Talk:Trimeresurus hageni

	Trimeresurus hageni is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pitviper/pit viper

I've tried to change the anomalous one-word form to the conventional two-word form twice, and I've been reverted both times, the second time with part of the reason being that there was no consensus for change. There does not have to be consensus for change, for one thing. Any editor is free to make any constructive edit he chooses. Further, the one-word form does not appear in any dictionary at onelook.com, not that it would, it being simply a wrong spelling in the real world. That the other part of the reason for reversion is that the one-word form appears in over 230 articles on the same subject, coupled with the fact already mentioned that it is anomalous means that some force is at work not consistent with good copyediting practice. Readability is the important thing here; Wikipedia is not a tool for the promulgation of some party's notion of spelling reform. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that a consensus is not necessary for change, but it is in such cases of disagreement. At best this can be seen as a matter of taste; at worst a conflict between old ("pit viper") and new ("pitviper") spellings. I used to spell it the old way, but after reading more I eventually decided these pages should reflect the new spelling. Although both spellings are still included on the Crotalinae page, I changed everything to "pitviper" in December 2007. Since then, all 239 pages (including Viperidae) have been stable in this respect. For the sake of consistency, I am obviously in favor of leaving the situation as it is. --Jwinius (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to have been provided with a complete and reasonable explanation for the otherwise baffling ubiquity of the erroneous form. And it's no wonder I'm sensing resistance to change; I'd feel that way, too, if I'd put that much work into a thing. The fact remains, though, that literate, no-more-than-moderately well-informed readers of Wikipedia are going to feel a bump as they pass over "pitviper". I would be happy to change all instances of the one-word form to the two-word form, now that I've gone and made an issue of it like an idiot. The thing is, I never seem to have the stamina it takes to fend off a crowd of amateur scientists while I'm doing something like that. I could use some help there. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although we may not agree on this occasion, I do know how you feel. A while ago, the title of the Antivenin article was spelled "Antivenom." I couldn't stand that, because all of my (older) books use the term "antivenin," just as my (more recent) dictionaries do. My opponents argued that health organizations prefer to use the term "Antivenom" these days, but I didn't care, so I went ahead and moved the page to "Antivenin" and then edited the "Antivenom" redirect so that it couldn't be moved back without the help of an administrator. It was only afterwards that I not only realized that they had a point, but that all of the newer herpetological publications also seemed to be using the term "Antivenom." I've felt bad about it ever since. The fact is, spellings change. In academic circles, I'll bet new spellings appear all the time that never manage to gain a critical mass. But when they reach the kind of acceptance that we now see with "antivenom" and "pitviper," I don't think that anything can hold that back. When new spellings, such as these, are used consistently in all of the more authoritative literature, it's only a matter of time before the journalists and lexicographers begin to take notice. As a matter of fact, I'm going to go over to the "Antivenin" article now and offer them my apologies. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see what's happened? They got to you, they wore you down. "Antivenom" is an illiterate mistake no matter what they say. (Then again, there's the sad case of "inflammable", where safety considerations did indeed outweigh those of me feeling good about things in general.) I'm still on the side of holding the line, though. Let's revisit this after Christmas. No rush. Merry merry. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-)) No, they didn't get to me -- I did. I just realized that I had rejected one new spelling, only to have embraced another five months later. I had accepted "pitviper" for good reason, so I thought that it would be better to be consistent and reverse my earlier stance to accept "antivenom" for the same reason. After writing that apology, I immediately felt better. As opposed to June 2007, I now feel more open-minded about the subject; like I've discovered something. After all, the only thing constant about spelling is that it changes over time. Merry Christmas! --Jwinius (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have just read it, and yes I did the 2 word spelling, but for a reason: The main article Pit viper is spelled as 2 words, therefore, in my opinion all the articles about pit vipers suppose to be spelled the same. Main article rules, I guess!--Mishae (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]