all the same that she animal is the fastest, it is my speciality, but you are right, Pronghorn is an antelope has part. In Africa it is Grant's gazelles, Sommering's gazelles and Springbok South Africa which run so fast as the cheetah moreover he often misses his animals when they are in good phisique condition.

Groung mammals top speed record:

  • Pronghorn antelope (American): 40 mph (60 km/h) on 8 kilometers, 63 mph (103 km/h) on average a distance of 3000 meters, with the top speed 80 mph (130 km/h) a short distance 600 meters
  • Grant's & Soemmering's gazelle: 58 mph (93 km/h) on average a distance of 2500 meters, with the top speed 75 mph (120 km/h) a short distance 500 meters
  • Cheetah: 30 mph (50 km/h) on 1 kilometers, 58 mph (93 km/h) on average a distance of 450 meters, with the top speed 75 mph (120 km/h) a short distance 80 meters
  • Springbok gazelle: 30 mph (50 km/h) on 6 kilometers, 55 mph (88 km/h) on average a distance of 2500 meters, with the top speed 71 mph (115 km/h) a short distance 500 meters
  • Blackbuck antelope (India): 52 mph (83 km/h) on average a distance of 2500 meters, with the top speed 69 mph (110 km/h) a short distance 450 meters
  • Rhim gazelle: 45 mph (73 km/h) on average of 2000 meters, with the top speed 62 mph (100 km/h) a short distance 400 meters
  • Thomson's gazelle & Dorcas gazelle: 25 mph (40 km/h) on 5 kilometers, 42 mph (67 km/h) on average a distance of 2000 meters, with the top speed 58 mph (94 km/h) a short distance 400 meters
  • Impala: 36 mph (58 km/h) on average a distance of 2000 meters, with the top speed 53 mph (85 km/h) a short distance 400 meters

The predators attack only preys, weak, young, hurt, patient, old, female in gestation and most of the time he fails in front of antelopes in good phisique condition, and herbivores are better than them.

Impala is less fast than the other gazelles, impala he very agile with his spectacular jumps. For example the Thomson's gazelle can easily escape a cheetah, because it makes zig-zags faster than the cheetah. The impala does not live to him in plain and runs around trees and bushes, thus not very practical for the cheetah to pursue it furthermore she makes great air jumps and also makes zig-zags fast, in spite of she runs less faster than Thomson gazelle.

The impala has the same phisical measurement that Grant's gazelles, springboks... but it is too much developed the muscle, its running and less fast. Needs to say that genus gazelles, even the small as the Thomson and Dorcas are extremely fast. In term of evolution are the best herbivores and the cheetah is the best carnivore hurriedly of running.

Pronghorn is an antelope of a new genus, more recent than the African with measurements except standards, which exceeds all other mammals in the running. She does not meet the cheetah in the nature, the adults in good phisiques conditions have no predator in North America. There is a beautiful collection of antelopes worldwide so fast as the cheetah.--Angel310 (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheetah (Satan) run reality record speed:

  • The females cheetah on average 67 to 82 km/h (42-51 mph) a distance of on 300-350 meters, with the top speed 94 to 109 km/h (58-68 mph) a very short distance 50 meters, according to the individuals.
  • The best males average 78 to 93 km/h (48-58 mph) a distance of 400-450 meters - with the peak 105 to 120 km/h (65-75 mph) 75 meters, according to the individuals.--Angel310 (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

None of the above is cited. Where do you get this information (if it's from the same state site as above, then I have already answered to the issues)? Not even Jesus Christ is allowed to post original research on WikiPedia (see WP:OR).
Donlammers I can only say that the fastest I've seen in person is 73mph. I work with and do research on Cheetahs and in reality a full out study of the cheetah's maximum speed hasn't been done. As popular as the cheetah is, we actually don't know the true maximum speed of a to say a cheetah let's say hitting 80mph isn't exactly crazy. However, at the same time a scientific study has never been done to conclude the actual maximum speed. It will take a lot of work to get the actual results done. However, this is quite an interesting question that still hasn't been truly answered.Mcelite (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not quote 80 mph for the cheetah, read again I, but 75 mph at most, and it is a scientific value, because she corresponds as high as the best male, is 94 cms in height what gives a 94 km/h average speed onto 450 meters with a peak in 120 km/h (75 mph) on 75 meters. It is the real record of the sort, but however females cheetahs are less fast of made than they are smaller.

It is the male antilocapre pronghorn (103 cms tall the shoulder), that scientifically can indeed reach 130 km/h (80 mph).--Angel310 (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Besides the size the weight is a criterion of the most important in athletics for the speed records, that is why gazelles and cheetahs are faster than the zebras and the lions. Gazelles and cheetahs are animals which we be create for the running, to be the best in this category, while a zebra or a lion in spite of they are also very fast are especially very strong and very powerful.

