Talk:Bat/Archive 2

--FY 211 (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Bat has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

FY 211 (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC) BATS ARE THE SECOND LARGEST ORDER OF MAMALLS (after the rodents), REPRESENTNG ABOUT 20% OF ALL CLASSIFFIED MAMALLS SPECIES WORLDWIDE, WITH ABOUTt 1,240 BATSPECIES DIVIDED INTO TWO SUBORDERS:THE LESS SPECIALIZED AND LARGLY FRUIT-EATING megabats, OR FLYING FOXES, AND THE highly specialized and echolocating microbats.^[1] About 70% of bat species are insectivores. Most of the rest are frugivores, or fruit eaters. A few species, such as the fish-eating bat, feed from animals other than insects, with th^{Superscript text}e vampire bats being hematophagous, or feeding on blood.IN MARATHI BAT IS CALLED AS 'VATVAGHUL' AND IN HINDI IT IS CALLED AS 'BALLA'

 Not done we are an English encyclopedia, not an international dictionary, translating the article title into every language, and you have cited no reliable source, even if we were. - Arjayay (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Bat has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

FY 211 (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC) BATS ARE THE SECOND LARGEST ORDER OF MAMMALS (after the rodents), REPRESENTING ABOUT 20% OF ALL CLASSIFIED MAMMALS SPECIES WORLDWIDE,WITH ABOUT 1,240 BAT SPECIES DIVIDED INTO TWO SUBORDERS: the less specialized and largely fruit-eating megabats, or flying foxes, and the highly specialized and echolocating microbats.^[1] About 70% of bat species are insectivores. Most of the rest are frugivores, or fruit eaters. A few species, such as the fish-eating bat, feed from animals other than insects, with the vampire bats being hematophagous, or feeding on blood.IN MARATHI BAT IS CALLED AS "VATVAGHUL"AND IN HINDI IT IS CALLED AS "BALLA"

 Not done - as explained above (edit conflict you repeated your request while I was answering your first request) - Arjayay (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Bat has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ketakiprasad (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC) BAT ARE MAMMALS.

Yes, that is true. I believe the article already mentions that fact. Altamel (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Bat has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

yessir i wanna edit real bat about bats cause i really do like them there bats. amarite? 163.6.189.9 (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Incoherent request. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The sentence in the fossil record subsection "However, a Late Cretaceous tooth from South America resembles that of an early microchiropteran bat." needs a citation. 85.234.92.172 (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Since the sentence was placed there over ten years ago, the source may no longer stand, even if we could identify it. I have therefore deleted it, although, obviously, if anyone can find a citation to support the claim, they're more than welcome to put it back in. Anaxial (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bat. 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 http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160523215159/http://www.discoverychannel.ca/reports/article.aspx?aid=7047 to http://www.discoverychannel.ca/reports/article.aspx?aid=7047

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

when was the name Cheiroptera created? Was it really "ancient Greek" or was it neoGreek, ie the Greek used by modern scientists? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The words it's made of are from Ancient Greek as the article says, but of course it's a modern coinage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The tree used on this page should present Yinpterochiroptera vs. Yangpterochiroptera, not Megachiroptera vs. Microchiroptera. Yinpterochiroptera/Yangpterochiroptera has been accepted by both standard mammalogy textbooks (Vaughan et al., and Feldhamer et al.), and is supported by genomic evidence. (The tree that is currently being used on this page used cytochrome B only.) In addition, the article itself talks about how echolocation likely evolved twice, so the tree used in the article should reflect that. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

it's moreover to separate fruit bats from the other bats if anything. The article also says that echolocation evolved once in bats   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Article also says "The first is that laryngeal echolocation evolved twice in bats, once in Yangochiroptera and once in the rhinolophoids." Evidently there's some tidying up to be done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It's saying that if bats are paraphyletic, then echolocation evolved on two separate occasions (and it's also saying that that's unlikely)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Erm, we're writing for a non-Vulcan readership. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the reply. The tree that is being used should be one that supports Yinpterochiroptera and Yangpterochiroptera as clades not Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera. A quick look at the history indicates that such a tree was formerly being used on this page before it was changed. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 and Chiswick Chap I plan on writing up social/reproductive behavior soon, either this week or next (maybe even tommorrow). I also plan on fixing up the feeding section, maybe some rewrites and source replacements. I feel like the culture section should be a two are three paragraphs summarizing its place in different cultures. I'm not a fan of the current subsections which give undue weight to a few cultures. LittleJerry (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Something went wrong on the wiki - I received a ping for this. You might like to double-check that the two addressees received your message. William Harris • (talk) • 21:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll fix references, but I think a lot of them will need to be replaced (which I'll handle). Since you're rewriting Behaviour, I'll just stick to Taxonomy and Anatomy. Also I feel that feeding and anatomy sort of blend, so maybe it should move   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've now trimmed the Mythology, Bat houses, and Heraldry down to size. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I ordered a book on bats. I should get it within a few days. LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

