Talk:Ball python

Users ArtKoen and 24.229.135.203

You have both consistently advertised on this page, and as such, I have put notices on your talk pages. Further adding of spam/advertising links to your site will result in notification of admins. Jhall1468 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Cleanup and Citations

I have cleaned up a few areas of the article, namely removing some external links (as most of the details in this links are available via the other external links and references). Those links that were removed had a primarily commercial purpose, and as such, still violate the WP:EL guidelines. Some of the references are from commercial breeders and other commercial sites, which should be altered to non-commercial sources if possible.

I have also cited the majority of this article (only one unknown remains, which I propose be removed if a source is unavailable). Please discuss any changes here PRIOR to making edits, as I feel that the article is almost at the standard it should be. Jhall1468 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Jhall1468 You've removed solid links and added commerical links yet you make reference to violations of the WP:EL guidelines? When did Graziani Reptiles and New England Reptiles stop becoming commercial? Why do you continuously edit this page and disrupt good information??? Furthermore, with all the condensing and editing, there's really nothing of substance on this page now, just a few lines of rhetoric. The list of ball python morphs have been removed. Why? Please leave well enough alone already as I'm sure there are thousands of other Wikipedia entries that you can make better use of your time with. 19 January 2007

How many times...

I've explained this already. I went through and cited all the information available on the page. Those cites included commercial breeder sites for the time being, but that is only because there isn't a wealth of information on the topic from non-commercial sources. Until then, I would rather have the article cited then leave a bunch of junk all over the place. The moment I find more reliable sources that aren't commercial, the commercial ones will be removed.

All of those articles on the page you insist stay are available elsewhere, and most of them are completely invalid and terrible sources for information. Melissa Kaplan's Care Sheet, for example, lists Ball Pythons as "happy in trees" when they are ground-dwellers, not aboreal. 3/4ths of the page is dedicated to Amazon Affiliate Links. That page is CLEARLY designed as a commercial page, and it would not particularly surprise me if you are the owner of it.

Finally, this page read like a book report, not encyclepedia entry. So I made some major changes (as did others) to bring it back to the realm of information (instead of opinion). This will be the last time I edit out that link, if you revert it again, I'll simply request arbitration, and we will end up with the same result. All of the articles listed on that page are available at their owners websites as well.

Please quit treating Wikipedia as a resource for advertising. Jhall1468 00:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As a followup, I thought it might be of note. Greg Graziani and the owners of NERD are considered industry experts. Ron Crawford, the website you consistantly post, seems to be completely unknown.

Rules Violation

24.229.135.203 is apparently owned by the locale cable company in Pottsville, PA. According to the RCReptiles forums, the owner (Ron Crawford) ALSO lives in Pottsville, PA. That is a direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines. So the only person that seems to take issue with my edits, is the one guy that happens to live in the same city as the owner fo the site in question. Jhall1468 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I figured I'd chime in on this because I've observed that JHall1468 thinks he owns Wikipedia and this page. Leave the links alone dude and quit trying to play God. I wouldn't be surprised if you were being paid by some of these "commercial" breeders (or you're one of them yourself) of whom you consistently defend and post their links on Wikipedia while trying to make up excuses and reasons to keep other links off the page. Get a life dude and stop screwing up the ball python page. ArtKoen

Nope, I don't think I own Wikipedia at all. I do find it ironic that after I pointed out that the original complaintent happened to live in the same city as the owner of the site he is so insistant on being included, someone else shows up to save the day. I am attempting to clean this article up and would like to eventually add to it. However, that has been extremely difficult given some users advertising on the page. I have requested mediation, should you and the anon. user choose not to agree to mediation, I will be forced to go to the Arbitration Committee.

And FYI, I'm not a breeder or paid by those that breed. I'm a collector and hobbiest that would like Wikipedia to offer accurate, unbiased information regarding the animal in question. I'm not defending anything, as External Links and references are two different things, and I assure you the moment I have good sources to cite in loo of the commercial breeders, I will change it.

Either way, posting a link to articles available elsewhere, and a page that is 75% affilliate links is NOT a resource nor informative site. The articles in question aren't even accurate. Jhall1468 03:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

should be headed "Royal python"

There was a lot of good, solid information I put on here about keeping these animals as pets ( I keep them myself) and some idiot has decided to rub it all off. If the info is accurate, why do people feel the need to alter it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.140.54 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 January 2007.

Much of this article read (and still reads) like a book and removing it was neccesary, although it was not me who did it. Jhall1468 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This article should be headed "Royal python", and stated it is also known as a "Ball python". The clue is in the snakes latin name: regis means king (or royal)

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary(1913): Regius, a. [L. regius, from rex, regis, a king.] - of or pertaining to a king; royal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.169.24.100 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

Article was originally written in American English and will remain that way, since the topic isn't dialect-specific. Jhall1468 08:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

On using commercial breeders as external links

I have attempted to modify the external links section to remove unneccesary linking to commerical breeders sites. My arguement: breeders sites, although containing some information, lack information that is not already available on public forums and non-commerical sites.

Specifically, the top two external links point to one breeders site, the first to the home page, the second to the commercial breeders forums. The home page lacks any real information regarding the articles main purpose (Ball pythons), and in fact, primarily have "sales" information regarding the animal. The second link (forum) is largely unused and relatively useless in an informative sense.

User User:24.115.65.15 has largely ignored my arguments, and has reverted external links to previous versions.

According to the rules, links that should normally be avoided include links that are primarily used to sell a product or service. The links provided to all the commercial sites do just that. I suggest that the commercial breeders sites (and perhaps the classifieds as well) should be removed as per the rule mentioned previously. Jhall1468 06:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

Jhall1468 is right in his enforcing of the WP:EL guideline. --Flex 16:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fourth opinion

Wikipedia User I am a regular user of Wikipedia and find the links very helpful. Kingsnake.com is a COMMERCIAL site that monetizes off of advertisers so it's unfair to include them and disregard everyone else. With respect to ball pythons, the first link was very helpful to me because they have more published information on ball pythons than Kingsnake.com and some of the other sites listed. I looked at the forum at the second link and read through the threads. The forum seems very active and rich with ball python related information so it's unfair to state that they don't have an active forum. The Snake Keeper link is very useful as well because they actually created some of the ball python morphs that are listed on Wikipedia. The same thing goes for Constrictors Unlimited and a few of the other links. Many of these sites offer ball python information above and beyond what's available on Kingsnake.com and I feel they should remain. If you're going to omit links because you feel they're commercial then you should omit EVERY link that's commercial in nature, Kingsnake.com included. They have one care sheet for ball pythons and that's it. The first link has over 25 articles on ball pythons yet you want to remove that link and say it's not good? I actually learned quite a bit from that site and my ball python could have died if I didn't find that site when I read this Wikipedia entry. Please leave the links in place, they were very useful to me as they are to other people. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.65.15 (talk • contribs)

I would note that a link's usefulness to you is technically irrelevant when it comes to whether it should be kept or not. Forums, for instance, should be avoided unless the page mandates their citation (this one certainly does not). Moreover, this post appears not to be a distinct fourth opinion but a sock puppet. In any case, you may be right about Kingsnake.com, but that was not the question at hand. --Flex 18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically irrelvant? Is Wikipedia for brainless robots or humans looking for information on a specific topic of interest? Since I don't think it was made for robots, my feelings of the usefulness of the links are very relevant as I have been helped by the external links in Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that Ball Pythons are living animals and just because someone chooses to make them available on their website should not discredit them from having a link to their site, especially if the site provides an abundance of concentrated information on the subject. I would also argue that having the prescence of breeder sites is very relevant because a person can contact an experienced "expert" on the topic as I did when my ball python almost perished. I should also note that a lot of the information known about ball pythons was in fact discovered by and published by some of the breeders listed in the external links section. Thanks for your time and have a pleasant day. Wikipedia User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.65.15 (talk • contribs)

Once again, a personal anecdote. Wikipedia is a resource, and a technical resource at that. Breeder sites can be found quite easily using Google, the purpose of the article is to inform, and you'll note, no other encyclopedia uses commercial sites as sources... whether Internet based or not. Kingsnake as a valuable resource is far more "in question" than the breeders sites, but for the sake of neutrality all commercially-oriented sites will be removed. Jhall1468 06:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To User:24.115.65.15: Yes, technically irrelevant. The Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising (see WP:NOT and WP:EL). I notice you did not deny the accusation of sock puppetry. Anyway, it seems like you're in good hands with User:JHall1468, so I'll bid you farewell. --Flex 12:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To Jhall1468 I think we've achieved a "win/win" and I thank you for your professionalism in dealing with this matter. Have a pleasant day. User:24.115.65.15

On probing

If a snake lays eggs, is that definitive evidence that it is female?

I hope that wasn't a serious question.

On longevity

According to Guinness World Records the oldest snake was a 40 year-old Red-tailed Boa (Boa constrictor), so the age of 48 would make this species the World's longest-lived snake. I did some searches, and found out about a Ball Python that died at the reported age of 49 years 4 months in Philadelphia Zoo (the same zoo as the Guinness approved boa!). But I found no more details, such as date of death, or if this snake was named. Another source gave this species a maximum age of 28 years in captivity. Clearly this calls for further research.

My research indicates the same, noted with a citation needed. Perhaps should be removed until an actual source is available. Jhall1468 07:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

average longevity is about 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonM.D. (talk • contribs) 11:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Poisonous?

This article doesn't discuss whether this snake is poisonous or not. Is it?

Ball pythons, like all pythons, are constrictors (squeeze their prey to death) and do not have any venom what so ever. or do they....

As stated, constrictors are all nonvenomous and the article was updated to note that. Jhall1468 07:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NOOOOOOO

the royal python is not poisonous, i own one.

Units?

What kind of gallons are we talking about here? US gallons, UK gallons? dry gallon? Perhaps it would be better to use metric units. Same goes for temperature, it didnt specify at all, but I reckoned we were talking about Fahrenheit given the numbers, so I added that.

picture

i suggest using another picture of a ball python, as the pastel is a "non mainstream" variant. the picture displayed in the infobox should be (imo) representative of the "typical" specimen subject of the article and -if desired- pictures of the many variants (pastel, amelanistic, leucistic, etc etc) could be secondaryly included in the body or as links.

just ignore this suggestion if i'm wrong --217.126.82.94 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

btw, same should apply to List of Serpentes families

Will work on finding photos Jhall1468 07:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Name..again

It makes no sense at all to have the following;

Ball Python (Python Regius) - "regius" does not mean "ball" for goodness sake.

It most certainly *should* be Royal Python, also known as Ball python. Why - because Royal Python is its scientific name! is this an encylopedia or what?

Ball python is not the name of the species. Period. Saying the article is written in "American english" is no excuse. its a bit sloppy.Alexanderd 13:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i agree with you, but i don't know, you have to copy/paste the whole article? The Red Cloud

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus (or, if there were one, I can't get through it). This entire stuff became messy, with discussions straying away and finally coming down. This has been listed at WP:RM for a couple of weeks. No prejudice against relisting; parties are urged to get a wider consensus at WP:TREE or wherever. Duja► 07:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Moving this article from it's common name to it's scientific name was done in contrast to WP:TREE. According to the Article titles section:

In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles, except for plant articles. Scientific names should be used otherwise.

