Talk:Insectivore

Untitled

Whoa! Whoa! Oh man! Neither of the examples given is a member of the Insectivore order!! Dear god! john 07:22 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I believe the original writer was referring to insectivorous animals, not the capital-Insectivora. Those two animals are valid insectivorous examples, aren't they? --Menchi 07:32 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Looking at the history, the original article does seem to have been simply about animals that eat insects. You added the material about the order insectivora about a week ago, no? john 07:40 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Guilty. Good thing it's all cleared up now. --Menchi 08:37 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yep, all is well. john 08:49 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Except for the fact that you failed to cite any sources. After that all will be well. --72.229.151.118 (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Using a metaphor

A metaphor might be nice. However the insertion by Arkaut [1] is not suitable for wikipedia. For one, it berates current taxonomy as obsolete - a non-neutral proposition that is not backed up by any research. Please see WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia isn't the place for things you think are useful. It may be the place to report what others think are useful, but this metaphor really doesn't help clarify anything that isn't already in the text. In a sense it just repeats the last sentance while violating some wikipedia policies.

It also doesn't help that it has poor markup. Bolding a word mid article isn't very encyclopedic. It implies speech-wrought emphasis. This isn't a school presentation.--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If you will kindly examine the article Insectivora, you will find that that article acknowledges the taxon in question as "abandoned". (And no, I didn't make that edit.) I was (misguidedly) following style guidelines in bolding the name of article itself in the introductory paragraph, but I will certainly take that out. --arkuat (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"ecological niche" is OR. I'd characterise insectivory as a dietary behaviour. Insectivores occupy an array of ecological niches. A possum is not in the same ecological niche as a preying mantis for instance.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The entire paragraph needs to be rewritten to reflect the obsolete nature of the taxon. At the moment it looks like sentances cobbled together.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me how "ecological niche" is OR? I certainly didn't invent the concept, nor can I possibly take credit for the abandonment of Insectivora as a mammalian taxon. I'm seriously completely baffled about what you mean by labeling my edit as "original research". --arkuat (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't provided a source. I can only "assume" that is your personal original research. (Note: there is "research" in OR - it is not just for things you make up, and being factually true, or comon knowledge doesn't preclude being OR). I see no source claim inesctivory is an ecological niche. Insectivory is a dietary behaviour. It is not a niche. A niche refers to a combination of factors regarding organism ecology. Some insectivores may occupy similar niches, but others do not. Like my example and insectivorous possum is not in the same niche as a preying mantis or an insectivorous fish. They do not exhibit the same niche factors concerning noctornal behaviour, types of insects, how they get insects, and normal habitat, and place in the food chain.

For example of two animals that occupy similar niches in different environments - I would say deer and kangaroo. These are common grass/foilage eating mammals in their respective habitats. They are also both relatively common sources of meat for any existing large predators and people.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You suggested in your edit summary that I rewrite the entire paragraph. This is precisely what I was beginning to do with my edit that you reverted. However, since you have rendered the matter moot by deleting that paragraph rather than editing and improving it, I'm giving up. Please go study the Wikipedia policies that you have cited at me; you seem to understand them very poorly, if at all. In future, I will try to avoid any articles that you seem to show any interest in editing, such as this one. Please do rewrite and improve this article, ZayZayEm, since you seem bound and determined to prevent me from doing so. I hope you can come up with something better than deleting more of it. --arkuat (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Contents on the side?

How come the contents box for this article is on the side and not directly below the introduction like it should be? Supercuty27 23:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercuty27 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Insectivore. 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/20100417192844/http://www.hyaenidae.org/the-hyaenidae/aardwolf-proteles-cristatus.html to http://www.hyaenidae.org/the-hyaenidae/aardwolf-proteles-cristatus.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023071735/http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/insectivorous/insect01.htm to http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/insectivorous/insect01.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)