In the Behaviour section, I'd say we'd just need a section on migration, hibernation (though that may go in anatomy), and roosting. Also, should we replace the Bat Before the Moon picture with Batman? He is more famous after all, and the way it's positioned the picture's attached to the paragraph on western culture   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A Batman image requires fair use, which should be used sparingly and only for articles on the subject. I think its better to use the moon image. LittleJerry (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can't see how such an image could get through FAC. Since the theme of the lamely titled section 'Cultural depictions' is however darkness and death, Goya is easily the most relevant illustration, presaging all the later monsters. For a second image, I'd say the Zapotec god would be best, as it's far older and a powerful figure from a civilization distant in both time and space. The Takashi painting is nice but we don't really want two flying black bats, and it's far tamer than the Goya at that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought of the Goya image but didn't like the fact that it had owls too. It might distract from the bats. LittleJerry (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

We're to report on what's out there, not what we'd prefer. Thanks for the edit, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77, don't forget for anatomy mention roosting posture and the adaptions related that like why they hang upside down and how they can with no loss in energy. LittleJerry (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you think roosting and all that should go in the Distribution and habitat section?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not the discussion of the physiology of it. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I got my book in, I will try to find some time to wrtie this week but next week might be better. I hope no ones in a hurry. LittleJerry (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 and Chiswick Chap, I plan on expanding communication and possibly writing a section on roosting posture and terrestrial locomotion for "Adapation". I think the culture section could use some more information with regards to literature (Silverwing (series)) and popular culture. I checked the Telegraph article and it mentions Dracula but not Batman. Batman is of course important so we should find a source for him. Also, the echolocation section has at least one uncited paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I’ll have to rewrite most of Echolocation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyedited. Evolution of echolocation is discussed (slightly differently) in both Phylogeny and Fossil record. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we could use a section on the use of bats for science and technology. Also Dunkleosteus77 could you write up about the physiology of torpor in bats? LittleJerry (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I’ll get started tomorrow   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Uses? There's plenty of research on bats, specially on echolocation, but not much on uses that I can, er, locate. There was a passing mention in Wired of biomimicry in a quickly-forgotten prototype airport-type scanner (it used sonar imaging, wow). Did you have anything particular in mind? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't sonar technology historically influenced by bat research? Also I heard in a documentary that Da Vinci used bats alot as saw them as more promising subjects for replicating flight than birds. Anyway, I will be busy this week so I won't be able to do major edits. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No, sonar started in WWI and Griffin discovered it in bats in 1938. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, scratch the science section. Chiswick Chap, perhaps you could write about postures (like roosting) and terrestrial locomotion, (a few bat species can crawl). LittleJerry (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can rustle up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 and Chiswick Chap, I'll try to work on communications this weekend. I feel like roosting posture is more than about bones. Bat have a muscular sturcture that allows then to hang without using energy. I also think things related to conservation and human interactions may need to be split. Other than that I think we are almost done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It must be bones (and joints/tendons) not muscles, or hanging would continuously consume energy in those muscles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we're almost done. Dunkleosteus77, is the torpor section coming along? LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did a few small copyedits and it's about ready to fly, even if the torpor section is a bit ... torpid ... if need be I can find something on that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

No need, it's done, but I figure we now need a section on migration   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Migration is mentioned in the first paragraph of behavior. I suppose it could be expanded but I won't have the time or energy to do major edits this next couple weeks. LittleJerry (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

So, are we ready? LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Per this old revision ("fibre") I've tagged the article as being in UK English. --John (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Instead of the Aztec god, do we wanna put a picture of Dracula instead? There's two in the public domain File:Bela Lugosi as Dracula, anonymous photograph from 1931, Universal Studios.jpg, and File:Dracula 1958 c.jpg. They're both pretty good   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Why instead? Why can't we have both? Besides, I think the god is a little less biased. Vampire images in popular culture have gotten millions of harmless bats killed. Sumanuil (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, we are severely space-limited. I agree that the god is a good image. The bat-as-monster theme is already covered by the Goya aquatint, an excellent illustration from the history of art that long precedes Bram Stoker. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel like since Dracula and vampires are much more famous than an Aztec god, it should get more coverage   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

They're famous to Westerners. Not so much the rest of the world. Besides, the statue is ZAPOTEC. If you can't get that straight, I don't think you should be replacing the image. (And like I said, it's not like the deity ever got entire colonies of fruit bats killed with flamethrowers. Dracula and his ilk have. Besides, he turned into a dog in the book. Maybe his picture belongs on that page?)Sumanuil (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I've never heard of Zapotec before right now, and I've asked around and no one else's heard of Zapotec either. Also, we shouldn't avoid a topic because it's had negative consequences. It can be part of the caption or something or the other "the depiction of Dracula has resulted in mass bat killings"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor's not having heard about something does not, to my knowledge, form a criterion within Wikipedia policy, and one of the functions of a global encyclopedia is indeed to educate. "Negative consequences" have nothing to do with the image choice. Zapotec provides both a striking image which is exactly on the topic, and given the extremely limited space, also illustrates the many centuries long history and cultural diversity of human responses to, and indeed actual worship of bats. Dracula is recent, western, nothing to do with religion or mythology, and not a bat. At best he has a vague cultural association with dark things of the night, but Goya's fine artwork does that too, in a culturally resonant work from a major painter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The main point is, its better to have an image of actual bat depictions, rather than a character who is merely associated with bats. LittleJerry (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

LittleJerry asked me to take a look at it and I've been through a first pass of the prose without anything serious coming up. I have a slight worry about the two separate but overlapping accounts of the different evolutionary theories. I'd like to see alt text for images (though I know it's no longer a FAC requirement). Anything else? User:Chiswick Chap? --John (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I'm talking about:

Under Phylogeny

The phylogenetic relationships of the different groups of bats have been the subject of much debate. The traditional subdivision into Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera reflected the view that these groups of bats had evolved independently of each other for a long time, from a common ancestor already capable of flight. This hypothesis recognised differences between microbats and megabats and acknowledged that flight has only evolved once in mammals. Most molecular biological evidence supports the view that bats form a single or monophyletic group. In the 1980s, a hypothesis based on morphological evidence stated the Megachiroptera evolved flight separately from the Microchiroptera. The so-called flying primate hypothesis proposed that, when adaptations to flight are removed, the Megachiroptera are allied to primates by anatomical features not shared with Microchiroptera. For example, the brains of megabats have advanced characteristics. Although recent genetic studies strongly support the monophyly of bats, debate continues as to the meaning of the genetic and morphological evidence.

Then under Fossil record we get

The 2003 discovery of an intermediate fossil bat from the 52 million year old Green River Formation, Onychonycteris finneyi, indicates that flight evolved before echolocative abilities. Onychonycteris had claws on all five of its fingers, whereas modern bats have at most two claws appearing on two digits of each hand. It also had longer hind legs and shorter forearms, similar to climbing mammals that hang under branches, such as sloths and gibbons. This palm-sized bat had short, broad wings, suggesting that it could not fly as fast or as far as later bat species. Instead of flapping its wings continuously while flying, Onychonycteris likely alternated between flaps and glides in the air. This suggests that this bat did not fly as much as modern bats, rather flying from tree to tree and spending most of its time climbing or hanging on the branches of trees. The distinctive features noted on the Onychonycteris fossil also support the claim that mammalian flight most likely evolved in arboreal locomotors, rather than terrestrial runners. This model of flight development, commonly known as the "trees-down" theory, implies that bats attained powered flight by taking advantage of height and gravity to drop down on to prey, rather than relying on running speeds fast enough for a ground-level take off

Now, I think I understand this, having read it over three or four times. But is it the best it can be? --John (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not mine, actually, but I can see why the matter has been addressed in separate sections. It might be possible to regroup it but there is logic in the present structure. Regrouping would only be a benefit if it ends up less rather than more contorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

My initial feeling is that splitting it like this is clumsy. I think we could have the evolutionary theories together in one coherent narrative, integrating the fossil-based research with the molecular stuff. I can see why the current approach was chosen, but I don't think it makes for an easy read and it may make an already-complex story harder to understand. --John (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77, we may need you for this. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Morphology (fossil record that is) and phylogeny are two very different things that often tell different things in different ways. I say keep it as is, but if you really want to merge it, I'm not quite too sure how this'd be done with grace. What could be done is have the Phylogeny and Fossil record sections be under a subheading of Evolution, which would be a subheading under Taxonomy, so the two seem more related to each other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Support that, let's have'em both under Evolution (as is not unusual in articles), though not sure that can really come under taxonomy. The topic is unsurprisingly important in bats, so it's entirely reasonable to have more than one take on it in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Philosophically, my feeling is that evolution should come first as it is the phenomenon we are describing. Then should come taxonomy, with its historical fluctuations and various methods, as that is the human effort to analyse and describe it. --John (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

