Talk:Ball python

message: According to Guinness World Records the oldest snake was a 40 year-old Red-tailed Boa (Boa constrictor), so the age of 48 would make this species the World's longest-lived snake. I did some searches, and found out about a Ball Python that died at the reported age of 49 years 4 months in Philadelphia Zoo (the same zoo as the Guinness approved boa!). But I found no more details, such as date of death, or if this snake was named. Another source gave this species a maximum age of 28 years in captivity. Clearly this calls for further research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.220.31 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On longevity

message: This article doesn't discuss whether this snake is poisonous or not. Is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.59.53 (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poisonous?

message: What kind of gallons are we talking about here? US gallons, UK gallons? dry gallon? Perhaps it would be better to use metric units. Same goes for temperature, it didnt specify at all, but I reckoned we were talking about Fahrenheit given the numbers, so I added that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.113.71 (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Units?

message: i suggest using another picture of a ball python, as the pastel is a "non mainstream" variant. the picture displayed in the infobox should be (imo) representative of the "typical" specimen subject of the article and -if desired- pictures of the many variants (pastel, amelanistic, leucistic, etc etc) could be secondaryly included in the body or as links.
just ignore this suggestion if i'm wrong --217.126.82.94 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: btw, same should apply to List of Serpentes families
Will work on finding photos Jhall1468 07:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: picture

message: If a snake lays eggs, is that definitive evidence that it is female?
I hope that wasn't a serious question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.70.231 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On probing

message: Jhall1468 is right in his enforcing of the WP:EL guideline. --Flex 16:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: There was a lot of good, solid information I put on here about keeping these animals as pets ( I keep them myself) and some idiot has decided to rub it all off. If the info is accurate, why do people feel the need to alter it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.140.54 (talk • contribs).
Much of this article read (and still reads) like a book and removing it was neccesary, although it was not me who did it. Jhall1468 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: should be headed "Royal python"

message: I have cleaned up a few areas of the article, namely removing some external links (as most of the details in this links are available via the other external links and references). Those links that were removed had a primarily commercial purpose, and as such, still violate the WP:EL guidelines. Some of the references are from commercial breeders and other commercial sites, which should be altered to non-commercial sources if possible.
I have also cited the majority of this article (only one unknown remains, which I propose be removed if a source is unavailable). Please discuss any changes here PRIOR to making edits, as I feel that the article is almost at the standard it should be. Jhall1468 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Cleanup and Citations

message: I've explained this already. I went through and cited all the information available on the page. Those cites included commercial breeder sites for the time being, but that is only because there isn't a wealth of information on the topic from non-commercial sources. Until then, I would rather have the article cited then leave a bunch of junk all over the place. The moment I find more reliable sources that aren't commercial, the commercial ones will be removed.
All of those articles on the page you insist stay are available elsewhere, and most of them are completely invalid and terrible sources for information. Melissa Kaplan's Care Sheet, for example, lists Ball Pythons as "happy in trees" when they are ground-dwellers, not aboreal. 3/4ths of the page is dedicated to Amazon Affiliate Links. That page is CLEARLY designed as a commercial page, and it would not particularly surprise me if you are the owner of it.
Finally, this page read like a book report, not encyclepedia entry. So I made some major changes (as did others) to bring it back to the realm of information (instead of opinion). This will be the last time I edit out that link, if you revert it again, I'll simply request arbitration, and we will end up with the same result. All of the articles listed on that page are available at their owners websites as well.
Please quit treating Wikipedia as a resource for advertising. Jhall1468 00:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How many times...

message: 24.229.135.203 is apparently owned by the locale cable company in Pottsville, PA. According to the RCReptiles forums, the owner (Ron Crawford) ALSO lives in Pottsville, PA. That is a direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines. So the only person that seems to take issue with my edits, is the one guy that happens to live in the same city as the owner fo the site in question. Jhall1468 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules Violation

message: You have both consistently advertised on this page, and as such, I have put notices on your talk pages. Further adding of spam/advertising links to your site will result in notification of admins. Jhall1468 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Users ArtKoen and 24.229.135.203

message: It makes no sense at all to have the following;
Ball Python (Python Regius) - "regius" does not mean "ball" for goodness sake. 
It most certainly *should* be Royal Python, also known as Ball python. Why - because Royal Python is its scientific name! is this an encylopedia or what?
Ball python is not the name of the species. Period. Saying the article is written in "American english" is no excuse. its a bit sloppy.Alexanderd 13:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name..again

