Talk:Tiger

Length of Siberian tiger?

Any reason why Siberians are listed with a length of 230cm max? This contradicts the Siberian tiger wiki as well as my general knowledge that recalls that they reach 330cm in the largest cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amur Tiger (talk • contribs) 04:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Lioncrusher says 286 cm max and ADW says 3.7 meters max, and that's quite a disparity. All the data needs to be collected and the entry corrected. For sure. Seduisant (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but none of that supports the current absurdly low number of 230. For the main time it might be good to change it to something that isn't clearly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.160.184 (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Siberian tiger provides the correct data, i have also added female size to ensure consistancy. ZooPro 09:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding. The range of 190-230 cm is just for the “head and body length”, so it doesn’t take in count the tail length. That’s why you were confused. I correct the cite, that came form “Wild Cats of the World” of Sunquist and Sunquist (2002). If some one needs a image of the references, I can put it here.--AmbaDarla (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Titania

The entire discussion of "Titiana" in the section "Man-Eating Tigers" is poorly written, superfluous, lacking citation and should clearly be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pck24 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done - I read through the history and found what you were refering too, it reads like a journalist had written it for Shock and Awe it has been fixed though. ZooPro 09:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"As pets" sources

Every single claim in the "As pets" section refferences "The Book of General Ignorance" as the source, which seems odd, as this book is about gameshow quiz questions that people commonly get wrong. Searching google shows similar information as to what this section says (even larger numbers kept as pets), so it may be accurate, but incorrectly sourced. FlamingMoonsOfSaturn (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In progress - I will fix up the citations at a later date as i believe the information may be true, however you are correct and i have removed the false source. Cheers ZooPro 08:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Two or three extinct subspecies?

The article gives two different numbers for the modern subspecies that have gone extinct. Which one is it, two or three?

"Of the nine subspecies of modern tiger, three are extinct..." "There are nine recent subspecies of tiger, two of which are extinct..."

I'd say that's a bit confusing.

Ufomies (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Pathera of east asian origin Sanskrit word?

Pundareek is Sanskrit for Lotus, this is a fact, one can find that online everywhere. Somebody on the net has wrongly translated it as "Tiger", and that reference is being used here on Wikipedia, how can we correct that please? The actual sanskrit word for Tiger is "Vyaghra", which is the root for the modern Hindi word for Tiger "Baagh" Lilaac (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

if you provide me with a source i will change it.ZooPro 03:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Repetition

I cannot edit this article but I notice that repetitive sentence structure is used in the Territorial behaviour section: 2 sentences in a row start with "For instance". The "for instance" in the second of those could be removed to create a better paragraph, and there would be no change in content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plokijuhujiko (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Tiger

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tiger's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "perry":

• From Sloth Bear: Perry, Richard (1965). The World of the Tiger. p. 260. ASIN: B0007DU2IU.
• From Asian Black Bear: Chapter Eleven: Jungle Contacts-II from Steve Perry's The World of the Tiger, Cassel & Company, 1964

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "Steve Perry" reference is probably wrong. "Steve" must've been mistakenly substituted for Richard Perry's given name. So, that means both references actually refer to the same book by the same author. 84.194.228.192 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiger:Evolution???

Shouldn't the evolutionary history of the tiger be given here?? Guru-45 (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course - the sabre toothed tiger! - and I'd also like to know if there are any fossil finds of tigers from northeast Africa or from Greece and the Balkan area. As recently as a hundred years ago they existed in Turkey and the Caucasus - lions, too, were found in Turkey and in Palestine at least into the later middle ages. 83.254.158.105 (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Saber toothed "tigers" aren't even related to the true big cats, so no. Information on real fossil pantherines would be very nice though. 75.202.182.217 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tigers are not recorded from Turkey and the Caucasus. "Tiger" and related words are used in many languages (including English in some regions) for the leopard, which did occur in this area, and it must be that which is meant. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

Exactly how is the first link in the external links section of encyclopaedic value ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.200.183 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bengal Tiger

The subsection containing the information on the Bengal Tiger (P. t. tigris), I found to be particularly confusing or two main reasons. I have highlighted the sentences that I feel could be better edited below.

