Talk:Leopard gecko

message: Where can this picture go?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathgecko (talk • contribs) 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Leopard Gecko age 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Primary Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eyelids/Eyelicking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleaned Up Links . 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plagarisim 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Number of eggs laid by age"  section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Black spots on the tongue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spam tag in Cryptosporidiosis section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More footnotes template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Issues needing fixed with this article. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I'm pissed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Morphs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  AAAARGH 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some details on tail autonomy I'm not sure how to source 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  sequestered morph references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  admin please help 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I found a citation that cited Iran Connorlong90 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range 

message: 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 hospitalizationshttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/zph.12647. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Potential Concerns: Perpetuation of Myths; Reliance on Pet Keeping Guides 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Diet Section: Poor Information, Low Quality Reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nocturnal Habits  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo Gallery  

message: (See nocturnal habits above - repeated IP edits without adding citations and using existing citations incorrectly)Connorlong90 (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for semi-protection  

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

text: For what it's worth, I support this change, it makes perfect sense to me.  Tamtrible (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, please add "*Support" with a brief explanation in the requested move section below. Johnuniq (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Page Rename  

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Common leopard gecko →  – Thank you for checking in to assess this requested page move, your time is appreciated. I believe a rename to "Leopard Gecko" from "common leopard gecko" is warranted. "Leopard gecko" is generally used as vernacular to refer to E. macularius unambiguously, not to the genus Eublepharis. Though some other Eublepharis species are occasionally referred to as leopard geckos (though always with a modifier - eg, Satpura leopard gecko or West Indian leopard gecko), majority use guidelines for page naming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Reasons_for_moving_a_page) would indicate that it is more appropriate to name this page "Leopard gecko" which is used by most to refer to E. macularius, as opposed to "common leopard gecko", which not frequently used. Furthermore, "leopard gecko" is used synonymously with E. macularius in most scientific literature (see link to prior discussion below for details), and google search results for "leopard gecko" currently link to the page for "common leopard gecko," which indicate that internet users searching for leopard gecko are looking for information on E. macularius and not the genus Eublepharis (In further support of this assertion, please see this research article on reptile search terms: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8001315/). The name of the page not reflecting this majority use could potentially be confusing to users not well versed in latin names. This change would be unlikely to cause inconvenience to those familiar with latin names, as the best way to be precise would be to search the actual latin name to begin with, which would redirect users to the appropriate page anyway. This topic was previously discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles/Archive_7#Proposed_Eublepharis_vs._Leopard_Gecko_Page_Renames where consensus was moving the page was warranted. As not many editors weighed in, I felt providing opportunity for further discussion was warranted prior to the rename. Connorlong90 (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

text: One important point I did not explicitly mention - in case reviewers are unaware, the reason this is relevant is that the leopard gecko (E. macularius specifically) is one of the most popular pet reptiles (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8001315/). Thus, there is substantial interest in E. macularius from internet users who are not biologists or scientists and are often not familiar with latin names. These individuals are likely to search the internet for information on E. macularius using the common name "leopard gecko" and not "common leopard gecko" or "Eublepharis macularius." Connorlong90 (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 October 2021 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How-to husbandry information  

message: 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)
thread_title:  there screams 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Domestication 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Could we maybe add some kind of discouragement of cohabing?