Talk:Caracal

Etymology

Twice user Mehmetkose (talk · contribs) changed the properly sourced etymology: [1], [2]. With the second edit they called me nuts. I have reverted twice, explicitly pointing to the cited source, and explaining in my edit summary: [3]: "Source says: "ce qui dans ces trois langues veut dire: chat aux oreilles noires" (cat with black ears)" Comments welcome. - DVdm (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Noticed it too and agree to your reverts. Their scolding is surely not WP:CIVIL -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The source gives the name in three languages and generalises the translation. According to Smellie's English translation (index) it says: "In Turkish, Karrah-kulak; in Arabic, Gat el Challah; in Persian Siyah-gush. In all these three languages, the denominations signify the cat with black ears". My lingistic skills can detect a possible use of the word for cat in the Arabic name, but is the word for cat part of the Turkish and Persian names? I think it might not be. A bit later it says "The karacoulacs are animals somewhat larger than cats, and of the same make. They have black ears, nearly half a foot long, and from this circumstance they derive their name, which signifies black ear." —  Jts1882 | talk  16:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "In Turkish, Karrah-kulak; in Arabic, Gat el Challah; in Persian Siyah-gush. In all these three languages, the denominations signify the cat with black ears". My lingistic skills can detect a possible use of the word for cat in the Arabic name, but is the word for cat part of the Turkish and Persian names? I think it might not be. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I added the ref to Buffon's account, who translated the Turkish meaning of Karrah-kulak black ear for 'the cat with black ears'. This is the earliest use of and explanation for the name Caracal I could find. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's looking to me that Karrah-kulak mean "black ear". A bit later the English translation adds "The karacoulacs are animals somewhat larger than cats, and of the same make. They have black ears, nearly half a foot long, and from this circumstance they derive their name, which signifies black ear." (the original French). —  Jts1882 | talk  16:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well yes, as standalone words: kara = black and kulak = ear, but combined kara-kulak = the black-eared one. Would Buffon have known a black-eared donkey, dog or rabbit in Turkey, he might have searched for an additional Turkish word for cat. But in his understanding, the combined word is the name for this black-eared cat. Hope this solves the riddle -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to pop in and bring up WP:OR for a moment. That is, if the sources say that kara-kulak means cat-with-black-ears, then that is what we say. Even if our own linguistic skills say that it is compound of black-ears; the native speakers could still use it to mean cat-with-black-ears.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Quite OR indeed. If indeed the consensus here would be that the "cat with" part should be dropped, then at the very least we need to also replace the current (mistrusted) source with two accepted, trusted alternative sources. - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree to drop the "cat with" part. Just because the name clearly refers to a cat, as referenced to Buffon, and not to any other creature. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Same here. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Kara means black. Kulak means ear. Karakulak means black ears. Turks named the cat "black ears". The cat species' name is "black ears". The name is not "cat with black ears". Name of the cat is "black ears". All of you should get psychiatric observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmetkose (talk • contribs) 17:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

the name comes from "karakulak" it is a known fact and the animal itself called directly "karakulak" here in turkey it is its name! also the karrah-kulak or kara-coulac bastardizations look ridiculous or even disguisting if you wanna add something about pronounciation(it is not needed karakulak can be read by english speakers and pronounced just like the way it is pronounced in turkish but still) do it in brackets with the original word which is karakulak

Warned for personal attacts at User talk:Mehmetkose. - DVdm (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:BSRF : please read above thread, and also the source cited for spelling of names before your next attempt of making unsourced changes. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of {requested article} into this talk page's article was:

Not Done—No Consensus to Merge.
— — — — —

A formal request has been received to merge: Caracal (genus) into Caracal; dated: May 2021. Proposer's Rationale: none stated. Requested by Treekangaroosandlions 2. Discuss here. GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of a rationale, and given that the sources cited on the relevant pages state that the genus Caracal is not currently considered monotypic, I'm going to call this a strong oppose. If there is a clear scientific consensus that C. aurata is now a member of a different genus, that can be revisited, but I'm not seeing evidence of one on a search of Google Scholar, or of our existing sources. Anaxial (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose. It would require a clear rationale for merging the article on a non-monotypic genus with the article on one of the species in the genus and not the other. The African golden cat was previously placed in Profelis. Severtzov created Profelis as a subgenus for one variety of African golden cat (he also created Chrysailurus for another variety of African golden cat), Pocock also included the Asian golden cat, and MSW3 has a monotypic Profelis. The latter would be a rationale for the merge, but we follow the IUCN Specialist Group classification. Now the evolutionary lineages of cats are fairly well defined, we are more likely to see further lumping (e.g. adding serval to Caracal) than the African golden cat being assigned to its own genus. If that happened then we would need to revisit. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose too for above reasons. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong support to merge Caracal (genus) into Caracal. The former article will forever remain a three-line runt, its meager content really belonging in the latter. (Strong, merely to provide some balance vis-a-vis the above opposes.) - DVdm (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - not currently a monotypic taxon, obviously sufficient material for separate articles on the contained species, no reason to lump either or both into the genus article. Yes, it will remain shorter than the species articles, but genus articles generally do. No problem there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for reasons noted above; additionally, the genus page does have potential for expansion. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per all above. Cavalryman (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC).

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

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.

GenQuest ^"scribble" 12:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

Edit war

Yesterday I added a photo of caracal Gregory into the article, but my edit was reverted by user:DVdm. He also asked me for "sources" on my talk page. Although I do not understand what kind of sources he needs for adding a photo of a caracal in the article about caracals, I added some text about the meme with sources about its significance. It was reverted by user:Certes who cited "consensus" from 2020 from the talk page. However, as it was correctly noted by user:Anaxial in the section "#The caracal as a meme" "if there were a reliable source demonstrating its cultural significance, such as a dedicated article in a major newspaper (say), then it might be appropriate to add it". I provided references to four indipendent articles in major newspapers which say that the floppa meme is very popular, so the "consensus" is not relevant today. So, I pointed out that fact to him and undid his revision; as far as I see User:Certes doesn't mind. However, user:DVdm reverted my edits without any arguments (meaningless comments like "No thanks" or "Unreliable" don't count as arguments), moreover he accused me of edit warring even though he was the one who started reverting my edits without reasoning. I ask all interested users to provide their opinions on this situation. If there won't be real arguments I will revert the information again. --xvodolazx (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The big floppa meme has been added multiple times in the past few years + been deleted every time by different wikipedians. And I fully agree to deleting it. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It was deleted because it had been added without sources. Now sources are added and I don't see reasonable grounds for deleting it except for personal santiment of some users. --xvodolazx (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Besides, if it "has been added multiple times in the past few years" don't you think that this fact indicates that the information about the meme is actually needed? --xvodolazx (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like keeping caracals as pets is popular in Russia, which is appalling! And no, I do NOT think that this should be part of a GA article. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

And a wiki article should by no means used to making such practises even more popular than they are! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this argument has nothing to do with the rules of Wikipedia. See WP:SOAP and WP:CENSOR. --xvodolazx (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