The Bengal tiger or the Royal Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) is the most common subspecies of tiger and is found primarily in India and Bangladesh.[20] It lives in varied habitats: grasslands, subtropical and tropical rainforests, scrub forests, wet and dry deciduous forests, and mangroves. Males in the wild usually weigh 205 to 227 kg (450 to 500 lb), while the average female will weigh about 141 kg.[21] However, the northern Indian and the Nepalese Bengal tigers are somewhat bulkier than those found in the south of the Indian Subcontinent, with males averaging around 235 kilograms (520 lb).[21] While conservationists already believed the population to be below 2,000,[22] the most recent audit by the Indian Government's National Tiger Conservation Authority has estimated the number at just 1,411 wild tigers (1165–1657 allowing for statistical error), a drop of 60% in the past decade.[23] Since 1972, there has been a massive wildlife conservation project, known as Project Tiger, to protect the Bengal tiger. Despite increased efforts by Indian officials, poaching remains rampant and at least one Tiger Reserve (Sariska Tiger Reserve) has lost its entire tiger population to poaching.[24]

In the case of the first sentence; The Bengal tiger or the Royal Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) is the most common subspecies of tiger and is found primarily in India and Bangladesh.[20] wouldn't it be prudent to list all of the countries in which this subspecies can be found? I understand with the reasoning for listing the countries in which it is predominantly in, however because (and I deal with this in my second objection) there are other countries in which it can be found, if one, is trying to reasonably approximate currently subspecies populatio estimates, numbers for other other countries Bengal Tigers subspecies populations would be helpful. I do believe for instance, it can also be found in Myanmar (Burma) and Nepal. The Bengal Tiger wikipedia page itself listed a rough population estimate of 200 I believe.

In the case of the second sentence, While conservationists already believed the population to be below 2,000,[22] the most recent audit by the Indian Government's National Tiger Conservation Authority has estimated the number at just 1,411 wild tigers (1165–1657 allowing for statistical error), a drop of 60% in the past decade., shouldn't there be a distinction made somewhere in this sentence to clarify the difference between the total subspecies population estimates and the population estimates of the subspecies in India alone. The first part of the sentence refers, I believe, to world population estimates of the Bengal tiger subspecies whereas the second part of this sentence refers to the population of the Bengal tiger subspecies in India alone. It does say, to be fair, that the second estimate is being made by the Indian NTCA however conservation organizations often take into consideration world populations. This sentence starting off with the word "While" also seems to indicate that these two numbers apparently conflict making it seem as if on one hand some believe the population estimate to be 2000 whereas on the other hand the Indian NTCA believes there to be 1400 when in fact they refer to two different populations. I do believe that the initial number of 2,000 for the world population is dated to at least 2008 if not further back. Perhaps dates would be practical to be included with respective population estimates as well since population estimates on subspecies population surface at an annual, if not faster, rate.

This is my first comment on any wikipedia discusion page so I certainly hope I have met the criteria concerning politeness and process.

Mapscannotcontainme (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Mapscannotcontainme

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

About the male tiger with the cub

Sorry ZooPro, but in this occation, you are COMPLETELY wrong.

That picture is of the famous male B2, the dominant tiger in the turist area of the Bandhavgarh National Park. You can see ANY picture in the web and compare the stripe patern with this male. Besides, it is a complete lie that the male tigers don’t interact with they cubs, as matter of fact, there are reports of male tigers feeding they youngs when they mothers died, acording with Valmik Thapar, no less.

So, I will change the title of the picture again, and it will be good to erase this myth of the no-interaction of male-cubs.

Greetings. --AmbaDarla (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, unless you can provide me sources to back up your claims per wikipedia guidelines I will continue to undo your change. I request that you provide sources for your claim. ZooPro 00:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several scientific references that challenge the OLD clichés. Maybe you still believe that the largest population of tigers is in the Sundarbans, or that white tigers had conservation value or event that tigers don’t share they food with other individuals.

I will put the reference about the parental care of the male tigers and will put some images of B2 for make a proper comparison with the stripe pattern, after all, this last thing is the point of our discussion. --AmbaDarla (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here is the evidence, check this out:

• About the male tiger and its cubs:

Dr. Karanth (2003) [quoting Schaller and Thapar]: http://a.imageshack.us/img835/3259/karanth2003.png

Dr Thapar’s book: http://a.imageshack.us/img819/8660/thaparmaletigerscarethe.jpg http://a.imageshack.us/img822/4503/thapparsaystigersaregoo.png http://a.imageshack.us/img715/6694/maletigerfeedtheyyoungs.png

Sadly, that book is not completely available in the web, so I found these images about it: http://www.c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-o-n-s.com/Shops/1-1000-0195648102-The_Secret_Life_of_Tigers http://www.booksetsextra.com/Category/Books--3aOutdoors+--26+Nature/C282-1068/Review.aspx http://books.google.com.gt/books?id=gQrgXWxLv2MC&pg=PA82&dq=%22that+male+tiger+fathers+actually+care%22&hl=es&ei=E7FhTJLFCYGclgejkr2QCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

As you can see, the male Bengal tigers had a high degree of parenthood with they cubs and here is the evidence.