User Jwinius provided no particular reason for the move, and in fact, this is contrary to many of the highly rated WP:AAR articles. The name "Ball Python" and "Royal Python" are used regularly to describe Python regius, where as the scientific name is routinely NOT used. The article was originally written in American English the original title should remain, and as such, I'm moving it back. Jhall1468 02:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, now that Ball Pythons (the redirect) is an existing article, the move must be done by an administrator. I have made the proper request at Wikipedia: Requested moves. Jhall1468 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Python regius → Ball Python —(Discuss)— Ball Python is more recognizable to the average user than Python regius, and fits within the WP:TREE guidelines for using a common name. —Jhall1468 03:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as nominator. Jhall1468 03:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Using common names promotes confusion and conflict. Using the scientific name is the neutral solution that silences any debate regarding which common name to use. --Jwinius 10:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. We've only had one argument for a move to Royal Python, which has since died off. At present time your edits violate both WP:LEAD and WP:TREE. While we can all appreciate conformity, editing several hundred articles without discussion is not the way to do it. Jhall1468 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It is true the format that I applied earlier to this article, all other python articles and hundreds more snake articles does depart from WP:LEAD and WP:TREE. However, I have explained why I feel this is necessary and four such articles now have GA status. Some of the most important advantages of using scientific names for article titles are that it makes it easier avoid duplication and enforce a consistent taxonomy -- something few people seem to care about. The lead format with the list of common names at the top of the article is to make it immediately clear to all which common names apply and, to a slightly lesser extent, that none have any particular precedence over the others. In addition, the scientific name titles have allowed for the creation of separate categories for valid scientific names, taxonomic synonyms and common names: a level of organization that would otherwise be more difficult to achieve, let alone maintain. Plans are currently also in the works to categorize the contents of the common names category (and those of other snake families) still further. I probably take common names more seriously than anyone at Wikipedia, but since most snakes have multiple common names (e.g. Agkistrodon piscivorus has over 30), using them for hundreds of article titles is just is not constructive. I regret that not everyone is able to appreciate what I've been doing, but it's never possible to please everyone. --Jwinius 00:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Again, I do appreciate some conformity, and I believe that would help a great deal in the long run. That being said, conformity should be decided by the community at-large, especially when conformity involves departing from two standing WP policies. However, beings there is only two of us arguing this, I'm going to request a third opinion so that this issue can be resolved. Jhall1468 02:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. From limited research it appears that the name Ball Python is one that is more popular in the pet trade while Royal Python is more in line with its scientific name. The Amphibians and Reptiles project follows the Tree of Life rules - articles with common names where possible and scientific names where not available. While there really is little difference in whether an article is reached directly or via a redirect,(searchability and locatability being identical) it helps to be consistent within a group. I have some reservations against breaking the guidelines on the way the lead is written, but when an editor who is really dedicated in improving a whole cluster of related articles is involved, it may be useful to make compromises and to allow improvement. It may be also be useful to take this discussion to WP:AAR. Cheers. Shyamal 02:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Çomment & Oppose move of title to Ball Python: See my detailed comments in following section titled Another point of view. AshLin 11:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article at Python regius and keep bold common names in lead paragraph; see my comments at Talk:Python regius#What is the controversy about? below. Enuja (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC) I thought the article has simply been here, now that I've seen the move log, and no talk or page edits to inform other editors, I've changed my mind. The article should be moved back to Ball Python.
• Oppose - It is inconsistent with the hundreds of articles that use the common names lead. Tim Q. Wells 23:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Many articles use the scientific name for things also have an English name, for example Agaricus bisporus, but they are too obscure (i.e. not nearly as common as Cougar). Scientific names are usually more organized than common names, telling the genus of the organism. It also works perectly with the common names lead. Tim Q. Wells 23:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this statement. Since "Python regius" is inconsistent with the general article naming guidelines, wouldn't you want to change the article name to back to "Ball Python'? Enuja (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, other articles do use a scientific name, however, there is usually an explanation that has some merit involved. Agaricus bisporus has a very ambiguous common name (Table Mushroom) and as such, I can see why they made the choice with the scientific name. Furthermore, the article is well outside the scope of WP:AAR so I don't see how the example fits. You will notice, however, that the WP:FA articles for AAR use common names (Cane Toad, Olm, Hawksbill turtle). In fact, most of the WP:GA articles use common names, with exception to those that were moved by User:Jwinius. I don't think simply because other articles do it, it makes sense for this article. If that were the case, we'd see this type of naming convention used throughout biology, but only botany has taken that route. Regardless, I think if you want to argue that ALL articles should take this format, it should be argued at WP:AAR, for our purposes, I think it would be better to argue why this article SPECIFICALLY should use this format. Jhall1468 06:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm here to give a third opinion. I don't see a hard conflict with WP:LEAD, and WP:TREE is a project, not a Wikipedia guideline proper. That being said, I can see both sides of this issue. I tend to side with Jwinius's reasoning, but I see that featured articles like Cougar do not follow this pattern. Therefore, I think it should go back to Ball Python as being the main page name until such a time as the internal standards in WP:TREE are changed. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the people at WP:TREE and those who busy themselves with articles on large mammals have never bothered with the level of organization that is being attempted here: the systematic categorization of scientific names, common names and taxonomic synonyms. Yes, I do things a little differently, but if you like what I'm doing, why throw out the baby with the bathwater? Progress is not possible without deviation from the norm. --Jwinius 21:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Deviation from the norm should come with a consensus, not an individual decision. I would love to see standardization across WP:AAR as a whole, however, how that standard is implemented should be decided by more than one person. I implore you to move this discussion to WP:AAR where officially policy could potentially change. Otherwise, while we may have some conformity among the differing snake species, WP:AAR will degrade into less conformity. In the mean time, let's maintain some degree of conformity, by complying with the guidelines set by WP:TREE Jhall1468 08:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another Point of View

There has been debate on this issue at WikiProject Lepidoptera with no consensus reached. The arguments put forth in my opinion are given below.

Arguments in favour of Common Names

Editors proposing the common names POV generally refer to three arguments:

• Firstly, they claim that articles named after common names make it harder for people using common names as a search term to locate the article; this is manifestly untrue, search engines scan web page text to locate instances for which reason you get many thousands of hits on almost anything at all. If the search term is used in Wikipedia search, then the redirects and normal wikipedia search make sure the article is located. So there is no hard evidence that using common names makes it easier for anyone to locate the article or that using scientific names makes it more difficult.
• Secondly, they refer to the guidelines from WP:TREE. The guideline says to use the common name, if its reasonably well-known and unique, else to use the scientific name. In effect, the guidelines acknowledge that both forms are valid, under certain conditions. So both are acceptable; it is not taboo to have articles named after scientific names. There are many more creatures in wikipedia which are named after scientific names (they have to be so named, as they have no common name). So a scientific name is not taboo, just given second status as per present TOL guidelines.
• Thirdly, a view is pushed that a person who comes across an article titled with common names feels discouraged on encountering a scientific name as article title. Why that should be so, I dont know. Even if an article is titles as per its scientific name, the common name is prominent in the lead, either by the standard bolding in the first sentance as per conventional wikipedia practice or definitely by using the dablink method proposed by User:Tim Q. Wells. A person, who finds the article he searched for by using common names as a search or 'Go' term in Wikipedia, quickly learns the scientific name of the species and also immediately sees below it, the common names, confirming that this is indeed the article he was searching for.

