Talk:Cat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revision as of 06:31, 16 June 2009

	Cat is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 5, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 19, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted February 23, 2006 Featured article review Kept March 3, 2007 Featured article review Demoted October 3, 2007 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Former featured article

	This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cats (Rated B-Class, Top-importance) CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats articles Cats portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Comments: edit · history · watch · purge It's free of ads, spam, and almost free of pet-shop advice that I don't understand. I wonder about the doctrine of cats only being able to get complete nutrition from a bag or a can. It is long, but I don't know how to make the table of contents link to a lot of smaller articles, so I think it will stay long. It has a wealth of things you did and did not want to know about man's closest enemy. I think the rating should go up. I'd giv it an ay. Brewhaha@edmc.net 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Contents 1 Another addition 2 Another addition 3 Please Remember 4 References 5 Relevance of american references? 6 trainability section needs work 7 Cat cult portal? 8 Editing errors 9 Working link to source paper 10 Proper common name per MSW3 11 Interaction with humans section 12 Service Cats? "Working" Cats? 13 Domestication date contested 14 Subject of debate 15 Largest cat: contradiction 16 Etymology 17 Etymology: church slavonic 18 "Ethical and humane concerns over feral cats" 19 Catnip 20 Cat? 21 Requested move 21.1 Survey 21.1.1 Refs 21.2 Discussion 22 Toxicity 23 Scorpions 24 Cats in History 25 Claws 26 Do we really need all these pics? 26.1 Proposed lead photo 27 Behavior: Fondness for Heights 28 Presentation of live animals 29 Nonfatal Termimal Velocity 30 Citation Requested in Claws Section 31 Repeated phrase 32 Diet 33 Propose Merge 34 Interaction with dogs? 35 Pics? 36 Diet 37 size 38 Tone of article 39 Environmental effects 40 Too graphic 41 Photo: Toilet-trained cat 42 Nomenclature 43 Size discrepancy 44 Image problem 45 Feeding and Diet - Image 46 Scientific name 47 "Cats in Pop Culture" section Another addition Not sure if this is where I should suggest additions to the Cats page. But at least I'll start here... Under Cats in Pop Culture, how about adding refferences to: Mehitabel of archy and mehitabel fame <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archy_and_mehitabel> Pyewacket, the cat and familiar from Bell, Book and Candle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell,_Book_and_Candle_(film)> Cats the musical <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_(musical)> WikiProject Mammals (Rated B-Class, High-importance) MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:Mammalmammal articles Mammals portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Comments: edit · history · watch · purge It's free of ads, spam, and almost free of pet-shop advice that I don't understand. I wonder about the doctrine of cats only being able to get complete nutrition from a bag or a can. It is long, but I don't know how to make the table of contents link to a lot of smaller articles, so I think it will stay long. It has a wealth of things you did and did not want to know about man's closest enemy. I think the rating should go up. I'd giv it an ay. Brewhaha@edmc.net 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Another addition Not sure if this is where I should suggest additions to the Cats page. But at least I'll start here... Under Cats in Pop Culture, how about adding refferences to: Mehitabel of archy and mehitabel fame <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archy_and_mehitabel> Pyewacket, the cat and familiar from Bell, Book and Candle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell,_Book_and_Candle_(film)> Cats the musical <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_(musical)>
This article has an assessment summary page.

Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article. This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have.

	WikiProject Echo      (Multiple languages)	EchoWikipedia:WikiProject EchoTemplate:FAOLEcho articles
v • d • e Cat is a featured article on the Spanish, Hungarian and Russian Wikipedias. You may be able to improve the article on this project by drawing content, media or references from those articles. To get involved with featured articles in other languages, visit WikiProject Echo or its discussion page.

Archives

Please Remember

Please remember that this is not a social network. That means do not say things like " email me if you know how to help" or "if you have options that could help with my problem feel free to call". The reader want to know about the object, in this case about cats. They do not want to know about the stories of your cats or what happend to your dog. Please provide accurate information about the subject you are talking about. Reminder- Children use this site for school,there has to be accurate information for them. If you do not know a lot about the subject then do not fix things and type things about it in the paragraphs. Wikipedia is being told not to be used in the schools because of its lack of accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.21.14 (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes it is a social network, but with a clearly defined task: erecting an encyclopedia. That is "social", at least for us nerds (me: 93%). Said: Rursus ☻ 08:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above message. I have worked at an SPCA for several years dealing with cats. I have a lot of clinical and personal experience with cats. I work in a building where the majority of our cats do not have cages. We have a total usually averaging 60 cats. I found a lot of information to be at times contradictive to many of the things I have experienced. In the "Trainability" section it says cats are hard to train. I have to disagree. Felines are complex creatures, and each is unique. Because they do not usually have pack like behaviors dangling a treat or using a high pitched voice is usally not effective like it would be for a dog. EACH CAT IS DIFFERENT YOU CANNOT TRAIN THEM ALL THE SAME WAY! Certain cats would NEVER learn to play fetch with a toy mouse if that is not their fancy. Jingle balls may be perfect if thats what the cat fancys. I also really wished they has said a little more about the whole declawing issue. They said it is done to keep cats from fighting but I have never in my life heard a vet make a suggestion like that. Cats who are declawed have increases rates of aggression and there is a chance they will stop using the litterbox. If you want to know about cats it is best to ask for information at your local shelter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.12.44 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   I have had exprience with a cat of mine who stopped using his litterbox after he was declawed. From Evan Detwiler 23:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimangreen13 (talk • contribs)  

Don't SCREAM (allcaps text)! We can read. If you wish to add your very specific own experiences on cats, then you have to first write them on another (your own) site, and make references from the article to there - that's the WP:NOR, policy - it's a clumsy one, but it is designed to give you a worthy attribution. Otherwise: go ahead, edit! The dictionary belongs to you, too! Blessings. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

References

The senses references a yahoo reference answer. This is certainly not a reference. Quorsav (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of american references?