• About B2 male, check these pages:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/95659605/Flickr http://geography.wincoll.ac.uk/jjcskw/pages/303.05overseasindia08.htm http://www.becci.com/Journal.htm

And finally, this image: http://a.imageshack.us/img836/5368/b2marking.jpg

So, as you can see, this tiger is not a female, and worst, it’s not just a “simple” male, it is B2 the famous dominant male tiger of Bandhavgarh NP.

By the way, check this webpage, and know some of these famous males: http://animalvsanimal.yuku.com/reply/4981/t/Re-B2-and-Other-Great-Tiger-Pics-from-India-.html

In conclusion, the male Bengal tigers have an important role in the life of they young and that picture in the Tiger article is of B2, a famous dominant male. By the way, check this image of the same picture: http://a.imageshack.us/img836/4623/maletigerandcubsmslesle.jpg There are two cubs!!!

And here are more images of males with they cubs. http://a.imageshack.us/img261/8281/b2withhiscub.jpg http://a.imageshack.us/img267/8734/b2andsonchallenger.jpg http://a.imageshack.us/img261/848/bokhaandcubs.jpg http://a.imageshack.us/img267/526/malewithcubs.jpg

There you go. --AmbaDarla (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at two images, one being the image in dispute (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/A_tiger_in_Pilibhit_Tiger_Reserve.jpg/220px-A_tiger_in_Pilibhit_Tiger_Reserve.jpg) and the other an image identified by AmbaDarla as and purported by its photographer to be the B2 Male (http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/95659605/Flickr). I blew them up in Paint Shop Pro to get a good look at their stripes, as that is how tigers are individually identified. After carefully examining the stripes on the face, I found it too difficult to tell whether or not the disputed image matches (what we will accept as) B2. The sample image is too low res to get a good look at the facial stripes. However, I then shifted my attention to the stripes on the right (left as you are looking at it) foreleg. That gives us a much easier comparison. The stripes on the disputed image do not in fact match that of B2. B2 has three stripes on his inner right leg, two thick and one thin. The disputed image has only two (two thick, zero thin). The stripes on the chest where the forelegs meet are also clearly not the same. B2 has three thinning stripes on the left (your right) rather evenly spaced, while the disputed image has three thick stripes with the middle stripe closer to the bottom one. Because of the position of B2, I am not confident to comment on any likeness or disparity between the two stripe patterns on the right side. Based on this stripe analysis, I am confident that B2 is not the same tiger that is represented in the disputed image. Lighthope (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you Lighthope, whilst I myself was not going to waste time on looking at those images closely I am rather pleased that another user did. Point proven and AmbaDarla I would caution you against removing my comments again. I also excpect now that you will not continue to change the image caption in the article. Regards ZooPro 07:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course i decided to humour myself with some of your links that "prove" males interact with cubs. NONE of those references are published in peer review, NONE are published by scientists, NONE are of any value to your argument in any way shape or form. They are all written by tourists on cheap and nasty websites that have no founding of science at all. In all my years in the Zoo industry I would never ever ever ever risk putting a male tiger with cubs EVER. To some up and use your words. "You have been served" . ZooPro 11:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Lighthope, check again please, that tiger is B2, believe me. The stripe pattern is the same in the face. A most carefull look will show you that. I can put more pictures (with higher resolution) if you want. Also, you can check the page of the forum that I put and you will see thousands of images about B2 with higher resolutions. Please check again, I am not exagerating. By the way, somethimes, the photograpers twist the left side with the right side. If you do that with any picture of B2, the stripe pattern will change, after all, ther right side don’t have the sime stripes than the left side. I am quite confident that this tiger is B2 and the negative of ZooProo to check this is evidence that maybe he allready see this, but he don’t want to accept it.

