Jump to content

Talk:Python brongersmai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move 21 July 2022

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Python brongersmai → Blood pythonBlood python – This species has a well accepted and unambiguous common name, so I suggest that this article should use that title. The target name has apparently always led to this topic and in fact was the name of the article about this snake before 2007. There was a page move of 2007 when someone moved it away from that name with an edit summary saying "Scientific names should be used for page names on biological organisms whenever possible to avoid confusion." That is not Wikipedia's current naming convention, which prefers common names. I've had a little trouble tracing the page history – I wonder if there was a WP:CUTPASTE move. Some of the edit history is now at Python curtus brongersmaiPython curtus brongersmai, where the 2007 article was moved and then later converted to a redirect in 2014. This species was previously considered a subspecies of Python curtus, but was elevated to species status. In fact the binomial name situation is a bit confusing, since older sources would call this snake P. curtus instead of P. brongersmai. The Reptile Database does not show "blood python" as a common name for P. curtus; it only shows that name for P. brongersmai. An NGram chart is here. The suggested term is also more popular than "Python brongersmai" in Google Scholar and vastly more popular in a Google Advanced Search for exact phrases. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The name used by IUCN RL assessors is Brongersma's short-tailed python. I support this name as page title, but NOT the proposed blood python. – BhagyaMani (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Brongersma's short-tailed python" is hardly ever used. Google Scholar found only 3 instances of that string! (And 2 duplicates.) IUCN doesn't seem to provide a list of common names. The Reptile Database and ITIS do not even mention that name in their lists. All of the common names listed by The Reptile Database and ITIS for this species include "blood python", Google Advanced Search and Google Scholar find "Blood python" at least 10 times more prevalent than "Brongersma's short-tailed python". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination and discussion "defense". N-grams show the proposed name is the better known in English of these two choices. Although named in the vicinity of a well-known person in the field, the present name sounds like a soup. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There are so many common names probably best to keep the binomial. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment: Randy Kryn's Ngram link was using a case-sensitive search. The Ngram link in my original nomination rationale was much better, as it was case-insensitive, and it shows a much more conclusive result. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2025