"With 69 million of them present in American homes, cats are the most or the second most popular pets in that country" - is this particularly relevant to cats in general? (Also, isn't america a continent (or two), not a country? - ignoring that though) In New Zealand there are 1.5 million cats. But who cares? And more importantly, is this appropriate information for an encyclopedia article on cats? I think the next line effectively illustrates the popularity of cats without being unnecessarily biased towards any one country. Mechwarrior Puppies (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I only had a glance at this page but that line jumped out at me as being in completely the wrong place, why mention America as opposed to any other country? Muleattack (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

trainability section needs work

The trainability section cites no sources whatsoever and reflects the misconception that cats are not particularly trainable. References to highly trained cats, such as those of the Moscow Cats Theater, should be added. Alyssch (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. Remember, be bold. :-) --Gimme danger (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would love to be bold...but I'm inexplicably locked out of Cat, even though the autoconfirm time and # of edit minimums have been reached, as far as I can tell. Cat must be a super-sensitive article in need of extra protection!  :-) alyssch (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section could use some work. I can only speak for me, but I have taught my cat to fetch and beg and even open cabinets. This might only be my cat, but I'm still pretty sure that cats can be trained - it just takes some work (it took my cat a few weeks). Cats are very intelligent and usually realize what it is you want them to do quickly, or at least in my experience. Starfalcon (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat cult portal?

I think there should be a separate article for "cat cults" created. It should provide an integrative oversight of regions and eras, where cats were being considered excessively important or influential to human life (e.g. ancient Egypt or modern Japan). The article could explain psychological backgrounds, etc. - e.g. it is often said that people domesticated dogs and cats domesticated people or that cats hold their owners under hypnotic influence. The current wikipedia info on cat worship is much fragmented. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should. If you wish to do it, I would propose first extending the section History and mythology, until it is so large (a matter of taste, boldly use your own taste) that it deserves an own article. I would think that "Cats in religion" or some such is general and "serious" enought to attract interest. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the asked-for information is in the article Cats in ancient Egypt, which is misnamed. What might alternatively be considered is enhancing the non-Egyptian mythology parts of Cats in ancient Egypt and then moving the article to Cats in religion. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As regards to the cats taking hypnotic control over humans: we already know that! But my neighbors cat have given me a mind-control instruction to never reveal it to anyone. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing errors

The use of the word "affects" is incorrect in the Environmental section: "Feral cats have had serious affects on these wildlife species...." It should be "effects". S. R. Starin (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. You can help too! JNSQ (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Working link to source paper

{{editsemiprotected}} The paper "The Near Eastern Origin of Cat Domestication", footnote 3, may be found at http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/repr/add/domesticcat_driscoll2007.pdf

The current link is to an abstract and a demand for payment to see the full paper. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done MSGJ (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proper common name per MSW3

I would like to move this article, Cat, to Domestic Cat. Since it is a major article, I did not want to proceed without bringing this to other's attention. My reasoning: 1) The proper common name for Felis catus per MSW3 is "Domestic Cat" rather than "Cat"; 2) Many other WP domesticated animal articles use "Domestic" in their title, such as Domestic sheep, Domestic pig, Domestic Pigeon, Domestic rabbit, Domestic duck, Domestic goose, Domestic turkey. If there are no objections, I will proceed in a few days with the page move; otherwise, I will abide by whatever is the consensus. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

At least in all of the cases you mention, there are wild counterparts (e.g., there are both wild and domestic ducks). All Dogs, Horses and cats are considered to be domestic animals even if they are in a feral state (i.e., the words dog, cat and horse when used standing alone always refer to domesticated animals). Note that Wildcats are distinct from Feral cats. Perhaps just adding "Domestic" to the Infobox title would be enough (see Dog and Horse). VMS Mosaic (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Domestic Cat needs to be moved off to its own section. I was surprised to be taken to "Cat" when I spefically searched for "Domestic Cat" on wikipedia. Evening Scribe (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Interaction with humans section

I'm concerned that in this section, there isn't enough information about the potential diseases and parasites that can be transferred from cats to humans from even a very healthy looking cat. In particular, I'm concerned that MRSA isn't mentioned. Dogs, cats, and even horses have all been shown to transfer or recieve MRSA to or from humans. Here's a link:

http://www.vetinfo.com

I found out about this in 2007 when I myself suffered with MRSA for eight months. I have a service cat, and had to get him tested for MRSA eventually. He tested negative thank God, but it did underscore the need, to me, for the public to be informed about this. But I'm not really unbiased about this, I don't think. Could someone else add some info about cats and MRSA?

Evening Scribe (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Service Cats? "Working" Cats?

