Talk:Leopard gecko

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amphibians and Reptiles High‑importance Leopard gecko 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.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This talk page is for discussion on how to improve the Leopard gecko article. If you would like to ask questions about the subject, please address them to the Reference desk .

On 12 October 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Common leopard gecko to Leopard gecko. The result of the discussion was moved.

when keeping a leopard gecko as a pet it needs to have a terrarium. but if you canot get a terainium just yet it can survive in a plasic storage container but dont leave it in there forever. it doesn't need another comfort buddie it can survive without a other leopard gecko. do not put sand in there cages because they can not digest it if they accidentally swallow it.

Where can this picture go?

Over all- Leopard geckos are really good pets. They do live around 20-30 years if you keep them healthy. Leos are really cute and wonderful pets. Put it in the pet section. My gecko is adorable!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.29.70.109 (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 27 sounds pretty good. I can totally document via witnesses that mine is at least 47 (purchased as an adult by a friend in 1963 or 1964 at the "White Sands" pet shop in Chicago), which I guess makes me (it) a world record. Cool - having the oldest one in the world is kind of neat.Oldjimh17:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)oldjimh[reply]

what does "hot" mean in this context? They're in heat? --Krsont 11:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be vandalism, judging by the bad spelling and whatnot. I inserted a hidden comment that says it could be vandalism. Ekansonic55 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism. When you incubate the eggs, you can determine what sex they hatch out to be. Using higher temperatures will result in males and lower ones will result in females. A "hot" female is a gecko that hatched out female in a high temperature meant to hatch out males.

What 'hot females' means is that when a mother lays eggs at a high temperature, the hatchlings will most likely be a female, which present themselves differently than those who were born in a cooler termperature hormonally and aggressively. 'Hot females' are more likely to be more aggressive than those who were born in a cooler temperature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.136.240 (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the main picture be a standard adult gecko? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.d.collier (talk • contribs) 18:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tyler John (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not link to every breeder known to mankind. IF a commercial site has exceptional information (care for example) not included here, by all means link to it...however try to link to the information itself without the "What's for sale page".--Mike Searson (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused as to the eye licking/eyelid thing. It says in the article that they have both, but that sounds strange to me. It seems like they would have one or the other. Also, I've had a pet Leopard Gecko for almost five years, and I have never EVER seen her lick her eyes. From what I can tell, it doesn't even look like she has a long enough tongue to do so. Do I have a mutated Gecko?! Orcahuman (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow gecko owner, I've seen mine lick her eyes occasionally when I had her on sand - possibly there was a particle that she couldn't remove by blinking. I've since switched her to repti-carpet and she hasn't eye-licked again that I've noticed. Rhonesque (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Orcahuman, I tried to fix that but it got deleted :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by D joker27 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My gecko only closes his eyes when he sleeps but it probably depends on the individual leo. Some leos probably do one or the other while others do both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.29.70.109 (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theres was alot of links some had mutipul ones going to the same site some had the exact same info and some were just for business purposes . Also want to add http://geckofile.top-site-list.com as most of the links are alreay there ,there wasnt a link for a forum and it seems like a very helpful site . If there are not any objections for a week or two I will do this .

Pagosapunk (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a link to a webcam really appropriate? Besides being giving little/no additional information, it is poor image quality, and has been lifeless whenever I checked.Sexy plant lover (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

like  there was this stupid kid he put in 2 males i told not to he said whatever  and then he put the males in the next day one was dead wat retard sad to :(  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.18.249 (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

A lot of this article is plagarised from other sites, particularly leopard care sheet pages. Or it may be the other way around, but from the wording of some of the paragraphs I would guess that parts of the wikipedia article is plagarised. Tyler John (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what does the chart exactly mean? leopard geckos don't lay 25 eggs at 5 years do they? This looks to me like random numbers or something. Tyler John (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of eggs in the chart indicate the possible number of eggs a female is able to produce at a certain age. I think the 25 at 5 should be 15 and is most likely a typo. More than 20 eggs a year is highly unlikely. --Dutchjester (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted to remove a section describing black spots on the tongue up to age 6 mo. These were called "Malcainoa Vakey" in the edit, but I was unable to locate any information verifying this. It looks like the second time the IP has added this information. Any clarifications? --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing the Gecko's Unlimited reference and possibly finding a way to integrate information from the guide into either wikipedia or wikibooks. Jared555 (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the more footnotes template as there are very few citations in the article. Just in the first and last section. I and others seem to suspect content may have been plagiarized but I have no evidence of this. Making sure there are citations for all content would clear this up. Jared555 (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to work on some of this as time permits but I don't know how much should be done before references are supplied.

