Talk:Bali tiger

earlier comment

Actually I think Balinese Tiger should redirect to Bali Tiger, not the other way round. E.g., http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/curriculums/bali-tiger-pc.cfm

There are 9830 results in google for "bali tiger", but only 689 for "balinese tiger"

My first big contribution

I expanded this stub from the measly "general information" heading that was there to what it is now. Now to figure out how to get rid of the "stub" status..

Species vs subspecies

Stop using these two words as synonyms. Bali tiger is not a species of any kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.51.174 (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Balinese Tiger → Bali Tiger I think the latter is a lot more common. There are 10,100 Google hits for "Bali Tiger" and only 774 for "Balinese Tiger". --Khoikhoi 20:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support even though the first google hit on Bali tiger yields a page called "Balinese tiger". Encarta uses Bali Tiger, and the google count seems good enough. Sam Vimes 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• SupportZheliel (I know I am Pro) 23:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

According to his cousin, Agung Krisna shot one of these in the late 1970's or 1980. I spoke to his cousin and Agung in 1981, and saw a photo of Agung, with a gun and an extremely small tiger. Agung was very proud that he'd shot a tiger. His cousin (I can't remember his name, but he was a student at the University of New England at the time - it was 26 years ago so perhaps I'm allowed to forget his name) and I were both shocked to see how small it was (smaller than the one shown in this article - perhaps it was a young one). Agung was related to the Maharajah's family somehow, and had a role in the local nature cult dealing with the Holy Mount Agung. Perhaps someone from Bali might be able to get some more information. If the photo and Agung's tale were true, then this article is at best 40 years wrong. Johnpf 13:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

An exact date of extinction is unknown as throughout the 1940s reports persisted that tigers still lived on the island. These came from people considered to be reliable and they continued into the 1950s, though with a reducing frequency. One instance occurred in 1952 when a Dutch forestry officer reported seeing a Bali tiger. There have even sightings continued to surface in the 1970s. One suspected sighting was in a western reserve in 1970 and the Balinese Forestry workers reported another in 1972. Despite these positive reports it is almost certain that the Bali tiger is extinct and little chance it will ever be rediscovered. The remaining forest areas on Bali are simply no longer large enough to provide a tiger with the required shelter and food source.Peter Maas 13:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mate, this is amazing! I'm currently researching the Balinese tiger, and was wondering if you could furnish any further details on this. Also I don't suppose you are still in contact with Agung or his cousin, as this photo could be incredible evidence for the persistence of the tiger as you point out.

Cheers Athenry04 (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Tiger" is not a name, so shouldn't it be "Bali tiger"? HandsomeFella (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Are there any other pictures of a Bali Tiger other than the dead one on a stick? --Candy-Panda 08:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know that is the only known photograph. Peter Maas\^talk 10:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rating

So I rated this as a start class. My reasoning?

For a start class article, these are required :

A particularly useful picture or graphic - Present. Whilst a better picture should be added for the cat itself, the map does certain justice Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic - Present. A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic - Present. Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article - Present. If you would like to discuss this rating, mention it on my Talk page. Thanks. TheVaultDweller 00:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning is fine. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Zheliel (I know I am Pro) 23:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Balicolor.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Balicolor.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Panthera tigris balica, old male.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Panthera tigris balica, old male.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Balicolor.jpg

The file File:Balicolor.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Balicolor.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bali tiger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907232427/http://www.petermaas.nl:80/extinct/speciesinfo/balitiger.htm to http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/balitiger.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907232427/http://www.petermaas.nl:80/extinct/speciesinfo/balitiger.htm to http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/balitiger.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Etymology regarding the tiger subspecies, according to the view of the IUCN

Apart from the controversy over whether or not the IUCN's view is actually valid, I know that the IUCN proposed that tigers be grouped into P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica, but does that mean that we should say that the IUCN is saying that the Balinese tiger is a population of the "Javan tiger subspecies," which is commonly understood to mean tigers in Java, instead of the "Sunda Island tiger subspecies"? Leo1pard (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Your question is ambiguous. Is it possible that you misunderstood the meaning of etymology? Or is your question about taxonomy? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is about taxonomy. The phrase "Javan tiger" is used to mean the tiger in Java, not the other tigers of the Sunda Islands, it is its taxonomic name, Panthera tigris sondaica, that the IUCN proposed classifying the other Sunda tigers into, and likewise what I mentioned for the regular and taxonomic names for the Cape lion and Bengal tiger. Leo1pard (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, the URL for this reference from the IUCN is dead, and what the IUCN said in this functional one, regarding their re-classification of lions, is "the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group has provisionally proposed a different split into two subspecies, P. l. leo of Asia and West, Central and North Africa, and P l. melanochaita from South and East Africa. However, Barnett et al. (2014) is based only on mtDNA and could reflect female philopatry," so the 'update' from the IUCN that we put into these articles about different lions and tigers could be in trouble, unless we take care to mention that this was said by the IUCN. Leo1pard (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I put that information regarding the lion, to give you an idea about why the IUCN's reclassification of subspecies can be controversial. Leo1pard (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The members of the Cat Classification Taskforce decided that from a taxonomic point of view the island group of tigers is not sufficiently distinct to warrant 3 different names. Hence the oldest subspecific name is used for this group. See download link that is not difficult to find : -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Which other group of people or organisation do YOU consider more appropriate to discuss and revise taxonomic questions? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily 'more' appropriate, but remember, the IUCN's reclassification of tigers has been the subject of a dispute, and I do see one for lions, and we in Wikipedia are supposed to take a WP:Neutral POV, in the case of such disputes. Leo1pard (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Which 'dispute among IUCN people' are you referring to? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily within the IUCN, and here is an example. Leo1pard (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that the 1st by Kupferschmidt is 2 years older than the Cat SG's special issue about revised taxonomy. The 2nd does not even reference any source! Since when do journos have expertise in taxonomy? These don't show a dispute. And when has the 3rd been updated? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not just a question of dating, but also a question of the methods involved in determining why this should be a subspecies or not. So unfortunately, these edits in favor of the IUCN, and in opposition towards other sources, can be treated as being WP:Biased. We have to correct such edits. Leo1pard (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, you have no idea about this kind of procedure. CCT members comprised all who published about taxonomic questions re Felidae since at least the turn of the century. And they worked on this revision for several years. You did not even read it. But want to question their expertise? How ridiculous, am sorry to write this! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not as simple as an editor like myself wanting to question their expertise: Do you remember what the case was for the Ethiopian lion? Leo1pard (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

