Talk:Bat/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rename article to Bats or use scientific name

ID apple like to propose that the article shall be renamed to either Bats (plural) or to Chiroptera (scientific name). I just recently made the experience that people confuse the trivial name Bat as used in this article as an indicative for the order Chiroptera with the indicative Bat for the suborder Microchiroptera. Also Bat is commonly used in the English language as an indicative and trivial name to identify an or any instance(s) of the suborder Microchiroptera (e.g. the genus Megaderma).

On the other hand the English noun Bat may as well be used as a trivial name to identify flying foxes (Merriam Webster uses Bat for both Microchiroptera and Megachiroptera). Yet flying foxes aren't bats as identified by the suborder Microchiroptera. Instead both orders Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera diverged according to my knowledge from one another millions of years ago and they both expose distinctive traits.

I think the just described dilemma has perfectly been solved in the article for the family Cats where the article name uses the scientific name instead of relying on the somehow and sometimes confusing English trivial name. --DanielSHaischt (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So you’re saying English speakers use the word “bat” for both microbats and megabats, but the problem is megabats are not microbats?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep exactly. DanielSHaischt (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

that still doesn’t make any sense to me, fruit bats are still bats, and microbats are also bats. Therefore, they should both be discussed in the bat article. The only problem would be if fruit bats were discussed in length at microbat or microbats in fruit bat. Bat is the common name of Chiroptera   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't my point. I never stated that fruit bats are not bats. Your original statement was "megabats are not microbats?" to which I agreed. Reversing the question by inferring microbats or fruit bats are also bats of course does not make any sense cause that never has been disputed. Also if reading the article further and especially also the article Yinpterochiroptera it looks like the taxonomy/nomenclature currently is kind in flux anyway due to molecular genetics data. So even the statement "megabats are not microbats" would be kind of wrong in a sense to explain that the group denoted by the common name bats is divided into megabats and microbats. Instead Yinpterochiroptera suggests that there are groups composed of a mix of megabats and microbats based on their genetic relationship. Or more precisely it looks like the group denoted by the common name Bat isn't divided into two distinct groups microbats and megabats but it's more like it is divided into subgroups where you could find both microbats and megabats in each of these subgroups. So I suppose what I am asking for is to add a sentence or two to clarify that especially if using common English respective common names to for instance depict what you see on an image might be imprecise due to the nature that the common name Bat is imprecise or it at least does not qualify to depict something that is shown on an image and additionally recent molecular genetics seem to indicate that genetically differentiating between just fruit non fruit bats due to the evidence given by the molecular genetics data. DanielSHaischt (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Megachiropterids are the fruit bats and they are separated from the Microchiroptera which are the microbats. Some microbats eat fruit, and that’s okay, a common name is not without its faults. Toothed whale mainly consists of dolphins, and that’s okay. Yinterochiroptera is a different organization of the bats to replace the former mega/microbat differentiation, and that’s okay. This is talked about already in the Taxonomy section. Taxonomy changes a lot, but bats are still bats. In the English language, if I point at a flying fox and call it a bat, there is nothing wrong there. That’s as specific as most English speakers get. You’re argument, as I understand, is that if I say “spider,” people typically think of wolf spiders, so talking about daddy long legs in the spider article would be incorrect, and that’s not okay   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I see your problem with the article, but this isn't a scientific article, it's an article for the laymen. Changing it to "Bats" seems to lose sight of your argument, because it still wouldn't differentiate on the scientific level. Wikipedia generally doesn't pluralize nouns for the titles of article either. Your link to Felidae isn't technically "Cats" (it has a redirect). I think what you are really desiring here, is a separate article for Chiroptera, like Felidae has for Cat. A bat in laymen terms, also includes flying foxes, because bat isn't a scientific or technical term.