1. Care Section< ..a. Written like a how to ..b. Seems much too detailed, at least in it's current form ..c. No references

2. Anatomy and Morphology ..a. No references ..b. Could possibly use more links to other articles

3. Diet and Longevity ..a. Written like a howto ..b. No references

4. Reproduction ..a. Borderline how to ..b. No references

5. Number of eggs laid by age ..a. Probably would be best if reformatted to be horizontal rather than vertical. ..b. No reference

6. Color morphs ..a. No references Removed Section

7. Common problems ..a. Written like howto ..b. List has mixed capitalization, etc. - Cleaned up ..c. No references ..d. Possibly needs wikification

8. Cryptosporidiosis ..a. No references ..b. Possibly just the person's opinion

I have struck out items that I have taken care of so there is still a reference. It is easier than adding a note every time. Jared555 (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have too many problems, plus half this stuff is gone -D_joker27 p.s. lizard hater! :o —Preceding unsigned comment added by D joker27 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add some desent info about geckos and in an hour it was gone! wtf?? I want my stuff back!!! Wiki, You suck —Preceding unsigned comment added by D joker27 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC) fat terd Italic textfattttttyyy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.207 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was there ever a Morphs section in the article? The LGs have even more color morphs than beardies do...which is saying something. There's the albinos, leucistics, high yellows, tangerines, jungle giants, black pearls, and my personal favorite, the Tremper Tangerine Carrot Tail Carrot Head Jungle Giant Albino Leopard Gecko (and yes, that is real), to name only a few. I'll add a section if that's okay, but it'll be hard to find references for every single one of them. Crimsonraptor (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am really pissed off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.208.14 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "leopard geckos as pets" section, feel free to mention the morphs there... cite what you can, but I don't think a few un-cited morphs would be *that* big a deal...72.223.117.158 (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I *tried* to add one. It got deleted. Could someone with more information to add please re-add it? <sigh> 72.223.117.158 (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why this link: http://www.paulsagereptiles.com/LeopardGenetics.htm was removed. 68.226.98.53 (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neeeeed morph stuff!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.29.70.109 (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, anyone who has ever owned a leopard gecko shold know that THEY DON'T EAT DEAD THINGS!!! AAAAARGH!!! PLEASE FIX THAT!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.55.87 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. I know, from personal experience, that it's possible for a leo to lose only *part* of its tail, as well as losing the full thing. My current leo lost about half of her tail when she was a baby, and it grew back (it's probably more normal-looking than a completely regrown tail, the shape and texture seem to be about normal, except that the tip's a little funny)

2. A class I went to a while back described some of the actual physical mechanisms going on with tail autonomy, including that the spinal column for the regrown tail doesn't have the usual holes, so (afaik) the regrown tail doesn't really have nerves in it. I don't recall the exact details, however.

3. It might be worth mentioning that at least limited regrowth of lost toes can also occur.

But I don't have sources on these, and I'm not quite sure how to say them in a suitably "encyclopedic" way. But if someone with more time, interest, and/or available sources cares to add those details... Tamtrible (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions for re-writing the section?

