Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Monstersauria and Neoanguimorpha

After creating the article for the new fossil monstersaurian Morohasaurus, I did some research, and according to the definiton of Monstersauria by Norell and Gao, (1997) and the placement of families based on most recent studies of squamate phylogeny, such as Pyron et al. 2015 and Nicolas & Bliar, (2009), Neoanguimorpha is just a junior synonym of Monstersauria. I don't know why Vidal & Hedges (2009) never mentioned Monstersauria and just named a new clade for it. While Neoanguimorpha wan't given a cladistic definition, the clade it represented in the resulting cladogram is synonymous with the cladistic definition of Monstersauria. Hiroizmeh (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Reflist

Hiroizmeh (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't follow. According to this Tetrapod Zooloogy article, Norell & Gao (1997)'s original definition of Monstersauria was node-based (Gobiderma + Heloderma) and Conrad (2008) co-opted the name for the entire gila monster branch (stem-based?). Both definitions exclude Xenosauridae and Anguioidea, which together with Helodermatidae make up Vidal & Hedges (2009)'s Neoanguimorpha. Just considering extant forms Monstersauria only contains Helodermatidae.

So unless Gobiderma is now placed in a very different place, I don't think they can be synonyms. And such a broad expansion of Monstersauria would be very different from its intent (a group of Gila monster like species, apart from monitors), which might justify a new name. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Another issue is that Monstersauria is used inconsistently in taxoboxes in different articles. Currently Monstersauria contains †Morohasaurus, †Asprosaurus and Helodermatidae (Heloderma), while †Gobiderma and †Estesia are placed in Helodermatoidea (without Helodermatidae). I don't know if Helodermatoidea and Monstersauria are different names for the same thing or if one contains the other. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I get it. My mistake, I got confused and applied the 2008 definition to the 1997 analysis thinking they were from the same place. I get that Conrad defined it as stem-based like that under the assumption that varanoids were closer to monstersaurians than to the other anguimorphs, and the intent for Monstersauria is a most-inclusive clade for Heloderma but no other extant taxa. My bad for thinking the line on the article for Monstersauria referred to Norell & Gao instead of an unreferenced source (that I'll make sure to add.) Thanks for providing that source, too.

Additionally, I tried doing some research on what exactly the clade "Helodermatoidea" is. I believe its authorship is attributed to Theodore Gill, 1885 in the 1885 Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution Part 1, pg. 800 File:Contributions to the study of Heloderma Seuspectum (IA contributionstos00shuf).pdf and File:Contributions to the study of Heloderma Seuspectum (IA contributionstos00shuf).pdf refer to the Smithsonian Annual Report of 1900, which also lists Gill, 1885 as the author. This is of course from before cladistic systematics, and the definition is morphologically based.

It may in fact be synonymous with Monstersauria, since how I've seen it be used in cladograms insinuates a definition of a clade including Helodermatidae but not any other extant sister families. Based on the 1997 definition, Helodermatoidea may be more the more inclusive stem-based unit while Monstersauria sensu 1997 contains Helodermatidae and its immediate sisters (Gobiderma). This definition follows the clade's intent of included taxa as of the current phylogenetic understanding that monstersaurs are related to diploglossans and not varanoids, and sensu Conrad 2009 would be a much more inclusive clade.

But on the plus side, we can fix up Gobiderma and Estesia's taxoboxes. The 2012 study on Gobiderma described it as a basal monstersaur and does not even mention the term Helodermatoidea. Similarly, Estesia is in 1997 placed in an "unnamed clade" within Monstersauria.

