Talk:Reptile Database

Third-party
This article needs independent sources that aren't written by Peter Uetz and colleagues. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do see the problem, but it's difficult to solve. Third parties most likely would get their information from the Reptile Database itself or from one of the papers about the database which are mostly written by myself. So, we are in a catch-22. The Reptile Database has been cited in more than 500 scientific papers by now (e.g. see Google Scholar) and is therefore the most-cited taxonomic database for reptiles. Not surprisingly, several reptile papers report errors or other problems in the Reptile Database, which we in turn use to fix those problems. I would be happy if others added third-party information, but there seems to be little incentive (?). Peteruetz (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any reliable, third-party news, magazine, or journal articles that are about the site (or that at least significantly discuss it in the context of other sites), rather than those that simply cite it? Have you been interviewed for the site?  You are likely privy to information that we can't cite, even if true, per WP:V and WP:OR, but if other reliable sources make the same "most-cited" claim you just did, then we can and should include that to bolster notability --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @--Animalparty--. Try this news article and this NASA database entry, which are both about the database. There is also a blog post apparently by an academic in the field, which is likely a reliable source as per Verifiability, and several articles by the host university, many of which have been widely reprinted by independent news organizations (example). HLHJ (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks, I will add the News release from our university and a few other references. The blog post by John Murphy was independently written without my knowledge, but John is one of my co-authors, so it may not be that independent :). I'll make an effort to dig out a few more independent papers. Peteruetz (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Wikipedia
The article contains an unsourced sentence that says "Within Wikipedia (actually Wikimedia Commons), a template has been created to reference species and higher taxa to the database." My understanding is that the internal workings of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are not ordinarily discussed in "mainspace" articles, especially if no external source is cited to establish that the Wikipedia content is notable. I will delete that sentence. I think that is the sort of information that should be found on Wikiproject pages and Talk pages, not in mainspace articles. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)