Loading AI tools
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jaguar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
 | Jaguar 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. | |||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 24, 2006, and on November 29, 2021. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
where it says "Results of DNA-based studies are conclusive, and the position of the jaguar relative to the other species varies depending on methods and sample sizes used", I think it was supposed to say "inconclusive"
Compare the Wiktionary entries for "inconclusive" and "conclusive" (can't add the links to Wiktionary b/c then Wikipedia will think I'm a spam-bot)
Anyway it's a pretty good/comprehensive/thorough compendium of references to studies on the subject
The links seem to mostly mention the older/mitochondrial only studies -- perhaps it could be considered to add a reference to the 2017 study "Genome-wide signatures of complex introgression and adaptive evolution in the big cats" (in Science Advances) which used whole genome data (not just mitochondrial) and accounted for the possibility of prehistoric introgression/hybridization events -- the results of the study concluded the jaguar is basal to a combined leopard/tiger clade
News reports indicate that a jaguar at the Audobon Zoo (New Orleans) escaped on July 14, 2018, and killed a number of other animals. One zoo official stated that this was a territorial dispute rather than the animal hunting for food. This incident might make an interesting footnote in the article, although I'm not sure where I would add it. I'm also not sure how much weight I would give this hypothesis, since it is unclear if it is an expert opinion on the killing, or just a guess. In any case, the link is above and I think there is enough info in this comment to serve as as starting point for other interested editors. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 09:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Etamni I put it here. Leo1pard (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Threats" section, please change "the 1960" to "the 1960s". Thanks! 217.39.102.114 (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I find "except for black caimans" followed by a comma. Use semicolon, not comma. Need explanation?
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Wikilink to cheetah below pic. 95.90.248.57 (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Already done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I've just had a request to lift semi-protection on this article. However, after looking at the talk-page archives I can see that the protection has prevented a number of inappropriate and controversial edits on this high profile article, so I am not willing to lift protection. A request can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection where another admin may have a different opinion.
Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users, as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. So, if an unregistered editor feels that there is a problem with the article they can either leave a message here, or register an account and get involved. The protection does not prevent people from making improvements to the article, it just requires a small amount of extra effort - enough to show some level of commitment to the value of the improvement being desired.
Also, registering an account conceals your IP address. Your IP address can reveal information about you, such as where you live, which is information many people would regard as private, especially if making an edit that someone else may disagree with. SilkTork (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The northern range of the jaguar should be from the Southern United States (currently Arizona). see book: Borderland Jaguars: Tigres de la Frontera Paperback – September 21, 2001 by David E. Brown ALLBN (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2020 (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. The section about the United States does talk about sightings in Arizona. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 13:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
In 1919, the jaguar was said to have occurred in the Monterey, California region.
SegeLazeW (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- SegeLazeW, Thanks for spotting this. I read the source and made the corrections. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 22:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
As part of a sweep through all the old featured articles (WP:URFA/2020), I've checked whether this article still meets the featured article criteria. I think the article isn't very far, but I do have a few concerns:
- I've placed several update needed tags in the text
- the evolution subsection is based on very old sources
Done - I've placed a citation needed tag in the text Done
- there are some issues with prose. I've tried to fix the easy ones
- The jaguar and the cougar, which is the next-largest cat in South America, but is usually larger than the jaguar in Central or North America,[34] are often sympatric (related species sharing overlapping territory) and have often been studied in conjunction. Probably need splitting, but not sure how to do it with citations
- the images in the last section take up more space than section, so that the formatting of the citation on desktop become scrambled up. A gallery may prevent this from happening.
- The United States is a subsection of conservation, whereas other countries aren't. I think the best solution is to merge that subsection into the introductory paragraph.
If these issues cannot be addressed via the talk page, the article can be taken to the WP:featured article review process to find more editors to help. If the problems cannot be solved at FAR either, the article may be delisted. Time and help is always granted to editors who wish to improve the article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Femkemilene per #4, what do you mean about splitting? If I can understand, perhaps I can help with the citations.Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- The sentence should probably read something like this: The jaguar and the cougar, are often sympatric (related species sharing overlapping territory) and have often been studied in conjunction. The cougar is the next-largest cat in South America, but is usually larger than the jaguar in Central or North America,[34].. I didn't know whether 34 covers the entire two sentences. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Femkemilene, thanks for your attention here. Regarding #2 "the evolution subsection is based on very old sources" I don't consider this to be a problem, as a good source, however old, is perfectly fine. The "evolution" of Jaguars is not going to change. (Comment by Tribe of Tiger, lost my signature somehow...)
