Why aren't those two subspecies combined in one article here. The subspecies names could still redirect to it. Gene Nygaard 01:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Because they are two different subspecies? Whether you believe it is best to use scientific or common names for article titles, the rule is to have one taxon (in this case subspecies) per article. Therefore, if you were to move the contents of say, the E. p. aliaborri article to "Kenyan carpet viper", then you'd have to add a disambiguation link to it for E. p. leakeyi, using a different name for that article. I can't see how this would be more efficient. In addition, both of these subspecies are also known by other, more unique, common names, so if you really wanted to rename the articles using common names, there would be no reason to use the only one common to both... for either one.
The main reason for using scientific names for the titles of all of these snake articles, instead of common names, is to avoid ending up with a taxonomic mess. Also, working this way means we no longer have to add disambiguation links to so many of the articles, since many of the common names used for vipers and other snakes (not just "Kenyan carpet viper") refer to more than one (sub)species. --Jwinius 13:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)