And Dunkleosteus77, I don't disagree with anything that you say. I just think the current model is quite difficult to understand and could potentially be smoothed out. --John (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• And a further thought; what sense does it make to have a section called Taxonomy, with a subsection Classification? Taxonomy means classification (incidentally, could anyone fix the irritating template error in the lead of classification (biology)?). I think what we are describing here is Evolution, perhaps with subsections on the Taxonomy and how it's evolved, and the methods which have been used to elucidate the evolution, and the uncertainties that remain. --John (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe something like this. --John (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Expect I don't think taxomony can be considered a subset of evolution. Classifying organisms was around before the modern theory of evolution. LittleJerry (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I did both History and Philosophy of Science as part of my degree, and I could have an interesting discussion with you there, but I won't for now. I think this opens up a better flow, though it's still not perfect. I think it's a lot better. --John (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

So are there any other problems? LittleJerry (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the Distribution section is a little lacking? I'm not sure by what specifically given it's got its hands in a lot of subjects. I see it touching upon the Behaviour section and the Interactions section and there's a little bit of overlap with Adaptations. In fact, the only part that isn't delved into elsewhere is the second sentence and the first part of the third sentence, so maybe if it can't be expanded it can be merged into somewhere else. Also, biological systems; as of now there's circulatory, but there's a lot more than that in a bat. The section on White nose syndrome could be expanded with info on how it spreads and what's being done to combat it. The first paragraph of the Behaviour section just seems like a collection of random trivia (it starts with activity, then migration, then hibernation, then flying in the rain, then agility on the ground). Why is Threats a subsection of Conservation, and why aren't they both subheadings of the Interactions section?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I've sorted out the Conservation and Threats section - the latter was not bad where it was, as it contained both human-related and natural threats, but I've divided it for you.

A separate issue that we'd be picked up on is the pair of Diseases sections, very different indeed, but still a bit untidy. Ideas? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

In the Parasites section I don't see how the second and third sentences relate back to bats, and I feel White nose syndrome and Parasites should be merged under Diseases. Also there's a lot of articles discussing what hunts bats, but I'm not sure which're entirely notable for this article, but it's worth a look (like this). The rest kinda say the usual owls and snakes and so forth, I wonder if those are entirely relevant for specific examples. As for parasites there's this and this and for some reason there's Category:Parasites of bats which may be worth a look   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, people rarely call fleas, bugs and lice "diseases". The current disease section is about transmission to humans, so we can't put white nose there either. I'm all for having a general diseases section but was wondering about the overlap. Raptors are a definite threat to bats, as are the tropical snakes which have a remarkable set of bat-hunting behaviours, not like anything else in the animal kingdom, so these items are more than well justified. I've reworded the end of 'Parasites' to make the meaning clearer, it certainly pertains to bats. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Right yeah but I was wondering if it'd relevant to add specific examples from certain bat species or not (like what snake species A does against bat species B)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that is too specific for this article. Personally, I don't think we should have a section on predators of bats. Bats may be preyed on by anything that's bigger than them which is a whole lot of animals. We didn't have one for rodents, and we shouldn't. LittleJerry (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

seems relevant enough to at the very least keep it as is, people’d wanna know what generally hunts bats   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

We frequently (usually?) have a "Predators, parasites and diseases" section in natural history articles whether on groups or individual species, actually. The organisms that have major ecological relationships with a group are clearly relevant to it, as Dunkleosteus77 says. I can't see the benefit of naming such a section "Mortality" which would imply actuarial talk of rates of death from various conditions, which we aren't attempting to do here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap it doesn't make sense to have a section called "Predators, parasites and diseases" and then have subsections with each of the names. I don't recall making sections this way. Grasshopper has a "Predators, parasites and pathogens" with an "Anti-predator defences" subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