A user above, in the section about human-to-cat disease transmission, mentioned she had a service cat. Would it be worthwhile adding a sub-section about service cats to the human-cat interaction section? My only reticence is a fear that service cats are probably statistically insiginificant in number versus service dogs, etc. But, I think few enough people are familiar with the existence of service cats that it could be worthwhile. Thoughts? Bluecanary99 (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, find sources and put it in. howcheng {chat} 00:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think it would benefit the Cat page to include a small section about how cats can be used in service to humans. As another user mentioned on Talk:Farm_cat, there is an entire category for "working dogs". Kpstewart (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• see also Ship's Cat. Kpstewart (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Domestication date contested

I read a Smithsonian article that has dated the domestication of cats to about 12,000 years ago. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/brief_cats.html

AntariMysteec (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the article. It says that proof of domestication dates back to about 9500 years ago (the article says 8000 BC, close enough), but that some scientists speculate that domestication may have started as far back as 12 000 years ago. There is no dated finding that proves a date of 12 000 years ago.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Subject of debate

"There are two divergent views about the relationship of cats with the environment. The first argues that the environmental impact of feral cat programs and of indoor/outdoor cats is a subject of debate." Nonsense tautology. 86.153.15.186 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Largest cat: contradiction

"Some have been known to reach up to 23 kilograms (51 lb) due to overfeeding. [...but...] The largest cat ever was officially reported to have weighed in at about 21.297 kilograms." So there are cats bigger than the largest cat ever?! Contradiction. 86.153.15.186 (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't comment definitively, of course, but it might just be a single word poorly chosen - "some have been reported ..." but "the largest officially ..." I guess in some sense someone could even know, but still not have what is known officially registered / recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.117.67 (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"About" and "21.297" seem contradictory as well :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.253.10 (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The cat's name is Persian (Indo-European) origin not Latin or Afro-Asiatic as article says. A legend how the cat got his name: «As a cat comes from Africa, it was unknown animal for Persians before, when Persians first time saw the cat, they said: «Kas tas?» 'Whats that?', so the cat was called katas». From Persian that word was borrowed into other languages, having forms katas, katis, kadis, katos, katus, gatos, kate, katze, etc. Roberts7 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unattested. It is far more likely that the name arose as onomatopoeia for the hissing noise cats make when angry. The "pussy" name has a similar root, as can be seen in Kurdish, "Pisîk" The word for cat in many other languages is a variation on "meow". For example, in Vietnamese they are "Meo". Their name in Ancient Egypt was also "Miu". 165.166.3.170 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Is he:חתול of interest for this section in the article? Tomer^talk 09:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Etymology: church slavonic

The church slavonic version is wrong, it's kotъka (kotŭka alternative spelling), not kotka. "kotka" cannot be due to the phonetic reasons. 195.113.149.177 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Ethical and humane concerns over feral cats"

In that section, the first paragraph begins "There are two divergent views about the relationship of cats with the environment. The first argues that the environmental impact of feral cat programs and of indoor/outdoor cats is a subject of debate."

As far as I can tell, the second view is never presented. It reads little sloppy: "there are two views, and the first acknowledges that there is more than one view..." I'd fix it, but I don't know what the second view is! 74.60.254.86 (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC) K. Elder

Catnip

Today I've modified the brief entry on catnip. Formerly it said, "Some cats have a fondness for catnip, which is sensed by their olfactory systems. While they generally do not consume it, they will often roll in it, paw at it, and occasionally chew on it." Now it reads, "Cats have a fondness for catnip, which is sensed by their olfactory systems. Many enjoy consuming catnip, and most will often roll in it, paw at it, and occasionally chew on it."

In my experience, more cats eat catnip than do not; in any event, the statement, "... they generally do not consume it," is inaccurate. If this is "orginal research," then by all means edit or revert. Seduisant (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe both formulations contain another imprecision; the response to catnip is not via olfaction proper, but rather the detection of nepetalactone by the vomeronasal organ. - Nunh-huh 21:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been told by my vet that the effects of catnip only apply to adult cats. That young kittens are "immune" to its effects until a certain age. Is this true? User:switchbladesista 15:03 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cats have a fondness for catnip..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catnip says that only two-thirds of cats are affected by catnip. While I agree that my experience is that cats eat catnip, I think we should say "Some cats have a fondness for catnip", since there are some that do not. In fact, if the catnip article is right about its being two-thirds, I'd say the remaining third is too significant to ignore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.253.1.84 (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cat?

I want to change this: It has been associated with humans for at least 9,500 years. Domestic cat isn't domesticed at last 9,500 year. It is domesticed at last 9,000,000 years, by Oxford DNK research.--Vatrena ptica (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Errr... there were no humans 9 million years ago, so pray tell who domesticated the cat???--Ramdrake (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my mistake. Cat is domesticated at last 130 000 years. People are live only 4 milion years.--Vatrena ptica (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Try again, with a cite to a verifiable and reliable source. Otehrwise, the 9500 years figure stays. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference (Croatian literature): Vojmil Zic and Valerija Kovac, Mak, Glas Koncila, Zagreb, ISSN 1331-2731, april 2008