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Support as nominator. Jhall1468 03:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Many articles use the scientific name for things also have an English name, for example Agaricus bisporus, but they are too obscure (i.e. not nearly as common as Cougar). Scientific names are usually more organized than common names, telling the genus of the organism. It also works perectly with the common names lead. Tim Q. Wells 23:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand this statement.  Since "Python regius" is inconsistent with the general article naming guidelines, wouldn't you want to change the article name to back to "Ball Python'?   Enuja  (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, other articles do use a scientific name, however, there is usually an explanation that has some merit involved. Agaricus bisporus has a very ambiguous common name (Table Mushroom) and as such, I can see why they made the choice with the scientific name. Furthermore, the article is well outside the scope of WP:AAR so I don't see how the example fits. You will notice, however, that the WP:FA articles for AAR use common names (Cane Toad, Olm, Hawksbill turtle).  In fact, most of the WP:GA articles use common names, with exception to those that were moved by User:Jwinius. I don't think simply because other articles do it, it makes sense for this article. If that were the case, we'd see this type of naming convention used throughout biology, but only botany has taken that route. Regardless, I think if you want to argue that ALL articles should take this format, it should be argued at WP:AAR, for our purposes, I think it would be better to argue why this article SPECIFICALLY should use this format. Jhall1468 06:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There has been debate on this issue at WikiProject Lepidoptera with no consensus reached. The arguments put forth in my opinion are given below.
===Arguments in favour of Common Names===
Editors proposing the common names POV generally refer to three arguments:
* Firstly, they claim that articles named after common names make it harder for people using common names as a search term to locate the article; this is manifestly untrue, search engines scan web page text to locate instances for which reason you get many thousands of hits on almost anything at all. If the search term is used in Wikipedia search, then the redirects and normal wikipedia search make sure the article is located. So there is no hard evidence that using common names makes it easier for anyone to locate the article or that using scientific names makes it more difficult.
* Secondly, they refer to the guidelines from WP:TREE. The guideline says to use the common name,  if its reasonably well-known and unique, else to use the scientific name. In effect, the guidelines acknowledge that both forms are valid, under certain conditions. So both are acceptable; it is not taboo to have articles named after scientific names. There are many more creatures in wikipedia which are named after scientific names (they have to be so named, as they have no common name). So a scientific name is not taboo, just given second status as per present TOL guidelines. 
* Thirdly, a view is pushed that a person who comes across an article titled with common names feels discouraged on encountering a scientific name as article title. Why that should be so, I dont know. Even if an article is titles as per its scientific name, the common name is prominent in the lead, either by the standard bolding in the first sentance as per conventional wikipedia practice or definitely by using the dablink method proposed by User:Tim Q. Wells. A person, who finds the article he searched for by using common names as a search or 'Go' term in Wikipedia, quickly learns the scientific name of the species and also immediately sees below it, the common names, confirming that this is indeed the article he was searching for.
===Arguments in favour of Scientific Names===
* Firstly, they can be used consistently. All TOL articles dealing with the living organisms can be  named with a scientific name. But this is not possible with 
comon names. Consistency is definitely a quality sought for in Wikipedia, and this kind of lack of consistency or presence of ambiguity  is one of the arguments people use to reject Wikipedia. Consistency also allows easy categorisation, stub-sorting, etc.  I have personally tried to develop categorisation rules for articles in WikiProject Lepidoptera, where articles may either have common names and scientific names, and got quite hopelessly lost over this issue. Consistency should be given value over minor considerations. Its ironic that User:Jhall1468 is imploring this move of title back to Ball Python for reasons of consistency in WP:AAR.
* Secondly, scientific names are unique. Common names are very often not. Many species have names which differ in various parts of the world, example being Camberwell Beauty in UK and Mourning Cloak in USA for Nymphalis antiopa. The counter-argument used by common name proponents is that experts may disagree (eg Cynthia cardui in USA vs Vanessa cardui in UK). But such cases are very few, and for these cases there are elaborate rules of the ICZN so that the answer may be found by arbitration, but how can you arbitrate about precendence or importance of common names?  Scientific name proponents also push the point that many common names need disambiguation (Skipper(butterfly) vs Hesperiidae). It is better for an article to have a meaningful and unique name rather than a disambiguated title.
* Thirdly, consistent naming using scientific names promotes development of value-added efforts from people such as User:Jwinius (examples being - :Category:Asian_pit_vipers_by_common_name, :Category:Asian_pit_vipers_by_taxonomic_synonyms). This is not possible when the system permits a hotch-potch of common and scientific names. This value-addition is a purely volunteer effort, wikipedia standards dont require it and most certainly, it wont come about by itself in the normal way of things.
===TOL guidelines===
I think the interpretation of TOL guidelines by User: Jhall1468 is incorrect. So lets examine the exact TOL guideline which is being claimed to be flouted:
:In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles, except for plant articles. Scientific names should be used otherwise.
Ball python fails this test. There are two common names for this python - Ball python (Google hits 2,430,000  and Royal python (Google hits 2,200,00 ). So the species article does not have a reasonably unique name. There is as good a case for the article to be called Royal Python as there is for Ball Python. So, in this case the article name should default to scientific name with both the common names as redirects. Please note, on this very page, when the issue previously came up for the name of the article to be moved to Royal Python, the present agrieved User:Jhall1468 gave an obscure reply and constructively evaded the issue.
Lastly, Wikipedia TOL has this to say as its opening paragraph:
:First, an important note for everyone to remember. A few Wikipedians have got together to make some suggestions about how we might organize data in these articles. These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them. But if you don't know what to write or where to begin, following the below guidelines may be helpful. Mainly, we just want you to write articles!
This implies that WikiProject guidelines are just that - guidelines. They are not sacrosanct ie Wikipedia policy. So, if they are to be countermanded, there must be a good reason to do so. User:Jwinius provides that. The way, I understand is that, User:Jwinius has a proposition. If he is allowed to follow the naming convention less preferred by guidelines, he will provide in exchange, to Wikipedia, a fully categorised, and subcategorised  added-value to the complete python series of articles, including tremenduous amounts of taxonomic data, as he has done for Viperidae , which is in the sprirt of the text of the lead para of WP:TOL. This seems to be a fair deal, whereas, all that User:Jhall1468 is offering is dogmatic application of a guideline. 
Hence, in the best interests of Wikipedia, my opinion is that the article should be named Python regius as per WikiProject TOL and User:Jwinius be commended for his efforts rather than be taken to task for it. AshLin 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point about assuming good faith is well taken. Thank you for gently guiding me. I did not know how to get a phrase to be searched for in Google, so I have learnt that too. But I cannot find it in me to support a guideline which appears obstructive and inconsistent. AshLin 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Point of View