My reply does not need repetition and is in Talk:Cape lion#Ethiopian lion. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. Leo1pard (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

References

References

Leo1pard (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What should the image of Bali tiger be?

We have 3 images of Bali tiger that I'll put down. You can vote one of them to appear in the main box. I would like you all to vote, althought I know the results because I am no one in this wiki to get supported by anyone, I still want to discuss this. — Some1 ^{talk} 07:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We have four options:

Image #1	Image #2	Image #3 (currently showing)	Cropped #1
Bali tiger with its tamer in Ringling Bros, ca. 1915	Bali tiger killed by M. Zanveld in 1920s	A hunting party with a tiger shot in northwestern Bali, November 1911

First of all, the current image, does barely show the tiger, the second one the same, the first one in the other hand, shows the full tiger's body. If any of you now complains that wild tiger images are better, I would add that the tiger was one of the 2 tigers captured by hungarian hunters in the Island, and was sold to the tamer, so it is a wild animal. — Some1 ^{talk} 07:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC), re-edited, Some1 ^{talk} 08:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems you like playing with images foremost in August. We can use all 3 images, but the one of the tiger in circus NOT in the taxobox. Images should be auto-aligned in the remaining sections, but not on both margins, because on small screens, the text will be squeezed in between. Re support of your edits: if and when you add erroneous statements like in Siberian tiger, these will of course not be supported. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Who are you sir, to delete my own statement? This habit, clearly shows how "I don't care" you are. I will actually die laughing if they vote the image one, and once more, you are NO ONE to delete my comment. Thank you! — Some1 ^{talk} 15 August 2020 (UTC)

None of the images are ideal. I don't like images of dead tigers or a tiger in a circus, but if that is all we have then one needs to be selected for the taxobox. The point of the image in the taxobox is to show illustrate of the tiger. The third one barely shows anything useful. The second shows the body pattern as was the image in the taxobox for some time. The third is by far the best picture of the tiger, but the setting unfortunate and distracting. Could it be clipped to remove the human face? —  Jts1882 | talk  07:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I support the second one. Leo1pard (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I too vote for the 2nd one that used to be in taxobox before. It's quality is perhaps not ideal but it illustrates the fate of this pop perfectly: killed for trophy. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

In the cropped version, the clown's legs can still be seen. And since this is a historic photo, I wouldn't crop it. It shows the attitude of people towards wildlife in those times. better dead or docile in a circus than alive in the wild. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC).

The legs are not as distracting as the face. The point of the crop is to show what the tiger looks like in the taxobox and this is the only good image of the tiger. If the image is used elsewhere in the article I wouldn't crop it as then showing the tiger in the circus would be relevant. I looks like no one else likes this suggestion, so I think we should go back to the image that was there before (#2). —  Jts1882 | talk  12:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

re #2 -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Since 3 of 4 pax in this voting exercise favour the 2nd image, I added this back into the taxobox, at least for the time being. In case more pax join into this talk and majority of votes changes, then we can change the image again accordingly. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sumatran tiger

We have this zoo tiger's image for Sumatran tiger, despite the fact that there are plenty more images of a wild tiger. According to what I know, 'A zoo animal, is not a wild one.' But no, this image can't be put in taxobox because it was chosen by me. Better give more valid and logical opinions on why you don't want this image there!!! — Some1 ^{talk} 04:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

1) Only ONE image of a Sumatran tiger taken in the wild was made available to wikicommons: a camera trap image in black & white. All the others in the resp. wikicommons subfolders were taken in zoos, though not particularly mentioned in many image captions. 2) Whether YOU or some1 else plays with images in taxoboxes is NOT the point, but your choice is. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: you can say that again pal! — Some1 ^{talk} 09:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC), re-edited, Some1 ^{talk} 11:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Punetor i Rregullt5: Pings don't work if you edit your commentd. You must add them when you first add the comment and the comment must be signed. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

lets ping him one more time then, @BhagyaMani: — Some1 ^{talk} 12:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sumatran tiger's images being used to demolish your opinion!

zoo image	wild tiger #1	wild tiger #2
Sumatran tiger in a zoo? Then why is this image being used in Taxobox when we have two wild tiger pictures?	Do you remember these words, "It's quality is perhaps not ideal but it illustrates the fate of this pop perfectly: killed for trophy."? 😀	I can always use the "main & common" reason why this image should be put in Taxobox, "Althought it's not a clear image, it's better than a zoo or circus tiger's pic."