Talk:Puerto Rican boa

Near threatened?
Are we exactly sure this is the boa's current status? while there has been some recovery the snake is still on the endangered list, classification as NT seems unusual. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  20:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal
Would anyone be opposed to moving this article to "Epicrates inornatus", in line with the rest of the articles in this series? --Jwinius (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per WP:UCN, in Puerto Rico the species is almost exclusively known as Boa puertoriqueña, unlike Amazona vittata the scientific name is virtually unmentioned by the general population. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  16:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Don't see anything wrong or confusing with using the common name. Joelito (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you guys sure about that? You know, if we move all these articles to their scientific names, we'll be able to do something like this:
 * - valid scientific names.
 * Mind you, many of those common name redirects are disambig pages; a percentage that continues to grow. --Jwinius (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind you, many of those common name redirects are disambig pages; a percentage that continues to grow. --Jwinius (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind you, many of those common name redirects are disambig pages; a percentage that continues to grow. --Jwinius (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm completely certain about the validity of my point, there are some obscure species that may be easier to rename, but in this case we are talking about an animal that is dominantly known by its common name, the chances of someone outside of the scientist community or enthusiasts using Epicrates inornatus as a search item are virtually non-existent. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  22:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They're all dominantly known by their common names. It's just that, if you plan to describe all species of anything, it's better start out using a system of names that are guaranteed to be unique, or else you're asking for trouble. I believe this is one of the main reasons why the botanical group have officially abandoned their use of common names for article titles, even in cases where those names are relatively unique. But, if you're so certain, then as long as I'm outnumbered I will respect your POV and ignore this article. --Jwinius (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is the most common name. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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) 04:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the arguments above? I find it odd that you supported a simmilar move less than a minute before apparently copy-pasting the same rationale here. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  02:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify, I support shifting the article to the correct scientific name. AshLin (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. With the redirect, and a very visible list of common names, I don't think readers will be disturbed (no more than for any other redirect). In addition it is the only way I see to handle correctly unicity for names, variety of names in english-spoken populations, and of course to match with data available from all the scientific material. Hexasoft (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm pretty close to shutting this down myself, because people seem to think this is a vote. This is a discussion about how the proposed name is acceptable in terms of our naming policy. Uniformity is irrelevant. What you think readers might feel about it is irrelevant. Our naming policy is the only thing that matters, and nobody is disputing that "Puerto Rican Boa" is the most common name (even the editor who proposed the move admits it). Short of disproving that, no "support" statements matter. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, our naming policy is not written in stone -- it's simply a guideline. The page even starts by saying, "These are conventions, not rules carved in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated or otherwise inappropriate."' Many people agree that this series of articles -- snakes -- is one of those cases where applying the current naming convention does not make sense. Second, if you were to "shut this down", I believe you would be overstepping the bounds of your authority. As a Wikipedia Administrator, you're supposed to act like a facilitator -- not a policeman. --Jwinius (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, policies are not the same as guidelines. Yes, they can be changed (like everything on a wiki) but not as easily as a guideline. It takes significant community consensus - it's not the kind of thing that happens on the talk pages of a few obscure snake articles. For clarification about the two, see WP:POLICY.
 * Secondly, the naming policy says when in doubt, follow convention. Clearly, there is doubt. So we have to follow the convention, unless someone can add something new to the discussion.
 * Finally, some administrator at some point is going to shut this down, whether the result is to move or not to move. The discussion is only going to go on for as long as it's productive; it's been more than a week, and I have yet to see any productive support comments. I've closed my share of move requests, and the fact that I had an opinion about this doesn't affect my ability to be impartial. I've never edited this article before and I have no agenda aside from making sure we follow the naming conventions. You didn't do these move proposals properly (by listing them at Requested Moves as I asked you to a week ago), so there's no reason to suppose any other admins but myself and Caribbean HQ will even know all these requests are pending. Somebody's going to have to close it eventually. I do want to keep the discussion going as long as it's productive, but I'm not going to let it turn into a vote. Conventions are changed by precedent, but precedents aren't made by stacking votes. Even if I do close this one, though, you would always be welcome to start a new request. Kafziel Complaint Department 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:POLICY? It says right here that naming conventions are guidelines -- not policy. Furthermore, the first paragraph on that page says "Those who edit in good faith, are civil, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment." I believe I've done all that. I could probably have moved this page without asking for anyone's approval, but I didn't.
 * As for WP:RM, it says over there that "This page may be seen as a place to advertise move debates that would benefit from wider community input, or for users to request assistance from administrators in moving pages." First, considering that a number of the articles that I've worked on have scientific name titles as well as GA status (e.g. Bitis gabonica, Vipera berus, etc.), I didn't think a wider debate would be necessary. Second, I didn't think I would need any assistance in moving this page. --Jwinius (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of naming sub-conventions (like the fauna one) are guidelines, but the main naming convention is a policy. Look at the top of the page. Since this move request conflicts with the overall policy (specifically, the use of common names), that overrides anything a guideline might have to say about it. When there's a conflict, the policy wins.
 * It seems from your reasoning here that you thought your opinion would outweigh mine because of your previous work on snake articles, which is why you didn't think it necessary to seek wider input (except from those who support your position). That's simply not how it works - we don't get credit for anything we do. I've written lots of GAs, too, but I don't get a leg up in future discussions because of it. And this isn't a matter of taxonomic expertise; if that was the case, I'm sure you'd top me in every way. This is a matter of Wikipedia policy, and it would be the same whether we were talking about snakes or rubber garden hoses.
 * On a more technical note, you would need help moving the page, because the title you want to move it to is currently a redirect. You can't just cut and paste the contents of this article over there, you have to move the entire page history and only admins can do that.
 * I don't want you to be discouraged&mdash;in fact, I agree with the spirit of most of your proposals&mdash;but I don't like this back-door effort and I'd like to go about it the right way. The right way would be to seek broad consensus (not just from people on assorted talk pages and snake-related wikiprojects, but the community as a whole) for changing the naming convention to allow all articles to be placed at the taxonomic location. Do that, and I'll be more likely to support the changes. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:NAME is official WP policy, but just below it reads "Naming conventions sets out Wikipedia's policy on how to create and name pages. These are conventions, not rules carved in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated or otherwise inappropriate. ..." That looks like a more specific statement to me.
 * No, my opinion doesn't outweigh yours or anyone else's. All I was trying to say was that my methods have met with some approval despite being contrary to the official guidelines.
 * Regarding that technical note, it looks like I have more experience with this than you do! FYI, this page can easily be moved to Epicrates inornatus as long as there's nothing else on that page except the redirect. However, as soon something else has been added to it, administrative intervention is required to perform the move.
 * You don't want me to be discouraged from editing this page? Well, you sure fooled me! I'm still wondering why we're even having this conversation here. I'm sorry, but my policy has always been never to work on pages with common name titles. If the name of this page is not changed, I will simply ignore it and move on; there's simply too much else to do. Can't say I didn't try, though! --Jwinius (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected - it looks like you do have more experience with moving pages as a non-admin than I did. It hasn't been an issue for me for a long time, so I forgot. Still, I did tell you you should get more input at RM, so you should have been able to see (just from one person saying that) that more input was a good idea.
 * You keep quoting the intro of WP:NAME, and you keep conveniently stopping just short of the relevant sentence I've already quoted. If there's doubt, defer to convention (i.e., the established policy).
 * As for the rest, well, nobody can make you work on pages if you don't want to. If you want to quit because you don't get your way, that's fine - I'm sure I've done that on a page or two myself. I'd say you'll be missed, but that isn't true. None of us would be missed if we stopped editing tomorrow. You can get all bent out of shape about it if you want, but I've tried to be patient every step of the way and now&mdash;after more than a week, after watching you canvass for "votes" on other talk pages, after watching numerous people show up and ignore policy&mdash;I think it's time to stop screwing around. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do keep stopping short of "... When in doubt, follow convention." But, why mention it if it's irrelevant? I have no doubt. You seem to think that this last sentence should simply cancel out anyone's notion that a particular naming convention may be inappropriate. But, in that case, why include the entire statement at all? Somehow, I don't think that was what the author was trying to say.
 * As for my canvasing for votes, why not? It's true that they would not otherwise have known about this article, but it's not like you guys have ever done anything to improve it either. You only followed me here, while Caribbean H.Q. probably only had this page on his watchlist because he once added the WikiProject Puerto Rico template to it (rating it "Start" with "Low importance"). It's ironic, because while I'm the only one here willing to make improvements to it, all you care about is that I work according to an unfortunate naming convention. Seriously, how does this help WP? --Jwinius (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Every topic on Wikipedia has self-proclaimed experts - you're not unique there. And all of them have to follow Wikipedia's policies because those policies have a purpose and were created through community consensus. Nobody has to prove their worthiness to you or anyone else to be allowed to voice an opinion; if you're looking for that, you should be writing for a peer-reviewed journal instead of a wiki. You're not the only one here willing to make improvements; you're just the only one right now. Next year, it will be someone else. If the naming conventions said this article was supposed to be located at Epicrates inornatus and someone was trying to move it to Puerto Rican Boa, wouldn't you point them to the related policy? Of course you would. So would I. That's all I'm doing now, except the circumstances happen to be different.
 * In this specific case, it helps Wikipedia because it makes sure the articles are geared toward laymen and not scholars. Those are our readers. No self-respecting herpetologist is going to refer to the Wikipedia article about the Puerto Rican Boa for research. They may be the ones who do most of the work, but when it comes down to it smart people are simply not our target audience. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, if someone comes along and writes Oxidative phosphorylation, then that's okay, doubtless because it's an obscure scholarly subject anyway. However, if the next guy comes along and wants to do a similar outstanding job to King Cobra, would that be overshooting the target audience? Or, would that only be the case if, following the article upgrade, the title were changed to Ophiophagus hannah? In case of the former, that would suggest that WP must have a policy somewhere regarding the level of detail allowed in articles, or possibly only those that deal with popular subject matter. I.e. Don't get to smart! In case of the latter, that would suggest that a high level of detail is okay for such articles, but also and that our regard for the lay-audience is really just superficial. I.e. We just pretend to be accessible. So, which one is it? IMO, if we aim low, we will continue to score low. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we aim higher we'll sooner have better articles and a better reputation. --Jwinius (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Resetting indent) I don't know anything about Oxidative phosphorylation, but if there's a more common name for it then it should be at that location. The sophistication of an article's title and the sophistication of the content of the article have no bearing on one another.
 * We actually don't have low scores at all. We're the most successful Wiki on the web, and one of the most successful websites, period. Despite the occasional ball-busting (which usually comes from corporate-owned sections of the mass media, who have a vested interest in reducing the public reliance on free information) we actually have a very good reputation. No other web-based reference comes close. We're ranked the #8 website in the world, and we got that way by being accessible to casual readers. The hits we do take are rarely due to the quality of our content (and, by the way, never due to the quality of our article titles); they come from the fact that anyone can edit it. That's not going to change no matter what we call this article, so we shouldn't worry about that. And we don't. We keep doing what we've been doing, because it works. For all the critics, nobody has come up with anything that works even half as well. Kafziel Complaint Department 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Treating this a series is not proper, each culture perceives the fauna surrounding them differently. This particular naming guideline is far from being "outdated or inappropiate", as a matter of fact its still being used by entire WikiProjects, just ask WP:PW. In any case the consensus is currently balanced towards opposing the move 3-1, excluding that copy-pasted vote, which was placed by a user that obviously didn't examine the arguments opposing or supporting a move. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  02:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Going further Hexasoft's oppose doesn't apply here, "In addition it is the only way I see to handle correctly unicity for names, variety of names in english-spoken" is completely unrelated to the matter at hand, first of all Puerto Rico's main language is Spanish by far, thus there is not a "variety of english-spoken names" since this particular Boa is endemic to the archipelago. The only "Spanish-spoken" name given to this animal is Boa puertoriqueña, there is no "list of common names" to build here, just one single name being used domminantly by the population and the media. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  02:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To both of you, I find this conversation very depressing. I'm not here to piss anybody off -- I'm here to help. It may not look like it to you, but much is wrong with our snake articles and the worst problems are due to the names involved. I know how to fix things, and I'm willing to do the work, but only if it's done in the one way that I know offers us the best chance for success in the long term. Otherwise, I fear that my efforts will eventually count for rather little.
 * The current WP naming convention for zoological articles -- itself only a guideline -- is well known, but it's supporters seem only to be concerned with the cosmetic aspect of the title. If they look up Dog or Cat and end up on a page with the same name, it makes them feel comfortable. Obviously, since it's what they expected, which means the universe is still as it should be and nobody needs to worry. Not being too concerned with how they are related, they tend to regard them all as individual articles. Consequently, they are also quite unconcerned with the problems this creates for WP's zoological community.
 * From a zoologists point of view, the most obvious problem is that, as opposed to scientific names, there is no international organization that guarantees that all common names are unique or official. I suppose that's why they're called common names. Homonyms are far too common and synonyms even more so, none of which are any more official than the others. Many pointless and tedious arguments about which ones are the more appropriate -- more popular or more accurate -- are the result (Siberian Tiger vs. Amur Tiger, Puma vs. Cougar, etc.).
 * Snakes are a good example. Except for a few names, such as "Black Mamba" and "King Cobra," the vast majority are completely obscure and have more than one common name -- often many. There are 2700+ species and perhaps ten times as many taxonomic synonyms and common names to deal with. If our aim is to include them all -- a mighty task indeed -- then the only way we can hope to achieve a decent measure of accuracy is if we maintain a uniform and consistent approach overall -- with no exceptions. To accomplish that in a wiki, the only two things that are guaranteed to be unique must be bound together: the valid scientific name and the article title. Many wikiprojects understand this, including WP:PLANTS, who now have their own official naming convention for this: WP:NC (flora). Others, such as WP:LEPID, do the same, apparently without any official approval. With snakes, some 80-90% already have scientific name article titles.
 * On the other hand, when we use redirects for the scientific names and common names for the article titles, then all too often we see #1) that the valid scientific names within the articles get changed even when they shouldn't be and #2) that the common name titles get changed arbitrarily. After errors have crept in as a result, even knowledgeable people have trouble fixing the situation. After all, it's tough to figure out what to fix when most of the common names and all of the scientific names redirect to an arbitrary set of other common names (and disambiguation pages)? The more articles we have, the harder this makes proper maintenance until eventually it becomes impossible.
 * Okay, so how do other wikiprojects, that do use common names for article titles, get by? As far as I can tell, they do it mostly by not mentioning (or redirecting for) other common names (or taxonomic synonyms) for the same species, or by not having that many articles in the first place. That may sound pretty simple, but it also means that such articles are neither complete nor fair. In addition, the larger a series of articles becomes, the more likely duplication and taxonomic inconsistencies are to occur.
 * In conclusion, I would like to see this article moved to it's valid scientific name to ensure that its taxonomic synonyms and common name(s) always redirect to its valid scientific name. As a result, we will achieve maximum stability, consistency and accuracy for the entire series over the longer term. The common name(s) will be displayed prominently at the top of the article, so there's no need to worry about any confusion for those readers unfamiliar with the title. If my motivations seem complicated to you, it's because the problems that I and my colleagues are faced with are not simple. As far as I know I'm the only person working on the overall quality and consistency of all of Wikipedia's snake articles, but if most people concerned here don't want my help, then I will have to respect that. Seeing as the vote is currently 3-3, however, we might have to resort to asking for a third opinion. --Jwinius (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: Third Opinion doesn't apply to move requests. There's no such thing as "3-3" because this is not a vote. There's no point keeping score. If there's no clear consensus, the page stays where it is. In fact, third opinion can't be used in any discussion where there are more than two editors involved. I think everything else is answered above. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course! Just ignore everything else I said. I was once in a situation where use was made of Third Opinion, but in hindsight more people got involved only after that. If I understand this case correctly, the deciding factor here is WP's Official Naming Policy, right? --Jwinius (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring everything else you said, but I've already said I don't care about the zoological aspect of it. I'm trying not to have to keep responding in two different threads. The deciding factor here is that this is the most common name, which you already conceded on the first day of this discussion. You can argue the semantics of it all you want &mdash;who determines most common name, how they decide, etc.&mdash;but those arguments are as old and tired as the naming policy itself, and they belong at the policy talk page, not here. What can I say? Wikipedia treats ignorant readers better than they treat scholarly contributors. You and I can certainly agree on that. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

?! Thank you very mush Caribbean~H.Q for your comment about my "vote". It's something close to insult. I have my own opinion, which is exactly the one I gave, and not any kind of copy/paste. I'm a regular contributor in reptile's area and more generaly in zoology area on fr.wikipedia, and I share most of the views implied in the title change. The fact that I do not contribute to en.wikipedia is only due to the fact that this language is not my native one and because I have enough work to do on fr:. BTW the same questions occur on fr: about common names and all the problems they generate for zoology' contributors. Regards, whatever. Hexasoft (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, on fr:, we get the same opposition (a trial of changing the naming convention on zoology articles failed at about 50% vs 50%).
 * We just choose an other way: all common names that in the whole french-spoken people do not exactly match a precise taxa is treated as an homonymy (in fact what we call a bio-homonymy, as it is strictly oriented on that specific problem), and the taxa are moved to their scientific names. In french language it cover about at least 75% of the taxa with an existing common name (we have few common names than english-spoken as it is not in our culture to create common names).
 * And to answer more precisly: yes, I read the arguments. I know them. Thanks. That does not change my opinion. What about things like assume good faith or things like that? It's not in your policies or guidelines? Hexasoft (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to read that over, the copy-pasted !vote I was referring to was AshLin's, I commented about yours on a different post. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  02:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to just mention that I have followed the arguments made in this page and others and have also participated in such arguments at Wikiproject Lepidoptera. However, I presently have very bad internet access which has virtually stopped my work to a standstill. Hence to answer on more than one page, I copy-pasted my beliefs. You are welcome not to agree with my support for shifting all articles to common names but you would be wrong to assume that I had not gone over the previous arguments. My opinion is based on what I personally feel is good for WP and hence I have not taken up cudgels against specific arguments on this page. So please count my vote even if it does not shift the argument. AshLin (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mismatch. It does not change that I fell that you easely declare other's arguments as "not valid", or that other "do not read the arguments". Please assume that people do read discutions and may give, as AshLin just here (and me), their opinion about the global problem, because as said elsewhere for some people consistency is important.
 * For that particular species IUCN gives two different common names: Puerto Rican Boa and Yellow Tree Boa. This latter one is for example used by UK gov. on this list, and by Austrian gov. on this list). ITIS gives only the first name. Who is right? As far as I know common names are given by zoologists (I don't speak about very common names, which come from real usage in populations), without any kind of control/validation, neigther any special "authority" to do so. Hexasoft (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't really say much about "Yellow Tree Boa" since all the relevant documentation that I have seen about this animal uses "Puerto Rican Boa", my guess is that its probably used in some publications to provide further distition from other boas, all that I can say about that is that Boa Alboreal Amarilla (literally Spanish translation) isn't commonly used in Puerto Rico, not even by the scientific community. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  20:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I don't say that Yellow Tree Boa is the name to use. I just point that this name is used, at least in two official gov. lists of reptiles from english-spoken countries. But as names do not have "official" definitions by any kind on international organization (as scientific names have with IZCN), choosing one common name rather than an other is a little bit arbitrary when the name does not come from "culture" in english (like dog, cat, horse and many others). And I think that stating that all relevant documentation or probably can be considered near to original search as in my opinion it's difficult to prove by sources that a particular name is more used/relevant/valid than an other one, in particular for animals that do not live in english-spoken country.
 * That's one of the reasons which make me prefer scientific names as title, with an explicit and very visible list of common names just after title: we choose stability/validity for the title, and we can put all the common names in an equal state, maybe sorted by what we think to be a "real usage rank". Hexasoft (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Correction, I said "all the relevant documentation that I have seen", thatis not implying that I have seen all relevant information, it says that I haven't seen it used in said documentation, there is no original research. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  10:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What the difference? I was talking about refering to various existing documents to tell "this is the common name", not talking about you trying to decide what is the common name. Appart if a published study on common names exists (and it do exists in some areas) I can't see how we can decide which common name to use without making original search. At least in that kind of cases where "official" sources use different names in different countries.
 * That's nothing more than that, I was not implying you. The only way to prevent that may be to use an other WP rule (least surprise) to choose the most often used, but it is also a difficult job because no one can read all the sources, and google is an indicator, not the thuth. Hexasoft (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bat predation
This is not unique to this species. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed it. Even in the Antilles (eg Cuban Boa) there are boas that eat bats. Joelito (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Even in the Antilles (eg Cuban Boa) there are boas that eat bats. Joelito (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Size
There isn't any mention about the size of snake. User:Tt100 11:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Genus
As of 2013 the puerto rican boa,(as well as the other Caribbean species formely placd in Epicrates) has been moved back to the Genus Chilabothrus as recent phylogentic studies show that The Rainbow Boa  (Epicrates cenchria ) is more closely related to the anacondas (Eunectes)  than to any of the other species formerly placed in its  genus rendering the genus paraphyletic.To correct the information on wikipedia the article of all the affected species have to be revised.I have alreadystarted this revision by moving the articles for Epicrates chrysogaster and Epicrates angulifer to Chilabothrus chrysogaster and Chilabothrus angulifer respectively as well as correcting most of the instances where these species are referred to using their improper generic names.If anyone sees any problems with this please let me know on  my talk page before I mess up too many articles.--Jamaican college grad (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)