User talk:Jwinius/Archive03

Python reticulatus

If any bones are ever broken in the process of constriction, this is accidental and very rare. This particular myth (and there are many snake myths) probably arose from the fact that when a snake regurgitates a fresh meal, it tends to look long and slender. But that's simply because any fur is flattened, while arms and legs are directed backwards along the length of the body. This may give the illusion that prey is crushed, but this result is basically the same with any snake, constrictor or not.

With all do respect you do not site any sources in your rebuttal, and therefore I can only accept that as hearsay - which is what your have relegated my claims to; and to be completely frank with you, I was quoting a VERY recent documentary on Anacondas & Reticulated Pythons from either the Science Channel, National Geographic, Animal Planet, or the Discovery channel (I incessantly watch them all lol - so i couldn't recall exactly which station it was) - It is THEY that made the claim that the bones ARE actually Crushed by the snake. And no offense, but I have accept them as a more reputable source than you in the field, only because they are Not amateurs but are a legitimate amalgamation of scientists in this particular field. Now, I would have loved to have been able to cite the source (the show) but unfortunately I did not DVR that show that day, but i was hoping with the scale and scope of Wikipedia that one who might have either seen, or had a hand in the production of the show would be corroborate the insert with a reference. Perhaps I should have just put up a "Citation Needed" field, in hindsight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.201.14 (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued here. --Jwinius (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style

Where does it say I have to use that deliberate style across same articles, why do we have to use that style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WordMachine (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that we have to accept someone who's never worked on these articles before to come in and start changing a situation that others are quite happy with? If you want to know more about the origin and purpose of this strange style, it's explained here. --Jwinius (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a wiki right? I do not see it in a manual of style. 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WordMachine (talk • contribs)

Of course it's not described in the Manual of Style (MoS), but that's just a collection of general guidelines that everyone is free to depart from if they see fit (it even says so). Therefore, a while back when I wanted to improve this series of articles and found myself confronted with a number of problems, I came up with this solution. Since then, others have contributed as well, so it's now a group effort. Yes, it looks different, but it works, a number of other people like it too and now four such articles even have GA status. Yes, it's a wiki, but we also have to work together. --Jwinius (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do better. Is there someplace where folks here coordinate these things, say if I would like to help work on Reptile and related entries.

There's the WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, although they mostly do things in a more standard fashion than the snake group do (which does not have its own official Wiki(sub)Project). --Jwinius (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intraperitoneal

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Intraperitoneal, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jararaca fiction reference

Just out of curiosity, why did you move this to the disambig page? That seems to imply (to me anyway) that it's a different animal. Vultur (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional creature and the species Bothrops jararaca have nothing in common whatsoever -- even the name is different (just similar). Since I often create disambiguation pages for common names that refer to two or more (sub)species, this case seemed no different. In addition, this way I figure that anyone actually searching Wikipedia for the fictional creature will find it more quickly. Mind you, the page about the book says nothing about the creatures, so perhaps you'd care to contribute there? --Jwinius (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. I just assumed it was an overblown fictional version of the real animal (the way Edgar Rice Burroughs had vicious killer gorillas which ran around the jungle killing savage beasts and Tarzan's great apes.) I'll go add that to the book article. Vultur (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITIS

Oh, I see - I thought you went with the NRDB! Good, so until firther notice I'd check ITIS and if that doesn't agree, I'll just dump the ref as an annotation in the page source for you folks to work over it. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalus oreganus

Hi Jwinius, I've converted and uploaded an additional free rattlesnake video that shows the typical behaviour of 'competing male (rattle)snakes' I think. Perhaps you can make use of it in some article? I'm not that familiar with the English snake articles, so … :-) --Ü 10:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks very much! I'll add it to the Crotalus oreganus article as well as the Crotalus article, since this is rather typical behavior for the genus, if not the entire family. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiho Jwinius, I replied on my talk page now. --Ü 03:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I share your interest in reptiles, and live near St Louis zoo, if you needed any particular photos I could have a go at getting them. The list of species is at this link. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, what a generous offer! Yes, there are still plenty of images we need for our articles. I've approached more than a few herpetologists for images I know they have or can get, but they've always become less enthusiastic as soon as I inform them that their images would have to become public property. That's why so many of the images here were donated by amateurs. So, of the snakes that they seem to have at the St. Louis Zoo, it would be nice if we had (more) images of the following species and subspecies:

Python anchietae, Angolan dwarf python
Aspidites melanocephalus, Black-headed python
Morelia boeleni, Boelen's python
Montivipera bulgardaghica, Bolkar viper
Trimeresurus borneensis, Bornean leaf-nosed pitviper
Lachesis stenophrys, Central American bushmaster
Crotalus abyssus, Grand Canyon rattlesnake
Vipera bornmuelleri, Hermon Mountain viper
Eristicophis macmahoni, Leaf-nosed viper
Crotalus polystictus, Mexican lance-headed rattlesnake
Macrovipera mauritanica, Moorish viper
Zhaoermia mangshanensis, Mt. Mang pitviper
Montivipera wagneri, Ocellate mountain viper
Agkistrodon contortrix phaeogaster, Osage copperhead
Trimeresurus mcgregori, Philippine pitviper
Crotalus willardi, Ridgenosed rattlesnake, particularly the Arizona ridge-nosed rattlesnake, C. w. willardi.
Liasis mackloti savuensis, Sawu python
Bothriopsis taeniata, Speckled forest pitviper
Crotalus horridus, Timber rattlesnake
Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma, Western cottonmouth
Sistrurus miliarius streckeri, Western pygmy rattlesnake (although I think their picture is of S. m. miliarius)
Gloydius blomhoffi siniticus, Yangtze mamushi
Bothriechis aurifer, Yellow-blotched palm-pitviper

As you can see, some of these articles already have images, but these are either of relatively poor quality, or show little of the animal in question. Some of the articles do not even exist yet, but they will eventually, so it will be nice to have images in advance. By the way, since snakes don't always cooperate with photographers, a good strategy might be to ask when it's their feeding time. Not that we're interested in any "action" pictures, but maybe then you'll have a better chance of seeing them in more exposed positions. Good luck! --Jwinius (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gulp! I'll print out the list and give it a go next weekend. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, got some of these, and am editing and uploading at present, no article on Montivipera bulgardaghica, but there are images waiting at Image:Bolkar Viper.jpg and Bolkar_Viper_side.jpg Tim Vickers (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Actually, we do have an article for Montivipera bulgardaghica; it's just that ours is called Vipera bulgardaghica. I've added your images to it -- fine ones indeed! I can hardly wait to see the rest. :-) --Jwinius (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, Regarding your new images of Vipera latastei and Sistrurus catenatus, would you happen to know which subspecies these are supposed to be? The latter looks like S. c. edwardsi, but I have no idea about the V. latastei image. --Jwinius (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The zoo website says their specimen is Vipera latasti gaditana, but it only had the species names on the labels and the rattlesnake entry isn't specific. As a thought, you might also get some good photos from this guy on Flicker - (link). Tim Vickers (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and contact the zoo via email to make sure. I also have a request for you: could you try to use scientific name for your image names instead of common names? It would be easier to match them to the right articles that way since it's not always clear which common names apply to which (sub)species. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Liasis_mackloti_savuensis_2.jpg is a new one, but no article yet. (also a Liasis_mackloti_savuensis.jpg, but that one wasn't mine). Tim Vickers (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all done. I'll try to get some of the ones that were hiding behind logs etc next time I'm at the zoo. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, Tim! Thanks very much for the new images and I look forward to seeing more additions in the future. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found Image:Agkistrodon contortrix (1).jpg, Image:Bothriechis_schlegelii (2).jpg and Image:Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus).jpg on Flickr I haven't put these in articles. You could also have a look through the free snake photos on Flickr, if you post links on my talkpage and identify stuff I can do any photo editing required and upload them to commons. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that with Flickr? Is everything there available under some sort of public domain license, or only some of the stuff? The link you pointed out earlier has several interesting pictures, but I'm not sure if we can use any of them. Would we have to ask the author of each for permission? A few of the images I'm interested in there have both an "© All rights reserved" tag and a "This photo is public" tag. It's confusing. --Jwinius (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People upload stuff onto Flickr and then decide what licence to apply to it, but not everybody understands copyright very well so they might apply more than one licence. In general, the most restrictive licence is the one that we have to pay attention to. The "This photo is public" tag only means that the public can see it, rather than it being "public domain" in copyright terms. All the images in the link I gave above should be usable. If you just put links to the images you are interested in I can work out the copyright/editing and upload stuff to commons. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! That sounds like a plan. Some of the images I'm interested in include: Yellow-Blotched Palm-Pitviper, Leaf Nosed Viper, Yellow Eyelash Viper, Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake, Osage Copperhead and Timber Rattlesnake. Let me know about the licenses. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all copyrighted, I e-mailed the photographer and we'll see if he will release them for use. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found this one, which illustrates serpentine motion quite nicely. I put it on the rat snake page, but you might want it soewhere else as well. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A nice picture for sure, although that snake was not moving when the picture was taken. It looks like may have been moving forwards in a serpentine fashion, but that somebody stood in front of it, which caused it to stop and pull back a little. So far, though, I haven't done much work on these and other species in the family Colubridae, or for that matter on the Atractaspididae, the Elapidae or the Boidae. Most of my work has involved organizing articles according to the taxonomy provided by ITIS, adding synonyms, common names, lots of redirects for both, as well as geographic range data. Unfortunately, we're still waiting for a certain Dr. McDiarmid to finish his next taxonomic checklist (used for ITIS) that will cover the first three of those families, so I'm not going to do much about that for now. The current checklist does cover the Boidae, but bringing order to the current mess there represents a major effort for which I have yet to find the necessary time and motivation. --Jwinius (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what species this is? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the linear pattern on its neck and overall pale coloration, I'm fairly certain that's an example of Crotalus durissus unicolor, the Aruba island rattlesnake. --Jwinius (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded and categorised, thanks. What about this strange-looking chap? It's from San Antonio zoo species list if that's any help. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult. It looks like a colubrid. The head looks like an Elaphe (rat snake) or a Pituophis (bull or pine snake), but the color pattern is unusual. If it is on that list it would have to be Pituophis melanoleucus ruthveni (Louisiana pine snake), but then it would certainly not be a typical specimen. In that case it may very well be the product of some commercial breeding program -- images of which I believe do not belong on Wikipedia. --Jwinius (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, that photographer got back in touch, hopefully he'll be OK with releasing some of those photos. In the meantime, there is this quite striking image taken in India. Do you think it is an Indian Rock Python, or something else? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Burmese python, Python molurus bivittatus, one of the world's heaviest snakes. It's not only larger, but also more numerous, more darkly colored and more evenly tempered than the Indian python, P. m. molurus. Consequently, there are lots more of them in zoos and private collections around the world and therefore lots more available images of them too. This one looks irritated. --Jwinius (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you corrected the identification of the main image of the Indian rock python article, there is also this one as an option (if you can confirm their ID), but it isn't such a particularly good shot. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is harder than it looks. I think this new image here is of P. m. molurus, but then I've got to change my mind about the previous Flickr image, which must be P. m. molurus after all. The first time around it was the dark ground color that was my main consideration, but now I'm thinking more of those head patterns in the diagram on the Python molurus page. Plus, it's often a good idea to take the location into account: if there's one country where the zoos are more likely to keep P. m. molurus, it's got to be India! --Jwinius (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean even harder that it looks, and it looks pretty hard to me! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tad has released the photos you requested and I put them in what I think were the correct articles (although you might want to check). Tim Vickers (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please thank Tad once more for me: his photos look look fantastic! I'm especially happy with Eristicophis: this article would never have been complete without that last image, now in the taxobox, to show the weird nasorostral scale arrangement -- it's totally unique. Again, thanks for all your help, Tim. --Jwinius (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Style (re: Crotalus lepidus klauberi‎)

Hi Jwinius, While I understand your reasoning, I respectfully disagree about the "intentional" lead style. It seems unnecessarily redundant. Why do the common names have to be included above the article's content, and then again in a later section? Why not just include the common names once in the lead? I have to wonder--are people really so dumb that they can't read beyond an article's first one or two sentences? Is there any kind of consensus on the use of this format, or is this just something that you're enforcing because you like it better?Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I assume that you've read the relevant section on my user page? When I developed this format, I wanted to clearly display the common names at the beginning of the article on a single line (I did this precisely because many people do not read beyond the first sentence). When I realized that this would not be possible in cases where there are too many common names, I decided that only a few of the most popular names would be listed up top while the complete list would be included below. It's possible that this approach may seem less strange in articles such as Agkistrodon piscivorus that include long lists of common names, as opposed to ones where there are almost as many names mentioned above as below. However, in cases such as C. l. klauberi, not listing all of the common names below would mean that only one or two names would be left to mention there, making that section look too short and too much like a mistake.

