Review
(criteria) |
 Info This is the Concolor-Variation for Lacerta agilis agilis, taken in Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. There are not many photographs for this variation available for germany. -- Christoph (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scope changed from Lacerta agilis to Color Variations of Lacerta agilis --Christoph (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
 Oppose- Oppose I agree. I do not know how to promote this variation without also promoting other. SET A well chosen would be the solution.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This scope is too narrow. Yann (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scope changed from Color Variations of Lacerta agilis to Concolor-Variation / Mutation of Lacerta agilis --Christoph (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
 Comment Scope changed to "CONCOLOR-VARIATION / MUTATION" - Better so? --Christoph (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As Yann pointed, this scope is very narrow. However, if references about this color variation existed, I think it would still be a suitable scope. In other words, I think that if there were enough references to make an article about the subject in any Wikipedia, the subject could be chosen as a good scope.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For Europe there are only a few seeings of this color-variation are made - so photos of this concolor-variation in special there photos are very rare. Other variations have been seen more frequently and photographed.
- For a set, would require first photos of other variations, but this is not the case - at least I've seen here on commons and not in the wiki, no integrated seen. And myself have other variations are unfortunately not yet met also. --Christoph (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My question is: are this variation (an other variations) discussed and named by specialist, in books, scholar journals, and so? For example, color variations in horses have been widely studied by scientist, but in most species they haven't. IMO, if such references are provided, this would override the "narrow scope" concern raised by Yann.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Commentjes, it is. I have had discussions about this picture with several herpetologists. One is from our National Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, the other have written a book about lacerta agilis (BLANKE , Laurenti ISBN: 978-3933066435. Fr. Blanke was the first person who gave the hint, that this is one of the rare pictures of concolor variations in germany - and maybe it's the first picture of an exemplar for Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Here is a part from our discussion translated by google: You uploaded the color version is in German literature since 1988, described the latest and proven since the late 90s in Germany. Look for it on Glandt & Bischoff or Blanke (all in the source) - then you find the right solution. It is even simpler here (neither erythronotus still normal, but c .....). Your image would be also the first known proof to me this color version for B.-W. And here is a part from an pdf file also translated by google: Nearly drawing loose sand lizards, including the eye-spots of the body missing pages, called "concolor" mutants. After Bischoff (1984), the body of these animals "monochrome gray-brown and may be a few, have very small dark spots. The males will later solid green. "Staining less pattern lizards in Lower Saxony, however, is rather rotbis medium brown, sometimes with them, some white spots occur (Fig. 4). Link to this pdf: [[1]]... --Christoph (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Since the concolor mutante color-variant of Lacerta agilis is a subject discussed by specialized scholar references, and its notability would even qualify for a Wikipedia article or article section, the name of this scope "defines a generic field or category that someone might realistically be looking for an image to illustrate" (quoted from Commons:Valued_image_scope#Not_too_narrow...), and thus it's broad enough to be a reasonable scope, although very specialized.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose I continue to believe that SET would be more useful for the ilustrer Scope. But anyway the animal is not seen in its entirety
and Lacerta agilis qtl5.jpg is better. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a set would really be the best solution for a refference to all color-variations of lacerta agilis - but as far as i know there are no images available on common to do this. i also changed the scope, mentioned above to CONCOLOR VARIATION / MUTATION. The Picture Lacerta agilis qtl5.jpg is better, but it shows "only" the normal colors of the lizard. --Christoph (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Cristoph that the image File:Lacerta agilis qtl5.jpg falls out of scope, unless the affirmation that it doesn't show the same color-variation were challenged. It looks very different to me, but I'm not an expert in such animals.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Are there important features of this color-variation in the parts of the animal not shown in the photo? For me, "important" here would roughly mean "useful to tell apart this color-variation from similar color-variations". If there are such features not shown in the photo, then Archaedontosaurius would be right about this image not describing the subject enough.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentEvery male of lacerta agilis is green with a brown dorsal. If you look at the picture Archaedontosaurius mentioned, this lacerta has a lot of black dots over the whole body. There is another colorvariation named Erythronotus - on this variation, the black dots are only missing on the brown dorsal part - but the rest of the body have it - The Variation of the concolor mutation is, that the typical black and white dots are missing - and i think, the photo can show this. So the really important part of the body, the green side where normaly the dots are, is visible here.
- One thing more: If i have had some more pictures of other color-variations, i would like to post them as a Set. But - as far as I said - this colorvariation is one really rare one - and the first here on commons. There is only one other of the erythronotus. But this is not my own - and for a set, other variations are missing completly. --Christoph (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Too bad you do not start explains the differences as well. I understood. A set, even if incomplete, would be useful. VI labels are not fixed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All right, can i delte this noination? Then i will try to create a SET for the whole color-variations of lacerta agilis. Should there be a normal colored animal included then? --Christoph (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Simply put Withdarwn in status. Yes it takes a normal form, and forms that you deem fit to include. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Oppose by Yann include in final result by rules. -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
, www.lacerta.de Gallery
