User talk:Alphard08

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hello Clayoquot,

Thanks for your welcome! I'm a bit inexperienced at editing Wikipedia articles, but I've certainly enjoyed reading and editing the lion and tiger articles. I've loved big cats since I was six years old, and contributing to the Wikipedia pages is my way of using that accumulated knowledge - I like to think the years of reading articles and books on them is paying off, lol! Alphard08 (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good for you :) These two articles are among Wikipedia's most popular animal articles. It's You might be interested in joining WikiProject Cats and WikiProject Mammals. Cheers! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Malayan tiger size
Hi, welcome in en wiki. Nice to have someone new, who is doing a good job in pantherines.... Here you did an edit. May be I missed it, but what is the reference for that? --Altaileopard (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC) ...And thank you for doing so very important reverts like this one.--Altaileopard (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Altaileopard! Thanks for the welcome! :)


 * For the Malayan tiger size, I used the following reference: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/about_species/species_factsheets/tigers/malayan_tiger/index.cfm. I must've forgotten to put the reference in - very sorry! The same information may be found in: http://www.21stcenturytiger.org/index.php?pg=1183113244.


 * I would've preferred to use a textbook rather than a website as the reference, but the Malayan tiger is such a newly recognised subspecies that there aren't many resources around that give a full and comprehensive description of it. Alphard08 (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tiger subspecies in the article
Hi, it´s me again. I reverted some of your edits (actually it is that change). I would like to discuss that first. I think someone who wants to know how large a tiger is, does not like to read through all subspecies. Of course it is important to mention the large size variation, but an species articel should inform in principle about the species. Another thing is the doubling, which was the result of the edit. If you split every section of the article (range, habitat, status, size...) into subspecies it would be very confusing for the commen reader. For that reason we have the subspecies articles, which are unfortunately often forgotten. ...--Altaileopard (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree that it can be somewhat cumbersome to divide each topic up into the nine different subspecies. However, my motivation for making the edit was that I felt the subspecies descriptions were rather randomly scattered about the article beforehand (ie. information about the size of Siberian tigers is found in both "Physical Characteristics" and "Taxonomy and Evolution"), so by grouping all of the characteristics together under the "Physical Characteristics" part, it would be easier not only to find the information, but also to compare each of the subspecies (something that's more difficult to do if the information is contained solely within the subspecies articles). Alphard08 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, now I understand your inention... But I think it is still the best to have some size parameters doubled (in Taxonomy and Subspecies) than having each subspecies twice.... --Altaileopard (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there's a compromise that can be reached, in which the physical characteristics of each subspecies can be displayed in the correct category, without making the article overly complicated or doubling information (although after I edited it, there wasn't any doubling of actual information, even if the names of the subspecies were there twice). For instance, perhaps "Physical characteristics" could be merged into "Taxonomy and Evolution", since really, the characteristics of a tiger are tied up with what subspecies it happens to belong to - they all differ in appearance and size quite significantly.
 * That is right, that is reason for keeping info about the size to a large extend in the Taxonomy section. But for someone, who just wants to know quickly, how big a tiger is, it is less important how big a caspian, bali, chinese or javan tiger is. For this person is a summary about the relation of the most famous and the largest and smallest subspecies is important. Perhaps this section could be shorter or less specific, but it should not be absent. --Altaileopard (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should discuss the revision with other people in the Talk section of the article, or put it to a vote, to see what others think as well? Even though I do agree with you that displaying information in the form of a list for each subspecies in every subsection would make the article rather long, the edit did take me a considerable amount of time and effort to perform - I'd rather it not be entirely reverted without collaborative discussion! Alphard08 (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can post in under talk:tiger with a wikilink to your talk page... Should I do this?--Altaileopard (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, that'd be great :) Thanks! Alphard08 (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think, we should simplify the section physical charcteristics and include most of the specific data under the subspecies titles to avoid doubling information. what do you think about this idea?--Altaileopard (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea (to be honest, the more I think about it, the more it seems as though the only way of getting away with keeping everything in its proper place, without doubling subspecies names or information, is to greatly reduce the function of the "Physical Characteristics" section to giving an entirely generic description, rather than including specific figures).


 * Simplifying "Physical Characteristics"...what do you think of this edit? I've pretty much just done away with all of the figures except for the maximum size of the male Siberian tiger, which is just there to prove a point, and re-worded the rest Alphard08 (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Physical characteristics
Tigers are perhaps the most recognisable of all the cats (with the possible exception of the lion). They typically have rusty-reddish to brown-rusty coats, a whitish medial and ventral area, a white "fringe" that surrounds the face, and stripes that vary from brown or gray to pure black. The form and density of stripes differs between subspecies (as well as the ground coloration of the fur; for instance, Siberian tigers are usually paler than other tiger subspecies), but most tigers have over 100 stripes. The pattern of stripes is unique to each animal, and thus could potentially be used to identify individuals, much in the same way as fingerprints are used to identify people. This is not, however, a preferred method of identification, due to the difficulty of recording the stripe pattern of a wild tiger. It seems likely that the function of stripes is camouflage, serving to help tigers conceal themselves amongst the dappled shadows and long grass of their environment as they stalk their prey. The stripe pattern is found on a tiger's skin and if shaved, its distinctive camouflage pattern would be preserved. Like other big cats, tigers have a white spot on the backs of their ears.