In other words, if you want to have a Wikipedia article focus on the science and have it be the focus, then your edits are best left for an article dealing with science, such as Chiroptera, or have a subsection within this article. Bat is not strictly a scientific article and encompasses trivial laymen use, because they are the ones that use it by and large. Science, though we love it, is still a narrow field for encyclopedic purposes and not the goal of Wikipedia articles. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I like your proposal to have a separate article covering Chiroptera or have a subsection within this article. My observation and issue that I ran into, and that eventually triggered me adding this proposal, was that on Twitter somebody posted a picture showing a flying fox but called out it would depict a bat. To me it's important to differentiate both from one another cause from an evolutionary PoV microbats and megabats diverged millions of years ago from one another and the natural border of their habitats seems to be the border between the northern and southern hemisphere. Also in science there still seems to be some debate whether flying foxes once had the ability to echo locate and if not why a little fraction of flying foxes these days has this ability (maybe due to convergent evolution). In retrospective I realized it's more like a linguistic issue specific to the English language cause in German we clearly differentiate using either Fledermaus for Bat or Flughund for Megabat. If you would call a Flughund to be a Fledermaus in German that would be simply plain wrong. On the other hand the English language is more precise if it comes to Lemons and Citrons where in German we just call both Zitronen. I as well just noticed that in the German Wikipedia there's a great, long lasting debate that a particular variety of plums is called Zwetschge and there the solution seems to be to simply add a subsection to the article that explains that the term is a non scientific term and thus its pronunciation or writing may vary depending where you currently are in German speaking countries. Tho what I am convinced of is, that if you look at a picture your mental model in your brain is always that of an instance of what you see (here: a flying fox) and not that of a class (here: bat) where for bats unfortunately the term for the instance and the class seems to be the same in the English language.

Yep agree, see above --DanielSHaischt (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think a split or reorg here of this extremely fully reviewed article would be completely wrong, unjustified, and counterproductive. The article is, per Wikipedia policy, named for the common English name of the group, which certainly includes both mega- and microbats. The article, and the animals denoted by the English name, rightly span both the scientific (Chiroptera) and the human (conservation, food, cultural associations): the article covers all these aspects, not simply biology. No, the article is correctly named and structured as it is, as its GA and FA reviewers agree. What German Wikipedia does is its own business; here, we cover topics in this way, as both policy and long custom dictate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

First things first - Neither a split nor a reorg has been proposed. What has been proposed is either adding a new article that is similar to Felidae more scientifically oriented or to add a subsection to this article that explains that in common English the term Bat sometimes is used for both microbats and megabats and thus if using common names that might lead to confusion. Also "What German Wikipedia does is its own business" isn't an argument as such and more specifically it is not an argument cause what I explained is not specific to the German Wikipedia. Instead it was an example of how to deal with linguistic issues and the way such issues have been solved in the Zwetschgen article most likely isn't a standardized way of how things are done in the German Wikipedia anyhow. Also I hope using that argument isn't common to how things are done in the English Wikipedia. If it is I consider to keep focusing on the German Wikipedia and let you do your own businesses. Same applies of course to the argument to not modify a extremely fully reviewed article. If the argument for a change is valid it is my opinion that a change should be considered. Of course if it turns out that the argument is totally invalid a change doesn't make sense. DanielSHaischt (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to make my point clear wrt/ changing a "extremely fully reviewed article", the top of this talk page reads like this "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so". That clearly invalidates the argument to not change an "extremely fully reviewed article". I completely understand how it feels if you spend hours and hours on an article and a complete stranger comes along out of a sudden and wants a change to something that went through an extensive review cycle. Happened to me many times on the German Wikipedia especially once with the Ajax article that got awarded as "Lesenswert" (similar to featured article), and right after the review that led to the Lesenswert award that award did stir a great amount of interest in changing that article where before the award it was hard to find anybody that would have collaborated to enhance the article. So in that regards what I didn't do is simply going ahead changing the article without prior notice like it happened to my wrt/ the Ajax article instead of discussing how such a change could look like. DanielSHaischt (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: Just to be quite clear, I don't only think it's been well reviewed, I think it's correct and per policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Understood, given that your reference to "per policy" regards "The article is, per Wikipedia policy, named for the common English name of the group". That is already something pointed out by Leitmotiv and has not been disputed ever since. Also Leitmotiv did at least two alternative proposals to accommodate the issue I tried to address. DanielSHaischt (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see any significant grounds for confusion here. In English the word 'bat' means both microbats and megabats (at least, according to both Merriam-Webster and the OED), which is exactly what this article covers, per WP:COMMONNAME. Changing the title to the plural wouldn't have any effect on that, even were it policy-compliant, and most people will surely search on the regular English word, not the scientific term. The analogy with Felidae doesn't work, because there is an alternative meaning of the word cat in English - it's most commonly used to refer specifically to the domestic animal, but it can also refer to any other member of the cat family, such as a jaguar or ocelot. There is no such ambiguity with regards to 'bat' when applied to a kind of animal. Anaxial (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

