Talk:Tiger

Tiger sizes

"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)

That's only true for Bengal tigers, not Siberians. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

no. The statement is fine the way it is. The FAC review is over. LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. No reviewer criticised the sentence as is. BhagyaMani (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Most wild tigers are the hefty Bengal tigers of South Asia, so I simplified it to say that the Bengal and Siberian tigers are generally considered to be the largest felids, never mind how exactly they compare to weights of wild and captive lions, that can be left to fans of lions and tigers to figure out for themselves, and bicker about it, like they do here and there! Leo1pard (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC); edited 07:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

BhagyaMani Like with tigers, there are differences in size between different populations and subspecies of lions, with Southern African lions being generally heavier than their more numerous cousins in East Africa, so I prefer that the exact details of how say the Bengal and Siberian tigers compare to the Southern and Eastern African lions in weight or size should be left to fans of the big cats to figure out for themselves, so that they can bicker about it outside Wikipedia, don't you think? If we say that the average for wild tigers is less than that of wild lions, then it's potentially confusing for readers, because most wild tigers happen to be the hefty Bengal tigers of South Asia. Leo1pard (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC); edited 11:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This page has undergone tough review rounds to attain the FA status. And since it is scheduled for TFA on 29 July, I would much appreciate that changes are kept to a minimum, in particular deletions of agreed upon sentences. Btw : you don't need to repeatedly add hyperlinks in talks. BhagyaMani (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep your speculations to yourself. We are not removing material just because it makes you uncomfortable. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

LittleJerry Can I ask which averages you are referring to? The following sentence is confusing to readers, that's why BhagyaMani and I simplified it in the first place!

The tiger is popularly thought to be the largest living felid species; but since tigers of the different subspecies and populations vary greatly in size and weight, the tiger's average size may be less than the lion's, while the largest tigers are bigger than their lion counterparts.

After the hullabaloo over the deleted article of Tiger versus lion, I would have thought that we would agree not to go into specifics as to whether lions or tigers are heavier, just keep things simple! Leo1pard (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC); edited 17:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

BhagyaMani please change it back. Leo1pard is edit warring and violating Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The source clearly states that wild tigers have a lower average weight than wild lions. We shouldn't have to cater to his biases. LittleJerry (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The source clearly states that :

Data collected by field researchers and relatively well-documented hunting records, show that the modern wild-living tiger probably has an average weight body weight of c. 160 kg for the adult male and c 115 kg for the adult female; whilst that for the average wild-living adult male lion is c. 175 kg and 120. kg for the adult female... However, as intraspecific size variation appears to be greater in the tiger than in the lion, the biggest tiger 'individuals' may be bigger than the biggest lion 'individuals'.

So Leo1pard, change it back or I'm reporting you for edit warring. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Jts1882 and Paul_012, your thoughts would be welcome too. LittleJerry (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the current sentence accurately reflects what Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) say. Lions are larger than tigers on average, when the average is that of recognised subspecies and populations (not individuals), and that as there is more intraspecific size variation in tigers, the biggest tigers may be the largest cats. They also add that the biggest lions and tigers are similar in size using skull size as a proxy, but add that tigers might have a proportionally smaller head (which would again make the largest tigers the largest cats). I suggest changing "while" to "although".  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani, LittleJerry, Jts1882, and Paul 012: Is this more satisfactory?

The tiger has a head-body length of 1.4–2.8 m (4 ft 7 in – 9 ft 2 in) with a 0.6–1.1 m (2 ft 0 in – 3 ft 7 in) tail and stands 0.8–1.1 m (2 ft 7 in – 3 ft 7 in) at the shoulder. It is thought to be the largest living felid species, but individuals of the subspecies and populations vary greatly in size and weight. On average in the wilderness, male and female tigers are believed to weigh circa 160 kg (350 lb) and 115 kg (254 lb) respectively, less than male and female lions, but the biggest tigers rival the biggest lions in weight. The Siberian and Bengal tigers are the largest. Male Bengal tigers weigh 200–260 kg (440–570 lb), and females weigh 100–160 kg (220–350 lb); island tigers are the smallest, likely due to insular dwarfism. Male Sumatran tigers weigh 100–140 kg (220–310 lb), and females weigh 75–110 kg (165–243 lb).

Leo1pard (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC); edited 08:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

No. Move on. LittleJerry (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Jts1882 Regarding skulls, it should be mentioned that the biggest known skulls of tigers are slightly smaller than the biggest known skulls of lions. The record total length for an African lion's skull is 419.0 mm (16.50 in) (Best et al., 1962). The preserved skull of an Amur tiger in Harbin had a maximum length of 400.0 mm (15.75 in) and a zygomatic width of 280.0 mm (11.02 in) (Baikov et al., 1925). Towards the end of January in 1927, Sir John Prescott Hewett (Page 180) shot a large tiger in the area of Nagina in northern India, with its skull being measured to have an "over the bone" length of 16.25 in (413 mm), a breadth of 9.875 in (250.8 mm) across the zygomatic arches, and a 'cleaned' weight of 4 lb 14 oz (2.2 kg). Leo1pard (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC); edited 15:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Leo1pard, stop it now. This article is going to be on TFA next month and your ruining it with granular information on skull records. I'm surprised you haven been blocked due to an extreme case of WP:DROPTHESTICK. LittleJerry (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that a separate subsection #Skulls with above details is not necessary. But I re-added the short version of the previous description which LittleJerry – accidentally ? – deleted. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, deleting that part was a mistake. LittleJerry (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with BhagyaMani's restoration of the original sentence and SFN-linked references, and LittleJerry, don't be surprised, remember the disputes which you had with me, BhagyaMani and Roy Bateman before! Leo1pard (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC); edited 18:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Opening sentence

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2024

Im see a couple mistakes and im more than willing to correct all these mistakes

          Best Regards, Dr.Jean France Dsibhagfbsgf (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Im see a couple mistakes and im more than willing to correct all these mistakes 

          Best Regards, Dr.Jean France

 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. Cannolis (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2025

tiger carnassial bite force The average bite forces on carnassials in the groups studied were as follows: Among the cat family, tigers (4172.26 N) and lions (4566.87 N) have the strongest bite forces. Source: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/9/1367 Simon Jhon (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

 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. Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2025 (2)

Tiger muscle mass and fat- The muscle mass of the tiger make up to 56% of its body weight it has a fat around 18.63% of its body including subcutaneous fat Source- https://www.scribd.com/document/463830091/Muscle-and-Fatpercentage-of-Lion-and-Tigers Smithmcde (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done, as this is not a reliable reference. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2025

194.160.225.84 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

 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. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 20:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Outdated re: Subspecies

Altogether, our analysis of ancient genomes sheds light on the evolutionary history of tigers and supports the existence of nine modern subspecies. Sun, X., Liu, YC., Tiunov, M.P. et al. "Ancient DNA reveals genetic admixture in China during tiger evolution." Nat Ecol Evol 7, 1914–1929 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02185-8 Creuzbourg (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Cites from both 2021 and 2023 are already used. The consensus at the FAC is that the two subspecies takes priority. LittleJerry (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree with LittleJerry ! And the publication of Sun et al. (2023) does not mean that the Cat SG's recognition of only 2 subspecies is outdated, but this is valid until the Cat SG renounces this recognition. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Lead Image

I think these two images are better than the current one because they show full side structure+full face, unlike the current one, which doesn't display the full face properly and they are wild tigers as you all prefer (1) File:Bengal Tiger looking at us in Jim Corbett National Park.jpg (2) File:Bengal tiger by Tisha Mukherjee 65.jpg. What you think @BhagyaMani @LittleJerry Hbanm (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm open to the second one. But we'd have to crop it. LittleJerry (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