The information on the various morphs is pretty widely available, as is the general description of what each morph entails. There are even breeding calculators that will show you the possible results from breeding any given pair of leopard geckos of known lineage. I'm not really sure what, if anything, is inappropriate about the extant format for that section. Tamtrible (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think the sequestered section on morphs is a heck of a lot more "encyclopedic" than the "how to pick a leopard gecko" section that has more or less replaced it. Tamtrible (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm un-sequestering it. For one thing, its presence may discourage considerably less... encyclopedic replacements. Tamtrible (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever put "citation needed" on the morphs section: will http://www.paulsagereptiles.com/LeopardGenetics.htm be good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please delete my photo on the bottom of the page, i no longer want it there, it is the one where the gecko is looking at cam thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRedPanda (talk • contribs) 00:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The range for this species is incorrect and seems to be conflated with that of the genus Eublepharis in its entirety, rather than just that of E. macularius. I cannot locate any certified records of this species having been collected from anywhere other than India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. If one of the local herp experts thinks otherwise, citations are needed. Attenboroughii (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I have read Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan in the past. I am not sure if Iranian populations are E. macularis or a different species. The current citation was added by me, it did not appear to be cited at all previously. My citation lists Pakistan, India, Afghanistan. Connorlong90 (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a citation that cited Iran Connorlong90 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a general observation I would like to note that this article is heavily, perhaps excessively, influenced by conventional internet wisdom about leopard geckos. Many of the citations are pet keeping guides. Some of these guides (The Herpetoculture of Leopard Geckos, which I added, perhaps hypocritically) are books written by reputable sources and cite primary literature. Others are internet sites without a listed author and no cited references. Or books which I do not believe cite any primary sources (based on my familiarity with the quality of other herp books by those authors), but cannot confirm as I do not own that particular book.

The problem with using these sources is that leopard geckos are such popular pets, and are commonly kept by people without much biology or zoology knowledge, that many strong opinions have formed about their natural history that are likely untrue. For example, the assertion that leopard geckos live singly appears to be completely made up by pet keepers, presumably to justify the convenience of keeping only one animal. Furthermore, the assertion currently listed (6/28/2020) that leopard geckos cannot transmit salmonella is blatantly and dangerously incorrect - not only have they been shown to be capable of transmitting salmonella, but there are multiple documented hospitalizations^[1]. My impression is that these claims form as internet myths, are published in blogs, websites, and maybe low quality print literature. None of these sources require the author to have any actual knowledge or proof, and then these non-reputable sources are cited on wikipedia to basically launder incorrect information. Wikipedia, generally considered to be reputable, thus perpetuates internet myths.

I have no doubt that previous editors have been acting in good faith, and I acknowledge not everyone has access to primary literature databases. Moving forward, however, I would urge any editors to really think about the quality of sources being cited. Bad information about natural history can lead to pet keepers keeping their animals in subpar conditions. Bad information about zoonotic disease risk could kill someone. I have added three sources (two academic, one husbandry guide that cites primary literature) to try and improve the overall reliability of this article. I will remove the salmonella information now as well. Connorlong90 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire diseases section. It contained several errors that I recognized offhand (salmonella can be transmitted by leopard geckos, cryptosporidium is not generally considered to have much of a treatment and certainly no cure, and sand/substrate impaction is likely an overstated health risk that occurs secondary to other primary causes such as malnutrition, GI disease, and/or inappropriate temperature (Maders Reptile Medicine and Surgery asserts that sand impaction on non-calci sand is basically anecdotal). Rather than attempt to find sources and re-write the entire section, I figured it was functioning as a husbandry how-to anyway, and thus appropriate for deletion both on the grounds that the sources cited were low quality and because how-tos are not generally allowed in wikipedia articles (common diseases is a typical section in reptile husbandry manuals, not on species level wikipedia articles. For example, the "featured article" for the African lion does not have a section for diseases that occur in captivity, because it's an encylopedia article, not a lion husbandry guide.) Connorlong90 (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In further support of my position that this article is basically legitimizing unreliable information - one cited source, "Leopard Gecko Information & Facts" at thebeardeddragon.org, has no listed author, and itself cites this wikipedia article as the first reference on the site. What can happen with this type of citation is that someone made up an assertion without a reference and posted it on wikipedia, and then an internet reference adopted this made up information as fact and wrote it into an online care guide, and then the online source that was itself written based on an unsubstantiated claim from this article been added back in to the Wiki as a reference in support of the original claim, making it appear supported even though it is notConnorlong90 (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly: https://www.inaturalist.org/guide_taxa/1242594 now cites Wikipedia to say leopard geckos are cathemeral (see nocturnal habits section below), despite the fact this was never appropriately cited and there are now multiple academic sources cited that assert leopard geckos are nocturnal. This has not yet been used as a citation in the main article as the previous source had, but it is an example of how this paradigm is contributing to the spread of misinformation Connorlong90 (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion this section needs an overhaul. It states currently (6/29/20): "In captivity, common leopard geckos typically feed on crickets, dubia roaches, mealworms/superworms, and other insects." Well, in captivity, they eat whatever you feed them. So this isn't really useful behavior information.

