Talk:Eastern long-eared 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).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern long-eared 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140627000000/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}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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) 09:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated IUCN reference Jameel the Saluki (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Range map

Enwebb, forgive the pings, but I'm stomping around your patch. There is something wary between the range map and the sources I have opened on this, just noting that I placed in a comment out until I work out what happening here. cygnis insignis 16:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

all your input is certainly welcome! There's so many bats, so little time, I'm only one person, etc. etc. The Commons file is pretty similar in appearance to the IUCN map on which it's based. If you want to make a better map by combining sources or using a more updated source, of course you should feel free to do so. It probably wouldn't be wrong to have the old range map and just caption it accordingly—"range of N. bifax according to Hutson et al. 2008." Enwebb (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely should be retained, in fact I ought to have just moved it down. I'll find the reason is probably a split when I stand back and look at the current treatment, but wanted to flag this so one of us remembers. They look good otherwise, clear and a nice color balance. cygnis insignis 20:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]