According to all the cited sources (see section #The caracal as a meme), this clearly is the name of one specific single pet cat. Wikipedia is not the place to list the names of our pets. - DVdm (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A meme based on a single cat doesn't disqualify it from being notable. The Grumpy Cat is a meme based on a particular pet cat and even has its own article on Wikipedia. However, that doesn't mean I support adding the big floppa meme. If there are sources discussing it as a globally popular and long-lasting meme, then I think a short addition could be justified, but adding information on memes should only be in exceptional cases and not just any meme that has its moment of fame. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jts1882. We should include Big Floppa only if sufficiently notable, and I don't think that's yet been demonstrated. As for edit warring, WP:BRD applies. The meme has been boldly added and reverted eight times, by my reckoning; now we leave the article in its original state while we discuss. The onus is on those wishing to add the material to show that it is suitable. Certes (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think its notability hasn't been demonstrated? I added four articles (and one more below) from respected websites, in my opinion it is more than enough for a short line of text. You can also look for more sources on the Russian page ru:Большой Шлёпа. --xvodolazx (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't read Russian, so I'll leave that for User:Somebody "Notme" Else to answer. Certes (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Certes: Copy/pasting to Google Translate does a very good job translating Russian to English. For instance: [4], [5], [6]. - DVdm (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(1) Although Gregory's photos are the most used templates for the memes, according to ru:TJournal other cats can play Floppa's role too. So, Gregory and Floppa aren't exactly the same. (2) But even if the whole Floppa thing was based only on Gregory, it doesn't nullify its significance. Many good articles about animals mention every single prominent example of the respective species (see, for instance, Beagle#In_popular_culture, Lemur#In_popular_culture, Walrus#Culture). The Big Floppa meme is still highly popular since late 2019, so it certainly is appropriate for this article. --xvodolazx (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Good that you provided those links that clearly show that these species featured in comics, films and folklore. And several other species featured as characters in literature written by prominent writers, e.g. The Jungle Book. This does NOT apply to floppa !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Article "Lemur" mentions probably every single appearance of lemurs in culture. Article "Walrus" mentions chess made from walrus ivory. Article "Beagle" mentions even the name of a ship and a couple of dog-show winners. I consider the existance of a popular meme as no more trivial for the article about caracals than aforesaid examples. --xvodolazx (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• I concur that the meme lacks sufficient notability to be included in this article- and being popular only since late 2019 is not that long. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by sufficient notability? The sources say that it does have notability. --xvodolazx (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What is needed is sources indicating that this is a global meme of significance. The sources I saw in the edited version were all in Russian, which shows some recent significance within Russia, but not more globally. I did a search and could only find it discussed in some meme-related blogs and on reddit. If you could find some further international coverage, say in a western European or North American newspaper, then that would be evidence of a phenomenon with broader significance. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources I provided directly say that this is a globally popular meme. Moreover, it initially appeared in the English internet and later spread to Russia. I also have sources in Portugese and Indonesian. According to WP:MONDIAL and WP:NOENG non-English sources are allowed and can be used to prove facts. --xvodolazx (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

If you come up with a short story, novel, folk tale or peer-reviewed article about your floppa, I will agree to include this. But not as long as you only provide links to short-lived newspaper and website articles; none of these shows that it is worthwhile to be included in an ENGLISH encyclopedia. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Big floppa edit war restarted

This time by user ThePlatypusofDoom: [7] and [8]. I don't think that https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/333844-meet-big-floppa qualifies as a reliable source. Comments from others are welcome. Pinging @Anaxial, BhagyaMani, and Jts1882:. - DVdm (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Only pinging people who support your point of view, eh?. Anyway, it's not the best source but it's enough considering WP:NNC. I think a minor mention is due weight. Also trends shows continued interest in the topic. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. Pinging @Quarantine Zone, Vodolaz, and Certes:. - DVdm (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we mention the "Big Floppa" meme in the article? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I reiterate what I wrote already last autumn in the previous section : this meme is not sufficiently notable to be included here. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that anything has changed since the previous discussion. If there is a growing global interest then it should be possible to find neutral secondary sources discussing this major trend. Google trends seems to indicate declining interest and that the peak has passed. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of increased notability since the last time the issue was raised; if anything, it's declined. I don't think the source cited is enough to show notability - we're certainly not talking the popularity of "woman shouting at cat" here. It seems too minor to be worth mentioning in an article on the species, although something like List of internet phenomena might be a different matter (although I doubt it). Anaxial (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have also seen the meme less often, not more, since last time this was brought up. Unless an eminently reliable and neutral secondary source can be cited, the meme should not even be mentioned. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I never heard of "Big Floppa" before... I had to google it to understand what it is...