Arguments in favour of Scientific Names

• Firstly, they can be used consistently. All TOL articles dealing with the living organisms can be named with a scientific name. But this is not possible with

comon names. Consistency is definitely a quality sought for in Wikipedia, and this kind of lack of consistency or presence of ambiguity is one of the arguments people use to reject Wikipedia. Consistency also allows easy categorisation, stub-sorting, etc. I have personally tried to develop categorisation rules for articles in WikiProject Lepidoptera, where articles may either have common names and scientific names, and got quite hopelessly lost over this issue. Consistency should be given value over minor considerations. Its ironic that User:Jhall1468 is imploring this move of title back to Ball Python for reasons of consistency in WP:AAR.

• Secondly, scientific names are unique. Common names are very often not. Many species have names which differ in various parts of the world, example being Camberwell Beauty in UK and Mourning Cloak in USA for Nymphalis antiopa. The counter-argument used by common name proponents is that experts may disagree (eg Cynthia cardui in USA vs Vanessa cardui in UK). But such cases are very few, and for these cases there are elaborate rules of the ICZN so that the answer may be found by arbitration, but how can you arbitrate about precendence or importance of common names? Scientific name proponents also push the point that many common names need disambiguation (Skipper(butterfly) vs Hesperiidae). It is better for an article to have a meaningful and unique name rather than a disambiguated title.
• Thirdly, consistent naming using scientific names promotes development of value-added efforts from people such as User:Jwinius (examples being - Category:Asian_pit_vipers_by_common_name, Category:Asian_pit_vipers_by_taxonomic_synonyms). This is not possible when the system permits a hotch-potch of common and scientific names. This value-addition is a purely volunteer effort, wikipedia standards dont require it and most certainly, it wont come about by itself in the normal way of things.

TOL guidelines

I think the interpretation of TOL guidelines by User: Jhall1468 is incorrect. So lets examine the exact TOL guideline which is being claimed to be flouted:

In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles, except for plant articles. Scientific names should be used otherwise.

Ball python fails this test. There are two common names for this python - Ball python (Google hits 2,430,000 [1] and Royal python (Google hits 2,200,00 [2]). So the species article does not have a reasonably unique name. There is as good a case for the article to be called Royal Python as there is for Ball Python. So, in this case the article name should default to scientific name with both the common names as redirects. Please note, on this very page, when the issue previously came up for the name of the article to be moved to Royal Python, the present agrieved User:Jhall1468 gave an obscure reply and constructively evaded the issue.

Lastly, Wikipedia TOL has this to say as its opening paragraph:

First, an important note for everyone to remember. A few Wikipedians have got together to make some suggestions about how we might organize data in these articles. These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them. But if you don't know what to write or where to begin, following the below guidelines may be helpful. Mainly, we just want you to write articles!

This implies that WikiProject guidelines are just that - guidelines. They are not sacrosanct ie Wikipedia policy. So, if they are to be countermanded, there must be a good reason to do so. User:Jwinius provides that. The way, I understand is that, User:Jwinius has a proposition. If he is allowed to follow the naming convention less preferred by guidelines, he will provide in exchange, to Wikipedia, a fully categorised, and subcategorised added-value to the complete python series of articles, including tremenduous amounts of taxonomic data, as he has done for Viperidae , which is in the sprirt of the text of the lead para of WP:TOL. This seems to be a fair deal, whereas, all that User:Jhall1468 is offering is dogmatic application of a guideline.

Hence, in the best interests of Wikipedia, my opinion is that the article should be named Python regius as per WikiProject TOL and User:Jwinius be commended for his efforts rather than be taken to task for it. AshLin 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Some confusion

I believe User:AshLin has confused the difference between unique and distinct. The policy (or guideline, if you will) is trying to prevent different species being confused by similar names. It has nothing to do with whether or not there are multiple common names. Furthermore, using Google as a source to prove the popularity of either naming convention is kind of silly. For example, by placing quotes around each of the search terms we find that "Ball Python" has 323,000 results [3] while "Royal Python" has 49,700 results [4]. Using the same argument you've provided, Ball Python is both unique and distinct as a common name for Python regius.

Again, I very much appreciative of what Jwinius is trying to do, I just don't like the methodology and format. I don't mind being outvoted on the issue, if it comes to that, but I DO mind existing articles being formatted in a way that (at the very least) defies already existing guidelines, without so much as a discussion. However, as I said before, I would rather Jwinius take his arguments to WP:AAR, so the entire community can make a decision, as opposed to a few. And perhaps, AshLin could try a little harder to Assume good faith, since my interest is not in attacking Jwinius, but improving Wikipedia. Jhall1468 15:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point about assuming good faith is well taken. Thank you for gently guiding me. I did not know how to get a phrase to be searched for in Google, so I have learnt that too. But I cannot find it in me to support a guideline which appears obstructive and inconsistent. AshLin 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the controversy about?

I'm here because of the note on wikiproject reptiles and amphibians, and I think I've finally figured out what the controversy is all about, although I'm not sure. To be clear; this article was created at this page, and Ball Python and Royal Python were both created as redirects. (I can't find any move logs, so I can't think of another explanation for this; if I'm incorrect, I'd love an alternate explanation of what happened.) To me, having the article named any of those three titles would be O.K., fairly consistent with the manual of style, and not worth a page move, as the other two article titles are redirects. If I were making a new article, I'd go with the manual of style and use Ball Python as the most common common name, but the argument that there are two common names could certainly sway me to go with Python regius. As the article is currently at, and has been at, the scientific name, I see no reason to move the article.

To me, the grander question of "common names or scientific names" can be completely ignored for this article, as it's in a fairly good location under either policy.

So what is left of the controversy here is essentially a format issue. Both common names and the scientific name should be included prominently on the top of the page, and both formats seem to do that. To me, the formats are not dependent on which name the article is at, and they are useful for two different situations. If an organism has a huge number of common names, then it makes sense to list them all on the top of the page, because it's handy to have an easy place to find them, but no-one is going to remember them all. If an organism has one, two or maybe even three common names, it makes sense for the names to be in bold in the first sentence of the lead, because it makes sense for the reader to become familiar with the common names; while inconsistent, they are important for communication. I also think that the taxo-box and good wiki-formating is quite enough consistent style to hold the encyclopedia together; the snake articles don't need to all look exactly the same.