The section continues: "Most leopard geckos prefer hunting food themselves." How do we know that? What does that even mean? There is no - and likely could not be - a reference speaking conclusively to the opinions of geckos.

It continues making similar claims, like "The majority of captive common leopard geckos refuse to eat dead prey." (No citation) "Dead prey should not be offered, as the nutritional value significantly decreases when dried." (No citation, now functioning as a how to husbandry guide). "Crickets are the most common food source in captivity" (again, this will vary based on where the keeper lives and what they choose to feed their pet) "as they can hunt them in their enclosure the way they would in their natural environment" (no citation, how do you know that?) "though mealworms, waxworms, and dubia roaches (and, less frequently, other roach species) are also common." (No citation).

At the very end of the section, a single reference is provided to a husbandry guide for captive geckos. The same book that had been cited previously for claims that I know are incorrect - whether this is a poor quality source, or is being incorrectly cited to support incorrect claims is unclear at this time. I would like to remove or re-write this section if there are no objections. Connorlong90 (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were no objections so I deleted the section and replaced with a couple sentences about their diets. Room for improvement, but not overtly wrong. Connorlong90 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be drift in the diet section with folks continuing to try and edit it to be a how-to husbandry guide. This is inappropriate in an encyclopedia article. I undid the latest revisions. Connorlong90 (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So there is an interesting trend I have noticed in recent years, where leopard geckos have been declared crepuscular or cathemeral instead of nocturnal. I have looked into this and am not able to find any scientific reports (peer reviewed or even white papers) supporting this assertion. Rather, it appears to have been declared at least in part by John Courteney Smith, the owner of Arcadia Lightbulbs, to support assertions that leopard geckos (as one of the most commonly kept lizards) need UVB bulbs (in fact, a trade publication written by Courteney-Smith is what is cited here in support of leopard geckos being cathemeral). The assertion captive leopard geckos need UVB would make no sense if leopard geckos are nocturnal, but makes plenty of sense if they are cathemeral, and coincidentally, leopard geckos being cathemeral would sell more UVB bulbs.

Obviously motive cannot really be proven here - it makes sense a well intentioned maker of reptile bulbs would be predisposed to believe in the importance of reptile bulbs - and in any case, motives cannot truly prove or disprove an argument. However, the peer reviewed citations on this page, as well as the published books I have linked as sources, assert that leopard geckos are strictly nocturnal, coming out at dusk. I will cite the exact citations on the actual article - but both the original article describing leopard geckos (Minton 1966) and the most recent reviewed article posted by a different editor (Rawat 2019) both describe E. macularis as nocturnal. The latter is a description of E. macularis' recent discovery in Nepal, and the authors even mention their nocturnal behavior as the likely reason the species had not previously been known to exist in Nepal.

Nocturnal behavior is also consistent with my experiences interacting with the related species the desert banded gecko in California. Obviously personal experiences from a single editor do not constitute evidence appropriate for an encyclopedia citation, but as the primary literature seems to support nocturnal behavior, and that is consistent with the behavior of a similar species I have personally observed in the wild, I am going to re-write this article to state that E. macularis is nocturnal. I propose/request the following:

1) Leopard geckos be listed as a nocturnal species, as they are described in the scientific literature.

2) The assertion E. macularis is nocturnal is not to be changed to reflect the reptile husbandry preferences of pet keepers, as this is not a how-to article on reptile husbandry.

3) Anyone who would wish to challenge the assertion E. macularis is nocturnal should provide an appropriate citation written by a biologist (or someone functioning in an official capacity) who has firsthand experience with this species in the wild, and NOT a source that pertains to pet keeping, particularly not a source that has a financial incentive to sell UVB bulbs to pet keepers.