So there, those little fixes can be made. And thanks for clarifying it! Let me know if you find anything on redefining Helodermatoidea. Hiroizmeh (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Banded bullfrog

Apparently, Banded bullfrog was chosen at Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive for a week. 60.125.247.243 (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion about Encyclopedia of Life

Hi all

I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about Encyclopedia of Life as a reliable source for Wikipedia, please share your thoughts here. I've added some basic information about EOL at the top of the section to help inform the discussion.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_360#Encyclopedia_of_Life. I'm still undecided, probably in the generally reliable but not always up to date. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

1885 snakes

Elapochrus aequalis & Homalocranium michoacanense - R. Mintern & J. Green - Biologia Centrali-Americana (1885)

The above plate is labelled Elapochrus aequalis & Homalocranium michoacanense; I think E. aequalisis now Pliocercus euryzonus - is that right? And H. michoacanense is now Sonora michoacanensis?

I have gathered what little we know about one of the illustrators, J. (James) Green as d:Q109692200 - can anyone add to that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It would appear that Elapochrus aequalis is now Pliocercus elapoides (or maybe just the subspecies Pliocercus elapoides aequalis) and Homalocranium michoacanense is Sonora michoacanensis according to www.reptile-database.org. Loopy30 (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sea snake vs Hydrophiinae

Hydrophiinae was moved to sea snake in 2018. Somebody created a stub at the subfamily title today. Hydrophiinae apparently now includes some genera/species that are not marine (e.g. Pseudechis). Sea snake is a Good Article but has many statements that don't apply to non-marine snakes.Plantdrew (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This looks to be another example of the common name being forced onto a taxon. It shouldn't have be moved. The marine sea snakes are nested deep within Hydrophiinae and that was known in 2016 (Strictland et al, 2016; Lee et al,, 2016; linked in Reptile Database). The sea snakes might qualify as a tribe, but it would need another dozen tribes if all are to be monophyletic and the relationships don't seem established enough to make such taxonomic decisions (not sure snake people use tribes very often]. Many of the genera in the sea snake article have been synonymised with Hydrophis so it's possible all sea snakes will end up in that genus.

The sea kraits (genus Laticauda) are either the earliest branching group in Hydrophiinae or their sister as subfamily Laticaudinae (e.g. in Reptile Database). In the phylogenetic analyses, many terrestrial genera (from Australia and Melanesia) lie between them and the true sea snakes and all are included in Hydrophiinae sensu Reptile Database, but are not covered in the sea snake article. It's possible that sea snake could is used sensu lato to include the terrestrial species, but this doesn't seem to be the current practice.

While the move shouldn't have been made, I think the new Hydrophiinae article should be retained for the broader group and the sea snake article restricted to the marine sea snakes, although it wouldn't have a taxon name. The alternative is to move sea snake back to the subfamily name. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Ogmodon Loveridgelaps Salomonelaps Toxicocalamus Micropechis Cacophis Demansia Aspidomorphus Neelaps Brachyurophis Simoselaps Oxyuranus Pseudonaja Vermicella, Furina Pseudechis Denisonia Suta Parasuta Elapognathus Rhinoplocephalus Cryptophis Acanthophis Echiopsis Drysdalia Austrelaps Paroplocephalus Hoplocephalus Notechis Tropidechis Hemiaspis

Pinging @YorkshireExpat: who has restored the redirect. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882 and Plantdrew: Yes, apologies, did this on autopilot as was responding to a request for a taxobox, but then had a bit of a deeper look and think I broadly agree. Sea snake needs some remedial work, and could use a {{Paraphyletic group}} I would say. Not sure what the process for this is but it should probably have been discussed somewhere with appropriate evidence presented. YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with reverting. The sea snake article is supposed be on the subfamily. The histories are confusing. The Sea snake page was created as Hydrophiinae (in 2006 and the current Hydrophiinae redirect page was originally created as sea snake (in 2004). They got switched somewhere along the line. The 2006 edit would still make a reasonable starting stub.

