This image shows the samaras (winged seed) and leaf shape that are notable and distinguishing features of this species. An image of the entire tree, with these features not visible, would not be as valuable. It is used in articles by four sister projects. -- Walter Siegmund(talk)
Oppose Not sure the reasons are so good. The view is interesting. This image is very useful. But here, I see "seeds and leaves of an Acer Glabrum". I don't see an "Acer glabrum". If I'm looking for the so-named tree in "Commons" through Valued Images, I'll be disappointed I'm afraid. IMO, the chosen scope is not the good one.----Jebulon (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In botany the appearance of a tree never allows an identification, it is recognizable to the peculiarities of its fruit and leaves. This photo is the modern version of reference herbarium.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request If so, the image page must describe 1. that this is a fruit and a leaf of a maple tree and 2. what characteristics distinguish this kind of maple from others. (Sorry for being so insistent - but from the beginning when I watched valued images, I was wondering that lots of pictures of stones, insects and plants were passed, with extreme narrow scopes, where normal viewers can only guess what they are about. Since in other fields explanations for laymen are required, I kindly request the same from the biologists and mineralogists.) --Ikar.us (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added samara and leaf to the description. Please see en:Acer glabrum, es:Acer glabrum, etc., and their references for the "characteristics distinguish this kind of maple from others." To add this information to Commons descriptions would duplicate the content of the sister projects and is not consistent with my reading of COM:SCOPE.
Yes, as Myrabella stated recently, VI is the most encyclopedic project on commons. That it violates the rule not to einclude encyclopedic content her. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can understand your surprise and it would be useful to the trees and shrubs both scopes 1) general appearance and 2) distinctness. But I can confirm that this simple picture can help you to identify this tree. None of the pictures of the tree in the scope you can have it identified. PS: the naturalists that love them questions. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