ZooProo, you could be a moderator but obviously, you are not a professional. Those comments about the tiger interaction with the cubs are for Dr Karanth and Valmik Thapar, NO LESS. These are REAL scientist that had work with tiger in the WILD, not like you or me. Apparently, you have work with animals in the zoos, and I say apparently, because this is the Internet and there is no way that we can verify your claims. According with your attitude I even can say that you are possible an angry teenager, with hour and hour of experience in Wikipedia, that don’t want to accept his mistakes. But, at the end, who cares? This is not even an important theme, this is not “size of the tiger” or “lion vs tiger”, which normaly are the polemic themes here. So, if you don’t whant to accept this, ok, is your reputation.

Finally, I have NOT erase any of your commentaries. I only change male for female in the picture, nothing more. Don’t lie, please, be professional. --AmbaDarla (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just one thing, every time that I put a commentary in the article, that counts like a edit? If that is the case, could you tell how can I answer with out edit comments? Thanks. And yes, I am not an expert in Wikipedia. --AmbaDarla (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I love tigers and would be more than happy to examine any image you would like to suggest. However, the difficult is not the clarity of B2, but rather of the disputed image. The disputed image is, in my own humble opinion, too low res to positively compare facial stripes to B2. Which was why I shifted my attention to the more clear leg patterns. I neglected to take into account that one of the images may have been flipped, and thus might have been comparing opposite sides. I therefore went back and mirrored one of the images to recheck the stripes and, alas, the stripes still do not match. The disputed image clearly is not that of B2.

Now this in no way should be held as evidence against males associating with their own cubs. I have been involved in tiger research for more than 20 years, due to my work on Tigers' Quest (shameless plug!), and I agree that there are instances where males will interact with their own cubs. (I am unaware of males interacting with cubs which are not their own.) But the disputed image can not be held up as evidence of such. The identity of the tiger in the disputed image is unknown and its gender is unknown as well. Lighthope (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lighthope, I get the impression from your earlier comment that you may have been looking at this 220-pixel-wide reduced image rather than the 333-pixel-wide version. Needless to say, the facial stripes are visible in slightly greater detail in the latter. I'm not entirely sure myself, but I don't think it's a clear-cut case of these not being the same tiger. Please take a look at this comparison and post your thoughts. Thanks. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really recall which resolution I was looking at, but I did look at the image you asked me to comment upon. (http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/5966/tigerh.jpg) Working clockwise starting in the centre of the forehead, I feel this image is still too blurred in the right pic to properly compare to the left (Gettyimage) picture. Moving clockwise, the next marked pattern in the right image seem to be at more of an angle than the one in the left image. (The stripe in the right image almost being a right angle while the stripe in the left image is only slightly angled.) I don't think this can be attributed to the position of the tiger in the shots. Stripe pattern #3 is too blurry to make a proper comparison. Though if I had a gun to my head, I would say that, if you look in the centre left, the right image show two stripes, while the left image shows three. Continuing clockwise to stripe pattern #4 (the one in the middle of the chest) we examine two sets of stripes. One set on the left side of the tiger's chest (your right) and one set on the right side of the tiger's chest (your left). On the tiger's left (your right...confusing, isn't it), the right image shows three thick, unevenly spaced stripes while the left image (Gettyimage) has three thin, evenly spaced stripes. The tiger in the left image is in a bad position to properly compare the stripes on his right (your left) side. The remaining three stripes on the tiger's right foreleg (your left, remember), unfortunately are covered up by those marks on the image, especially the yellow one. But as I said earlier, due to the position of the tiger in the left image, I am not confident to make any real analysis of the stripe pattern. Hope that confused you as much as it did me. (Left, right, left, right, now I dizzy!) Lighthope (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and your left–right explanations were very clear :). I share most of your reservations about the similarities (or lack thereof) in the stripes. I wasn't sure how much of the dissimilarities could be attributed to positioning and angle, but the stripes on the left side (our right) of the tiger's chest, with the differences in spacing and thickness, do seem particularly difficult to reconcile. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just taken a quick look at the images Lighthope compared above, and, without making any statement about whether these are the same tiger, I have to say the patterns on the face do look pretty similar to me. I've tried to match up some areas in the two photos here (done in Microsoft Paint, so forgive the crudity). The area of the chest stripes on the tiger's left, as pointed out by Lighthope, does look noticeably different in the two pictures, but could this not be due to the difference in the way the tiger is positioned? –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I've looked at this photos, etc. and frankly, I'm not convinced. I'm not saying it *is* B2 or *isn't* B2, but rather that, since we're restricted to a front-only view at limited resolution (which, as is noted above, may be horizontally flipped), there's not enough certainty to warrant a definite conclusion on the individual's identity. Secondly, even if it *is* B2, the individual isn't notable enough to warrant labeling it in a photo. Lastly, the issue of gender - since we cannot be *sure* this is B2, even if male tigers *do* interact with their cubs, it happens rarely enough to be controversial, and thus the individual in the photo is *probably* female. In short, the only evidence we have against this caption is a tentative ID based on a low-resolution photograph that doesn't show enough distinguishing marks to make the ID certain. Unless further, much better evidence of the tiger's identity can be presented, I suggest we retain the current caption. Mokele (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Citations with dead links