Sea snakes are a natural monophyletic group. They just don't have a formal name for the taxon, unless there is recent tribal classification somewhere. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Genera between Laticauda and sea snakes in the phylogenetic analysis of Stickland et al (2016) are shown in the box on the right. None seem to be covered in the Sea snake article, while all are included (or synonymized) in subfamily Hydrophiinae on Reptile Database. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:AAR" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:AAR and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 4#Wikipedia:AAR until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Hawksbill sea turtle

I have nominated Hawksbill sea turtle for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Flurry of new editors

I don't know the origin (in the past there's been copy editing drives focused towards new users) but a number of snake articles showed up in Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter. I could fix them all, but realized that the new content may or may not be accurate, helpful, or needed. In that previous copy editing thing many issues resulted and this is why I'm bringing this here. Dawnseeker2000 20:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I too noticed this and posted on my talkpage before I found this project page. Moving my post here:

Hello @Materialscientist, Mindmatrix, Plantdrew, Pinethicket, and Elmidae: I noticed a pattern of recent edits to reptile and amphibian articles, all by new editors and at least some of which are problematic, that struck me as maybe a bit dodgy. If you have a minute, could you compare these contribution histories and tell me if you think I am seeing things?

• Conorjoye1
• RyanClemsonHerp22
• Cward7
• Cforehand123
• BethanniePerrine
• Loblollyfrog123
• Vcantre

I picked you all from the edit history of Spotted salamander. If anyone has ideas for other users to ping, please suggest. Eric ^talk 12:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed - here's another one: Morganmrp. Because there's a quite a bit of university course work happening around now, I thought these were part of a course project. A badly organized and ill-prepared one, mind, but I don't see what else could explain this spout of GF, basically okay but badly formatted shotgun edits. No trace of an organizer or a course notice anywhere, however. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone want to help

Does anyone want to help me create a page for Afrobatrachia it is an entire clade of frogs and i am surprised that no page exists on it Massimo510 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge

A merge of Rana temporaria temporaria into the species article has been proposed, which may be of interest to this project. Thanks, Zindor (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

African rock pythons

I have submitted a WP:Requested move at Talk:African rock python#Requested move 5 June 2022, suggesting a renaming of that article and the Southern rock python article. You are invited to participate in that discussion and in editing to improve those two articles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

FAR for green and golden bell frog

I have nominated Green and golden bell frog for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 16:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Oligodon Russelius

Hi, Draft:Oligodon Russelius has been submitted to AfC claiming Oligodon russelius, is Russell's Kukri Snake - but currently Oligodon taeniolatus comes back as "Russell's Kukri". Doing a google search for "Russell's Kukri" most agree with Oligodon taeniolatus and there are only 13 hits for "Oligodon Russelius" and many not reliable (facebook, wikis etc). The sources don't appear to match the claims for the bits I can read. Is this a synonym, a mistake, a hoax? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Reptile database has Oligodon russelius as a species and doesn't list a common name. It seems to have been newly described/recognised (Bandara et al, 2022). If its new then its too soon to have a common name, so I think the article should go at the the scientific name. The draft article is far from ready. The description looks copy and pasted. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

[1][2] Wild Trait (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The most commonly used common name for taeniolatus is streaked kukri. I can't seem to find why it is also called Russell's kukri. iNaturalist uses the former name for taeniolatus and the latter one for russelius as of now. For the time being I also prefer keeping the scientific name for the article. Vulpes-bengalensis (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Annoying redundant phrases about venom

A very large number of snake articles (and disambiguation pages) contain annoying redundant phrases – especially in their opening sentences. I've been noticing this for a while and trying to correct it here and there, but it's very widespread. Can someone please help get rid of this ugly phenomenon on Wikipedia? Specifically, I'm talking about phrases that say a particular snake is a "venomous viper" or "nonvenomous boa" (or similar – e.g., "venomous pit viper", "venomous pitviper", "nonvenomous python", and similar plural forms). There are no non-venomous vipers and there are no venomous boas, and such phrases seem to suggest these could exist. I am hoping for edits like this one. As far as I know, we do not describe other things that way: we don't describe something as a "ruminant sheep", "mammalian cat", "canid dog", "winged bird" or "egg-laying monotreme". Someone seems to have thought that venom is such an exceptionally scary attribute that it needs to be discussed the first few words of every snake article, regardless of whether it makes any logical sense there or not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess the explanation for the use of these phrases is- it is non/venomous and is also a boa/viper. There are venomous colubrids but in any case I am against keeping the venomous/nonvenomous distinction in the opening sentence. Vulpes-bengalensis (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

