Talk:List of animal names/Archive 1

Getting real...

I think some of these were made up by the contributors, or *maybe* appeared once in print in a joke context. For example: aardvark/aarmory, bobolink/chain, etc. That's funny and cute, but I have to wonder whether those entries should be culled so as not to damage Wikipedia's credibility (such as it is) as a source of factual knowledge. (It's also possible that these *are* commonly accepted terms, and I'm just ignorant.) Comments? --tgeller 20:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I contributed a decent portion of the names, and I'm certain those are real. As for the two pairs you just mentioned, they are legitimate as well. Try googling for them. Here are a few for bobolink / chain [1][2][3] --Dan East 21:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Derogatory / Diminutive

Is the term "doggie" for a dog really derogatory, or simply diminutive? I don't think people calling ducks "duckies" are trying to insult the ducks, it's just a cutesy word. Collabi 22:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Bunny should be added to the list of informal names.

Adjectives?

Should a column be added for adjectives? e.g., feline, avian, etc.?

Tomt 27 Nov 2005

That's a great idea! Go for it! Samw 20:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

List of animals or list of animal names

The section "The complete list" was recently added. I think this article was meant as a "list of animal names" not just a "list of animals". If those additional animals have names other than the primary name, then they should be added to the main table. If not, they should be removed. If there are no objections, I will remove this new section. Samw 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

other

Um are dragons animals? --pianoface 10:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

---

oooooo nice idea and nice chart!! Kingturtle 03:36 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to "Wikify"~ Samw 03:38 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Possible additions? Peafowl (--) peahen peacock chicken chick hen rooster -- Someone else 03:51 19 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Good source for more additions: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/animals/Animalbabies.shtml

--Dante Alighieri 23:30 19 May 2003 (UTC)

---

I question "aerie" as meaning a group of eagles: OED has it as an eagle's nest, or as the brood in that nest, but not as a term for an unrelated group of eagles. -- Someone else 00:39 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Ugh, you're right. I didn't have time to check the OED on all of them. We might want to consider adding another column to the table because animals often have group names especially for the young, i.e., litter or aerie. BTW, the OED lists exhaltation as an archaic spelling of exaltation and exaltation as an archaic usage for the current: flight of larks. Still, I'm inclined to leave exhaltation. Opinions? --Dante Alighieri 00:42 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I think a lot of the "venereal" terms were generated or plucked from obscurity when "An Exaltation of Larks" was published - if there is some easy way to distinguish between terms that are actually used (gaggle) from those that are eccentricities that most people would be unaware of (murder), it would be good, but I can't think of a way. Also, some terms (queen for cat and bee) actually refer to mothers (as the column is headed) and some terms generally to females, whether parents or not. (And where do worker bees go<G>?). But all this may just needlessly complicate the page. Editing tables is hard!<G> -- Someone else 00:50 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the parent issue. Sire and dam should at least be mentioned somewhere... maybe the table that is in use isn't the right way to go about it? --Dante Alighieri 01:01 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Play around with the format, I don't have any concrete suggestions and I may be the only "table-dyslexic" person here. As long as it doesn't get too wide it shouldn't be too bad. If it gets too wide it could be broken into more than one table (e.g. young, mother, father, female, male in one table, groups in another). Or maybe it's a good idea just not to try to be all inclusive. -- Someone else 01:18 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Fictional animals

Should fictional animals be included in this list? Dragon was added & the removed:

	|dragon||dragonet, hatchling, wyrmling||queen||drake||drive, flight, wing|| ||draconic

Thanks Samw 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be added to a seperate list. I think adding trolls and dragons and imps would compromise the purpose of the article.

Freezing the mainstream

Merges from

Merging from List of animal adjectives and List of gender names seems pretty obvious, given the redundancy. List of collective nouns, which is really a list of lists, is a little more daunting, but where it overlaps I think it logically should be incorporated, as well. ENeville 22:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an open-and-shut merger... Just merge it already Freezing the mainstream 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hoax" tag

I doubt the veracity of many of the plural names listed in the table. I have never heard of any but the most common in actual use. They may have been made up as a joke on some web site - "aarmory" is clearly a pun. For those that are legitimate, a citation is necessary. Pcu123456789 03:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Several cite "Universe in Your Pocket", a trivia book. In my opinion, trivia books are not good sources for specific facts, and "Universe" should not be trusted on this point. The author of a trivia book is not an expert on linguistics, so per wikipedia:Reliable sources, "expertise" section, it should not be cited here. In addition, most trivia books do not cite sources, (the "Declaration of sources" section). Pcu123456789 04:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"tetragonopterinine" for "x-ray fish" also looks made-up. Pcu123456789 04:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Try searching on Google; many of these terms don't seem to have any results besides in lists of animal names, word-lists, and spam web pages. Pcu123456789 04:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone who patrolls CAT:HOAX, I usually dislike people who categorize an entire articel due to part of it being questionable, however I can completely agree/understand this instance. I'll see if I can find anything on "aarmory". 68.39.174.238 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a possible source for "aarmory", though I'm uncertain of its reliability -- the collection may be based on (false) online submissions. Black Falcon 05:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• While some of these are clearly fictitious, or made-up, many of them are quite clearly valid, and just need to be sourced. I don't want to delete the whole article if we can sort out the chaff.--Aervanath 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation, but some of the group names seem to be mistaken literary flourishes, (IE a 'kaleidoscope' of Butterflies), I don't think a hoax tag needs to exist, but all the terms should be examined to make sure they really are what they are, and not mistakes. I suggest putting a post in the Reference Desk, the more people we have the better chance there is that we can discover which ones are real and which ones are not.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Aren't all of these terms "literary flourishes"? They certainly aren't the scientific names for these creatures; it will be very hard to determine what is widely used, colloquially, in any sort of general sense. Nimur 04:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything about a fez of armadillos; is that true, or just something someone inserted as a joke? Titanium Dragon 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A "suicide pact" of lemmings looks to be highly unlikely: possibly a journalist's quip, but meaningful inclusion here must depend on regular use and reliable sources in literature refering to wildlife. Kevin McE 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong! Very wrong!!!

