# Talk:Common vampire bat

The following two statements seem pretty contradictory (both from this articl):
However, they don’t suck the blood of their "victims".
The groove in the lower lip and a groove in the under side of the tongue together forms a straw-like structure enabling the bat to suck up the blood rather than lap it.

Have changed the wording somewhat to avoid the confusion - it may not be very elegant but it is important I think to dispel the common misapprehension that vampire bats sort of "latch" on to their "victims" and suck the blood directly out of them. Maybe someone could work out a more elegant way of saying all this???? John Hill 22:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)WOW

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about common English names for birds and animals. The general consensus is to capitalise common Enlgish names of animals as follows: Cuban Red Macaw - or thousands of other such names in the Wikipedia. See almost any field guide of animals to find more examples of this convention in use. Also, look to see how these English names are written in the papers given as references to this article.
Now, there seems to be some confusion here with editors - possibly because of the use of the word "common" in the name of this bat. But, "common" here is used as part of a proper name in English and, therefore, the English name of this bat should be rendered, "Common Vampire Bat," as that is its proper name inidicating its species - "common" is not being used here as an adjective - but as part of a proper name. This is done precisely so that there will be no confusion. When one writes "Common Vampire Bat" one is specifying that one is referring to a member of a particular species - not just any old common type of vampire bat. There is a huge difference in meaning between writing (for example): "I saw a common vampire bat," and "I saw a Common Vampire Bat." 
So, I will go through the article again and correct the proper names again. If anyone has a disagreement on this point, would they please discuss it here first before making changes so we avoid getting into an edit war? Thank you, Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We only need to capitalise common names of animals if they are named after a place or person, for example; European rabbit or Dall's porpoise. For other things, lower case is prefered; like blue whale or spotted hyena. They are not legitimate to capitalize regardless of being a proper name or adjective. See here and here. LittleJerry (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You have only given two websites which use lower case as references (and don't even discuss this issue) to justify wiping out my changes. I asked you to look at the references given to this article which - at least most of them - come from peer-reviewed journals to see how they write the names (and shouldn't we be following what acknowledged experts in the field do in regards to common names?). Apparently, you seem to think 2 websites are more reliable than these articles. Also, your action does not answer the problem I pointed out concerning confusion that is averted by using capitals - i.e. "a common vampire bat" compared to "a Common Vampire Bat". Additionally, you haven't answered my request that you look at field guides to see how they write the names. So, I will reverse, your changes once again. Finally, have a look at how bat common names are usually written in the Wikipedia. A good place to start is on the Bat page with Kitti's Hog-nosed Bat being an example or try the Western Sucker-footed Bat for just one of hundreds of other examples. If you are still not happy with this, please take up the issue with an Administrator before making further changes. Yours, John Hill (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Note 2. I have finally discovered Wikipedia's notes on naming conventions with English common names - which can be found at: [1] which states: "For specific groups of organisms, there are specific rules of capitalisation based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms. These should ordinarily be followed:
Official common names of birds are normally capitalised
Common names of dragonflies, moths, and butterflies may be capitalised
Common names of rodents normally use sentence case
Common names of cetaceans normally use sentence case"
They leave us a bit up in the air as they don't specifically mention bats. However, in our article here we can see that the authorities given in the references do capitalise the names - bat specialists have seemingly adopted the conventions used by ornithologists and, as I have pointed out twice above, this does prevent unnecessary confusion (i.e. common vampire bat compared to Common Vampire Bat). Again, I believe that, where there is no clear ruling, whatever promotes clarity is prefereable, and there can be little doubt (especially in this case of the Common Vampire Bat) that capitalisation promotes clarity. So, I propose to retain the capitalisation. If you still do not agree with me, please raise the issue with the administrators before changing anything again. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You have access to the full articles? Because arguing that they captilize based on the titles is meaningless. They also capitalized "Soical Grooming" ect. If the those websites aren't enough, then heres a link to one of the referenced articles. The paper itself uses lower case. It is also the case here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have access to some of the original papers. The truth is that some people use capitals in the names (and not just in the headings), and some don't. Dr. Pawan apparently did not, while Dr. Greenhall capitalised all the common names in his articles. 
So, where does that get us? I believe that in this field (as opposed to ornithology) it is a matter of personal choice and, therefore, in this article at least we have three things to think of: 1. Clarity. As I mentioned above capitalising Common Vampire Bat prevents confusion with any old common vampire bat. Likewise, with the name False Vampire Bat it is immediately clear that we are talking of a species of bat not just any old false vampire bat. 2. Earliest use. If you go back to the earliest versions of this article in the history page, you will see that the name "Common Vampire Bat" is first used with capitals in this article, even in the text. So, what justification can be given for changing this? 3. Common use. More and more these days, one finds naturalists adopting the system pioneered by ornithologists of capitalising common names. I don't have a good field guide of bats here, but various recent field guides that I do have here of butterflies, plants, insects and mammals all capitalise the common names, and in a general guide to the wildlife of our region published by the Quensland Museum, Wildlife of Tropical North Queensland, ALL the animals have their common names capitalised, including all the many species of bats listed. This is also true of the books on wildlife written by naturalists (and I have many), most of whom capitalise the common names. So, with all these factors in favour of retaining the capitalisations, please leave them alone. In fact, I would call on taxonomists in all biological fields to follow the example of ornithologists years ago and insist that all common names be capitalised - to maintain conformity and promote clarity. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You made a good case, I'll live it at that. LittleJerry (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Common Vampire Bat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Stemonitis (talk • contribs • count) 07:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read the article in detail yet, but a few problems leap out at me. Some of these are obvious but not significant, while others will take rather more work.

