Talk:Cannibalism

message: If 90 % of all aquatic animals engage in canbialism the 1500 spieces number is obviously bogus
:It is a dated estimate, though. Richard001 11:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Percentage vs. number of cannibalistic species

message: There are few problems with the lists here. Firstly, 'mammals' is listed, which is vague and imprecise. Secondly, no reference is given for many of these. And thirdly, infanticide does not imply cannibalism, so listing such animals as the bottlenose dolphin, when the source clearly says the animal doesn't attempt to eat the young, it misleading. Lastly, domestic ungulates will probably only engage in cannibalism with human intervention (introducing meat into the feedstocks), and so listing them here is also misleading.--60.240.240.254 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed, calling sheep cannibals, for example, seems slightly absurd --Mccron 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not providing citations just encourages people to add absurd items to the list. I've removed it completely from the size structured cannibalism section - not a single one was backed up with a reference. Richard001 05:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of cannibalistic animals

message: This article doesn't demonstrate the need for a separate entry. I propose it be redirected here - I've already merged all the content in the section and as you can see it is hardly oversized. 
Been bold and merged it - it can be recreated if there is need. Richard001 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, but "intrauterine" in the section title is too narrow. Arthropods such as some mites and beetles chow down on vulnerable siblings anywhere they find them: in the egg sac or all around the neighbourhood; though they may prefer to munch on strangers. The hazard is so chronic that some moms lay trophic eggs to keep the kids off each other.--Egmonster (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[intrauterine cannibalism]]

message: The picture of the Stagmomantis carolina states that it is a female eating her mate. However, in the Stagmomantis carolina article, the same picture has a footer which identifies the devoured mantis as another female. Which is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkruijff (talk • contribs) 23:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual Cannibalism

message: This is not even grammatically correct. Perhaps "Contrary to previous belief," would be an adequate alternative.
In any case, previous to when? Better would be something like "Before <date> it was believed that ..., but it has since been shown ..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.2.191 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unlike previously believed, 

message: It seems to me there ought to be a category for those who hunt conspecifics for food -- not out of extreme hunger, but as a lifestyle.
So far, I only see three: Scorpions, chimps, and humans. But I have only begun looking. V.B. (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hunting cannibalism" missing? 

message: Why are most of the examples for vertebrates?  This is a big misrepresentation of cannibalism.--FUNKAMATIC   ~talk 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  vertebrates 

message: how can herbivores be cannibal. the term herbivor mean a specie that consume plants not meat ??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghaier mohamed (talk • contribs) 17:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  what ?? 

message: The picture shows dragonflies of different species,  according to its own caption. This contradicts the very first line and definition in the article. Should we choose another picture? Harsimaja (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely true and I have changed the photo. RN1970 (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: On 31 October 2017, this page was manually moved, i.e. copy-pasted ("Cannibalism (zoology)" --> "Cannibalism"). As far as I can see this happened without any discussion. A history merge was then requested and performed. Disregarding the problem of just moving pages without discussion (in anything but obvious cases), this means that incoming links have been completely messed up. "Cannibalism" formerly was a redirect to "Human cannibalism". I've just checked a handful of links and every single one of them was supposed to lead to the human article. I have neither the time nor will to check the thousands of "what links here", but should someone else feel like doing it, please go ahead. RN1970 (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: (Major) review of "what links here" necessary

message: Would it perhaps be appropriate here to include a 'Cannibalism among humans' section, with a link to the main 'Human cannibalism' article?Heavenlyblue (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed^ I came here specifically looking for human cannibalism and was surprised it wasn't a more prevelant part of the article. I'd even go so far as to say that most people probably assume 'human' when they discuss 'cannibal' or 'cannibalism', but that's academic. Anyway, it's part of this article's scope so should probably be a subsection and not left entirely up to the seperate article. 2600:8800:2382:E200:D07E:2C97:EFE4:849A (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human cannibalism 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Cannibal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#Cannibal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Rublov (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cannibal" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: "More recently, cannibalism has been featured in a positive light, with video games like Ark: Survival Evolved incentivizing players' virtual characters to eat each other."
This sentence is somewhat inappropriate for this article. --Sorry sir, that's classified information (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence is poorly worded 

message: Change consuming to eating, it is a more succinct and accurate word to use. 47.203.195.146 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. SpinningCeres 19:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2022 

message: change "long incubation rate" to "long incubation period". 178.84.194.206 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2022 (2) 

message: In the sentence "Therefore, in order to survive, tadpoles within the same clutch are forced to consume each other and exploit their conspecitics as the only available source of nutrition," "conspecitics" should be changed to "conspecifics." Lalwiker (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo: change "conspecitics" to conspecifics" 

message: In the fourth sentence of the "Benefits" section, conspecifics is misspelled as "conspecitics". I hope that this helps out. Heretofixthisonetypobaby (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023 

message: Change any copies of {male species} to {males of certain species} 166.181.87.52 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tollens (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023 

message: In the 'Cannibalism within media' section, I've completely removed the mentions of Planet Dinosaur and ARK as their presence is unnecessary and unfit. It seems like someone just threw in their favourite pieces of dinosaur media for seemingly no reason at all. Instead, I've mentioned the topic's relevance in documentaries and survival games, without directly referring specific media. FishyGuy77 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed mentions of specific media