Connorlong90 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted edits that again said leopard geckos are cathemeral - these edits provided no sources and left in place citations stating leopard geckos are nocturnal to create the impression citations supporting the change are documented in the article. I suspect these edits to be vandalism. Connorlong90 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are continued IP edits to this page that change text regarding nocturnal nature without adding citations and instead using existing citations to incorrectly support the unsupported assertions. I have reverted these edits twice, another editor has reverted once. I have requested semi-protection for the article. Connorlong90 (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I was looking through the article, I found several categories that I believe to be missing and something I would like to add. I would like to see Conservation (lizards as a measure of ecosystem health specifically), Enemies, and Parental Care. Conservation would be an interesting lens to look in as this specie is widely bred in captivity. Understanding how this could affect the ecosystem and how their capture can affect ecosystem health could be interesting. Similarly, including a section about enemies would be noteworthy since it can build on conservation and better elucidate where the common leopard gecko lies in the food chain. Finally, having a section about parental care would be helpful as it is missing from the entry completely and being able to understand how “hot females”, females who are infertile and more aggressive, interact with their parents and if their behavior can be increased or decreased by parental care would be helpful.

Joshuachenwustl (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing on the talk page prior to making sweeping edits! I am not opposed to including that information (nor am I - or any one person - the arbiter of what well sourced information should or should not be included). Are there sufficient citations to support those sections? In my opinion, the major issue with this article thus far is not what topics are included but rather that folks make pretty bullish assertions without actually citing reliable sources (or any sources in some cases). I might refrain from an "enemies" section - it's probably safe to say nearly any predator larger than a leopard gecko will eat the leopard gecko given the opportunity. Quality (featured, good, etc) species level articles I have read do not list all the predators of the animal; it would be impossible to be comprehensive and thus might not add all that much.

Depending on how much information you have about parental care, that could be its own section or fall under a the behavior/ecology section. I am not particularly familiar with this topic and was under the impression they expressed minimal parental care. Conservation is a great topic to discuss, provided there are sufficient sources to comment. Unfortunately, this is a species that mostly hails from countries that are not easy for Westerners to visit, so natural history info (at least in English journals) can be challenging to come by. If you have high quality sources I think it could add a lot - I would be pretty discerning of what sources you trust though, there are a lot of low quality blog type articles because this lizard is a popular pet, with internet types just sort of saying things without actual evidence. Looks like you're a college student though, you can probably get access to high quality sources - even ones that aren't electronic - through your library (you're probably well aware of all this, sort of writing for the record to try to encourage folks to do this) Connorlong90 (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want to add a photo gallery? I am noticing additional pictures pop up that don't really relate to the text specifically, but if there were a gallery at the end then editors could add photos they feel are relevant overall without disrupting the article flow. I deleted a couple images I considered superfluous, and am in the process of replacing lower quality photos that have higher quality analogs on Wikimedia Commons. Some of these could be added back in at the end if anyone feels strongly they should be included. I'll leave it up to another editor - if folks feel strongly all the photos should be included I'd say add a gallery, if not, I will continue to remove images that do not specifically complement information in the text. I think part of the issue is E. macularius is a popular pet and lots of folks want their animals included on Wiki, but there just isn't space for that unfortunately. Space that could be used to show photos of say, habitat, chromatophores, the mechanism of tail regeneration, or specific behaviors probably shouldn't go to another similar image of a pet gecko in profile. Connorlong90 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(See nocturnal habits above - repeated IP edits without adding citations and using existing citations incorrectly)Connorlong90 (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this at

