Talk:Calabar python

Classification

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

Move proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support. This particular species is a perfect example of why Linnaean taxonomy makes more sense for animal articles. Common names are all too often entirely localized, inaccurate, out-dated (python?), or in this snake's case - in large number. Who is to say which is the "most common" usage? I've read and heard every variation mentioned in the article, and a few others that are not - I couldn't say any one is widely preferred over another. Though, I usually just defer to the article's original author when dealing with these kind of issues to prevent edit warring, unless it's glaringly wrong. -Dawson (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]