Tiger 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 Date Process Result April 11, 2014 Good article nominee Listed March 28, 2023 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 12, 2024 Peer review Reviewed July 25, 2024 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Cats Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Mammals High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Southeast Asia: Laos High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Laos (assessed as High-importance). China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. India High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Malaysia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Nepal High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Bhutan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bhutan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bhutan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BhutanWikipedia:WikiProject BhutanTemplate:WikiProject BhutanBhutan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Indonesia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Myanmar Low‑importance Tiger is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.MyanmarWikipedia:WikiProject MyanmarTemplate:WikiProject MyanmarMyanmar Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet, requested articles on Burmese subjects and articles on smaller towns and villages Expand : Top-importance and High-importance articles Photo : add photos of incumbent politicians Stubs : Category:Myanmar stubs Update : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet after 2015 election Other : If you know Burmese, go on the Myanmar Wikipedia and make sure each article on the English Wikipedia has one in Burmese also Thailand Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

"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]

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]

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[reply] 

          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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

194.160.225.84 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[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. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 20:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@BhagyaMani @LittleJerry I experimented with the second image without crop here [[1]] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 [2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]