So, my opinion on the lead for this page is that it should have the common names bolded in the text of the lead, and that it should stay at the scientific name. Enuja (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The article started as Ball python I believe, and eventually moved to Ball Python. It was most recently moved to Python regius quite recently. As for the rest, I agree... the formatting should definitely have the common names bolded and the scientific name italicized as is the standard for Wikipedia. Where I disagreed, was the move to Python regius, without any discussion leading up to it. I believe the primary arguments for moving it to the scientific name were (A) to provide conformity across the snake articles, and (B) to remove the argument of which common name to use.

(A) is up for debate as to whether it's necessary or not. I would like to see some consistancy in formatting across all of WP:AAR and potentially the entire WP:TOL, but perhaps that's asking a bit much. (B) doesn't really hold water as there have only been two complaints about using Ball Python as opposed to Royal Python, and the arguments themselves aren't consistant with other article naming conventions, such as Cane Toad (Bufo marinus, marinus meaning Marine).

My argument is simple: there was no just cause to move Ball Python to Python regius in the first place, and certainly not without some debate as to the merits of moving it. While I believe the user that made the move is certainly acting in Good Faith, I believe departing from guidelines should have reasonable cause. Unfortunately, I haven't seen a single one that would convert me to making the changes that were made (to both the formatting AND the article name). Jhall1468 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand how I missed the move log [5]. Opps! Sorry about that. On September 12th, without putting a move template on the top of the page beforehand, without stating any reasoning on the talk page, User:Jwinius moved Ball Python to Python regius. This is inappropriate, no matter the policy. In other words, even if you know a move is totally within policy, if you have even the slightest idea that someone is going to object, you need to give them a chance to do so. Doing it without warning anyone avoids the possibility of developing a consensus. I also strongly believe that Jwinius did this move in good faith, trying to make the encyclopedia more consistent and better, but I don't agree with that action.

To me, the question now becomes "If this were September 12th, and I was responding to a request for move by Jwinius, what position would I hold?" Because Ball Python fits the suggestion at tree of life and the general behavior of most editors working on reptiles, I'd argue for leaving the article where it was. So now I'm arguing to move it back to Ball Python. Enuja (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not working according to the guidelines and posting move notices when I should have. I considered posting move notices before, but I assumed that taking action after only a few days would be considered unreasonable. I was thinking more in terms of weeks (!), which would have slowed me down way too much. A few days is very acceptable.

Anyway, there are many reasons why it's important to me that scientific names be used for these article titles, not least of which is the way this allows me to organize them according their scientific names, their common names and their taxonomic synonyms. For example, these are the resulting categories for this family of snakes:

• Category:Pythonidae
• Category:Pythonidae by common name
• Category:Pythonidae by taxonomic synonyms

With a larger group, in this case several viperid subfamilies (which I now need to separate), it ends up looking like this:

• Category:True vipers
• Category:True vipers by common name
• Category:True vipers by taxonomic synonyms

Incidentally, that last series is taxonomically complete and 100% accurate. The common names are all that I could find in the literature available to me. Why the synonyms? This is the only way to prevent articles from being created with old and invalid scientific names; I've encountered this often enough to know that it is worth the effort.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing like this exists on the Internet, and certainly not for snakes. Perhaps this is what motivates me. If I am given the opportunity, my aim is to complete the entire series, which will take many years. I'm at about 10% of all snake taxa right now, and I've been working at this almost flat out for well over a year. If you'd like WP to develop a respectable series of snake articles, I'm pretty sure that this is what you want. As you can imagine, this work is very labor intensive and much discipline is required. Above all, precision is what is necessary, or else this entire taxonomy will be considered inconsistent and unreliable -- useless as a reference. Since scientific names are unique and predictable, whereas common names are not, that is why they cannot be tolerated in this exercise. We may be able to get away with making a few such exceptions in a small group of articles, but we're already dealing with hundreds of articles and ultimately there will be well over 3,000... with multiple contributers working on the same series (I can't really image finishing this job, let alone maintaining it, without extra help). Making exceptions is asking to be punished.

So, if everyone can find a way to forgive me for my transgressions, you have my word that I will never again perform any more such page moves without giving everyone a few days notice. If others refuse to have an article moved, I will simply ignore that page and come back again at a later date. --Jwinius 01:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The organization you've got going is amazing and fantastically ambitious. What I don't understand is how having the article at some common names and at some scientific names alters the organizational system you've got going. You'll have to be a tiny bit more specific, with "Category:group by common name" "Category:group by binomial name" and "Category:group by taxonomic synonyms." However, I see you've already made and had fulfilled requests for people with bots to go around changing category names, so that change shouldn't be a huge burden. Right now, people are using your organizational system go the main article page no matter if they are looking through categories of scientific or common names, so why does it matter to you if your categories will have mixed article links and redirects? The system will work the same way and be the same amount of work to create, either way. Enuja (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If common names could be fixed, unique and predictable, then your suggestion would work. However, as we have seen countless times here at WP already, they are not, and even articles that have already attained featured status, such as White's Tree Frog (still touted as AAR's shining example) have been moved. When that happens, mistakes can be made. For example, the contents often gets modified after a page move, maybe people get confused as a result ("the green flying snake isn't this species; it's that one!"), redirects get changed, editors not familiar with the new name may no longer be as likely to react when changes are made to the article, etc. Plus the lead sections would be inconsistent, plus you'd opening the door to many more pointless Cougar vs. Puma debates. And then there are the common names that may show up after you've already got a scientific name title, plus the common name titles that turn out to be wrong after all, because somebody didn't do their homework properly, and so have to be changed back to scientific names. Once again, there is bound to be extra risk associated with all this extra activity, and it is not worth endangering the entire project over. Things should be kept as predictable and as unchanging as possible if we are to succeed. Remember the KISS principle.

And, let's not forget all the unpredictable and more convoluted wikilinks that we would be forcing ourselves to work with, such as ''[[Ball Python|Python regius]]'', instead of just ''[[Python regius]]''. Otherwise people get sent to pages through redirects, which everyone tries to avoid because it's ugly. I've actually written software for myself that automatically parses ITIS, NRDB and IUCN webpages and uses to generate new articles complete with tables of scientific names for subtaxa, or just long lists of them, like List of typhlopid species and subspecies. Right now, all the links are always direct, but if many of the articles had common names, then I'd have to keep checking and editing all these links manually, and they'd have to be changed again if articles were moved. Yet more work, and for what? No thank you. --Jwinius 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't need to do additional work because you don't need to fix links to redirects that aren't broken; [[Ball Python]] is functionally equivalent to [[Python regius|Ball Python]]. As the policy on redirects says "There should almost never be a reason to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. This kind of change is almost never an improvement, and it can actually be detrimental." Instead of "avoiding redirects" I actually prefer to use direct links to redirects over using piped links to targets, because I think keeping the page source as clean and readable as possible makes editing the encyclopedia easier for everyone, especially new users.

If you convince the Amphibians and Reptiles WikiProject as a whole to establish a naming convention that reptile and amphibian articles should be at scientific names instead of common names, then you might be correct that it will be easier to maintain the articles if they are ALL at scientific names. But I simply don't think you're going to be able to do it; I think the culture of Wikipedia as a whole, and the ideal that Wikipedia should be as accessible as possible is going to prevent your policy from sticking. This means you'll be fighting against all the new editors and most of the old ones, and therefore there will be MORE page moves and maintenance will be harder, not easier. In other words, with the policy as it is now, the simplest thing is to follow the letter of the policy. Go ahead and stretch the policy nearly to the breaking point by only agreeing that a common name is "unique" when it is "fixed, unique, and predictable" such as "cat" and "Ball Python" and your editing will be less lonely if you stop fighting uphill battles. Enuja (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been better if I had not mentioned the wikilinks to the redirects; they're a less important issue. However, I'm beginning to think that I'm wasting my time with this debate. I've done my best to explain the necessity of applying a consistent naming discipline under these circumstance and given the best examples I can think of, but I guess you really have to have wrestled with this kind of thing yourself before you can fully appreciate the difficulties involved.
Any attempts to convince AAR to change their naming convention would obviously be futile, since they've followed WP guidelines much more closely for a long time, and easily outnumber us. Besides, as long as my friends I and stick to snakes, then we should never run into any conflicts. Since the different AAR subprojects are all completely separate taxonomically speaking, each can and should be allowed to decide for itself how ambitious it wants to be and what standards it sets for itself. Or, are they all supposed to be kept down at the lowest common denominator, slavishly following the general WP guidelines? Remember, those guidelines are there primarily for people and projects who can't think of any better ways to do things. They are not rules.
Would life become less lonely for me if I relaxed my standards and aimed a lot lower? Nope. I'd still be the only person working on the snake articles full time. The only difference would be that, suddenly, I'd have nothing more special, new, or different to look forward to than anyone else. --Jwinius 09:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. While the different subprojects should have a little more wiggle room in setting standards, that isn't what occurred here. On the contrary, it seems the standards were set without any debate what-so-ever. Of course, you must have realized that eventually you were going to change an article in a way that wouldn't be received without some controversy. And now is that point. One thing is clear, had this been discussed originally there certainly wouldn't have been a consensus to move. I think everyone appreciates what you are trying to do, but some of us simply aren't convinced that your arguments hold enough merit to change existing articles, especially those that have editors willing to work on them. I don't think anyone wants you to relax your standards OR aim lower, but if you are truly passionate about this change, it really should have been pushed at WP:AAR. Jhall1468 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I cant believe this. The man has committed himself to virtually a lifetime of work, and shown the kind of work he has produced and you are saying that his arguments hold no merit! There appears to be absolutely no weightage given to a person's record of past work. If I said more, I'll be accused of not assuming good faith. The only sacrosanct thing being insisted upon happens to be a badly framed rule at TOL, which cannot be waived under all circumstances. This is nothing but red tape and bureaucracy. I must say that there is nothing much more discouraging to article oriented, high output editors than this kind of treatment, and I am horrified to think that this is the kind of support a WikiProject gives users embarking on large endeavours. AshLin 16:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He's done incredible work with vipers, I'm not arguing against that. But again, I fail to see how the amount of work you do has anything to do with article naming conventions or formating. It's more than red tape and bureaucracy, I truthfully think it is better to use the common name for article naming, unless there are too many common names, or none at all. There's no particular argument (I've seen) that suggests scientific naming conventions are so much more valuable, it's worth going against the standard guidelines. Nor do I see why it's absolutely necessary that every article in a category conform to a very specific format and/or naming convention. I appreciate what User:Jwinius is doing, I just happen to have a different purview on what works better. This isn't personal, so why imply it is? It's certainly not impossible to change my mind, but thus far, I haven't seen an argument that's swayed me into believing that scientific naming conventions are the best available option. This isn't the place to argue against poorly framed rules at either WP:TREE or WP:TOL. If that's the argument here, great, let's take it to either WP:AAR or take it all the way to WP:TOL if you like. As I said before, the way to affect change is to have a solid argument and argue it. Changing articles without a move notice is NOT the way to affect change. Jhall1468 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems you've been rather successful at putting my work and methods on trial here. I've had to admit and apologized for the fact that I've moved this and many other articles without giving a standard notice. Truly, if I had known how little was necessary for compliance in this area, I would have done so. Ironically, if I had done that in this case, you probably would not have noticed either, since your first protests occurred almost two weeks after my move and revision of this article. And on the contrary, even if you had noticed and challenged my suggestion to move, I doubt that would not have won that vote either.

Sure, everyone appreciates what I'm trying to do, but in this case my reasons for changing things just aren't good enough for you, especially when someone as capable as yourself is so willing to work on this article. Hmm... and what have you actually done to contribute to it over the past year?? Let's see:

• 12 October 2006: Removal of 10 "commercial" external links.
• 12 October 2006: Repositioned one external link.
• 16 January 2007: Swapped "Ball" and "Royal" in the lead section and repositioned one external link.
• 16 January 2007: Added 6 external links as references to the text; removed two {{fact}} tags in the process; changed "48" (years in captivity) to "40"; removed 4 external links, erroneously stating that these were now being used as references (they linked to different websites).
• 17 January 2007: Changed 3 instances of "Python" to lower case; replaced anapsid.org external link reference with one to ball-pythons.net; rephrased one sentence regarding color morphs, adding an external link reference; added name tags to three references, allowing them to be reused; bumped up the section "Ball Pythons as pets", renamed it "In captivity", deleted most of its contents, rephrased the only remaining paragraph, adding three external link references.
• 20 January 2007: Removed a sentence regarding the suitability as a pet and one external link.
• 28 January 2007: Removed an external link.
• 1 March 2007: Removed section list of morphs.
• 22 May 2007: Removed info regarding feeding of captive juveniles, along with an external link reference.
• 16 June 2007: Removed a sentence regarding captives eating day old chicks.

From this it is clear that virtually all of your activity here can be regarded as maintenance involving deletions (most of which I actually agree with). However, you added next to nothing in the way of new information. Since you had previously been so busy upholding its quality, I can imagine that you felt a sense of ownership towards this article, but were then somewhat stunned when you discovered my revision in which much more useful information was added than has been during the past two years.

Never have I felt the need to belittle another person's contributions in this manner, but I guess it necessary to return the favor. In is you who should have accepted my contributions in good faith, not I regarding your clumsy and equally unilateral revision of my efforts. --Jwinius 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, why personalize this? If your point is to get me to bite back, you're going to lose out. What do my personal contributions to this article have to do with the direction the article? I didn't remove any of the additional information you added, in fact, I liked a lot of it. The only thing I disliked was the article move, which I consider entirely unnecessary, and the article layout (which I don't particularly understand why you chose this structure). Nobody "owns" any article at Wikipedia, that's really the point here. I've said several times (but I'll say it again for clarification) IF a consensus develops that concurs with your naming conventions and article layout, I'm okay with that. There is certainly nothing to this point that would call your move a consensus. Quite the contrary. And (as you can see below) I'd love to here your justification for this article layout, because believe it or not, I'm very open to change, as long as that change makes sense. That being said, had you done this with a move notice, and this debate was about moving Ball Python to Python regius, there's no way any admin would consider the current state of the debate a consensus in either direction. If useful information is what you add, I'm all for it. I find I'm far better at copy editing than writing. However, we aren't arguing the new content you added (which, for the most part I like), we are discussing the article name and section format. Thus far, I'm not the only one you haven't convinced. In fact, thus far, you've been the only one to even provide a single rational reason for the change. Unfortunately, myself (and others, it appears) don't consider those reasons "good enough" to merit a move. Jhall1468 18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Because you seem to be composed of nothing but hot air! Your contributions amount to almost nothing, yet you're very quick to judge the people who do the real work around here. I deeply resent that. Of course the layout is entirely arbitrary; that's usually the case. This one is based on the work of my predecessors, which even then was probably unique to this subproject, to which I added my own modifications. It's all over the place now simply because I seem to be the only person who concerns himself with this entire subproject. Consensus? With who, AAR? The snake articles predate AAR and were always a little different from the other AAR subprojects; we were not going to change our format for them back then, and we don't have to now either. All you need to know is that this format has survived four GA reviews and is the common format for some 350-400 snake articles. That in itself means it should not be taken lightly by anyone. You had the opportunity to develop a new format yourself for this and perhaps all the other python articles, but instead you did nothing. Now that somebody else has actually stepped up and done all the hard work, are you grateful? No, you get all upset about it. The changes are not what you expected, so you proceed to mess up my edits and make a big stink; something you seem to be very good at. You should show some respect. --Jwinius 19:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You do realize there are literally thousands of editors that do nothing but edit articles? I don't really mind if you feel the need to attack me, or my contributions at Wikipedia. Honestly, the only result in this is making yourself look silly. You keep referring to "we", but that seems to be comprised of three people that don't happen to like a guideline, so their answer to it is to ignore it. The fact that it has survived several hundred articles isn't surprising, since you targeted low-traffic articles in the first place. Furthermore, I've done nothing but respect you. No, I don't like the section format convention, for reasons I've already stated. No, I don't like the article naming convention for reasons I've already mentioned. But, thus far, I've done nothing but applaud the work you've done thus far. It seems to me, you were quite content making changes without any form of consensus, and now that someone has noticed, you've gotten very defensive and relatively rude about it. If you want to single me out, that's fine, but keep in mind there are several others that have never edited this article, that also don't agree with your methods at the very least. Jhall1468 20:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point regarding requirement of consensus for section headings is not agreed to. In the absence of activity or interest in a particular field, there is no requirement for seeking consensus. We shall BE BOLD and go ahead with our constructive work. If you feel so strongly about it, go ahead work out something better and apply the changes to the wikis. We are not here to justify our months of hard work to someone whose contributions are marginal. As for the several others whom you are talking about, if they feel so strongly, let them stand up and be counted. The only unreasonable person here is you. AshLin 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. The consensus was more of the unique lead and the moving the article. As you can see per the sections below, I'm looking for which of the two sections formats are preferred. I'm not asking you to justify anything, and again, you both need to work on your civility. The only reasoning you've presented so far is "I like it" and that isn't justification to move an article, especially when the move is contrary to guidelines. Several others here have expressed their opinions on the matter, including a person that came from AAR and someone responding via my request for a third opinion. It seems to me, the only thing that's "reasonable" is to simply agree with you. I don't, nor will I with the reasons that have been presented. I'm not arguing with you about any other article but this one. And you've presented weak reasoning for the move, in combination with personal attacks against me.

If you want to set a standard for all snake articles to use the format you like, great, start an AAR subproject for snakes and make your arguments there. In the mean time, attacking me isn't proving anything. Jhall1468 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

There appears to be a bit of a slow-motion edit war about several formatting and image issues on this article. Please discuss edits here instead of reverting. I'd like to discuss the images. Currently, there is only one image on the page, and it's in the taxo-box. It is certainly okay to have more than one image of an organism on its page, so putting one in the taxo-box and one in the text might be a good compromise. The two images are Image:Python Regius Pastel.jpg and Image:Python royal 35.JPG. The image of the pastel ball python shows the whole animal, is of high resolution, and is generally just a good picture. But it's not a picture of a normal ball python. The other image has only a small portion of the face of the python in focus, but it is apparently a more typical member of its species, and its actually hanging on what is apparently a branch. While the resolution is reasonably large, the image isn't technically as good as that of the pastel python. I suggest putting Image:Python royal 35.JPG in the taxobox and Image:Python Regius Pastel.jpg in the "Captivity" section. What do others think? Enuja (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The pastel specimen may not be the most representative of its species, but it's close enough and certainly not as weird as, for example, an albino would be. Only the ground color is a little off; it's not as if the animal could be mistaken for anything else. The image also shows the entire animal in a more natural position. The other image shows only a small part of the animal, it's lower resolution, partially out of focus and if you look closely, you'll see that the specimen has an eye problem; perhaps an eye cap that didn't come off properly with its last shed. Finally, the pastel was the original picture in the article when I revised it.

The "Python royal 35.JPG" image was originally in the taxobox of the Pythonidae page. However, I replaced it with a image more representative of the family: one of the type species of the type genus, P. molurus. If I have the choice, I always try to do this. --Jwinius 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of using an aberrant as the main photo. The Pastel is substantially different than a wild-type, and could cause confusion for an inexperienced user reading the page. The page is lacking on information regarding different morphs, and once we have a great deal more content on the topic, that would be the ideal place for the Pastel. In the mean time, I think the captivity section would be a good place for it. Personally, I'd rather have a low quality photo with a proper specimen than an inaccurate photo. Jhall1468 06:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a good picture and it's not a radical departure as morphs go. Some natural variants may even come close to it. The alternative is simply too poor IMO and even suggests that the species is more arboreal than it actually is. You could have changed this image a long time ago, but apparently chose not to. I'm simply agreeing with your previous decision.

As for morphs in general, as far as I'm concerned, that kind of information is more specific to the pet industry and has very little to do with the original description of the species, it's natural history, etc. There's nothing official about color morphs either, which is why they've long been ignored by science. New color morphs are just something the industry comes up with every year in order to sell more snakes for more money. Essentially, they are commercial products. In my opinion, it is therefore best to mention their existence only in passing. What we don't want to do is end up with something like Corn snake when 60% of the article is about husbandry (note: WP is not a HOWTO) and morphs (borders on an advertisement masquerading as an article). --Jwinius 09:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective. However, I find it relatively confusing, given that there are over 40 mutations that occur in the wild [6]. The fact that science ignores them doesn't mean Wikipedia should. WP isn't a science journal, so there should be a balance in the article between it's natural habitat and the pet industry, both of which are something an encyclopedia should be interested in. I agree the Corn snake article needs a lot of work, and much of the Pets section violates WP:NOT, but that doesn't mean Ball Python can't offer information, without offering a how-to. Jhall1468 14:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

More info. The pastel morph looks very much like the natural specimen pictured in Mehrtens (1987): the yellow is a little brighter, but the rest is the same. Now get this: Mehrtens even says, "The pattern of ovoid blotches on a brown or bluish-brown ground color varies considerably, but almost always includes some shade of yellow. Xanthic (yellow) color morphs frequently occur." In other words, this "pastel" may very well occur in the wild. If not precisely, it will be very close. --Jwinius 10:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Pastels do occur in the wild, of course. But I don't see how that makes it appropriate to use it as the main article photo. You even mentioned that an albino wouldn't be appropriate, yet the first Albino Ball Python was discovered in the wild [7]. So I still have to agree, while the photo isn't perfect, Image:Python royal 35.JPG IS more appropriate than Image:Python Regius Pastel.jpg for the main photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhall1468 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

From the information provided above by Jwinius, I'm convinced that Image:Python Regius Pastel.jpg is the more descriptive and more appropriate image for the taxo-box. It shows the whole animal, it's in focus on the whole animal, and as long as the coloring is not too abnormal (Jwinius's source quote convinces me), it's a better image. Jhall, it's not that these yellow color morphs have just "been found" in the wild (like an albino), it's that they "frequently occur." Another possible solution is to get a better image of this python for the page, that all editors would agree on. I looked in the Pythonidae category on Wikimedia commons and didn't find anything better (it's got lots of great images of Python morulus, though), but any freely licensed photo (like one you took, and want to give to Wikipedia!) would work. Enuja (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sections Format

Can someone explain the merits of the outline format that is currently in place? I personally prefer a more categorized layout, such as the previous one [8]. To me, this seems to flow better than the current one. There seems to be a distaste for subheadings in the present one, and I'm curious what the arguments for that are? Jhall1468 16:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you encounter them earlier? I provide detailed explanations for the alternative lead for all to see here and here. Some of the reasons why I like to use scientific names for article titles are provided here. Further reasons regarding the advantages of using scientific name titles are given on this talk page. If you don't understand this stuff, well then I guess you just have to be one of those people who has set out to understand, and perhaps describe and organize, whole groups of organisms as opposed to just staring at individual ones.

Look at it this way: from your position as someone who has made a relatively miniscule contribution to WP, if you think that my ten days of solid work on the series of python articles has generally improved things, then be grateful and humor me even if you think the formatting and the titles look at little strange to you now. Hey, it's not garbage! If your acceptance of this formatting is all that I require of you and others to continue my work, then most people would call that a bargain. However, if all you can do is criticize me and beat me over the head with the TOL and AAR guidelines, then don't be surprised if I become irritated and decide to hold up a mirror. --Jwinius 23:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see civility still escapes you. That's fine. I think the layouts of Cane Toad and articles similar to it are more fluid, but given that Bitis_gabonica and other articles like it received GA status I don't see an issue. That being said, your arguments for scientific names still don't hold. Your arguments for scientific naming conventions are good, however, you failed to give anyone an opportunity to provide counter-arguments. "Ignore all rules" is great in theory, but you need justification for ignoring those rules, and that justification needs to be presented to the entire Wikipedia community, not just to those who read your talk page. Process is important, because without that, your goal of achieving consistency is going to be entirely broken. When the basic naming conventions of Snake are in complete contrast to Turtle or Toad, you render AAR to pointlessness.

You argue on your talk page that using Google search terms as a metric for determining which common name to use is "arbitrary" and "unscientific". However, Wikipedia isn't a science journal, and in many cases this "arbitrary" method is used for notability in articles for deletion. Furthermore, given Google is the most widely used search engine, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume the average person (which IS Wikipedia's target audience) isn't going to be searching for Canis lupus familiaris or Mus musculus. They are going to be searching for Dog and Mouse. The average person probably isn't familiar with Python regius, and one could easily argue they'd simple skip over a website titled as such [9] if they are looking for Ball Pythons.

And no, I don't consider it a "bargain" that your work at Wikipedia requires you provide the sole determination as to what naming conventions, and article layouts are used. Holding Wikipedia hostage for you're unwillingness to compromise is, by definition, bad faith. What really confuses me, is that you really have done great work. You've added information that's been missing from several articles on Wikipedia. I can't, for the life of me, why you can't argue your position at AAR where this belongs. There is a significant possibility that you could win over enough people to form a consensus, and this could have been avoided altogether. Instead you've taken the position of attacking my contributions at Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. J. Hall • ^(Talk) 08:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)