I like cheetahs, I am at the same time the good and the evil contrary to Satan who is only the evil, I am just anxious to put back things to their place that's it.--Angel310 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the opening paragraph should be slightly reworded "The cheetah can run faster than any other land animal— as fast as 112 to 120 km/h (70 to 75 mph)" and gives citations 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 at that point. I went through all citations to find the quoted speeds. 3 = 64.9mph, 5 = 63mph, 6 = 62mph, 7 = 61mph and 8 = 65mph. Citation 4 had reference to a claim from an animal "show" that claimed over 70mph but the citation itself said this was unreliable. So of all the other citations with reliabe claims we have 62-65mph, not the 70-75mph that the citations appear to refer to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

According to [1] a cheetah was measured at 98 km/h over 100 metres in this video. I think the article needs to be corrected, the present speed listed has no source. — Edit by User:Avi8tor (13:37, 20 January 2018)


[they are endangerd animals] www.buzle.asiatic

And it also says it on the page. May I ask why you are bringing it up?--Snowleopard100 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

They are endangered because people poach them and use their spotty skin as coats and handbags eg. They also have lost their habitat which means not many prey to eat leading to starvation. Another thing is that the Live stock farmers have their live stock eaten by the Cheetahs and then tend to shoot at them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory materialEdit

Some info directly contradicts itself in the re-wilding in India section:

"...cheetahs in India became extinct before the twentieth century ... cheetahs have been extinct in India since the 1940s." Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not extinct but extirpated. The Asiatic cheetah still does have numbers. I'll look into it.Mcelite (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheetahs went extinct in India in the 1940s. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"India: Extinct in 1952. Last known cheetah found in Hyderadad in 1951 and Chitoor in 1952. Indians were importing cheetahs from Africa to be used as hunting leopards in 1929 due to the rarity of local cheetahs. There has been talk of reintroducing cheetah back to India, but availability of prey species and unsuitable habitat are limiting factors. A captive breeding effort may be launched." Source: Marker, L. Aspects of Namibian Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) Biology, Ecology and Conservation Strategies. PhD. Thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocsetal (talkcontribs) 19:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Another contradiction: the article says there is very little genetic variation, but then says there are six subspecies. How can this be right?Manormadman (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Cheetah cub close-up edit2.jpg to appear as POTD soonEdit

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cheetah cub close-up edit2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 8, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-10-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 23:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A close-up view of a cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) cub. Unlike some other cats, the cheetah is born with its characteristic spots, as well as a downy underlying fur on their necks extending to mid-back, which gives the cub the appearance of the Honey Badger, to scare away potential aggressors. Despite this, up to 90% of cheetah cubs are killed by predators in the early weeks of life. Healthy adult cheetahs have few predators because of their speed.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim


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

Considering most of the images have been in the article for a while now and you are the only person to have complained I would assume that your opinion does not reflect consensus. The article has around the same amount of images per article as does many other well developed articles. However if you think you can improve the article then do so. Regards ZooPro 23:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Just keep scrolling down. There are pictures of cheetahs running round doing other things than just sitting there. --Beirne (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

retractable clawsEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use the NEWS ARTICLES listed here to improve this articleEdit

Asiatic Cheetah Blog [2].

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

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

Oddness above the table of contents.Edit

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

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

Please add to...Cheetahs for huntingEdit

The Nomadic tribes of the San people in the Kalahari Desert continue to use tame Cheetahs for hunting. Though they’re killers in the wild, these big cats are surprisingly easy to domesticate.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2012Edit

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

Then under the description it states: "The cheetah's paws have semi-retractable claws (known only in three other cat species" (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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

File:TanzanianCheetah.jpg Nominated for speedy DeletionEdit


An image used in this article, File:TanzanianCheetah.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TanzanianCheetah.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


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

What a load of bulldust. ZooPro 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unless you can point to a more reliable source than we already have, rather than just speculating, I have to agree with ZooPro. The derivation is completely different in the American Heritage Dictionary, which is currently cited. Don Lammers (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The statement in ths article is "derived from the Sanskrit word citrakāyaḥ, meaning "variegated", via the Hindi चीता cītā". The dispute here is not what a particular word means, but what word it was derived from. According to the current source (an English dictionary), it was not derived from Chittaa, so the meaning of this word is irrelevant. In addition, you are pointing to the main page of a source, not the page that supports your point of view (which I can't find, though that may be more a reflection of my search abilities). Finally, given a choice of sources, I think I would point to the English dictionary as the more reliable source anyway. Don Lammers (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sanskrit word citrakaya is also used for lion in Apte Sanskrit Dictionary ( Also see ( for meaning of cita which you did not find earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIMVHA (talkcontribs) 20:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm glad you are amused, but obviously you fail to understand the nature of Wikipedia despite having edited on and off for several years now. Original research (i.e., your own opinion) is not allowed (see WP:OR) and entries must be verifiable from an external source (see WP:Verifiability). You may or may not be correct, but it does not matter if you can't point to someone else saying so. I found support for the current etymology here, here, here, here, here, and here (that last one is probably cheating because it's a sister project) in just a few minutes, but in all of the above you have not pointed to a single external source that supports what is obviously your own opinion.
I have no opinion as to which derivation is true (nor does it matter). I do not know Sanskrit or Hindi at all, let alone know any of their intricacies. If you want to do original research on the subject and publish your opinion on how the intricacies of another language eventually translated to English, that's a very good subject of a scholarly paper, but it is NOT appropriate for Wikipedia. If your paper is accepted by enough people for the opinion to make it into the English dictionaries and etymology texts, then we can point to those texts and change this article. Until then, neither my opinion or yours matter -- only what we can point to for verification. Don Lammers (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Recessive gene cause of rare king cheetahsEdit

