File talk:Panthera leo atrox Sergiodlarosa.jpg

Image description page history

link	date/time	username	edit summary
[1]	19:30, 16 May 2009	User:Kevmin
[2]	15:31, 28 April 2009	User:Bassem	<a href="/wiki/File:Atrox.jpg#Summary" title="File:Atrox.jpg">→</a>Summary
[3]	17:51, 23 March 2009	User:Kevmin
[4]	16:45, 15 March 2009	User:Bassem
[5]	17:08, 28 November 2008	User:Abujoy	cat
[6]	18:06, 22 November 2008	User:Sergiodlarosa	add categories for my image
[7]	05:50, 3 November 2008	User:Väsk	Removed category "Extint animals"; Quick-adding category "Extinct animals" (using <a href="/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js" title="MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js">HotCat.js</a>)
[8]	02:47, 29 October 2008	User:Sergiodlarosa	correct category
[9]	02:45, 29 October 2008	User:Sergiodlarosa	file complement
[10]	02:39, 29 October 2008	User:Sergiodlarosa	{{Information |Description={{es|1=Reconstrucción gráfica del león americano basado en estructura ósea y textos paleontológicos}} {{es|1=Reconstrucción gráfica del león americano basado en estructura ósea y textos paleontológicos}} |Source=trabaj

Right cat, wrong colour

Hello, this cat looked like a lion, but it was specifically red and not yellow. ~ R.T.G 09:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Err, how do you know the colour of a prehistoric cat? FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article, en:American lion, "About 80 American lion individuals have been recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, so their morphology is well known.[19] Their features strongly resemble those of modern lions, but they were considerably larger, and are believed to have been the largest species of lion.

Preserved skin remains found with skeletal material thought to be from the American lion in caves in the Argentine Patagonia indicate that the animal was reddish in color. Cave paintings from El Ceibo in the Santa Cruz Province of Argentina seem to confirm this, and reduce the possibility of confusion with fossil jaguars, as similar cave paintings accurately depict the jaguar as yellow in color.[20][21]" Attributed to [11].

From sciencedirect.com [12] ... a thoroughly referenced study of knowledge on the American lion says in part:-

"Roth (1904) described in detail a piece of skin adhered to the face and to the forelimb, as well as an isolated patch of leather. The skin of the face indicates a reddish brown tone (rufous), a color that constituted the background of available skin patches from the limbs and body (Fig. 8). Additionally, based on these remains, Roth (1904) indicates that the species probably exhibited dark and some yellowish color stripes, at least in the forelimbs."

"In the same line of evidence, Cardich, 1979, Cardich, 1987 reported the illustration of a jaguar-like felid from the El Ceibo site, Santa Cruz province, Argentina. This author found among a large number of guanaco silhouettes and human hand representations, a very large feline illustration. This representation is very large (1.5 meters long) when compared to those of other animals found in the same site, suggesting that this taxon had some impressive aspect for the native people (Cardich, 1979). The coloration of the drawing includes a reddish background, with some black spots, and the forearm is slightly lighter than the rest of the body. This coloration is totally concordant with the small skins samples found in the “Cueva del Milodón”, and very probably pertain to the same taxon (Borrero, 2001, Cardich, 1979).

In sum, the patchy evidence here reported may allow us to recognize main coloration patterns for P. atrox. This felid was externally jaguar-like, with the body covered by black spots, but differed in having a deep reddish background and yellowish striped forelimbs."