The genus shouldn't be in boldface in the taxobox, and you shouldn't link to the year in the authority.
Pest, linked to in the lead, is a disambiguation page.
A few parts of the text are without references. I'm assuming that some references are for the preceding several sentences, but the last two sentences of Physical description are without references, as is Relationship with humans from "Although one should not have an unreasonable fear..." onwards, for instance.
Some units could do with conversions, which also ensures proper formatting – the "130m" in Physical description, for instance, and the "175 miles" in Range and habitat.
The references contain several bare URLs, as do the external links. The use of templates like {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and so on is not required for a GA pass, but is extremely useful for ensuring the various references are formatted the same and in accordance with the Manual of Style.
The IUCN link is under External links, even though it is presumably the reference for the conservation status in the taxobox; the conservation status should also be mentioned in the text, presumably in the Relationship with humans section.
Once these initial problems are dealt with, I will return for a more detailed reading, focussing more on the content and the writing. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The article does not mention taxonomy at all. There are in fact several other species of Desmodus known from the (very) recent past, such as Desmodus draculae and Desmodus puntajudensis. I'll leave it to Stemonitis to decide whether that means the article is not "broad in its coverage". Ucucha (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I just tried to read the article in more detail, and didn't get far before having to stop, I'm afraid. The whole thing appears to need considerable proof-reading. Please read it through carefully, or ask someone from the Guild of Copy Editors to have a look. For instance, the first three sentences include:

"backside" where presumably "back" is meant ("backside" means "buttocks"),
a missing verb ("They a well-developed clawed thumb..."),
and a lack of verb agreement ("thumb [...] are use[d] to climb on prey").
At the moment, therefore, this article fails criterion 1 of WP:WIAGA. Aside from issues of grammar and spelling (note that "[o]estrous" is an adjective, while "[o]estrus" is the noun – that won't be picked up by spell checkers), the tone seems a little informal for an encyclopaedia in places, and there are still facts that require citation which have none (detecting 0.5 mm wires, or only 0.5% of bats carrying rabies, for example). Ucucha is also right to point out that the species needs to be better placed in its taxonomic and systematic context. Who described it, and when? How does it differ from related species? Its relatives are mentioned in the lead, but not thereafter. I would also like to see more about its ecology, but if its ecological range really is that broad, I understand there may be little we can say. When the prose is fixed, and the taxonomy described, we must also work on re-writing the lead as an accurate summary of the article, but I would leave that task until last. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The I withdraw my nomination. LittleJerry (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary. There's a lot of good material, and most of the work towards producing a Good Article has already been done. I just think it will take a bit more before it's ready. I really think that some assistance from WP:GCE would improve it a lot, and from there, it's only a couple of paragraphs away from being passed. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I started copy editing this article today for the GA re-review.  I've only done a few sections so far, but I had a few questions (quotes from this version):

"Vampire bats have sexual dimorphism in favor of females, a trait unusual among bats." In favor of what? Size? Behavior? Chutzpah? Some clarification would be nice.
"Experiments have should that their capabilities have a threshold of identitying 1 cm mm wires at 50 cm, which is moderate compared to another bats."Is it cm or mm?  I assumed mm because a cm would make for one hell of a wire, but correct me if I'm wrong. Needless to say I corrected the spelling.
"It can be found as far north as 175 mi from the US border." From the border in which direction?  I assumed it meant 175 miles south of the border, i.e. there are none of these bats in the US.  I converted miles to kilometers for the sake of consistency.
"Vampire bats can thermoregulate down to 0°C." Do you mean that they can lower their body temperature to zero degrees at will? Or that they can survive in temperatures as low as zero degrees?  I assumed the latter.
I'll finish the rest up tomorrow.  I may have overstepped the bounds of copy-editor in some cases. I completely changed a couple sentences describing their hair color, for instance, but I based my changes on the sources provided, and I added footnotes to whatever changes I did make.  It's been my pleasure working on this article so far, and I certainly appreciate all the work that you (all) have done to get it to this point.  I hope to see this through to GA status.  I'm a newb when it comes to copy-editing, so any constructive criticism would be appreciated.  Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your good work here. There is no need to apologize if you have just made changes backed by the sources which make the article clearer and more accurate. Good work! I am sorry I am not able to help you with your questions above except to say that, as far as I can determine, the Common Vampire Bat has not been found in U.S. territory. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Request for clarification: Could a qualified editor please investigate this sentence and rewrite/clarify:  They feed in a distance of 5 to 8 km (3.1 to 5.0 mi) from their roosts.[24]  Does this mean "they usually feed at a distance of 0 to 5 km but sometimes as far as 8 km"?  Or that "they usually feed no less than 5 km away and as much as 8 km away"?  Thank you.  146.115.70.68 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

D. puntajudensis was recognised as a synonym of this species, formerly an article and now redirecting here. Included in that article is the following 

Orihuela, Johanset (January 2010). "Late Holocene Fauna from a Cave Deposit in Western Cuba: post-Columbian occurrence of the Vampire BatDesmodus rotundus(Phyllostomidae: Desmodontinae)". Caribbean Journal of Science. 46 (2–3): 297–312. doi:10.18475/cjos.v46i2.a17. ISSN 0008-6452.
… which may need to be noted in the distribution range of the species, as I note above this was previously excluded as a separate species. cygnis insignis 06:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)