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

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

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

Edit request on 8 December 2012Edit

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

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

Edit request on 21 January 2013Edit

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

With the age and edit count of your account, you should be able to edit this page yourself. Be bold RudolfRed (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, just a non-mathematician here, but it doesn't make sense that you can calculate accelleration by knowing only top speed and distance. I am not claiming that the BBC article is correct (though it does support the statement -- see WP:CITE), but from the article we don't really know where in the course the cheetah reached top speed. It could have been after 25 meters or 50 meters. Unless I am toatlly mistaken, the accelleration would be different in the two cases (in fact, by a factor of two). I also note that the fox news article quoted above (which is no more reliable than BBC) does not support any statement about accelleration -- only about top speed. In fact, it says "Sarah covered 100 meters at 61 mph (98 kph)", but doesn't even tell us whether that was after reaching top speed or from a standing start. Usually "land speed records" are NOT from a standing start, so the article says nothing about accelleration, leaving the BBC as the sole source for such information, and your calculations at original research (see WP:OR). Don Lammers (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit request on 5 March 2013Edit

please add reference to the following to "In Popular Culture" In the Asterix comic book "Asterix and Cleopatra", Cleopatra has two cheetahs that exhibit a great deal of curiosity. (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit request on 5 March 2013Edit

Dear editors for cheetah-wiki.

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

Links: (original article)


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

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

Edit request on 5 June 2013Edit

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

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

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

Edit RequestEdit

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

Northwest Africa?Edit

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

Edit requestEdit

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


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

Lead photo licenseEdit

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

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

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

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

I see nothing wrong with the suggested replacement file. Given the potential for reuse, I think it's a good idea. I'll come back tomorrow, and if there is no further comment, I'll make the switch. --Seduisant (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Pete for bringing this matter again. I fully agree with you, and due to the same reasons we disallowed "GFDL 1.2 only" and "GFDL 1.2 and an NC-only licenses" from commons:COM:FPC on 18 October 2012. The same proposal was raised at Wikipedia too; but failed. See Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed raised by Colin too. I think it is better to avoid GFDL only licensed files from our article lead pictures whenever possible. It will definitely force our photographers to reconsider their decisions. Jee 02:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe the statement "this file cannot be readily used alongside other freely licensed files" is accurate. Wikipedia itself is a testament to the fact that GFDL images can be used alongside CC images and dual-licenced images and text. Embedding this in a document, for example, just requires the GFDL licence requirements are met (i.e. attribution, licence indicated and full licence text embedded in the document). These requirements are just about practical for a PDF or book, but clearly ridiculous for a slideshow or many other media formats. But as long as Wikipedia allows GFDL-only images to be used (this one has a CC licence but it is NC), then I believe image choice for articles should remain an editorial decision. We use the best image. I fully sympathise with the aims but believe deprecating GFDL-only image use on Wikipedia needs to be a community supported policy. Too many people currently think Wikipedia is a free-to-read website (like the BBC News) rather than that a free-content project. -- Colin°Talk 08:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Colin:, I completely agree this is an editorial decision. The image should only be replaced if there's an equally desirable photo available under a more flexible license -- the article's quality should not suffer. I haven't worked on this article before, so I leave it to others with more knowledge of the topic to make any decision. -Pete (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Apologies - I didn't spot this discussion before making an edit to the page that changed the lead image. (Thanks Pete for pointing me towards this discussion)!
I've changed the file to a photo that looked good from thumbnails, but it may well not be the best one to use here. Please do make sure that the lead image here is compatible with the CC license that the content is made available under, though - I'm currently trying to fix the problem with the licensing of a PDF of this page at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Multimedia Project - Wikimedia Foundation that includes the photo that is -NC licensed, and it's a right pain to deal with. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Considering Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cheetah, there is nothing wrong in changing that picture. Jee 02:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request 21 August 2014Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

In the conservation status section of this article, it is noted that the decline of the cheetah is most likely due to factors other than genetics. It might be helpful to support this by adding that captive cheetahs tend to have higher susceptibility to diseases than cheetahs in the wild despite the fact the cheetahs in the wild stem from the same gene pool, suggesting that conditions in captivity are the cause of vulnerability of these cheetahs.[2]