One clarification note wrt/ the argument concerning cat as in Felidae to which I disagree cause IMO it falls short according to my understanding. Per Merriam-Webster cat denotes both domestic cats (as in house cat) and any other cat of the Felidae group/species. So the situation is the same as with bats (as in fruit bat and microbat). Actually this is where the German and English language is congruent in a sense where the term cat (Katze) denotes a group of individual (sub)species including domestic cats where house cat (Hauskatze) denotes a particular group of domestic cat breeds. Yet they all belong to Felidae. That said I don't see the point where the analogy with Felidae gets invalidated. Also I already agreed on the proposal that articles should not be named using scientific names if possible, something which I did not consider in the first place. DanielSHaischt (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

So it seems we all agree the article is not to be renamed, and nearly all of us agree it's not to be split or reorganized either. It might be best not to worry about other languages and other Wikipedias - they aren't relevant here; and arguing from other articles isn't great either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out earlier the phrase "What German Wikipedia does is its own business" isn't an argument either and thus it's either irrelevant if that phrase is used to invalidate an argument amended by an example that illustrates how an issue could be resolved generally and independent of a particular Wikipedia. Also arguing from other articles mentions that drawing an analogy based on an existing source may be totally appropriate in one case where it may be not in another. DanielSHaischt (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing that happens on German Wikipedia is any guide to what we should do here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we all got your point and I already pointed out earlier that I do not only strongly disagree cause your point is invalid but if your opinion in that regards represents the consensus or even policy of how things are done in the English Wikipedia, I let you guys do your thing alone and spend my time on more reasonable things. Your argument is just like refusing to not take any ideas from the Napoleonic Code just cause it is rooted deeply in the french culture. Actually history tells that quite the opposite happened. As said the example of a possible solution I presented is not specific to the German Wikipedia but could have happened elsewhere too. So if you want to stick to your point you have to broaden it in a sense where you refuse to not follow anything worldwide. DanielSHaischt (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's just a statement of fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You didn't mark it as such and you didn't unveil your sources. Also in any way it was never stated that the German Wikipedia should or even must guide what happens on the English Wikipedia. IMO it rather feels like you are doing some sort of hair-splitting here. DanielSHaischt (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Also more importantly everybody made their PoV clear. We did agree on some stuff which is great where we did disagree on some other stuff which is also fine. I also admited that I did not consider some stuff in the first place and I learned that wrt/ bats the English language is less precise compared to the German language. I also already knew that wrt/ Citrons and Lemons the English language is more precise than German did. And as a fun fact if you translate bat back into German you get "Fledermaus" (aka microbat) instead of "Fledertier". Something from which I as well drawn my confusion. That makes me thinking that we were already at a point of having a resolution, of course only if this is "in policy". Tho if amending the actual resolution with some sort of side blows, you intentionally or non intentionally put me in a position to clarify what the initial intent was and what it wasn't cause this is a public source and I don't want my initial intend to be misrepresented or misquoted in any way. It's also okay to make subjective statements instead of objective ones especially if you are personally involved, but if that is the case and if doing so please make it clear that what you are stating is subjective. In the end this is NOT an adversarial takeover and stating "Nothing that happens on German Wikipedia is any guide to what we should do here" makes it look like this is one of the main concerns. DanielSHaischt (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, but I shall feel free to rebut objective error whenever I see it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I made my point clear that it is rude to misrepresent, misinterpret or alter a given statement at will on a public platform which IMO did happen in this context. There's nothing more to be added. DanielSHaischt (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody here did any such thing. I am sorry you found the Fledermaus/Fledertier thing confusing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A video for you all to consider

Hey, I do not want to messi with a featured article. I know they are special and I'd like to keep this one that way. I see there is no video posted on this article of bats in flight. I put one on Wikimedia Commons and have inserted it into articles. I think it would be a good addition to this article, but will leave that decision up to those who have worked so hard on this page. Take a look and someone please post it if enough of you like it. Kind regards everyone. Hu Nhu (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Bats flying from under the Interstate 80 elevated causeway in Yolo County, California.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

You should check your spelling...

         Bats are mammals of the order Chiroptera;[a] with their forelimbs adapted as wings, they are the only mammals naturally capable of true and sustained flight. Bats are more maneuverable than birds, flying with their very long spread-out digits covered with a thin membrane or patagium. The smallest bat, and arguably the smallest extant mammal, is Kitti's hog-nosed bat, which is 29–34 mm (1.14–1.34 in) in length, 15 cm (5.91 in) across the wings and 2–2.6 g (0.07–0.09 oz) in mass. The largest bats are the flying foxes and the giant golden-crowned flying fox, Acerodon just us, which can weigh 1.6 kg (4 lb) and have a wingspan of 1.7 m (5 ft 7 in).

