Talk:List of chiropterans

This list is a current featured list candidate. A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria.
Please feel free to leave comments.
After the list has been promoted or archived, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FLC closes.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mammals: Bats Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Bats Task Force (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

Section sizes

Section size for List of chiropterans (34 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	3,785	3,785
Conventions	496	496
Classification	5,998	5,998
Chiropterans	367	230,732
Suborder Yangochiroptera	32	163,087
Superfamily Emballonuroidea	37	15,851
Family Emballonuridae	13,708	13,708
Family Nycteridae	2,106	2,106
Superfamily Noctilionoidea	35	61,525
Family Furipteridae	1,601	1,601
Family Mormoopidae	2,523	2,523
Family Mystacinidae	1,328	1,328
Family Myzopodidae	1,219	1,219
Family Noctilionidae	1,220	1,220
Family Phyllostomidae	52,265	52,265
Family Thyropteridae	1,334	1,334
Superfamily Vespertilionoidea	39	85,679
Family Cistugidae	1,087	1,087
Family Miniopteridae	3,100	3,100
Family Molossidae	20,490	20,490
Family Natalidae	2,759	2,759
Family Vespertilionidae	58,204	58,204
Suborder Yinpterochiroptera	35	67,278
Superfamily Pteropodoidea	35	41,477
Family Pteropodidae	41,442	41,442
Superfamily Rhinolophoidea	36	25,766
Family Craseonycteridae	946	946
Family Hipposideridae	9,736	9,736
Family Megadermatidae	4,321	4,321
Family Rhinolophidae	5,817	5,817
Family Rhinonycteridae	3,423	3,423
Family Rhinopomatidae	1,487	1,487
References	499,401	499,401
Sources	1,001	1,001
Total	741,413	741,413

Let's discuss the name change

@PresN: The name of this article was recently changed with the edit summary "Move to standard for mammal lists (scientific name)". It doesn't feel like the right choice to me, but I am open to persuasion. I am not aware of a standard for mammal lists and most of the examples I could think of use the common name unless there is some reason why the common name causes confusion. In this case the vast majority of people know what a bat is, but few could tell you what chiropterans (my spell check suggests chiropractors) are. I'm not feeling like reverting, but would like to get feedback from others. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what examples you're thinking of for mammal lists, as every single one uses the scientific name - see, well, every link in {{Mammal lists}}, including the 14 lists for bat families/subfamilies. The reasoning behind it is that while some orders/families have a standard common name in English - e.g. Chiroptera == bats - many/most do not- what's the common name for all of Canidae? (list of canids) Felidae? (list of felids) Mephitidae? (list of mephitids) Even restricting to just overall orders rather than individual families, Carnivora (list of carnivorans) / Diprotodontia (list of diprotodonts) / Lagomorpha (list of lagomorphs) all don't have a single, well-known common name for the entire order. Chiroptera is a bit of an outlier. And of course list of bats continues to point to here in any case. --Pres N 22:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing at that mammal list template I was struck by list of suines, as -ine is commonly used for as the vernacular term derived from a subfamily name, with irregular exceptions such as habiline or pithecanthropine. (I initially wondered if this was one of the older class where -ine is used as an adjective ("like an animal") rather than as a adjective/noun ("pertaining to/member of a taxon"), but porcine is the word which belongs to the older class.) Wiktionary gives two definitions for suine, corresponding to Suinae and Suina, and I interpret it as saying that the former is the primary meaning, and gives suilline as the term corresponding to Suina. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Suina actually uses suines as well, not that that means much, though that's where I got the name from. Looks like wiktionary says suillines based on the OED doing so. When I do a books search for `suina suillines` I'm only seeing books from the early 1900s and earlier that use the term; `suina suines` gives me more recent results, including Evolution on Planet Earth: Impact of the Physical Environment (2003) and Evolution of Tertiary Mammals of North America: Volume 1 (1998). That's not conclusive, but it's enough that I'd chalk it up to latin (or at least scientific use of latin) being weird and making both -inae and -ina convert to -ines. --Pres N 02:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The naming of animal suborders is not standardised (except the modern fish suborders seem to consistently use -oidei) so I doubt that a productive rule is in play with Suina. I would have gone with suinans, and that is what mammal classification uses. Google Ngrams indicates that suilline has more or less gone out of use, and suinan has always been very rare; even now it's rarer than suilline. That ratio in Google Scholar for suines:suillines:suinans co-occuring with Suina is 82:5:2, though the first number can be expected to have false positives, in that articles on the subfamily may still refer to the suborder.

Bing Copilot claims that term for pigs and peccaries collectively is swine, but that is not the primary usage; wiktionary's definition is narrow (pig, but not explicitly Sus domesticus), while Merriam-Webster equates it with suid. There doesn't seem to be a good single word choice for this group; but suids and tayassuids is a possibility. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Copilot is hardly a reliable source: check Wikipedia:Large language models. — 𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 19:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I thought I was implying. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Right you are. I was looking at articles about the topics rather than the lists. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 14:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authority and Species section of the tables

In the Authority and Species section of the tables in shows a link to a person called Benda (instead on a biologist), but it links to a basketball played and i think it is wrong. X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! --Pres N 12:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

Any thoughts on what to do with the excessive size of this article? I am in no ways familiar with the subject matter, so I'd like to raise this concern first, especially as I don't believe it's been raised here before. Cheers, it's lio! | talk | work 06:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the same structure as List of carnivorans, List of artiodactyls, List of eulipotyphlans, List of lagomorphs, List of primates, and List of diprotodonts (the other large mammal orders), it's just that there's a lot of bats. Half the page is the references, and I would welcome any way to combine the IUCN refs into per-genus refs rather than per-species. --Pres N 13:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - just puzzled how this concern had never been raised before. Thank you for your work. Have a great day, it's lio! | talk | work 03:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]