WP:RFPP where it was declined. I'll watch the article for a while but you might have to ping me if I miss problems. Ideally you would put a new section on this page (despite the similar content above) and call it something very clear like "Nocturnal not crepuscular". In that you would put a welcoming message (no complaints; no mention of other editors) with a brief explanation of why this edit is not appropriate, preferably mentioning what a source says. On the next problematic edit, you would not leave a templated "you're disruptive" message like here, but would politely ask that they see [link to the section]. If that is done and problems continue, I will take action. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for checking in - the templated message was the action recommended and linked to by the admin overseeing requests for protection as the next step after the request was denied. I freely acknowledge I am a content editor and am not well versed in all of Wikipedia's enforcement policies - I'm just doing my best to try and maintain a page that has a high incidence of uncited edits that appear to attempts by casual readers to bring the article into line with common (and likely incorrect) internet myths. When this occurs again I will tailor my approach as suggested. Best, Connorlong90 (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The templating is something that is wanted when edits are vandalism. However, Wikipedia's definition of that (

WP:VAND) means stuff that anyone can see is obviously junk; that does not apply to the edits in question. What is happening here is a content dispute even if the IP is totally misguided (I have no idea if the edits are misguided). Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with your recommended approach and believe it is most appropriate for this situation. I was merely under the (apparently mistaken) impression I was required to use the templates before this issue could be advanced, so thank you for clearing that up! The edits are misguided in the sense that there does not appear to be any primary evidence that supports them that I can find, no citations have been provided to support the position by the IP editor(s), and no responses have been posted on the talk page. What makes them potentially more malicious is there are several articles listed to support the assertion they are nocturnal animals, and the person(s) changing the assertion alter the wording but leave the citations in place so it appears there are several citations supporting their changes, which there are not. I do acknowledge this may well be confusion from the IP editors as opposed to actual malice. Regardless of motivation though, it results in an assertion that is incorrect and hard for an average reader to fact check because much of the literature is behind paywalls. Best, Connorlong90 (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the talk page! Specifically, this is the portion of the page dedicated to discussing the sleeping habits of leopard geckos (whether this species should be listed by Wikipedia as being nocturnal, cathemeral, or crepuscular). Thank you for your interest in contributing to this section – our collective understanding of this species has important implications for scientists and pet keepers alike, so it is important to be as accurate as possible in our article. Please read through and reply to this section before making any changes to the article. The TLDR version is that sources currently listed on the page clearly list E. macularis as nocturnal, but there have been edits to say it is crepuscular or cathemeral without citing sources that support that position, and that position appears to be incorrect based on a literature review.

More detailed version: There have been a series of edits to attempt to list E. macularius as cathemeral (meaning active roughly evenly throughout the day) as opposed to nocturnal (active at night), without providing sources to support that position. Currently we have E. macularius listed as nocturnal. This assertion is consistent with the primary literature used for the article (all cited sources are available on the main page). To summarize: Minton (1966) writes E. macularius “is strictly nocturnal. At sunset the lizards' heads begin to appear at the holes and crevices that shelter them.” Khan (2008) notes that E. macularius prefers humid nights, writing they take shelter in burrows and crevaces during the day to maintain higher humidity, “while hot, humid nights in rainy season, drive [E. macularius] out at sunset.” Rawat (2019) recently described the first specimen catalogued in Nepal describing “[E. macularius] is a secretive, ground-dwelling, nocturnally active gecko” and speculating that the nocturnal habits of leopard geckos is why they were not discovered in Nepal until 2019. Additionally, higher quality secondary literature (defined here as publications written with clearly cited primary sources) also describes E. macularius as nocturnal. The Eyelash Geckos, a well cited natural history and husbandry guide written in part by Hermann Seufer who also reports observing E. macularius in the wild asserts “in its natural habitat, [E. macularius]’s period of activity is strictly limited to dusk, the night, and dawn.” The herpetoculture of leopard geckos similarly asserts “leopard geckos are nocturnal, terrestrial lizards.” A few other sources I have glanced at but not cited in this article, either because they were not directly relevant or were discussing other Eublepharis species, also list E. macularius and other Eublepharis species as nocturnal (I believe these were found through Reptile Database, Animal Diversity Web, and IUCN, I can maybe track them down if anyone is dying to read them). In my literature review I have been unable to locate any primary literature asserting leopard geckos are cathemeral or crepuscular, and I have not found any credible secondary articles that make that assertion (credibility being defined here as providing sources to support the assertion as opposed to just saying it).

