Talk:Piscivore

message: Do piscivores include animals that eat shellfish and other invertebrate marine life? (eg. squid, crabs, jellyfish)--ZayZayEM 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an animal eats all sorts of shellfish, then it would be a "durophagus" animal.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

message: Seems like this article should connect to one on pescatarians, explaining similarities and difference(s)? Thoughts? - Sara FB (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to pescatarians? 

message: The Wiki article on Jaguar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar does not describe it as a Piscivore, rather a more generalistic carnivore.  I don't understand why Jaguar was cited specifically as an example of a piscivore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquashEngineer (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The jaguar is cited in this article as an example of a carnivore that eats a significant amount of fish, to compare with other carnivores that specializes in fish-eating.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jaguar 

message: , would it be at all possible if you could come to the talkpage and make a sensible argument for not including Baryonyx and Spinosaurus on this page, even though both dinosaurs are popularly perceived as being "fish-eating dinosaurs" and have reliable sources about evidence of their piscivorous nature?  I mean, are you aware that waging a protracted edit war through an IP sock to delete SOURCED information you don't like won't convince anyone that you're correct?Mr Fink (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore,  if you're not willing to make an argument for your stance here in Wikipedia beyond edit-warring via IP socks, then I am not willing to allow you the luxury of whining at me about it in a different website.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I'm not terribly sympathetic to excuses made after being harangued in addition to having to deal with your drive-by edit warring.  Having said that, the qualifications applied to the list of recent piscivores are rigorously applied in order to keep it relatively short, i.e., to keep humans, domesticated dogs and domesticated cats off the list simply because they enjoy a store-bought fish dinner, and focused on specialists.  The qualifications are not as rigorously applied to the list of fossil piscivores because of a lack of evidence of them being exclusively fish-eaters: I mean the qualifications for that list are more "having adaptations seen as being piscivorous" and "being caught in the act of eating fish."  If we make an argument that Baryonyx, the most publicized fish-eating dinosaur, to be excluded from this list because there is evidence that it did not exclusively eat fish, despite its obvious piscivorous adaptations, then arguments could be made to exclude all of the fossil piscivores from the list.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Then let us compose that paragraph here.  That, and would an acceptable compromise for Baryonyx and Spinosaurus be to describe them as "semi-aquatic generalist predators," and then mention or discuss evidence found for them showing fish-eating behavior?--Mr Fink (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit War

message: It seems to me that it could be summed up in one statement. "Lots of animals eat fish." Should they all be considered together as one topic or group?  Certainly science doesn't classify organisms like that.  Or do I misunderstand something? 69.181.154.23 (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you aware that there are scientists and health practitioners, biologists and dieticians, who study different types of diets in humans and animals?  Or that Wikipedia has a series articles devoted to different modes of carnivory and herbivory and feeding, i.e., durophagy, graminivore, or filter-feeding? Mr Fink (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article even exist?