--Vatrena ptica (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Basically, your source is invalid here. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thirty seconds on google produced an article on the beeb's website, reporting the results of a genetic survey that estimates divergence of the domestic cat from wild types more than 100,000 years ago. The results were published in science, I assume from the remarkable similarities in this abstract, this is the paper in question, which does appear to be in English. Nanobot recurve (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Beeb link ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6251434.stm ) has been corrected. It clearly states "the study suggests the progenitors of today's cats split from their wild counterparts more than 100,000 years ago". Nanobot recurve (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Another quick search produced http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetic-study-links-domestic-cats-to-wild-ancestors-100000-years-ago-455171.html which also states the exact same facts. Nanobot recurve (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Cat → Domestic cat — Rationale : Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). Every member of the genus Felis can be called a "cat", this article is about the Domestic cat. Mouse and House mouse are two different Wikipedia articles and the same should be with Cat and Domestic cat. According to google search the alternative name "house cat" is informal and much less common.Mieciu K (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC) — Mieciu K (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per above argument. Mieciu K (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Nominator !vote Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Very Strongly oppose; this is as bad as the nominator's other proposal to move dog; we are not here to redesign the English language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) policy, before taking part in move request discussions. Thanks in advance. Mieciu K (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That is, of course, only part of our naming conventions: it says Be precise when necessary. There is no necessity here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Correction: According to your opinion "There is no necessity here." Please let the Wikipedia community decide per Wikipedia:Consensus. Mieciu K (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
        • • Correction (since Mieciu wants to play that way): No argument has been made for any necessity; not even declarations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
          • If you or anyone else believes there is a necessity to be precise that is relevant here, then you have the burden to explain what it is. As PMAnderson notes, no one has even declared that there is a necessity, much less explained what it is and argued effectively why it's relevant. The claim that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) applies here is baseless. --Serge (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Since when is Wikipedia:Naming conventions limited to only Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)? If using common names is so important to you why don't you start a debate about renaming United States Of America to America? After all we should always use common English names. No exeptions. Mieciu K (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
              • It's not only common names, but common names apply by default. Precision applies only when necessary. No necessity in this case has been presented. --Serge (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
                • IMHO in this case it is necessary hence this debate. "No necessity in this case has been presented" I'm not here to convince people. This is a request for opinion. Mieciu K (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support move. The definitive and canonical listing of mammal species, MSW3 lists this species as Domestic Cat.^[1] I would give and even stronger support for a move to Domestic Cat. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The common meaning of "cat" is the domestic animal. I've just looked in the Concise OED, and this is the primary meaning there. 87.114.136.166 (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose; I don't think this would benefit the readers. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The common meaning of cat is the domestic cat. In common language, all other kinds of cats are the ones with a qualifier -- e.g. wild cat, big cats.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Britannica Online uses the title Domestic Cat Asher196 (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:COMMON as well). howcheng {chat} 05:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support The proposed title is much more precise. The current title may refer to any member of Felidae family. Surtsicna (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Use common names is the governing policy. - Nunh-huh 10:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Tepid Support: For the benefit of encyclopedia users, rather than editors, as this article does concern itself with the Domestic Cat. The article Felidae is truly the one that discusses the cat qua cat. Should this renaming take place, it would be helpful if (1) redirects of "Cat" be changed to access the Felidae article, where the term Domestic Cat already links to this article, and (2) some consideration should be given to the amorphously-named article Big cats, which covers the cats of the genus Panthera. Seduisant (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • (1) should only happen when the redirect actually means any felid, not Felis domestica; this may well be the minority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Granted that the topic of this article is, technically, the domestic cat and there are other cats, the name most commonly used to refer to this topic is never-the-less, cat. This is a case where we have to balance common name with WP:PRECISION. It's true the "domestic cat" is more precise, but that term is seldom used compared to just "cat". Really, it's primarily used only in contexts where a distinction needs to be made. Nobody takes their "domestic cat" to the veterinarian; they take their cat to the vet, and no more precision is needed for a reasonable English-speaking person to comprehend the intended meaning. In other words, the additional precision provided by "domestic cat" over "cat" is superfluous in most contexts, and so I think we have to give the nod to the more common name. --Serge (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The current title is simply incorrect - this article is not about the genus, but is about the domestic cat. --Aseld ^talk 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the relevance of the point that this article is not about the genus but about the domestic cat. While the term "cat" is sometimes used to refer to the entire genus, it is most often used to refer to the subject of this article, the domestic cat. It is absurd to suggest that it is "incorrect" to refer to the domestic cat as cat. --Serge (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See Big cat article. Every member of the Felis genus is commonly called a "cat". That is why in my humble opinion we should use precise naming to avoid confusion. Mieciu K (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, your objection is that the current title is imprecise, not that it is "simply incorrect". That's very different, and much more understandable. --Serge (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, I find it difficult to believe that the desire for a more precise name outweighs the utility in keeping this at what is, by far, the most common usage of the name. Shereth 16:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, when somebody says they saw a mouse, it could in fact be any of the mus (genus), but to claim that somebody could mean anything but the domestic cat and maybe the wildcat when they say "I saw a cat" is preposterous. And before somebody asks, I also oppose renaming of any article to a more "precise" name to appease somebodies feelings bout an issue, where the old name then simply becomes a redirect to the new — that's a sure sign the rename was unnecessary. Lars T. (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good point, Lars. If the term is really so imprecise, then Cat should be dab page, but I don't see anyone even suggesting that, much less proposing it. --Serge (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The parallel discussion at Talk:Dog#Requested move should probably be considered by any closing admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Toxicity

A more comprehensive list of toxic foods should be added to the article. One additional item would be "Grapes". See http://vetmed.illinois.edu/petcolumns/showarticle.cfm?id=359.

