Talk:Rainbow boa

Move proposal
Would anyone be opposed to moving this article to "Epicrates cenchria", in line with the rest of the articles in this series? --Jwinius (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Hi, sorry for the late reply (I was rather young when this was posted). I've added their size in the 'description' section Bugmaster general (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Epicrates cenchria → Rainbow boa – Per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NCFAUNA, this well-known (exceptionally pretty) snake has a well-established and unambiguous common name, which is "rainbow boa". The suggested name is the original name of the article, which was moved in 2008 "As part of a process moving snake names to their Latin names, upon request". That move seems contrary to the Wikipedia policy/guideline preference for the use of common names, so I suggest to revert it. A web search confirms that "rainbow boa" is several times more common than "Epicrates cenchria" (and probably more if we restrict the scope to English-language sources). Please also see the current similar RM discussions at Talk:Eunectes notaeus, Talk:Eunectes murinus, Talk:Python reticulatus, Talk:Python regius, and Talk:Python sebae, among others. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


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

Reptiles Magazine
Hello I think removing this   is no problem because Reptiles Magazine is not a terribly serious WP:SOURCE to begin with. Invasive Spices (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

In need of rewrite
A large portion of the article seems to be plagiarized from ophiology.net. Subsequently, the writing style is not fit for an encyclopedia, focusing excessively on the "remarkable" beauty and appeal of the rainbow boa's scales and containing few scientific facts. Because of the lack of substance in the article as-is, the plagiarized info can't be rewritten into something workable, and new information is needed. HopHoppipHarvest (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)