Talk:Anaconda

Protection

Thanks, Tim. I was going to wait a few more days before requesting this myself, but you beat me to it. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So the edit restriction has been requested for this article? Is that what the above comment is about? I was going to do it myself. This article is drawing lot of vandals for some reason. - Ritigala Jayasena (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This article should be given permanent protection. As a disambiguation page (an SIA) there may not be much more than can be added to it in the way of content, but its title will forever make it a prime target for vandals. This is yet another reason in favor of using scientific names for article titles, as these seem to have an innate ability to quell the enthusiasm of many would-be vandals. In contrast, those who are serious about what they are looking for (or wish to edit) will follow the links. --Jwinius (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

question

is the anaconda endangered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.148.45 (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling Carroll Shelby

"this account of an incident on the outskirts of Colombo is a figment of the imagination" The account? Or the incident? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Classification Box?

Should there be a classification box with kingdom, order, phylum and so on? Not a biologist, but came looking for that information, and I've seen it in entries for other species.Otterswimshome (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are such boxes in the articles on particular anaconda species, such as the green anaconda Eunectes murinus. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Anaconda group vs. green anaconda

At least two of the comments above seem to stem from confusion over the difference between anacondas as a group and the species green anaconda. Could the article be given another header, kind of like the existing disambiguation header, that explains this from the outset? I know that it's in the first paragraph of the article itself, but that may not be clear enough. Alternately, should this simply be merged with the green anaconda article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.89.67 (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why shouoldn't it be merged with Eunectes? FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I 100% support a merge. It wasn't until your comment that I realized they weren't merged. Mokele (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised that they were not merged as well. This article should certainly be merged with Eunectes Dwcarless (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge. Merging is a good idea. The two articles cover the same topic but have different features that will complement each other. I've added a merge request to both articles. Cephal-odd (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Has anyone checked the long edit history for this article? I'll bet not. IIRC, it originally started out being about E. murinus. I then created the articles Eunectes and Eunectes murinus, boldly converting Anaconda to a redirect for the former. Unfortunately, this is one of the more high-profile snake articles and my non-WP:Fauna_name-conformist approach was eventually discovered and reverted by some policy-wonk. Luckily, I eventually got this particular situation turned around with a different approach: Category:Set indices on snakes. I argued that, like so many other common names for animals, Anaconda is ambiguous and so deserved to be treated as such. I then did the research to show exactly how that was the case.

The advantage of the status quo is that it clearly shows the reader that "Anaconda" is an ambiguous name. That, along with the etymology is all this article was meant to contain. If Eunectes is merged into this article, I know from experience that the subject matter will soon be dominated by information about E. murinus instead of Eunectes. As a matter of fact, that process has already been taking place (note the size, diet and range info) and may even have been what inspired FunkMonk to make his suggestion. Cobra was written in the same spirit, but has held up much better. Nevertheless, the current situation has definitely is definitely much more stable than before. --Jwinius (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

PS -- Sorry, not FunkMonk, but 99.130.89.67. --Jwinius (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge. Since E. murinus already has its own article as well, the is no point in keeping both Anaconda and Eunectes. In fact, maintaining a merged article trimmed of excessive E. murinus material would be easier than doing so for two separate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwcarless (talk • contribs) 01:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No point?? The name 'Anaconda' is still ambiguous: that's the point! So, restoring this page to something more like this version would be logical. There are so many other disambiguation pages and set indices for common names for snakes, why should it be unnecessary in this case?

As for the merit of maintaining separate articles for both Eunectes and E. murinus, the one is for general information about the genus (despite the fact that no one has bothered to flesh it out yet), while the other should contain only data particular to the species. Jwinius (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Length issue

~ I have looked on a few sites and noticed that most of the prehistoric snakes that lived in the Eocene or Paleocene measured about 18-26 feet the only exceptions being Gigantophis, Madostia,and Titanoboa with lengths ranging from 35-43 feet so technically an anaconda 30 feet is really prehistoric sized and the fact that no anacondas have been caught yet the fact is any claim of an anaconda 40+feet really needs too be looked at with "extreme" caution.