- I searched for more recent sources than the ones referenced, but didn't find any. So imo, this part of section is ok as is. But a FA should have a cladogram !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- BhagyaMani, oh my, I had to look up the meaning of cladogram! Are there WP articles that feature this helpful diagram? Thanks for your supportive cmt regarding the evolution section. In terms of a FA, I see it was promoted in 2006, and my understanding is that fourteen or so years ago, the standards were less exacting. Nonetheless, it is an informative article, well organized, etc., etc. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 08:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'll add one, :):):). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- BhagyaMani, thanks for your lovely cladograms. A very helpful addition! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'll add one, :):):). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- BhagyaMani, oh my, I had to look up the meaning of cladogram! Are there WP articles that feature this helpful diagram? Thanks for your supportive cmt regarding the evolution section. In terms of a FA, I see it was promoted in 2006, and my understanding is that fourteen or so years ago, the standards were less exacting. Nonetheless, it is an informative article, well organized, etc., etc. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 08:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I searched for more recent sources than the ones referenced, but didn't find any. So imo, this part of section is ok as is. But a FA should have a cladogram !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Merged, per your #6 point. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- One of the sections above has a suggestions for a 2017 cite for evolution. Is it any good? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- This does look like a good source, but what information in the article did you intend for it to support? Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I know nothing about evolution. Can it be used to replace the sentence Results of DNA-based studies are conclusive, and the position of the jaguar relative to the other species varies depending on methods and sample sizes used? I think that is meant to read inconclusive, and am very wary of sentence that say we don't know something, based on sources that are at least 15 years old. The other sentences also indicate various stages of uncertainty, where we may have gained more certainty now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'll look into this later today. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- After some changes, the sentence in question, and the sentence immediately preceding, have been removed, (Fossils of the extinct Panthera gombaszoegensis and the American lion(P. atrox) show characteristics of both the jaguar and the lion (P. leo).[22] Results of DNA-based studies are conclusive, and the position of the jaguar relative to the other species varies depending on methods and sample sizes used.[21][22][23][24]), so I think you can take this off your list.Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks :). BhagyaMani; a lot of your edit summaries seem to indicate there were significant problems with source-text integrity. Is that right? If so, spot checks need to be done in other sections as well, to see whether this is a pervasive problem. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Good idea to spot check for source-text integrity in other sections !! The statements that I checked were not entirely wrong, but did not represent RESULTS of these publications adequately. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks :). BhagyaMani; a lot of your edit summaries seem to indicate there were significant problems with source-text integrity. Is that right? If so, spot checks need to be done in other sections as well, to see whether this is a pervasive problem. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I know nothing about evolution. Can it be used to replace the sentence Results of DNA-based studies are conclusive, and the position of the jaguar relative to the other species varies depending on methods and sample sizes used? I think that is meant to read inconclusive, and am very wary of sentence that say we don't know something, based on sources that are at least 15 years old. The other sentences also indicate various stages of uncertainty, where we may have gained more certainty now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- This does look like a good source, but what information in the article did you intend for it to support? Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- One of the sections above has a suggestions for a 2017 cite for evolution. Is it any good? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
#7 is there an easier word for Phylogeny? For a core articles such as this one, the table of contents should be understandable to a broad public. Maybe "evolution and relation to other cats"? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Phylogeny is regularly used as a section or subsection title in Wikipedia articles. Evolutionary relationships or systematics are possible alternatives. Perhaps the section should be called classification with taxonomy and evolutionary relationships as subsections (unsigned by Jts 1882, sorry I don't know how to sign this for them)
- Per Femkemilene's comment, I think we would better serve the general reading public, our core audience, if the word "evolution" was included in a section or subsection title. Evolution is familiar to most readers, phylogeny, not so much. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- .. halfway done? About, I have a few more that I can add. And you, LittleJerry? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- I fixed the rest, assuming Tribe of Tiger did the copyedit. LittleJerry (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Femkemilene, everything good? LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- That awkward sentence (#4) is the only outstanding one;
