Talk:Caracal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Temp page

Made a temp page as the main is blocked. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caracal/Temp Telecine Guy 06:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Good. Also, note that there is a less-developed page (at least the last time I saw it) for Caracals at User:Biblioworm/Caracal. Gug01 (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Temp page moved to main page. Feel free to improve, but to not do copy and paste. :) Telecine Guy 21:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Missing biological data in sidebar

Biological data such as average size and weight, typical coat pattern and color, some performance characteristics, etc. would be nice and, I would think, critical to the article. What do you need in order to identify one in the wild?

Yes, that data exists in the article but should also be in the sidebar for quick reference.

Also, the article mentions it being called a "Desert Lynx" but not being of the Lynx genus, why?

Slamlander (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The caracal is also known as as "desert lynx" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/desert_lynx and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caracal#Noun). Some cats that are not members of the genus Lynx are sometimes called lynxes, such as the caracal ("desert lynx", "Persian lynx") and the jungle cat ("jungle lynx"), because of similarities to real lynxes.

Untitled

Shouldn't the naturalists listed by name have their first names listed, even though there are links to the names? Unless someone has an issue with doing this, I'm adding their first names. Jtyroler (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Suitable pets

Is it adequate to basically advertise these wild animals as "suitable pets"? I have looked at the source and therefore I know it's a quote, but it doesn't seem to be the scientifically most accurate source to me. How about simply stating, that "It can easily be tamed." without advertising them as "suitable pets"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robuer (talk • contribs) 07:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robuer : I don't think it a good idea to advertise caracal as pet and easily tamable! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you BhagyaMani that you agree. I'm still quite new here as editor. Therefore, I'm hesitating to delete a statement with a correct reference. I probably didn't state it clearly (or cerrectly according to how you should do it here), that's what it currently says in the last sentence of the section 7.1. In captivity, and not something that I'd like to add to the article. So, you think it is justified to delete this referenced statement again? -- Robuer (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have done some research on this and I think it is rather overstating to suggest they are suitable as pets and can be easily tamed. I have therefore edited the sentence to indicate this is a quote and might not be a "general statement". __DrChrissy (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys, "claimed" does seem to be a better wording. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Robuer (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that I think "claimed" might be contested by some editors. It would be better to find sources that directly contradict the claim.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This pretty much says that while they are good for protection and love their owner very much, they will attack any other person they see, it also includes other cons of having a caracal, so I think you could get from that book that caracals are bad pets. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well sourced! I suggest you include it to contrast with the statement that they are suitable as pets.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Added, anyone is free to reword it. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The provided EB9 article also notes that while royalty sometimes kept caracals for their hunts "from its fierceness, and the extreme irritability which it displays in confinement, it does not seem well-fitted for domestication". — LlywelynII 22:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi what is is the status of this reference as "suitable pets"? Very misleading. I was lead to this article when I saw it being used as an indicator that caracals can be kept as pets. Very concerning, and a dubious claim. Thanks!--Fuzzydeon (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Featured article

Hi! I think we should work on this article so it would become, and stay, a featured article. I only specialize in good articles (and creating/editing articles in general) but I think it will be a pity if the article stays as a good article forever. Gug01 (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

Copy-pasting and close paraphrasing

Here are three examples from three different source. I stress these are not the only examples in the article:

(1) The article says:

In Namibia and South Africa, the caracal is classified as a "problem animal", which permits landowners to kill the species without restriction; nonetheless, caracal have persisted and remain widespread.

The cited source says:

In Namibia and South Africa, the caracal is classified as a Problem Animal, which permits landowners to kill the species without restriction; nonetheless, caracal have persisted and remain widespread.

(2) The article says:

The caracal is distinguished from Felis by the presence of a long tuft on the tip of the ears, exceeding half their length. No trace of pattern remains in the coat, except a few spots on the underside and inside of the fore legs.

The source says:

Distinguished from Felis externally by the presence of a long tuft on the tip of the ear, typically exceeding in length half the height of the ear ... Also there is no trace of pattern, except a few spots on the underside and inside the fore legs ...

(3) The article says:

In Iran, the killing of small livestock has brought the caracal into serious conflict with local people, who sometimes make efforts to eradicate it. The cat has never been recorded to be killed in road incidents, and no severe poaching pressure on it appears to happen.

The source (PDF) says:

killing small livestock has brought the animal into serious conflict with local people, who sometimes make efforts to eradicate it ... The animal has never been recorded to be killed on road incidents and it seems that there is no severe poaching pressure on the species as well [sic].

Unfortunately this is not an acceptable form of writing. The guidance at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing explains why in detail. I have listed the page at WP:CP and, for the time being, de-listed the article as a Good Article. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: Is this my fault? I just recently brought this to GA, I worked hard on it and I thought I made sure the paraphrasing was appropriate. This could get me kicked out of the Wikicup. :( --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: I was the one who reviewed the article. Upon reviewing it, I found no problems, which was weird.