@FunkMonk: There's not a whole lot of publications specifying the skin colour, and most stuff you can search for "American lion" refers to the cougar and the puma, but what little we have is quite clear isn't it. Definitely requires a colour change, this and another image where I also left a message. Could perhaps do with a second version with a big mane, but I haven't looked so deeply into that. Interesting stuff. ~ R.T.G 08:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

See the file history from the above section... all those files are now deleted. It could be that this thing was reddish to begin with. I must see if they can still be undeleted or at least looked at by an admin. ~ R.T.G 08:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have permissions to see deleted content at File:Atrox.jpg, however, do you have a source that gives the precise colour grade? If not, it is difficult to argue that the current colour is "wrong." The current image shows red fur (though on one end of the colour spectrum for red; in a human you might call it "strawberry blonde") were you perhaps expecting something closer to vermillion? Regardless of whether you think the image is coloured wrong, it should remain as the creator made it. If you use the image on Wikipedia or another site, you could always label it there as having the "wrong" colour. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: the word "rufous" is very particular. Also, strawberries are red. Strawberry blonde is not. I didn't expect anything. I was somewhat surprised at the description, however, now that I've been looking into it, these sorts of cats do come in many colours. The African lion itself does often display very dark fur in its mane. Further, according to this article[13], the American lions bite was twice as powerful as the African lion. This image does not appear to reflect that either, having the exact facial appearance of a female African lion. I'd rather see it improved than rejected. There are two images in this category. The other version is in widespread use across Wikipedia sites. It is almost white in colour, not reddish brown and black with some yellow stripes. ~ R.T.G 10:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Here below is an infobox from the Wikipedia article on the word "rufous". Also, the main image from the Wikiedpia article en:red hair. ~ R.T.G 10:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Pipe linked from "strawberry blonde" as "reddish". It's clear.

Rufous
Colour coordinates
Hex triplet	#A81C07
Source	[Unsourced]

You are using Wikipedia as the basis for a lot of your statements here, which weakens any argument due to the ability of anyone to edit the content. Statements should rely on the reliable sources that Wikipedia uses. In any case, this is a moot point. The image is claimed as a creation of the original uploader and should remain. However, the licence allows derivatives, so you or someone else can recolour it and upload a new file under a different name. Which file is used is up to the individual projects. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, only a minority believe this species even lived in South America, so correlating it with cave paintings and skin from there is dubious at best. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The cave paintings correlate it because the paintings show two cats. One brown and one yellow. The fossil record shows two cats, one extant living yellow coloured one (jaguar), and one found preserved in tar sands (or some oil deposit type), and its skin is as described. Brown with a reddish tone and black and yellow highlights. Not strawberry blonde, or anything you can imagine. The word is commonplace in taxonomy. All the animals it refers to are rust coloured, which is what the word means. If you want better, I want you to select and right click this word "rufous", search for it, hit the image tab, see that your arguments are invalid. If you want sources, they are already here, so do not contribute any further dispute without referring to them and providing contrary ones. This is a minor and understandable mistake. It's just a colour error. Both reconstructions of the lion have convincing attempts to add spots and stripes and such. There's no point in making me repeat myself about it. Refer to the sources. ~ R.T.G 20:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You are getting caught up in arguing a specific colour tone based on a word; unless the source provides the tone alongside the word usage, this will always be down to artist's impression. However, as I said, this is a moot point; see Commons:Overwriting existing files. Recolouring an image is not a minor improvement, so replacement of the existing file is not a valid option and will be reverted. Instead, you are allowed to create a new derivative of the existing file, recolour it and upload it under a new name. You can then have the discussion about which version is appropriate at the Wikipedia or other project where you want to use it. It is not for Commons to dictate which version of a file is "correct." From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You are simply being contrary. Maybe it should be uploaded under a different name if it can be shown that the massively more powerful bite should be represented by a noticeably stronger jaw than the African lion, but I have not significant information on that at this time. To be honest, I have been starting to agree with the separate file as I look more at it and realise that it actually seems to suggest a particularly dark and contrasting tone scheme, but it is certainly, obviously, undeniably (but understandably) incorrect in the colour if it is this light yellow. Even the American cougar is much darker than this. Even African lions are often much darker than this. There is no point in arguing about that part. The descriptions are far more clear than a simple word. They are complete descriptions with spots and stripes and brown and red and yellow... And this image, and the other one in the leo atrox category seem to be based on those descriptions, except mistaken, or in disbelief as you are, about the actual colour. The descriptions are since over 100 years. It's a very minor error, much as the effect is significant. It is surprising to me as well. Isn't that why I am so interested in seeing it corrected. ~ R.T.G 22:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sergiodlarosa: , I can see you haven't edited for two years, but I'd like to ping you and see if we can get your opinion. Puedo ver que no has editado en dos años, pero me gustaría hacerte un ping y ver si podemos obtener tu opinión. ~ R.T.G 22:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify my point, as you are calling me "contrary," I am not in belief or disbelief over a colour. I don't care whether you make a picture of this animal yellow, red or with purple polka dots. My point is solely to preserve the original image created and released on Commons, from which the licence for use originates. Recolouring an image "from yellow to rufous" is a major change and requires the new file to be uploaded separately. That is my sole point here. Which colour is the correct colour is a separate issue that you can discuss with the subject experts at the appropriate project. If you have accepted that uploading your derivative work as a new file with a new copyright licence is the best way to proceed, then from my perspective, this situation is resolved. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

