Talk:Megabat/Archive 1

Untitled

Article merged: See old talk-page here —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSteve (talk • contribs) 10:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just added some images...I feel someone else should place them. :p

¦ Reisio 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Fruit bat

"It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with fruit bat. (Discuss)"

I would make two suggestions. First a merge with [fruit bat] would tidy up a bit of a mess, where two pages have shared subject matter.

Secondly, microbats are listed under [microbats] and redirected from [Microchiroptera]. There is no entry for Megachiroptera and this should be rationalised. The preference for a reference work like Wikipedia should be to use the scientific names for the articles and redirect from the common names like fruit bat and [Megabat]. The various common names should be discussed on the merged page.

While the articles are being merged, can we improve on the paragraph:

"Because of their large size and somewhat "spectral" appearance, megabats are sometimes used in horror movies to represent vampires or to lend an aura of spookiness. In reality, as noted, the bats of this group are frugivorous and not dangerous to human beings."

This suggests that Microchiroptera are dangerous to human beings. Bats have a bad press and it should be emphasised that all but perhaps vampire bats represent no direct threat to humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keoka (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the merge has introduced duplicate material - a duplicated paragraph on classification, and two different lists of genera - in addition to the section I've just deleted. Also, is it appropriate to have a paragraph on a newly discovered species in this article? Lavateraguy (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that is appropriate. Species should get their own articles, not sections in this one. There is definitely a lot of duplication now! Helikophis (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with the Article Leslie George "[[Fruitbat]" Carter, a British musician that links to this page (i think fruitbat was a disambiguation page). Could s.o. please fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.179.126 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

info from Pteropus page

I've moved the following text from Pteropus to Talk:Pteropus because it seems to apply to megabats in general rather than to that species. I'm copying it here as well, in case this page's editors want to incorporate it.

Easily discernible from their smaller relatives, the Microchiroptera, they are clearly recognizable by their long muzzle and are often described as having a dog-like face. Most megachiroptera species are harmless, feeding on fruit and pollen. Despite their dog or mouse like facial appearance they are more closely related to humans than rodents or canines. Their wings in particular have many similarities to the human hand. In fact the word bat comes from the Greek term for 'hand wing'. By contrast the smaller Chiroptera sub-order typically has a flatter face.

--Allen 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the bit about relationships is based on an older notion of mammal relationships. Genetic results have failed to support the idea that primates and bats are related. Instead, bats are part of the Laurasiatheria. Out of this list of humans, rodents, and dogs, their closest relative would be dogs. --Aranae 12:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola

I am disappointed that you are only using "news paper" and "news feed" as reference. On top of that you're misinterpreting the articles. In the reference 4, "Deadly Marburg virus discovered in fruit bats". msnbc. August 21, 2007. Retrieved 2008-03-11, it is written that "It’s not yet clear if bats are that reservoir. They could be getting infected just like people, Towner said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thydenou (talk • contribs) 07:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent connections between fruit bats and the Ebola virus, is this statement still accurate?
"the bats of this group are herbivorous and not at all dangerous to human beings." Alvis 07:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to above:

Please refer to new information regarding bats and the Ebola virus: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/26/news/snbats.php. I think the statement remains accurate.

comment. I see it like this: the bats are not at all dangerous to human beings but the Ebola virus is dangerous to human beings. It is as if we said that dogs are deadly to humans because of rabies. --Francisco Valverde 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Link

The link for the genus Nyctimene links to a page of the same name, but totally different meaning. It offers redirection for the bat, but just brings you back to the first page. 71.226.90.37 23:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)william[reply]

Do not merge

"Fruit bat" is a misleading term, and is not exclusively applied to pteropodids. Many phyllostomid bats are also frugivores, and could properly be called "fruit bats." Tomwithanh 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve contradiction

Can someone knowledgeable about bats please take a look at the first two paragraphs and resolve a contradiction?

The first paragraph states: "Megabats is the term formerly used to refer to fruit bats of the family Pteropodidae. It was thought that they constituted a suborder (Megachiroptera) within the order Chiroptera (bats)."

The second paragraph contradicts this by asserting: "Fruit bats constitute a single suborder, the Megachiroptera, within the order Chiroptera (i.e., bats)."

Which is correct? —CKA3KA (Skazka) (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

identical images

there are two identical images on the page so i am removing the smaller one.Leif edling (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for the goodness sake of the eye balls of all!

for the sake of assisting humans' normal eyesights, i hope the author of the pictures could find a way to alter the picture to be upside-down, again, to give good pictures of the bats. it's quite ok to laptop users but not to those with classic CRT or big size LCD monitors users to turn upside-down on them. you know what i mean.
Xmlv (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

flying cows

Are Nanonycteris really known as "little flying cows", as the end of the article states? Following the link shed no useful information. It doesn't appear to be vandalism, but it doesn't exactly sound credible either. (Feel free to delete this paragraph once the entry has been either fixed or elaborated upon.) 69.223.44.158 (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oral Sex

Wasn't it recently discovered that Chinese fruit bats are the only non-human species to partake in fellatio during sex? Why isn't that mentioned somewhere in the article? --TwilightDuality (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because this is an encyclopedia, not some perv site.01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)73.18.173.40 (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fruit bat and monty python

Why not mentioning the appearance of fruit bats in Monty Python's oeuvre? There is Eric the fruit bat in the Fish Licence Sketch (http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/fish.html) and one phrase in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/quotes). And considering the importance of Monty Python for 20th century pop culture, IMHO it could be worth a sentence. --Hermannus (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit bats are doubtless mentioned in a number of places, I don't see any reason to suppose this is a notable fact about fruit bats (it may be a notable fact about Monty Python). Unless we can demonstrate some wider relevance to their appearance here - that it's influenced other artists, for example. Anaxial (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that opinion. It pains me to see "Cultural reference" sections with numerous "x is mentioned in y." Way too low in relevance, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:TRIVIA. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More information

This didn't have any good information in it. I didn't see anything about were they live in the world, how many babies they give birth to at a time, or anything I really wanted to know. I also think that the disease resovoirs section was a huge waste of space.

More information

This didn't have any good information in it. I didn't see anything about were they live in the world, how many babies they give birth to at a time, or anything I really wanted to know. I also think that the disease resovoirs section was a huge waste of space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.20.185.61 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!

someone please tell me where they live! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.20.185.61 (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Batcave, right? ;) 83.254.154.164 (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of bats deserves to be a list

The list of bats of the family needs to be in a wikipedia list. I plan to move it out to a newly created list. Any objections? AshLin (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution

This article lacks a distribution section, which is considered important for such a prominent article. I might attempt one at some point. Help is appreciated. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Megabat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102162244/http://www.allaboutrodrigues.com/Rodrigues+Fruit+Bats.html to http://www.allaboutrodrigues.com/Rodrigues+Fruit+Bats.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 20:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megabat. 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/20130623184422/http://batcon.org:80/ to http://www.batcon.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nocturnal?

Are they nocturnal like microchiroptera are? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It varies; some are, some aren't. I haven't seen a source that gives the balance (which is why it isn't in the article), although somebody else might have? Anaxial (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Megabat. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]