addition: 'venom' is actually a scary attribute for the general people. Often people just wanna check if a snake they saw/know is venomous or not, they don't really care if its a viper or a boa. Vulpes-bengalensis (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind so much if an article says something is "a nonvenomous snake in the genus python". That seems fine, but it shouldn't say it is a "nonvenomous python" or a "venomous adder". I think a descriptive phrase should never couple an adjective with a noun if the category defined by that noun is a subset or synonym of the category defined by that adjective. I'll happily agree that venom is scary, but I think we should avoid getting so worked up over it that we discard basic concepts of sensible writing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Another issue for ordinary readers is that "venomous" has different meanings in scientific and everyday language: in the latter, it would usually refer to being significantly dangerous to humans, which is not the same as producing venom to subdue normal prey. Consider the article Macroprotodon cucullatus. The opening has "mildly venomous colubrid snake". What does that mean? It's not "mildly" venomous to its normal prey. By deduction it means, but does not say, "mildly venomous to humans". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Komodo dragon FAR

I have nominated Komodo Dragon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. CMD (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Crawfish frog

What is (or are) the Latin name (or names) for the crayfish in whose burrows this frog lives? Thank you in advance Hunu (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Article creation at scale discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale; the primary issue of concern is editors creating large numbers of stubs. Articles on species are repeatedly brought up as examples. "Large numbers" is not defined, but from the positions taken by some commenters an editor who regularly creates one article a day might be considered to be engaged in article creation at scale. Plantdrew (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Strabomantidae reclassification

Similar to the Hylidae issue above; Amphibians of the World reclassified numerous former members of Craugastoridae into Strabomantidae; not sure how far back this change was made. While the taxoboxes have been updated for the genera to reflect this, the individual species pages still list them as members of Craugastoridae in the text. If any of you are willing, might you be able to update each species page and replace references to Craugastoridae with Strabomantidae? Geekgecko (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Loopy30 (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Article sections

I previously brought this up at WP:TOL, but I propose the use of a general layout system to help readers find what they are looking for, which this project has to a degree. Currently, the recommendation is:

• Taxonomy (classification) - who discovered it? what's it related to? how does it fit into the tree of life? how many subspecies are there?
• Description (physical, behavioral characteristics) - what makes this (group of) critter(s) different from its close relatives?
• Distribution and habitat - where does it live? How broadly does it roam? Map images help.
• Cultural, religious, economic, etc. importance - what impact has it had on humans? Include use for experimental purposes that do not relate to other headings.

This is rather incomplete for a full article, and many do not follow it anyway. I suggest a similar system to the one used by WP:BIRDS (copied verbatim, so not all is relevant here):

• Taxonomy and systematics (including subspecies, relation to related species, history of naming, alternate names, and evolution)
• Description (often including details on immature plumage, moult, vocalisations, identification, and similar species)
• Distribution and habitat
• Behaviour and ecology
  • Breeding
  • Food and feeding
  • Threats or Survival
• In culture or Relationship to humans
• Status

This system should not be mandatory, of course, but it would give editors an idea of how to best arrange items in a logical way. Furthermore, as previously stated, it would let readers know where to find specific information in any given article. An anonymous username, not my real name 18:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Mini mum FAC

Hello, Mini mum, an article about a species of microhylid Malagasy frog, is currently at FAC and may be archived due to a lack of sufficient reviews. I would appreciate if some of you could come over and review the article. AryKun (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Pelodryadinae and Phyllomedusinae are once again subfamilies of Hylidae

