Talk:Little brown bat

message: A new article pygmy sand bat has been created, which while not wikified etc.. yet looks like a duplicate of this article but has more content. External link - [little brown bat]  - seems to show  that Little brown bat is the correctly named starting point Peripitus 00:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have added this flag in response to an invalid citation by Frederick_athey for content added by the same. I am not sure what the intent of the malformed citation is, but it appears to be someone citing himself. This is a violation of WP:NOR. I will leave the content in the article for now because I have no reason to doubt it, but I will remove the invalid reference. Please add a reference to a published work containing this information. Autumn Wind (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the OR tag was removed claiming "no reason given." Perhaps I didn't thoroughly explain, but if you look at the 00:15, 6 February 2013 version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_brown_bat&oldid=536819471 It should be obvious that the user attempted to cite himself for the content. Autumn Wind (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: Little Brown Bats are, in fact, on the U.S endangered species list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.143.42 (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endangered  

message: The infobox edits by User:108.41.6.238, changing the status of Myotis lucifugus from "LC" (Least Concern) to "EN" (Endangered) is not supported by the current IUCN Red List category, updated most recently in 2008.  Nor does "Brown Bat" or "Little Brown Bat" appear on the current Endangered Species List of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Accordingly, I reverted these edits. -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: IUCN Red List

message: Point taken above, but this article from the reputable Smithsonian mag suggests that there is serious concern for this species.  Can someone of a more biological persuasion sort this out?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnitzi (talk • contribs) 11:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Smithsonian article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Little brown 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/20100203174224/https://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/9/pdf/pub371.pdf to http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/9/pdf/pub371.pdf
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) 00:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: what would you think about restructuring the biology section? I think "diet and foraging" would absorb the diet subsection as well as echolocation. The "roosting" section can be absorbed in other areas too--in range and habitat, we can talk about roosting and foraging habitat. Basically I think that the existing sections are not intuitive and could be combined into something that resembles what's on Pteropus. I like the parasite section, though! If you want to expand beyond parasites we could talk more about rabies/white nose in terms of pathophysiology instead of how they're described in later sections. Just some ideas bouncing around my brain. Enwebb (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything. Roosting makes much more sense in the habitat section and echolocation makes more sense in a foraging section, but I'm unsure of what a section including parasites, infections, and diseases would be called. There's probably a simple term but I can't think of it off the top of my head... Anyways, on the topic of moving sections, I'm not very fond of subsections with just a few lines, so I would like to either combine the shorter sections or expand them if either is possible. Other than that, I plan to work on expanding the roost section and moving it to "Distribution and habitat" tomorrow. Best regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm maybe "Predation and disease"? Then we could add in other predators, parasites, and disease. Or we could retitle "conservation" with "mortality and conservation" and have those factors there. Enwebb (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Predation and disease" would be perfect. Conservation is human motivated so I don't think it would mesh well with parasites/predation. Great idea! Pagliaccious (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  restructuring biology