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


I would like to point out that under the Diet and Hunting section, in the third paragraph it is mentioned that "the cheetah has an average hunting success rate of around 50%" with "The Cheetah in Genetic Peril" as its source, however, after browsing the article a number of times, I never found a single reference to them being successful in 50% of hunts. The closest I could come up with was in the opening statement where it states that cheetahs have a higher success rate than lions, but that's still far from saying it's 50%. The primary reason I bring this up, is because after reviewing another article, "Locomotion dynamics of hunting in wild cheetahs", their data states that the cheetah was only successful in 25-26% of its hunts on average. With about 20% of hunts in grassland and 31% in dense cover being successful respectively. [3]

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

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

Lastly, to play along with a few other things briefly mentioned here, it has been shown that one of the plausible reasons for increased susceptibility of captive cheetahs to diseases is stress. Captive cheetahs in North American zoos had higher fecal glucocorticoid concentrations, and a larger adrenal corticomedullary ratio, indicative of stress, than those of free-ranging Namibian cheetahs. These two populations originated from the same gene pool, so any susceptibility to diseases is likely not a result of low genetic variability, which bodes well for cheetahs as a whole. [4] Hauser.120 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Edit RequestEdit

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

Recent research has suggested that cheetahs in captivity actually experience more illness and have lower reproductive success than cheetahs in the wild[5]. For example,a new study found that the Helicobacter species, a bacterium that often causes disease in cheetahs, that was so prevalent in the captive species actually does not typically cause as much harm to cheetahs in the wild, suggesting that cheetahs are not actually predisposed for this diseases, but rather that some factor of being in captivity is the cause. One suggestion as to why there is such a marked difference between the health of captive and wild cheetah populations is that cheetahs are maladapted to captivity. It has been hypothesized that captivity can lead to increased stress levels which in turn causes poorer health and lower reproductive ability. In a study comparing the adrenal cortices and corticoid concentrations in captive and native cheetahs, it was found that captive cheetahs had larger adrenal cortices and higher corticoid concentrations[6]. This strongly indicates that stress is a factor in the lower health of captive cheetahs. Although it is still unknown as to why exactly cheetahs in captivity experience such increases stress levels as compared to their wild counterparts, one theory suggests that the stress is due to the fact that cheetahs are designed to run, but in captivity they do not have room to do so. Another theory as to why captive cheetahs are so much worse off than wild cheetahs invokes the red queen hypothesis in order to explain the discrepancies between wild and captive cheetahs. Wild cheetahs are exposed to a number of parasites whereas captive cheetahs are routinely given medication to ensure that they are not infected by parasites. However, these parasites may actually aide in the suppression of the inflammatory response in wild cheetahs, a trait which the parasites evolved in order to survive within the host, thereby making them less susceptible to certain types of diseases[7].

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

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

Tear stripesEdit

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

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


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

"tear-streak" linesEdit

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

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


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

Meaningless "reference" inserted by IPEdit

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

<ref>St. Louis Zoo </ref>

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

Collecting refsEdit

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


  1. ^
  2. ^ Terio, K. A.; Munson, L.; Marker, L.; Aldridge, B. M.; Solnick, J. V. (5 January 2005). "Comparison of Helicobacter spp. in Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) with and without Gastritis". Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 43 (1): 229–234. doi:10.1128/JCM.43.1.229-234.2005.
  3. ^ Wilson, A. M., Lowe, J. C., Roskilly, K., Hudson, P. E., Golabek, K. A., & McNutt, J. W. (2013). Locomotion dynamics of hunting in wild cheetahs. Nature, 498(7453), 185-189.
  4. ^ Thalwitzer, H.; Wachter, B.; Robert, N.; Wibbelt, G.; Muller, T.; Lonzer, J.; Meli, M. L.; Bay, G.; Hofer, H.; Lutz (February 2010). "Seroprevalences to Viral Pathogens in Free-Ranging and Captive Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) on Namibian Farmland". CLINICAL AND VACCINE IMMUNOLOGY. 17 (2): 232–238. Text "DOI: 10.1128/CVI.00345-09" ignored (help); More than one of |first1= and |first= specified (help)
  5. ^ Wachter, Bettina; Thalwitzer, Susanne; Hofer, Heribert; Lonzer, Johann; Hildebrandt, Thomas B.; Hermes, Robert (February 2011). "Reproductive history and absence of predators are important determinants of reproductive fitness: the cheetah controversy revisited". Conservation Letters. 4 (1): 47–54. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00142.x.
  6. ^ Terio, K. A.; Munson, L.; Marker, L.; Aldridge, B. M.; Solnick, J. V. (5 January 2005). "Comparison of Helicobacter spp. in Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) with and without Gastritis". Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 43 (1): 229–234. doi:10.1128/JCM.43.1.229-234.2005.
  7. ^ Terio, K. A.; Munson, L.; Marker, L.; Aldridge, B. M.; Solnick, J. V. (5 January 2005). "Comparison of Helicobacter spp. in Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) with and without Gastritis". Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 43 (1): 229–234. doi:10.1128/JCM.43.1.229-234.2005.

