Talk:Hill's sheath-tailed bat

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).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Australia: Northern Territory / Western Australia / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Hill's sheath-tailed bat is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Northern Territory (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia, or the Northern Territory Library.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hill's sheath-tailed 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140627094911/http://www.iucnredlist.org/ to http://www.iucnredlist.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Enwebb: Hi again. Good to know these are getting another pair of eyes, not too hard on them I hope :-) I note you restored the navbar, which I removed for what I think are good reasons, but if your preference is for them to remain I will stop doing that. cygnis insignis 17:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis insignis Ah, I didn't even notice that you removed it--I thought it was just missing. I believe nearly all the bat articles have one, and I've gone through most of the navbar templates lately to update taxonomy. Why do you remove them, just curious? I don't feel strongly about them either way, but I do like consistency. Enwebb (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: circling back to this. What's your rationale for removing the navbar, again? Like I said, I believe it's in the neighborhood of 90%+ bat species articles have a navbar. Enwebb (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enwebb, I don't think content should be transcluded without a good reason, and I only see reasons not to create them. I noticed that you have been maintaining at least one, thankfully, so at least it is not outright contradicting something in the articles is on the watchlist of someone who cares about the topic. Someone looked at a series of stubs and saw the opportunity to transclude the contents of one of the categories, or a list, into every member of that category, or list, or taxobox in the case of taxa as a unverifiable link dump. The answer to an enquiry 'what links here' includes everything in the hidden nav box, not a meaningful link in the article text. Lacking citations, redundant, less than thoughtful, not harmless, yet vigorously defended by their creators so I try to ignore them. cygnis insignis 08:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]