"Cria", "hembra" or "macho" as specific for Alpacas is extremely wrong... Its the same as saying that the hairless Peruvian dog doesn't has "pups" but instead has "cachorros"; The words quoted are just the Spanish translation to the correct English words... I can bet the whole article needs a complete rewrite from seeing such ignorant mistake there... Undead Herle King 10:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary (vote?)

Neutral. This article has been tagged for moving to Wiktionary (not by me). First, it would have been appreciated if the individual responsible for tagging this article would have provided an explanation, and an appropriate link to Wiktionary. After some digging, I found that Wiktionary does indeed contain a very similar list of names in an appendix[4]. There are a couple problems with removing this article. First and foremost, if I google for "list of animal names" this article is the first hit, and it is the second hit for when googling for simply "animal names". I've gone through several pages of search results and do not see the Wiktionary appendix on animals. Part of the reason is the appendix is simply named "Animals", which is not descriptive enough. If this article should go away, then something needs to be kept here in its place to forward people onto Wiktionary. Having a first hit in google is no small thing, and Wiktionary doesn't appear to be as respected by search engines as Wikipedia. Having invested a decent amount of time in this article personally, I would hate to see it go, but this isn't about me. Two other issues; this article contains some animals, like aardvark, that are not in Wiktionary, and this article contains food names, which is not in the Wiktionary table at all. That information should be preserved if this article goes away. --Dan East 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This article is not a dictionary definition. By virtual of associating groups, sex-specific names and young, this article is much, much more than a dictionary entry. Samw 03:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per above. Mathmo ^Talk 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wiktionary note: the Special:Import feature is unable to import the complete history at this time. bugzilla:9911. For now, wikt:Transwiki:List of animal names has a copy of it, so you should feel free to remove the {{Copy to Wiktionary}} tag. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood what the tag meant. Upon just rereading it, I note it said "Copy" to wiktionary, not "Move". What exactly does this process entail? Does the article simultaneously exist in both places now, so edits affect both? I have removed the "copy to Wiktionary" template tag. --Dan East 11:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article is copied to wiktionary. It is not deleted from wikipedia. Once it has been copied, the tag can be removed, thus keeping the article. There is a problem with the text of the template, suggesting that all articles that should be copied should also be deleted. However, some copied articles are also good as encyclopedia articles. See the {{TWCleanup}} tag. 70.55.84.6 08:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This talk page seems to be missing this template: {{transwikied to Wiktionary}}

to be added

gopher, woodchuck, chipmunk, chinchilla, muskrat, prairie dog --Gbleem 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have something referenced to add, no reason to make an empty list entry. `'Míkka>t 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kiwi

Why is kiwi on the list? It has blank spaces spanning its entire row. At first I wondered whether this was an invitation for someone to do the research, but I can't find any info about different names for kiwi. Bob (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

dog meat

Aren't there alternate names for dog meat? eg. "fragrant meat" (a Chinese euphemism)- or "blockade mutton" in either Germany or France? I can't remember. I'll check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.136.245.22 (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is in English, not French or German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.62.207 (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Group Column Heading

Should the Coulmn Heading For "group" not read Collective Noun? rfwebster (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of this article

Originally this article was a very small list of names for common animals. It contained typical "barnyard" type animals that most people, children included, would instantly recognize. True to Wikipedia's massive volunteer resources, this article has been edited by many people, and has grown very large - it now contains hundreds of animals. As with many articles, it is growing beyond what is encyclopedic, and is migrating towards an all inclusive and all encompassing behemoth (which is not the same as being encyclopedic). In order to trim down the article I have started by removing all animals that do not have data. Specifically, animals with only a proper noun and no additional names have been removed. At this point we need to properly define the purpose of this article. I propose that this article list the names of animals commonly encountered in the English language. It began (and continues to be) a language article - not a scientific article. To that end we should not attempt to list every animal known to man in this article, nor should we list animals that the typical person has never heard of. It should not contain entries devoid of data (no specific names). So after all that rambling, I propose we vote on the scope of this article. I propose that we reduce of the scope of this article to be specific to common animals known to Standard English that have derivative names (male, female, group, etc). If that means creating a separate article that has an unlimited (and thus perhaps more scientific) scope, then so be it. --Dan East 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As the original person starting this article (for what that is worth on Wikipedia), I agree! Samw 03:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree; the article is a list of Animal names (sic) not list of common animal names, and should be treated as such. Removing the so-called 'uncommon' animals is silly. I suggest we merely reorganize it so that it's in a more readable form.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 20:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely it's just a cheat sheet for developers of Ubuntu? --WayneMokane 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. No one article can be all things to all people. If you want a simpler article, make one, separate from this one. Something like Introduction to animal names. We have evolution and Introduction to evolution. We have quantum mechanics and Introduction to quantum mechanics. And so on.--Filll 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Personaly, I think you could make a copy and call it Names of Common Animals. Then this one should have a few more animals added to it. 72.88.119.206 (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the octopus

Octopus is missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.35.211 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

clearly nonsense

There is a link through to this article from "collective nouns for mammals" most of these are not mammals but fish, insects and everything else. At least a quarter of them are made up. A jenny of Donkey's? Be serious.

