Talk:List of fruit bats

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of fruit bats is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on October 7, 2019.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 21, 2018Featured list candidatePromoted

FLC[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of fruit bats[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems to me to fit the FL criteria, and as the name states it lists all 200ish species of fruit bats (and some extra stuff). I've done something similar on list of parrots   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It's a well-written article with appropriate citations. The layout is easily navigable and I like that you included pictures and range maps where possible. It seems pretty exhaustive of the fruit bats when compared with the species I included when I revised the section on the list of bats earlier this month. Minor detail—I think you should list the subfamily as Pteropodinae instead of Pteropodidae (it's listed once that way in the classification section and another time in the header of a section). Nicely done. Enwebb (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't review the tables of the article, though they looked pretty reasonable on the whole when I skimmed them (and I'd presume after the lengthy list of parrots FLC that you know what you're doing there), but the text needs a major overhaul. I rewrote the first paragraph for you, as I found it really hard to parse when I looked at it, but the rest of the lead continues on with little context as to what it's talking about (and is focused on bats as a whole, instead of how megabats fit into all bats), and the body text also zooms through a lot of details without any explanatory text pulling it together. It really needs a top-to-bottom overhaul.
I did a little copyediting, what else looks a bit off?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, just looked at the table, and those "list of subspecies" boxes are pretty slick. Just verified that turning off javascript just leaves them expanded, so that meets WP:ACCESS requirements too. This is exactly the kind of list that I wish we had more of at WP:FL, so I'll try to help get this one through- and faster than the interminable 4-month parrot list if I can! --PresN 01:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lists like these are actually pretty easy to make (this took like a weekish, parrots a week). I might do seals next so be on the lookout   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The classification section and one of the table headers link to Macroglossini, which doesn't seem right.
I do not like the tables-within-a-table for the species that belong to a subegenus; I'm not sure if I've ever seen another article with that sort of formatting, and it's inconsistent with the rest of the list
Genus Rousettus has "List of subspecies" right under it, which I believe should be synonyms. Reywas92Talk 23:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the wikilink and the Rousettus thing, but the classifications follow MSW3 which subdivides those into subgenus, then genus, then species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to get rid of the subgenus, but it would be better to have mini-headers like you have with tribe and genus already. It seems quite odd to have the table format for all others species squeezed into a cell of a table for subgenus. Reywas92Talk 06:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Strong support from Adityavagarwal[edit]

  • "morphological" in lead is a dab link. That needs to be fixed.
  • "Andersen" is dab link. That needs to be fixed.
  • "Nyctimee" too.

