Talk:Chrysopelea ornata

Extracted from Talk:User Jwinius
Hi, tried out your snakeskin here. Any suggestions? AshLin 19:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mainly it's a very good effort: at first glance, it looks like one of my articles! :-) However, it's different from my usual layout in a number of ways:
 * It starts off with more adjectives (rear-fanged, gliding) than I would use. I like to use the first sentence for taxonomy and distribution only. With me, the intro would probably end up like: "Chrysopelea ornata is a colubrid species found in South and Southeast Asia. This snake is unique in that it is capable of a type of gliding flight. It is also rear-fanged. Currently, 3 subspecies are recognized, including the typical form described here." This would be followed by a taxonomic reference (ITIS or NRDB) for the species.
 * The order of the subsections is is a little different in my articles.
 * "Footnotes" and "References"? Sounds like the same thing to me, even though I don't think that was intended. I use "Cited references" and "Other references", although I'm starting to think that may not always be the best choice either.
 * The Description section starts out with the article title. Remember what I said about using common names in the text? Much the same goes for using the scientific name in the text: usually not necessary, since the article is monographic.
 * A table for the subspecies with a column for geographic data would be good: readers will be interested in seeing where the different races can be found.
 * A common name is used for the taxobox title, which kind of defeats the purpose of the snakeskin philosophy, since that selects one common name over the all others that were just listed (why?). For lack of anything better, I just repeat the article title here.


 * By the way, this new idea of indenting the initial list of common names like a dablink is something Tim Q. Wells came up with. It's okay, I guess. What do you think: is it an improvement? --Jwinius 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is anyway not the true first section of the lead. Indenting makes it resemble a centralised header, so it brings the names more to attention while allowing the first sentance to look like a first sentance. Also, might seem less objectionable to the 'purists'. AshLin 02:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion warning to anon editor, give citations or info will be deleted
Your edits about C. ornata being mildly venomous need proper referencing/citation. Should you fail to provide these, your edits are liable to being reverted. Please provide these in order for the information to remain. AshLin 10:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A little searching provided this link but would definitely like a more reliable source ! Shyamal 10:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually found some here - Shyamal 10:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chrysopelea ornata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416230326/http://members.fortunecity.com/ukp001/naja/colubridae/chrysopelea_ornata.htm to http://members.fortunecity.com/ukp001/naja/colubridae/chrysopelea_ornata.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Red-spotted form of Chrysopelea ornata from North Bengal, India
I think that photo is actually C paradisi (https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chrysopelea_paradisi). The ornata doesn't have red coloration I think. JuanTamad (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)