I would like to report that the citation "Sympatric Tiger and Leopard: How two big cats coexist in the same area" points to a dead link: [1]. There may be others; I have not checked all links. Attys (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done I will review the rest of the links shortly thanks. ZooPro 07:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Collective noun

For some time we've had "streak" listed as a collective noun for tigers, but we don't have a satisfactory ref. User:Lighthope has now included a ref from the U.S. Geological Service ([2]), saying that this "qualifies as a pretty authoritative source".

The US Geological Service is of course an authoritative source – for geology. It is not an authority on lexicology, and it surely does not apply rigorous editorial standards to this kind of essentially entertaining web page about a subject peripheral to its area of concern. I notice the writer signs off saying "happy trivia", which is not a good indication...

I removed the ref, saying that it does not give its own sources. That was not quite right: it does give two sources, and mentions that it used "several" sources, so presumably there were others (about which we know nothing). In any case we don't know which of these sources (if any) provided this particular item. We also don't know what kind of sources they are: are they academic treatments of the subject, or light-hearted entertainment books? I suspect the latter, because the writer suggests that one of them (An Exaltation of Larks by James Lipton) might be "fun reading". (In fact, I found a review here of that book which states that it contains "more than 1,100 resurrected or newly minted contributions..." – my emphasis. This is also not a good indication.)

This situation is dealt with clearly by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, which recommends that tertiary sources (that is, sources that summarise other sources) should not normally be used. Guidance (Wikipedia:Citing sources) also advises that if we do use a tertiary source, we should say where that source got the information: we can't do that in this case, as we don't know which is the right book.

All this presupposes of course that lists of collective nouns have much real validity at all – many of the collective nouns in these lists arise out of the parlour game (the "game of venery") of inventing amusing names appropriate to the species, and very few of them have ever escaped into real language ("pride of lions" is the only one I can think of).

So in this case, is "streak" an established term or a neologism? We don't know without a good ref, and I cast no aspersions on the otherwise no doubt excellent US Geological Service, but I'm afraid they won't do in this case, and nor will James Lipton unless we can see his sources. Let's have a proper ref for the term, or omit it. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Common sense would say that any reference is better then no reference at all. Doing a "Google" search actually returns a number of other references. I would however think that the USGS would ensure they have correct information on there website at any rate. A group of tigers is unnatural at the best of times so perhaps the name is invented such as the other group name "ambush". Does it improve the article? well yes and I suppose that's the main thing in the end. ZooPro 11:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to language, it is often difficult to use the term "authoritative" as language is oft-changing. Words come into being and fall in to disuse all the time. We recognize a dictionary as a lexicon of language, yet where is their "source" other than common usage? Alas, we do not have a panel or other government body which pronounces some words as "real" and other words as "fake". Hence the reason why both "D'oh" and "ain't" are real words with real meanings, yet only one "D'oh", actually appears in a dictionary. (I think "ain't" finally made it into one.)

As far as the word "streak" is concerned when it comes to tigers, it is common enough to have been given a meaning (a group of tigers) that is consistent. (i.e no one is calling a "streak" a group of geese or anything like that.) To further quality, we have a government agency which acknowledges the definition. We are not asking the USGS to create a word, which as Richard New Forest legitimately points out is beyond its scope. But the fact that the USGS acknowledges the meaning of the word should carry a lot of weight, especially as there is no Word Panel.

Additionally, the reference which mentions the word "streak" as pertaining to the tigers, qualifies the use as "collective nouns sometimes used" (emphasis added). Therefore, Wikipedia does not bestow (as if it could) legitimacy upon the word, but merely acknowledges the fact that some people use the word "streak" to refer to a group of tigers, and there can be no debate that such is the case.