The rest is awesome. It is an immaculate article, and very well written. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - A fantastic article for a featured list, and very well-written for a shiny star! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comments Several pages of "Order Chiroptera" are repeated in the References section – pages 314, 335 and 341 each appear five times, while page 324 appears six times. I'm guessing that this is because you've created a new citation each time you want to reference a page, rather than just reusing the citation that you've already created. This article would probably benefit from use of the Sfn template – I can talk you through how to use it, if you'd like. Also, Template:Main says that it should not be used in lead sections, as this article currently does. I'd propose removing that hatnote and replacing "Fruits bats" with "Fruit bats" in the opening sentence. You'd also have to remove Megabats from the See also section. Notes c and d need to end with periods. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well in a list article there're generally gonna be refs in the lead. As for all the msw3 refs, that's gonna take a while to fix but I'll get there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean where it says "Main articles: Megabat and List of bats" in the lead – per the documentation for that template, it "should not be used in lead sections". Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to {{Further|}} and unbolded and wikilinked "fruit bats"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: Any thoughts about my comment regarding the references being repeated? It really isn't something that I'd expect to see in a FL, and it shouldn't take long to fix. I'm happy to talk you through it, if you'd like. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, things got busy pretty quickly. Is this supposed to be like the refs in Whale?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something like that would be fine. You may wish to put your own spin on it, but the most important thing is that citations aren't repeated in the References section, as they currently are. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Having the MSW3 reference in the External links section seems a little unintuitive to me – if I were a reader, that's not where I would expect to see it. I'd suggest following the suggestions in MOS:FNNR and, for example, renaming the References section either Notes or Footnotes, and then having a new section called References underneath it with the MSW3 ref. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Reference 21 is not much more than a titled link. It needs further formatting.
  • Book cites that are multiple pages should have the page numbers be formatted with pp. and not p. (which is used for single-page cites). If you're using the cite templates, changing the page= parameter to pages= will fix this for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll take a look at this list later, assuming PresN gets round to promoting my FLC (only joking). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What is the original table order? I can't seem to restore it after sorting by column headings.
it can be sorted under the genus level   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which 186 are extant." presumably you mean 186 species?
excluding the extinct ones yeah   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you confirm all symbols (green arrow, red arrow etc) are all WP:ACCESS-friendly?
not entirely sure   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do they have alt text, are they correctly recognised and announced by screen readers? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, I believe so. The other templates use the same syntax as this one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Near threatened" yet "Least Concern" - consistent capitalisation.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Listed here are 45 genera and 197 species" we don't normally talk about lists in this way.
not entirely sure how else to word it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Queensland, Australia until" comma after Australia.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place en-dashes for blank cells in tables.
I don't know what that is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done.Eddie891 Talk Work 23:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do image sizes change from row to row?
they're all set to 180px but each picture has different starting dimensions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Column widths should be the same from section to section.
not sure how to force column width   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auto-collapsed stuff, I can't find it right now, but I'm certain our MOS says we should not be hiding by default.
the synonyms lists and all those should really all be closed because it gets really messy if all of them are open at the same time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:COLLAPSE. The Rambling Man (talk)
It says the concern is that hidden items will not be openable on the mobile version, but when I switch to the mobile version, all the tables are set to open   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick run-through I'm afraid, more after you've addressed the above I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Dunkleosteus77 didn't ping you in their response. --PresN 16:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: ping again. --PresN 19:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of responses inline. One other thing quickly, multiple page references should be "pp." not "p.". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well, with Giants out for a while, and both delegates supporting (or "supporting"), I'm just going to go ahead and promote this myself. --PresN 22:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

What subfamilies are recognised by who?[edit]

I've noticed that this list has several tribes under subfamily Pteropodinae. But the article on Pteropodinae only includes the Tribe Pteropodini genera . The article Macroglossinae (Chiroptera) covers what seems to be the tribes Macroglossini and Notopterini. Consistent with this, the article for genus Notopteris places it in the subfamily Macroglossinae, not the trible Notopterini. The article Pteropodidae says it is divided into seven subfamilies, not the six in the list. Overall this list doesn't seem to match the other articles on wikipedia. I know that bat taxonomy is under revision, but don't know which is the more recent approach.   Jts1882 | talk  14:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article cites a 2011 study, and those articles don't actually have any references, so I'm banking on this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the results of that 2011 study (Almeida et al, 2011) contradict the taxonomy presented, which is the traditional taxonomy of Bergman (1997). The citation is misleading because, although the paper does present the Bergman taxonomy for historical context (in table 1), it doesn't reflect the results of the study. As it stands this list article seems to be based on a twenty-year old taxonomy that is not supported by more recent studies.
Unfortunately, Almeida et al, 2011 don't present an alternative taxonomy, although they define six major clades and some subgroups that could be the basis of an alternative taxonomy, e.g. Macroglossinae as a subfamily. Some of the other wikipedia articles reflect these new results, but as you point out they don't cite the references. I'll see what I can find about any revised taxonomy.   Jts1882 | talk  11:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some more recent references on fruitbat taxonomy. Two involve Almeida and Giannini from the 2011 article[1][2] and a third is from an independent group focusing on African fruitbats.[3] Almoden et al (2016) is a comprehensive phylogenetic study of bats and gives subfamily and tribe names to the clades first determined in Almeida et al (2011). They claim that the new results are consistent with Almeida et al (2011) and Almeida et al (2016). Their taxonomy is as follows:

  • Family Pteropodidae
    • Subfamily Cynopterinae,
      • Tribe Cynopterini (Megaerops, Ptenochirus, Cynopterus)
      • Tribe Balionycterini (Dyacopterus, Sphaerias, Otopteropus, Alionycteris, Haplonycteris, Aethalops, Penthetor, Chironax, Latidens, Balionycteris, Thoopterus)
    • Subfamily Rousettinae,
      • Tribe Scotonycterini (Casinycteris, Scotonycteris)
      • Tribe Eonycterini (Eonycteris)
      • Tribe Rousettini (Rousettus)
      • Tribe Stenonycterini (Stenonycteris)
      • Tribe Epomophorini (Hypsignathus, Epomops, Nanonycteris, Epomophorus, Micropteropus)
      • Tribe Myonycterini (Megaloglossus, Myonycteris)
      • Tribe Plerotini (Plerotes)
    • Subfamily Macroglossinae (Syconycteris, Macroglosssus; possibly Notopteris)
    • Subfamily Harpyionycterinae,
      • suggests division into two tribes but doesn't name them
        • Dobsonia, Aproteles (Dobsonini?)
        • Harpyionycteris, Boneia (Harpyionycterini?)
    • Subfamily Eidolinae (Eidolon)
    • Subfamily Nyctimeninae (Nyctimene)
    • Subfamily Pteropodinae (Mirimiri, Pteralopex, Desmalopex, Melonycteris, Styloctenium, Acerodon, Pteropus)
Hassanin et al (2016) focus on African fruit bats so don't include all bat groups in their analysis. They also remove the Macroglossines from the Pteropodinae and have a broad Rousettinae subfamily, which they divide into many tribes and subtribes. The main difference is the genera making up subfamily Harpyionycterinae in Almoden et al (2016) are included within subfamily Rousettinae as tribe Boneini.
No subfamilies and tribes were given in MSW3 because the molecular studies had failed to support the traditional subfamilies in Bergmans (1997) but had yet to provide a consistent new taxonomy. As a possible preview of the forthcomig MSW4 I note that the American Society of Mammologist's new Mammal Diversity Database follows Almoden et al (2016) in dividing Pterodoidae into seven subfamilies, with seven tribes in Rousettinae.
So should the list be changed accordingly? I can add the genera in each family and tribe to the list above if that would be helpful.   Jts1882 | talk  16:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the genera above. Looking at the tables in the list they are organised as separate tables for subfamilies and tribes, so most of the needed changes are just changing headings and reogansising the sections. The position of the genera and species is largely unchanged.   Jts1882 | talk  17:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882: Sorry for coming back two-and-a-half months later. The above changes look good for the article, you can go ahead and add it if you'd like, or I can go do it if you want   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: How familiar are you with the table structure? I'm prepared to have a go, but it will have to wait until I have more time so as to avoid mistakes with the table.   Jts1882 | talk  12:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "The Evolutionary History of the African Fruit Bats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae)". Acta Chiropterologica. 18(1): 73–90. 2016. doi:10.3161/15081109ACC2016.18.1.003. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  2. ^ "Bat Systematics in the Light of Unconstrained Analyses of a Comprehensive Molecular Supermatrix". J Mammal Evol. 2016. doi:10.1007/s10914-016-9363-8. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  3. ^ "Comparative phylogeography of African fruit bats (Chiroptera, Pteropodidae) provide new insights into the outbreak of Ebola virus disease in West Africa, 2014–2016" (PDF). Comptes Rendus Biologies. 339: 517–528. 2016. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

TFL[edit]

Fruit bats, also known as megabats, are the 197 species of bats that make up the suborder Megachiroptera, found throughout the tropics of Africa, Asia, and Oceania, of which 186 are extant. The suborder is part of the order Chiroptera (bats), and contains a single family, Pteropodidae. The family is divided into between two to six subfamilies, with recent phylogenetic analysis suggesting a different classification structure of the known species than before. Bats have been traditionally thought to be a monophyletic group; according to this model, all living fruit bats and microbats (Microchiroptera) are descendants of a common ancestor species that was already capable of flight. However, there are alternate hypotheses which conclude that bats are paraphyletic. The flying primate hypothesis was created in the 1980s, stating that, based on morphological evidence, the Megachiroptera evolved flight separately from the Microchiroptera, although genetic evidence supports the monophyly of bats. (Full list...)

Recently featured:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_fruit_bats&oldid=1205610164"