After less than 3 years as distinct families, Pelodryadinae and Phyllomedusinae are once again reclassified by Amphibians of the World as subfamilies of Hylidae. Personally I disagree with this decision given their deep divergence and Pelodryadinae's very unique evolutionary history, but I digress. I've made several major changes to reflect this taxonomic change, but the articles for all the individual species still list them as belonging to the families Pelodryadidae and Phyllomedusidae, and there's way too much for me to simply change them all single-handedly. Could any of you help out on the species pages by replacing mentions of Phyllomedusidae and Pelodryadidae with either just "Hylidae" or the according subfamily? Geekgecko (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

When was this change made? I couldn't find it in the ASW6 listed of additions and changes. At least now ASW6 and AmphibiaWeb agree on the taxonomy. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Not entirely sure; it was probably made sometime within the last year, more than likely the last few months. Geekgecko (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've updated all the Pelodryadinae species. There are still a few articles where Pelodryadidae is linked, e.g. higher taxa Neobatrachia and Hyloidea, which may need new sources, and some lists of species by geography that need reorganization. Plantdrew (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done I have now completed a review of and/or updated all article pages within Pelodryadinae and Phyllomedusinae, and those that link to it. Loopy30 (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Olm

Good article reassessment for Temnospondyli

Temnospondyli 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Attention on a list page

I would like to raise issues regarding List of largest reptiles (or any other reptile-related list page) where I have put my concerns on the talk page. When it comes to such kind of rankings, which standard should we adopt, mass or length, average or maximum, confirmed measurements or the largest estimation? RoyalRover (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

What is Iguania?

Please comment at the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#What_is_Iguania? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 7 § WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Olm

I have nominated Olm for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

GANs for two gecko pages

I have nominated Mocquard's Madagascar ground gecko and Paroedura maingoka for good article assessment, please join the discussion if any of you are interested. Olmagon (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Caudata as the order for salamanders

• Both Amphibian Species of the World and AmphibiaWeb have defined Caudata as the order for salamanders over Urodela, with Amphibians of the World providing a lengthy argument as to why this should be the case. Should we follow this? What shall become of the Urodela page then? Geekgecko (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Amphibian Species of the World is Darrel Frost's website. So it follows Darrel Frost's opinion on matters that he has decided to be personally invested in. The lengthy argument against Urodela includes a personally signed note: " This does not correspond to what is generally referred to as logic (DRF)".

Dubois favors Urodela. Seeing this makes me consider him to be somewhat a crank.

But Dubois (as far as I can tell) and Frost aren't concerned with fossil salamanders. The problem is that palaeontologists want a clade name for just crown salamanders and one for crown+stem salamanders, and palaeontologists have disagreed on what clade Urodela should refer to and what Caudata should refer to. I'm not sure if there is a more recent palaeontological consensus than what is described in the Wikipedia articles. Frost's argument against recognizing Urodela as an order doesn't mean it can't be treated as a name for a clade. Plantdrew (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Both have strong views. As noted, Dubois has has his own particular take on classification, see also doi:10.11646/megataxa.5.1.1 and his case for Urodela (p273) is based on his Criteria (but see earlier article (Dubois 2004; p8-10). Both Dubois and Frost are all-or-nothing on their preferences, with no room for a total/crown compromise. Looking at older classification it does appear Urodela was most used until Frost's intervention.

