Jump to content

Talk:Lizard: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
i
m Reverted edits by 198.189.48.41 (talk) to last version by ClueBot III
Line 16: Line 16:
== Number of species ==
== Number of species ==


I could use a better source than the volunteer-maintained "REPTILE DATABASE" website for the number of species, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lizard&diff=prev&oldid=625852512 an anonymously-written "Amazing Animal Facts" website] seems worse, not better, here. You can plug "over X species of lizard" into Google for any value of thousands and get a variety of equally weak websites to back you up. We need [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]! --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 19:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
We could use a better source than the volunteer-maintained "REPTILE DATABASE" website for the number of species, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lizard&diff=prev&oldid=625852512 an anonymously-written "Amazing Animal Facts" website] seems worse, not better, here. You can plug "over X species of lizard" into Google for any value of thousands and get a variety of equally weak websites to back you up. We need [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]! --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 19:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
:I was surprised to come back to this article today to see that {{u|Dylan Bruner}} had again changed this information. I restored the original source, which isn't ''ideal'' but is far superior to [http://bioexpedition.com/lizard-species/ Bioexpedition.com], which as far as I can tell does not appear to offer any kind of author, parent organization, or even contact information short of a form. The closest thing I see is the ad for basicplanet.com on every single page, which offers some fee-based educational resources. There's nothing to lend this site credibility, and plenty (e.g. being a feeder site for a subscription service) indicating its unreliability. [http://www.reptile-database.org/db-info/SpeciesStat.html Reptile-database.org], on the other hand, is a volunteer-run reptile information source with editorial oversight and documentation of methods and sources. It cites [http://www.reptile-database.org/db-info/GenRef.html 29,000 books and papers], tracks [http://www.reptile-database.org/db-info/journals.html a long list of journals], and [http://www.reptile-database.org/db-info/Contributors.html credits contributors]. There is no question which is the more reliable source. If you find a better source, ''discuss it here on the talk page to gain consensus before making another change''. Saying you "don't want an edit war" in your edit summary while restoring the same content ''is'' edit warring. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 16:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC) show adaptations here--[[Special:Contributions/123.211.176.145|123.211.176.145]] ([[User talk:123.211.176.145|talk]]) 05:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________-______________ thanks kyle mono
:I was surprised to come back to this article today to see that {{u|Dylan Bruner}} had again changed this information. I restored the original source, which isn't ''ideal'' but is far superior to [http://bioexpedition.com/lizard-species/ Bioexpedition.com], which as far as I can tell does not appear to offer any kind of author, parent organization, or even contact information short of a form. The closest thing I see is the ad for basicplanet.com on every single page, which offers some fee-based educational resources. There's nothing to lend this site credibility, and plenty (e.g. being a feeder site for a subscription service) indicating its unreliability. [http://www.reptile-database.org/db-info/SpeciesStat.html Reptile-database.org], on the other hand, is a volunteer-run reptile information source with editorial oversight and documentation of methods and sources. It cites [http://www.reptile-database.org/db-info/GenRef.html 29,000 books and papers], tracks [http://www.reptile-database.org/db-info/journals.html a long list of journals], and [http://www.reptile-database.org/db-info/Contributors.html credits contributors]. There is no question which is the more reliable source. If you find a better source, ''discuss it here on the talk page to gain consensus before making another change''. Saying you "don't want an edit war" in your edit summary while restoring the same content ''is'' edit warring. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 16:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC) show adaptations here--[[Special:Contributions/123.211.176.145|123.211.176.145]] ([[User talk:123.211.176.145|talk]]) 05:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________-______________ thanks kyle mono
peace
peace

Revision as of 23:31, 12 May 2016

Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconAmphibians and Reptiles C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconLizard 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAnimals C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconLizard is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Animals To-do:


Number of species

We could use a better source than the volunteer-maintained "REPTILE DATABASE" website for the number of species, but an anonymously-written "Amazing Animal Facts" website seems worse, not better, here. You can plug "over X species of lizard" into Google for any value of thousands and get a variety of equally weak websites to back you up. We need reliable sources! --McGeddon (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to come back to this article today to see that Dylan Bruner had again changed this information. I restored the original source, which isn't ideal but is far superior to Bioexpedition.com, which as far as I can tell does not appear to offer any kind of author, parent organization, or even contact information short of a form. The closest thing I see is the ad for basicplanet.com on every single page, which offers some fee-based educational resources. There's nothing to lend this site credibility, and plenty (e.g. being a feeder site for a subscription service) indicating its unreliability. Reptile-database.org, on the other hand, is a volunteer-run reptile information source with editorial oversight and documentation of methods and sources. It cites 29,000 books and papers, tracks a long list of journals, and credits contributors. There is no question which is the more reliable source. If you find a better source, discuss it here on the talk page to gain consensus before making another change. Saying you "don't want an edit war" in your edit summary while restoring the same content is edit warring. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC) show adaptations here--123.211.176.145 (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________-______________ thanks kyle mono[reply]

peace

Mosasaur picture

Hi! The mosasaur picture used on the Lizard page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prognathodon3.jpg is outdated. It's known many mosasaurs had a bilobed tail. Prognathodon, the mosasaur in the picture is one known to definitely have a bilobed tail thanks to a fossil of it showing the tail fins. Could someone please change the mosasaur picture on the Lizard page to an up to date picture? Good choices could be this one of Prognathodon: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prognathodon_saturator_DB.jpg or this one of Platecarpus: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Platecarpus2010.jpg 90.201.190.75 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already done see this edit by Dinoguy2 (talk · contribs) at 16:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC). Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2015

lol 71.203.107.48 (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Not an actual edit request. Altamel (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lizard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]