The second largest order of mammals, bats comprise about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide, with over 1,200 species. These were traditionally divided into two suborders: the largely fruit-eating megabats, and the echolocating microbats. But more recent evidence has supported dividing the order into Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera, with megabats as members of the former along with several species of microbats. Many bats are insectivores, and most of the rest are frugivores (fruit-eaters). A few species feed on animals other than insects; for example, the vampire bats feed on blood. Most bats are nocturnal, and many roosts in caves or other refuges; it is uncertain whether bats have these behaviors to escape predators. Bats are present throughout the world, with the exception of extremely cold regions. They are important in their ecosystems for pollinating flowers and dispersing seeds; many tropical plants depend entirely on bats for these services.

Bats provide humans with some benefits, at the cost of some threats. Bat dung has been mined as guano from caves and used as fertilizer. Bats consume insect pests, reducing the need for pesticides. They are sometimes numerous enough to serve as tourist attractions and are used as food across Asia and the Pacific Rim. They are natural reservoirs of many pathogens, such as rabies; and since they are highly mobile, social, and long-lived, they can readily spread disease. In many cultures, bats are popularly associated with darkness, malevolence, witchcraft, vampires, and death.

That is how everything should be. 2602:304:5698:9429:196F:E85:A42B:CA10 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  00:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Interwiki

Why is there no link to Human uses of bats? 195.187.108.4 (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize somebody had split that off, I made a link to it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

Change Citation #9 "Collearya" to "Colleary" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4611652/ 2600:1700:8B80:31C0:694E:4D8F:D115:87E3 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Flipkart

2409:4062:2E12:7CD3:2666:67BD:EF91:7CAF (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Bats in Iceland?

On the distribution map, the southern part of Iceland is included as a habitat for bats. What is the source for this? Bats are not part of Iceland's fauna and there are only a few stray cases of the sighting of bats. According to the University of Iceland (https://www.visindavefur.is/svar.php?id=3914) there have only been 14 confirmed cases of bat sightings in Iceland since 1817, most of them not in southern Iceland. These stray cases of bat sightings is not enough to consider Iceland a habitat for bats. In comparison, there are also occasional sightings of polar bears in Iceland, including 3 cases in the current century, but that does not mean Iceland is considered a habitat for polar bears and the Wikipedia article on polar bears reflects that in the map of distribution. The same should apply to bats and the map of distribution needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.17.152.124 (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

I just want to add a reference to the number os species ("with over 1,400 species"). The reference is: Simmons, N.B. and A.L. Cirranello. 2020. Bat Species of the World: A taxonomic and geographic database. Accessed on 08/18/2021. Available at <https://batnames.org/explore.html> Ladeira42 (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It's already cited in the article body, doesn't need a separate citation for the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Source

Publication in case you want to use it: The evolution of flight in bats: a novel hypothesis Sciencia58 (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kushanna, Julisymmons. Peer reviewers: Adriennescarcella.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NyQuildrops, Cortez713. Peer reviewers: Nsabo, Cortez713, Biologicalamphibian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Josephlinger, Clasonp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

Change "Bats are more maneuverable than most birds" to "bats are more agile in flight than most birds". 69.165.227.98 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Zippybonzo | talk 16:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022

In section 3.6.1 Torpor there is an incorrect claim made due to a misreading of the citation material and should be removed.

"Around 97% of all microbats use torpor." which cites reference 106:

Geiser, F.; Stawski, C. (2011). "Hibernation and Torpor in Tropical and Subtropical Bats in Relation to Energetics, Extinctions, and the Evolution of Endothermy". Integrative and Comparative Biology. 51 (3): 337–338. doi:10.1093/icb/icr042.

The paper includes the following text "The 10 families containing heterothermic species, which are distributed into the tropics/subtropics number 1079 or 96.7% of the currently recognized 1116 species (Wilson and Reeder 2005). Obviously, not all of these species are likely to be heterothermic, and only ∼35 species have been confirmed to be, but based on current data a large number of tropical/subtropical bats are likely to employ torpor for conserving energy." The 96.7% (from which the 97% is derived) refers to the number of bat species that are in families that include heterotherms, and even then states that the majority but not all of those may employ torpor.

This misreading probably comes from the confusing phrasing in the abstract of the paper: "Overall, torpor in the tropics/subtropics has been reported for 10 out of the currently recognized 18 bat families, which contain 1079 species, or 96.7% of all bats."

Therefore the claim that 97% of microbats use torpor is incorrect and should be removed. Also, the original claim from the paper was not even just about microbats; I don't know how that got changed.

ZonKonigin (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@ZonKonigin: Sorry it took so long for someone to notice your request. Thanks for pointing this out! — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)