Talk:Children's python

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Antaresia stimsoni)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. While consistency amongst articles is nice, the naming conventions are to be followed. JPG-GR (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article ought to be at the common name (Children's python), not at the binomial name. Not only is it generally preferable to use common names, in this case it's much less ambiguous - there's no common name other than "Children's python", but there are a large number of binomial synonyms. In any case, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) says, plainly, "If there is a common name in English, use that". There's no reason for this to be at the scientific name rather than the common one. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support use of most common name per naming policy: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Common names aren't regulated and there's every chance that there are other common names for this species also. As for the synonyms, they are just that because Antaresia childreni is the only valid name for this species according to the taxonomy in use here. --Jwinius (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I'm the only person who has worked on most all snake articles (500 or so) for the past two years. I have worked very hard to apply a common format to all of them and organize them according to their scientific names. It is true that this is against WP's policy for article names for zoological articles. However, the problem is that this concept does not work well for snakes because most of them have more than one common name. For example, Agkistrodon piscivorus even has 39 common names, many of which are shared with other species. Another example: the list of Viperinae (true vipers) is complete, described 122 taxa for which there are known to be at least 318 common names, despite the fact that the vast majority do not occur in English specking countries. You can see for yourself here:
As with most other snake families, this is also how I've organized the python articles:
Obviously, there are not as many common names listed here, but I am certain that this is mostly because the amount of literature available to me on these snakes is limited compared to what I have on viperids. Perhaps Antaresia childreni is an exception and does have only one common name, but I wouldn't count on that. Given time, I have no doubt that I will be able to prove that most pythons also have an average of two or more common names. Therefore, in the interest of stability and consistency, I would ask that the title of this article be left as it is. --Jwinius (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're opposing because it might, possibly, have more than one common name, which you don't know? That's not a good reason to have this article at the scientific name - which is the actual scope of this discussion. Even where there is more than one common name, it's not necessary to use the scientific name - I offer the case of (cough) species Gavia immer, which is just at one of the common names. Even though there's a real dispute about what the "proper" common name is, it's not at the scientific name. With regard to other snake articles; yes, those should be at the common name in English if such exists, and otherwise at the most used common name in English if that can be determined. However, this is not currently a request to change all such article titles; it's about one snake. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of keeping the current title for the sake of consistency and uniformity, and because it's not only possible, but most likely that there are more common names for this species. In cases where more than one common name is used, it is said that the most popular common name should be used. But, how? Google? That's the usual way of doing it, but Google can only search what's available on the web, so it's not possible to get accurate results this way (certainly not for snakes). As a result, the titles of such articles change regularly. We've all seen that happen to ones like Puma, Siberian Tiger and White's Tree Frog. The snake articles are no exception, especially since most people seem to have, at best, only a morbid fascination with these animals. It makes me sick to think how much effort is wasted in debating about whether an article should have this or that common name -- effort that could be better spent improving its contents. Again, this is much worse with snakes than it is with, say, birds. Seen from this angle, common name titles are a distraction from the real work of producing better content.
Another thing about using common name titles is that they cause even relatively serious editors to ignore the various taxonomic issues. Once a common name is used for the title, the scientific name tends to become much less important to them. As a result, I've seen taxonomic duplication and error in the articles of every family of snakes that I've worked on. We shouldn't have articles that show how groups of animals were related ten or twenty years ago, or how they're related according to some minor expert's daydreams (or a dreadful combination of both): we should be using the most conservative and authoritative taxonomy available to show people which species are believed to be valid by most experts today and how these species are related. You can only hope to do this consistently by following a single taxonomy for an entire series and using the scientific names that are valid according to that taxonomy for the article titles. Redirects are used for all of the common names and taxonomic synonyms, an increasing number of which become disambiguation pages over time.
Ultimately, this is the only way to organize a large zoological database, in this case a wiki. I've done this for about 500 snake articles now, which are accompanied by some 4500 redirects and more than a few categories. It's inevitable that a number of species will be renamed every year, which always entails a good deal of work, but the project would become impossible to manage if every month many more articles would see their (common) names changed arbitrarily. At one point we would lose track, after which the taxonomic integrity would probably never recover. Only at that point will we be left wishing that we had done the same as WP:BOTANY did in 2006, but then it will be too late. Some article series, such as snakes, are bound to suffer sooner than others, such as elephants, which is why I believe it is more important to use scientific names for these article titles. So, it's not just about one snake article: it's concerns the principle, so it may as well be about all of them. --Jwinius (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Ultimately, this is the only way to organize a large zoological database" - but we're not a large zoological database in the way that this matters. If we were a purely scientific reference, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but the fact is that we're an encyclopedia meant for general readership, and placing barriers in the way of understanding by a general readership is bad. Not confusing or distracting th readers is reason enough to use common names wherever possible. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you want this to become? An incoherent mess of independent articles?? What barrier? If we do our best to display one or more common names prominently at the top of the article, I don't see that this has to be seen as an obstacle to readers in general. Besides, selecting one common name over any others for the title may lead some readers to conclude that they've arrived at the wrong article. --Jwinius (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This species has at least two common names: Children's python and northern brown python. What's wrong with keeping the page title as the scientific name and using a redirect to forward the other names to this article? It's a little bit silly that this discussion on renaming the article is more than 3000 characters longer than the article itself. Smacdonald (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get exactly four Google hits on "northern brown python"—three foreign language sites and an ebay auction—so I think it's safe to say that "Children's python" is by far the most common name. Our naming policy says we should use the most common name, not scientific names that the average reader is unlikely to know. Kafziel Complaint Department 14:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Google is not some oracle of truth: it can only index what's available on the web. Most publications are not, and may never be, available in this manner. For example, by that logic "Python" is primarily a programming language. --Jwinius (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you want to oppose this, and that's fine. But you know as well as I do that "Children's python" is the most common name. We both know if Google comes up with zero legitimate hits, then that's a pretty darn good indication. You personally don't like using common names no matter what they are which, again, is fine - but don't get carried away with silly arguments about Google. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, the Google search results are irrelevant. The point is that the current name is fine the way it is because it adds a much-needed consistency to a series of articles that was previously an inconsistent mess. The scientific names fixed this, because when I used them for the article titles, following a single taxonomic source, the articles organized themselves. Common names don't do that, which is why it was a mess. Do you really want to go back there again, just for the sake of upholding WP's controversial naming policy? --Jwinius (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If need be. Yup. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewrite[edit]

I'm not sure that I'll have time, but this article is in need of a bit of a rewrite. Citations would be welcome, but it is largely written as if a pet guide rather than an encyclopedia entry about a reptile. DreamHaze (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Children's python. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Children%27s_python&oldid=1200847829"