Methodology
iCatNames is an editorial catalog for choosing a cat name. A name in the catalog is a suggestion; it is not evidence that a registered cat has that name or that the suggested meaning is correct.
Updated .
Which name details have been checked?
The catalog contains 22,292 active records. 142 currently match a source-review record. The remaining entries can be browsed as naming ideas, with unverified meaning, origin, pronunciation, description and variant fields withheld from public name-data displays.
A checked profile links to the references used and explains which claim each supports. Name-history references may establish a personal-name form; dictionaries may establish a word meaning; an original work or its publisher may establish a character reference. These are different kinds of evidence. A character biography cannot establish a linguistic translation.
The review is tied to the complete name record. A change to any controlled field invalidates the old review until the record is checked again. Detail pages, lists, comparisons, favorites, exports and generator results use this same rule. A blank field means that the detail has not been verified, including cases where no single literal meaning is established.
How collections and rankings differ
Gender labels and breed, coat, language and theme collections organize suggestions. They do not restrict which cat can use a name, predict temperament, or measure owner preferences. A name's presence in a language-inspired collection does not independently establish its etymology; use the checked origin field and source notes for that claim.
Popularity records come from separately cited publishers. The ranking snapshots identify each source and its sample or period. We keep an undated catalog separate from an annual report, and a publisher's sample separate from the wider cat population. Several reports covering the same underlying release are not independent surveys. We do not infer real-world popularity from how often editors place a name in our collections.
Research and writing
AI tools assist research and drafting. A generated explanation, a completed database field, an editorial byline or a style check does not establish factual accuracy. Source checks are recorded for individual name profiles; older guides and cultural references require their own review. The profile review count above does not certify every statement elsewhere on the site.
Factual claims should link to a source that supports the particular statement. For breed standards, that may be the relevant registry; for a language claim, an appropriate dictionary or name-history reference; for an experiment, the original paper and its actual design. We remove unsupported certainty and keep documented ambiguity. We do not expand an article to meet a fixed word count or add unrelated names to fill a guide.
Hearing studies, name-recognition experiments and household preference describe different questions. Our spelling analysis explains its sample and limits. A spelling heuristic or tool score has not been validated as a prediction that a cat will respond.
Famous-cat profiles
A stored biography or Wikipedia link does not establish that its claims were checked. The October 27 identity screening found long articles attached to the wrong character. Those articles are withheld from public display, recommendations and the sitemap while their sources are reviewed; direct URLs carry noindex. Their original records are retained for correction.
The fourth review screened the 168 expanded biographies left after the earlier identity corrections. Thirty-five were rewritten against relevant sources, fifteen were withdrawn because specific claims could not be substantiated or the body described a different subject, and two duplicate or conflated entries were consolidated. The remaining 116 expanded biographies are withheld pending individual source review; their directory summaries remain explicitly unchecked. Inability to substantiate an account in this review does not prove that a named cat did not exist.
One additional legacy summary, Ralph from Rotten Ralph, now has a source-linked profile. Together with the earlier eight corrections, 44 profiles have dated source reviews. Three of these are brief reference notes retained with noindex rather than presented as independent articles. The review covers the identity and selected displayed facts, with historical dates and uncertainties retained. References include publishers, record and award authorities, museum catalogs, owners’ accounts and direct interviews.
A source-review label is tied to the displayed record, including its text and image attribution fields. Changing a controlled field invalidates that label until the change is checked. All summary-only, pending-review and withdrawn detail pages carry noindex and show no advertising; withdrawn entries and consolidated duplicates are excluded from the public directory. Pending expanded text is also excluded from recommendations and the sitemap. The directory and sitemap use the same article-eligibility rule.
Corrections and historical records
Legacy imports included placeholder meanings, mismatched descriptions and incorrect origin labels. Confirmed invalid values are cleared rather than replaced with guesses. Stored cross-page selections are resolved to current name records so an old snapshot cannot restore an outdated explanation.
Substantive corrections appear in the updates log. Earlier entries retain their dates and are historical accounts, not current counts or verified descriptions of Google's internal systems. The October 27 correction supersedes earlier claims that particular words trigger an AI-spam classifier, that public methodology pages receive an automatic ranking reward, or that a site's weakest page determines one universal quality score. We have no evidence for those claims.
Limits and corrections from readers
This catalog is not a representative survey of cats, owners or countries. Its field coverage and editorial labels cannot establish naming trends, cultural causes or animal behavior. Historical reports keep their stated snapshot dates; current counts can differ after corrections and deduplication.
If a meaning, source, pronunciation or cultural reference appears wrong, send the page URL and the reference supporting a correction through contact. We can correct a claim without inventing an alternative explanation.