This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals: Monotremes and Marsupials Low‑importance 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 WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials (assessed as Low-importance). Australia Mid‑importance Lesser bilby 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

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)Reply

I hope I have managed to expand the Lesser Bilby article beyond a stub and to a point where merging it with the Greater Bilby Article would not be the best idea. While default search results should point to the surviving Greater Bilby species, the Lesser Bilby having a different distribution, behavior and diffrent species history should retain a page of his own. Wilhelm Klave (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Quite. I think the current article is much better, especially the extinction section. Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lesser bilby. 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/20081204185105/http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/animals/threatened/pdf/mammals/lesser_bilby_ex.pdf to http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/animals/threatened/pdf/mammals/lesser_bilby_ex.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605195006/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume1b/25-ind.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume1b/25-ind.pdf

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

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) 16:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply