Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

Main project page

Talk

Participants

References and templates

Tree of Life Newsletter

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Amphibians and Reptiles Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 5 March 2012.

Archives

Apr 2006 – Jan 2008 Feb 2008 – Oct 2008 Apr 2009 – Oct 2009 Nov 2009 – Dec 2010 Dec 2010 – Jan 2012 Feb 2012 – Aug 2018 Sep 2018 – Sep 2021 Oct 2021 – three months ago

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Amphibian taxonomy discrepancies list

A list of discrepancies between Wikipedia amphibian article titles and Amphibian Species of the World (ASW) entries was generated in 2013 and is still linked to from the taxonomy section of the main WP:AAR page here. Since the taxoboxes were all converted to automatic ones and brought in to line with ASW in Oct-Dec 2019, I suspect that this list should now be close to empty for extant amphibian taxa.

As the list has not been updated in over ten years, does anyone here have the ability to recreate the script that originally generated the list in the first place? Loopy30 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what script was used as the original list was added by an IP editor. Perhaps Dger, who is the main editor of the page, knows. Unlike Amphibiaweb, there doesn't seem to be an API or a way of downloading the current ASW6 species list, which would be needed. But I agree, it should be largely in alignment. Frost actually made a comment in his updates about how well Wikipedia covered Amphibia despite being a edited by "a large number of anonymous people". A group that might need looking at is Brachycephaloidea where there have been family/subfamily rearrangements.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this article

On Xenodon pulcher, a new editor added some content that looked good at first glance... alongside a Reddit anecdote about venom toxicity. Could someone here check the quality of the other sources used? I'm concerned that someone would try to identify a poisonous snake using a flawed article. QuietCicada chirp 18:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BigSNAAAAAAAk.jpg

Hi. I noticed a complaint on an off-wiki platform about File:BigSNAAAAAAAk.jpg being misused on the article Reticulated python (Malayopython reticulatus). I mentioned this issue in the zhwiki bio&med Telegram group and a Wikipedian says it's probably a Greater snake (Thamnophis). I have removed the file. I hope Wikipedians from this WikiProject can confirm whether this is a misuse or not, and probably help with a renaming on Commons later on. Thanks.  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 05:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Adder

Adder has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monotypic genus with undescribed members

The gecko genus Dactylocnemis has one formally described member, as well as five well-documented but not formally described members (one of which has a page, and one that I'll likely create soon). In cases like this, should the genus article be split from the species article? --Prosperosity (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until the new species are formerly described and more widely recognised, I'd leave the article at the genus. Some people may question whether there is sufficient coverage of these island species to justify articles.

Incidentally, the conservation species for Mokohinau gecko doesn't appear to be Nationally Endangered. The citation given doesn't give a conservation status. The latest assessment I could find (from 2021) gives "Naturally Uncommon" (see NZTCS Dactylocnemis "Mokohinau"). The other island forms are either Naturally Uncommon (Dactylocnemis "Poor Knights", Dactylocnemis "Three Kings") or Declining (Dactylocnemis "Matapia Island", Dactylocnemis "North Cape"), while the Pacific gecko species is Not Threatened (see Dactylocnemis pacificus (Gray, 1842).  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New citation template: Cite NatureServe

A template for citing NatureServe Explorer has been created. Template:Cite NatureServe. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]