And yes - send it to Wiktionary. This has no place in an encyclopedia. Spanglej (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to repair the link for "collective nouns for mammals". (Where is it?) There's nothing in this table about a Jenny of Donkeys. I think you got the columns mixed up. A jenny is a female donkey.Jojalozzo (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

i`m trying to add but isn`t showing up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.30.195 (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

extinct

can you put extinct animals on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.30.195 (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Anteater

I put a citation needed tag on the anteater: anteaterling/lick entry. Best as I can tell from the page's history, that info was added by 78.151.132.93 on July 22, 2009. I get a hit for anteaterling in a kid's book but nothing legit. Unless supported by a legitimate source I would propose removal of the entry. Pinethicket (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than removal of the whole entry, I think it would be better to remove just the unreferenced terms (as long as some of the other terms have legitimate uses)? Jojalozzo (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

References required for words from a dictionary?

This article has had a Refimprove tag for a couple of years. I tested many of the words here that I didn't know and was able to find them in a good dictionary. Does WP policy require references for words that can be found in a dictionary? If so, does that mean every word should have a reference? If some words are ok, how do we decide which words still need a reference? Jojalozzo (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't add references for "words" in wikipedia. We add references for statements. This table is just a concenced form of statements of kind "The baby XX is called YY" Please provide a reference that, e.g., a male ostrich is called cock (I mean a reputable reference, not Wikianswers). As I see in books, it is called jst thus: "male ostrich" (in English language; some other languages have a specific term). - Altenmann >t 06:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you had searched for "Ostrich Cock" in google books you'd have found plenty of entries. Jojalozzo (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you feel a term needs a reference, then please add a citation-needed tag to the disputed term instead of deleting the whole table entry. Deleting the whole entry does not communicate what your concerns are. Jojalozzo (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is one and the same concern, expressed in the tag at the top of the page. Please don't add more information without references, and there will be no added concern. - Altenmann >t 06:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem with tagging terms that need citations instead of deleting whole entries? Please just add a tag with a date and if the term is not referenced in due time, then just delete the term. Jojalozzo (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a common tag since 2007. - Altenmann >t 07:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Moose needs a reference???

{moved out of my talk page}. - Altenmann >t 07:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You object to my restoring entries in List of animal names but do not justify deleting entries for common animals like Moose, Gorilla, Goldfinch. Please explain. I started a topic in the List of animals talk page which you have not responded to. I started a topic on your talk page which you removed. I have responded to the topic you started on my talk page but you ignored it and started a new topic there. Your lack of communication is not helping to resolve this disagreement. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, moose needs reference, like anything else. - Altenmann >t 06:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. Everything does not need a reference. There have to be limits. Please show me where WP policy requires a reference for everything. Your cryptic approach to this is not helpful and strikes me as somewhat arrogant. What is it about moose that you think requires a reference? Wouldn't it be more constructive to add a "citation needed" tag or just delete the term that you feel needs a reference instead of the whole table entry? Jojalozzo (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything disputed needs a reference. The article has been tagged as unefeenced since 2007!! The issue is plain and simple: either there exists a reference or not. I am surprised that you are disputing the most basic policy of wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 06:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

But you are not disputing, you are just deleting. For example, what was disputed about the moose entry? If you posted a citation needed tag on the term that you are concerned about it could be fixed. By deleting whole entries with a cryptic comment you are just being destructive. Jojalozzo (talk)

I added explanation in Talk:List of animal names. - Altenmann >t 06:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You do not address my request to tag terms that need a citation instead of deleting whole entries from the table without saying what terms you think need a reference. I feel you are not addressing my concerns. Should we get someone else to help with this dispute? Jojalozzo (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If a whole line is deleted, then all information need references. Once again, the article is in disarray since 2007. The editors had plenty of time. There are many references added already. Once again, all terminology needs references. I started adding more references and making other order. Please follow my example. - Altenmann >t 07:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Altenmann: Please stop deleting entries until we resolve this dispute. I consider it bad faith to persist in this while we are discussing it. Will you agree to stop deleting and take this to dispute resolution? Jojalozzo (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed yet, I am not only deleting, I am actually adding references now. Can you add a reference to any of deleted items? - Altenmann >t 07:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to stop deleting and just tag terms that need references. Deleting an entry makes it extremely hard to add a reference! In addition it is poor form to continue a disputed behavior. Please stop. Jojalozzo (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read my previous answer: I am adding references now. I will not delete any more item without verifying myself whether the information may be easily referenced. Also I will never delete an entry which has the corresponding info in the corresponding wikipedia article, even if it is unreferenced there. As you may notice, I didn'd delete "duckling", "cub", etc, although they are unreferenced in this list as well. - Altenmann >t 07:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Please replace entries you have previously deleted which can be easily verified, like goldfinch, jellyfish, moose, etc. Jojalozzo (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please let me add another point to consider. There are millions of various species. Vast majority of them do not have specific names for young/m/f, so there is no sense to add them into the table. Mukadderat (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If there are no special terms in the literature, then there's no need to add them here. The generic terms at the top will cover those animals that don't have special names. Jojalozzo (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hog vs Pig

Is there a reason there is a line for hog and a line for pig? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably no. I just removed the "Hog" line. — æk^Talk 10:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Asinine?

Is "asinine" a legitimate adjective for asses? What do you think? --Purplezart 06:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. "Ass" (the animal) is actually where "asinine" comes from. --121.72.170.74 (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but for another reason. As other animal adjectives, also this one is derived from the Latin name of subgenus including asses—Asinus. --Tomaxer (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Note 1??

Do we really need a note telling us that certain words (eg cock, bitch) can be used offensively? There are dozens of words in the English language that have everyday and offensive meanings (balls, prick, pussy etc) we do not have notes on all the pages that use these words warning us that they may have an offensive meaning.

If no one objects I will remove these notes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Jojalozzo (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a vote for this. Just do it. The notes are irrelevant to the page. Squeamishness of maiden aunts is not wikipedia's problem :). I would do it if it was a quick edit for me - but looking at the page I'm not sure where all the notes are. DHooke1973 (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

All removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Referencing policy and handling of unreferenced terms

There are a couple of issues here.

