Talk:Frilled lizard

message: no it is not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.106.167 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the frilled lizard really venomus?

message: Could some images of Juveniles be included?143.216.49.250 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Juveniles

message: I own a frillie and i am big fan of them its mouth is pale pink not brigh or yellow. he doesnt have and red or orange scales on his frill. there are two diffrent types of frilled dragons. cant rember them at the mo (im at work) but i think this article could do with more work. also would be nice to see some info about them as pets as they are becoming popular with reptile keepers. would do it my self but i have never done a big edit on here. any questions feel free to ask.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me lewie (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: hhhmmm

message: National Geographic Frilled lizard wallpaper Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Frilled lizard wallpaper

message: AP team - please complete the edit summary when making changes to the article or leaving comments on the talk page - this will allow others to monitor the progress and more effectively assist where necessary! In fact, as a group project, it is essential so that your team may monitor each others contributions. See me in class if you need assistance with this task. JimmyButler (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Summary

message: * The frill of the Australian frilled dragon is used to scare off potential predators — as well as hissing and lunging. the frill hisses?
* Why two legs - is it better suited for climbing - is it faster to be bi-pedal? What is the adaptive advantage of such a strategy?
* The descriptive section is very limited. It should be a verbal explanation of its appearance. Not only how big it is; but, color (color variations) proportions (tail to body), etc... examine some other lizard articles (good ones) to ascertain the level of detail.
* In the habitat section you begin with the scientific name - perhaps consistency in the use of common vs. scientific would reduce confusion. Is not italics required for Genus species? Also it is the Frilled neck lizard in some sections and just frilled lizard in others.
* aforementioned ---- vocabulary over-kill - I use the general rule if I would not use the term in conversational English - then I'm reluctant to use it in Wikipedia.
* However, the trees are most importantly used for camouflage. I suggest - the trees are used for concealment while there is something (yet to be determined) that makes the lizard camouflaged.
*One of the most intriguing facts noted by scientists. I suggest a more sterile approach -unless the use of intriguing denotes a wide-spread scientific perspective.
*Being a reptile, the frill-necked lizard is, 'of course', ectothermic, Of course any reader not knowing this is clearly a moron?
* Make GA so I don't have to do this for a grade. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: I personally believe that this section is irrelevant and degregates the quality of the article, i have tried to remove it but it is continually replaced. Can anyone provide me with reasons why it shoud remain????Deoxyribonucleicowen (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: In culture

message: Hi, I'm reviewing this article. My initial impression is that it needs much cleanup. I'll see what I can do to help. Triplestop x3 04:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: These sources appear to be less than reliable. They are by a single person with no editorial oversight; is there any evidence that these are reputable enough to be used? Are there any other better ones that can be used in their place?
*"Frill-Necked Lizard". http://reptilis.net/lacertilia/agamidae/Chlamydosaurus.php. Retrieved 2009-11-19.
*Bradtke, Birgit. "The Australian Frilled Lizard". http://www.outback-australia-travel-secrets.com/frilled_lizard.html. Retrieved 2009-11-17.
*Shuttleworth, Brett. "Frilled Neck Lizards". http://www.freewebs.com/reptilesandarachnids/frillednecklizards.htm. Retrieved 2009-11-19.
I'm concerned with this one because it is a commercial site:
*^ a b c d "Frilled Lizard (captive bred)" (PDF). PETCO Animal Supplies. 2005. http://www.petco.com/caresheets/lizards/Lizard_Frilled.pdf. Retrieved 2009-12-09.
Triplestop (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability of sources

message: The lead section seems to contain unnecessary details; the lead should be just an overview. The details in the lead should be incoporated into a seperate section on its anatomy if possible. Triplestop (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: The pet ownership section contains unnecessary details in violation of NOTHOWTO. Simple statistics like life span are fine however unnecessary details like the size of the tank are not. If possible, talk about its desirability or popularity as a pet and reword some of the existing info to be more encyclopedic. (see this example). Triplestop (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NOTHOWTO

message: It should be named "Frill-necked lizard" (lowercase L) in accordance with naming policy. Your thoughts? Jalwikip (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded Strombollii (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but I don't think anything should be moved until this one is cleaned up first.  Seems like packing up garbage to throw out when you move to a new house.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: article name

message: Concerns
* This article would have benefited from a taxonomy/evolution section describing the basis for its classification and relationship to other lizards. The absence of content in a RESEARCH paper carries a heavy penalty.
* This article would have benefited from conservation status section describing current threats and human introduced pressures. What is it current status? Is the species in nature experiencing threats from habit destruction - over collection for the pet trade - etc.?
* See edit history for my quick copy/edit - addressing complex sentence structure and verbose dialog. Still in need of a thorough copy/edit - which would have been done for you if there had been evidence of sincere efforts to respond to GA concerns.
* Grossly under cited - I've added a few citation needed tags; however, there are complete section without any referencing. Wikipedia's credibility depends on verification. This is not an option for most of the claims in this article.
* The lizard is a member of the agamid family. It a relatively large lizard, growing up to 91.4 cm. The lizard is also capable of [bipedal locomotion. From classification - to size - to method of locomotion. This sequence in the Description Section,  illustrates an overall problem of this article; the lack of connectivity.  Organization of content and transitions between themes is in desperate need of improvement.
* It is capable of bipedal locomotion. Statements of facts without explanation. When does it go into a bipedal mode? Why does it do this? How is it beneficial? Expansion on these tid-bits reflects the level of research I had expected.
* 91.4 cm - interesting twist - usually it is a failure to include the metric - here you've chosen to befuddle the Americas. There are standard Wikipedia formats for displaying numerical data.
* The frill-necked lizard does not have a standard colour - surely there must be a range - something to eliminate pink and purple?
* Speaking of range - where is the distribution map. The shell group and the turtle group at the least put something together.
* variations of colour among the species has lead some scientists to hypothesise more than one species This badly needs a reference. Speciation based merely on color? Do they use color in mate selection - with so many variations - this seems unlikely. Another example of a significant factoid - without a follow-up explanation.
* Color is environmentally dependent. Do they adjust their color as in Chameleons or has natural selection lead to variations is specific populations. a reader may over-interpret and assume the first.
* is found solely in northern  Australia and southern New Guinea. vs. The frill-necked lizard is found mainly in the northern regions of Australia and southern New Guinea. Conflict of information is unacceptable.
* You used one source in the Description Section "Animal Diversity Web". NONE of the information in this section can be located on that site. Failure to cite is only slightly less an offense than mis- attribution of sources. There is no way to determine if any on the information in the Description Section is credible. Utterly and Total unacceptable.
* Your reference states this: They eat insects and spiders, and very occasionally feed on mammals and small lizards. Termites and ants are the bulk of their diet. Which you translated into this: Like many lizards, frill-necked lizards are insectivorous, feeding on cicadas, beetle, ants, and termites. Your source does not support the cicadas and beetles, nor does it substantiate your claim they are insectivores. In  fact one of your source states: Australian Frilled Lizards are carnivorous...
* Diet is addressed in different areas of your article, without consistently stating the same food sources. Ex. mainly of small arthropods] and vertebrates Here you state vertebrates are a main part of their diet. I suspect you intended the small to refer to the vertebrate part; assuming a big beetle is also a food option?
* Bradtke in the ref section is a bad link. Considering your already limited efforts at citations and the inability to verify the facts enclosed - the one chance I have to see if this is manufactured takes me to a dead end?
* Burke's Backyard,  reference selected in the thermoregulation section is marginal at best. It certainly is not peer reviewed and I am doubtful it would meet the criteria for GA under well-researched!
* This dimorphism is apparent in the length of the lizard; the male is generally larger than the female. Body mass and length are not interchangable. The males average ? cm in length with the females average ? cm's. Lack of specifics - general statements that remain open ended reflects a lack of serious research. Perhaps this: Frilled Lizards are sexually dimorphic with adult males reaching a snout vent length (SVL) of 290 mm, and a mass of at least 870 g. Females are much smaller, reaching a SVL of 235 mm and a mass of 400g.
* Their long, strong tail can measure up to 65cm alone. They can weigh up to 500g. The diameter of the frill is 20-25cm, about the size of a small dinner plate! Did you know these things? Information from one of your sources that would have served the description section well - yet you opted not to include it. Their overall weight, the size of the frill. Good stuff.
* Obviously you did not reach a point in the development of this article to address citation formatting. However, the use of a reference section - which is not actually referencing anything specific in the article combined with a separate footnote section is not my idea of GA ready.
* Under external links. To be included in this section - there must be significant information in addition to what is presented here. One of these is on exotic pets is more ads than information.
* Perhaps my biggest concern is the lack of research. There is no shortage of information on this topic. Your reference selection in no way represents a cross-section of experts in the field. Not to mention it is far from comprehensive. A total of nine once you eliminate redundancy.
Assets
The images are very striking. Hopefully they conform to Copyrght policies.
Suggestions for Improvement
Since most of the information cannot be verified or the references are less than credible it might be best to revert back to the original stub. I will leave that up to the Reptile Gurus; who are no doubt perplexed by what is happening here. You are fortunate that they have shown patience; unlike the low tolerance level of the shell people.
In closing
I will refrain from a grade until you have had an opportunity to defend any concerns raised above. Others within the community are welcome to either defend your efforts or add to the list of criticisms (separate section please). This review was done in a rush - having extended the opportunity for improvement to the last minute. Based on the edit history - the additional time was not necessary. I move on to the Scotch Bonnet Shell --JimmyButler (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: General Evaluation Section

