Talk:-vore

Untitled

Could the various distinctions be grouped together by supertype and subtype; as in folivores, frugivores, and granivores are subtypes of herbivores, while insectivores, piscivores, and sanguinivores are subtypes of carnivores? Or would that be misleading?

Makes sense to me. Especially if someone's looking up herbivores because they want to know if there's something you call an animal that eats grasses in particular. It would make it easier to find, than if it's listed alphabetically. 71.217.125.16 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for discussion

I've an idea... Howsabout we roll herbivore, ominvore, carnivore and insectivore into one article with redirects from those terms? One article, animal feeding. Might be better than trying to pad out these terms seperately. If the sections fill out properly then they can be split off at a later date. This will also allow comparisons to be drawn between different feeding groups.AlanD 11:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss:

2007-10-13 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]