Some flea treatments for dogs contain the chemical Permethrin. These dog treatments should NEVER be used on a cat as Permethrin is highly toxic, often leading to fatality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwyncooper (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Scorpions

Can anyone back this up with citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.162.123 (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A cursory and quick scan of google shows nothing but opinion. Personally, I know my pet housecats like to play with and nibble upon invertebrates, but I live in a region with no venomous species. Nanobot recurve (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cats in History

Cats have natural instincts to do what their relatives do in the wild. They also evolved from these species. Do you ever notice their little fangs? Or the way they shake their heads when they get a piece of food? There's proof! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.172.173 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Claws

I noticed that the description of the cats control of their claws in the legs may be misleading. It reminds me of that guy from x-men. These pages have much better description of the way the claws work. Maybe someone could verify and add this information?

From Yahoo! Answers [1] (Possibly not a great source, but well written) Follow the link and read the "Best Answer."

And more from Cat Facts [2]. Follow the link and read the third paragraph from the top.

The current wikipedia entry states "Cats can voluntarily extend their claws on one or more paws. They may extend their claws in hunting or self-defense, climbing, "kneading", or for extra traction on soft surfaces."

It seems that the action is not "voluntarily" as the wikipedia article explains, but rather due to the position of the leg. So, while the cat can move its leg to a position where the claws are out, it can not voluntarily retract them. I have also observed this to be true in my cat by straighting out his leg while he is sleeping!

AdamDBean (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need all these pics?

I could understand a few pics of cats engaging in different behaviours , but I think right now there is an excessive number of photos. Thoughts?--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

...I guess it dosen't bother anybody, but the number of images should still be cut down.--Metalhead94 ^{T C} 16:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Well pictures make articles better, but I don't know how to remove pictures from articles yet. Sailor_Moon (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like too many photos to me. My feeling is, we could use more pix to illustrate paragraphs that lack illustrations. We probably don't need any litterbox pix, though {GG}}. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed lead photo

Alvesgaspar felt that this photo wasn't as good as the current one, but I feel it is. It uses nicer colours; the cat's face can be seen morely clearly, showing greater "personality"; it doesn't look down on the animal (most other animal lead photos, dog, sheep, guinea pig etc. use the same technique); and has a better background (these final three issues came up at Talk:Cat/Lead photo). What do people think?

• It's is a nice looking photo in thumbnail size but obviously out of focus, when viewed in full size. I think we should wait for a much better picture than the one it is used now. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• I concur with Alvesgaspar. Also, I'm not fond of the collar. howcheng {chat} 16:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur No, per above. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a vote. The fact that it's out of focus when it's enlarged really shouldn't be an obstacle, when you consider the photos at dog and sheep again, which both have problems, but are, ultimately, quality illustrations. I don't see the problem with there being a collar when this is the article about domestic cats (most have them); again, there are precedents: see dog and cow. There's no need to pursue this though if people really don't like it. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a big deal because cat is a heavily-trafficked article, so we need to be putting our best foot forward. And because every person and their mother wants to have their cat photo in the article, we need to set standards. It may not have to be up Featured picture quality, but we should insist on technical excellence. howcheng {chat} 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rather have a valuable illustration than something that is technically great—the current image is not technically great either. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have this picture which could replace the current infobox picture. It is taken at the cat's level and has good details. Muhammad(talk) 07:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the current leading picture is not optimal because there isn't much contrast between the cat and the stone background. Frotz (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• A picture depicting the whole animal is required. See discussion above. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There are many pictures which depict the whole animal in the rest of the article. IMO the lead picture should be one which is aethetic and the current lead picture is not very pretty. Muhammad(talk) 07:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about this. My only complaint is that the contrast between the cat and the background in what is now the image at the top of the article is not good. I agree that the whole animal must be shown. Frotz (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this one? Sure it's an overview but at least it has a closer view and doesn't have a distracting background. Bobisbob2 (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Behavior: Fondness for Heights

Will someone please remove "and prestige" from the end of the first paragraph of this section? Anthropomorphizing the subject is detracting from the accuracy of the page.

Presentation of live animals

Frequently cats will not kill the animals they catch, instead bringing them inside and letting them loose. My own cat did this a few times before I restricted access to the outdoors. Does anyone know of any verifiable sources making claims as to why cats do this? The most common explaination I hear is that it's to teach the human how to hunt. Frotz (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonfatal Termimal Velocity

I was reading about and found numerous claims that cats have a nonfatal terminal velocity of about 60MPH. Since this is such a widespread rumor/ fact (whichever the case may be), I think it is important that it is addressed in the article, unless someone feels that it would lead to "Experimentation"...

