Talk:Timber rattlesnake

Link edit

I hope you don't mind that I made the word snake a Wiki jump link on this page? I'm reading along seeing how technical it's gotten, and I just want to make it a tad more small kid friendly? (You're an 8 year-old in Anarctica wondering what a snake is?) 66.82.9.108Magialuna (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Measurement conversion

Since this is a strictly American species should the measurements be in standard and not metric? The Great White Hunter 00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Mike_Winters

Standard? You mean imperial units. I'm against that, firstly because virtually the entire scientific community favors the metric system, and secondly because using a single unit of measure for all these articles is better for overall consistency. Oh, and this species is also found in Canada. --Jwinius 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Broad accessibility and consistency can be achieved by adopting the inclusion of both systems as a standard practice. This will also avoid the unnecessary alienation of millions of potential users. Please understand, few American children are taught the metric system as the primary system of measurement and it is not regularly used in America outside of a few limited communities. Most of us forget what little bit we have learned of the metric system a few moments after our last science class. Respectfully submitted. Gwwiz (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Grant_Wilson.

Fine. Done. A few limited communities? Oh, you probably mean our relatively small academic and engineering communities. Seriously, I find it really sad that the US continues to cling to the antiquated system of Imperial measures. But, it's not your fault. IMO, the fact that US public education is so poor likely has something to do with it. I know; I was there. --Jwinius (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of text

I removed a vague, inaccurate claim about venom, as there are many different possible components of venom, not just two. I also made a change to reflect that "rattlesnake" may describe TWO genii of snake—crotalus and sistrurus. Dick Clark 07:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Common names

don't want to step on any toes here, but doesn't the list of "common names" get kind of tedious? this is a general reference, not "everything anyone would want to know about the timber rattler". if they want all the names, readers can go to the referred text, right? it seems a bit silly to me to actually have to note that another common name for the Timber Rattlesnake is "rattlesnake" -- i mean, Duh ... er, i know that comes off as snarky, and snark wasn't intended. but you get me, i hope. how about a more useful, abbreviated list of names? - Metanoid (talk, email) 00:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this particular species is known by more common names than most, but that doesn't make listing them any less important. Compared to the total length of the article, it's still not that much information either. Besides simply striving for completeness in this area, which is not hard at all compared to describing most other aspects of this animal to the same degree, listing and making redirects for all the names makes it more likely that people searching for information on this snake will end up finding this article. Also, a complete list of names and redirects strongly reduces the likelyhood that a duplicate of article will eventually be created, but with a different name. Finally, "rattlesnake" and "rattler," or rather the plural forms thereof, are mentioned as common names for the genus Crotalus, since they applies to all of its members. --Jwinius (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

that was my point about "rattlesnake". how much does it tell you if ALL of them have that name? should i look up up every species of rattlesnake and mention in their entry that they are also known as "rattlesnakes"? it seems dumb. plus, what's the rationale behind removing wikilinks on for dates? i see nothing wrong with that. is it a project thing? - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what you mean. We'll remove "rattlesnake" and "pit viper" from this list of names. Both of them are listed in Wright & Wright (1957) as applying specifically to this species (this was the very first rattlesnake species known to science), but obviously those names aren't specific enough today. "American viper", though, is unique.

As for the wikilinking of date fragments, I too had always been doing it that way until someone recently explained the situation to me:

• There are guidelines for making links in several places, such as Autoformatting and linking and Dates. In general, a link should help readers to understand an article. For example, in an article on "computers" it might help to have a link to "microprocessor", but just because a significant computer event happened in 1972 does not mean that readers will learn anything from a link to the "1972" article.
• In this respect, the rules for taxoboxes are no different than for the main body of the article.
• The autoformatting mechanism has produced many full dates (day + month) with square brackets around them. This has to do with formatting -- not linking -- even though it looks the same. Unfortunately, it has led many editors to believe that date fragments are also supposed to be linked, so that now these are massively over-linked.

This is why many editors are now unlinking date fragments. If you feel the need to to comment, I think this is the right place to do so.

Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

i myself like being able to see a date, and being able to ask what happened in a particular year with a single click; that feels encyclopedic to me! but i do appreciate the info, and had been wondering myself just where one might look for the protocol on such things. thanks! - Metanoid (talk, email) 05:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I want to suggest a merge of Crotalus horridus atricaudatus into this article, since that subspecies is not considered valid according to ITIS and there are no sign that it will ever make a comeback. --Jwinius (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

makes sense to me. - Metanoid (talk, email) 05:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)