Talk:Socks (cat)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cats Portal This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject. 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

An entry from Socks (cat) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 30 November 2005.

Contents 1 Notability? 2 Polydactyl 3 Video game 4 Category:Living people 5 still alive 6 Very Important Question.

[edit] Notability?

I believe Socks may not be notable on its own. Articles about kids of Ronald Reagan and JFK were deleted as the kids died young and more importantly, as they were not notable on their own. Also, as it is a short article with less than 1000 words, I doubt if this can be considered DYK material. --Gurubrahma 05:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Cats always get top billing over kids! --malber 14:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely right. But apart from that, a glance at the list of presidential pets indicates that US presidents overwhelmingly prefer dogs. Many of the cats on the list apparently belonged to presidents' wives. Which is unsurprising - you'd sort of expect someone who spent their time rising through the ranks of the state to be more into dogs (pack animals) than cats (individualist). That makes Socks fairly unique; plus those pictures are just great :-). --Last Malthusian 12:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

First off, what the other's have said. Socks got plenty of media coverage while in the White House, kids who die young and DON'T have media coverage just need a stub on their parents' page(s). Also, plenty of stubs get DYK'ed. Staxringold 12:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to add for the rationale for notability: Presidential pets are noteworthy due to the fact that the pet is specifically chosen by the president. A president's choice of pet might reveal something internal about the person, though this is left up to individual interpretation. Children of presidents, on the otherhand, are born not chosen. And they have a voice for themselves. They'd have to do something remarkable, like say underage drinking to be noteworthy. --malber 15:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polydactyl

Does anyone know if Socks is a polydactyl? Those paws look big! --malber 14:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Video game

I removed this, inserted by an anonymous editor:

"Socks the cat also got his own videogame, Socks the Cat Rocks the Hill. it was unrealeased."

because it was unverified, and I don't understand how he could have been said to have got his own game if it was unreleased. --Last Malthusian 15:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I remember hearing about this in video game mags at the time. I didn't realize that it was ultimately not released, but it happens with videogames (such as Tattoo Assassins and Dino Rex). There is a page on the game at [1].--216.165.33.63 00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought it was referring to some kind of Flash game. I'm putting that back in. --Malthusian (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Done, and much kudos to 216.165 for finding that article. I removed one of the photos to make way for the game's cover art, which I didn't really want to do but the article doesn't seem big enough for three photos on the right. I tried to put the box art on the left but it made the text go behind the picture, and even if it hadn't the article would have been a bit cramped. If anyone can manage to get all three photos on the page without making the pictures dangle past the text, that would be great. (Best case scenario would be if we could expand the article another paragraph, of course.)

I think if worst comes to worst we should have the box art instead of a second photo, because if someone reads that Socks was going to have a computer game, their natural reaction would be "er... what?" Of course we have the external links to prove it, but much better to have a picture right next to the paragraph, in the article. --Malthusian (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, article's been expanded, based mainly on the Purr 'n' Fur article, and is now long enough to have the three pictures. Using that website as a source may skirt standards of verifiability, but I'm going by the bold-revert-discuss cycle here. --Malthusian (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Living people

I removed Category:living people, I think, its wrong. Do exist a similar category about animals? --Nolanuss 20:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] still alive

The article says Socks WAS the cat of the Clinton family. According to his birth in 1991 he could still be alive, being 15 years old right now. Does anyone have information? --89.54.161.82 23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Was refers to him no longer being the Clinton's cat. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very Important Question.

Socks is alive ? Gridge 11:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think we know for certain. If he was alive he'd be about 15, which is getting very old for a domestic cat (though they can live longer). I would have thought that if he had died, it would have been in the news - when Humphrey, the Downing Street cat, died it was reported by the BBC at least, and Socks seems to have had similar fame in America. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess... Gridge 12:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I could well be wrong about the possibility of his death being reported - stereotypically the British care more about cats and dogs than most, so perhaps an American presidential cat wouldn't have the same attention. In which case we might just have to put a '?' after his birth date in maybe one or two years' time, when he'd be pretty ancient if he was alive, and leave it at that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Gridge 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)