For our purposes, I think we should follow ASW6 and AmphibiaWeb and use Order Caudata as they are the two sources followed by the project for most of the overall taxonomy and choices for articles. The current Wikipedia arrangement is Order Urodela (on the Salamander article) with clade Caudata as parent. Is there a suitable source for this? If we are to deviate from ASW6 it should be properly sourced. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Trueb & Cloutier (1991) use Superorder Urodela and Order Caudata (p233 & p296, in book here). Cannatella & Hillis (2004) use Urodela for the total group and Caudata for the crown (e.g. Fig 1 and "the node based name for living salamanders is Caudata"). Sigurdsen & Green (2011) seem to use it in reverse (Urodela as crown group) but cite Cannatella & Hillis. Schoch (2018) refers to the "the urodele (stem-caudate) Karaurus" but doesn't use either taxon name. Using Caudata as crown is also consistent with AmphibiaWeb and ASW6 treatment of extant taxa. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The salamander article uses Frost/ASW6 as source for Order Urodela contained in group Caudata (both in the lede, taxonomy section and taxobox). This is not what the source says. Frost considers Caudata the name for the order and Urodela invalid for any suprafamiliar rank. One thing Dubois and Frost agree on is there is correct name for the order and the other is a synonym that shouldn't be used. Dubois (2004, p10) explicitly rules out a stem/crown usage either way, citing Milner (1988) and Cannatella & Hillis (2004). The latter uses Urodela > Order Caudata. I can't access Milner (1988), but Evans and Milner (1996) say they "follow Milner (1988) in restricting the term Urodela to the crown-group salamanders and using the term Caudata for the stem+crown salamanders"; they also explain the background to the competing versions. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Amphibians have always been problematic, in part because its such an ancient lineage. Allain Duboit has his own nomenclatural system that most do not agree with, Frost despite his grievances does tend to get followed by the majority of workers. I would argur that in the absence of good reasons to do so, and I see none, we should follow ASW for the time being. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

So following Frost and ASW6 seems the way to go. AmphibiaWeb and Blackburn & Wake's Animal Biodiversity use Order Caudata. However, does this mean we treat Urodela as a synonym (ASW6, B&W) or do we use Urodela as a higher taxon. The current set up of the taxonomy templates is:

• Amphibia [4] [4 child templates]
  • †Batrachichnus [ichnogenus] (article: Batrachichnus)
  • †Labrinthodontia [subclassis] (article: Labrinthodontia)
  • Lissamphibia [subclassis] (article: Lissamphibia) [4] [4 child templates]
    • †Allocaudata [ordo] (redirects to: Albanerpetontidae)
    • Batrachia [superordo] (article: Batrachia) [2] [2 child templates]
      • Caudata [clade] (article: Caudata) [8] [8 child templates]
        • †Apricosiren [genus] (article: Apricosiren)
        • †Batrachosauroididae [familia] (article: Batrachosauroididae)
        • †Hylaeobatrachus [genus] (article: Hylaeobatrachus)
        • †Karauridae [familia] (article: Karauridae)
        • †Nezpercius [genus] (article: Nezpercius)
        • †Prosirenidae [familia] (article: Prosirenidae)
        • †Triassuridae [familia] (redirects to: Triassurus)
        • Urodela [ordo] (redirects to: Salamander) [6] [6 child templates]
          • Ambystomatoidea [superfamilia] (article: Ambystomatoidea)
          • Cryptobranchoidea [subordo] (article: Cryptobranchoidea)
          • Pancryptobrancha [clade] (article: Pancryptobrancha)
          • Salamandroidea [subordo] (article: Salamandroidea)
          • †Seminobatrachus [genus] (article: Seminobatrachus)
          • Sirenidae [familia] (article: Sirenidae)
      • Salientia [clade] (article: Salientia) [4] [4 child templates]
        • Anura [ordo] (redirects to: Frog)
        • †Czatkobatrachus [genus] (article: Czatkobatrachus)
        • †Protobatrachidae [familia] (redirects to: Triadobatrachus)
        • †Triadobatrachus [genus] (article: Triadobatrachus)
    • Gymnophiona [ordo] (redirects to: Caecilian) [4] [4 child templates]
      • Apoda [clade] (redirects to: Caecilian)
      • †Eocaecilia [genus] (article: Eocaecilia)
      • †Funcusvermis [genus] (article: Funcusvermis)
      • †Rubricacaecilia [genus] (article: Rubricacaecilia)
    • Procera [clade] (article: Procera) [10] [0 child templates]
  • †Temnospondyli [ordo] (article: Temnospondyli)