1. Do common and generic terms (like bull, cow, cock or hen) require a citation?
2. For a table entry where all the terms that need references lack them is it better to delete the whole entry or to add a dated tag to the unreferenced terms and then delete the terms in due time?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SReed888 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid my colleague misstated the first issue. The correct statement would be:

1. Does usage of common and generic terms (like bull, cow, cock or hen), such as in "male bandersnatch is called 'bull'", require citation? - Altenmann >t 08:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of citations: The best way to write an article like this is to put a general-purpose dictionary in the References section once (see subsection "General Reference Summary" at WP:CITE). Any information that does not appear in that dictionary should be appropriately footnoted.

Taking this approach into consideration, the second question about non-/deletion is altered: if a particular entry cannot be found in the general article reference work, it should be tagged with {{citation needed}}, then cited or deleted after an appropriate time, per WP:PRESERVE. — æk^Talk 10:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed. Sex specific names need a citation. These things are often argued about and WP should be based on reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• More citations are needed. As many as possible, otherwise there is no point in having this list. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: While I generally agree with the idea that citations are useful, I think in this case they should be restricted to contentious names or animals that have more than one common gender name (which may happen with common animals that were named independently in different regions). this is a pragmatic matter more than anything else. most names of this sort are matters of common public knowledge without any specific sourcing (e.g. there is no obvious first person who called male cattle bulls and a female cattle cows). that means citations of this sort are primarily going to come from other dictionaries or encyclopedias (tertiary sources) which do little more than state the definition. seems like collecting these is a large investment of time and resources for very little actual value. --Ludwigs2 04:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Komodo dragons

What would Komodo dragons be? Probably Calf-Cow-Bull...but probably better as Hatchling for young. 89.240.153.241 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well from another page here I know that a group is a bank (a bank of monitors, and komodo dragons are monitors), but for the individual names please? 89.240.153.241 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutered Animals

We need another column for the names of neutered animals. Many animals have a different name for a neutered male. For example, a steer is a neutered bull and a gelding is a neutered stallion.

LordXenophon (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to clutter the table up if we can help it. Would it work to use the existing male and female columns and append "(neu)" or something to indicate it applies to the neutered case, perhaps with a note at the top to explain? Jojalozzo 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A number of names for neuters have been added in the last few weeks. The ones that are unusual and do not appear in the standard references* need separate references. I propose we give them a month to be cited and remove any that aren't sourced.

*"Collective Terms for Groups of Animals". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
"Dictionary.com Animal Names".
"Merriam Webster Dictionary".

Jojalozzo 13:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I also find no references for those entries in an internet search; so I concur their deletion if no valid reference comes forth in a reasonable time. It should also be noted that the terms were added on other pages--castration and banger; those should be deleted if the terms remain unsourced. Pinethicket (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think keep. 92.29.203.153 (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah. With this last "vote" by 92.29.203.153 it's clear to me that one or more Manchester editors are having us on. All the following are Manchester IP's served by Opal DSL: 78.144.189.93, 78.145.46.3, 78.149.85.15, 78.149.85.15, 78.150.232.118, 78.150.175.115, 78.150.232.118, 84.13.84.99, 89.241.5.59, and 92.29.203.153 and most if not all of their edits contain terms that are uncited, not found in standard references, and appear to be manufactured. In my view, edits by accounts from a Manchester Opal DSL IP that employ terms that are uncited and aren't in the standard reference should be treated with suspicion. I think our good faith has been abused enough. Jojalozzo 02:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

While the article is being cleaned up, what about deleting the entries for dragon and unicorn? Seems like they appeared during the Manchester invasion. I hate to see this article reverting to a collection of made-up names for made-up animals. Pinethicket (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask Oxford gone missing?

I can't find Askoxford.com. There is a page in the oxforddictionaries.com site that lists some collective nouns but it's abbreviated. We may have to back out the askoxford-cited terms if we can't find another ref for them Jojalozzo 20:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hares and Rabbits

Am I wrong? - I have only ever known the term 'leveret' as being related to Hares (as in Hare = Middle English, from the Anglo-Norman, diminutive of levere)and usually a Hare under a year old. 'Lapin' as meat? Is that not just the French for rabbit and 'Lapan'?? Please tell me if I am wrong.JACKINABOX 10 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to correct any errors you find. There's been plenty of unsupported contributions that may have been given the benefit of a doubt so when someone thinks there's an error and there's no support in the standard references it probably is an error. Jojalozzo 01:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Jojalozzo, as I am new to this - just a bit nervous of 'editing' - but have deleted the bits I think may have been inaccurate. JACKINABOX 10 (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wolverine

Any chance we could get some info on Wolverines here for X-men and University of Michigan fans.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Add column for home

Can you add a column for the home such as Den or Lair.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Why isn't Den at Category:Shelters built or used by animals.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, though "built shelter" is a better term since most animals employ shelter only when raising young. Some build shelter for protection from the elements and predation but that is more rare. Jojalozzo 21:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Nutcluster of dugongs ?!?

Is that for real? The Dugong page and routine googling shows nothing except links back to this page. Looks to me like vandalism that slipped through... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.137.93 (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Good eye! I see from Blamer that was added by an anonymous editor along with a few more choice terms on 10/20/2010. See here. Jojalozzo 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference check needed

The name for a young Sea lion has been termed a "beach weaner" in this article. I have not found anything resources that say this is correct. Could a reference be given for this term or correction where needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.215.89 (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The only sources I can find appear to have been copied or sourced from this article in the first place. I could not find any scientific or marine organisations that use the term "beach weaner" - they all use "pup". I have removed it from the article. If someone finds a reference for it from a reputable site, they can add it back with the reference. Ozzieboy (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputed section

I've been going through the section on "Terms by species or taxon" and I've found many terms which are completely unsourced, and which I can't find by using Google Books. I've started clearing up, but I've only briefly scanned about halfway down. The reliability of that section is very much in doubt at the moment, so I put up a "disputed" template. I considered "Section OR" as well, but it's not so much "original research" as complete crap. Examples of stuff I've taken out so far:

• A "nye" of oxen
• "stretch" and "journey" of giraffes
• "rasp" of guinea fowl
• "Buck and doe" lorises
• "Troop" and "harem" of lorises
• "risk" of lobsters
• "fork of kudu"
• "gross" and "battalion" of falcons
• "cauldron of bats" - book search only finds one usage, probably idiosyncratic.

