Talk:Erycinae

Poor Quality

The Indian poaching section is written poorly. The information is good, just written biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.67.226 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Since this article repeats, or will eventually repeat, information found in the Eryx and Gongylophis articles, I propose that its contents be merged with those articles. This article can then be turned into a disambiguation page for the various species referred to as "sand boas." --Jwinius (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

I don't think it's appropriate to include this dab page in Category:Erycinae by common name, as this results in a link to a dab page on the category page. Dab pages should not normally be linked to. The more appropriate step would be to include one or more of the dab page's target articles, as appropriate, in this category (with piping). I'm not taking this step myself because I'm not knowledgeable enough to know which of these three articles belong in the category. --Tkynerd (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The category you mention is of a type that I've used systematically in order to keep track of redirects and disambiguation pages. That particular category is not a very good example, since it's sparsely populated. This is a better one, all three of which go together:

• Viperinae, valid scientific names (123 entries; articles and a few redirects)
• Viperinae by common name (318 entries; redirects and disambig pages)
• Viperinae by taxonomic synonyms (607 entries; redirects and disambig pages)

That series was the first of many and is not even the largest, but it's still the only one that's complete. It was something I started doing in 2006 after a search for an alternative to dealing with the common names and taxonomic synonyms in simple lists; I wanted something more dynamic. When somebody suggested that I add category tags to redirects, I had this vision. :-) As the collection grew, many of the redirects naturally became disambiguation pages.

When I started doing this, I was aware that it was a kind of categorization that was not widespread, but I didn't know that there were any specific rules against it. Also, I had seen disambiguation pages with category tags before. As you can imagine, I've been rather passionate about this project for the past few years, so I hope you don't consider it to be a serious problem or anything. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid I do. There are good reasons why WP:DAB specifies that dab pages should not be linked to; those reasons are well-explained in the section I linked above. This is actually a better example of the problem than most. In most cases, the reader must search the linked disambiguation page for the appropriate article, in itself a burden we should not place on our readers. Here, the problem is more serious, as a reader like me, who is not knowledgeable about the subject at hand but is trying to learn, has absolutely no idea which of the links on the dab page to follow in order to read about the snake referred to in the category -- particularly since none of the three links refers to a specific snake! That speaks, as well, to the fact that this disambiguation page is less than fully useful, as most readers will have no idea how to use it to find the information they were looking for when they clicked on a link to it. I strongly recommend reading and absorbing WP:DAB in its entirety; WP:MOSDAB may also be helpful.

To be clear, I have no issues with this category or others of its type; they strike me as eminently useful. It's the inclusion of dab pages in the categories that is problematic. Best regards, Tkynerd (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:MOSDAB#Categories. --Tkynerd (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's nice that you believe my category overviews are so useful. But, what you're saying has some consequences. For example, if I have a redirect for a taxonomic synonym, say Echidna atricaudata, that points to Cerastes cerastes, you're saying it's okay to add a tag to that so that it appears in the category Viperinae by taxonomic synonyms. However, the moment I find out that Echidna atricaudata is actually also a synonym for Cerastes vipera, which forces me to change it to a disambiguation page, that means I have to delete the category tag? Just because that WP:DAB guideline boils down to "Links should ... point to a relevant article?" Really, if there is never going to be a relevant article for Echidna atricaudata anyway (it's an out-dated name), then how can that be considered a reasonable thing to do? My category overview would no longer be complete. Much the same happens with ambiguous and/or obscure common names, so what would you have me do? I would sooner imagine that the guideline in question was simply not formulated with these kind of categories in mind. --Jwinius (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that because disambiguation pages are not articles, it is not appropriate to place them in categories with articles. What I tried to explain to you above is some of the reasoning behind that decision -- it's important to keep in mind that the encyclopedia is intended to serve readers, and usefulness to the reader should always be our polestar consideration; that is the basis on which the guidelines on WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB were formulated. Finding links to dab pages on a category page is not helpful to the reader, and what I'm saying you need to do has consequences that will improve the usability and usefulness of these categories for readers. I'm sincerely sorry if that sounds preachy, but I don't know how else to put it.

To use your example, if you find that E. atricaudata is a synonym for two different snakes, you basically have three choices: (1) delete it; (2) convert it to a dab page; (3) keep the redirect with a hatnote on the target page (the kind that says, "XXX redirects here. That term also refers to YYY." or something like that). If the reader is much more likely to have been looking for one of the two target articles than for the other (e.g., if E. atricaudata is much more commonly used to refer to C. cerastes), the third option with the hatnote would be best; otherwise, the dab page is needed.

In this case, since E. atricaudata is an outdated term anyway, I don't quite see what's lost by not including it in the category. The two snakes it can refer to should be included in the category, but the dab page (assuming there is one, and not a hatnote) should not. --Tkynerd (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) Is not a serious answer, (2) exactly, except that I still fail to see why adding a simple category link is such a terrible crime here, (3) is not a practical solution, since too many articles would end up with long lists of hatnotes. As for whether it's useful to include stuff like Echidna atricaudata in the category overview, why don't you leave that up to other people to decide? A number of people have said they actually liked it. At the very least it makes the entire collection a lot easier to maintain: category overviews like these are not as vulnerable and prone to error as are lists, plus they are self-updating.

Look, I know that disambig pages are not articles, but that's just the way I've built up these overviews. I guess nothing's perfect. Anyway, back when I started working this way, the guidelines did not discourage (let alone forbid) this kind of thing; if they had, I'm sure someone would have told be. And I've not heard a single complaint until now. So, are you going to undo a significant portion of my work now just because the rules changed and I didn't know? Jeez, I'm not an admin! All I did was write hundreds of articles and come up with a new way of organizing them. Great. Long live bureaucracy! --Jwinius (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is not constructive. At this point, I think I'm simply going to abandon this discussion as fruitless, due entirely to your attitude. If you cannot understand my explanation of why categorizing dab pages is a poor practice, then I'm afraid I am unable to carry on a discussion with you that must, in the end, revolve around issues of usability and usefulness for readers. You appear to have no comprehension whatsoever of these issues, which is, to say the least, an unfortunate weakness in a prolific Wikipedia editor who produces high-quality articles. --Tkynerd (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple solution

There is a simple solution to the category problem ... this page does not need to exist. It should be a redirect to Erycinae which is the main subfamily and likely to be the "primary topic". The effect of this will be that readers typing in "Sand Boa" will arrive at the page "Erycinae" where they will find, not only a mass of useful information on the topic they chose, but also links to Eryx and Gongylophis (and one other genus). Each of these articles will of course be fully categorised. Problem solved and readers helped! Abtract (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Done. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Needs Massive Revision

The Erycinae as used here does not appear to be a natural group according to the latest molecular analyses (Pyron, R.A., Burbrink, F.T., Wiens, J.J., 2013. A phylogeny and revised classification of Squamata, including 4161 species of lizards and snakes. BMC evolutionary biology 13, 93.) and instead includes a hodgepodge of unrelated burrowing boas. The only genus that actually belongs to Erycinae is Eryx itself and the other "Erycinae" belong to Calabariinae, Candoiinae, and Ungaliophiinae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.86.2 (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Outdated Taxonomy

According to ITIS in the 2014 revision, the valid name for the family is Erycidae not Erycinae. Furthermore it is its own family in the superfamily Booidea and not a Subfamily of the Boidae. JouleWizard (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)