Also, AmaryllisGardener, please fix this, since it will be a real pity if this article is deleted. Gug01 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It'll get fixed, right now I'm just in a state of shock. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, get out of shock!! Gug01 (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: Good now? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Purely by chance, I somehow got to reading about different sorts of cats this morning once I started following wikilinks (you all know how that goes), and I stumbled upon this. If anyone wants me to, I'd be willing to attempt a clean rewrite of this article. It might not be as complete, but at least it'd be clean, assuming that I don't make some silly mistake. (I always try to be very careful when dealing with copyright, though.) This is under the condition, of course, that I get the right to put a green blob on my userpage if I get this up to GA status again. ;) (Not sure how I started working on animal articles; I originally came here with the intention of working on history articles. Oh, well...) --Biblioworm 19:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That'd be good, I like caracals, so I didn't just edit it to get the credit. Of course you can have a green blob, I have two (after this article's demotion) and you just have one. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

All right, then. Page is here; will start working shortly. --Biblioworm 19:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned above that "I stress these are not the only examples in the article". I'm afraid the article has quite a lot more in it. That's why I've blanked the whole article, because I fear it will need to be stubbed and re-written, rather than re-worded in a piecemeal way. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: Upon looking into the situation further, I can see that the three example sentences were in the article before I edited it. Would you mind giving me a few more examples of violations you found? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the time to do that. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• The article has been gone for 5 days and the problem not resolved. Unless someone objects, my new article is to be placed online in a day or two. Then anyone can start to improve my new caracal article. I see this as the only hope. Your thoughts? Telecine Guy 06:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I've seen you've done it anyway, but I agree. Gug01 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. You're apparently much faster than I am. The article seems to need a copy edit, though. I'll take out my wand and use my mysterious powers shortly. ;) --Biblioworm 19:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, others are cleaning it up, much appreciated. Telecine Guy 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• I am quite upset at the changes made. i understand the plagiarism but the information should have been rephrased, not mass deleted, as some other information (such as that regarding the first description of the type specimen by the German naturalist Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber) was deleted as well. The current quality of the article is frankly shocking and much poorer than it was before. I had put a lot of effort into this, hence to reiterate once again, I am extremely upset about this.Drakenwolf (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The mass deletions are the normal admin-type reaction to the risk of plagiarism once the red flag has been raised. Editors are free to add back anything that they can show is not plagiarised, with suitable sourcing - obviously this is more difficult and delicate than normal editing. I'm sure that von Schreber can be added back, suitably reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No subspecies

I checked the history of the article and it was suggested that there are a few African and Asiatic subspecies of the caracal. Are there or aren't there any caracal subspecies?--FierceJake754 (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of references

@Sainsf: You have been removing sources/references of material in this article and leaving no edit summaries. Why have you been removing these sources? DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed a few unreliable and unclear sources, and supporting the existing information using more credible sources. I will do another check on the previous sources from the previous revisions to ensure that I have not removed any worthy source. Give me some time so that can finish my work on this article, it should take an hour, I think. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It is often better to tag the source rather than delete it and leave the content un-sourced. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles for some of the tags you can use. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Noticed this late, I will remember. Much of the earlier info was from unreliable sources and looked like paraphrasing, I have not retained those sources. I have completely rewritten all the sections except the two on conservation on captivity, less time today. You may check the article now, I will do any cleanup when I return later. Thanks for your concern. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 18:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Phylogenetic relationships of the caracal" needs updating

In the Taxonomy section of the article, the subject cladogram needs to be updated to reflect the change of genus of the bay cat. The IUCN (the Wiki standard) now places the bay cat in the genus Catopuma; the bay cat article reflects this. Ditto for the Asian golden cat, although there, Pardofelis is listed as a synonym, along with Catopuma. I don't know how to properly edit the cladogram to reflect this, so if someone wants to step forward, or voice an objection, we'd all be grateful.. Thanks. --Seduisant (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Seduisant. Will work on this now. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have updated the cladogram as you requested. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Caracal/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article looks more like a stub.Information on Caracal is incomplete.Pls look to it. ARUNKUMAR P.R 05:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Caracal/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• I propose to review this article and will start my review shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

First reading

• "The caracal is placed in the subfamily Felinae and the family Felidae." - I would have thought family first, subfamily afterwards.
• What was the name given to the species by Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber?
• "around the split between the Pliocene and the Pleistocene." - I think boundary is a more acceptable word.
• "characterised by tufted ears black on the back, long canine teeth, a short face, long legs and a robust build." - These facts are in an odd order. I think it best to start with build, next do head followed by teeth, eyes, ears etc, move on to body, then limbs and finally tail.
• "2 centimetres (0.79 in)" - rounding to a single decimal point would be better. This is used twice.

Done all the above.

• "Gestation lasts nearly two to three months," - that's a curious statement. Don't they know the precise length?

This is how they put it in most sources. Different studies give different number of days, so this should be the safest way to write it.

• "to leap more than 3 metres (9.8 ft)" - 10 ft will be adequate for the conversion. (And in lead)
• "The average lifespan of the caracal under captivity is nearly 16 years." - in captivity I would have thought.