message: I think the interpretation of TOL guidelines by User: Jhall1468 is incorrect. So lets examine the exact TOL guideline which is being claimed to be flouted:
:In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles, except for plant articles. Scientific names should be used otherwise.
Ball python fails this test. There are two common names for this python - Ball python (Google hits 2,430,000  and Royal python (Google hits 2,200,00 ). So the species article does not have a reasonably unique name. There is as good a case for the article to be called Royal Python as there is for Ball Python. So, in this case the article name should default to scientific name with both the common names as redirects. Please note, on this very page, when the issue previously came up for the name of the article to be moved to Royal Python, the present agrieved User:Jhall1468 gave an obscure reply and constructively evaded the issue.
Lastly, Wikipedia TOL has this to say as its opening paragraph:
:First, an important note for everyone to remember. A few Wikipedians have got together to make some suggestions about how we might organize data in these articles. These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them. But if you don't know what to write or where to begin, following the below guidelines may be helpful. Mainly, we just want you to write articles!
This implies that WikiProject guidelines are just that - guidelines. They are not sacrosanct ie Wikipedia policy. So, if they are to be countermanded, there must be a good reason to do so. User:Jwinius provides that. The way, I understand is that, User:Jwinius has a proposition. If he is allowed to follow the naming convention less preferred by guidelines, he will provide in exchange, to Wikipedia, a fully categorised, and subcategorised  added-value to the complete python series of articles, including tremenduous amounts of taxonomic data, as he has done for Viperidae , which is in the sprirt of the text of the lead para of WP:TOL. This seems to be a fair deal, whereas, all that User:Jhall1468 is offering is dogmatic application of a guideline. 
Hence, in the best interests of Wikipedia, my opinion is that the article should be named Python regius as per WikiProject TOL and User:Jwinius be commended for his efforts rather than be taken to task for it. AshLin 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point about assuming good faith is well taken. Thank you for gently guiding me. I did not know how to get a phrase to be searched for in Google, so I have learnt that too. But I cannot find it in me to support a guideline which appears obstructive and inconsistent. AshLin 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TOL guidelines