I didn't just remove these because I'd never heard of them: I actually did Google book searches, and came up empty. Some other ones that I doubted, I found references for, and added them. --Slashme (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

How to remove an unwanted full stop in st. albans

Try as I might, I cannot find a way to edit out the "." in St.Albans. Saint Albans (the place) is abbreviated to St Albans and not St. Albans. The problem is with the title to the page and also with the link to the page on this page. Not an expert on wikipedia, I suspect that if I were to find a way to remove the "." I would inadvertently prevent anyone following the link to the page which itself would need to be changed. Could any wiki-savvy person make the change along the chain until the problem goes away? Thanks 174.34.143.114 (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Paul Lovatt of St Albans

I have moved the article on the book to The Book of Saint Albans and update the link accordingly. Ozzieboy (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Meat sections

I think that there should only be an entry in the "Meat" column for a particular animal if there is a name for that animal's meat which is not merely animal name + "meat." On the one hand, there is a navigational benefit to being able to find the articles on specific kinds of meat that WP has. On the other, there is an informational benefit to only filling the table cells where there is a deviation from the compositional pattern of animal name + "meat." I think the latter concern wins in the context of this article (providing information about suppletive vocab items in English -- as in the "male" and "female" columns). On the other hand, maybe there is a way to indicate that a particular animal's meat is notable enough to merit an article (footnote?). Other opinions welcome. — æk^Talk 10:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I note no meat is listed for Shark. I also noted that "flake" is applied to the meat of Dogfish (Australia/UK). It is true that in the UK dogfish meat is known as flake. In Australia, any shark meat is known as flake, including dogfish. However, the most common "flake" is Australia is the Wobbegong, and there are several other shark species and families that are sold as flake. This being the case, I am adding "flake" under the meat column for shark. Ptilinopus (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Poultry meat

Why is the meat of the various poultry birds lumped into one name, "poultry"? The common name for the meat of the various birds is almost invariably the same as the name of the bird. Chicken meat is "chicken"; duck meat (including the more specific Mallard) is "duck", turkey meat is "turkey". Try going into any butchery or other purveyor of poultry and ask for "poultry"! The term is too general, and in fact represents a class of meats, not a specific meat. It should be deleted, and where applicable, replaced with the terms in general use - "chicken", "duck", and "turkey" - though I am unsure as to the currency of other "poultry" meats (goose, guinea fowl, peafowl). Ptilinopus (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Angelfish

I initially deleted piscine and ichthyic as adjectives for angelfish, as they have no specificity to angelfish and merely mean 'relating to or characteristic of fish' - a term (fish) to which they are already applied.

Then, on re-examining the line, I deleted angelfish in its entirety. It has no unique terms associated peculiarly to it. The young of all fish can be termed 'fry' and I don't know from whence anyone derived the term 'host' as a collective for angelfish - I find no such usage on-line or in texts. Irish Melkite (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Host of Angelfish probably derives from a group of Angels being a host. Whether or not there's actually a real reference for Angelfish coming in hosts i have no idea - it seems within the realm of other group name silliness that can and has been referenced, but you'd probably want a source before including it. --69.209.61.55 (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge with List of animal sounds

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not merged. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

---

List of animal sounds is a simple list, mostly pairing animals with the name of the sound they make. It should be raltively simple to merge them into a column in this article. Might we want then to rename the article to something more general like "List of animal terms"? Jojalozzo 19:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What an unloved merge proposal. :( It doesn't seem to be in any merge categories. Let's try to get it some love.

I don't think the animal sounds would fit well in this article (all the columns here describe the animals themselves in various contexts) but I don't know where they would belong. List of animal sounds needs a serious disciplining and has done since it was first proposed for deletion more than six years ago. Maybe WP:WikiProject Animals could help. ~ Kimelea (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a nightmare! Oppose merge, let it all languish in obscurity until someone who cares enough comes along with a broom and mop! =;-O Montanabw^(talk) 17:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a very silly proposal. Oppose merge. Honestly I'm not sure why we even need a "List of animal sounds" article anyway. --Jtle515 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Started discussion on what to do with List of animal sounds here. ~ Kimelea (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?

There are millions of species of animals on the planet. There are many thousands with distinctive names, probably tens of thousands, in English alone. If this page were extended to include other languages (why do people think English is special here?), there would be millions of entries. This page is a ridiculous idea. RoyLeban (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I won't try to justify the existence of this page but I do not think there are that many animals with distinctive separate names for male, female, young and group. If you know of any more that we have missed and you can provide sources, please let us know or add them yourself. Regarding other languages, remember that this is English Wikipedia. Jojalozzo 18:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If this page is about animals with distinctive names for male and female animals, then (a) the page is misnamed, and (b) a definitive source needs to be found that this list is even close to complete. Without it, this is nothing but original research. I'll drop the English point. RoyLeban (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• There's no requirement that any article be complete. Wikipedia is a work in progress.
• Any evidence that we're missing something is support for adding it. Bring it on! :-)
• All list articles have that element of OR you mention, in that editors must decide whether to include an entry or not. However, that type of decision is an accepted editorial task.
• We use a number of sources to verify the list. I think a requirement to produce one source to verify all the entries is unreasonable. Jojalozzo 04:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You miss the point completely. A page which is full of OR and which, at best, can contain a small fraction of what it purports to contain, does not belong here. You don't have to produce one source to verify all the entries, but the article gives no reputable source which states that a list of animal names such as this even makes sense. The closest is dictionary.com and the San Diego Zoo (a page that looks like it's for kids), but they are just lists themselves, and online sites are generally not considered reputable. If you can't find a better source, why should this page exist? I don't have time to argue against the tens of thousands of other worthless pages on Wikipedia, but stuff doesn't belong on Wikipedia just because somebody thought it was interesting.