Is there any consensus for this format? Not really. Other than myself, very few people have ever felt the need to make any serious contributions to these articles. Of course, there's never been any shortage of people willing to tell me how to write these articles, but they never wanted to do any actual work. My goal was to write a taxonomically correct series of 100 articles, representing a single subfamily, Viperinae, with a complete list of common names and taxonomic synonyms, including redirects. To my knowledge, this has never been attempted at Wikipedia. After a few months I decided that, due to it's inherent limitations, further compliance with WP:LEAD would be a waste of time, so I came up with a new format to better fit my needs. Yes, it looks different, but many have expressed their understanding of it and four such articles have so far been given GA status, so it can't be all that bad. --Jwinius (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it really does seem superfluous for something with only a few common names like C. l. klauberi, whereas it obviously makes sense for something like A. piscivorus. I don't see why it needs to be uniformly applied, other than because you feel a sense of ownership after doing the "actual work" on the articles. Oh well.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there may be many names that are not in the source you initially consult, so even in the apparently simple cases leaving a section for future expansion might be a good idea. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Tread On Me

You removed a link in the black rat snake article, purportedly because it is "irrelevant" and because it describes 'a writer coming between a snake and its dinner.' Consisting of detailed observations of the snake, the linked article is anything but irrelevant. It's obvious, furthermore, that the true reason you deleted the link is that you don't like the idea of Homo sapiens making a choice to participate in a wild process. Believe it or not, this is how Homo sapiens operates. People are part of nature. Your deletion amounts to an imposition of personal preferences on other Wikipedia readers. Please restore the link. Wikipedia doesn't need police officers like you, who think they own articles to which they contribute. Though I'd be perfectly justified in restoring the link, I won't because your precipitous, irrational and imperious reaction suggests you'd like to play the restore/revert game, and I have better things to do. 69.177.95.31 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel so strongly about it, but my opinion remains unchanged. The linked article in question says more about human behavior than it does about the snake. --Jwinius (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This is not vandalism. You should read WP:VANDALISM. --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realized later on that it was an unorthodox attempt at humor on your part. Still, I don't see all that much difference; most vandals also think they're being funny. It seems our goals are at odds with each other: I've always done my best to keep these articles as serious as possible, while you seek to "lighten them up." Well, I'd rather you didn't. --Jwinius (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. cygnis insignis 18:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're referring to my recent edits of Python reticulatus and Morelia spilota variegata, which you've now reverted. I'd don't see why you think it was so important to do so, unless it's because you've taken a personal dislike to me and/or the way I've written and arranged the snake articles that I've worked on, particularly those in the Pythonidae section. I'm sorry that you took my criticism of your initial edits to those articles so badly; I honestly meant no offense. I would prefer to avoid a conflict with you, but you're making that difficult. I find this all very regrettable. --Jwinius (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"subtitles" for common names

Hello,
I'm contributing to reptiles on fr.wikipedia, and saw your "subtitles" with common names. I also read your point of view about scientific names vs common names.
I'm fully agree with you on that point, and also a significative part of zoologists on fr.wikipedia. We even tried to change the editing conventions to include the same kind of system, but it failed.
We made several tests for that, you can see for example : Vulpes vulpes, Vulpes vulpes, Vulpes vulpes, Vulpes vulpes, or Cichorium intybus foliosum, Cichorium intybus foliosum.

Did you tried (or planed to try) to make rules change on en:?

Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hexasoft! I love your "titre" template over on fr.wp! It's almost exactly what I had in mind when I developed my "subtitles" almost two years ago. As you may already have guessed, my favorite version is Cichorium intybus foliosum. I was just recently trying to explain to someone over here that what I really wanted was something more like this format at eol.org. I wasn't sure whether this would be possible within the wiki system we use, but apparently it's more flexible than I thought. Well done!

Yes, several years ago I tried to get scientific names accepted as article titles, but I'm afraid I failed miserably. Since then there have been other attempts, but where the zoologists have continued to fail the botanists have actually succeeded! If I remember correctly, they argued that so many of the same common names were used for so many different species of plants (homonyms) that the idea of using common name for titles was fast becoming untenable. Therefore, over here at en.wp, I guess you could say that we're now halfway there.

That leaves the zoologists. I know a few around here and they aren't happy with the present situation either. One problem is that the many common names used for animals are not as confusing as those used for plants. With these snake articles, the Viperinae for example, I notice that there are about 2.5x as many common names (Viperinae by common name) as there are scientific names (Viperinae); most are synonyms, with only a handful of homonyms. Therefore, unless we can think of an argument of similar persuasive power, our problems may be just too subtle for them to understand. We may simply have to wait for the situation to become worse before they see out point.

Your "titre" template, however, does offer an interesting alternative. If we were to create a similar "title" template here at en.wp, it would, for example, allow us to rename articles to their scientific names, but maintain their common name titles. Not a perfect solution, but it would be a step in the right direction. In the mean time I will share this new information with some other editors around here. Let's keep in touch! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your arguments, and we develop exactly the same when we tried to change the things :)

For the "titre" model, there are some small problems:

it uses javascript to work, so changes are not visible on "poor" browsers, on printable versions or things like that
it may confuse people when you have to create wiki links (what is the real name of the article to put in [[]]

Our goal was to promote the scientific name with the common name(s) just after, in the "title area", so that readers can see both at once (something like {{titre|{{PAGETITLE}}<BR/>common names…}}), and so not "perturb too much readers.

Major objections when we tried to change thinks were:

"fanatics", which are against latin usage or promote french usage
people that say that some names are so commons that it would hurt "less surprise" rules to change title (i.e. lion).

But we manage to make people admit that some common names are not based on solid sources to prove their effective usage, or to prove that they are the most used. So we started to creat what we call biohomonymie, what may be translated by biodisambiguity or something like that. These are generic articles (w/o classification / taxobox) which only treat the signification attached to a name (such as cultural aspects for example), and which gives a list of taxa that hold this name. You can see for example fr:Lapin (rabbit) or fr:Rat. Of course final articles are in latin, because the main name is used ;)

Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: sorry, my english vocabulary is sometime poor, I speak technical english in my job, not common/zoological english.

For the number of common names, I mainly working on geckos, where common names are rare (but really stupids when they exist...). In fact french get very few common names, and most of the existing ones are very old ones, or names derivated from "ad hoc" translations from english, german or even sometimes latin names. The later ones are so artificial, and do not correspond to any real usage by french people. The difficulty is to prove that these names are not "real". Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The javascript problem is unfortunate. Perhaps a way around it (certainly a method that would appeal to me) would be to use a cross between my subtitle format and the titre model. For instance, you could start with an article such as Vipera berus that includes a "Common names:" line with two or three names above the lead section, but then apply the titre template to it. If the browser's javascript is working properly, titre would make the "Common names:" line disappear, but the names themselves (including the more link) would reappear directly under the article title. Maybe titre could also add italic type face to the article title, but nothing else (for now). On the other hand, if the browser's javascript is *not* working properly, the article would look as though the titre template had not been used.

I like your biohomonymie initiative. The closest I've got to it are pages like Viper and Python that I turned into disambiguation pages. If people argue, for example, that "Python" should once more become the name of the Pythonidae page, all I have to do is remind them of the confusing Python (genus) article, or the fact that many people would also like to see Python (programming language) renamed to "Python." However, creating a biohomonymie page for Snake would be an excellent way to separate all of the cultural aspects from a purely scientific description of the suborder, which I would call "Serpentes."

As for really stupid common names, there are plenty of those in English as well. Where none exist, authors (usually herpeologists) simply make them up. There are no rules and different authors often make up different common names for the same species as they see fit. One infamous example is A Complete Guide to Scientific and Common Names of Reptiles and Amphibians of the World by Frank & Ramus (1996), in which many of the common names are simply made up -- "Bocage's horned adder" (Bitis heraldica) doesn't have any horns! I suspect that in most cases, common names are silly and completely obscure. Only a tiny minority of common names (cat, dog, horse, lion...) are clear and unambiguous to most people. --Jwinius (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no venom :-

Yep, we can do without it. I apologise for any incivility, I hope we can disagree amicably. By the way, your assumption regarding my history as a contributor is incorrect. Having said that, I will add that we have not met before. As for snakes and venom, debunking common misconceptions may be approaching the problem from the wrong direction. It is more convenient to state what is a fact, rather that listing what they are not. However, as many snakes are, I made a concession to that view when I said: "Morelia spilota imbricata is a non-venomous snake found in southern regions of Western Australia". We should give the reader credit, if they are at our article, they are probably aware that no python is venomous. A good place to mention it would be the description of how it does obtain food and defend itself. Non-venomous is not the most remarkable fact about this creature, I'm sure you agree with that. Cheers, cygnis insignis 12:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy and relieved to hear that you feel the same way. We got off on the wrong foot and I'm partly to blame for that; trying to maintain (enforce?) the quality and consistency of so many articles for so long has caused my responses to be rather blunt at times. I should mind my manners more often, even though it's not always easy.

Actually, we had met before: over here. :-)

Regarding the venomous/non-venomous labels (followed by a geographic range), that was actually never my idea; it was simply part of the format that I "inherited." But, since consistency is important to me, I've seen to it that virtually every snake article I've worked on starts out that way. Of course, I'm all for making make systematic improvements, but as soon as there are hundreds of articles involved, you tend not to make such decisions as frequently anymore -- even relatively small systematic changes can take days of solid work to complete!

As for what people may or may not know about pythons, or indeed snakes in general, if there's one thing I learned early it's how little people know about them at all. At 13, I was already an old hand and patiently fielding the silliest questions about snakes that you've ever heard -- from adults! But, this also brings to mind an issue that is rather sensitive to many people here at WP: the question of who these articles are meant for. For instance, should these snake articles be written for laymen, snake keepers, amateur herpetologists or professional herpetologists? I started aiming for the second group, but as I became more serious and I guess I ended up switching to the third. Only recently, though, a school teacher in Africa pointed out to me that articles, such as Bitis gabonica, are not that accessible anymore to people who know very little about snakes. He may have a point. To mitigate this problem, the EOL project is using an article format with a variable detail level. We don't have that, so all we can do is write articles with better lead sections. Perhaps my best effort at this is with Sea snake, but in most cases I admit there's plenty of room for improvement. The way the current lead section format is constructed is partly a nod towards the novice readers and partly a reflection of my own desire for consistency. So, do I think it looks kind of strange to say that P. reticutatus is non-venomous? Of course, but I assure you that not everybody knows that and it's such a small matter for us to make sure they do. --Jwinius (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Hi again. I don't know the background, why have you termed it vandalism? cygnis insignis 17:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspidites? That's a recurring theme, unfortunately, just as it is with Leiopython. Australia seems to be home to a number of amateur herpetologists who have used some pretty controversial methods in order to get their names forever associated with the taxonomy of certain Indo-Australian snakes, particularly pythons. This PDF should explain the situation. The problem is that one or more individuals frequently drop in to "correct" our articles so as to reflect R.H.'s taxonomy or cast his work in a better light. However, we clearly explain the situation: R.H. has created a number of new taxa, but for various reasons these are not recognized by the academic world. The ITIS taxonomy we follow for these articles reflects the academic view. Nevertheless, our job here is to be neutral and fair, so we mention his work while explaining why it's given no further attention. If that's not good enough for R.H. and/or his friends, too bad. Not that they ever stick around to argue their point... --Jwinius (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought it was something like that. I read the pdf a while ago; the introduction gives a reasonably balanced view, and I have seen Hoser's various sites and papers. The text in our article seems unbalanced, a bit reactionary, we are probably overstating things. There are quite a few articles that have a view added, we can still assume good faith even if they are wrong. It stops further disruption. It may be systematic disruption, or R.H. and/or his friends, but there is no point in speculation. I remain sceptical of self-promoters, but it is a side issue. Nobody should be coming here to 'argue' a point, and we should not give them one. The best defence against POV pushers is citations for expansion and explanation. This is true of any views to be included, even if they are probably right. I can point out any number of articles that have wording that seems to say "Some conspiracy is stopping the publication of blah-blah" or "Look! This stuff is nonsense. Now you know!" It happens less in better articles, a lot more work that reverting all and sundry, so we need to be encouraging contributors. It is possible to make a good faith contrib and be wrong, we should not batter them for doing so. How can you be certain that there is some cabal seeking to advance this stuff, and not someone using a page from the internet by a published author. Even if there was, I'm sure you will agree that the risk of driving off potential contributors is not acceptable.