Done the above two points.

• "The range has diminished considerably in northern and western Africa." - Since when?

Not sure, the source says this is based on a 2005 survey.

• "As of 1996, Afghanistan," - This Afghanistan seems out of place.
• In some places you use "caracal" as the plural and in others "caracals". You need to be consistent.
• "They occur at altitudes ..." the subject of the previous sentence was "Dry areas".
  • That's all for now. In general the prose is of good quality and flowing, and the sentences are not too short as in the Springbok. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Looking back now at the lead, I don't think we need the precise length of the eartufts in the opening sentence. In fact we need to know a bit more about the animal before we get on to its eartufts.
• Actually, I am not very keen on the way you write your leads, because you seem to merely copy sentences from the body of the text. It would be better if instead you summarised the different sections in straightforward language.
• And I don't like the way the first three sentences of the second paragraph of the lead start with a phrase. It's a useful grammatical structure for occasional use but does not need to be repeated too often.
• "Although the Sahara Desert and the equatorial forests do not figure in its range, it occurs in several Saharan ranges." - people may find the repeated use of the word "range" confusing.

Done the above seven points.

• • I'm done now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: All addressed. Sorry for the late response, busy in real life. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am happy with the alterations made and have done a little copyediting to the lead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

GA criteria

• The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose, grammar, structure and layout.
• The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
• The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
• The article is neutral.
• The article is stable apart from trivial vandalism.
• The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are properly licensed.

• Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead is very lengthy

The lead seems a bit overly detailed. The sections in the lead on hunting and breeding could perhaps be shortened and then expanded in more detail as sections in the following article. There's a few other areas in the lead that could be a bit less verbose also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edahsh (talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This length should be proper, per WP: MOSLEAD. The lead as of now is a summary of the important points in the article, and these points are substantiated with as much information we have been able to gather from reliable sources so far later in the article. Of course, anyone can expand it, if they wish to, in the future. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

A bit more on historical context at the EB articles. — LlywelynII 22:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

is needless and, given how unterse it is, actually unhelpful to clear reading. C-before-A is generally hard; the unstressed A automatically becomes a schwa; and the exact pronunciation of the short As will vary with dialect. Further, the pronunciation was unsourced (WP:RS) and the OED gives two regional pronunciations, neither of which is the one that was in this article (WP:OR). It's a well-meaning mistake but kindly leave this to the Wiktionary entry where it belongs. — LlywelynII 04:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Subspecies

We need articles about caracal subspecies like every other animal subspecies has one... Punëtori' Rregullt 11:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of animal subspecies without their own articles. The question should be would coverage of caracals be improved if there were articles on each subspecies or is it better to keep all information in one place. My feeling is the latter is best until the amount of material gets excessive for one article, in which case splits are needed. Is there even that much information specifically dealing with each subspecies?   Jts1882 | talk  14:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Given that the status of serval subspecies is not certain at present, I fully agree that new pages are not (yet) needed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Purpose of Black tufts on the ears

The Purpose of Black tufts on the ears needs to be explained. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

We need population in the Conservation status

Please add whatever population figures are available in the Conservation status section. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Caracals as pets

There needs to be at least a rudimentary discussion of this problem. Following the success of the Savannah, the caracal had been cross-bred with a domestic cat, producing a so-called "Caracat", which is more suitable to the indoor life. Also, unlike the servals, a pet caracal had been caught attacking humans : https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/06/26/woman-faces-fines-in-caracal-cat-incident/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.11.206.193 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

New Content Question

Could you please explain removing a PhD dissertation as a reference? It is among the latest work published on these cats when so little has been done on them? Could you kindly explain why you keep reverting back to old information. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALLBN (talk • contribs) 17:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

 Not done. Unless the PhD dissertation is cited in sufficient wp:secondary sources, there is no indication that the content in noteworthy for Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

Rogerio980Pizza (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Add the Category:Big cats

 Not done. The article says it's a medium-sized cat. - DVdm (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The caracal as a meme

The caracal has recently become a meme know as "Big Floppa" referring to the caracals floppy ears. Would this be relevant to the culture section? Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

No reliable source. See the numerous attempts in the edit history to abuse this article to help spreading this silly meme. - DVdm (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I suppose 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, but otherwise, there's no reason to suppose that it isn't just ephemeral trivia, since it doesn't even meet the standard of the list of memes article. Anaxial (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: According to , this seems to be the name of one single pet cat. - DVdm (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Lede distribution

@BhagyaMani: How do you suggest fixing the lede? Pakistan is omitted from all the areas listed. I know Nepal and Bangladesh are not in the species' range, but "subcontinent" would be more accurate. Maybe "western Indian subcontinent"? Ddum5347 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that referring to 'subcontinent' is less accurate than writing e.g. arid areas in Pakistan and northwestern India. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds better. Ddum5347 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

it is now in Critically Endangered category,not least concerned category . 183.83.139.55 (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Request declined, as this is incorrect. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)