 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article uses text donated by Wildscreen from their ARKive project (see below). For further information, please see Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive. |
 | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Wildscreen ARKive texts. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2011090810014488. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en  wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
Name
editWhy is it known as the Satanic Leaf Tailed Gecko? I don't see anything particularly demonic about it. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the picture on there is a very bad one. It's called 'satanic' because when upset, surprised, or otherwise emotionally distressed, it turned almost jet black and has bright red eyes. Try googling the name, but even those results don't do it justice. 67.249.178.169 (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
IUCN Category
editThis species is not included in any of the categories of the IUCN Red List. Only one species of genus Uroplatus (U. henkeli) is included in the category vulnerable (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/178653/0) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.91.68.237 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Order
editI wonder if anybody with more expertise than me could clarify what order this gecko is in? There seems to be a conflict between information on the ARKive website ARKive.org and the Wikipedia page that could do with clarifying. Cheers Wikisamia (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
variant with wings?
editOn 2016-01-27, the Uroplatus phantasticus was featured in the Bing wallpaper of the day. A Bing search reveals this picture, in which one of the two appears to have wings. Through some searching, I haven't found any more information on that. Any ideas? - Paul2520 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Variant With Wings
editThe image is photo-shopped. No such variant exists.2607:FEA8:879F:F270:0:0:0:4 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Article name change
editKevmin has reverted this article's name to its scientific one, even though it already has a common name that is well in use. I don't find this to be a very wise decision. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I have noted a number times WP naming conventions are to use the most commonly used name found in references, including and not excluding the taxonomic name. Additionally the conventions specifically state that for taxa with multiple common names, the taxonomic name is preferred. As a third note, the majority of reptile taxa are at the taxonomic name so keeping this article at Uroplatus phantasticus maintains consistency.--Kevmin § 17:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There are exceptions made with several reptile species. Consistency is not a very big deal when a species has a well-known common name. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why did you ignore the first two MOS points that were made?--Kevmin § 17:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I just want to know where you're getting these guidelines from, that's all. A link would be nice. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why did you ignore the first two MOS points that were made?--Kevmin § 17:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There are exceptions made with several reptile species. Consistency is not a very big deal when a species has a well-known common name. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Name change
editI think the name of this article should be changed to a common name, "satanic leaf-tailed gecko". Searching for the common name brings up much more results than just the binomial. As far as sites that use the name I have these examples [1] [2], [3] Ddum5347 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Google scholar show neither name to be used often, since it has only recently started to get much research attention, but the "vernacular" only shows 21 results, while the binomial has 100 results. Also the three sources you provide all use the binomial. Additionally, the low name returns overall are due to the relativealy recent ressurection of the species from synonymy with U. ebenaui in 1995.--Kevmin § 15:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)