On more objective terms, by drilling down the google trends posted by ThePlatypusofDoom, it seems that the interest peaked in June 2021 and it faded starting from last autumn. If this meme wasn't considered noteworthy at that time, I hardly see how it can be considered notable now. P1221 (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, if there is enough notability for the special article, there can be enough notability for mentioning it in this article. I have proposed an unobtrusive way to do it and I still think that it can be suitable for the article. Vodolaz (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Much as I dislike jamming up species articles with dumb-ass memes, I think the fact that we have a Big Floppa article makes it harder to argue against a short mention. Usually I'd say this kind of back-connection fails the relevance test (e.g. we don't mention every one of a million cartoon mice at house mouse), but the number of pop culture caracal items is presumably pretty low, so there's a better case here. Eh. Not too fussed either way. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't aware of the existence of the Big Floppa article. We do mention Donald Duck in article Duck and Lassie in article Rough Collie. OTOH we don't mention Mickey Mouse in article House mouse. Given the shallowness of this floppa, I don't think we need to do it here. - DVdm (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

At the same time, given the lack of other mentions of caracals in pop culture, adding the only such an instance to the article definitely won't hurt (even if you call it "shallow"). Vodolaz (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The importance of big floppa in the world of memes is different than its importance in biology. You can expect it to be a topic of interest for Meme Today but not for Nature or National Geographic. The cultural section in a biology article should only be for things of historical and lasting importance. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Elmidae. Either I should change my vote or Big Floppa should not exist but I agree that this correspondence does exist: The meme page and at least a brief mention here have some proportional relevance to each other. Invasive Spices (talk) 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• No - I don't think the fact that we have an article on Big Floppa is enough to say that it is sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the top level article on caracals. That Big Floppa meets GNG does not mean it has the same level of notability and interest as Donald Duck does. Fieari (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC
• No. This is not Know Your Meme. The much more well-known doge meme only gets two sentences in Shiba Inu, and one of them is really more about the cryptocurrency anyway. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• No because it's non-noteworthy trivia. Some1 (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• No. The sourcing requirements for including a meme ought to be very high, especially when trying to put them on the main article for a broad topic like this - it would have to be a noteworthy aspect of Caracals capable of WP:SUSTAINED long-term coverage. The one source provided here isn't anywhere remotely close to that. In extreme cases we could cover a meme in a main article (as with the Doge one mentioned above), but it should require multiple top-tier sources discussing the meme specifically, and ideally evidence of sustained coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• No per Jts1882. The trend on Google Trends is sufficient to convince me. Invasive Spices (talk) 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I thought it was mabey a good idea to appease both sides and added a further reading section that includes a link to the page of Floppa, I reckon its a good idea :) 8th of June 2022, ProgrammerinEZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProgrammerinEZ (talk • contribs) 08:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Aw it got deleted damn, I'll see what I can do to perhaps properly fix it. ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Tail

In common with true lynxes, the caracal has a short tail (relative to most other cat species), although it is not as proportionately short as theirs. Drsruli (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Origin of the name

The article says the name caracal is originated from Turkish. The name in Turkish is karakulak, not 'karrah-kulak' or 'kara-coulac'. These versions can be its pronunciations in English. As stated here, kara means black and kulak means ear. Thus the meaning of the name is 'black ear,' not 'cat with black ears'. Cat is kedi in Turkish. 'Cat with black ears' can be translated as kara kulaklı kedi. I made an edit on the article to reflect this but BhagyaMani reverted it twice. I'm a native speaker of Turkish by the way. BSRF (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see the Etymology discussion above, where you are specifically already called out to review. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Common nickname

The Caracal cat is often given the nickname “Floppa” as a meme sensation. Levyy24 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

See the lengthy discussion above. Anaxial (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Common country’s they live in.

Africa, Vietnam, India and Pakistan 110.144.148.103 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Already in article. Anaxial (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Caracal prey items.

Caracals also prey on other small and even medium sized carnivores such as foxes, mongoose and jackals. Jackals were discovered within the stomach contents of some Caracals.47.197.29.147 (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)