Just another guy trying to be a Chemical Engineer, Nanobiotechnologist, and Mathematician (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation Requested in Claws Section

In the section on claws in physiology portion of the article, I am requsting a citation giving the origin of the information of the following quote: "...there is a protrusion which appears to be a sixth "finger". This special feature of the front paws, on the inside of the wrists, is the carpal pad, also found on the paws of big cats and dogs. It has no function in normal walking, but is thought to be an anti-skidding device used while jumping." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.100.219 (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeated phrase

Regarding the subsection "Toxic Sensitivity" under the section "Feeding and diet", the phrase "Essential oils are toxic to cats and there have been reported cases of serious illnesses caused by tea tree oil, and tea tree oil-based flea treatments and shampoos." is repeated at the end of the 3rd and the 5th paragraph. Mikusjay (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. --Dodo bird (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Diet

On the diet section, there is nothing about 'Pica'. This is when a cat eats or choose's unusual things like cotton, plastic etc (like my Burmese does!)I just thought perhaps this shoould be mentioned?Emmajaneyoung (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good addition, with a link to pica (disorder). That article says:

Unlike in humans, in dogs or cats, pica may be a sign of immune-mediated hemolytic anemia, especially when it involves eating substances such as tile grout, concrete dust, and sand. Dogs exhibiting this form of pica should be tested for anemia with a CBC or at least hematocrit levels. [2][3]

So the information seems useful, probably in the Feeding and Diet section. Bob98133 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bob! Sorry, do you want me to add the infomation or should you? (I am sligtly dylexic!) Emmajaneyoung (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! Bob98133 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose Merge

I was looking through random articles and found Smoke cat. I think the information, if it can be sourced would be better here than in its own article. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge - it's the sort of thing i would have merged on site if i weren't so new here. Kytti khat (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge - ... into the Coat patterns section (4.5.1) Seduisant (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge- per above.--Metalhead94 (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Until there is enough information for a decent-sized article on the subject(such as Tortoiseshell cat and Tabby cat) it would serve more use here. Also, if anyone can expand on it? Compared to the sections on tabbies and torties, the information is quite sparse. Kiiro (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one objected I merged the article into the section mentioned above. A new name 2008 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Interaction with dogs?

Would it be relevant to provide a section on how cats generally interact with dogs? Or is there already an article on this I don't know about? It just seems like a topic many people would be interested in and might look for.

P.S. If I'm formatting this wrong---sorry. I'm new to this...

Kiiro (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.66.5 (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pics?

Why is it that most pics portrait the cats from front, when full portraits showing the cat from the side in most cases would be more enlighting? Is it that the editors prefer taking pictures of their own pets? Then retake the photos and try to get more pictures from the side, there's plenty of time for improvements. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Now the first have changed, but it is not better. I'm considering going out and find a random cat that I can snapshot, because the current one doesn't exhibit the general form of a cat. Don't portrait your cute pets, please portrait a cat! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We should just link Other images of cats to icanhascheezburger.com and be done with it - it's gotta be the web's most comprehensive source of cat images ;) mmj (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The section on calico and tortoiseshell cats says that calicos must have patches instead of brindles, thus making the cat pictured NOT a calico. However, when you click on the image, the filename calls her a calico. This is confusing IMHO. If she is a calico, the description of what constitutes a calico is unclear to me. If she is not a calico, the filename is misleading. I don't know which to believe (and I was looking at Wikipedia specifically to answer that very question about a similar cat). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infelsphere (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Diet

A domestic cat's diet consists of poultry, other meats as well as fish, dairy, cat food, mice, rats and occasionally bugs. The same accounts for wild cats like tigers and lions. In the wild cats eat mostly meat but occasionally eat bugs if the kill isn't great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catsrme (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that rats and mice are more likely to be the cat's usual prey than snakes and scorpions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.224.40 (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

size

someone should put the average height and length of kitty in addition to weight --68.9.226.101 (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. howcheng {chat} 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tone of article

Maybe except for the physiology bit, the rest of the article is written from the pov of a pet owner (obviously...) IMO this probably should be cleaned up to be written from the pov of a biologist who has no interest in cats beyond the fact that they exist (as opposed to liking them for their pet value).

This issue exists with "Dog" and other articles. The intense personal interest most editors of this article have in cats makes my comment just that, a comment :D 118.90.105.225 (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Environmental effects

Nothing to do with cats I know, but the Kakapo is native to New Zealand, not to Australia. New Zealand wildlife has also suffered greatly from the introduction of cats, many native birds (indluding the Kakapo of course) have suffered as so many of them have evolved to lose the abilty to fly. Could this part of the article be corrected to give the right information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.214.210 (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Too graphic

It seems to me like the section on Reproduction is a bit too graphic. It states that the female 'yowls as the male pulls out of her' and so on. Not everyone likes these sort of in-depth descriptions.. Sparkstarthunderhawk (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What if some third- or fourth-grade kid looks up cats on Wikipedia, and ends up reading all that? Besides, is it really necessary to know exactly how cats reproduce? Spare us the details, please. 70.62.120.218 (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo: Toilet-trained cat

I've noticed that this photo has been taken down and put back up again. Before this turns into an edit war, I'd like to suggest that the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of this photo be discussed here instead of seeing who gets tired of reverting the page first. Thanks! --Ericdn (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Kick it out. It has no relevance at all. --84.56.228.28 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The section should have a picture of some kind, it could be this one or one of a cat using a litterbox. I believe this is the picture that should stay because:

1. The picture is relevant, the section where the picture is at talks about toilet training a cat.
2. It is not a common occurrence for people to toilet train their cat. I believe most people have seen a litter box trained cat but a larger portion of people have never seen a toilet trained cat.