message: I still have very little idea how to properly use and write wikipedia and its articles within. I do agree with your executive decision to not use groups again. That did not work in my favor in any way.
The reasons for our short reference list are valid, however, every reference found was unrelable, repetative, or sited our main source as its basis. Despite the horrid accident that was my group, my article, and my effort put forth I thank you for the opportunity to try something new as a school assignment. And I will not forsake this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deoxyribonucleicowen (talk • contribs) 14:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: I'm sure one could find sources to support either version, but it would be nice to be consistent throughout the article. The title of the article uses "Frill-necked", but the first sentence and infobox use "Frilled-neck". Zagalejo^^^ 18:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, never seen or read "Frilled-neck lizard"....but sometimes see "Frilled lizard" - yes be good to get more input on this....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Indeed, looks like gov't likes Frilled lizard.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Frilled lizard" seems like a nice alternative, though I don't have much experience with zoology naming conventions on Wikipedia. Maybe I'll start an RFC. (I hope I remember how to do that!) Thanks for the reply. Zagalejo^^^ 02:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frill-necked lizard or Frilled-neck lizard? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chlamydosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927162337/http://www.army.gov.au/norforce/Unit_History.asp to http://www.army.gov.au/norforce/Unit_History.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110411003508/http://www.csiro.au/promos/ozadvances/Series8Lizard.html to http://www.csiro.au/promos/ozadvances/Series8Lizard.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chlamydosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091030002024/http://www.arazpa.org.au/Frilled-Lizard/default.aspx to http://www.arazpa.org.au/Frilled-Lizard/default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , I purchased this book you can also download this book. Made you can get a hold of his book?
Papers we can use:
*Function and evolution of the frill of the frillneck lizard, Chlamydosaurus kingii (Sauria: Agamidae)
*Ecology of Frillneck Lizards, Chlamydosaurus-Kingii (Agamidae), in Tropical Australia
*Diet and habitat use of frillneck lizards in a seasonal environment
*Physiological ecology of frillneck lizards in a seasonal tropical environment
*Elastic instability during branchial ectoderm development causes folding of the Chlamydosaurus erectile frill
*Phylogeographic structure across one of the largest intact tropical savannahs: Molecular and morphological analysis of Australia’s iconic frilled lizard Chlamydosaurus kingii
I tentatively suggest that you write, Taxonomy, Distribution/Habitat and Conservation. I'll do Description, Behavior/Reproduction and Culture. LittleJerry (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  finding it hard to summon any enthusiasm but I am starting to look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Casliber give it a try. If you can't, I don't mind doing it by myself. LittleJerry (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards FA 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Chlamydosaurus →  per WP:COMMONNAME. LittleJerry (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  2,680,000 google results for frilled lizard, 212,000 results for frill-necked lizard. LittleJerry (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to enclose search terms in quotes (when a name consists of multiple words). With quotes, I get 216,000 reported results for "frilled lizard", 81,900 for "frill-necked lizard" and 98,600 for "frilled-neck lizard". There are problems with search engine tests, but at the very least, the searches need to be properly constructed. Plantdrew (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: Google search tests imply that "frilled lizard" is the most common of the common names. But the opponents contend that there are too many common names to pick just one. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 October 2022 

message: This is a great article and was a pleasure to read!  I would like to give it a GA review but life has been insane lately and I wouldn't want to take it on and then leave you hanging. But I'll leave a few minor comments in case they are helpful.
* I noticed that the article switches from singular to plural throughout, it / they. I think I would suggest switching everything to singular since the article mostly starts out that way, unless you know something I don't about the style recommendations for species articles.
* The last section, human interactions, is mostly a brief list of examples of it appearing in media and culture. I was expecting to find an explanation of the ways that it has interacted with humans, like a more in-depth explanation of it's use as pets and food for example. It seems like the article claims that the creature is pretty important in culture, but then only lists a few examples of it showing up like in a 1994 film, which seems a little contradictory. But aren't pop culture mentions sections kind of discouraged? I feel like the article might be stronger without those few examples. Like it's a little odd to read that it is an important icon of Australia alongside the kangaroo and koala, and also it appeared in this Mitsubishi commercial at some point in Japan. Does that make sense what I'm saying? 
I think I have a couple more comments to follow but I forgot them now so I'm going to go look back at the article and see if I can remember. Overall really excellent work! delldot ∇. 05:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal PR 

message: @LittleJerry: Why'd you remove some of the examples in media? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 00:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  In culture 

