Talk:Reticulated python: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:37, 3 February 2023

Latest revision as of 11:48, 10 June 2025

(7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{talkheader}}

{{VitalWikiProject articlebanner shell|class=B|level=5|topicvital=Biologyyes|subpage1=Animals}}

{{WikiProject Vietnam|class=BIndonesia|importance=low}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

{{WikiProject Indonesia|class=BAmphibians and Reptiles|importance=lowhigh}}

{{WikiProject AmphibiansSoutheast and ReptilesAsia|classLaos=Byes |importance=high }}

{{WikiProject Southeast Asia|Laos=yes Vietnam|importance= |class=B}}

{{WikiProject Vietnam|class=B|importance=}}

}}

{{onlinesource

Line 496 ⟶ 495:

::::Since Guinness is not a scientific journal and don't publish there methods, I have no idea. That's what makes them unreliable and unsuitable for a topic like this. They have unknown, unverified, undocumented methodology which is as much tabloid as source. [[User:HCA|HCA]] ([[User talk:HCA|talk]]) 14:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

:::'Dwarf' and 'SuperDwarf' island localities are real and are likely genetically distinct. There are many well-fed, 15+ year-old adults under 7ft. Everyone needs to reserve their 'doubts' and only speak about what they KNOW. [[Special:Contributions/68.112.217.71|68.112.217.71]] ([[User talk:68.112.217.71|talk]]) 15:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It may also be worth keeping in mind that the maximum length is really not such useful information. If someone looks for the maximum height and maximum weight for ''[[homo sapiens]]'', they would find a few extremely large outliers, but those outliers are unhealthy people who aren't really proper representatives of their species. [[List of the heaviest people|Very heavy]] and [[List of tallest people|very tall]] people have serious health problems and generally achieve that status ''because'' some part of their metabolic system is not functioning properly. A more reasonable and interesting question, from the perspective of encyclopedic knowledge, is what is an estimated length for the 90th or 95th or 99th percentile (if it is possible to obtain an answer to that question) – not just what is the most freakishly huge single individual that has ever been encountered. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 23:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Line 549:

This should be corrected, but I am not in the position to do so. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/213.61.160.117|213.61.160.117]] ([[User talk:213.61.160.117#top|talk]]) 09:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Bangkok? ==

The article mentions that the snake is often found "Even in busy parts of Bangkok" why is this the only city in SE Asia mentioned, the snake is often found in other busy cities in the region like Ho Chi Minh, Jakarta even Singapore. Is there any significance to just mentioning BKK? [[Special:Contributions/2001:FB1:11A:2200:84F9:EB5D:3525:53C0|2001:FB1:11A:2200:84F9:EB5D:3525:53C0]] ([[User talk:2001:FB1:11A:2200:84F9:EB5D:3525:53C0|talk]]) 11:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

== First described ... ==

This issue may have been settled for Wikipedia articles in general, but it is virtually certain that the rp was NOT first described in 1801. I'm not a historian, and have no knowledge of whether any historical descriptions exist (and been found) from hundreds or thousands of years before 1800 or not. But. Certainly it was described by the indigenous population(s) thousands of years previous, even if no record was made and preserved. I suggest the editors actually write what they mean, and NOT rely on unstated context. The problem with the way it is now is two-fold (IMHO) first it is Euro-centric, second it isn't true. What IS likely to be true is that it was first »formally« described in the [insert discipline here...taxonomic? natural science?...biological?] literature in 1801. So, why not say that? In this case, being accurate (and a bit wordy (pedantic?)) seems to me to alleviate the Euro-centrism of the bald statement, so it'd be worthwhile to do. (Although, truth be told, I'm not sure how noteworthy the publication of its description is. ? Does, say, the European Bison also have a "first described" line? I didn't see it. (It does have a long recorded history.) The problem with this is I don't see how you can justify the noteworthiness of RP's formal description and not also mention when the EB's »description« first entered the scientific (naturalistic?) literature. That seems to imply that species not native to Europe deserve|warrant treatment different than that of common Euro-species.) [[Special:Contributions/98.17.42.35|98.17.42.35]] ([[User talk:98.17.42.35|talk]]) 15:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:"described" means to scientifically describe, see [[Species description]]. A comparable European bison line is in its lead, "European bison were first scientifically described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758". [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)