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 01:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Other color variation sectionEdit

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

Mcelite I agree. Sorry, I have removed it already keeping back only the properly cited parts, I did not see the discussion here until now. "Messybeast" is not so reliable a source. I have rearranged the information. Actually I am attempting to make this a GA keeping and adding only well-sourced info. This nice article deserves better work. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
In some ways this is a great shame. If this wide range of colour variations truly exists, then it would be one of the widest I know for mammals. However, without a source it is not verifiable.DrChrissy (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy I tried a lot to find about the color morphs; I found only a handful of facts that are now included under Description. I do not understand this lack of information. Indeed sad. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Improving this article - Inputs neededEdit

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

Your recent edits have twice moved "purring" from its own section to the more generalised text at the beginning of the section. Perhaps you would like to explain why you have done this. DrChrissy (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I observed that the discussion on purring has a lot of citations supporting it, and the citation to the acoustic analysis of agonistic vocalizations focuses on four other sounds (moaning, growling, hissing, spitting). So I considered it best to discuss purring separately, moreover it could be explained better as I compared the vocalizations of cheetah with those of other big cats - a good introduction. If editors do not agree with this, we can alter this arrangement. I think I should mention an issue I noticed - the listed sounds chirping and churring are not mentioned in the publication mentioned above (that is the source which just precedes the list, so it is generally assumed that the listed items are supported by this source). The citations may not have been properly added, but the info given is true according to literature with me. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I tweaked a sentence and moved the citation so that we have 2 general references to vocalisations in the list, rather than for just a single vocalisation. Does this address your concerns?DrChrissy (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks better. But citations 90 and 91 were the same, and Munro was named incorrectly - I have fixed it now. I have two proposals:
  • We should repair the subheadings in the intro of Ecology and behaviour, they are wrongly placed and misleading. I request that the well-sourced info added by me be retained, and the previous info (the last 2 paras: Males are often social and may group together for life, usually with their brothers in the same litter;...while in some parts of Namibia they can reach 1,500 km2 (580 sq mi)) be removed as much of it has already been added by me. DrChrissy, I think you should have read what I had added and carefully added back the info - this could have avoided the redundancy.
  • The book by Estes (listed under references) has details about olfactory, tactile as well as visual communication apart from vocalizations. A few other sources also elaborate on these types of communication, which have not yet been discussed in the article. Should I now add this info to the text? I propose to rename Vocalizations as Communication for the meantime and add all the info to this section till we decide how to arrange the facts. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Your criticism of me is not deserved. You made massive changes in a stable article. I disagreed with several of these so I manually reverted much of this per WP:BRD so we could discuss the changes and arrive at consensus. This, to me, seemed the easiest and most understandable approach. DrChrissy (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Back to content discussion. Which sub-headings do you disagree with and why? DrChrissy (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I did not mean to criticize you, I am really sorry if I offended you. All I wanted to say is that let us keep the article readable as much as we can all the time. OK, so the trouble is with the subheading "Males", because following it is the description of female home ranges. If we need subheadings, the first para of "Territories" should be under "Males" and the second under "Females". And we should try to avoid repetition even as we are discussing what is best for the article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Figure in Taxonomy and phylogenyEdit

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

I am following this source here. It does not include the domestic cat in the tree, and I did not interfere with the classification. I could not find other sources depicting the Felidae cladogram clearly. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Family Felidae is actually very difficult to actually classify. The fossil record of felidae is very poorly understood. It's very interesting how successful many of the species are, yet little of their past is known or accurately depicted. The cats are in fact a mysterious form of carnivore with no true evidence in evolution as to when they truly came into existence, and for what we can tell really haven't changed much at all.Mcelite (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for these replies. I am not a taxonomist, but I have a good friend who is. Whenever I ask him about a taxonomy question, he almost always replies (humorously, but with more than an element of truth) "It depends which book you read". Perhaps this is a case of that. I think many pet owners and others would like to know where our domestic cats fit into this. I've had a look on the internet, and I am wondering whether we could adapt one of these.
DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks DrChrissy and Mcelite. I am accustomed to antelope articles, so this is something new to me. I am no taxonomist either, expertise was never really needed in any of my previous works. My rule of thumb is to follow a credible source in giving the cladogram. As this is an important article it would be really helpful to add one here. DrChrissy, thanks for your efforts, the info looks true to me but since the sources themselves were not reliable and could have copied from others I searched for other studies. I could have used the Johnson 2006 source but I do not have it in full. I think this source will surely help; the only problem is that the phylogenetic trees differ a bit in the Felis lineage. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 11:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I was not suggesting those as RS - I simply searched for images of feline lineages which included the domestic cat. Certainly, we would need more reputable sources to support an image. Given that we both feel we are not experts in this, we probably need more voices here. In the meantime, do you have a feeling for whether a 2006 source is likely to represent today's view? I have no idea how quickly these things move on. DrChrissy (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Give me about a day to gather myself I have some deadlines to make. Then I can actually look at the cladogram seriously, and look at the sources. We may not be able to use an online source for this specific occasion. We may end up having to use a journal article or published felid biology book.Mcelite (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Mcelite, please take your time, this certainly needs some deeper research. DrChrissy, often some sources do not grow old till some contradictory theory emerges; I myself have not been able to find many sources on cat phylogeny besides the Mattern 2005 (mentioned above), Johnson 2006 and Werdelin 2010 sources. While Mcelite is busy with the Taxonomy part, could you and I go over the other parts of the article? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I finished a complete version of the correct cladogram not sure why it had the African wildcat with the Sand cat, but that is the correct format after looking at all the correct sources. The journal article provided was exception help. I'm on pain meds at the moment so it took me a minute to get it formatted correctly because I'm doped up temporarily. Please ask if there are any questions, but long story short from what we can see the African wildcat is the closest relative to the domestic cat genetically. It doesn't mean that the domestic cat evolved from the African wildcat but that they are the most genetically similar.Mcelite (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for all your efforts Mcelite. The cladogram was a bit misarranged, I have fixed it now. What needs to be done next? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Well done both! Great work! DrChrissy (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