message: I believe User:AshLin has confused the difference between unique and distinct. The policy (or guideline, if you will) is trying to prevent different species being confused by similar names. It has nothing to do with whether or not there are multiple common names. Furthermore, using Google as a source to prove the popularity of either naming convention is kind of silly. For example, by placing quotes around each of the search terms we find that "Ball Python" has 323,000 results  while "Royal Python" has 49,700 results .
Using the same argument you've provided, Ball Python is both unique and distinct as a common name for Python regius.
Again, I very much appreciative of what Jwinius is trying to do, I just don't like the methodology and format. I don't mind being outvoted on the issue, if it comes to that, but I DO mind existing articles being formatted in a way that (at the very least) defies already existing guidelines, without so much as a discussion. However, as I said before, I would rather Jwinius take his arguments to WP:AAR, so the entire community can make a decision, as opposed to a few. And perhaps, AshLin could try a little harder to Assume good faith, since my interest is not in attacking Jwinius, but improving Wikipedia. Jhall1468 15:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point about assuming good faith is well taken. Thank you for gently guiding me. I did not know how to get a phrase to be searched for in Google, so I have learnt that too. But I cannot find it in me to support a guideline which appears obstructive and inconsistent. AshLin 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some confusion

message: I've just uploaded some nice ball python pics to wikimedia, including pictures of a gravid python, a python brooding eggs, incubating ball python eggs, and an albino ball python.  These may make a nice addition to this article in appropriate places, if people wish to expand a bit on ball python reproduction and add something about color mutations in this article.  They can be found on the Python regius page on wikimedia.  This article seems very sparse on details, and could use some fleshing out.  What would folks think about a page specifically discussing color and pattern mutations in snakes?  (WITHOUT commercial links, of course).  Would this be too narrowly focused?  I would think the fact that it has generated a large commercial market should be worthy of note in an encyclopedia article, for its cultural impact.  Perhaps an article on color and pattern mutations in pet animals in general, and their significance relating to the pet trade?  Winged_Wolf  2:20 AM, 05 June 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.204.117 (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice, and those images are already linked via the Wikimedia link near the end of this article, but please keep in mind that this is a natural history article -- not a HOWTO for people interested in keeping these snakes as pets. Therefore, what we require here is natural history information with reliable references (as opposed to husbandry info) and images of specimens that are representative of populations as they occur in the wild (as opposed color patterns and mutations produced by commercial snake breeding operations). --Jwinius (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Then visit one of the external links in the associated article or use Google. --Jwinius (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New photos available from wikimedia

message: I'm changing the recommended weight of male ball pythons, as it is ludicrously high--even the most conservative captive breeders state that 800 grams is sufficient weight, not 900.  If this is a natural history article, you should realize that wild females will breed at around 1200 grams, and wild males at 500 grams or even less.  Males will breed as soon as they are producing sperm, which they may begin to do when they're only 6 months old and under 400 grams!  Most captive breeders will breed males at 500 grams, and they do just fine.  Upon making that edit, I discovered much of the rest of the information in that area was also incorrect--the incubation time, the age at which they reach sexual maturity, etc.  I have corrected it.  I sometimes wonder if people just grab random scholarly-sounding sites for references without double-checking to see if they are correct.  Captive breeding of these animals has given us ample information on their reproduction.  Being wild doesn't add an extra month to incubation (for example).  I realize I haven't replaced the references, but I will get around to that, or someone else can do it.  It should not be difficult to find supporting references for the CORRECT info.
Winged Wolf (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Breeding Weights

message: Just a few minor corrections to the captive care area.  These snakes actually prefer a smaller cage for their size than most animals, as they spend most of their time in the wild hiding in burrows.  The most important captive care information regards proper temperatures, humidity, and hiding areas, so I have added information on environmental needs.  I removed the reference, as some of the information from it was incorrect.  If a reference is required for any of the changes I have made, add "The Complete Ball Python by Kevin McCurley", which is a published book.
68.13.83.50 (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Captive Care Corrections

message: If anyone has any ideas for a juvenile python that refuses to eat a frozen mouse please feel free to give me a few tips. He is 18 inches long. I think he usually ate live mice once weekly. He hasn't eaten in 2 weeks and has just finished shedding. I tried 3 times to give him a warmed frozen mouse and he refuses to eat it. I tried tying a string to it's tail to make it look alive and he just recoils at the sight of it. I know they can go some time (up to 2 months ) without eating but I am still concern. I would welcome any ideas you may have.
Kim  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.105.254 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're feeding him too frequently; I feed my 3 ft. ball python every two weeks. Don't worry about it; try again in a week or so. This has happened to mine a lot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankjohnson123 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ball python that refuses to eat 

message: I think it would be beneficial to add a little information about housing in sterilite containers - this is very cost effective and could prove to be helpful for upcoming breeders.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stboser (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Information like that belongs on WikiHow, not here.  See WP:NOTHOWTO. Mokele (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible addition under "Captivity" heading... 

