Talk:Ghost bat

inactivity during the day and hibernation
This sentence "Although Macroderma gigas is inactive during daylight hours, they do not hibernate" implies that there should be a positive relationship between daylight inactivity and hibernation. That should be explained. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghost 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/20160316054048/http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-260-01-0001.pdf to //www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-260-01-0001.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

nomenclature
'so it has come to this'—xkcd# I hope to be be discussing more interesting aspects of content than this, but my position is that the effort to replace the accepted name with something composed of words in early vocab lists is a puerile indulgence and part of know-nothing attempts to marginalise advances in our understanding and communication of biology. That is the tame version of the way I see the community unnecessarily wrangling over titles with no concern for the content, and I will [petulantly] point out that I did a lot of work to improve this content and yet here we are discussing this. It is not correct to state "ghost bat is a species", the circumstance, as you well know, is that several names refer to the species Macroderma gigas and that is the verifiable topic of the article. This article begins again with a licensed premise, many of the articles I have expanded did nothing more than assert the name of the species is anything but the accepted name, and done with no concern for the topic of the article. As I said, I hope there is more interesting things to discuss about bats than consolidating names that will not offend the ignorant and partisan. cygnis insignis 02:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah I didn't come here to start drama. I was pointing out the inconsistency of an article titled one thing and the very first sentence not mentioning the subject in the same language, as one generally does around here. "Ghost bat" is also the verifiable topic of the subject. It is used in multiple reliable sources, and Wikipedia policies prefer the common name when established. The genpop really does not speak Latin! I'm glad you took the time to improve the content? I don't really know how you expect me to respond here, and I caution you against overreacting to this small edit. I welcome your feedback and criticism of articles I improve. Enwebb (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , there is an obvious response to those value consistency in titles and leads. Second guessing what the genpop knows discourages me from discussing this further, it is not our business to limit what they know by deciding their eyes will fall out if the see the names used by our sources. You cautioning me confirms this is not up for discussion, I presume because you are substantially invested in making a set of articles consistent; in parting from our interactions I encourage to recognise why the consistency—outside of the efforts of a handful of culture warriors with no interest in animals—has been used for centuries. So, I leave this article with your consistent semantic travesty as "Ghost bat is a species". I had enjoyed the brief period chatting with you, but with this response to your 'caution' I will assume the bridge is burnt. Apologies that I was unable to see a path that complies with my interpretation of policy, there is no polite way to point out when someone has been looking at things the wrong way round. cygnis insignis 06:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * again this all seems a bit dramatic from my standpoint, including your assertion that we can no longer work together professionally, but if that's how you want it. Enwebb (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe, despite your own persnickety manner, and dealing out cautions, I would have felt slightly remorseful. Then I went to create a link for vespadeluses, known as LBB's, but found the title preoccupied with a really good article. Then I snickered, and went to the review, then I laughed. Tonight I read something else, I'm not laughing now, say goodbye to the bat too — cygnis insignis 16:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)