If you really think this information belongs, you should (a) give the page an accurate name, and (b) find a reputable source that justifies it's existence. If it were me, I'd delete it, but I'm willing to give you and other editors the benefit of the doubt that you can find such a source. And don't ask me to find more sources for a page that I don't think belongs at all.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

U marmalade?

"Marmalade" for a group of ponies was recently called to my attention. It sounds apocryphal, doesn't cite any source, was added anonymously, and returned no Google results that predate its addition to Wikipedia (late 2009). Should we get someone to look into this, or simply assume it was a vandal edit and remove it? Octan (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's unusual and not sourced please be bold and remove it. I'll get this though. Thanks! Jojalozzo 19:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of www.thealmightyguru.com

There are many many entries that source http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Pointless/AnimalGroups.html. This page appears to be part of a blog with no author and no citations to support it. Is this a reliable source? If not, I propose removing the content that is based on that source. Jojalozzo 21:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It just appears to be someone's personal site and they have collected the list of nouns from the internet. I have made a start on updating the references. Ozzieboy (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I replaced "theguru" refs with cn tags for dubious entries and deleted the refs for obvious entries. It looks like a number of them are literary or poetic coinage that may have a solitary usage. I propose we give these a couple of weeks to be researched and then drop those that are unreferenced. Jojalozzo 22:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Staying on Focus

I recently added some animals that I know of (eg Guanaco). I'd like to add Weta which is an insect. Technically it is an animal, but it may be better NOT to include it. Whats the general consensus on this (I do see Ladybug is in the list, and maybe should be removed as well?)

yak

when you think of a yak you sum times think as a "cow" or a "bull" maybe.but always think how could they be different?maybe a yak is say has more hair than a cow and maybe weaker than a bull.well peace.

Explanation of number

Is a storytelling of crows larger than a murder? Are these names all equivalent, or do they stand for different sized groups?

thanks,

-- e

Lemurs

Seems there is fantasy entry for Lemur: Lemur infant princess dictator 202.90.92.232 (talk) Dom —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I did find this online, but it seems to be from an editable site. All other searches turned up with no names. I'll fix it when I get home later (hate playing with tables on a tablet)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No contents box

I notice there is no contents box on this Talk page. Does anyone know why or how to rectify? LookingGlass (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be more than three main headers for there to be a table of contents in any article space.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Names

Are the names of one species based on popularity or just not in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

NOTICE

NB Please be aware that in-line tags requesting citations, if not satisfied within a reasonable timeframe, give the right to an editor to delete the text concerned.

This seems a madness to me, but I have come foul of it on several occasions. One of these was when I myself had requested a reference and ANOTHER EDITOR took this, as it remained unsatisfied, as justification for deleting the passage concerned!!

I had had no time to provide a reference myself, but my observations, that the deletions were unreasonble, were refuted and this view was backed up by an editor here whom I respect. Consequently I had no option but to give way and allow the passage to be forever deleted! This was irritating, not least because I know from, for instance, the Public Inquiry concerned, that the passage was correct. I had simply been asking someone to help me out with a reference. I was totally unware of the bear pit I'd unwittingly dug.

What this means here is that, as this comment of mine is going to be auto-dated, an editor may come here, in say 12 weeks time, and delete all references marked with the inline tag "citation required"!!

Welcome to the modern world of the wiki-traffic wardens!!

LookingGlass (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

p.s fwiw most of the citations required could be satisfied with the U.S. Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey page at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/about/faqs/animals/names.htm

LookingGlass (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. That means that unreferenced information can be deleted, particularly when it is questionable. Otherwise Wikipedia would be in danger of filling up with dubious facts on the basis that "the editor who put it in reckoned it was right, that's good enough". It isn't good enough. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more

Please remove links from here once they have been placed in the list article. Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Aardwolf
2. Afghan Hound
3. American robin
4. Angelfish
5. Anglerfish
6. Arrow crab
7. Bald eagle
8. Beaked whale
9. Blue bird
10. Black panther
11. Black widow spider
12. Blue whale
13. Bobolink
14. Bonobo
15. Booby
16. Box jellyfish
17. Bovid
18. Bug
19. Canid
20. Capybara
21. Cephalopod
22. Crane fly
23. Fowl
24. Great blue heron
25. Great white shark
26. Ground sloth
27. Hammerhead shark
28. Harrier
29. Hoverfly
30. Humpback whale
31. Irukandji jellyfish
32. Kangaroo mouse
33. Kangaroo rat
34. Kite
35. Leopon
36. Lungfish
37. Mastodon
38. Monitor lizard
39. Panthera hybrid
40. Parakeet
41. Parrotfish
42. Peacock
43. Perch
44. Peregrine falcon
45. Pike
46. Pilot whale
47. Pinniped
48. Piranha
49. Planarian
50. Platypus
51. Portuguese man o' war
52. Possum
53. Prawn
54. Praying mantis
55. Primate
56. Puffin
57. Puma
58. Python
59. Quokka
60. Rainbow trout
61. Rattlesnake
62. Ray (Batoidea)
63. Ray (Rajiformes)
64. Right whale
65. Roadrunner
66. Rodent
67. Rook
68. Rooster
69. Roundworm
70. Saber-toothed cat
71. Sailfish
72. Sawfish
73. Scale insect
74. Scallop
75. Scorpion
76. Sea lion
77. Sea slug
78. Shrimp
79. Silkworm
80. Silverfish
81. Skink
82. Slug
83. Smelt
84. Snipe
85. Snow leopard
86. Sockeye salmon
87. Sole
88. Sperm whale
89. Spider monkey
90. Starfish
91. Star-nosed mole
92. Steelhead trout
93. Stoat
94. Sturgeon
95. Sugar glider
96. Swift
97. Swordfish
98. Swordtail
99. Tahr
100. Takin
101. Thrush
102. Tick
103. Tiger shark
104. Tiglon
105. Tortoise
106. Toucan
107. Trapdoor spider
108. Tree frog
109. Tyrannosaurus
110. Urial
111. Vampire bat
112. Vampire squid
113. Vole
114. Warbler
115. Whippet
116. Whitefish
117. Whooping crane
118. Wildcat
119. Wildebeest
120. Wildfowl
121. Xerinae
122. X-ray fish
123. Yellow perch
124. Zebra finch