Tigers have the additional distinction of being the heaviest cats found in the wild. However, the subspecies differ markedly in size, tending to increase proportionally with latitude, as predicted by Bergmann's Rule. Thus, large male Siberian Tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) can reach a total length of 3.5 m and a weight of 306 kilograms, which is considerably larger than the sizes reached by island-dwelling tigers such as the Sumatran, the smallest living subspecies with an body weight of only 75-140 kg. Tigresses are smaller than the males in each subspecies, although the size difference between male and female tigers tends to be more pronounced in the larger subspecies of tiger, with males weighing up to 1.7 times as much as the females. In addition, male tigers have wider forepaw pads than females. This difference is often used by biologists in determining the gender of tigers when observing their tracks.

PS. Since the information in this section is more basic and fundamental than the information on each subspecies in the Taxonomy and Evolution section, perhaps Physical Characteristics should be moved upwards, nearer the beginning of the page? Alphard08 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with this part. But when you do this change, you should have a look that we loose no information or references. For example the medium head and body length of siberian tigers should be included in the subspecies section.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * and yes it should be moved upwards...--Altaileopard (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that was a good thing, especially adding an image of each subspecies to the article. cheers--Altaileopard (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions, I also think it's a vast improvement on the older article. (Oh, and about the Javan tiger, I put the detail back in, but I put in a reference this time! I should really remember to put in my references...) Alphard08 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is very important. But actually I think lairweb is not a very good reference. They add no sources to their sites, so it is not possible to find out from where they got their information. I removed those refs and I will try to find anything about Javan tigres size in better sources.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Caspian tiger
I appreciate your efforts and your civility, however, I do not see how hard it could be to simply replace the "nine subspecies" part with eight, and the three extinct types to two. As the caspian and amur are now proven to be one and the same, it seems misleading to me for it to keep its own section. I'm not saying delete it all, merely merge the two together.Mariomassone (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the results of the study only came two months ago, I think it only natural that other sites have some catching up to do. The only way I can see the Caspian tiger retaining its unique subspecies status is for some site or other actually DISPROVING the recent paper. Does the CITES page indicate when it was last updated?Mariomassone (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

okamiden
If it was the case the trademark name was, say "okami 2" or something along those lines, clearly indicating a sequel or variation thereof, then yes, it would be reason to put to rumor about it. But the word trademarked was "okamiden", which I know sources have pointed out could be taken to mean a shortening of a okami-based game, but that's speculation by those sources, and including it here would be heading towards WP:CRYSTAL. It's also not the only possible reading of the word. I would presume that when the Japan Wii release nears, there may be more about that, if it truly is an okami-based game, and we can add it. --M ASEM (t) 13:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

undo
Hi. If you will permit me to make a suggestion, could you explain to the user why you removed their quite large edit here. I don't think your rationale quite covers what I am supposing was reasoning. The inclusion was partly redundant, possibly misleading, and wholly uncited, but it may illuminate whatever inadequacies can be found in this FA. That they took the trouble to add it indicates that may be the case. We should bear in mind that it takes but a moment to undo edits and that it would take just a more moments to add it to the talk or advise and welcome an account to discuss it further. Apologies if I seem to be targeting you, because you seem to be a decent contributor and I may be championing the current backlash against what has become a hostile environment. Regards, cygnis insignis 11:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand, thanks for explaining. I did want to say more about why I reverted the edit (because you're right, what I wrote doesn't quite cover all the reasons), but I ran out of space in the Edit summary, and I wasn't quite sure whether I should have posted a longer explanation on their user Talk page. I will now though. Cheers, Alphard08 (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If i may also ask your reasons on reverting. I found the information to be valid and deserves a place in the article. ZooPro (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I felt a large part of what Biologyoracle included would be more fitting on an article on Homologies, rather than lions specifically, since what was written was largely true of most carnivores, ie.

"Panthera Leo are well known for their sharp canine teeth, and their ability to shred and eat large prey. Like Lions, seals and walrus's are also known for their viscous killing abilities, as their prominent canine teeth are extremely long and sharp. Both animals are some what related, but distantly so. They both use their teeth is an almost identical way, to bite, and puncture the neck of the prey suffocating it to death. This is an example of a homologous structure, as these distinctive canine teeth are evidence of an evolutionary relationship as both species inherited it from a common ancestor."


 * Furthermore, the information on the lion's phylogeny was redundant, since there is already a section covering the lion's taxonomy and evolution that had basically the same material.


 * Finally, there weren't any citations (although I did think it was good information). I'll be explaining all of this on Biologyoracle's talk page. Cheers, Alphard08 (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Having thought it over i completely agree. Cheers for the quick response ZooPro (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good on you! Thanks for letting me know. Best regards, cygnis insignis 12:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)