I think I know where the confusion comes from: there is a recent trend in herpetoculture for owners of leopard geckos to discuss on social media how these geckos are cathemeral and not nocturnal (personal communications). This relates to a number of husbandry practices and preferences of pet keepers, eg, whether or not leopard geckos should be supplied with a UVB light, whether or not leopard geckos will be active during the day when owners are awake, etc. I won’t get into those here, as husbandry practices are likely outside the scope of this article, because how-to information is generally not considered appropriate for Wikipedia. The issue at hand is that higher quality sources (primary, and/or well sourced) list E. macularius as nocturnal. This article has previously asserted without citations that E. macularius is crepuscular (unlikely based on the literature) and more recently without citations that it is cathemeral (in direct contradiction with the existing literature). Third party websites will often pull information from Wikipedia without fact checking it, which propagates misinformation, as those pages remain online after Wikipedia has been edited. This concern is detailed more above, but as an example, here is an inaturalist page asserting E. macularius is crepuscular, based on nothing but the wiki article: https://www.inaturalist.org/guide_taxa/257690. Here is an inaturalist page asserting E. macularius is cathemeral, based on nothing but the Wikipedia article: https://www.inaturalist.org/guide_taxa/1242594. These two examples are honest and cite the Wikipedia article so we know where the information came from – others may not be. Readers who are engaging with these sources could come under the impression that this is a topic of debate with different sources to support both positions, as opposed to the apparent reality: that reliable academic sources assert that E. macularius is nocturnal, and the assertion that it is not is an unverified position held by some pet keepers based on social media discussion and popular husbandry trends rather than scientific studies or observation of wild animals. Thus, it is important to be accurate on this page, both in this section and others. Changing information without adequate citations can carry an outsized impact when it comes to the spread of misinformation.

If you disagree with any assessments above that is ok! It is important we discuss any disagreements to make sure we’re not missing anything. And if you have found additional resources to suggest that E. macularius is active during the day in the wild that I and other editors have not found yet, that is excellent, we can use that information to create a better article. In either case, please add your position and/or resources here, and we can discuss and reach consensus on how to best present that information before making changes to the page. The goal is not to prevent changes, rather to ensure that changes are properly cited so we are not just undoing each other’s edits, confusing readers, and accidentally creating a bunch of contradictory articles from lower quality third party sites that cut-and-paste information from Wikipedia.

Best,

Connorlong90 (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This article has been edited to say leopard geckos are not nocturnal about ten times since I posted this back in January. (It's a little difficult to count precisely since it keeps going back-and-forth often over several edits before being reverted by an editor, an admin, or a bot). Most of those edits have been by IP editors. So far no one has commented on the talk page to discuss this topic prior to editing, nor have any of the editors provided a citation to support the assertion that E. macularius is cathemeral or crepuscular - all edits have left the citations that state E. macularius is nocturnal in place, making it appear as though their edits had citations when they did not. Please comment here before editing this section, we need consensus and citations prior to changing the article. Connorlong90 (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'll get a reply here - despite a pretty sizable interest in editing this section there has been no obvious interest in providing extra sources or discussing edits. I'll give it another shot though: what about referencing this controversy on the main page? A general trend appears to be that field biology and herpetology sources reference E macularius as nocturnal, and (some) pet keeping sources seem to believe they are nocturnal or cathemeral. I have been giving deference to the field biology sources, but I can probably find pet keeping sources and reference them too - We may have to delve into trade publications to find those quotes though. It seems like that might be a reasonable way to address the fact some folks feel very strongly about the fact these guys are not primarily nocturnal. Especially since a species that is either domesticated or working towards domestication could conceivably be showing different behavior in captivity than in the wild, especially if kept in temperatures that are less harsh than they would be in the wild range.

Connorlong90 (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best way to avoid edit-warring is some variation of "Leopard geckos are generally considered nocturnal, though some people argue that they are crepuscular or cathemeral instead". That way, the official position of the page is "They're nocturnal", but people who disagree have their view... at least mentioned. Tamtrible (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am amenable to that, I recently acquired a couple herpetoculture books that discuss crepuscularity - these are openly based off of social media discussions and do not cite primary sources, but are at least published works that actually mention the assertion of hobbyists in a location that isn't a message board or Facebook group. I will put something together.

