Talk:Myotis septentrionalis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bvalley142. Peer reviewers: Bstacey0811.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer review

Peer Review:

This article was already very populated before my peer decided to edit it for his project. He added good information about the size of the species that may differentiate it from others as well as where the species is commonly located. This is good information to add to the article as it pertains to differentiating it from others. Adding a threat to the article was good because this provides information that may be helpful in saving this species.

In one point the article says "experts say" with no citation to this source. Thus I'm not sure if this is credible or not. That is my largest concern about the article.

My peer who added information to this article also provided good citations which is crucial to the making of a good wikipedia article. The wikipedia articles are nothing without their sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstacey0811 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Title suggestion

Hi User:Enwebb , although I have made the move you requested, what do you think about the title Northern long-eared myotis. ping me when you reply.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, slightly better, where did you read that name? cygnis insignis 22:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Cygnis insignis, User:Enwebb It was one of the redirects to the page that you asked to be moved. You can check What links here link on the left margin on a wikipedia page and then hit "show redirects only". After moving a page, I had to change the redirects as well so that they target new locations. As you can see there are 4 redirects if you feel that Northern long-eared myotis or any other title is more suitable in this case, ping me here and I will do the move. I don't have any personal favourites, and only posted here since I was not sure if you were aware of the redirects to this page. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: eh, I'm ambivalent about it as well. It can stay at the scientific name, though I appreciate your suggestion and offer. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I am neutral, Enwebb is ambivalent. So cygnis insignis your opinion is the decider here. Please let me know your opinion on move to Northern long-eared myotis --DBigXrayᗙ 12:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I strongly favour the use of the most common, consistent, recognised and verifiable name, one of my hobby horses, this is good until the next revision. I found that one or two other australian species bears that labelling, the instability of bat taxonomy produces some unhelpful and misleading names and this is exaggerated by our world-view; this is why any author will communicate using a binomen and any common name is meaningless without it. It also reminds me of someone I knew here, who would surely be opposed to any use of this name, but that is bye-the-bye and I just miss his contributions to discussion. Cheers for the assistance, and asking what I thought, much appreciated. cygnis insignis 13:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray, Cygnis insignis, and Enwebb: Hey all! I know this is a few months old, but here's some additional info if it is useful: It seems that the most common name for this critter is the "Northern long-eared bat," and Google shows 80,500 results for that name. (Google also shows "Northern myotis" produces 21,100 results and "Northern long-eared myotis" produces 11,400 results). That said, of the books I can access through Google Books, the species is referred to as the "Northern long-eared bat" or the "Northern long-eared myotis", with the latter being a bit more popular. Personally, I think that "Northern long-eared myotis" is a good compromise because it clearly differentiates the bat from the Australian species while also being easier to search for given that its a common name. It also seems to be fairly popular in the literature I can access.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Gen. Quon, Northern long-eared myotis currently redirects here, so readers should end up here if that's what they're searching for. I think my preference would be to stay at Myotis septentrionalis, given that the actual common name here (northern long-eared bat) is occupied by a disambiguator. I don't really have a strong opinion, though. I think the reader will find it either way given the number of redirects. Enwebb (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Also, your ping didn't work as you didn't resign when you added it. I only saw because I watch this page. @DBigXray and Cygnis insignis:. Enwebb (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"Myotis septentrionalis" gets 44,500 Google results, making it more commonly used than "Northern long-eared myotis". I don't see any advantage to using a vernacular name incorporating the word "myotis". If somebody knows what a myotis is, they are unlikely to be inconvenienced by the scientific name. If they don't know what a myotis is, the vernacular name doesn't offer any greater recognizability than the scientific name. Plantdrew (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's pings worked as it happened. "Bats don't really have common names, they are not commonly known". ~ cygnis insignis 22:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the esoteric ways of the ping template continue to evade and astound! Enwebb (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The system has bugs/features that will keep us guessing, apparently the edit summary fix is the surest and simplest method. ~ cygnis insignis 06:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Confusing page move

This species is most commonly known as Myotis septentrionalis, then secondly "northern long-eared bat" (a name it shares with others). "Northern myotis" doesn't seem to be an appropriate article title. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 02:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)