Talk:Megabat

message: I just followed a link for "fruit bat" and found myself on a page called "megabat," which I'd never heard of. I Googled "megabat" and got 219,000 results versus "fruit bat," which yields 52.4 million. So why is this article called "megabat" and not "fruit bat"? I think it should be called the latter. DBlomgren (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fruit bat" refers to any bat that eats fruit.  There are many frugivorous bats that aren't "megabats," particularly in Phyllostomidae. This article is about a taxonomic group, Megachiroptera. While most Megachiropterans are frugivorous, some are nectarivorous. Referring to Pteropodidae/megabats as "fruit bats" is imprecise and could create confusion regarding New World frugivorous bats. Enwebb (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside. The Australian flora provides large amount of pollen, and possibly forms a significant component in their diet, and there is a word I can't find again that describes that type of food consumption. cygnis insignis 07:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , the world you're looking for is Palynivore :) Enwebb (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why use "megabat" instead of "fruit bat"? 

message: "We've always been very suspicious of bats," I would argue that is a cultural thing, but if it stops people eating them …? Anyway, the mention of ebola turns up in a few articles, and a little overstated in a couple of examples, eg Little_collared_fruit_bat#Connection_to_Ebola_virus I note where mention of ebola, that was wedged against an unrelated citation, has been removed, and agree obvi, but wonder what is left to say about correlation (and lack of causation?) in the articles. Any comments would be helpful if I hunt out the mentions of ebola to see if it matches what is known. cygnis insignis 07:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , thanks for the suggestions. I plan on continuing to work on this article while awaiting the GA review (and I'm hoping to go straight for FA after that), so there's definitely still work to be done, including what you're pointing out above. Some of this might be better added to the Pteropus article, such as barbed wire entanglement and the whiplash over whether or not they're pests or vulnerable (or does any of that apply to megabats outside Pteropus?). Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, definitely GA already. I've noted that barbed wire stuff and pest stuff at species, but see what you mean and should read the taxonomy section before I mention which ones (checking they are currently classified as megabats). The historical bits I did on Pteropus natalis are like a synopsis of their vulnerability and decline, I should prepare a summary for the genus if you haven't already done that. I will get out of your way now, thanks again for the great reads, very helpful to me at the moment. cygnis insignis 15:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

text: P.S. And yes, the nose-flute bat in Australia, and probably anywhere else they use barbed wire (maybe Papua, Indonesia) cygnis insignis 15:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bats and ebola 

message: This article looks in pretty good shape actually....a couple of things...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-FAC feedback 

message: A very fine, well-written and comprehensive article. There were a few too many "however"s and "though"s and I hope you'll agree it reads better with them trimmed back.
A couple of things that struck me:
 Japan, as an island chain, doesn't have a mainland. There are five main islands; is this what's meant? Or Honshu, the largest one? As it stands, it is very unclear.
Also, how did this article end up in American English? It's about animals which only live in countries that use the other spelling, as far as I can see.
Otherwise, a very fine read. Well done. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , the article is written in American English because I have written >90% of it and that is the English variant I use. Given that this family is found in many countries, if it were to be rewritten (if it is found that MOS:TIES outweighs MOS:RETAIN), I'm not sure how it could be decided which English variant is the "right one" (Pakistani English, Indian English, Australian English, Nigerian English, Philippine English, South African English...). I have started a discussion question here about whether it's been discussed before. Enwebb (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I wonder if a note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling is also worth doing? Any thoughts on the geography question? --The Huhsz (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified; they aren't found on the five main islands, but rather some of the smaller archipelagos to the south. Thanks for the catch. Enwebb (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't have a clear tie to a specific country with a specific spelling, what counts is what the article was first written in, apparently. The original version doesn't seem to have specifics of either, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well played on the geographical correction, that's clearer. Of course it would be silly to be chauvinistic about these things, but it struck me that many readers would expect an article about an animal found in Australia, India and South Africa (which all use UK spelling) to be written in UK or "Commonwealth" spelling. If the original version is inconclusive, this may be the best way to go, if the main editor would be happy with that. AFAIK the Philippines is the only part of the megabat's range where US spelling is the norm.  --The Huhsz (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

text: , my preference would be (given that it is unclear if this constitutes "strong regional ties") that you start an RfC to establish consensus to make the change. Enwebb (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I lack the motivation to do this, partly because it doesn't really matter as long as the spelling in the article is consistent (it wasn't for a recent TFA). I also wouldn't want to show disrespect to a writer of such a generally decent article. If there was such an RfC I would support changing it to Commonwealth English, just as an article on a bear which lived in Canada, the US and Mexico would automatically use American English. But it really isn't that big of a deal for me. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The emerging body of thought over at the discussion post I started at the Tree of Life is that organisms aren't generally thought to have "strong ties", and MOS:RETAIN is broadly applicable to taxonomic groups. Enwebb (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. It's likely others may raise this when the article is at TFA so I've notified Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling to see what the folks there think. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Taxonomy is in a state of flux. Some species have been synonymized since then, while others have likely been newly described.Enwebb (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'd suggest either updating the number with a more recent source (preferable) or else use the past tense as suggested. --The Huhsz (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple of things