message: Greetings from Finland!
Why tou Anglish-masters use so much pressure with strange logic? Citations from above:
* 1) "It should be named "Frill-necked lizard" (lowercase L) in accordance with naming policy." (2009)
+ 2) "There is consensus to use the scientific name." (2015)
* 3) "I'm 55 and I've never known it as "frilled lizard". It's always been "frill-necked lizard" or "frilled-necked lizard" everywhere in Australia that I've been."
* 4) "I'm 75 and have always called them frillneck, or frill-neck lizards, as do all of the published authorities listed at at CSIRO Publishing / Australian Journal of Zoology"
* 5) "if a consensus on which common name can't be reached, the scientific name can be used."
* 6) "I think this case is a good demonstration of why the scientific name would be better in many cases."
* 7) "over 40 years ago, "frill-necked lizard" was a common name, but "frilled lizard" is clearly most common name" (2022) - Yeah, clearly common in a little town in Alabama but not in Australia.
* 8) "Google search tests imply that "frilled lizard" is the most common of the common names." – Advertisements are inferior to Ngram and Ludwig (linguistic search engine).
* 9) "Support per COMMONNAME. This is obviously much more used than any of the other names." – Strange logic again. Why?
*10) "Support. Ngrams demonstrate that "frilled lizard" is the COMMONNAME." – They support opposite. Was this discussion scientific? And can you give proof of that?
In the above closed discussion "Requested move 26 October 2022", the last commenter had incorrectly used Ngram to influence the opinions of others. The search was for frilled lizard, frilled-necked lizard, frilled-necked lizard,Chlamydosaurus, which I denote by the letters A-D. So, B and C gave zero results, although they are both more than 50 times more common than A frilled lizard. The relative proportions in 2019 in the literature are A 2657, B 207383, C 143491, D 1739. Ngram advises: "The characters +, -, *, / require parentheses to be interpreted as a composition." Try: frilled lizard, (frill-necked lizard), (frilled-necked lizard),Chlamydosaurus, so that the hyphen is not taken as a logical operator.
So, Alabama won by a neck and a half! Hurra consensus! And aussies, Your kangaroos are no match for the freestyle wrestlers of the USA. Jari Rauma (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Australian - lived in Melbourne and Sydney. Never in my life heard Frilled Lizard. I came to this talk page because it sounded really weird and like a mistake. I assume it is a professional or overseas term? Better to use the scientific name for the article if its that confusing to everyone. I think its a bit obtuse that the common name in its home country wouldn't be the title. Poketama (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current article name is rare in English 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. The requestor seems to concede that this request was born from a misunderstanding of ngram results. There's a broader discussion to be had re: whether or not the genus name is a better compromise, but that's beyond the scope of this RM.  Hadal (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparent copy-paste error corrected above with strike-through for clarity. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

text: —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Jari Rauma was misinterpreting the instructions for Ngram compositions. Using (rounded) parentheses is to instruct the Ngram search to perform a relative-frequency comparison such as "((Bigfoot + Sasquatch) - (Loch Ness monster + Nessie))", not to search for a hyphenated term. I believe interpretation as a hyphenated phrase is what is obtained by default without the parentheses. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you're right though the documentation is confusing on ngrams. I may have jumped the gun, so we'll see if anyone else weighs in. Thanks for your thorough response. I guess this is an unusual case where the common name is the name from overseas publications, I'm not really sure what the rules are in that case. Poketama (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text: I just noticed this in WP:NCFAUNA: "When what is the most common name in English, or the veracity of that most common name, is so disputed in reliable sources ... prefer the common name most used (orthography aside) by international zoological nomenclature authorities over regional ones." My suggested conclusion is that "Frilled lizard" is both 1) the most common name in English, and 2) less used within Australia, but more used by international zoological nomenclature authorities. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

text: You are talking about the sources currently cited in this article? 11 of the 37 references have K. Christian, A. Griffiths or B. Ujvari as the first author, so the common name preferred by these three scientists is perhaps over-represented if just counting the name being used in the cited sources. Frillneck lizard has no incoming links (except for the one I just made right now right here), so it's not fulfilling the WP:CRITERIA of Naturalness as far as editors are concerned; as far as readers are concerned, it has had 306 views in almost eight years which isn't very much for an article that gets more than 306 page views on most days. Plantdrew (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer "frilled-necked lizard" to "frillneck lizard", which sounds like an original mishearing. Grahame (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 March 2023 

message: I've removed the fossil range from the taxobox, although I've left the source for the fossil range in a hidden comment. The source discusses Agamidae as a whole, which originated 99 million years ago. It doesn't mention the frilled lizard as an individual species, and I couldn't find any other sources in the article that discuss its fossil record. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossil range