Talk:Children's python

Requested move

This article ought to be at the common name (Children's python), not at the binomial name. Not only is it generally preferable to use common names, in this case it's much less ambiguous - there's no common name other than "Children's python", but there are a large number of binomial synonyms. In any case, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) says, plainly, "If there is a common name in English, use that". There's no reason for this to be at the scientific name rather than the common one. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support use of most common name per naming policy: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Common names aren't regulated and there's every chance that there are other common names for this species also. As for the synonyms, they are just that because Antaresia childreni is the only valid name for this species according to the taxonomy in use here. --Jwinius (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I'm the only person who has worked on most all snake articles (500 or so) for the past two years. I have worked very hard to apply a common format to all of them and organize them according to their scientific names. It is true that this is against WP's policy for article names for zoological articles. However, the problem is that this concept does not work well for snakes because most of them have more than one common name. For example, Agkistrodon piscivorus even has 39 common names, many of which are shared with other species. Another example: the list of Viperinae (true vipers) is complete, described 122 taxa for which there are known to be at least 318 common names, despite the fact that the vast majority do not occur in English specking countries. You can see for yourself here:

• Viperinae, valid scientific names.
• Viperinae by common name
• Viperinae by taxonomic synonyms

As with most other snake families, this is also how I've organized the python articles:

• Pythonidae, valid scientific names.
• Pythonidae by common name
• Pythonidae by taxonomic synonyms

Obviously, there are not as many common names listed here, but I am certain that this is mostly because the amount of literature available to me on these snakes is limited compared to what I have on viperids. Perhaps Antaresia childreni is an exception and does have only one common name, but I wouldn't count on that. Given time, I have no doubt that I will be able to prove that most pythons also have an average of two or more common names. Therefore, in the interest of stability and consistency, I would ask that the title of this article be left as it is. --Jwinius (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're opposing because it might, possibly, have more than one common name, which you don't know? That's not a good reason to have this article at the scientific name - which is the actual scope of this discussion. Even where there is more than one common name, it's not necessary to use the scientific name - I offer the case of (cough) species Gavia immer, which is just at one of the common names. Even though there's a real dispute about what the "proper" common name is, it's not at the scientific name. With regard to other snake articles; yes, those should be at the common name in English if such exists, and otherwise at the most used common name in English if that can be determined. However, this is not currently a request to change all such article titles; it's about one snake. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)