Talk:Mauritian giant skink

	Mauritian giant skink 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Mauritius

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Mauritius (assessed as Low-importance).

BLAR

Hello @Pvmoutside and talk page watchers. Any idea why this article redirects to Leiolopisma telfairii? The binomial name for this one appears to be Leiolopisma mauritiana. They appear to be two distinct species, one extinct and one not. Leiolopisma mauritiana and Mauritian giant skink are not mentioned at the target article. Thinking about reverting the WP:BLAR. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Reptile Database lists the Mauritian giant skink as conspecific with Leioloplisma telfairi....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pvmoutside. Fair enough. Could "Mauritian giant skink" and "Leiolopisma mauritiana" be mentioned at Leiolopisma telfairii, so that folks following the redirect are not confused? I'd do it myself but am having trouble searching the Reptile Database to verify. When I hit the search button nothing happens. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, in fact, the redirect should not have been done before making sure the target article mentioned thew supposed synonymy with citations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds like a fringe view to me2601:405:4A80:B950:4017:B60:6021:81FE (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn’t seem to me that a single website referring to to it as part of another species warrants a complete reconsideration when many other sources refer to it as a separate species2601:405:4A80:B950:4017:B60:6021:81FE (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it and no the reptile database does not refer to these two as conspecific but instead refers to it as an extinct relative but separate species “ Fossil species of Leiolopisma: Didosaurus mauritianus GÜNTHER 1877 (= Leiolopisma mauritiana or mauritianum) was described from subfossil remains from Mauritius but is now extinct). Its syntypes (BMNH 1965.95) were purchased by H.H. Slater (Transit of Venus Expedition. Whereabouts of the material collected by Edward Newton unknown. Described from a maxillary fragment with three teeth, five fragments of mandibles, seven femurs, and three partial humeri.). Austin & Arnold 2006 also isolated DNA from L. mauritania. ” https://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/species?genus=Leiolopisma&species=telfairii 2601:405:4A80:B950:4017:B60:6021:81FE (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that this “ An undescribed extinct Leiolopisma from Réunion was closely related, whereas the Round Island skink is a more distantly related surviving species from Mauritius. (Austin & Arnold 2006)” should be considered more authoritative 2601:405:4A80:B950:E199:48B0:C2DE:5FC5 (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP, please stop edit warring. It's against the rules. We need to discuss it on this page and arrive at a consensus here. @Pvmoutside needs time to read and respond. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the account edit warred with me despite having misinterpreted the sources and you let the acount do it without fact checking their claim 2601:405:4A80:B950:E199:48B0:C2DE:5FC5 (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pvmoutside is an experienced editor. Talk it out here and assume good faith. There is no deadline. Pages should be returned to a status quo ante until editing disputes are resolved. I do think more than a one sentence reply is needed from PV though, there's multiple people here that are concerned about this BLAR. PV, please weigh in when you can. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile Database does not recognize mauritanum. I am not an expert by any means with reptiles. If you think it should be I'm OK to leave it....thanks Novem Linguuae for the recognition....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're OK with restoring, let's go ahead and do that for now. Seems to be consensus to do so in this discussion. Thanks for your input. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]