Talk:Greater bilby

1931?

The Lesser Bilby article says that there "seems to have been several in Cooncherie Station in the summer of 1932", while bones picked up in 1967 appeared to be under 15 years old. The Bilby article says that the Greater Bilby became extinct in the 1950s. Who's right? 81.153.109.146 14:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed this issue. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging of Bilby Articles

I recommend the species Bilby articles are merged with the main Bilby article. For a start, the species articles are stubs, and adding information from them would basically be repeating information placed on the main article. Following on from that, as the genus article covers only one species (as 1 out of 2 is extinct), it is practically a species page anyway, written with all the information that is found in a species article, based on one species (the Greater Bilby). Additionally, the search "Bilby" comes up with the Genus article, and I'm fairly sure most would expect it to result in the Greater Bilby page. Based on these reasons, I think the articles should be merged (I have copied this to all 3 bilby talk pages, to keep discussion on one page, please discuss on the genus talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(Modified link so that it goes to intended place. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC))

Image of Easter chocolate Bilby

I've photographed a commercial product's packaging that is apparently attempting to help save the bilby via sales of chocolate candies at Easter, but I need copyright to post it. Here is the email to the manfacturer, minus the specifics as mentioned in the letter. Why I've posted this letter here is discussed in the email:

Hello --addresse's name here--,

I'm enquiring about a license (a release, in effect) to use the image (see attached) in a wikipedia article. Such a license would (in effect) put the image (and the artwork it contains) into the public domain, so granting such a license cannot be taken lightly. To proceed I will need the okay to use the image IN WRITING (not an email).

I am an active contributor to wikipedia e.g. see www.en.wikipedia.com and type in User:Wvbailey. I snapped the attached photo from one of your boxes that I saw at the checkout display in a foodstore (somewhere north of Brisbane). At the time I did not know what a "bilby" is, let alone what a "baby bilby" might be. I thought it was a fictional TV or film character. But I thought the image was cute, so right then and there I snapped a photo of the box's artwork. I did made the connection to a substitute for the Easter rabbit, and considering the problems that Austrialians have had because of the introduction of the European rabbit, I think it's a nice idea and a commendable effort.

Now that I've returned to the states, I've learned from a google search (including some films of baby bilbies in a zoo), and from wikipedia ( to see the article type in the search box the word bilby), that an effort to save the animal by popularizing the image is afoot. Here's your chance to help via the public domain. While some "editors" may attempt to delete the image as a commercial effort, the facts are that I'm utterly independent of "Company name here" plus I've been writing long enough on wikipedia to know that there are ways to deflect that eventuality.

To give you a taste of what "public domain usage" really implies, I'm going to post this email on the article's talk page, excepting that I will delete your name, my name and address, and "--Company name here--". If you allow use of the image I will attempt to put it into the article with "--Company name here--" in the image or attribution in a footnote or other manner (just as the "Coke" image appears in the article about Coca Cola)).

My mailing address is:

--Editor's particulars here--

I recognize that the issue of granting a license is complex. Here is the US law concerning "fair use" (from, again, a wikipedia article). Under (1) this would seem to fall under "non-profit educational use". However, I recognize that there's more to the image than just the product name (e.g. the cute "baby bilby" artwork), and I recognize that you may be unwilling to grant the restricted public-domain copyright that wikipedia requires. (I've contributed quite a few images that I've created myself, so I'm aware of what is lost).

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

My attempts at getting copyright for images for other articles has been mixed, so what will come of this effort will be interesting. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bilby Sanctuary

I recently visited Charleville where there is a Bilby education centre and nearby a sanctuary of 25 sq ks with and electrified fence has been estabished to protect and hopefully increase the numbers. May be worth a small mention in the article on the grater bilby

http://savethebilby.icemedia.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=87

Saving the Bilby in Queensland

The Queensland bilby population is the most threatened and genetically distinct population in Australia. It has declined in range during the past 10 years and is continuing to do so. A bilby sanctuary in the Currawinya National Park near Charleville was the dream of conservationists Frank Manthey and Peter McRae who campaigned to raise $300,000 to build a 25sq km electrified predator-proof fence.

The Currawinya National Park falls close to the centre of the bilby’s former range in eastern Australia.

Weather conditions there provide a reliable and diverse food supply. The reintroduction of bilbies to this park forms part of a national strategy to recover endangered species to either their former status or at a minimum to secure the status of existing wild populations.

Don Watts 0411032418 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.192.97 (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. The questions of Macrotis and merging aside, no support for the move as proposed has been voiced after over a week of discussion. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Greater bilby → Bilby –

• A user recently moved this page without discussion, and I am unable to revert the move due to the redirect. Asking per the "If you are unable to revert, request it below" instructions. CMD (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Needs further consideration – previous RM: see Talk:Macrotis#Move?, and Talk:Macrotis#Merging of Bilby Articles. Currently there are three articles, and in my opinion you have one or two content forks. Should these be merged into a single Bilby article? If not, then the title of the remaining two or three articles should be decided and coordinated together. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Macrotis
  • Greater bilby
  • Lesser bilby
• Move discouraged - In my opinion, keeping "Greater" and "Lesser" in the page names is the encyclopedic convention. Likewise, for keeping those 3 articles separate. ~Eric F:74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think including "Greater" in the title is necessary for precision. I have a mild preference for "Bilby" to point where it does now, though I can see why others might want it to point at the extant species. However, merging articles on distinct species is an absurd idea and I am very strongly opposed to that. Hesperian 01:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose move and oppose merge. support moving of Macrotis to Bilby. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, that seems to me on the surface like a reasonable "quick fix", as the "Macrotis" article only actually uses Macrotis in the infobox, the article text consistently uses Bilby. Is the Characteristics section in the Macrotis article discussing characteristics common to both Greater bilby and Lesser bilby? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Vote along these lines below. Andrewa (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment (Supporting move as nom) The lesser bilby has been extinct for over half a century. When people discuss bilbies nowadays, they are discussing the greater bilby. Bilby only refers to the genus when explicitly discussing the lesser bilby, which is comparatively rare with regards to when it is used just for the extant species. Greater bilby, if it is used, is just used once to note the name. Examples: Australian government page, Perth Zoo page, IUCN. With reference to our naming guidelines, the species is the WP:Primary topic for "Bilby", and "Bilby" is the WP:Common name of the greater bilby. It does not help the reader who likely searches "Bilby" looking for information on that animal they heard about or saw in the Zoo, to hit a genus page. As for merging, that discussion happened over two years ago when the lesser bilby article was in a far poorer state. It very ably stands alone now. CMD (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose move as proposed. Yes, in a particular context Bilby means Greater bilby, but in the general context (in which the article titles of a general encyclopedia belong) it's not sufficiently precise. Support counter proposal above to move Macrotis to Bilby instead. I note that this would revert a previous move, but it's over a year ago, consensus can change and there was not a lot of discussion in favour of that move anyway. As far as I can see the merge proposal is even older so a bit stale but oppose the merge anyway. Andrewa (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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