Talk:Lygodactylus williamsi

Why "Low" importance?
This species is endemic to a tiny area of forest in Tanzania, is under threat of habitat destruction and also ongoing population decline from over-collection. The threat of extinction in the wild is not "low". Furthermore, the quality of the information on this page (which may be a primary source for those keeping these in captivity) may have a significant impact on the continued existence of this taxon. Let's try to improve the quality of the information and the referencing - and elevate the status beyond "low".Aulay ([[User

We have to protect these Geckos! They may not go extinct!!! :

talk:Aulay|talk]]) 20:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I have made some improvements, and invite others to do the same. HLHJ (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blanked the importance and upgraded the quality to "C"; hopefully someone else will review it. HLHJ (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the first comment is mixing "importance" and "quality" (=class). By default, species articles are of low importance, irrespective of quality. If a species has been important for research, is somehow ecologically important, or has an elevated public profile (pet/resource/pest/dangerous/conservation efforts), its importance could be "mid", perhaps even higher. I'm inclined to think that this one does not qualify for mid importance, but do not feel strongly about this. Micromesistius (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and tag it as "mid" importance. I don't think threat of extinction (as per the first comment) is grounds for a higher importance; on the contrary, rare species that are narrow endemics ought to usually be a lower priority than widespread and well known species. However, the most read 1000 amphibians/reptile articles in the last month had 24+ page views/day, and this article had 26 views/day. The methodologies for page views in these two measures are different, so L. williamsi isn't actually listed in the top 1000, but it's likely in the top 10% of reptiles by page views. Search engine results are dominated by sites related to pets (rather than taxonomy), which indicates to me that this species is fairly important as a pet. Low/mid importance here might be borderline, but it's not clearly low. Plantdrew (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy
The Catalogue of Life taxonomic order differs from the sidebar; I don't know enough about taxonomy to know whether to fix. HLHJ auf Deutsch (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

German Info
There is an image of an egg on the German article:, could someone move it over? Does anyone own a copy of the German book on keeping these geckos? Will post this again in the German talk page. (What? The German page won't let me sign with my English account, but the preview is signing this with the German one I set up -- do not get | this) HLHJ auf Deutsch (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Taxobox header
I don't think there is a single most common venacular name as per Template:Taxobox/doc, especially as biologists seem to avoid the trade name. Should we change the Taxobox header back to the scientific name? HLHJ (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

How-to info?
A recent edit removed information on keeping these reptiles captive. Should it be re-written instead? I'd be especially interested in what Aulay has to say.HLHJ (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Order of sections
There is no standard order for sections, so I'm going to try to put the most important stuff towards the top, and make sure that one can understand it on one reading.HLHJ (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)