What you have argued from the outset is, basically, that I am imagining things about the colour inaccuracy. You said, why not label it "wrong" instead of changing it. You said there was no point discussing anything as I used the colours Wikipedia gives as an example. You suggested that the sources are relying on fringe theories. You said, maybe I am expecting something wrong, like vermillion. You said the choice of image is out of my hands. You said this image is red only that I cannot see it. You said a source description cannot be followed unless it provides a swatch of the colour. You said a word describing a colour should be considered irrelevant when determining what that colour looks like. You've said any edit will be reverted. You are out of your way to be contrary. I've argued your every point about the colour and you close by eluding the discussion. If you want to dispute alteration to the image, maybe you should, but your arguments about the colours are simply contrariness. This image is definitely not a reddish brown. ~ R.T.G 00:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

←You are putting words in my mouth and attributing thoughts to me that don't exist. In my first comment I suggested that you create a derivative work as a new file with the colouring you wanted, though I questioned whether your description at that point of "red" didn't apply to the existing file (which is on one end of the red colour spectrum). In my second comment I pointed out that you were trying to "prove" your point on colour with a lot of references to Wikipedia articles (which I noted from an academic standpoint is never a strong argument within Wikimedia - we can't use ourselves as our own source). I advised you that the colour argument was a moot point and suggested again that you could upload your new coloured work as a separate file. In my third comment I tried once more to point out to you that you were wasting a lot of effort trying to argue a point on colour, which I reiterated was a moot point (you are putting a lot of effort into trying to "prove" the colour of this artistic work is inaccurate, which doesn't matter. I could make a similar argument for recolouring images of the statue of liberty a copper red as that was its original colour, but would that be a reasonable way to treat an artistic work? I don't think you are imagining things and have never said so; I just think you should be making a new artistic work in the colour of your choice). In my fourth point, after you started making personal comments about my actions, I was very precise in stating the extent of my views as you appear to misinterpret what I have been saying. I have no interest in being "contrary" and I have no interest in "arguing"; I am solely interested in preserving the copyrighted artistic work with its licence that allows you to create the derivative work in the colour of your choice. To recolour the existing file and overwrite it could be argued as destroying the original licence terms of atributing the original creation, which in turn makes your derivative a copyright violation. Just upload the new derivative file at a separate location and all is resolved.
Now, I would advise you to take a break from this discussion for a few hours and then read what I have said again. I hope that you will be able to see that I have been consistent in my points throughout and that you will be satisfied with the advice I have given from my first comment; upload your change as a new file. That is all I have asked of you since my second comment. There is no need to drag this out any further. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, pal, I'm not interested in this. I've replied to you at length. You have no opinion or interest in this thing. You are the one making things up. I'll reference everything I am saying, both about the colours, and about what you are saying. This file is on the red colour spectrum? Personal comments? Go away. ~ R.T.G 08:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)