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

What's next that needs to be done at the moment. I'm still recovering so my medicine makes it a bit hard for me to concentrate at the moment so it takes me longer to get stuff done.Mcelite (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, please take care. Others are there to help me. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016Edit

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

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

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cheetah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77Edit

Specific commentsEdit

  • I don't think the subdivisions are necessary in the Social organisation and Home range and territories sections
  • rename the Diet and hunting section to Diet and (competition/competitors) or Hunting and (competition/competitors), then remove the subdivision Competitors (don't remove the info just the subdivision)
I was advised by DrChrissy to keep the subsections; I initially opposed it, but over time I feel they have made navigation easier. About the renaming, I am not sure, as the section describes both, and the heading has remained so for years. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I have been told before that I create too many subsections when I am editing. I guess this is part of my editorial style. In this case, I would follow the reviewer's recommendations. DrChrissy (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • rename the Reintroduction attempts in India to In Asia and add a paragraph about the Asiatic cheetah if possible (because it's current status and conservation are not talked about)
OK, will see what I can add and then rename it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
There is not much significant material apart from the reintroduction attempts in India, but I managed to add a short para on attempts by Iran. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • the leopard picture just seems unnecessary
  • there's text-sandwhiching in the Characteristics section, I suggest removing the leopard picture and move the image on the right-side down
Done for the leopard, but I think the whole-body image (right) should go to the left and the profile (left) to the bottom right. How would that be? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, since the cheetah in the profile (left) image is looking to the right (towards the text), I think it should stay on the left side. Same goes for the whole-body (right) image
Done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • is the plural of "cheetah" "cheetahs" or "cheetah"?
I have seen both, I consistently use "cheetah" in the article but if there is a good reason to say "cheetahs" instead I would be happy to change this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I feel "cheetahs" is less confusing. So I have changed it to "cheetahs" wherever applicable. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
you missed a few. Here's one: "Black cheetah have been observed..."
  • "hunting is the major activity" by activity do you mean that's how they spend most of their energy? It's not how they spend most of their day, right?
Actually I mean it is the main activity they indulge in throughout the day, I do not mention anything about the energy consumption. The first meaning could be apparently true, but that would be OR and I don't have proper sources for this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • change "territoriality" to "territorial behaviour" (optional)
There are two instances of this: Adult males are typically gregarious despite their territoriality and A 1987 study of the social organisation in males showed that territoriality ... I feel the term should be kept intact in the first instance as it is more compact and linked as well. We can say "territorial behaviour" in the second case where it appears more proper and simpler to me. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • is there a difference between savannahs and grasslands?
Some sources mention them separately, but savannahs are actually a type of grassland. Removed "grassland". Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Could you add more about the convergent evolution between wolves and cheetahs? All I see is 'they both can't retract their claws, so they're examples of convergent evolution' (this is an extreme claim with only one similarity)
I researched a bit more. I found a book source that says cheetahs resemble canids in behaviour as well as morphology, so I have added a few words from this. I could not find more on this, though. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason why cheetahs are always alert? I assume it's because of all the other bigger carnivores that could be nearby
That should be it, as those predators often steal their prey and harm their cubs. It should become apparent as one reads the Ecology section. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • are there any hypotheses as to why the cheetah went extinct in its prehistoric range?
The source (ref. 16) says an abrupt extinction after the last glacial retreat extirpated ∼40 species of large mammals, including cheetahs and pumas from North America. This was to be expected, as the glaciation caused major climatic changes that some species could bear while some could not. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • shouldn't Conservation measures be a subheading under Interactions with humans?
Not sure. I have always kept them separate, whenever I have written both sections, in my articles. WP:MAMMAL does not seem to have a clear consensus on these matters as far as I understand. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • in the Taming section it says cheetahs are sociable, but the Ecology and behaviour section says cheetahs stay alone
That is what the source says. In Ecology it is noted that lions and cheetahs are perhaps the most sociable among the big cats, though why lions are still unfriendly to humans I don't know. And not all cheetahs stay alone, it is just the females. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