This picture is helpful in illustrating a less common aspect of cats. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the photo isn't necessary to the article. At best, it provides a needless distraction. At worst, some people may be offended. --Ericdn (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it adds some insight as to the trainability of cats; also, the question whether it might offend some people is moot, as Wikipedia is not censored. I'd say keep for the informative value.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I concede in terms of possible offense the photo may cause. You're right that it's not our responsibility to worry about that. However, does the photo itself provide any informative value that a description in the text can not? Probably not. Therefore, there's no particular reason I can see why the photo should remain. --Ericdn (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In terms of trainability, if we say cats can be trained to use a toilet, some people will wonder how it is possible: for starters, cats can't sit upright to relieve themselves like we humans do. Therefore, I'd argue that it serves to illustrate a point that would be either difficult to explain in words, or if fully explained, that some people might find even more graphic and offensive than just the picture of the cat.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's possible to write a text that can be descriptive without being unnecessarily graphic or vulgar. I completely respect your opinion, and I can even understand and appreciate your opinion; likewise, I see that you respect my opinion. Therefore, I think the two of us have reached the point where we have to agree to disagree. However, I'm sure you and I will both be interested in reading others' opinions on the suitability of the photo and make further comments from there, yes? --Ericdn (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Let's agree to disagree - amicably. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not needed and we do not have room, this is very eccentric behavior for cats - making it off topic. Hardyplants (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is off topic, why is it discussed in the section? A new name 2008 (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a good clean-up and the focus needs to be tightened up. It takes a long time to load..its a mixture of clay and gold (true of most wikipedia content). Hardyplants (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In what way is it a distraction? A new name 2008 (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To Hardyplants: it's a trained behaviour. It would probably be better under "Trainability", though. As for the argument that we do not have room,, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We cannot run out of room, litterally.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree. Who says we don't have room? There are articles on Wikipedia that are far longer than this one. Eccentric behavior also is no reason to say that information doesn't belong in the article. This is not criteria for determining whether or not a photo should remain. --Ericdn (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Under "nomenclature", the article says:

A group of cats is referred to as a "clowder", a male cat is called a "tom" (or a "gib", if neutered), and a female is called a "queen". The male progenitor of a cat, especially a pedigreed cat, is its "sire", and its female progenitor is its "dam". An immature cat is called a "kitten" (which is also an alternative name for young rats, rabbits, hedgehogs, beavers, squirrels and skunks).

From where I sit this is a mixture of everyday words (kitten, tom), words used only by cat breeders or fanciers (dam, sire), and words used in real life by nobody (clowder). If I as an ordinary person want to talk about a cat's mother I say "mother", not "dam", let alone "female progenitor". It is fine for the article to define all these words, but it needs to talk about how they are used and not, as the present wording does, imply that they are the only terms used. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm not sure where you're going. These are usually considered the correct terms for these concepts, even if they're not always the most used terms colloquially speaking. The colloquial terms are assumed to be known by everyone (I don't think anybody needs to tell you that the common term for a kitten's female progenitor is "mother"). That the exact term (dam) is mostly used by cat fanciers and breeders is also not a surprise: these are the people you would expect to know about proper cat nomeclature. However, maybe a note should be added that the term "clowder" is indeed rarely used just about anywhere, even if it is the correct term.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd wager that "colony" would be the most commonly-used word to describe a group of cats. Frotz (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Size discrepancy

Cats typically weigh between 2.5 and 7 kg (5.5–16 pounds); however, some breeds, such as the Maine Coon, can exceed 11.3 kilograms (24.9 lb). Some have been known to reach up to 23 kilograms (51 lb) due to overfeeding. Conversely, very small cats (less than 1.8 kilograms (4.0 lb)) have been reported.[10] The largest cat ever was officially reported to have weighed in at about 21.297 kilograms (46.952 lb) (46 lb 15.25 oz).[11][12] The smallest cat ever officially recorded weighed around 1.36 kg (3 lbs).[13]

This makes absolutly no sense.. the biggest cat weighed 46 lb but they can reach up to 51 lb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomaschaaf (talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. Since the 51 lb statement is unsourced, I've removed it. howcheng {chat} 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

how light is the lightest cat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiracia (talk • contribs) 14:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

According to our source, the lightest cat was 1.3 kg. howcheng {chat} 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Image problem

With the current policy on GIFs, the whole image File:Curly_calico2.gif (392k) has to be downloaded in order to see any thumbnail... AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to note it at the time, but that file was moved to File:Curly tortoiseshell.gif (it being a tortie, not a calico) and replaced in the article by File:Curlycat02.jpg. howcheng {chat} 16:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Feeding and Diet - Image

I propose changing the cat and mouse picture from:

old	new
A cat eating a House Mouse	A cat eating a House Mouse

Note: I took the photo, I'm biased - so I'm asking here. lxowle (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Bigger is better, the quality is equal or superior, and Wikipedian-created photos are preferred to Flickr ones in my book. howcheng {chat} 16:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

OK - unless I hear comments to the contrary, I'll swap it over in a few days. lxowle (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientific name

The domestic cat is a subspecies is Felis silvestris called Felis silvestris catus as they can interbreed with other wildcat subspecies and consistantly produce viable offspring. Felis catus would be the name if it were a species in its own wright. [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]] (Roomoneohone (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

"Cats in Pop Culture" section

This section is terrible: the tone is unlike the rest of the article, and the examples are awful. If it can't be rewritten from scratch (pardon the pun), I propose removing it. Any objection? Seduisant (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First episode Can Fred and the cats save the eastern seaboard, join us when they talk about the volcanic Canary islands and how to avert 25 square miles of rock and earth from sliding into the ocean and create the biggest tsunami and cataclysm in recorded history.

