Talk:Calabar python

Classification

As it has been stated in this article and elsewhere, the classification of this snake has always been rather contentious. I just noticed the recent changes of the description of this snake from a python to a boid. I will offer two (IMO) solid arguments for a reversion to the former state. 1) This snake is oviparous. 2) Boids are regarded as "New World" snakes and pythons restricted to Africa, Asia and Australia and Australasia. Hopefully the logic of this will help to clarify the issue. Discussion is of course welcome.

Move proposal

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 no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to moving this article to "Charina reinhardtii", in line with the rest of the articles in this series? --Jwinius (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps just to add the re-direct "Charina reinhardtii" would suffice. Ease of use should be the primary focus. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It makes it that much more difficult to do something like this:

• Crotalinae - valid scientific names.
• Crotalinae by common name
• Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms

Mind you, many of those common name redirects are disambig pages; a percentage that continues to grow. There are also plans for the further categorization of the common names and those tags would not be the kind that you'd want to see in regular articles. --Jwinius (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. You put the category Crotalinae on the redirect Charina reinhardtii, just as is now done for Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms. Perfectly legitimate, and solves the problem; just remember to put the category tag on the same line as the REDIRECT statement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Doesn't matter if it makes it more difficult in terms of editing - articles are named with readers in mind, not editors. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I feel that if the article gets redirected here, it will not put off a reader from reading it and getting his information. AshLin (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, whether or not it will "put off" a reader is pure speculation and is not at issue here. Naming conventions are policy. Anything that doesn't demonstrate how it is appropriate according to that policy is irrelevant. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This particular species is a perfect example of why Linnaean taxonomy makes more sense for animal articles. Common names are all too often entirely localized, inaccurate, out-dated (python?), or in this snake's case - in large number. Who is to say which is the "most common" usage? I've read and heard every variation mentioned in the article, and a few others that are not - I couldn't say any one is widely preferred over another. Though, I usually just defer to the article's original author when dealing with these kind of issues to prevent edit warring, unless it's glaringly wrong. -Dawson (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, because it depends on evidence of actual usage, which has not been presented by either side. But we should use common names when they are common and unambiguous; if they are also wrong or misleading, explain why to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

Placement of this species in the genus Charina is a mistake. Recent molecular work shows unambiguously that Calabaria not only belongs in its own genus, it belongs in its own subgroup, Calabariidae. See: Pyron, R.A., Burbrink, F.T., Wiens, J.J., 2013. A phylogeny and revised classification of Squamata, including 4161 species of lizards and snakes. BMC evolutionary biology 13, 93. The article needs to be revised accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.86.2 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calabar 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080826044449/http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu:80/ to http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)