General commentsEdit

  • change "white forms" to "albinos: (if they have the usual albino characteristics)
Done Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking on this, will try my best. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  • change ", solid spots" to "...solid black spots" or "...solid-black spots"
  • change "...includes large cats such as lion, tiger and leopard" to "...includes large cats such as lions, tigers and leopards" or "...includes large cats such as the lion, tiger and leopard"
  • change " 0.5 million years ago" to "half a million years ago"
Done all the above. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • in any other felid, save for the ocelot and the margay...", also it seems unnecessary to say this
  • replace Salisbury and Rhodesia with their current-day names
I feel the old names should stay to be specific, I am not sure how much the borders have changed. The modern names are there alongside.
the old British names are actually less specific, for example Rhodesia was Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Malawi (also there was a west and east Rhodesia)
Done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • change "...taller than the leopard, that stands..." to "...taller than the leopard, which stands..."
  • change "...with that of the leopard, that weighs..." to "...with that of the leopard, which weighs..."
  • change "...contrast to the underbelly, that is..." to "...contrast to the underbelly, which is..."
  • "...the leopard is marked with rosettes while the cheetah with spots...the leopard has rose-like spots instead of the small round ones of the cheetah" these say exactly the same thing
  • what does "...the relatively earlier truncation of the development of the middle phalanx bone..." mean? Is it referring to the development of foetuses or is it saying the bone truncates at a young age?
  • change "...while that of jaguarundi is different" to "...while that of the jaguarundi is different" or "...while that of jaguarundis is different" (but for the second one you have to make the entire sentence plural)
  • wikilink 'dental formula'
  • merge "Absence of protection makes the claws blunt" with "However, the large and strongly curved dewclaw has remarkable sharpness"
  • change "Cheetahs are diurnal (active mainly during the day), whereas the leopard, tiger and lion are nocturnal" to "Cheetahs are diurnal (active mainly during the day), whereas the leopards, tigers and lions are nocturnal"
Fixed the rest. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • change "...most conspicuous in cheetah than other cats" to "...most conspicuous in cheetahs than other cats"
  • change "The churr, is staccato..." to "The churr is staccato..."
Done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Each oestrus lasting one to three days" is a fragment
  • change "the cubs might be purr as the mother licks..." to "the cubs might purr as the mother licks..." or "the cubs might be purring as the mother licks..."
  • change "In the prehistoric times" to "in the Pleistocene" (if it is referring to the Pleistocene)
The source does not clarify what "prehistoric" means here, so did not change.
  • you inconsistently use 'percent' and '%'
Now "%" everywhere
  • change "of cheetah" to "of cheetahs" or "of the cheetah"
  • change " for the habitat would have to be compromised with in most cases" to " for the habitat would have to be compromised within most cases" or " for the habitat would have to be compromised with most cases"
  • change "At the same time it needs to be ensured that the animals are not unnecessarily handled or disturbed" to something like "At the same time the animals cannot be unnecessarily handled or disturbed" because it sounds like an opinion with 'needs to be <verb>'
Agreed, but changed "cannot" to "should not", which sounds more proper to me.
  • change the last paragraph of the In Africa section to "Benin (2014), Botswana (2007), Chad (2015), Ethiopia (2010), Kenya (2007), Mozambique (2010), Namibia (2013), Niger (2012), South Africa (2009), South Sudan (2009), Tanzania (2013), Zambia (2009) and Zimbabwe (2009) have formulated action plans for the conservation of the cheetah (as well as the wild dog)", you can leave out the part about the wild dog
Fixed all of the above. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • change " "panther"s " to " "panthers" "
  • change "...occurred in 51% alive females" to "...occurred in 51% of females alive" or "...occurred in 51% of living females"
  • change "Another study concluded that excess of vitamin A in diets and the liver could result in veno-occlusive disease" to "Another study concluded that excess of vitamin A in their diets could result in veno-occlusive disease in their livers" or "Another study concluded that the excess of vitamin A in the diet could result in veno-occlusive disease, a disease of the liver"
Done the above. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • change "...the Greek god Bacchus (Dionysus)" to "...the Greek god Dionysus" (optional)
I found both names in the sources. I think we should make it clear that both names refer to the same god. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
since Dionysus is the more well-known name, put "Bacchus" in parentheses
Done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