- I'm think we should stop the use of the word extant in the lede of these common animals. I don't think I learned this word as a teenager, and I strongly believe we should cater to the youngest group of Wikipedia readers for articles about common animals in the lede, without making it into Wikikids. (Say 12+ in age, maybe 14+?). Glossing it as (not extinct) feels a bit overdone. Can we replace it with still-living? Hovering over the word to show the first line of the Wikipedia article on extant is only more intimidating, and that feature isn't available on all systems. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Big yes to NOT using 'extant'. I usually replace this by the much nicer word 'living' !! Even 'still-..' is not needed, imo. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Femkemilene, everything good? LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I fixed the rest, assuming Tribe of Tiger did the copyedit. LittleJerry (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Can we lable this "Satisfactory" now? LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've addressed my final comment, but I didn't have access to the source. I'll mark it as satisfactory. FemkeMilene (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- P.S. We encourage editors to mark their 'own' FAs as satisfactory as well when kept up-to-date. FemkeMilene (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Re awkward sentence #4 : hope that reads better now without the () and repeated comments on size? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, brilliant :). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Super, happy that you are too. Enjoyed the team work, and again with LittleJerry. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, brilliant :). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Re awkward sentence #4 : hope that reads better now without the () and repeated comments on size? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Do we need verbose explanations of terms when they are linked to existing pages? I don't think so and prefer to be concise. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- While short explanations are always preferable to verbose ones (see Tony1's exercises for removing fluff), linking is a last resort when trying to make articles understandable to an appropriate public, as many people will not be able to easily switch between pages, or be too time-constrained to do so. As this is a topic with a very broad audience, we should not resort to linking if possible. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, why send our readers on a treasure hunt? A short sentence or phrase will make the meaning clear, and if they want more, they can follow a specific link for more detailed information. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 06:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- So instead of linking to obligate carnivore, you prefer ..only eats meat ? Anyway: after reading your comment, I intentionally did not link to nocturnality and crepuscular animal in my recent additions. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- If you intentionally did not link, I do hope your sentences provided an explanation of these terms. Otherwise, you may, unintentionally (or intentionally?) be depriving our readers of knowledge. We don't write for ourselves, we write to educate others, and they may be much younger people, or people from areas with poor quality educational systems. I know we all want to help such people. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 06:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the ideal for jargon is to (pipe) link and 'translate' it to normal English. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Femkemilene, agreed. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 08:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Femkemilene (and other editors): This was promoted to FA, per top of this page, on 11 September 2006. . If articles pass a new review, I think it would be very helpful to note the new review "pass date" at the top of the talkpage, for future reference. This article has progressed, by Jaguar-sized leaps and bounds, since 2006. (We now have 130 refs, vs. 41 refs) Obviously, fourteen years ago, our standards were less exacting. Some of you, who are working so diligently here, may wish to read the original FA version, so you can see the excellent progress that you and others, have made through the years! With sincere respect and thanks to all, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 23:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Re misunderstanding of the term 'peak' in conjunction with activity : nocturnal activity is NOT a peak, but a peak in nocturnal activity occurs around a specific time at night. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure why you commented here, versus starting a new section. In the edit you reverted, I was attempting to give our readers a "hint" concerning unfamiliar terms, so they don't have to go on a wikilink treasure hunt. The sentence read: "Camera trap studies revealed that the jaguar primarily exhibits a crepuscular–nocturnal activity pattern, with peak activity around dawn and dusk, and at night. According to WP, this is the definition of crepuscular (active at dawn and dusk) and nocturnal (active at night). "Peak activity " is a generalized English phrase. They are probably sleeping/resting during other hours, but are most active in other "peak" periods (crepuscular/nocturnal) = "peak activity". We need to convey this information to our readers. However, I shall reword the explanatory phrase. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Apex predator and habitat loss
The sentence Because the jaguar is an apex predator and is not preyed upon in the wild, threats include loss and fragmentation of habitat and poaching ...
is plain WP:SYNTH, as this connection of ecological role as a reason for threats is unsourced and not stated anywhere in the sections. Habitat loss does not only threaten apex predators, but EACH and EVERY organism living in the jaguar's habitat, no matter of its place in the food chain. And being preyed upon is NOT a threat. A threat is always and only human-induced: killing, planting snares, logging forests for conversion of land use. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- BhagyaMani, the original sentence in the lede read
It is threatened by loss and fragmentation of habitat and poaching for trade with its body parts.