Connorlong90 (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the deed is done. Let me know what you think. I feel a little weird citing sources that are literally published by a company that makes UVB lights without supporting evidence for those assertions. Especially since these Arcadia books are basically the only sources I can find that take a strong crepuscular stance and literally appear to be the only sources in existence asserting this lizard is cathemeral. However, I listed the author as the brand manager for the UVB company so any conflict of interest should be self evident (please note: "brand manager" is his chosen description of himself in his "about the author" in the book, it is not an editorial by me). Connorlong90 (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. If any edit-warring on the topic happens after this, someone needs to be slapped... Tamtrible (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war continues to happen after this. This is absurd. Leopard gecko emergence has become my like.. COVID19 quarantine project (gotta find something to do during the many quarantines from work). I'm pretty sure I've read every peer reviewed source available in English, and a good number of non-peer reviewed sources as well. I literally acquired some rare hobbyist books to formulate a dissenting view to the primary view just to make sure everything is covered, but still, these IP editors just will not accept that the majority of sources say that E. macularius is nocturnal, yet they are unable or unwilling to discuss this topic on the talk page, or to provide a single citation to support their point. Can it really be listed as a good faith edit if it appears that the edit was made before the editor finished reading the whole paragraph? This is nuts. Connorlong90 (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wouldn't call that one a good-faith edit... someone needs to be slapped. Tamtrible (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am revisiting a topic previously described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles/Archive_7#Proposed_Eublepharis_vs._Leopard_Gecko_Page_Renames

I suggest that we rename this page (Eublepharis macularius) to "leopard gecko" instead of "common leopard gecko." The majority of English speakers use "leopard gecko" to refer unambiguously to E. macularius and not other Eublepharis species, which would qualify this page for a rename under majority use guideliens(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Reasons_for_moving_a_page). The scientific literature also refers to E. macularius as "leopard gecko" - a cursory search on pubmed reveals that "leopard gecko" and "E. macularius" are generally used interchangeably (please see prior discussion). Additionally, Google's search results already redirect searches for "leopard gecko" to this page, which could be confusing for users not familiar with the latin names, and also indicates that people searching for "leopard gecko" are expecting information on E. macularius and not the genus Eublepharis.

The consensus on the prior discussion was that the rename was warranted, but there were not many editors weighing in. I wanted to post here to give another opportunity for comments prior to renaming the page Connorlong90 (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a move might be contested, it's best to formally request a discussion, see

WP:RSPM. That may bring in people who follow such things and who would offer advice on standard procedure. BTW, I'm only watching this page for a limited period. If problems occur that I don't notice, please let me know. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think it will be contested, but I'll go ahead and post at that location, thanks. Connorlong90 (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The post goes on this talk page using the wikitext shown at WP:RSPM. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I support this change, it makes perfect sense to me. Tamtrible (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamtrible: In that case, please add "*Support" with a brief explanation in the requested move section below. Johnuniq (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to new editors that Wikipedia is not intended to be a how-to husbandry guide for animal care (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal). This is discussed in various sections on this talk page above but I wanted to put that link here in its own section so it's easily accessible. There have been some recent edits to put husbandry info into the article that I and another editor have removed. Connor Long (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

they scream when they are mad or uncomfortable with you 2603:6011:9A23:A20D:CCBD:E9CC:AF06:3F (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should a page be made for Ron Tremper, who was a major contributor to the domestication of leopard geckos? Several morphs are named for him, and his books are cited several times throughout the article. Is this person considered significant enough for a page of his own? Details about his work would seem like unnecessary details to include on the main leopard gecko article. 161.97.246.177 (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image for the sexual dimorphism section shows two leopard geckos seemingly in the same enclosure. With all the misinformation around leopard geckos id be worried that someone might see that picture and then think that this is ok and go out and buy a pair and cohab them. What do yall think of changing that picture or adding some kind of disclaimer? Digital542 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think we should probably put something else there or something. That picture doesn't really provide any relevant information cause the males and females look identical unless you take a close look at their junk, so the picture just kinda ends up only being an unintentional bit of misinformation about cohabing. Digital542 (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]