Talk:Buttered cat paradox/Archive 2

"and butter-side-down on the floor in 81% of cases"

errr, nowhere in the linked article does it state 81%

19. ^Slater, Chris (2013-09-05). "(-Rav)/ t = R: Manchester boffins find formula for why toast lands butter side down". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 2017-03-06.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/-rav--r-manchester-boffins-5842879

prove me wrong 92.28.159.146 (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This gives the 81% figure. This points out that what this was really about was promotion for the Big Bang Theory coming out on DVD. I can't find anything about Smith actually publishing this research. I suspect that it was only ever "published" as a press release. SpinningSpark 12:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Origins, revisited

With respect to the 2015 Origins comment above: The origin is likely Douglas Adams, from his Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. I distinctly remember the description of a cat with buttered toast tied to its back could "logically never reach the floor." This would have been the 1980s or early 1990s, probably. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I searched through all the HGttG books and could find no such reference. ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Google for "douglas adams buttered toast cat" and you'll find plenty of mentions of Adams being the origin of the paradox. It may have been in one of his other books (Dirk Gently perhaps). ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I've also seen a comment about how the paradox is resolved by the cat landing on its feet and then rolling over to put the butter on the carpet, thereby satisfying both. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hey, could you tell me what parts of my edits did you find unsatisfactory beside changing the title? Still new to the site. X7 (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I've copied the above post here from my talk page. As I said in my edit summary, it is ironic that you wish to expunge all humour from a humorous article. I object to you doing that in general—there is no proscription against humour on Wikipedia, we should not be misleading or unencyclopaedic, but there is nothing against humour per se—and in particular I object to the removal of "Toast, being an inanimate object, lacks both the ability and the desire to right itself." Furthermore, that sentence has been the subject of much discussion here (over whether or not it needs a citation) so removing it altogether without discussing here first is obviously controversial. By the way, if the lack of a citation is your problem, you will see that I provided a citation, from Richard Dawkins no less, further up the page which says precisely that about toast. However, the consensus here seems to be that actually providing a citation would be an exceptionally dumb thing to do. You also removed "This may be one of the origins of the ascriptions of nine lives, rather than one, to cats." Perhaps lack of a cite was also the reason here? It was not hard to find one. Here's another [1] in a National Geographic video (in the last few seconds. SpinningSpark 23:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, XSevn, please read: WP:Concensus and WP:BRD (BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). Major revisions to an existing article, that has developed a stable history, require by policy and Wikipedia convention for civility, a new talk page discussion (such as this) before unilaterally expecting such changes to be made without being reverted to the historical version. For a similar article, please see Tortoiseshell cat and its talk page regarding "Tortitude". I have been involved in a number of discussions on this talk page and thusly I too kindly object to your revisions. Your edits were reverted as "good faith" and established concensus in the article itself and on this talk page is for the current or similar humourous tongue-in-cheek version. We are now in the "discuss" part of the cycle, so if you wish to seek a new concensus, you may certainly comment further. All the best and welcome to Wikipedia. Fylbecatulous talk 00:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've posted my thoughts elsewhere on the talk page. X7 (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know to check the talk page before editing the article. I removed it because I thought that it was an obvious statement that didn't really need to be pointed out. It seemed like it was only there because it was funny, and I assumed that Wikipedia frowned upon humor in general. As to the sentence "This may be one of the origins of the ascriptions of nine lives, rather than one, to cats", I removed this sentence because I thought it wasn't relevant to the paradox itself. As I've commented, I suggest to move the line about toast "lacking the ability and desire to right itself" to later in that section, maybe at the end of the toast paragraph, so the humor doesn't "break up" the rest of the section - I think it flows better. What do you think? X7 (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the toast sentence is in exactly the right place. It first addresses the idea that toast always lands buttered side down due to the malice of inanimate objects, an implied premise of the paradox, and shows it to be wrong. The paragraph then goes on to say that there are quite objective physical reasons for the behaviour instead. That is a logical progression of ideas. SpinningSpark 13:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

As is stated at this article top it has been named as one of the most entertaining articles by the Huffington Post:

As well, I wrote the coresponding article on Simple Wikipedia: [2]], adapting it from our version here. If you look, it is constructed in very similar fashion to this one (but in simpler wording). Although it lacks the humor paragraph because the version is for people learning English and some lack the ability to understand nuance, the content is still tongue-in-cheek. I am going to be difficult to convince that anything needs tinkering with this version. It reads in logical order and is properly constructed for the intended effect. Fylbecatulous talk 17:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Significance of the Brazilian energy drink advert – should it remain in the article?

Hello,

I'm wondering if the sentence beginning "Brazilian energy drink brand" should remain in this article. First, the brand has no Wikipedia page. Second, I'm not sure if it's of any service to the reader – all it's saying is that a company used this concept in an advert. I'm actually not sure about most of that section – would it not be better simply to write that this concept is popular enough to have been seen in multiple different pieces of media? I'm not sure if the level of detail it currently has is necessary. What do others think? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue is WP:WEIGHT. The "In humor" section makes up almost half of the article. I don't see a problem with mentioning all of the examples, but the section should be condensed with only a brief mention of each item. It may not even need to be a separate section. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose: Thank you for your response. If you can determine how to properly condense the section, please feel free to do so. I'm not sure how it could be done myself; however, I can possibly do some copyediting after it has been condensed if necessary. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The whole thing is humour, so it's a bit of a non sequiter having an "In humor" section. It's really an "In popular culture" section by another name. As usual with this kind of section, there is very little discussion of the topic in humour. Rather it is an indiscrimate and unconnected list of contributors' favourite piece of media. Anyway, some of it can definitely go; so there was a discussion on Usenet – who cares, there's probably discussions on Reddit, Whatsapp and Twitter but it's not encyclopaedic. The fact that it came up as a question on QI is also marginal. The responses were funny, but unless there is some broader discussion of its relevance and meaning in humour it's just a random fact. SpinningSpark 16:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark: Would you be able to remove the examples which are indiscriminate? I don't feel confident trying to do it myself; I'm not exactly sure what should stay and what should go. Also, there might be references establishing some examples are not indiscriminate that I wouldn't be able to find due to being unable to visit many websites. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It's all indiscriminate as far as I'm concerned. I'm not seeing any encyclopaedic discussion that links these things together, at least none that is sourced. It's just a random, disconnected list. SpinningSpark 16:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark: So do you think the section itself should be removed entirely? DesertPipeline (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

That was my implication. I've done it frequently on other articles. I usually try to make an effort to replace it with something encyclopaedic, but that may be difficult in this case. SpinningSpark 17:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed for cat and buttered toast interaction

@Roostery123: Are you sure that there is no known interaction between cats and buttered toast? [3]. SpinningSpark 16:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)