Talk:Scarlet kingsnake

	Scarlet kingsnake is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Scarlet kingsnake appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 April 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Scarlet King Snake can be distinguished from the Coral Snake by the mnemonic "red and yellow, kill a fellow" and "red and black venom lack"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/April.

Wikipedia

Untitled

It would be informative if someone provided examples of venomous snakes that have red-on-black markings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.210.203 (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light-colored bands are yellow.

The three colors of the scarlet kingsanke are Black, red, and yellow. A few specimens may have very light yellow bands, but for the most part, they are clearly yellow. They also tend to darken with age, so a juvenile that has pale stripes will probably darken as it matures. Struhs (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Units of measurement The units of measurement are both inches and centimetres, independently. I am about to add conversions, but it would likely be helpful to decide on one unit to use. Tree.boar (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 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. Unopposed and the one concern appears to have been adequately addressed. Jenks24 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Each of these snakes seems to have a well-established unambiguous common name, so we should use that name as the article title per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NCFAUNA. To decide between the hypothetical possible variations of "hognose", "hog-nose", "hognosed" and "hog-nosed", I looked that the first four sources I could find in the external links for Heterodon nasicus. All four of those contained "hognose", which is what I already thought was the most common. A couple of them contained both "hognose" and "hog-nosed". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support all per nomination. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do you decide whether it's "Mandarin ratsnake" or "Mandarin rat snake"? And the scientific name gets more Google hits than either. Plantdrew (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Google n-gram viewer and Google exact string web search both confirm that "rat snake" is much more common than "ratsnake", which matches my personal impression. Corresponding investigation of "king snake" and "kingsnake" show them about equally popular in recent works, but the n-gram viewer shows a clear trend toward increased use of "kingsnake" as time moves forward (which matches the general tendency in English toward creating blendwords from multiword phrases). So I think I picked the correct variant of each of those. The n-gram viewer fails to find anything for "Mandarin rat snake", "Mandarin ratsnake", and "Euprepiophis mandarinus" (in a case-insensitive search). With a Google exact string web search, I got "Mandarin rat snake": 6710, "Mandarin ratsnake": 3990, and "Euprepiophis mandarinus": 11100. A search for either "Mandarin rat snake" or "Mandarin ratsnake", which I think is fair since most people would not really draw a distinction between those two, yields 10300. That's a bit less than 11100, but not much. There are also 911 matches for "Mandarin snake". Moreover, we should note that this is a search in all languages; if the search is restricted to English language sources, the English common name would certainly win over the Latin scientific name, since practically none of the non-English sources would use the English common names. Unfortunately, my Google search did not provide a hit count when restricting the search results to English sources. Google books search yielded 2650 for "Mandarin rat snake" and only 30 for "Euprepiophis mandarinus" (and the first page of the results for the latter included two that were not in English and one that was based on Wikipedia). I don't know whether that was an exact string match search or not, but the results all seemed to be on-topic. As for the others, "Scarlet kingsnake" is much more common than "Lampropeltis elapsoides", and "Western hognose" is more common than "Heterodon nasicus" (the "snake" part of that one is redundant when used in-context, so I think it's fair to omit it in the search) – even without worrying about the language. There are also the minor variations of "hognose", "hog-nose", "hognosed" and "hog-nosed" to consider, which I think should be considered equivalent. Overall, I believe these results all favor the proposal to move all five of these, when considering usage in English sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.