message: I wonder what the problem is, is it a lack of available pictures with the right license? Or are there reasons to NOT include pictures of some varieties breeders have produced?
There are many mutations that impact the pattern, the coloration, or both, and breeders deliberately combine them to attain certain optics. 
for those that have not seen it, external links to 3 stunning examples i especially like:
http://www.worldofballpythons.com/morphs/vpi-axanthic-clown/
this is a double recessive, "VPI Axanthic" knocks out the browns and yellows and "Clown" dramatically alters the pattern.
http://www.worldofballpythons.com/morphs/the-corcra-ball/
this is a 3-gene combination of 3 incomplete dominant genes: Mystic, Mojave and Enchi. Mystic and Mojave are allelic, the genes sit on the same locus and interact in a special way. 
http://www.worldofballpythons.com/morphs/banana-ghi/
this is a 2-gene combination of two incomplete dominant genes, Banana and GHI, both genes are on their own very valuable and in high demand. 
http://www.worldofballpythons.com/morphs/highway-ball/
another 2-gene combination of two allelic genes.
Heck, we could do an entire article on ball python designer morphs. Many professional breeders combine and stack up genes for a living, and prices for the right combinations of rare and valuable genes can easily reach into the tens of thousnds of dollars. Breeders combine up to 7 different genes in their quest to produce snakes with new optics. So far there are over 100 different genes that breeders use to manipulate color and pattern and over 2000 combinations of these genes. I really wonder why none of this is to be found anywhere on Wikipedia, whats the holdup, where is the roadblock? 188.104.112.229 (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid this page being all about morphs.  If there really is a compelling need for this (and, frankly, I'm dubious that it's anything more than another temporary market trend like morphs of leopard geckos, bearded dragons, and corn snakes before them, thus not notable), it should be in a separate page so as not to overwhelm the content of this page.  Honestly, the mere existence of pattern mutations isn't notable, and the commercial trade in them may not meet notability guidelines either (I'd have to check, I'm not familiar with the rules for economic notability). HCA (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To see what qualifies as notable, i ask you to please do the following: Click random article, then read the article. Repeat 10 times. Just do it. It wont take long, i promise, because most of what you get is junk. And in the whole exclusionist versus inclusionist war, you, as an exclusionist, will see where you are needed. I like it when i click "random article" and get something nice with information and pictures, where i can learn something, and not what i usually get when clicking "random article". 188.104.112.229 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then make a separate page for Morphs, but not a section of this page, due to the tendency I mentioned earlier for it to balloon to ridiculous proportions as every new morph gets listed, overwhelming the content on the species as a whole. HCA (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, but since im not good at writing (english is my second language), i guess ill lay some groundwork by finding images that are freely available and that can be published under an appropriate license in the wikimedia commons. There are some base morphs in the wikipedia commons, but there is not a single example of any multi-gene high-end designer morph there. About the economic notability, the biggest breeder has around 15000 snakes in his collection permanently and the company is worth millions and sells hundreds of thousands snakes per year, and most of that is ball python morphs. So i guess a case can be made. Also the total population in captivity is very high.178.2.55.147 (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not add some pictures of designer morphs and information on designer morphs? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ball python. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113180642/http://www.newenglandreptile.com:80/CareBall.html to http://www.newenglandreptile.com/CareBall.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ball python. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070523102853/http://www.ball-pythons.net/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&id=59 to http://www.ball-pythons.net/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&id=59
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The scientific classification in this article lists ball pythons as belonging to the kingdom Plantae, which is obviously not true as pythons are not plants. The clades, order, family, genus, and species listed on the ball python article are also plants. I do not know the full proper classification for ball pythons so I cannot edit this myself, but it definitely needs fixing.
130.245.192.11 (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. A typical example of Friday night vandalism... Micromesistius (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pythons are not plants 

message: Is there a reference for the claim that these snakes shiver while incubating their eggs? I've removed that bit (hopefully temporarily) because I can't find a source to back it up. The only mention of this behavior I've been able to find is for the Burmese python, the reticulated python, and Australian diamond python, whereas some other species like the African rock python don't shiver: in other words, not all pythons do it, and from what I can tell it only seems to be documented in Asian and Australian species so far. I'd like it to be true, but given how commonly these animals are bred in captivity, you'd think it would be better documented if it was. 2601:342:100:9000:69CD:6AA6:55AA:D5AA (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shivering? 

message: Types of ball pythons. 2603:9005:700:114:88AA:4829:F262:7B84 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ball python  

message: As you may know Ball pythons are wonderful pets for people who are new to having snakes as pets. They eat well and are very sweet. Plus, There are many different kinds of morphs to pick form. This snake is a lovable and it sure will side it way to slide its way to your heart. 97.107.90.67 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pets