Talk:Big-eared flying fox

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big-eared flying fox article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Mammals: Bats Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Bats Task Force (assessed as Low-importance).

Indonesia Low‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

invalid statement

Exclude the parenthetical insertion, which can and does happen when read or parsed, and the first line reads:

The big-eared flying fox is a species of bat in the family Pteropodidae, larger bats who subsist largely on fruits.

The premise "big-eared flying fox is a species of bat" is invalid, the 'consensus' at the english wikipedia that says otherwise has been rigorously applied in often semi-automated edits. That doesn't change what is obviously a licensed premise, that any common name is the species name. I find this very awkward to word correctly in a lead, an unnecessary handicap to discussing the concepts involved. Repeating what was certainly invented vernacular to supply another name for the current taxonomic concept goes against the grain for me, based on core policies strongly supported by consensus and defying the evident will to suppress the actual name when those few decided this was how it was going to be. cygnis insignis 10:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just MOS:RETAIN here? I'm not following you around changing what you do to the lead formatting. I would prefer you didn't do that to articles I've built up, either. Enwebb (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Enwebb: This is not good. I hadn't been looking at it from that perspective, and now it is clear you do I will be avoiding anything that suggests 'following you around' or messing with things you are invested in. Please accept my apology where I was unable to avoid giving that impression, it wont happen again, deep respect for your contributions will mean I avoid any overlap. cygnis insignis 14:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]