My change read:Because the jaguar is an apex predator and is not preyed upon in the wild, threats include loss and fragmentation of habitat and poaching for trade with its body parts.
- I do entirely agree, with your words regarding habitat loss. I merely added the phrase " apex predator " which is contained in the article text and the explanatory phrase " is not preyed upon in the wild as a way to explain the meaning of "apex predator ", and to try to emphasize that human-induced killing, etc., etc., was the main threat. Above, you stated:
"And being preyed upon is NOT a threat."
For any creature, being preyed upon IS a threat!! What the heck are you thinking?? If an animal is a mouse, tapir, capybara, etc., "being preyed upon" is a threat!!! I did not make any sort of commentary about ecological roles, I merely added "apex predator " and a small definition of the term!! I am not responsible for any connection, present in the original lede sentence, to the best of my knowledge. - For the jaguar, "an apex predator", the main threat is a human-induced one, and I absolutely and totally agree!! So, is the jaguar an apex predator?
YES
.Does the definition of an "apex predator " mean that they do not have animals above them, in the wild (whatever type of animal they are), that can normally, on a regular and certain basis, overcome and kill them?YES
. This is the definition of an Apex Predator. Human beings are the ultimate apex predator. We destroy habitat, from microbes up to and including large animals like jaguars. However, if you believe that the jaguar is NOT an apex predator, in the world before humans despoiled the Americas, AND that it is preyed upon in the wild, (by non-human influences and devices) then, by all means remove this erroneous information from this article and hundreds of others. Humans, by their depredations on creatures, from microscopic to large, are the ultimate Apex Predators. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 06:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Again : the jaguar is NOT threatened because it is an apex predator. And re the term 'threat' : read the definition at https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/threat-classification-scheme -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. I think these two things should be separated in the lede Ddum5347 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ah...this excellent, short sentence, explains your objections perfectly! I understand your objections to "Because" and the link provided as a definition of "threat" makes perfect sense! I Will Not repeat my original edit. But please, may we add an explanatory phrase for Apex Predator? And make it clear that the use of "threat" in the lede is not the same meaning that most readers expect and understand? Per your link, this is a specific scientific usage of the word, and probably Will Not be understood most readers.
What if we say Although the jaguar is an apex predator, and is not preyed upon in the wild, it is threatened by the impact of human activity, including the loss and fragmentation of habitat and poaching for trade with its body parts.
This summarizes information in the text, and makes clear, as we both have written about above, with varying degrees of passion, that human agency is what constitutes a "threat". Providing citations in the lede is frowned upon, so we can't include , but this allows us to provide a better explanation. Many people only read the lede, so that's our chance to make our case and provide information. I will make this change and hope it will be acceptable. Thanks so much for your helpful explanations! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 01:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Again : neither
Because ..
norAlthough ..
it is an apex predator, is it threatened!!!! Apex predator is an ecological role, which is NOT a reason for being threatened. Or explained as easy as possible : just do NOT use apex predator in same sentence as threat. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)- Yes, I see now that "because" and now "although " are entirely inaccurate, inappropriate, etc., words....and I am sorry that I didn't understand. But honestly, I suspect that our readers (who are normal everyday people, and not scientific experts) may have the same misunderstanding, by considering apex predator to describe the attributes of the animal vs an "ecological role". Our WP article Apex predator states that an apex predator "...is a predator at the top of a food chain,
without natural predators."
