[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Tiger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleTiger is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 11, 2014Good article nomineeListed
March 28, 2023Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 12, 2024Peer reviewReviewed
July 25, 2024Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023

[edit]

May I please check your grammar? Because it might have some mistakes and I would love to correct them I have excellent grammar and punctuation. I've written a tremendous essay and if people came to read this they might find some errors on this Topic about Tigers, plus people might wonder what that word could mean and waste their time this is my suggestion for me to rewrite it to make it better, nicer, cleaner topic and I hope you let me this is my plea to rewrite some of this topic.

Yours Sincerely, Abu Bakr Bah Abu Bakr Bah (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abu Bakr Bah, this article is semi-protected which means a very small level of prior contribution is needed to edit it. In the meantime, you can note specific changes here which can be acted on. Best, CMD (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FA

[edit]

I'll be working this one soon. Anybody want to join me? LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far from meeting the FA criteria, but I can assist with the section on cultural depictions. 20 upper (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry and 20 upper: The article also doesn't mention social grooming behavior in tigers. The article included two illustrations, but they were recently removed. Jarble (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on changing/rewritting the culture section into a smaller subsection and moving the information currently there to a new article "Cultural depictions of tigers". LittleJerry (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest merging Tigers in Chinese culture and Tigers in Korean culture into Cultural depictions of tigers. Overall, I don't think this article is too badly off, but there is definitely room for improvement. There are three fossil subspecies not mentioned at all, and there's the elephant in the room of the number of subspecies- the IUCN says two, but the majority of recent papers I've seen go with nine. I'm not sure there needs to be a separate subsection just for size, and there's a bit too much on the color variations given each has their own (admittedly poor) article. I'd prefer more of the Description section to talk about other parts of the animal than just the size and color/pattern. Conservation section's a mess.
Sorry for the list of critiques, but I hope it helps. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My plan is to comb through each section and subsection, making sure the text accurately reflect the sources and making changes, trims and rewrites along the way. Don't have the energy to rewrite from scratch like I did with polar bear. LittleJerry (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tiger has a pretty typical felid build. The most distinctive things are its size and coloration. LittleJerry (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your initial question, but thought that somebody else may want to press forward. But since you invite me directly : I'm on board. You and I are anyway the 2 main contributors. I agree to check the sections before nominating this for FA. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SilverTiger12 what other papers support the six subspecies? Also, BhagyaMani do you have information on the three fossil subspecies?LittleJerry (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have anything offline on these 3 fossil ones. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This paper looks good. Artem.G (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paper already cited. LittleJerry (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't keep up with tiger research, but when I search "tiger subspecies" of Google Scholar I get a lot of papers that refer to nine subspecies. The 3 fossil subspecies are pretty obscure, alas.
I am considering opening discussion regarding the number of supporting articles: namely black tiger, life cycle of the tiger, tiger hunting, tiger conservation, and tiger attack, all of which I feel are unnecessary splits. Black tiger is mostly an exhaustive listing of sightings; the rest seem over-detailed.
Also, pinging @Chiswick Chap: who was part of the long-ago GAN. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tiger conservation is definitely notable enough to be its own article. LittleJerry (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani could you add information on the territory sizes from different areas cited to peer-reviewed arrticle like you did for red panda? LittleJerry (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani, nice job. Could you work on the conservation section? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite ready yet, but will add some info on home range in Sumatra + India in the next few days, so that at least the main range countries are covered. Will also make a new map asap. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SilverTiger12, why did you redirect Panthera tigris tigris to this article? Why not also Panthera tigris sondaica? LittleJerry (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A) To redirect it to a place where the subspecies question is actually explained. B) I got called away from the computer and then forgot. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani, going forward, you work on Conservation and Body Part Use (or maybe you'll replace the latter with "Threats"?). I'll look at the rest. I definitely want to rewrite the culture section. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SilverTiger12, given several recent genetic studies, I think each subspecies article should atleast introduce them as "subspecies or population". LittleJerry (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bornean and Palawanese tigers

[edit]
A Dayak man in Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) in traditional attire. Note the stripes!

It is scientifically proven that tigers existed in the Sunda Islands of Borneo and Palawan, at least in prehistoric times. The real question is whether or not the Bornean tiger survived into the modern age! One evidence for this is the fact that indigenous Borneans are familiar with the tiger! If the Bornean tiger had gone extinct in prehistoric times, like cave lions and saber-toothed cats, then it wouldn't make sense that Bornean natives would still be familiar with it! Leo1pard (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC); edited 07:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which English dialect is preferred?