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) TarnishedPathtalk 08:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Python brongersmai → Blood pythonBlood python – Wikipedia prefers common names, and this species has a clearly dominant, unambiguous common name. "Blood python" is more common than "Python brongersmai" in Google Scholar, Google Ngrams, and general search results. All of the common names given by the Reptile Database and ITIS, which are major well-recognized authorities on the subject, are either the proposed name or minor variations of it formed by prefixing it with some adjective, and the Reptile Database lists the proposed name first. The other names listed by those authorities are "Red blood python", "Malaysian blood python", and "Sumatran blood python", but using one of those would go against WP:CONCISE, since "Blood python" seems sufficiently unambiguous. The proposed name has redirected to this article for a decade. The scholarly article cited for this snake's taxonomy uses "blood python" as the primary name in its abstract. Publications – especially those intended for general public readership – very clearly, primarily and dominantly refer to this snake as the blood python. I submitted an RM with the same suggestion three years ago, which failed to achieve consensus, and it is not clear to me why. Two people opposed it, but the reasons they gave do not seem very closely related to Wikipedia article title policies & guidelines. The proposal had majority support, but that wasn't deemed sufficient by the person who closed the RM. When asked about why they closed it the way they did, they said they just did not think "there was enough level of consensus", and suggested "to start a new discussion in a few weeks". It has now been three years. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean oppose. I'm not seeing the dramatic lead for "blood python" in scholarly sources. It has 261 hits on Google Scholar vs. 236 for "Python brongersmai". Looking just at publications since 2021, Python brongersmai has 68 while "blood python" has 39. On Wiley I get 26 for "blood python"[1] and 23 for Python brongersmai;[2] and at Springer-Nature I get 14 for Python brongersmai [3] and 17 for blood python.[4] I found several references that used "blood python" to refer to Python curtus (edit: scholarly and gen. audience publications).[5][6][7][8] Sometimes it is distinguished from P. brongersmai ("red blood python" vs. "black blood python") and sometimes not. In some older sources, this may be because P. brongersmai was formerly classified as a subspecies of P. curtus. The binomial species name is useful for unambiguously identifying this species. Blood python should maybe be a DAB page. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notices placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose. You can't beat Python brongersmai for WP:PRECISION. nGrams including Python curtus shows that name at similar levels to "blood python" up through 2015 (I'm not sure when exactly P. brongersmai became widely accepted as a distinct species, but P. curtus would've been the blood python prior to 2000). I would guess the spike in "blood python" on nGrams after 2015 is due to them becoming more widely available in the pet trade, but some retailers are still using "blood python" as a term covering P. curtus and P. breitensteini ([9] and [10] mention "Borneo blood pythons"). Google Scholar has 14 results for "Python curtus brongersmai"; it's pretty astounding how widespread P. brongersmai has become on Scholar in only a few years (although Scholar is something that would be biased towards scientific name and against vernacular names). The less concise names (red/Malaysian blood python) achieve precision, but there isn't any clear leader between them. Plantdrew (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The missing page history noted in the previous move request is at Black blood python; I'm not sure that there is really a cut and paste move, so much as the subject of "blood python" having been switched from P. curtus to P. brongersmai in 2007 in a series of moves. Nominator retarged black blood python to this article in 2024, which is just wrong, and highlights the potential confusion with "blood python" as a title. Plantdrew (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The retarget in 2024 indeed looks like a mistake, but I stand by what I said above, and I think you can see that my edits of related articles have been significantly helpful. I note that in all but one of the various statistics reported by Myceteae, "Blood python" was more common than "Python brongersmai", and Google Scholar publications since 2021 seems like a pretty narrow classification. The term comes from the strong red color, and brongersmai is the species that exhibits that (which is why a "black blood python" is not brongersmai – blood isn't black). And again I'll mention that in writings for the general public, "Blood python" is universal, and "brongersmai" is often entirely absent. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2021 was a somewhat arbitrary cutoff. I was looking for a change in usage after the reclassification. I consider the usage in scholarly sources 50/50, with ‘blood python’ sometimes referring to other spp. in both scholarly and general audience publications. Here are a couple more in journal articles where it refers to P. curtus.: [11][12] Both were published in 2021 and referencing older papers. One of them also uses 'blood python' for "P. curtus brongersmai" in other parts of the paper. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BarrelProof, do you have any examples of writings for the general public that entirely omit "brongersmai"? I found one, the Kids Britannica entry for "blood python". It omits "brongersmai" because it refers to "curtus" and states that it occurs in Borneo. Would a writing for the general public that doesn't mention ANY scientific names be appropriate for stating that blood pythons occur in Borneo? Plantdrew (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few examples that I found quickly with little effort: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. What seems more common is for a source to use "blood python" in a headline and repeatedly throughout, but also mention "Python brongersmai" somewhere less prominently and less often (e.g., just once and possibly in parentheses). Here are a few that fit that description: [18], [19], [20], [21]. I won't claim those are all very high-quality sources. Here's a print magazine article about blood pythons that doesn't contain "brongersmai" that specifically says it's not talking about curtus or breitensteini: [22]. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that "blood python", unqualified, (probably) usually refers specifically to P. brongersmai but there's enough ambiguity for this to be an unsuitable title. I think I'm satisfied that blood python is a suitable primary redirect with the current hatnote to the two congeners. Even if the ambiguity were entirely due to a combination of error, sloppiness, and older sources, we'd have to contend with it. I've also seen use of "blood python group" to describe P. breitensteini, P. brongersmai, and P. curtus.[23][24] The modified vernacular names like red blood python appear more precise but less commonly used (Ngram) and without a dominant form. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose. The scientific name is precise and unambiguous and there are a variety of common names. Reptile Database lists Blood Python, Red Blood Python, Malaysian Blood Python, and Sumatran Blood Python (sic), while the IUCN uses Brongersma's Short-tailed Python as the main common name and also lists Blood Python and Red Short-tailed Python. Blood python is also listed as an alternative common name for the Sumatran Short-tailed Python (P. curtus) by the IUCN, while Python breitensteini is also known as both the Borneo Short-Tailed Python and Borneo Blood Python. All three current species were previous considered subspecies of P. curtus in the past and it seems to me that blood python was used for the P. curtus sensu lato (i.e. before the species split). As blood python is used for three current species, it fails the unambiguous test. Of the other common names, none seem dominant.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, again and as long as an unambiguous common name is not used in scientific texts. Thanks to Myceteae and Plantdrew for compiling references !! – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides the reasons already stated by commenters above, "blood python" is not the only vernacular name for this species, and I don't like the idea of taking preference over (what seems to be) one cultural name over another. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean by "taking preference over (what seems to be) one cultural name over another"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RM comment: At least I am happy that the question got a proper discussion this time. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Python_brongersmai&oldid=1302647294"