  • The OCLC number for ref no. 5 is 62896389
Added, thanks.
  • the template {{public access}} means that the entire article is available for free online which means there should be a url. ref no. 16 does not have a url, but it does have the public access sign
The URL goes just where the DOI does, the full article. Should I repeat it in the URL parameter?
Done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • when do you use the {{open acess}} tags?
When I get the free text. Notify me or feel free to change the formatting if I go wrong or miss something.
does this apply for books too (ie., google book free previews)? Also, make sure that every journal with a url has this tag (I see ref no. 79 doesn't have one but I haven't gone through all the refs yet)
Not sure about books, so I made it consistent such that only journals and reports with the full PDF/HTML have it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
You mean ref. 60? Done.
  • for ref no. 61, the doi is a deadlink (but the url is fine)
Added a "doi-broken" parameter.Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Done all the above. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, all done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: An administrator, Diannaa, has removed copyvio content added by another editor from the article, so I will have to redo some of the changes I have marked as "done". Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure your changes should remain intact, as all I did was remove one copyvio paragraph. — Diannaa (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, thanks Diannaa. I am new to this procedure, will remember that. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2016Edit

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

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

Maximum speed - Correction needed! / 2015 Attenborough surveyEdit

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

@Grga: This seems to be the only report regarding this (try a Google search), reporting the findings of a single study. I wonder if we can neglect all the sources we have at present and use just this source. May be we should just mention this as a contrasting revelation till we have more findings of this kind, instead of cutting out the "70 mph" for the "58 mph". Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@Sainsf: I have seen Attenborough's film on this. Attenborough explained the history of cheetah-speed measurings: There were only 2 measurings (1957-Severin, 1965-Sharp), both were quite amateur estimates (here you find the same as Attenborough said: All the references just refers this 2 cases. One more measuring happened by National Geographic Channel in Cinncinatti ZOO in 2012 on one cheetah by camera resulted 61 mph, that is also much close to the Attenborough study result of 58mph examined 367(!) cheetahs. Attenborough survey went first on air Feb. 2015. I'm a bit shocked, that a so fundamental survey happened, and it is not yet updated. Otherwise I agree not simply replace 70mph to 58, but shortly explain this speed-measuring story, but making clear: the 2015 GPS analyzed 367 cheetah survey by Sir Attenborough is significantly the most reliable and up to date data now. --Grga (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay Grga, I was busy elsewhere. I see your point, this should be included in our article. I have tried a mention in "Recorded values" [7], and in the lead [8]. Please check the diffs and let me know if you are happy with the changes. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Attenborough's research has some serious flaws though. There is so much you have to take into account which he doesn't do in his research. The age of the animals, the conditions they ran in (e.g. muddy grass, dry grass, against a head wind, with the wind etc.). There have been other film recordings of cheetahs hitting 70mph plus, and even I have personally seen a cheetah be clocked at 73mph. The fact is recording hunting speed is not the exact same as encouraging or recording a cheetah in the wild going full out. That is why Attenborough's research isn't useful in determining maximal speed, but good for hunting speed to a point. A cheetah that has made a mistake is far more like to put out more speed than a cheetah that has had a perfect hunt or a cheetah that has decided to give up on the chase.Mcelite (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
It's good to hear from you Mcelite. I felt this was just like any other study, but if your suspicions are true, then we shouldn't be including this in the article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sainsf I have ripped everything apart form web of knowledge to springer link, Jstor, and various other outlets relating to anything about Attenborough's research. There is nothing there but the news website citing what he said. No indication of how the data was recorded, when it was recorded, the conditions the animals ran in, the distance from their prey they were, etc. all of which plays a major roll in how fast the cats are going to go. I guess to put in the simplest terms for others to understand is if the cheetah gets a good surprise on a prey item, and it only reaches a speed 50mph before it gets caught. Well the cheetah doesn't need to go full speed if the animal it's chasing hasn't even reached it's top speed. This gives false data impression therefore we can't use what he says about top cheetah speed.Mcelite (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all your efforts Mcelite. If the study was not published in any peer reviewed source, things we base information on at Wikipedia, this can't be included. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Fastest land *animal*Edit

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

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

Maximum speed - Correction still needed?Edit

I found a source instead of this one: This one is the one I found: and here is the PDF: What do you think, correction is still needed then? User:WelcometoJurassicPark (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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

External links modifiedEdit

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}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 genusEdit

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)

External links modifiedEdit

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}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 2017Edit (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 (talkcontribs) 20:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong link for the wolfEdit

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#AfricaEdit

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)


"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 cheetahEdit

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 CryptozoologyEdit

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 soonEdit

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)

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

King cheetahEdit

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 2018Edit (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 2018Edit

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 (talkcontribs) 21:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Domestication Is MisleadingEdit

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? (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 subspeciesEdit

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)


  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 speedEdit

[9]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi04101997 (talkcontribs) 01:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

see it onceEdit

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 textEdit

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 IsraelEdit

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]


... 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)

Changing citation style without concensusEdit

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 [10] and [11] 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)


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

“Palestine”? What is that mythological land?Edit

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)

Article too longEdit

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 [12] and [13]) 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 sectionEdit

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. (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. (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) (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. (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." (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Cheetah" page.