Anyway, we can expect a lot of new (and accepted) descriptions from Australia. There has been a lot of work on snake taxonomy, despite problems in collecting enough specimens. I don't plan to wait for ITIS to include them before I add citations to them. While it may be good on some taxa, I have found some info to be patchy or even wildly incorrect. I happened to come across a discussion in which you identify these shortcomings, sorry I don't remember where, can you supply a ref that endorses its authority? I realise it is at an early stage, but if it has the required momentum I'm happy to help - I will notify them where they have a single entry that confuses a plant and animal genus of the same name. ;-)

Regarding our earlier discussion; I would be surprised if a reader (usually pretty clever) thought that pythons were venomous, maybe its a regional thing. In any case, I don't think that debunking whatever myths we suspect are out there is the way to go. That it existed in the articles is no reason to keep it, nor am I the only one to try to remove it. If you really want to keep it, can you provide a reference that supports your view? If our opinions could be a citation, I could counter yours: the people I knew when I was growing up knew lots about pythons. cygnis insignis 09:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could rephrase some of the statements concerning R.H.'s publications and improve the references. However, I'd be against giving him any more attention than necessary. He has a clear track record of taking more than he deserves, so we shouldn't encourage him as it will only lead to more trouble. He'll never be satisfied with us anyway unless we fully reflect his POV.

For sure many new species have been described that ITIS does not mention. As taxonomies go it's pretty conservative, so I wouldn't blame you if you were wondering why we bother with it. Yet, it's exactly what we need. See this discussion from 2006. An advantage of sticking with a conservative taxonomy is that we don't have to worry about adding and modifying articles too often. Later, it was pointed out to me that ITIS is also incomplete. In particular, it's missing many Colubridae genera. In such cases, I think we have no choice but to resort to using the TIGR Reptile Database (previously known as the EMBL Reptile Database and later as the New Reptile Database).

Regarding ITIS itself, it's based on McDiarmid, Campbell and Touré's 1999 Snake Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, vol. 1 (SSotWv1) and on Dr. McDiarmid's continuing work. I expect vol. 2 will be published in the next year or two. According to the introduction in SSotWv1, the series is being compiled for the Herpetologists' League and for CITES, and was adopted as the standard reference for snake nomenclature at the 10th CITES meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe, 1997. Apparently it has been well-received, since it seems like almost every paper on snakes (not concerning colubrids or elapids) published after 1999 references SSotWv1.

As for the venomous/non-venomous issue, ignorance in this matter may very well be a regional thing. It's possible that most folks in Australia are reasonably educated in these matters and are capable of distinguishing the odd python from the overall background of venomous elapids there. I'd like to think so. In Florida, however, where I spent most of my childhood, it seemed to me that almost everyone was completely ignorant and terrified of even the most inoffensive species. To them, every snake (to many, spawn of the Devil!) was potentially venomous and deserved to be killed on sight for the good of mankind. Often enough, that's what happened. I would not be surprised if the editor who started this venomous/non-venomous labeling trend was also an American who is equally aware of how ignorant his countrymen are of these fascinating animals. --Jwinius (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is lucky that I am able to reply, I'm not sure when I will online again. I have been editing at my stopovers from my handful of books, mostly field guides. I look forward to working on some of these articles, and will let you know when I'm back.

Re: RH. My view is avoid commentary; "clear track record of taking more than he deserves...," without citation is an opinion based on POV (yours) and therefore beyond our scope. While all these views are informative, on wikipedia it is potentially disruptive to contribute as if it was a blog. It might be an author, or a fan, but if we treat any ip contributor as a belligerent POV pusher (or vandal) we risk losing potential collaborators. As tempting as it is to simplify matters with assumptions, I speak from experience when I request that you avoid it. I know you will appreciate that our opinions are utterly worthless in making determinations about the merits of workers in this field, as with our speculations on ignorance, it is a dead end. Being a self-promoter or 'cheater' does not make them wrong from an objective view, and some of his work is accepted in any case. It is worth comparing the history of the genus Antaresia by Wells & Wellington, this is accepted despite the rest their work being vigorously challenged and dismissed.

I'm very interested in the future of these 'lists', such as ITIS, and it would be helpful to use as a reference. An entry a ITIS would seem to be an excellent citation for an accepted name. Conservative is good, given the frequent revisions, but we should make an inference based on the reverse. For the reasons you point out, a names absence does not imply it is invalid, they might not have got around to including it. It would be convenient if there was a list that gave all the accepted names, but it does not appear to have been realised. The TIGR db does not pretend to be a nomenclator, rather it gives citations to those who have sought to publish a description. From this we can discuss the taxon, the accepted theory, and the reasons why other names exist. We should not exclude information because it entails a lot of work for us, we need to explain it all. I also checked out EOL (some of the more complete pages), and see merit in their approach, though it prompts me to give you a pertinent view. There is little in the structure that will translate over here; it is an enhanced database that can have information added into preformed sections. We have articles that have content displayed on one page, not selectable links, placeholders, and 'page under construction' promises. One need only think of those parts of the internet that name taxa to get a Google hit, they are generally composed of ads and links to other sections that may or may not contain facts. We don't have that structure and should avoid trying to resemble the worst of those, it is anathema.

If we need to mention it in the lead, the phrasing I prefer is "... is a non-venomous snake, a python, .... That is still a compromise, we are pandering to ignorance and insulting the reasonably well read. It is not the most notable thing, according to my references, and should be mentioned in the section explaining how they do dispatch their prey.

I don't know if you contribute to other subjects of our document, I would recommend it to anyone contributing to their special area of interest. I find it very useful in developing an objective, encyclopedic, outlook that can help to avoid unnecessary content discussions. Most problems, and their solutions, can be seen elsewhere; there is a risk of losing perspective when we do a lot of work on a single topic. I need to do this frequently; a detached review, of an interesting topic, allows me to see what does work toward improvements.

Cheers for piping up on the skink's name. I was unaware of the listing at requested moves; s/he is entitled to 'suspect' my motives, but it was disruptive to air that and undo my work. I did it to demonstrate the advantage, with transparency and good faith. Oh well, let babies have their bottles. I don't imagine the reverter can object once the requisite five days are up, if the consensus remains can you ask for it to be restored then? cygnis insignis 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding RH, I didn't always feel the same way about him. Read my last comment here. I now know that I not only met him, I'm actually responsible for introducing him to the Litteratura Serpentium people, which later led to the infamous events that eventually culminated in the publication of Prof. Wüster's paper. At the time, RH seemed like a nice enough guy, but I knew nothing of taxonomy, so I hadn't the foggiest why people were saying he was controversial. It was only as I worked here at WP, some twenty years later, that I developed an understanding and appreciation for the subject. When I decided to tackle the python section last year and came across references to his work, I didn't even recognize his name. All I knew was that his taxa were invalid according to ITIS. However, since somebody had taken the trouble to mention those names, I felt it was necessary to include some explanation, if possible, in the Taxonomy sections of the appropriate articles. I would have left it at that had I not seen the reference to Wüster's paper at the bottom of this page. Not only did it offer a clear explanation of the situation, but it was then that I began to suspect my own, albeit innocent, involvement. Only last month, when I mentioned the story to an old friend from those days, was my suspicion confirmed. It's not that I feel RH took advantage of me: on the contrary, he helped me out and for that I am grateful. However, he did eventually take advantage of my friends at Litt. Serp. He used them to published one of his papers, requesting that they do so quickly "as others were working on the same subject." It was a deliberate attempt on his part to scoop other researchers in naming a new Pseudechis species from Irian Jaya. The result was that the new species was accepted based on years of hard work by others, but that RH walked away with the honor of naming it (Pseudechis pailsei Hoser 1998) simply because he managed to published his poor-quality paper first. If that isn't a blatant transgression of the ICZN's Code of Ethics, then I don't know what is. Nevertheless, in the Leiopython article, all I've done is to mention the names proposed by RH, followed by a short explanation as to why they aren't recognized, followed by a reference to Wüster's paper. If you think the latter part of the statement is biased, we could change it to "... these descriptions are considered vague and questionable by Wüster et al. (2001)." However, I do believe the reference to Wüster's paper should be included, because it explains to the reader the most likely reason for the fact that these names are not considered valid by ITIS.

Regarding the question of whether RH's names are valid or not in an absolute sense, the problem for institutional herpetologists has always been that such names are usually valid according to the ICZN. But, as Wüster explained in his paper, that's the easy part. Apparently, not much is necessary to satisfy the ICZN's requirements: all you have to do is publish your paper so that others can easily obtain a copy, indicate that you intend to describe a new species with a name in Latin letters (I believe it also has to be a unique name), designate a holotype and include a diagnosis. In effect, this provides a loophole that people like RH (and, I suspect, Wells & Wellington) can take advantage of in order to become famous. After all, their names will live on in the literature long after the controversy that surrounds them now is forgotten.

Okay, so what happens to a name that was valid according to the ICZN (like most names are), but is considered invalid according to a particular taxonomy, such as ITIS? Answer: It becomes a synonym for a valid name. Basically, checklists, such as SSotWv1, are lists of valid names and all their synonyms (besides offering geographic range info and being a reference guide to past publications at the same time).

As far as the EOL article format is concerned, all I wanted to say with that is that they make an effort to make their articles accessible at a beginners level as well as a more advanced level. Obviously, our system is not set up that way, and I'm not saying it should be. But, it's clear that they haven't forgotten the people who would rather see information that's easier to understand. Also, I like the way they display their common names up at the top of the article, just below the scientific name (even though it's just a single name). They started doing that after I did, although my idea was in turn inspired by a book that deals with lists of common names in this manner. It struck me as a more clear and efficient method than what the WP guidelines suggested. Now it seems other people are exploring this idea too... here's what some folks over that the French WP have been experimenting with: Cichorium intybus foliosum. That's what I call cool!

Back to the lead section and venomous/non-venomous. Honestly, if I were truly to consider all this my own pet project, I'd be on your side and we'd do away with all such superfluous information immediately. Obviously, P. reticulatus is non venomous -- it says so on the Pythonidae page! Obviously it's a python -- look at the taxobox! We could go on. Yes, it's a constrictor and it lays eggs, which it incubates -- that's all explained on the Pythonidae page too! But, it's not my pet project, and I already bend a number of guidelines, so I'd rather not rock the boat any more than necessary. That, and the fact that most people seem to be quite happy with the current format (once again, I didn't make it up), plus the fact that it's all over the place now (very many articles), which means changing would entail a whole lot of work... well, that all means I'm not too enthusiastic about making such minor changes.

Have I ever contributed to other WP projects? Not systematically. I could probably help with the computer-related articles, but for me that seems too much like work. Snakes, however, are something totally different and a subject that I happen to know more about than most. And there's also the fact that I have many books on them too, as opposed to none on almost all other animals. It's really the only area where I've always felt that I can make my most valuable contribution at WP.

As for the skink, if you ever want something moved to a valid scientific name, just let me know and I'll back you up! However, a word of advice: the way to make such moves stick is to follow the guidelines: announce your intention, wait a few days (three is enough), and then go for it (or ask a friendly admin to help). And it doesn't matter if nobody responds within that time -- all that's important is that you gave them the opportunity to do so. :-) Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other references

No problem, just give me a couple of days. AMcCall (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you must have started editing as 76.118.7.167 and wrote the new Venom section for Crotalinae, which I then moved to Crotalus. Very good! I'm looking forward to seeing a complete set of references for it. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits of Heterodon Nasiscus

To Jwinius: This is Voruk, I know these things about Hognose snakes because 1. I own a very territorial male and he has never bitten me (he only hisses and and forms a "cobra hood") 2. Ask around-No one has ever been bitten by Hognose snake unless it was a food response. --Voruk (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voruk, I also know lots of stuff about snakes from first hand experience. I was probably the first to breed H. nasicus in Europe in the 1980s, so I know a thing or two about them as well. Unfortunately for both of us, WP does not allow original research, so all we can do is read other people's publications on the subject and quote (paraphrase) from that. --Jwinius (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing Message

Who else is going to notice that edit? Off topic: have you attempted to produce morphs? I find the albinos to be particulary attractive. I plan to start an albino hognose breeding project in the near future. --Voruk (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's going to notice? Why, any editor who takes WP seriously! Those principles are there for a reason: they prevent people from just making stuff up and passing it off as fact. That's how WP gets a bad name. Actually, I was one of those people when I started out here, but that didn't last long. What made me change my mind was a Jimmy Wales interview I saw one day in the paper. In it, he admitted that he regularly received complaints from students who said that they had quoted WP, but that the information turned out to be wrong. That's why accuracy and references are so important! At that point I went back to check the articles that I had written using my own books and found that I had exaggerated many things without meaning to, such as the maximum lengths of certain well-known species. I ended up revising three months of solid work. Ever since then my attitude has been never to assume anything and only to use information for which I can include reliable references. This way I know that everything I add to these articles is probably true. If not, then either the source was outdated, or the mistake was in the publication (not my fault). Of course, I can still make a mistake paraphrasing a source, but at least this way the chances of that are minimized. This method of working also has another major advantage: it has forced me to read a lot more, so that I've actually ended up learning many new things. And, I'm still learning.

As for the morphs, except for a few old preserved specimens, I haven't owned any snakes since 1990. But even back in the 1980s when I had lots of them, I was never interested in albinos. I've always considered that they have an unnatural look that I find unattractive. For that matter, I've never found albino women attractive either. :-) On the other hand, there's probably still more money to be made in breeding such reptiles, if that's what you're after. I know: I used to breed them for money too (H. nasicus, along with L. t. campbelli and L. t. hondurensis), but it was eventually so much work that I ended up killing my own hobby. In the end, I couldn't wait to get rid of every single last one of them. --Jwinius (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLACK SNAKE IN MY HOUSE

I saw a snake slide under my spare bedroom door this afternoon. This room is used for storage and there are a hundred places it could be hiding. I have blocked the space under the door so it can't get out - but how can I draw it out of it's hiding place - I don't want it to die in the room - I would prefer to set it free. Freaking me out that I have a snake in the house. Any suggestions are appreciated.

Diane Sebastian, FL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.197.5 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diane, First of all, you have to remember that in the United States, black snakes (Coluber constrictor, a.k.a. the black racer), are completely harmless. Think of it as a large lizard. Also, they're definitely more afraid of you than vice versa. It may have come into your house because it was tracking food, like a mouse, or simply because it was looking for shelter from the heat outside.

To get rid of it, if that room is really such an impossible mess, I would advise you simply to unblock the space under the door and to forget about the snake. That may sound counterintuitive, but above all snakes are brilliant escape artists (actually, unless that room is snake-proof, it may already be gone). There are lots of people who have kept these snakes as pets, accidentally had then escape within the house, and then, much to their disappointment, never seen them again. This has happened to me on a few occasions.

You may also want to read the article linked to the species above in order to familiarize yourself with it. Generally, the more you know about it, the less threatening it will become. Remember that you live in Florida, a state that some say has more snakes per square mile than many tropical countries. In other words, they're part of the environment that you live in, so you'll probably see more. The only venomous species in Florida are:

Crotalus adamanteus, eastern diamondback rattlesnake
Crotalus horridus, timber rattlesnake (only in the north)
Sistrurus miliarius, pigmy rattlesnake
Agkistrodon contortrix, copperhead (only in the north)
Agkistrodon piscivorus, cottonmouth
Micrurus fulvius, eastern coral snake

These are all quite distinctive, but usually not encountered that frequently. In about five years of actively hunting for snakes in Florida as a kid, I never once found a venomous species (much to my disappointment, but to my parent's relief).

If you do see this particular black snake again, or any other harmless snake, in your house, and want to get rid of it, just pick it up and place it outside. If you don't want it to bite you, put on a pair of leather gloves, preferably ones with cuffs (I was just speaking to a lady last week who said she did that). You could also use a broom to try and sweep it into an open box in which to transport it.

Finally, if the idea of living in your house and not knowing if there's a snake in it or not is too much for you to bear, you may want to call an animal rescue or a pest control service. They'll probably send someone by to look for it, although by then they may not find anything. Cheers and good luck! --Jwinius (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More snakes

Hello! I saw your message about moving Boidae articles to their scientific names on Tim's talk page. You might take a look at WP:NC (flora), which is the WP:PLANTS group policy on when to use a scientific name and when to use a common name (as well as what to do when a genus is monotypic, etc.). You may find it helpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petey, Thanks for the tip. So far it looks like I'm working according to those rules, although I don't think the first applies in this case. I find the third rule quite obvious (e.g. Daboia, Azemiopinae), but the second rule is interesting. I must admit that to date I have produced only one common name article -- Sea snake -- and that was because there is currently no single taxon for this group. I'm really more interested in organizing these articles according to their taxonomic position, alo0ng with categorized redirects for all their common names and taxonomic synonyms. On the other hand, that kind of thinking suggests that there should also be room for articles such as Rattlesnake, Cobra and Coral snake, all of which are also represented by two or more genera within their families. That would, however, entail duplicating a good deal of information. --Jwinius (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epicrates cenchria

Well, that was easy -- I think. Please check to make sure that I've done what you wanted to have happen. And if you have any more easy ones like that, let me know!! All the best, Accounting4Taste:talk 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me. Thanks very much! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for being so scrupulous and tagging the unwanted redirects. When I noticed the first one, I worked out what you were doing and took care of them all, unless there's something there that I didn't recognize as a snake's name. If you do more of these, feel free to leave me a note and I'll tidy them up for you. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to support anyone who improves biology articles. Stepp-Wulf (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

About all

Hello,
sorry, I'm rarely on en:, I just come in order to add interwikis (I'm creating mostly all of the species from TIGR Database, by the hand, which will be long :)).
I will have a look to the links you gave.

BTW I'm often in contact with the maintainer of the TIGR Reptile Database. He planed to move its data (at familly level for the moment) to wikipedia. Of course I'm talking with him to guide him. I will keep you informed if you want, as it may interrested you.

Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your support on the name changes!

Regarding the TIGR Reptile Database, I used to use it as a taxonomic reference, but after a while I encountered a number of inconsistencies that caused me to lose confidence in it. Dr. Peter Uetz is a really nice fellow, but unfortunately he's not a taxonomist. In addition, his consulting expert, Dr. Wolfgang Wüster, is just one man, and no matter how respectable he is, in my view this means that the TIGR Reptile Database (previously known as the EMBL Reptile Database) is more a reflection of his opinions than of a consensus within the herpetological community.

Several years ago, we had a discussion about general taxonomy at WP:AAR and this was what Dfcisneros, our only resident herpetologist (albeit a frog specialist), had to say about it:

"... In terms of reptiles... McDiarmid et al. 1999 is the best available sources for reptile taxonomy... however, now there are many new publications that have changed the classification of some groups. The ITIS database is much more updated, and it must be used together with McDiarmid et al. 1999. The EMBL is useful, but it is not complete, and sometimes it does not cite all sources. ..."

ITIS is based on the continuing work of Dr. Roy McDiarmid, who is working hard to produce Snake Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, vol. 2. Many experts -- Wolfgang Wüster among them -- contributed to vol. 1, so this has to be a better reflection of general consensus.

There is another issue too: correcting mistakes. For instance, when I discovered a few mistakes in the EMBL database and mentioned these to Dr. Uetz, he confirmed but never corrected them. On the other hand, I also discovered a fair number of mistakes and omissions in the ITIS database, but these have now all been corrected (although it took almost a year).

There are more problems with Uetz's database. For example, with the geographic range data, if his source would say "From country A to E", he lists "Countries A, B, C, D and E" in the database; an assumption that may not always be correct. Also, many of the the common names listed in the database come directly from Frank & Ramus' infamous book, A Complete Guide to Scientific and Common Names of Reptiles and Amphibians of the World; it's a well-known fact that F&R just made up lots of those names.

Almost two years after switching to ITIS, I'm still very happy with the decision. In WP articles, I still create links to matching or equivalent TIGR Reptile Database entries whenever possible, sometimes even citing them, but I use them strictly as a secondary source. --Jwinius (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

yes, I understand these problems. BTW common names are not a problem for me as they never exists in french (we do not "create" names for species, the only existing ones are from "real" usage in population. Well, not totaly true: some poeple creates names from translation of english, german or latin names, but it always a small side effect).

For the rest I understand, but for large parts of reptiles ITIS is still empy. In particular for geckos, the reason why I come to WP at first, many (lot) of species are totaly unknown from ITIS. For example Uroplatus genus is unknown! Or Tarentola genus with only 2 species rather than the ~15 known. So in some cases the choice is not possible.

For the DB updates I agree it is sometimes slow. As far as I know about that they update the DB often, but changes are publicated only one or two times per year. It is of course a problem for fast-changing taxa.

The most inportant in my opinion is to give all the available external links (ITIS, ADW, TIGR, ...) and to correctly explain the differences between existing classifications, to prevent people to think that we give the classification.

Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true that much of ITIS is still a work in progress. In these cases, TIGR fills the gap; that's why it's so nice to have a secondary taxonomic source. Even with snakes, a lot is still missing. Last year, a friend pointed out that Lycodon, a colubrid genus, was missing from an overview of snake genera that I was working on. It turned out that almost 130 colubrid genera were missing from ITIS that were there in TIGR (see table in link above), so it's obvious we cannot do without TIGR for now (unless, perhaps, there's a 3rd online reptile taxonomy that we haven't heard about yet). Nevertheless, it's clear to me that Dr. McDiarmid and his project are producing the more authoritative taxonomy for snakes, so there's no question in my mind about what to use as a primary source whenever possible.

It's also really important to let others know that you're following a single, 3rd party, taxonomy. This is the only possible way to avoid taxonomic disputes. It makes me wish that ITIS was finished (and I'm sure I'm not alone in that), but for now I try to limit myself to what is covered by ITIS and that accompanying book, Snake Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, vol. 1 (SSotWv1). In other words, I'm trying to avoid Atractaspididae, Colubridae and Elapidae. Still, that leaves plenty more to do. Hopefully, SSotWv2 will arrive before I'm finished with the rest. :-) --Jwinius (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. By my side for the moment I'm working on species with available images on commons, so in general (as I use the scientific name to find them) it means that the species exists in ITIS, so its not really a problem. Hope also that all will be available soon.

Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snake task force

Thanks for your note, and I'm sorry for a delay in getting back to you. I had a couple of voluminous correspondences with people who added tonnes of material to my talk page, and I missed seeing your note for a day or so. What I'm wondering is, IS there such a thing as the Snake Task Force, or something that could be described as such? I see that the individual in question is citing policies that seem reasonable and established, and I see that you have a taxonomy in mind for what you're doing... I suspect that the only thing that can trump policy is a decision of whatever the Snake Task Force would be called. If there isn't such a thing, are you prepared to start one, or join a sub-group of another task force? This is where my thinking starts. As always, I'm a little bit hazy on the details of exactly what the problem in nomenclature is, but I think I see the outlines of the conflict. I'm on the side of usefulness to the reader, and I see that both paths may serve the uninformed user but not be useful to the informed one. Let's start by assessing the Task Force possibilities and see if we can find a way to bullet-proof your taxonomic/naming preferences. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Almost missed this one. No, there is no Snake Task Force, or, as I believe it would properly be called, a WikiProject Serpentes. If there were one, I would probably be its only active member. I've though about this before, and you're not the first to make this suggestion. Sure, it would be great if a number of my favorite supporters were to become members and rubber-stamp my ideas (naming, taxonomy, format) into policy, but I don't know if it's realistic for me to expect that. Such a move may prove to be a step in the right direction, allowing me to quote policy in order to resolve disputes, but it may also backfire. Or does this sound short-sighted and paranoid to you? Right now, things have a tendency to eventually work out in my favor anyway, so I'm not too enthusiastic about opening up what could turn out to be a Pandora's Box of new problems. --Jwinius (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serpents, etc.

Just wanted to leave a note here to say I genuinely do want to keep you contributing to those articles, and even working toward getting the naming convention changed. You're a damn good editor. If you ever want my support in that regard, I'll be happy to add my two (or maybe even three) cents to the discussion. We don't have to see eye-to-eye on everything to get along as editors. Of course, after these discussions are over, you'll probably never see me again - we run in very different Wikipedia circles - but still, if you need anything, don't hesitate for a moment. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		No matter what happens with the naming debates at Rubber Boa and the rest, you've certainly worked tirelessly—in the articles and in the discussions—to warrant this. - Kafziel 20:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Well, then how about helping me move those articles? --Jwinius (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boa

As per your note -- please have a look at Boa and Boidae, just to make sure that everything is as you requested. I eliminated a handful of double redirects (to "other uses" disambiguations) and fixed some disambiguative wording occasioned by the page moves but, as I mentioned, I don't do these often, so please take a moment to be sure that it's all okay. Happy to be of assistance. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm already working on it! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

location of snake

Yes, I was incorrect, mistaking the timber rattlesnake for the eastern diamondback, but to suggest that what I did was vandalism by misstating the location of a snake is ridiculous.Millsmarkchris (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your edit was in good faith, I apologize. However, your edit was so obviously in error, and I had also just reverted an edit to Crotalus atrox stating that it was also found "in the high desert of eastern Washington", that I neglected to give you the benefit of the doubt. In addition, you had committed the cardinal sin of inserted your information -- without a reference -- into a paragraph that was already referenced. That made it look as though your information was from the same source. If I had not caught it, it's possible that your mistake would have been there for a long time. So, please, never do that again! In cases like this, always add your information separately and with your own reference. --Jwinius (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agkistrodon piscivorus

I've reviewed this and put the article on hold. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, now a GA. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim! --Jwinius (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granting your own requests

So let me get this straight... if I decide when a discussion is over I'm "overstepping the bounds of [my] authority", but if you decide when a discussion is over, that's fine? I just want to be clear here before we move forward. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is in response to the Calabar Python page move, after three weeks nobody else seemed to be opposed to it. The others moves were much the same. As far as I can tell, you opposed those moves only on principle and even though you've had next to nothing to do with the articles themselves. Don't you think it's possible that enforcing official policy here may not be in WP's best interest? The fact is, very few people care about these articles. Virtually all of them are in pretty bad shape: full of hyperbole, own research and assumptions, they lack (good) references and don't follow any common taxonomy or format. It seems I'm the only one who's willing to systematically straighten it all out. You may not agree with all of my methods, which I find unfortunate and regrettable, but if I didn't think like that I probably wouldn't be doing the work. --Jwinius (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, my prior level of involvement doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter how much time passed without comment; I was right at Puerto Rican Boa and I was right at Rubber Boa, and the same arguments went for all the rest. The only difference is I didn't want to (or need to) repeat myself five times. At best, the result of all those requests is "no consensus", the pages stay where they are, and you are welcome to revisit the issue by following the correct process.

If the articles are plagued by hyperbole, original research, and poor references, changing the title won't fix that. By the same token, if changing the titles as you see fit is a personal prerequisite for you to be willing to work on them, then don't work on them. Eventually they'll be improved by someone else who is willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies.

I'm reverting the moves. If need be, we can take this further. Or, if you'd rather, you can simply post new versions of the same requests at requested moves and get broader input (without canvassing this time). I'd reiterate my statements, but I won't argue as long as I know they're getting attention from the community as a whole. It would certainly be a whole lot easier for both of us - easier for me because I don't have to waste time filing an RFC, and easier for you because you don't have a leg to stand on otherwise. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, "no consensus" just because you cited policy? I'm sorry, but that's not being reasonable. Nobody has done more for those articles than I have and don't forget that contributors have the right to ignore all rules if they feel the rules prevent them from improving or maintaining Wikipeida. That's an official policy too! --Jwinius (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no consensus "just because" I cited policy. So did Hamster Sandwich, if you take another look. Same one, in fact. And he cited it before I did. If there's no clear consensus for a move, it doesn't move.

You're trying to make this an IAR issue, but it's not. What it comes down to is that you can't be bothered to follow the rules by taking the time to post at WP:RM. IAR doesn't cover laziness. Requesting a move at WP:RM doesn't prevent you from improving Wikipedia; it facilitates consensus building. If broad community consensus worries you, that should tell you something. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamster Sandwich made a suggestion; he didn't actually oppose the proposed move. And even if he did, the vote was still 3-2 in favor. Furthermore, WP:RM is not a requirement: "There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry." --Jwinius (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through all of this. A move request is not a vote, so it doesn't matter what the tally was. It's also not necessary for someone to write "oppose" in bold letters; he made his point quite clearly. And requested moves is a requirement if the move is disputed. Which it was, and that was made clear from the very start. I said you should take it to RM and you chose to ignore me. Even Accounting4taste told you I was right. Well, you can't just ignore me until I go away. That ain't how it works. So now you can either get them renamed the right way—either by posting a request at RM or by starting to work on changing the naming convention—or not at all. The end. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but you don't seem to understand what WP:RM says:

"In some situations, the value of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry. ..."

We discussed it and those who did so were either clearly in favor, were clearly not in favor, or made suggestions regarding alternatives. This was followed by a silence at which time it was clear that a majority was still in favor of the move. What's wrong with that? --Jwinius (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silence does not equal consent. Valid points had been made by those of us in opposition and ignored by those in support. There's no need to continue an argument that's going nowhere. What there is a need for, in a case like that, is to seek broader community input. Not by asking specific people to support you in a vote (as you did), but by asking the unbiased community as a whole to come and weigh in. That's done by posting at RM. As I told you. If you had done that, this could all be settled by now.

As I've said since day one, I don't care one bit about the actual subject. What I care about is that the community at large gets a say in this, rather than sneaking the changes in the back door. If you're open and transparent about it, I won't care what the outcome is. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that, if I post a move proposal on a talk page and ten people support the idea with one opposing, the move must be taken to WP:RM? Or, are you saying that, in the same situation, if the one opposing view claims that the move goes against official policy, then the move must be taken to WP:RM? Also, only if there is no opposition whatsoever, then I can move it myself? Finally, if one admin follows me around to become the only opposing voice on a number of these page moves, citing official policy each time, forcing me to go to WP:RM where otherwise there would have been no need, is this normal? Why should he care? Or, is this often the way WP policy is enforced? --Jwinius (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on the quality of the arguments. If ten members of some video game club think they should have an article because they say they're the most awesome club in the universe, and only one person shows up citing verifiability, notability, etc., then yes - one outweighs ten. Similarly, if several people want to move an article simply because they like it better elsewhere, and only one person shows up citing naming conventions, then yes - it needs to go to RM or RFC. Because it's not a vote. Of course, that example is neither here nor there, because at no point did you have even half that number. And I wasn't the only one in opposition.

I care because the community asked me to care. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animals

Hey, I actually like animals. Don't call my edits unconstructive just because you don't have the same interests as me.

Just leave me alone. I don't see what I ever did to you. Footballfan190 (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timber Rattler

Hi; reply on my talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black caiman weight

Here's something we can cooperate on. If you can find something that lists a black caiman's weight, then put the weight in the article for black caiman. I can't find any sources that have the weight.

Hi Footballfan190, Sorry, but I almost missed this one because of the message that was posted here a very short time later. Unfortunately, though, I can't help you with the weight of the black caiman (Melanosuchus niger). Most of my small natural history library deals with snakes and the only publication I have that even mentions this species is Ditmars (1933), which states that they are "alleged to grow to a length of twenty feet" -- not very helpful.

Try looking for recent scientific publications that deal with this species: most of the contents of such articles might not look very interesting to you, but measurements or estimations of size should catch your eye. That may sound like doing things the hard way, but that's called research and all the better editors do it that way. It's the best way to make your edits stick! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bothrops neuwiedi

On 28 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bothrops neuwiedi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morelia viridis?

I took this picture at the Oslo Reptile park and cannot remember the species. Not a great picture, but nevertheless uploaded to commons. Image:MoreliaOslo.jpg Shyamal (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Syamal, Yes, that's Morelia viridis. It's a rather blue specimen, but that's nothing strange. Nice picture. --Jwinius (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I lived anywhere in Florida, I'd probably show up, but seeing as I live in the Netherlands and have no plans to travel to Florida this month, this is just too far away for me. So, thanks for the invitation, but I'm going to have to pass on this one. --Jwinius (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Spent the afternoon at the zoo, have a look at there and see if there is anything you want. I've added one to Porthidium dunni and I remember me asking for this earlier. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Tim! You got me going again too, as your new bushmaster image inspired me to create an article for it that we were still missing: Lachesis stenophrys, the Central American bushmaster. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bornese tree snake"

I have a very strange request of your expertise. Could you have a look at the entry for He Wouldn't Kill Patience and see if you'd care to make an informative link to the "Bornese tree snake" named Patience, for the edification of the reader? I assume, from having read the novel, that Borneo is meant as the country of origin. My memory tells me that the snake is not poisonous. My apologies for adding this ridiculous request to what is doubtless a lot of work, but I suspect that some future mystery-reading fan will thank you for your expertise. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion is that this is probably another "swamp adder." That was the snake from the Arthur Conan Doyle mystery The Adventure of the Speckled Band (Sherlock Holmes) -- an fictional serpent. I do know of a "Bornean pitviper" (Trimeresurus borneensis), but the plot summary of this story does seem to suggest that the "Bornese tree snake" is harmless, in which case it's likely a colubrid (otherwise it would have been called something like "the Bornese python"). But since there are probably more than a few colubrid tree snakes on Borneo (a famous biodiversity hotspot), even if it was a real species it would be very difficult to say which one it would most likely be. We'd need a perfect name/description match to ever be sure, but unfortunately my knowledge of Asian colubrids is not good. This is also a big problem with snakes in general: common names for them are a dime a dozen. Sorry I couldn't be of any more help. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand -- detective fiction is full of "poisonous snakes unknown to science", because they're very convenient if you want to have someone gasp out half a sentence -- only half, mind you -- before they die in convulsions. (Similarly on the radio everyone always died of cyanide poisoning because the "odour of bitter almonds" was a useful piece of shorthand.) The author of this novel was not especially known for exactitude -- I suppose this will have to remain a mystery, but I do thank you for considering it. Incidentally, if you're interested, it's a mystery with a lot of snakes and reptiles in it -- you may be amused by the reptilian inexactitude or by the very puzzling locked room mystery aspect of it. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo trip

Hi there, took some more photos (link) Two I was not 100% sure of however, was Image:Acrantophis madagascariensis (1).jpg and Image:Sanzinia madagascariensis.jpg. These two were in the same cage and I'm not sure if I haven't confused which is which. Any opinions? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great pictures, Tim! It seems you're our main source of new snake images these days. Once again, your efforts are much appreciated. Regarding the two mystery snakes, as far as I can tell those are both Malagasy ground boas, Boa madagascariensis (previously Acrantophis madagascariensis). The only other possibility is that they are actually Boa dumerili (previously Acrantophis dumerili), but I doubt it: the dorsal pattern of this species is rather more distinct. Boa manditra (the Madagascar tree boa, previously Sanzinia madagascariensis), is quite different. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be pleased to hear that I talked to a keeper and they said that the notice on the cage was wrong, and that they didn't have a tree boa at the moment - your identifications were spot on! Tim Vickers (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unstoppable force vs Unmovable Wall

Hi, Thats what we appear to have got into. I don't think Wikipedia will go anywhere great because everyone here is basically unconvincable (including me). Thats why democracies don't work too well either. Why not try to use redirects and proper names together for a small subfamily to get a hang of the problems first hand - it may be possible to device some kind of via media as a not so good but acceptable solution.

Maybe some of these may help with the checking of redirect links problem? AshLin (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

Thank you kind sir for taking time from your busy day to fix my formatting error in the 'ball python' (Python regius) section. I am not very literate on Wiki and I wanted to thank you. "Thank you!" :-) - DrForrester

You're welcome, but it was really no effort. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

More zoo stuff (link). Not all of it uploaded. You might want Image:Agkistrodon piscivorus head.jpg or Image:Agkistrodon_piscivorus_head_(2).jpg but I couldn't see if it would fit well anywhere. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must say that Agkistrodon piscivorus head.jpg is an excellent head-shot of a typical example of A. p. piscivorus. The color pattern on the head is a good way to tell the three subspecies apart. Of course, you want to avoid using images of specimens from the intergradation zone (Georgia and Alabama) for this purpose. So, all we need now are some similar head-shots of equally typical examples of A. p. conanti and A. p. leucostoma and we'll have an excellent visual comparison. --Jwinius (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Coritz

Hi there, I'll try to sort the license problem out via e-mail. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License problem? --Jwinius (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a while ago. I forget why Oxam never followed up on his initial intentions. Regardless, your efforts to resolve this once and for all would be much appreciated. However, I very much hope that any eventual resolution will not require too much effort on Al's part; I don't want to make life too difficult for him as he provides Wikipedia with a very valuable resource. --Jwinius (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've recommended that he just add a creative commons license to his website, that should satisfy the requirements and not be too much trouble for him. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that apply to everything on his site? Remember, we're only using a fraction of the total he has on his website. --Jwinius (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eunectes murinus. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Eunectes murinus. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 03:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than willing to unblock you if you agree to no longer edit war and instead of constantly reverting, bring the situation to a talk page or to the attention of administrators. Tiptoety ^talk 03:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say this is a rather unfair block. The other anonymous IP editor was essentially putting in POV edits which did not have support in reliable sources. It should have been considered vandalism and the page should have been put under semi-protection so that only established users can edit it. Reversion of vandalism does not come under the 3RR rule. Shyamal (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well I would not consider the IP's edits to be vandalism. They were for sure POV edits, but understand that POV does not fall under WP:VAND and as such it is not a reason to continually revert, but instead talk with the user in question or find a broader group of editors to gain consensus. Reverting back and forth is never a constructive way to handle a situation. Tiptoety ^talk 03:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A persistent vandal has accused me of edit warring, as a result of which I get blocked. Way to go, Tiptoety! A real knee-jerk reaction. 216.93.231.149 must be feeling very satisfied indeed. --Jwinius (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot Vs Bothrops affinis

Hi,

Im saw your edit (im not the bot owner) and think I have solved the issue, Im 95% sure that the problem was the page mentioned was not tagged as a disambiguation page such as {{disambig}} so the bot thought it was an article. I have since tagged it accordingly «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally correct! The mistake was mine. Thanks for the correcting the mistake! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bothrops species

Hi! Thanks so much for informing me that you have made changes to the article and kept me up-to-date regarding the recent identification of the species of fer-de-lance or Bothrops found in Trinidad. I really appreciate you keeping me informed. All best wishes, John Hill (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN

I think it is good knowledge for people to know that the IUCN has not yet evaluated the species though. Also they may in the future in which case someone could have reverted the species page from there. I will not revert your revisions though because I will trust that you know what you're talking about on the subject. Thank you for leaving me a message. --IvanTortuga (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued here. --Jwinius (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican Boa

Hello,
no problem. I continued the discussion without any hope of result, but to push down the incoherence (in my opinion) of the idea to use common names for titles, in particular in english which is a language which easely creates names (on that point french is much more "rigid").
For that particular subject I searched for "official lists" (gov. ones) and extract at least to different common names: in my opinion it is personnal work to decide that (in this example) australian is less or more in the "truth" than english goverment, in particular for an animal that does not live in an english-spoken country :)
Now our main way to deal with common names is biohomonymies (I told you about that) for each case where a common names is more or less duplicated beetween several taxa, and (of course) to refuse any common names without serious sources, which is often difficult to find in french.

Best regards, Hexasoft (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just a note: I saw some missing author sometimes in articles (most of the time I try to correct them). Just to point the french version of List of zoologists by author abbreviation (→ fr:Liste de zoologistes), which is more complete than yours as far as I can see (we work hard on it). You may sometimes find authors that are missing for you. Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

additional sources

Regarding this edit: I know that ITIS is a valid source, but it is not the only one. This database states that there are two subspecies and I would have cited that, but I need to check their sources. I know you think that we should only use ITIS to verify accepted names, but as I pointed out before they are not always accurate. I have just done a search that produced this, so the fact needs to be verified from another source. I wasn't questioning the validity of ITIS, it needed another source to expand on its currently accepted subspecies and that tag was as close as it gets. Will you accept the inclusion of the faunabase link, which states there are two subspecies? cygnis insignis 06:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi cygnis insignis, Just yesterday I got back from vacation, so I have a bit of catching up to do. I know that ITIS is not the only taxonomic source out there, but it's the most authoritative taxonomic database available on the web and it's the one WP:AAR has decided to use as its primary taxonomic source for snakes. I'm well aware that the TIGR database often diverges from ITIS; I've included links to it in virtually every snake article I've worked on and often cite it in the Taxonomy sections of these articles when it diverges. I would not be opposed to using it as a secondary taxonomic source, especially since the ITIS taxonomy for snakes is not yet complete. --Jwinius (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read the article first, I had made edits on this before my break. The lead section now contradicts the rest of the article. cygnis insignis 06:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please make the necessary corrections. --Jwinius (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this discussion, and the proposition that it is a "single, rival academic" who has challenged his work. cygnis insignis 10:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with the outcome of the discussion. It's definitely not a coatrack article. --Jwinius (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stating that fact. Welcome back. cygnis insignis 11:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi there, I was wondering if Image:Bothriechis lateralis (3).jpg or Image:Bothriechis lateralis (1) edited.jpg was preferable for the taxobox in Bothriechis lateralis? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think we have some even better ones. Take a look at the article now. By the way, in images like Bothriechis lateralis (1) edited.jpg, you can see that the specimen has just start to shed its skin, with the leading edge curled up just behind the nose. --Jwinius (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot problem

Yes I'll take a look. I've fixed up FV. Rich Farmbrough 11:55 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Stating the obvious

Regarding "stating the obvious:" obvious to you and me, but not so clear to a less sophisticated person trying to read this article. Notice that the first mention of "rattlesnake" shows up in the common name section. I feel, for clarity and readability, the fact that this reptile is a "rattlesnake" should appear very early in the article, as in the first line where I put it. Perhaps you might like to consider this advice,Stepp-Wulf (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You're the first person in about two years to complain about this. "Rattlesnake" is just a name for a pitviper with a rattle. In every one of these articles, the common names appear right at the top and always include a combination with "rattlesnake" or "rattler." If we decide to add "... is a rattlesnake and..." to all of the rattlesnake article introductions, why should we not do the same for all the Bothrops articles ("... is a lancehead and..."), the Lachesis articles ("... is a bushmaster and..."), etc.? This kind of statement just seems so redundant to me when it's really just a name that has only just been mentioned. Besides, the links to the genera and other higher taxa are already there in the taxobox.

In case you're thinking that it might be a good idea to link to the genus article in this fashion, think again. This would be opening up a whole new can or worms, because not all snake genera have clear and well-established common names. For instance, Crotalus may have "rattlesnake", but what about genera like Trimeresurus? Would that be Asian pit vipers, Asian lanceheads, or Asian lance-headed vipers? None of these names are universally recognized and any disagreements might see almost 50 articles being changed back and forth from one name to the another.

In conclusion, I think it's fair to say that relatively simple changes like this can often have far-reaching and unintended consequences later on. You'd be adding information to the introduction that is arguably redundant, in return for which you would have to make many arbitrary choices and thus court controversy. Besides that, would you personally be willing to make the same changes to about 500 similar snake articles, or just this one? --Jwinius (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific names

Hi Struhs, I saw that you moved Smooth Green Snake to Opheodrys vernalis and the edit summary made me smile. That's because I've moved many articles on snakes to their scientific names with the following explanation:

"Scientific names should be used for page names on biological organisms whenever possible to avoid confusion."

Needless to say, like you I too am a strong believer in use of scientific names for article titles. The only problem is that we're still in a minority. The botanists got their lucky break in 2006, not long after I started contributing in earnest, but we zoologists are still waiting. Therefore, it's possible to run into trouble when renaming articles to their scientific names. I've worked mostly on articles on viperid snakes, but got into some hopeless discussions (conflicts even) after attempting to do the same for the Pythonidae and Boidae sections. Do you have a particular interest in snakes, or did you just rename "Smooth Green Snake" by chance? --Jwinius (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jwinius, I am actually a herpetologist as well as the webmaster for the "Colorado Herpetological Society". I'm a member of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, but my schedule doesn't usually allow me to get as involved in the Project as I'd like. I was actually in the process of adding a section to the CHS site listing the reptile species indigenous to Colorado, and I thought I'd duplicate that list on Wikipedia as long as I was at it. That's when I noticed the need to make the change to Opheodrys vernalis. I wholeheartedly agree that zoology should adhere to ITIS - as many discrepancies as there are in taxonomic nomenclature, there are thousands more when it comes to common names. If there is anything I can do to help you out in your Wiki pursuits, please let me know. Struhs (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asp (snake)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Asp (snake), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.lingoz.com/en/dictionary/asp. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because http://www.lingoz.com/en/dictionary/asp was a copy http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Asp. --Jwinius (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-review

Hi there, a student (User:Dorkstar17) in a School-Wiki collaboration project I'm involved in has done some work on anaconda. I was wondering if you could comment in its peer review? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some comments. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with this article, but could you be a bit less "robust" with your edit summaries? (Eg diff), the main editor is just a kid, so he might take some of your comments to heart. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Perhaps I was being a bit too "creative." But, if you read the section on the associated talk page, you'll see the kind of thoughts that were on my mind at the time. In this case, I think the article title is the real disaster. --Jwinius (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death adder (snake)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Death adder (snake), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Death adder. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bot is becoming a nuisance and User:Coren does not answer his messages. --Jwinius (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Winius. No, that bot is correct. I undid your change to page, though I was tempted to undo the last two, because of the function of disambiguation pages. Please read this guideline, it is not an article. I think that I begin to see why we disagree so much, and I believe that some discussion about the nature of our document will be beneficial to both of us. I am constantly finding your brilliant articles, and ingenious solutions like the common name categories, but you may be overlooking something that is resulting in disruption to your worthwhile efforts. Would you like to discuss this with me? I will understand if you do not. Faithfully, cygnis insignis 13:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear cygnis insignis, It looks like I've put my foot into it again with my changes to the Death adder disambiguation page. However, I meant no harm; I was just being systematic again. Please allow me to explain what has been going on.

Apparently, you've noticed the common name categories. That's good. This is a concept that I set up not only to give readers an overview of all the common names used for certain groups of snakes, but also as a way for editors to keep track of these names -- of the redirects and of the disambiguation pages in which they are mentioned. The Death adder disambiguation page is one example. This page was was just fine as far as I was concerned: along with a comic book character, it mentions all of the taxa that have been associated with this name and it carries the necessary category tags.

Then things started to go wrong. It seems that in mid-July 2007, a new rule was created by some people working on WP:Disambiguation stating that, with only one or two exceptions, other category tags were no longer allowed on disambiguation pages. Although I started categorizing such pages for snake names back in mid-2006, I was not aware of this new rule and only found out about it recently when someone decided to delete a category tag from the Moccasin disambiguation page. I protested and tried to explain, but to no avail. I was told that my only option was to turn all of the snake disambiguation pages into Set index articles (SIAs), or else they would disappear from the category overviews.

This was something I was not looking forward to. First, all of the disambiguation pages on snakes would have to be tracked down and changed, but of course it's not that easy. With pages such as Diamondback rattlesnake, only the {{disambig}} tag has to be changed to {{SIA|snakes}}, but what about ones like Moccasin and Death adder that are not purely about snakes? No choice there: the snake information and tags would have to be transferred to new disambiguation pages, such as Moccasin (snake) and Death adder (snake) (ugh, bla), or else these names would disappear from the category overviews. At this point, you may ask yourself "Why not do this, but leave the Death adder page untouched, except for the removal of the category tags?" Yes, we could do that, but then we would have to maintain the same information on two different pages, which over time is a recipe for inconsistency.

Anyway, besides all this we now have CorenSearchBot. I recently I ran afoul of it for the first time after I was attempting to separate out the snake information from the Asp article to create Asp (snake). Apparently, among other things this bot is meant to look for copyright infringements and had decided that the snake information in Asp (snake) had been lifted from this article at longoz.com. What it did not know what that, in turn, this information had been copied earlier from Wikipedia's Asp article (even though it says so in the lingoz article). I wanted to turn the bot off, but couldn't (admins only). I left a note about it for User:Coren, but he never responded. In this latest run-in with CorenSearchBot, it has accused me of creating a new article -- Death adder (snake) -- that is similar to an existing article (Death adder). Sigh. This is what you get nowadays when you try to reorganize things.

I apologize for taking up so much space again with my explanations, but I hope you understand now what's been going on. This is not a prelude either to another attempt on my part to change the Death adder page. Instead of fighting I'd rather that we seek some common ground, so I'll just leave any changes in that article up to you now. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After becoming aware of another issue, I think I have the solution. In order to prevent too much disambiguation (I think that was what you were unhappy with), Death adder and other articles like it will remain as before. In cases where more than just snakes are involved, however, the category tags are now located on pages like Death adder (snake), which redirects to Death adder. The category tags had to be moved because WP:Disambiguation no longer tolerates there presence on pages that carry the {{Disambig}} template, but this is almost as good. I think everybody should be happy now. Would you agree? --Jwinius (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary, rather I should give mine. I had already seen that discussion when I looking into an unrelated issue, I thought it was regrettable that you should be drawn into debate when the usefulness of your solutions were so clearly explained. I saw a number of ill-founded arguments, but it would not be productive to identify how you were buffaloed. I will make a general comment that there is only one project, the encyclopedia itself, and that sub-projects (Wikiprojects) sometimes beyond their scope to become arbiters, nomenclators, and owners. I may be mistaken, but you also seemed to regard administrators as authorities on content - that would be incorrect. Content is produced from reliable sources and included by a process of consensus, not the determination of single admins or wikiproject. You may have already produced the best solution, creating a work-around for that wikiproject's supposed rule is not justified as far as I can see. The only 'reason' given for objecting to your categorization was that it transgressed some rule - some like making them and others like following them - but we have this better rule: WP:IAR. It may be surprising to some, but guidelines are just that - enforcing them as rules can be disruptive and a huge waste of everybody's time. This might seem tangential to our previous discussions, but I think it may have relevance to our future ones. I will give more thought to the solution and get back to you when one emerges. Regards, cygnis insignis 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. As you could tell I didn't think much of their advice, but after failing even to gain any support for my plight at WP:MoS, what could I do? However reasonable my request may have been, they were simply not going to make any more exceptions. Finally, I decided that arguing further would not only be futile, but require more time and effort than simply going with the flow. Sure, I had to put in a lot of work, but at the same time I took the opportunity to review/revise many of the dab/SIA pages and once again give them all a similar format. And we now have Category:Set indices on snakes, which will hopefully come in handy every once in a while.
No, I don't regard administrators as authorities on content, but it's not possible to ignore them either. I ended up in a conflict with one earlier this year who did not claim to be an expert; simply a defender of the consensus. He didn't feel in the least bit obligated to stop and think about my problems or the way I saw things. Indeed, some of these people can seem very unappreciative and bureaucratic, but luckily others are much more understanding and flexible. I figure it's all just Wikipedia politics. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been carefully considering your responses, the reason I have not commented further is because the crux of this issue has blown up here. Your name, and your essay, has been referred to in that 'discussion' (which degenerated into 'debate') by another user. The core of this may be interpreted as an issue of Reliable sources and Neutral point of view versus those who make up other 'rules' then bludgeon all and sundry with them. I perfectly understand, am in sympathy with, and fully agree with your approach to the policy wonks that haunt some talk pages. However, there is a concession that may cause regression in our (wikipedia editors) improvement of the TOL: namely, your 'common names' preceding the article - the very content we are here to produce. This hatnote is marked departure from other similar notes and templates, it does not guide a misdirected search nor add a disclaimer to the article. In effect, in searches here and google (for example), we are saying that the vernaculars are more important than the explanation of what the species, et al, in fact is - and its accepted name! The taxobox inclusion of less 'common names' has been suggested before, I would oppose them on the basis that it gives us the role of nomenclator. This is, or should be, anathema to our editing community. Even the [tolerable] taxobox ought to be explained in the article proper, so it is with the regional or ambiguous 'common names'. We explain with text in articles, we are not a database of condensed information.

The discussion should be undertaken at TOL, with community wide notification, any subproject specific guidelines are likely to produce disruption and unproductive discussions. Cheers again for all the work you have done, your opinions on this general discussion will be valuable. Best regards, cygnis insignis 14:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm aware of both the flora debate and the fact that some of my arguments have been mentioned there, but I decided not to join in mainly because it looked like nothing was going to change anyway. 'Violent agreement' indeed! Please let me know, though, if the debate has changed direction.

I fail to understand, however, how my hatnotes can be construed as so problematic with regard to any discussions at WP:TOL. Surely you exaggerate my influence! You'll simply have to explain. Actually, the birth of the concept that underlies the hatnotes was my reaction in June 2006 to the totally unsympathetic reception I received in that forum on my first attempts to discuss the problems that editors such as myself face when keeping to the current rules and guidelines. Perhaps I could have been a bit more diplomatic at the time, but I was new and had much to learn. I still believe, though, that even the most velvet approach would not have got me any further. From their responses, I had trouble imagining that some of those who were opposed my suggestions were anything more than children. Afterwards, I could still not see myself doing things their way, so I felt I had no choice but to be bold. Mind you, I was not concerned with just a single article: my goal that year was to rewrite and/or create 100 new articles (the entire Viperinae section), so a second-rate solution just wasn't going to be worth my effort.

Regarding the hatnote format, as I've said recently at WP:AAR, the format is less important to me than the concept: I wanted a way of dealing with common names that would be systematic, predictable, catch the eye, accommodate any reasonable number of names and treat them all as equally as possible. If you can think of a way to do that without the hatnotes, that would be fantastic! Maybe something interesting can be achieved by using a template; I don't know. Just as long as the results are the same. I don't for a moment, though, buy your argument that the hatnote format makes it look like the common names are more important than the rest of the article. I know you don't like the format, but that's grasping at straws! After all, if we really thought the common names were more important, would we not have used one for the title? The only reason I've put them so far up top is so that they're easy to find for readers unfamiliar with the scientific name in the title. But, you know that. Once again, though, if you have a better idea, I'm willing to listening.

On the other hand, I totally agree with you that the taxobox should not have anything to do with common names. I mean, the name says it all: it's the taxonomy box. Maybe that's the reason I don't really even like putting maps there.

Take all this to WP:TOL? Be my guest, but in my experience that's a place where politics take precedence over reason: any suggestions for change that we make there are likely to get shot down. Frankly, I'm still amazed that the botany folks got their big break in 2006, but unfortunately all such efforts on behalf of the zoologists among us have so far failed. The problem is that there are some very smart people who hang out there and who will have no problem arguing against you, largely because they are totally ignorant of the challenges that we are faced with. I have yet to encounter a single experienced biology editor arguing in their favor, but the problem is that there are still more of them then there are of us, so for now the outcome will be predictable. Some day, the tide will change in our favor, but not yet. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, or has ever been, a case of I don't like your format - that is an insult here. I'm not "grasping at straws", take a moment to appreciate what possible reasons I could have for objecting to it. I simply disagree that it is a solution, and it does not accord with our MoS. Can you show a hatnote that does not do either of things of the things I mentioned, redirecting the reader or making a disclaimer about the article below it. Your format is a good answer to a stupid question, made by the 'children' you refer to, it is an unnecessary and potentially regressive for the articles in the TOL. Common names are not systematic or predictable, hatnotes do "catch the eye" before the article proper and give this information undue weight. The way to improve upon them is hardly my idea, using text to explain them in the articles; genuine taxonomy can be contained by a template outside of this, but should still explained the body of the article. I appreciate that you perceive the task of doing this is huge, but we can facilitate this by conforming to the guidelines that have allowed the enormous expansion of wikipedia. We all must constantly renew our faith in that, and assume good faith in others. It could be not be achieved by yourself, or half a dozen expert editors, your maverick approach to the families you are interested in describing could disrupt the opportunity for a new consensus to emerge. This was not an intended consequence of your actions, but it is likely to be an emergent factor of wish for a simplification of your biota articles. The chaotic processes of wikipedia may cause us despair from time to time, but the results are equal to or superior to other online sources. We are not a database, creating fields for data to be plugged in, we are an encyclopaedia that uses text, and the occasional link, to explain our topics. And AAR is a subproject of our document.

It is hazardous to suggest that WP:Plants got some break, the case for using the accepted systematic names is overwhelming strong. Nor should you suggest that it is a specialists or experts preference, it is used by all reliable sources and authorities for the reasons that we well understand. The alternative is some bastard setting himself as a nomenclator, something no wiki editor should countenance. We are not asserting a preference, we are reflecting a universal acceptance. The reasons why it should be adopted by wikipedia are the same as the reasons why everyone worth citing has done so since Linnaeus; this is the substance of invocation of the policies above, but I will add to WP:V to NPOV and RS.cygnis insignis 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that you have decided to add to the 'violent agreement', but I cannot improve on Hesperians response to it. Cheers! cygnis insignis 16:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, cygnis, there's no need to get all worked up about things. It was not, nor has it ever been my intention to insult you, so please don't accuse me of that. Remember, you came here to critique my methods and that's okay, but then don't get all huffy when I defend myself. It's a pity, because that kind of attitude takes much of the fun out of these discussions, while I know that we actually have a lot more in common.
Back to the hatnote thing. I know there's nothing about it at MoS, but that doesn't preclude creativity and for me it is definitely a solution. Firstly, it may have started out as something of a concession to readers not familiar with the scientific name, but in truth I haven't thought about it that way in a long time. The fact is, most of us will always be unfamiliar with most scientific names, so I would consider it a good thing if a series of these articles were constructed in such a way that a few common names could always be found quickly. Usually, this is achieved by reserving a fixed position in each article, similar to the title and the taxobox, so that's what I've done. Secondly, common names are predictable in that they usually exist. If not, then people still expect them to exist. I do indeed believe that I've come up with an easy way to deal with them and I don't see that as a bad thing.
Once again, I hear you complain about my use of these hatnotes, but as I've said before: it's mainly about the concept. If you think I should not use this format, give me some other format instead. Just don't tell me to follow WP:LEAD, because I don't like WP:LEAD -- I would think that much was obvious by now. Does that make me a maverick? Perhaps. Not that I like being thought of that way, but maybe my actions are the result of the broken guidelines over at WP:TOL#Article_titles. Do I think those guidelines are going to get fixed if folks like me adhere to them? I may be wrong, but, No, I don't think so. I'm suddenly reminded of something a certain policy wonk (I like that term) told me earlier this year. I'll paraphrase: "The guidelines are there to make Wikipedia more accessible to the readers. If that happens to make life harder for you, then you're just going to have to deal with it!" I refuse to do that. At the very least, I see myself as a symptom of the fact that the guidelines are broken. At best, I see myself as leading by example. The truth is probably somewhere in between, but hopefully closer to the latter. :-)
It it hazardous to suggest that WP:Plants got a break? Come on, I should be able to voice my opinion. Two years ago the evidence may have been on their side, but they still had to argue their socks off to get what they wanted. Their success has given zoological editors like me hope ever since, so why not admit it? It's no secret and it must bug the hell out of people like Born2cycle every day.
Look, it's not that I'm so obtuse that I don't understand your point. It might be that if all editors like myself did their very best to conform to all of the guidelines that we would much sooner be able to demonstrate clearly that they just don't work. Surely, they would understand that, after which the consensus would easily swing our way and we'd subsequently be able to fix everything just the way we wanted. It is indeed possible that things would turn out that way. But, on the other hand, maybe not.
Perhaps the question you should be asking yourself is, Why did Jwinius decide to break with the MoS guidelines back in 2006? Answer: Because the initial task that I set for myself was to write not just one, but 100 articles -- the entire Viperinae section -- all of them organized to an extent that I have yet to see anywhere else. I felt that it was possible to do so within this environment, but suspected that I would not be able to pull it off if I kept to the existing guidelines. I just wasn't willing to take the risk. After that, one thing led to the other and I think you know the rest.
Finally, I think that what you're saying is that you prefer a cautious, calculating and diplomatic approach over a blunt and rebellious one such as my own. That's fine with me, I admire you for it and I'm glad you're on our side, but it's just not my style. Functioning like that just doesn't come naturally to me. Tell you what: when this issue finally comes to a head at WP:TOC, I'll let you do most of the talking! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could have worded that better, but you lost no opportunity to misinterpret my mention of insult. Making assertions based on assumptions about the emotional content of my response is disruptive yet encouraging, I suspect that I'm closer to getting my views across. What we do or do not like, our individual preference, should carry no weight in our community.

Did you mean to state the you 'refuse' to make Wikipedia more accessible to the readers, or consider the blowback from the weight (which you agree is 'undue') that you are giving to informal names? The only things that should precede articles are serious disclaimers and redirection to similar titles, why doesn't other content get reduced to a hatnote: rarity, toxicity, locomotion, distribution, etc.? cygnis insignis 08:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I 'refuse' to make Wikipedia more accessible to readers; I just happen to be of the opinion that using common names for article titles is an unnecessary step in that direction. There are a number of important drawbacks (your 'blowback'?) to using common names, but the people who believe in applying WP:NC to these articles don't understand that, as they've never bothered to walk a mile in our shoes.

I agree that my hatnote for common name is similar to a disambiguation link and I understand why some may consider that unfortunate, but I could not think of anything better. So far, though, you're the only one to have pointed this out. As a matter of fact, I first used this format for over a year before someone else came along and suggested that we make it look like a dablink instead. I guess the idea was to make it look more familiar and therefore less like a mistake. I still consider it an improvement.

As for reducing other content to hatnotes, I see your point, but I make an exception for common names because of WP:NC. The people who would apply that policy universally, including to articles on plants and animals, care only about presentation. My hatnote for common names is not only an attempt to show that this presentation can be achieved by other means, but also that the selection of one common name over any others is a form of bias or POV. Finally, it gives the editor an easy way to deal with many common names. --Jwinius (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English names are never the most common names, we should avoid that ambiguous term. NC supports the use of Latin names.

RS, NPOV, and V override any number of bigoted and willfully ignorant objections.

The other names should be explained in the article.

Cheers, cygnis insignis 02:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately I would agree, but this is the English language Wikipedia and here WP:NC's policy of "Use the most easily recognized name" is interpreted at WP:NC (fauna) as "If there is a common name in English, use that, [else] use the scientific name". I believe this situation persists more for political reasons than anything else, but that's the way it is. So, if the use of a hatnote to more prominently display a few common names can eventually help to get WP:NC (fauna) turned around, I would consider that a small "price" to pay. --Jwinius (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False water cobra

I didn't realize you did it, my friend. I actually did like it, but I didn't think it was necesary for a species with only a few common names. It looks like it might work great on many articles where there is little to no content at the stub/start level. I thought I was helping by incorporating it into the text instead of having fragments in the body, etc. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Edit to add: OK, I see it on a few other pages...would it be possible to add that to the Taxobox? I like it, but find it a bit distracting above the LEAD. Did you bring this up on the Project page? I would not mind incorporating that into a few other pages, although as a lizard guy it can get more confusing with the same common name being used across seven species or a single species having 14 common names.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation continued here. --Jwinius (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific names vs. Common names

Hi. The "lucky minority of botanists" now face some problems. As you seem to be interested, you may wish to take part in the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora). Colchicum (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems? I'll bet that will have to do with the decisions they have (not) made regarding which taxonomy or taxonomies to follow. I'll check it out later. Thanks! --Jwinius (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candy stick

Thanks very much for your help forming this into an article. It looks great. I'll try to dig up a couple of legit sources... The article makes me smile though. Those sticks and all their crazy flavors are pretty cool. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just wanted to do things correctly. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for addressing the concerns on the Anaconda article in such detail. I suggested to my student to shift the focus to the appropriate article. There is, to some degree editorial laziness on their part in the lifting of sections with an attempt to vale the fact in the re-ordering of words. They should know better. Hopefully, they will follow through on your very detailed list of concerns which should make their mission far more obtainable. There is also a distinct possibility that they will simply drop the class. This Wikipedia assignment has become problematic for many. Ironically, they are no longer able to merely copy/paste together a research paper as they have done in most of their classes - many of them using Wikipedia as their primary source :) This assignment has forced them to conduct legitimate literature reviews. Again thanks for your dedication and time to your subject. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My only concern is that these articles eventually turn out okay and deal with the various taxa in a relatively hierarchical manner. If I can help people to learn something in the process, then that's just fine with me! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/SIA

Hi, I specialise in dab pages. Do you feel satisfied with the recent debate you had on this subject or would you like to discuss it further? Abtract (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bit late. Honestly, I was very unhappy with the outcome at the time: I've done a lot of work here and I felt that my arguments were not being taken seriously. Eventually, I realized that there would be no point in continuing the debate, as that would probably have been more work than just going with the flow. I was angry because I was being forced to make hundreds of edits that would otherwise not have been necessary. Actually, things turned out okay anyway. It gave me the opportunity to review over 180 disambiguation pages and -- luckily -- I came up with a way to keep track those disambiguation pages that are not only about snakes by creating a whole series of new redirects for them that I can track (see Set indices on snakes. So, all's well that ends well, but I sure do wish your colleagues had been a little more helpful and understanding of my situation. Remember, it's easy for you guys to make up new rules, but it's often hard for us editors to follow them. --Jwinius (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Abtract (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fiery Flying Serpents" in the Bible

Hi Jwinius, I saw that you have an interest in the Wikipedia page List of the animals in the Bible. A friend forwarded me an [article] that with your interest in herpetology, you may find interesting or amusing. Two guys sat down and tried to determine what snake the Israelites referred to as the "fiery flying serpent" in the book of Numbers. They eventually settled on the Israeli saw-scaled viper. I have to say they make good points. Cheers! Struhs (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not really: I just disambiguated one of the wiki-links there recently (I think it was for "adder"). It's not on my watchlist. Nevertheless, I have seen the article at meridianmagazine.com before. At first I thought it should be considered as nothing more than as idle entertainment. After all, it's true that Echis have a relatively long reach for such small snakes, but apart from their highly toxic venom they aren't really all that impressive. And for all we really know the "fiery flying serpent" is a purely imaginary creature, just like the hoop snake. On the other hand, if the information on the snake in the Book of Numbers really is that detailed, it becomes more probable that the story really is based on this E. coloratus. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitvipercontroversy

OK, not really a controversy. You say that "The trend over the last 15-20 years has been to contract these two words into a single term." I don't see that happening, for one thing, and if it is, I don't see that as a reason to do it. I like to see regular usage in Wikipedia, and I trip over "pitviper"; it breaks my flow of reading, and I'm one of the best readers in the world (I think). Where are you getting the other thing? --Milkbreath (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a rather conservative person myself, I know what you mean. However, I've been studying these animals for a few years now and all of the recent publications on this subject, or at least the ones I'm familiar with, use this contraction. Apparently, this trend was already entrenched among herpetologists in 1992, so it was probably gaining momentum during the 1980s. Everything before that uses "pit viper", which was the way I was writing it here before I figured that resistance was futile. --Jwinius (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of conservativeness, the way I see it. I hit "Random article" and copyedit if I feel like it. That's what I do here, and that's my area of expertise. The Prime Directive for copyeditors is "Don't distract the reader." That's all this is about. Let the herpetologists use their jargon down at the Snakeskin Saloon, and let the rest of us read in peace, sez me. I'm going to change it back to two words now and let the spaces fall where they may. Merry Christmas and/or Happy Hanukkah or whatever, by the way. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to change the other 150 articles too, or do you expect me to do that for you? --Jwinius (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you? That's awfully decent of you. But it's over 230, isn't it? (Actually, I could do that; I have the time right now.) I've started a section on the article's talk page here so we don't clutter up your talk page and so others can weigh in if they want. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. It sounds like you not only have time on your hands, but a chip on your shoulder. Don't you have anything better to do? --Jwinius (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gloydius ussuriensis

Dear Winius,

Thank you for your editting Gloydius ussuriensis. You have removed my picture[1] from the article, saying that the picture is not of Gloydius ussuriensis but of Glodius blomhoffii.

1. You have commented that G. ussuriensis does not occur in South Korea or Jeju. But the article [2] text itself says that G. ussurinsis occurs in Korea and Jeju. How should I understand your comment?

2. You have commented that the picture is of G. blomhoffii. But the article of G. blomhoffii[3] (paragraph subspecies) says that G.b. blomhoffii is only in Japan, and the subspecies occurs in Korea is G.b. brevicaudus.

3. My friend says that G. b. blomhoffii or G. b. brevicaudus does not occur in Jeju. But you are saying that the picture [4] that I took in Jeju is of G. blomhoffii. Can you give me a reference that G. blomhoffii occurs in Jeju? Or, what made you believe that the picture is of G. blomhoffii?

Yongchangjang (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yongchangjang, Thanks for your message. You're absolutely right and I stand corrected. I used only Gloyd and Conant (1990) for my initial deduction, which provides a map that shows G. ussuriensis as not even entering Korea. However, I completely forgot to check McDiarmid (1999), or even Gumprecht et al. (2004), or the G. ussuriensis article (which I wrote) -- all three of which state that this species also occurs in Korea! I'm not sure about this species occurring on Jeju, but I'll take your word for it. Perhaps you can find a reference. Anyway, good thing you noticed my mistake, because otherwise we would not have an image for the G. ussuriensis article (although a cropped version of it would be better). Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]