On the principle, I beg to differ, but on the article, it's fine without the subsections as they weren't terribly long. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The "Predators, parasites, and diseases" subsection seems to have some overlap with the "Disease transmission" subsection. I propose shortening the former section to "Predators and parasites" (as white nose syndrome is caused by a parasite). If we are to include "diseases" then surely rabies and SARS (caused by viruses which are technically not parasites) would count? LittleJerry (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I asked that question at the head of this section but it was temporarily lost in the lengthy discussion. White Nose Syndrome is undoubtedly a (deadly) disease, so there's no easy 'badge engineering' solution. We have appropriate mentions of disease both in the biology and the humans sections, so handling the overlap is a challenge. We could move the whole Disease transmission text into the biology section: probably best, I'll do it now and we can see what we think of it. I note that Food and feeding, and the PP&D section, are about bat Ecology: PP&D fits poorly into 'Behaviour and life history' so perhaps we should reorganise there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel like the paragraphs about them being reservoirs has more to do with transmission to humans more than it has to do with the effects on bats. I say revert it and put those last three paragraphs under Interactions with humans under As a disease reservoir or Disease reservoir   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we then have 2 sections on the same theme, and worse we have a section on the impact of certain diseases without coverage anywhere of the fact that bats had and carried those diseases. Better would be to edit the paragraphs to be more about bats. - I've just done this, actually quite a small change, leaving a simple story with a clear focus on bat disease. Hope everyone finds that better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we can split up the "Behavior and life history section". LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the "Adaptations" and "Behavior" sections should be split again. The current section is too big. We can rename adaptions as "Anatomy and physiology". LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The question is not section size but coherence. Behaviour is certainly an adaptation, and it's actually a short section so splitting it out won't make a lot of difference to the length anyway. I note that in Grasshopper we just called it "Biology" which isn't totally correct either (gold * or no), so the matter crops up repeatedly. "Adaptations" is pretty good overall. Perhaps we should try to standardize on a table of contents for groups. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. "Adaptations" is to broad a category. Feeding and diet could also be an "adaption". We tried a general "Biology" section for Octopus and the reviewers asked us to slit them. I'm suggesting we bring back the "Behaviour and life history" which included communications, reproduction and lifespan. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Eh? You just asked to get rid of it, correctly in my view. There's no particular reason to group those two things. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I said we could split it up. Which we did when I created the ecology section. Sorry for the confusion. LittleJerry (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I split it up further, if you think "life history" is too general. LittleJerry (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel like it's getting split a little too much now. I say Behaviour --> [(the two paragraphs about random things) --> Communication --> Breeding --> Rearing --> Lifespan]. Breeding and Rearing could also just be one section Reproduction   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The 'Anatomy and physiology' just means "Systems" - functional and adaptive systems that necessarily include structures - into which Reproduction fits perfectly. It makes no sense to say (as in an edit comment) that "anatomy desires its own section" - the anatomical structures co-evolved with the physiological functions (such as circulation, reproduction) that they serve. They belong together as working systems, "greater than the sum of their parts". Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I meant that anatomy needs its own section from things like behavior, communication and reproduction which it was looped in with. The reproduction text deals little with actual systems. Topics like Strategies, Parenting and Timing of mating have more to do with behavior than anatomy. We've done numerous other vertebrae FAs; like Teleost, Crocodilia and Pinniped, were reproduction is separate from anatomy. LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The reproductive anatomy, physiology and behaviour are all part of an evolved system. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The reproduction section is not about the actual reproductive system. So we should just loop everything under a hoj poj section? That's not how FA vertebrate article work. I would like @John: to comment. LittleJerry (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing now, are we. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

John was a copyeditor and made suggestions on how to structure the article with the evolution/taxonomy. He is not an outside party. LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I’m seeing this as having a section under Anatomy labelled as Reproductive systems, and then a separate section under Behaviour labelled as Breeding and rearing or something or the other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

John, is the copyediting finished? LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I stood off for a while as it looked like there was major work going on. I will take at least one further look. --John (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Anything else need to be done? Chiswick Chap you mentioned something about the sources. LittleJerry (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a sentence in Classification that isn't explicitly sourced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

John, you may continue. I think your copyedits are all that is needed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm looking. Could we put (/kaɪˈrɒptərə/; from the Ancient Greek: χείρ – cheir, "hand" and πτερόν – pteron, "wing")^[1] into a footnote rather than cluttering the lead? --John (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This relates to this discussion; a lot of articles have grotesque levels of metadata obscuring the lead and this is an example where we can enhance the utility to the reader by moving it to a note. Still looking. --John (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• The coverage of vision could be streamlined, I think. It's looking good otherwise. --John (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, guys are we ready? LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I should think so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've taken a final pass through it, and (I think) sorted out the apparent contradiction in the Vision section that I highlighted on the 8th. Nothing else leaps out at me. --John (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn’t realize I was co-nominating this for FA, but since I am, I’m gonna expand the Anatomy section to include biological systems   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77, if there is anymore you thin is missing, you should probably wait until a reviewer points it out. Adding any more information will make them feel like we are not ready and delay the review. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

alright, I'll stop at digestive systems until further notice   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bat. 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/20131110172458/http://www.oaxacanwoodcarving.com/mythnatr.html to http://www.oaxacanwoodcarving.com/mythnatr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Didn't we learn not to write like this in grade school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:200:5671:8046:CF57:2BBC:7FEE (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)