What's the point of adding animals that may not even have any names attributed to them?

I assume all well-known animals have the additional names. They all have specialists dedicated to them, after all.

Besides, those are the animals' names. And that is a list of animal names. The Transhumanist 16:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: the WWWeb abounds with lists like this one.

Hi. Thanks for your message regarding List of animal names. The problem is that I don't see any value to filling this article, which is about "given specific names for males, females, young, and groups", with animal names without including any of the afore mentioned specific names.

Otherwise we just have an article that lists animals, not an article of animal names. Not all animals have specific names. So would it not be best, and easiest, to leave animals off the list until these specific names can be included, if they exist?

Some care also needs to be taken in sourcing these names. There are a lot of lists out on the internet with groups names for animals that are little more than "funny names someone made up", and are never actually used by anyone, anywhere. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. Animals, as you call them, are listed throughout WP by their scientific species names. I was looking for a list of them by their common names, when I came across this list. I was going by the title of the list, and I admit, I didn't even read the lead, because I didn't expect that it deviated from the title. The lead is not congruent with the title, which implies it includes all names for animals, including their common names. And indeed it does include their common names, along with the others you mentioned. Concerning the others, I thought "Ah, what a bonus!"

It cannot be a comprehensive list of animal names if it does not include all animal names, including their common names (and species name, come to think of it). But, since it is not a list of (all) animal names, the contents of the list is not discernible from its title. So maybe the title should be changed to be more specific.

You said "not all animals have specific names", but yes they do. Species names and common names are their specific names. The problem is, we don't know what those other kinds of names ("male", "female", "young", and "group") are called as a class.

Concerning sourcing issues, I agree with you. (Though most of those terms in the list are silly, made up by someone).

The list of animal names at Outline of zoology got displaced, and this looked like the best home for it (given the title). Perhaps List of animals by common name Done would be a better place to move those names.

But that still leaves the problem of the vagueness of the title of this list. The Transhumanist 17:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I said "not all animals have specific names", I meant specific names for male, female, young and groups. But your idea of changing this article title sounds good. But what to? Is there a better way of describing "specific names for male, female, young and groups of animals"?--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't know. Perhaps this is a question for the eggheads at the Refdesk. I've posted a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Name of class for: male, female, young, and group. The Transhumanist 14:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of animal names. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/collective/a/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/about/faqs/animals/names.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on List of animal names. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/got_questions_groups_list.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/collective/b/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/collective/d/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/collective/g/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/collective/h/?view=uk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140102055016/http://www.ask.com:80/question/what-is-a-group-of-jaguars-called to http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-a-group-of-jaguars-called
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/collective/s/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What's this table doing here?

Could we just merge it into wikt:Appendix:Animals and then delete this article? – b_jonas 17:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SISTER.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 11:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• alternative suggestion: I find this page (and the table format) very useful, and there are many wiki "List of" articles of other things (I wish they could be this good), BUT... this article and List of English animal nouns are doing almost the same job. perhaps they should be merged? Maitchy (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

A 'wake' of vultures/buzzards?

The vulture article states that:

A group of vultures is called a wake, committee, venue, kettle, or volt. The term kettle refers to vultures in flight, while committee, volt, and venue refer to vultures resting in trees. Wake is reserved for a group of vultures that are feeding

Worth adding? StevePrutz (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of animal names. 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/20071114065446/http://dictionary.reference.com/writing/styleguide/animal.html to http://dictionary.reference.com/writing/styleguide/animal.html

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) 18:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

the sourcing for this page is pretty shitty

This article and related articles should contain the information that this stuff is largely fanciful and made-up, even if it was made up a long time ago. There is no evidence that most of these names were ever used outside the books declaring them to be the words to use. https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/resources/view/resource/4/ 68.175.11.48 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

100% agree. No one goes around saying: "Hey look at that murder of crows!". 107.77.210.169 (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

blubber?

I have had whale in several restaurants in different countries, but I have never or heard seen it called ‘blubber’ on a menu or by any of the staff. A whale may have lots of blubber, but that is not what people eat. (Inuit may eat blubber of seals, but that is a different animal). 193.173.216.26 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting merge of List of English animal nouns and List of animal names

• Merge - both List of English animal nouns and List of animal names cover the same ground. Not all the columns a the same, but they can be copied over. --Nessie (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support merge (while checking for WP:OR). Clear WP:CONTENTFORK. Narky Blert (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Duh, done I have redirected List of English animal nouns here. Spot check didn't find any missing animals from this list. I have also redirected the redundant List of English terms of venery, by animal. Reywas92^Talk 03:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)]

@Reywas92: Did you check to see if either of the articles that were redirected had sources if no source is cited here? Sundayclose (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Did you check to see if either of the articles that were redirected had sources if no source is cited here? Sundayclose (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I checked a number of them, and most in this article already had the sources but the other had some more, mostly bulk cites to such lists elsewhere, so I can copy some over. Reywas92^Talk 00:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Thanks. Please do copy them. Sundayclose (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Plague of grackles

Elementary S03E08 "End of Watch" (16m46s) mentions a "plague of grackles". Can somebody source that? Paradoctor (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This was an unsourced claim from 2009 to 2018 in the Wikipedia entry for common grackle, and I tried removing it from that article, but it was restored with citation to an amateurish 2012 book that may have relied on information from Wikipedia. There was a brief talk page discussion on the topic. --Agyle (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A name to be named later

Why are there entries for specific species that have *no* information?

• Bluebird - is a bird
• Cuckoo - is a bird
• Jerboa - is a member of Dipodidae, woo! (Huh?)
• Marmot - is something not known (tho surely a significant beast)
• Saki - is a member of the genus it is a member of (duh?!?)
• Siamang - is a member of a club, we just don't know which one(s)
• Tamarin - is monkeyshines I'm sure
• Turaco - is terrific, surely!
• Vinegaroon - is a nothing (but I'm being sour?)
• Wobbegong - is nobody's business (being bitey, me?)
• Worm - is just a worm, I guess?

And so many birdies start out as 'chick's, but we don't know anything else?

• Budgerigar, Flycatcher, Hoatzin, Hoopoe, Ibis, Kingbird, Kingfisher, Kite, Kookaburra, Rhea, Shrike, Spoonbill, Stilt, Thrush, Toucan, Vulture, Woodpecker.

And lots of felines that begin as kittens, but then we know nothing. (sneaky)

And 'mouse' as 'kitten'? That's right out of there! Shenme (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Redundant and unsourced entries

@76.109.242.75, can you explain why you think the rows for anole, caracal, coyote, dhole, dingo, eland, flycatcher, and gaur should be included? As I pointed out in my edit summary, they can all be classified under other existing rows, so they don't provide any new information. This page is already very cluttered, so we should do our best to prune anything that's not necessary. Justin Kunimune (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing whimsical collective nouns

How would the other editors here feel about removing from this article all of what I would call whimsical collective nouns – group terms that are documented solely because people think they’re cute and not because anyone actually uses them. That would include most of the "Collective noun" column. My reasoning is that sources like San Diego Zoo, Northern Prarie Wildlife Research Center, YourDictionary, and this Oxford Dictionaries page are mostly requoting the same lists from the Book of St. Albans, which as far as I know never accurately reflected usage. Given that almost none of these words are widespread in common usage (at least, I don’t think they are) and such lists already exist in several places outside Wikipedia, I don’t think it’s useful or accurate to include them here. Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd be all for this, but the problem would be where is the line drawn and who draws it? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Although this list is seriously lacking in sources, I have some concerns about your proposal. First, how do you know that the sources you identify "requote the same lists from the Book of St. Albans"? And how do you know the Book of St. Albans "never accurately reflected usage"? Some of the terms you identify from these sources are widely accepted, such as "flock" of birds and a "murder" of crows. As I said, the article has sourcing problems, but I'm concerned that a sweeping removal of some items would be determined arbitrarily by you to be "whimsical". Sundayclose (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The content of the appended list in the book strongly suggests that it was not to be taken seriously. e.g. "a superfluity of nuns". But it doesn't really matter, because our consideration should be more about usage today. Like most of these collective nouns lists, they do not reflect usage, simply because the only time they are used is when someone is discussing their definition, or making a list of them. You are correct, however, there would be great difficulty determining which words really are whimsy, and it would need to be something determined by a good source, rather than decided arbitrarily by Wikipedia editors. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here’s a more specific proposal. I think we should take lists of collective nouns to be suspect sources, and only include terms with proper dictionary entries. For example, Oxford English Dictionary includes collective noun definitions for "flock" (assemblage of birds), "troop" (group of apes or monkeys), "murder" (flock of crows), and "exaltation" (flight of larks), but not "paddling" or "piteousness", despite those last two being in Oxford’s What do you call a group of …? list. It also marks "exaltation" as "obsolete". So I would argue that the sources justify removing "exaltation", "paddling", and "piteousness", but not "flock", "troop", or "murder". Justin Kunimune (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

How did you conclude that "lists of collective nouns to be suspect sources"?? There's nothing in WP:RS that excludes lists. Your suggestions so far have been quite arbitrary with unfounded claims and little basis in Wikipedia policies. Sundayclose (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s fair. I’m basing it off the fact that many terms on those lists aren’t in the OED, and that I expect long lists to be less carefully curated than proper dictionaries… but I admit it is pretty arbitrary. Maybe a better approach is to just be more discriminating of the sources in this article. OED and Merriam-Webster are highly reputable sources when it comes to English lexicon, while San Diego Zoo’s Animal Bytes is not very reputable. NPWRC’s and YourDictionary’s lists each have an individual without relevant credentials as stated author. Oxford Dictionaries is reputable, but they state that the collective nouns in their list are not attested in usage. So on an individual basis I think there’s good reason to doubt these four lists when they contradict OED and Merriam-Webster. There are a lot of other sources cited on this article, so those would ideally be individually assessed as well. Justin Kunimune (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It's possible for us to decide, by consensus, that we wish the article to limit itself to the very best of reliable sources and avoid low value list sources. This is within Wikipedia policies of consensus and Wikipedia is not indiscriminate. But what's important is that how this is done is clear, well-defined, supportable and avoids any suggestion of arbitrary point of view. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a blanket prohibition of using list sources. The relevant issue is "low value", not "list". And if we want to avoid low value sources, the consensus needs to identify specific sources because otherwise we are back to square one: Who decides what is a low value source? At this point the only source discussed here that I can agree to get rid of is YourDictionary. There's nothing wrong with San Diego Zoo and NPWRC. The fact that they are in list format is irrelevant. Sundayclose (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)