Based upon the above, especially that last bit about qualifying the word use, it is appropriate for Wikipedia to include the word in the article. Lighthope (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Is a made-up reference really better than no reference at all..? We know that the USGS did not check their source, because they used a book which we know makes things up. This is after all an encyclopaedia, not a collection of stories. Yes, Google does have many hits for "streak of tigers", but I suspect many of these may be derived from An Exaltation of Larks itself (or similar books), which brings us back full circle. It may be that (like a "pride of lions") a "streak of tigers" eventually does enter the language as a widely known term. In that case it will appear in dictionaries, not just in made-up lists of terms of venery. Does it occur in any dictionaries?

We can't include a neologism, and until we know whether this term is one or is not, it is not verifiable and so does not belong in WP. If on the other hand we do have proper evidence that it's a widely accepted term, then yes, let's include it. We are encouraged not to spread rumour (WP:NOTGOSSIP), which is the whole point of having references. Any ref given here must meet the criteria explained in WP:RS, or it's not worth having; this one does not on several counts.

To answer Lighthope's comment about the sources for dictionaries, yes, they use usage, but they have established criteria for the recognition of new words, and made-up lists are not usually enough. Do any dictionaries include this meaning for "streak"? Richard New Forest (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a "mainstream" (whatever that word means) dictionary which equates the word "streak" to a group of tigers. ("Mainstream" being the standard I think you are requiring.) However, you have set up an impossible standard. Even if I were to bring you a quote from Webster's Dictionary, you could legitimately ask "But where did they get the definition from?".

The use of "streak" is not prohibited under WP:NOTGOSSIP as its use does not fit any of the definitions of what Wiki considers to be gossip. It does not advocate or express an opinion on the use of the word. It merely reports its usage. Your argument that the USGS refers to a book "which we know makes things up" is an incorrect argument. The USGS site states that "[t]his listing exhausts the meager pile of references available at Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center". It does not state 'where' they retrieved their information. It only points to the book An Exaltation of Larks by way of secondary reading for those interested. We therefore have no way to know whether or not their source is "made up". On the other hand, it is therefore true that we are unable to verify their own source. But how far do we take this? If they do list a source, do we check the source? The source's source? The source's source's source? Ad infinitum? At some point, we have to bestow legitimacy somewhere. If a branch of the US Government recognizes the word "streak" to mean a group of tigers, then who are we to argue that?

Again, the article does not advocate the usage of the word. Only reports on it, which is legitimate. True, not used by many. But how many people have to use the word before it becomes a "real" word. And if you asked anyone what a group of tigers is called, would they use a different word? Lighthope (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This likely isn't going to help, but further searching has found that the College of Arts, Department of Translation, University of Basrah (Iraq) also acknowledges the use of the term "streak" (and "ambush" actually) to mean a group of tigers. (source: http://www.translationdirectory.com/article1123.htm) Yes, we're grasping at straws, but for uncommon words, we need to dig deeper. Lighthope (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not an impossible standard at all. An authoritative dictionary (such as the OED or Webster's) has well-established criteria for deciding whether a word is in wide enough use to be included, and they are therefore good sources for whether a word really "exists". If they do not include it , that's good evidence that the word is not a legitimate one.

Yes, unverifiable material is gossip.

Would people use a different word? Well, perhaps not: there is no rule saying there has to be any word at all. The absence of another word does not mean that this one is valid.

Remember WP's philosophy of verifiability: we don't include things because they are true or right, but because we can show them to be so. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The two points you make must be disagreed with. You state that "unverifiable material is gossip". Actually, no it is not, not according to Wiki standards, which standard you brought up in the first place. The second point you make ("we don't include things because they are true or right, but because we can show them to be so") is untrue as well. We include axioms, which by definition can not be proven but are widely held to be true. On another note, you say "If [a dictionary does] not include [a word] , that's good evidence that the word is not a legitimate one." That is untrue as well. Refer back to the words "D'oh" and "ain't" for clear-cut examples of words that were words before they were bestowed a blessing by a dictionary. Words do not make it into a dictionary, by and large, until they find use by the public. Is therefore any word the public uses not a "real" word until it appears in a new printing of Websters? Did "dark matter" not exist until a new publication of Encyclopedia Britanica?

Again, the Wiki article does not endorse the word "streak" to hold the meaning of a group of tigers. It merely reports the usage by some as such. This is well within Wiki standards. Lighthope (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)