This has clear problems. For instance, I assume Prosirenidae is closer to Sirenidae than some of the taxa currently placed in Urodela. If we synonymise Caudata/Urodela, what about the pairs Gymnophiona/Apoda and Salienta/Anura? —  Jts1882 | talk  08:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I would have to deep dive the lit to know what to do with some of these. They are a tough group to unravel. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to look into this a bit more and I think there is a fundamental problem that makes it difficult for us to make general decision on how to handle these taxa. Difference scientists use the terms in different ways and there may be a divide between those working fossil forms and those dealing only with living forms.

1. Order Caudata (with Urodela as synonym). This is Frost's position in ASW6, based on Frost et al (2006) which used it for the crown group. This has been followed in the Animal Biodiversity classification (Blackburn & Wake, 2011). AmphibiaWeb also use Order Caudata.
2. Order Urodela (with Caudata as synonym). The position taken by Dubois (2004, 2005, 2021). Like Frost, he considers the other name invalid. He explicitly opposes it's use as a more inclusive or exclusive group.
3. Order Urodela for crown group, with Caudata as total group. This was the usage proposed by Milner 1988 to resolve the inconsistent use of the two names, explained in detail in Evans & Milner 1996. This is used in some palaeontological studied (e.g. Jones et al, 2022), but I don’t know how general this is.
4. Order Caudata for crown group and Urodela as total group. This was the arrangement used by Trueb & Cloutier (1991, with Urodela as a superorder), addressing the problematic use of the two names but deciding on the inverse arrangement to that of Milner (1988). This was followed by Trueb (1993) and Cannatella & Hillis (1993, 2004). Frost et al (2006) seemed open to this arrangement (p356-7). This arrangement is used in Schoch (2014)’s Amphibian Evolution, who claims to be following Frost (2006).

The taxonomy templates are currently set up with order Urodela aand unranked Caudata as parent taxa. Some of the taxa are correctly placed for treating them as crown and total groups (e.g. Karauridae) but others may have been placed under the name used by the source without it using the crown/total group distinction. For instance, Evan & McGowan (2002) place Apricosiren in Caudata while saying it may have an affinty with Proteidae (part of crown group). If the crown/total group use of Urodela/Caudata is widely used in palaeontological studies, then it's hard reconcile with the use of order Caudata for extant salamanders (ASW6, AmphibiaWeb). A fudge might be keeping the Caudata > Urodela heirarchy but using order rank for Caudata. This would retain the heirarchy used in palaeontological studies and make Caudata appear in extant frog articles. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this proposal to move the order rank to Caudata so consistent with ASW6 and Amphiibiaweb? —  Jts1882 | talk  09:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for paired improvements of Pit Viper and Loreal pit

I'm not an expert, or even particularly interested in snakes/reptiles (I _am_ interested, but just as a general topic). I noticed that the article for Loreal pit is woefully short, with few details. Clicking on the WL in the first sentence of the article, going to Pit Viper, I find that that article goes into minute, exacting detail regarding the Loreal pit...and all of it in the lede, rather than in the body of the article; almost no mention in the body at all.

I think the two articles could use some tender loving care by a subject matter expert or even merely an enthusiast, in order to improve this imbalance in coverage and the stylistic defect in the lede of Pit Viper. I'm not equipped to do it justice. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mosasaur/Archive 1#Requested move 5 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mosasaur/Archive 1#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

New Reptile Database release

There was a new release of the Reptile database yesterday (March 28, 2024). The announcement says "102 new entries have been added to the release, as well as a total of 123 species-level changes, with 79 new species and 2 new genera (Dravidoseps, and Pseudoindotyphlops)". There are now 12,060 recognised reptile species. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Neodiapsida into Diapsida

Hi, I've proposed to merge Neodiapsida into Diapsida, since the two are largely synonymous. Discussion can be found here. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)