If we reach the consensus to use the second one, could you please crop it? I don't even use the Wikimedia, let alone knowing how to crop and upload a image.@LittleJerry Hbanm (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The difference is so minimal that we can also keep the current one. Agree that no. (2) needs to be cropped. – BhagyaMani (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The difference is minimal but not so minimal. In second one, along with the full clear face view, the full body structure, coat, stripes are also displayed better than the current one. Also the tiger is standing in a perfect straight position in this one, displaying the full body evenly, which is not the case with the current one, where back part (part of the hind legs) is also not displayed as clearly as this one. So, if we have option, why not use the best one? Hbanm (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of cropping, the current infobox image is cropped way too tightly from the original, totally ruining the image composition. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

You spoke my mind, the beautiful asthetic featured picture it was, is totally ruined by cropping too tightly, whosoever cropped it must have had zero sense about importance of natural environmental beauty in images of wild animals. I understand the article is about animal but cropping out environment completely is senseless and ruins the beauty of image, as it did with the current one. Hbanm (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani @LittleJerry I experimented with the second image without crop here [] and it looked fine to me. Do this look fine to you both? If it doesn't then we should crop it, otherwise as @Paul 012 said it ruins the composition of the image, as it happened with the current one. Hbanm (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

We don't have to crop it by uploading a new image. We can crop it using a template like with alpine ibex here. Much easier to change. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani @LittleJerry @Paul 012 @Hemiauchenia What's the verdict? Should we keep the current one or should we change it to the second one I provided? Hbanm (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't care much. LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

When compared directly, the suggested replacement suffers a bit from the tiger blending more into the grass. While it illustrates the species' camouflage, it's not great for the infobox image. If the current image is preferred, I'd suggest switching back to the loser crop File:Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) female 3 crop.jpg, which is a featured picture. Unless it's reinstated into the article, it will have to be nominated for delisting as unused. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@LittleJerry @BhagyaMani what do you think about this suggestion of @Paul 012, if we use this cropped version of current image, then this featured loose crop version of current image looks better than the both images I suggested, as well as current tighter crop. Should we reinstate the loosely cropped featured version of the current image? Hbanm (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I suggest to ask the photographer Charles Sharp whether he agrees to sb else editing his photo. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I think current version is also not editted by Charles, same is the case with the image @Paul 012 suggested, we aren't gonna edit Charles's image, it's already uploaded as a cropped version and is a featured image. Here is that cropped image File:Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) female 3 crop.jpg Hbanm (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

In that cropped verison, the tiger doesn't take up enough of the image space. LittleJerry (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that tiger doesn't take enough space but tiger is perfectly and clearly visible in that image, as it is a very high quality image and that image is a featured image + it was also selected as picture of the day and what not, current one looks a little weird. This German article uses it and it looks good . If you all prefer current tighter crop, i'm not gonna press on that. But all I wanna say is, this article is a featured article and it would be better to use a featured image for its lead. Hbanm (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Making the subject take up as much image space does not a good picture make. The awkward, overzealous crop of File:Walking tiger female.jpg almost cut the animal's face off edge of the image, with the effect that the viewer's gaze is first drawn to its belly and rump instead. The new CSS image crop isn't as bad, but stil fails the rule of thirds --Paul_012 (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

While the original crop looks best, the CSS crop is worst looking as it makes the whole image look too small. It should either be the original crop without CSS or this tighter zoomed crop. Since all the other members except me prefer the zoomed version, instead of original crop, I reinstated the tighter zoomed version. The discussion is closed from my side @LittleJerry Hbanm (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey @LittleJerry. I performed a new CSS crop on featured image with different dimensions and now the image doesn't look too small as a whole and tiger also takes enough space in this crop, also it is of perfect size. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Hbanm (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

"Tiger (wild)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tiger (wild) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 19 § Tiger (wild) until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Illustration for Sumatran tiger

Described as having "smaller nasal bone than other island tigers", I think it's regrettable we can't see that distinctiveness with the current associated illustration :

I think that this illustration would be better for that reason :

Elfast (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)