Episode One the Canary Islands

Hello cats! How is everything? I’m Dr. Fred MacMeowie. Hello Dr. MacMeowie said Clovis. Hi Fred said the other cats Max, Dewey, and Sam. Well today we have a serious problem at hand, the Canary Island! Isn’t that the volcanic Island off the west coast of Africa? Said Clovis. Yes It is Fred said, and there about 25 square miles of land that’s about to slide off into the ocean from the next eruption. Wouldn’t that cause an enormous tsunami that would travel across the Atlantic to the eastern seaboard of the USA said Max. You better believe it said Dr. MacMeowie. It will wipe out every thing from Maine to Miami Florida the Virgin Islands and the Caribbean travel inland about 25 miles, a wave approximately 300 feet high traveling about 400 MPH would be devastating! Maybe we could build a wall in the ocean along the east about 40 mile out of the shore line said Dewey? That would never work said Max. What do you mean it will never work explain said Dewey? It just won’t work, because you thought of it and you are a dimwit said Max. Alright now you two that’s enough said Fred I’m afraid it won’t work Dewey. The tsunami would be to powerful for any thing we can build, it would just crash right though the wall like it wasn’t even there said Fred. Maybe we could do a control slide, like cut pieces to small to cause any damage and slide it down that way said Clovis? That a good idea, but the small sections would be too small to relieve the entire island in a practical amount of time and the continuing blasting could cause the whole side of the volcano to fall at one, it would be better to leave it alone. I got it, we can build something that could give the Volcanic mountain some structure said Sam. Like build some dowels in the side of the island that will hold it together Sam said. That’s a pretty good thinking, but like Clovis’s Idea it would be risky with all the movement and things that would be going on shoving the huge dowels into place, and the drilling said Fred. But you know what Fred said, what! said the cats. We can probity use a portion of each of your ideas and come up with a good working solution said Fred! We could incorporate each of the ideas you guys came up in the right areas of the island and the world! What do you mean Fred said Max. Well we can take like what Dewey said and build a wall around the island on the side of the land mass that will slide down on. Yes! See Max, my idea has validity said Dewey. Yea yea said Max big deal, so Dr. MacMeowie what is the next thing we can do. Well I thing it might be better to build the wall around the entire island from one coast to the other coast, and build it out let say ¼ mile and then drain the sea water out so it will be basically just dry ocean floor said Clovis. That just might work! Said Dr. MacMeowie. Yes it will be a monumental project but is can be done if enough man power and equipment was dedicated to it. With that much waterless area in front of the island the side of the volcano could slide down and there would be no water for the rock and earth to fall into and cause a tsunami! Said Sam It will take some huge pumps to pump that much water said Max. Yes indeed, it will take the kind of super pumps like what New Orleans had and it will do the job said Dr. MacMeowie. Then we could use Clovis’s idea about the control slide and end the problem, and since the will be no water around the island won’t matter if the whole volcano goes at once!

We can use the same method as the ancient Egyptians used in cutting the stones for the pyramids, wooded stakes and pound them into cracks in the areas we want to cut. Then use water to sweale the wood like hydraulics said Clovis. An excellent idea said Dr. MacMeowie, we can use wells with pumps to supply the water. Then we can basically knock down the mountain a piece at a time until all of it is safely down said Sam. Exactly said Fred, and after the task is completed we can take down the wall and bring the island back to normal said Sam. What would be a lot of work and money though wouldn’t it said Dewey. No it wouldn’t be snap Max. Well look at what’s all involved, you have to build a huge concrete wall around an island and then pump billions gallons of water out said Dewey. Shut up Dewey before I feed you your fur! Said Max. Well that a well stated argument said Clovis. Alright now, it would be worth it when you weigh the two scenarios said Fred. When you add up the destruction that can occur if a tsunami hits the eastern seaboard the loss cities and what will be involved in reconstruction of these cities and valuable farm land loss the cost is defiantly less to do the project said Fred. You know we have be brainstorming and coming up with ideas but, haven’t got a name for our project yet said Fred. How about some coffee said Sam. Yea and some donuts to said Dewey! I like vanilla said Clovis. How about a name fellows for our project exclaimed Fred! Sorry Fred said Max, maybe Project safe fall? Hmmm well can we make it sound more official? Said Clovis Perhaps Volcanic safe fall? Said Max. That sounds great! Said Fred. So we will call the project volcanic safe fall! Said Clovis. Yea sounds great said Dewey. Well it looks like we have a some what viable solution to the Canary Islands land slide problem said Fred. Yes but the cost will be prohibited said Sam, just to pump all that water out of the area in front of the island will be an normais task! Yes but worth it said Fred, when you figure up the cost of the damage it will cause in a huge area. Some is the highest cost areas around on the coast! Said Fred.

Break time with Clovis

Well it’s break time and my name is Clovis and will show you a real neat trick you can show your friends! To make a sky rocket. You will need first aluminum foil and a wooden match. Cut an area of 3” by about 80% of what ever the total Leigh of the match is. Take the match and tightly rap the match with the aluminum foil with the head of the match rap in the fole and the other end exposed about 20%. Set the match on the edge of a non burning material like concrete or metal. Then use a match or lighter and hold the flame under the head of the match rapped in aluminum and wait. Some the sulpher will ignite and off your rocket will go! Well that this weeks science experiment here on the Dr. Fred MecMeowie show. Join us next week when we will have another exciting experiment.