, and this been the point that I have been attempting to make clear in the lede. More on this, later. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I see now that "because" and now "although " are entirely inaccurate, inappropriate, etc., words....and I am sorry that I didn't understand. But honestly, I suspect that our readers (who are normal everyday people, and not scientific experts) may have the same misunderstanding, by considering apex predator to describe the attributes of the animal vs an "ecological role". Our WP article Apex predator states that an apex predator "...is a predator at the top of a food chain,
- Re threats : the words 'human impact' are superfluous; impact is often understood as an effect of an effect, but some threats are direct and immediate : e.g. shooting wildlife or planting snares in forest. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, this makes sense.Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- To illustrate the difference between effect and impact : see this image that shows the effect of deforestation, namely wasteland. The impact of this deforestation is that wildlife can no longer meet its needs – shelter and food resource – in this deforested land, the habitat is lost for wildlife. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, you have done an excellent job of explaining this! Even if you had to share an absolutely dreadful image, in the process. You have the ability to be a good teacher. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Again : neither
Bite force
The sentence The jaguar has an exceptionally powerful bite
is 1. vague, as NO explanation is given re: in comparison to what? 2. erroneous : 5 species have a much stronger bite force at the canine tip, and 25+ species have a much higher bite force quotient than the jaguar. So there is 0 exceptional in the jaguar's biting capability. That this has been part of this section for xx years, is not necessarily a sign of quality. I therefore removed it again and instead : provided some sourced figures in the relevant section about characteristics. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC); amended by BhagyaMani (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- BhagyaMani, So much respect has always been given to FA and GA articles, and that they must remain in stasis, with no corrections. I considered had considered this to be important, and not to be challenged, as a FA. Per your well-reasoned explanation regarding "0 exceptional" , etc., I will withdraw on this point...thanks for explaining. Five months ago, I was bitten by a wild (North American) possum, and I can tell you, it had an extraordinary bite force, relative to it's size! It seemed that similar sized & types of animals should be compared...The ability to bite through a "turtle" carapace seems to be exceptional...oh well! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
When this article was featured as a FA, it had this first image in the infobox :
which is very good, and portrays the jaguar quite well. Another high quality image is
(2nd image), which I actually prefer, from an artistic standpoint, because of the color contrast...but it was not taken in the wild, not sure if that makes a difference. But, I Do Not prefer the (3rd image), which was the current image, before I changed it, as it has way too much background/surrounding area.
_male_Three_Brothers_River_2.jpg)
Plus, I don't think it is a good representation of the jaguar. Sorry if I have made a mess of this talk page, not accustomed to working with multiple images. Let me know your opinions, please! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 08:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
- I prefer the 1st to the 2nd to the third, but funnily the resolution of the picture goes the other way. I agree with switching it back Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Femkemilene:, thanks for your opinion. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- The third image is a featured image. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- LittleJerry, it is a lovely image! But the jaguar's body (excluding the crook of the tail) is only 28.6% or so of the image. If we could crop the extraneous bits, including the white foreground, and "fuzz out" the grassy bits...still, it is not as much of a close-up photo as image #1. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Number 3 is a pretty demonstration of disruptive coloration, but that does not make it a great box image - the jaguar is a fair bit harder to make out than in the other two. I would prefer number 1, for being bold and high contrast. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Elmidae, agreed, a good illustration of "camouflage", as you point out. Requiring the reader to hunt for the jaguar in the infobox image doesn't serve our purpose, IMO. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- All three are good images, but the first two illustrate the features of the jaguar better and are more suitable for an infobox image. I prefer the first as you get more jaguar for your pixel space. So for the infobox image 1 > 2 > 3. — Jts1882 | talk 07:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- What about image 4? Its closeup and is a featured image. LittleJerry (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- I prefer image 1. As it shows the rosette pattern much clearer than all the others : how about moving this as the first in section Characteristics? And then the featured img 4 into taxobox? We can move the img of black jaguar into subsection on color variant. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- I still prefer image 1 as the lead image. I work on a @6 x 9 iPad, so by size, etc., image #1 is clearer and shows the rosettes, large on body, smaller towards the head...easy to see. Still, I like image #4, and hope it can be included in the article. The gaping jaws are good, almost as good as the Hunting and diet "powerful bite" image. The problem with image #4 is the background colors, which are rather grayed out, in a small image and don't provide the color value contrast, as seen in #1. When the images measure @ 4 x 3 cm, as on an iPad (and smaller, I suppose, on a phone) it makes a difference. I don't know if this is a important consideration. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- I, personally, prefer the first image as it shows the whole of the jaguar the best: head, fur, and build. The fourth image is nice, but doesn't show the build of the body as well. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- SilverTiger12, (Joke alert) Ah yes, if only Jaguar #4 would pose properly! "Please turn your head all the way to your left...chin up!...big smile!!" Click! "Now, stand up, same pose." Click! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 23:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also good. Still slight preference for 1 - it nicely shows the "chunky" build of the species (as compared to leopards). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Elmidae, also, if we were to choose a reclining photo as the lead image, which I don't recommend, I would prefer #2, which illustrates the rosette size progression more clearly. As you note, a standing photo portrays the characteristic "chunky" body shape to better effect. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 23:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Under the Hunting and diet section, second paragraph, last sentence, we have: "However, this is disputed as even in areas were [sic] jaguars prey on reptiles, they are taken relatively infrequently in comparison to their abundance and mammals still dominate the cat's diet. (I corrected this minor spelling error.)
