Talk:Kitti's hog-nosed bat

Untitled

ето МАХ,всем емо,готам,панкам прива

• The "==Famous==" section is cute and would be fine for a school report or personal page, but IMHO not quite appropriate for Wikipedia. Jorge Stolfi 04:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I have merged this page with Bumblebee bat (lowercase bat), removing the non-encyclopedic stuff. Alas, it seems that the original Bumblebee Bat page was a copy from this page] by Tim Menzies from Portland State Univ. Presumably the pictures are copyvios, too...
  Jorge Stolfi 02:58, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• The WikiSyntax project flagged the last line of text, and I couldn't figure out what it was supposed to be, so I deleted it. I am hoping that if it was an actual typo, somebody is watching this page and can put it back in the correct format. The text that was removed was:

gjreuioapgnraustellaluna/florin.htm Stella Luna]

wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 21:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I did a bit of digging. That odd link that was removed was a vandalization of the External links section. I will replace the whole section. PrometheusX303 17:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Stella Luna

* [http://kids-learn.org/stellaluna/florin.htm Stella Luna]

This page adds no information whatsoever. Cute children drawings add no information, no matter how cute they are. I'm removing it from the External links section. 201.3.221.186 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• This article was created as "bumblebee bat" with a redirect from "Kitti's hog-nosed bat". Recently an anonymous user swapped the two articles, without giving a reason for the move. Furthermore, the move was done using cut-and-paste, which caused most of the original article's history to be lost.
  If no one can provide a justification for the move, I propose to undo it. A bit of the history will be lost, though. Is there a better solution? Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have histmerged Bumblebee Bat to Kitti's Hog-nosed Bat. (Bumblebee bat was previously merged to Bumblebee Bat before cut & paste to Kitti's Hog-nosed Bat.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article review

I'll read through more carefully soon, but just four points for starters

1. The intro is completely inadequate, with entire sections not mentioned. See Wikipedia:Lead section
2. The article title has the English name, so why is the bat referred to by its binomial throughout? Fixed.
3. No imperial conversions are given for units contra MOS Fixed.
4. Refs 5,9 and 10 have "retrieved on..." but are journals, with no apparent web link. Even if they are on the web, format as [url title] in ref, and leave off "retrieved" Fixed.
5. I picked up a couple of errors on the first read, might be worth having a careful copyedit - also avoid drifting between singular and plural

Jimfbleak (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I'll try my best to fix all of these today. As for the copy-edit, I'll look through it again but I'll also try to find another set of eyes to check it. Enok^talk 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• intro better, need something on appearance (reddish-brown with distinctive snout?) I don't think you can avoid some repetition, but you don't need to repeat refs that occur later for the same info
• Headings not a pass/fail issue, but "Description" instead of "Anatomy and Morphology" , "Behaviour" instead of "Ecology" and "Taxonomy" instead of taxonomic history would be more standard and more user friendly, but up to you Fixed.
• Anatomy Weight range for the shrew surely cannot be correct. Also need conversions for shrew's weight and length. Wow, thank you. It was accidentally changed by a previous editor and went unnoticed for quite a while. Fixed.
• Range run together first two sentences, ideally minimum 3 sentences per paragraph, link or gloss "morphology" Done.
• Ecology Do they roost in the breeding caves at all? I wonder if "false pelvic nipple" needs any clarification?
• Taxonomy perhaps clarify that the common and binomial names both commemorate Kitti? Done.
• Refs are OK. The image rationale convinces me although I'm no expert on copyright. Prose and grammar are fine.

It's not far off now. Incidentally, I took on this review because I wrote another Kitti species, the White-eyed River Martin! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I still have to fix the intro, but I am having difficulty finding any additional information about the bat's reproduction. Most sources simply say it is "not well known" or just mention what I've already said about a single annual offspring, so I'm not sure how to expand it any further. As for the false pelvic nipple, I have redescribed it as a pair of "vestigial pubic nipple[s]" as this seems to be a more common phrasing. Enok^talk 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

You can't add what's not known, the article's fine as is. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Size of groups in caves?

In paragraph 2, the article says:

Colonies range greatly in size, with an average of 100 individuals per cave.

If indeed colonies vary greatly in size, rather than stating a bald average it would be better to give a range, e.g. (values made up):

Colonies range greatly in size, ranging from just a few individuals to more than a thousand per cave.

-- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Endangered status

Every other site that has information about the bumblebee bat has it as endangered, not vulnerable, as it is listed here. Could someone do some research into that and fix it if it turns out to be wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.139.191 (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• The IUCN re-reviewed the species since this article was first written and updated their status to vulnerable, hence the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.62.131 (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Brain Implications

Have there been any studies on the structure of this animal's brain? According to the article, it can socialize, care for young, perform the complex operation of powered flight, identify prey and hunt on the wing, navigate within a kilometer radius of its roost during hunts, and undertake long migrations. Yet, this animal weighs a mere two grams as an adult, and its brain must be so small as to be nigh-invisible. Arguably, these aren't "intelligent" behaviors, but nevertheless the ratio between the size of this bat's brain and the relative complexity of its behaviors surely does something to challenge the usual notions relating brain size to intelligence. --68.222.31.203 (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting behavior and it is only recently as far as I know that this sort of question is being seriously explored (I am thinking of Alex the African Grey parrot being the first such bird seriously studied.) I wonder how easy studying this bat would be. But it is certainly true that some bats are very "intelligent", doing things like remembering other bats who helped them out; actually, wasps seem to even remember previous interactions that established dominance and do not continue to fight after the first time.

The question is so important perhaps because it may make us re-evaluate the function of the brain within complex behavior.--Jrm2007 (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Missing photo?

Not sure whether there was a photo of the bat itself, but if not, there really needs to be. I know I've seen pics of this one in news articles and such, so there must be more than one or two pics. 69.132.53.87 (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is really no way this kind of an article can be considered GA status without a photograph or at least a sketch. 69.171.160.201 (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This photo should work, but I've asked on the Help Desk to be sure. 69.171.160.201 (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)