Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

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
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mosasaur/Archive 1 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 &#124; 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 &#124; Contribs ] 13:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * It's not clear what script was used as the original list was added by an IP editor. Perhaps, 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  &#124; talk 08:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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)