But the source (Abstract) states: "Reptile consumption is restricted to areas of high reptile abundance while dangerous or armoured prey is consistently preyed upon throughout the jaguar’s distribution, and selected even when their abundance is low.
It seems to me that our text contradicts the source. The abstract suggests that jaguars have a "consistent" preference (amongst reptiles) for "dangerous or armored prey", even "when abundance is low". Perhaps our WP text intended to state that jaguars prey on reptiles "relatively frequently in comparison to their abundance"?? Am I misunderstanding the comparison between reptiles in general, versus "dangerous or armoured prey"? It seems logical that jaguars would depend on mammals as their primary food source, but perhaps the other portion of the sentence needs rewording. Asking for enlightenment from more knowledgeable editors, who may have access to the scientific article. Many thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- The "dangerous and amoured prey" are not reptiles. The full paper is here, look at pages 6-7. The abstract even states that "This questions the validity of the saurophagy [reptile eating] hypothesis". LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for providing access to the paper! In terms of the non-reptilian armored prey, this would be armadillos? On page six: Saurophagy vs dangerous/armoured prey hypothesis...."Our analyses showed xenarthrans and peccaries to be the most common prey in the majority of the studies, while reptiles made a marginal contribution to the prey species data."
- Our article doesn't mention armadillos, (see page six) only giant anteaters, amongst the Xenarthrans. Should we mention armadillos, per page six?
- Also, on pages two and three, it is made clear that both peccaries and giant anteaters are "dangerous prey", so that is very helpful. Thanks again, for answering my question and providing access to this source. Best, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Ddum5347, in the lede of the article, near threatened wikilinks to "near-threatened species". It appears that the ICUN uses this as a particular and specific term....and both "Near" and "Threatened" are capitalized in their system. Have a look at the infobox with the frog...you will see that they capitalize Near Threatened, Critically Endangered, Least Concern, etc. So, it seems that this is a specific term, presented in a specific way. I did not intend to revert you in the first place, my edit was caught up in an "edit conflict", I apologize! (I type very slowly because I can only use my thumbs, so the edit window is "open" for several minutes.) Let us see what others have to say about the convention of stating ICUN terminology, here on WP. Here is the ICUN website. Best, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm. It's a bit inconsistent, since this is capitalised but endangered and the lower categories aren't. Ddum5347 (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ddum5347, Conservation Dependent and Least Concern are capitalized... Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- I fully agree to using capital letters for all IUCN categories in prose, so that this spelling is consistent with spelling in taxobox. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Here we have this sentence: "The Paseo del Jaguar project (Path of the Jaguar) has been established to connect several jaguar hotspots." Would someone who has access to the source define "hotspots" in a more encyclopedic manner? Thanks. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 06:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Meanwhile I read 3 articles about corridors, but did not find any mention therein about Paseo del Jaguar or Path of the Jaguar. Perhaps this is a local initiative in only one range country? Therefore, I removed this paragraph entirely and instead referenced the apparently first article about corridors between JCUs. I think that defining the term 'hotspot' is not important, but much more so the purpose of corridors. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- BhagyaMani, thanks for your work here. The undefined "hotspots" were much less useful than wildlife corridors. This sentence:
These corridors represent areas with the shortest distance between jaguar breeding populations, require the least possible energy input of dispersing individuals and pose a low mortality risk.
will make perfect sense to your scientific mind, but not so much to readers. It doesn't define the purpose of the corridors to non-scientists. The wikilink of "dispersing" leads to Biological dispersal which is a generalized article. Please add some specific information... gene pool, at a minimum, to define the purposes of the corridors for our average readers who unaware of scientific jargon/shorthand and cannot immediately make the connections. Thanks so much! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC) - BhagyMani I am asking that we make clear, to our readers, the specific manner in which the corridors benefit the jaguars. That's the purpose of corridors, and I am sure you can do an excellent job of explaining the specific benefits of corridors to this species. If you are too busy, I will try to do so...Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 23:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- BhagyaMani, thanks for your work here. The undefined "hotspots" were much less useful than wildlife corridors. This sentence:
_male_Three_Brothers_River_(cropped).JPG)
_male_Three_Brothers_River_5.jpg)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