[edit]

In the Lion article, British English is preferred over other English dialects. Does this article have a similar requirement? Jarble (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Does it really matter? I thought that users could write in whatever dialect of English they wanted. Leo1pard (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC); edited 15:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is UK English, since that is what India uses. LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Black tiger into Tiger

[edit]

The current black tiger article is mostly a list of sightings and supposed sightings of black or mostly black tigers; there is exactly one scholarly source present. There is no evidence for the notability of "black tigers" as a group, so I suggest that discussion of them can be condensed into a single paragraph under Tiger#Colour variations. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. But I don't think we should move the "sightings" reports to this article. If there are more scientific papers on black tigers then sure. LittleJerry (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but not right now 2603:6081:240:CA:E0F3:9506:DFDB:B763 (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would count an article by RI Pocock in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society as a scholarly article. I've complete the citation with a link to BHL. There are several other JBNHS citations which could be valid if we can trace them properly. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that these are very small sources; the one by Pocock has only two paragraphs about reported black tigers, for instance. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to NOT moving all the many details from newspapers + websites in this page here. But maybe the ref to Pocock's article + one on the 'black' tigers in Simlipal NP, which I have in my library. — BhagyaMani (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I figured only a very small amount of information on black tigers would survive the merge- certainly not the exhaustive, non-encyclopedic list of sightings and births. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facts about their stripes and their smell of urine.

[edit]

Tigers has got also their stripes on their skin and not only on their fur. https://wwf.org.au/blogs/10-facts-about-tigers-you-might-not-have-known/

Their urine smells like buttered popcorn. https://featuredcreature.com/10-of-the-most-interesting-and-unusual-tiger-facts/

I wonder of these sources are reliable enough. Shy Aroace (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger weight

[edit]

@LittleJerry: just a quick note. Siberian tigers don't weigh 306 kg; not even the largest ones. According to my own experience, male Siberians average 174 kg and females 113 kg, with both sexes having a maximum weight of 200 kg and 140 kg, respectively. The only Siberians that are likely to reach such weights are captive animals; I believe this table does not include weights from captive animals. The table should show the normal weight range of the tiger, and a 300 kg individual is not normal. Historically, yes, Siberians were the largest, but not anymore; the Bengal is now the largest big cat on average. Take my word for it. 20 upper (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need sources on that. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See page 21 of [1] and this pdf. 20 upper (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

[edit]
122.104.180.107 (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
A tigers diet consists of boar deer ect . Yo Zara is crazy good[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger sizes

[edit]

"The tiger is considered to be the largest living felid species, but there is some debate over averages compared to the lion. Since tiger populations vary greatly in size, the "average" size for a tiger may be less than a lion, while the biggest tigers are bigger than their lion counterparts."

This is somewhat unsatisfactory. Is it possible to make a more direct statement, something along the lines of

"The largest tigers, such as the Amur and Benagal tigers, are the largest living felids, although male lions can be larger than the smaller tigers from Southeast Asia."

 —  Jts1882 | talk  16:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's only true for Bengal tigers, not Siberians. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no. The statement is fine the way it is. The FAC review is over. LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. No reviewer criticised the sentence as is. BhagyaMani (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Ilyes toon, where to you get off acting like a bull in a China shop? Do you realize that this article is about tigers as a species and not just the Bengal tiger? The Bengal tiger being on average larger than the African lion does not mean tigers as a whole (including the Sumatran tiger) are on average bigger than lions. That's want the text you keep deleting is saying!!!!! And don't lie and say its "Information without a source". You didn't even check cite 43. LittleJerry (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a contributor to this article or the FAC, but regardless of Jts1882's attempted changes, I do see valid concerns with the current text. Is considered, some debate, and "average" put in scare quotes, are all WP:words to watch issues. The cited source doesn't state anything with certainty. If there are reliable authorities that say tigers are largest, say so and describe their methodology. Otherwise, it would be more neutral and verifiable to say e.g. The tiger is one of the two largest living felid species, along with the lion, though there is debate over how the two compare. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the referenced source is not certain, then we cannot pretend to know better + with more certainty than this source. BhagyaMani (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point. The source does not support the current statement "The tiger is considered to be the largest living felid species." It only says that the tiger and the lion are the two largest. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot challenge a well known fact that has been established for decades if not centuries. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 12:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there should be no trouble making a clearly worded statement supported by a reliable source, without the weaseley "is considered" wording, then? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My brother, you are misinterpreting my point. The argument I'm trying to make is that tigers should be mentioned as the largest cats (though with caution), as opposed to tigers and lions being stated as the two largest members. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 14:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the source does state that the tiger is "commonly" believed to be the largest cat species LittleJerry (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source says It also commonly believed to be the biggest cat species alive today, although this claim is questionable. It is directly disputing the common belief. It would be dishonest to claim the source for a blanket statement like "is considered to be". I'll go ahead and change the wording to better reflect the source. Anyone should feel free to change it if there's another source that supports a more direct statement. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

[edit]

The "largest living cat species native to Asia" bit is ambiguious confused me. I thought it was only the largest native to Asia until reading the short description — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 07:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiger&oldid=1241064479"