Talk:Pteropus brunneus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pteropus brunneus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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
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).

Extinction Low‑importance

	This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Australia: Queensland / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Pteropus brunneus 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (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 Queensland.
	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 3 external links on Dusky flying fox. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/living_with_wildlife/flyingfoxes/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amonline.net.au/bats/records/bat8.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213182559/http://www.amonline.net.au/bats/records/bat8.htm to http://www.amonline.net.au/bats/records/bat8.htm

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) 00:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dusky flying fox → Pteropus brunneus – The accepted and most common name for this skull and skin, currently residing in a drawer at BMNH. The coded designation in their catalogue is too technical, the variety of common names incidentally applied to the name are ambiguous, misleading, or outright wrong. All article criteria and deference to policy suggests this the only title, as with other possibly or actually extinct taxa. Also not a dusky fruit bat (Penthetor lucasi), fruit bat and flying fox being somewhat synonymous. cygnis insignis 12:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support' multiple vernacular names. While "dusky flying fox" is somewhat more commonly used than "Percy Island flying fox", the scientific name is far more commonly used than either vernacular name. Both vernacular names were invented by scientists; this is an extinct species known from a single specimens; nobody is communicating about this animal using a vernacular name. Plantdrew (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Expansion

@Enwebb:, hey! At random, can you see obvious way that I might expand this article? ~ cygnis insignis 15:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis insignis, yeah, it's a tough article since there's just the holotype. I think it looks reasonably complete as is, considering how little we know about it. Enwebb (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Enwebb:, thanks for having a look, I'm a shocker for overlooking the obvi and a second pair of eyes is appreciated. It is interesting to me for that reason, a single specimen, a bit macabre when I think about it. ~ cygnis insignis 14:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]