Talk:List of collective nouns by collective term L-Z

What is this?

What on earth is this page? --Selket ^Talk 17:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"A network of computers" is semantically wrong

"A farm of servers" would be correct.

But a plurality of computers does not make for a network, much in the same way that a plurality of people do not make a corporation.

IIRC at some earlier age there was talk of "a crunching of processors". Nice... elpincha 16:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the above comment, suggest to delete "network". Ideas? elpincha (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to deletion. Semantically correct or not, the term "network" is commonly used to refer to a collective consisting of computers and (often) other technical elements. I also note that the distinction between a plurality and a collective is often vague: We frequently see people collectivized by country or region ("several states of voters favored the candidate") although a geographical area isn't technically comprised [solely] of people. Bonehed (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A group of computers is not a "network". A group of connected computers is. It's the difference between a group of people and a "family" of people. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is totally wrong. If you saw a row of computers in a shop you wouldn't call them a network — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkbit (talk • contribs) 06:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

2007-08-3 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page has been undersourced long enough. I have just removed several clear jokes ("A wunch of bankers") and cases that do not fit the topic (a roll of coins is not merely several coins, they must be in a roll). The rest, I've tagged for sources. In a month or so, I'll yank anything that's still not sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but tagging each and every entrance is disrupting the page. A simple {{Refimprove}} tag should do it.

About removing material. May I point out to you that according to Wikipedia policy only material that is "likely to be challenged" must be sourced. Debresser (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Slight correction: "any material 'challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Please assume that I was challenging all of the listings that I tagged as cite needed.

"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references." By adding "cite needed" to the items and waiting, I was giving notice, as detailed above. It's been more than a month, so I'm yanking all of the unsourced ones. If you would like to return any of them, please provide a cite for them as "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This article has valuable material. Things often remain unsourced for years. Since this is no biography is don't see the reason to remove anything at this point.

You're not being serious when you say you challenge all unsourced material. Because you know very well that the article is right. If you don't want to be serious, don't edit Wikipedia! Debresser (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's "valuable material" it's "right"? Is "wunch of bankers" valuable material? I am quite serious and I know very well that is not right.

A sister article had similar problems. Prior to my demanding sources, it looked like this. Pure garbage. Now it looks like this. Granted, we lost "wunch of bankers" and "foo of bars" along with the meaningful "STATUS" column.

Yeah, it's not a BLP. So what? "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Yes, it is "particularly true of negative information about living persons", but it is also "true of all information".

You have restored the material. The burden of evidence now lies with you. I will remove the unsourced entries again in a few days. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And you will be reverted. As I said before, material often is unsourced for a long time before a source is found or somebody gets around to adding it. If there are specific entries you disagree with, please feel free to remove them. But a mass deletion of unsourced material is counterproductive. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I see from your words, SummerPhD, that you have a "deletionist" approach. Surely you are aware that many don't share your point of view. From what I see, almost no editors do. Well, neither do I. Mind you, I agree with you in theory. I just think you should give it a few years.Debresser (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, you are saying you are right and I am wrong. Ab initio, however, you have no grounds. Wikipedia's core principles include verifiability, which these entries clearly violate. When cahllenged, they fall. Wikipedia pointedly does NOT have a policy that says, essentially, "collect anything anyone adds from the atomic weight of carbon to jokes high school students add about wankers". Again, I will allow them to stand for a few days, then I will weed through them at a rapid clip, removing large numbers of entries. Should any pop up on any of the sister articles or have sources, I'll leave them, along with the few I have actually encountered. Anything else is gone. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if I'm a deltetionist, this shows that my user name must've been hacked! - SummerPhD (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:) I thought you might misunderstand me like this. I didn't mean "deletionist" in the sense that you delete articles (which is the usual meaning here in Wikipedia). You delete unsourced content. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said before: if you want to delete any specfic entries you challenge - no problem. But you don't want to challenge the unsourced material, you just want to remove it because of it being unsourced. That is counterproductive (in this case). Debresser (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to generalize about each other from a few random edits, I would gather that you simply want to retain everything that anyone puts up, whether it is useful information or jokes they made up ("wunch of bankers"). That is counterproductive as it assures that wikipedia will remain loaded down with so much pure garbage that the meaningful content will never show. The generalization is also counterproductive.

In addition to the articles I've created, I've deleted articles as well: some were hoaxes, others simply weren't notable (someone's favorite gym teacher comes to mind). As previously mentioned, I've seriously upgraded a sister article to this one (this to this) by demanding sources. I gutted then fleshed out another article. I don't delete for the sake of deleting, I'm getting rid of the crap.

When someone else yanked a list from an article I follow, I did the work. That's productive. You've decided to simply revert and insist that you will continue to do so. That isn't productive and it won't guide my hand. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In stead of hammering on that one example ("wunch of bankers") delete it! And any other entry that shouldnt be in the list as well. I told you that before (so saying that I want to keep "everything" was hardly a smart move). But any entry that has a place in the list but isn't sourced, well, patience, my friend, patience. Debresser (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just removed all of the items that have been on the list, unsourced since 1 September 2002. If six and a half years isn't long enough for you, we will need to take this to another venue. The remaining items are either sourced or less than six and a half years old. I am not willing to determine their exact age, but I am returning the cite needed tags for these few. In a while, I will return to the issue. If, after a quick check of my own, there are no sources for them, I will remove them. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted you. As you might well have expected. If you start looking for references, then those entries that have been unsourced the longest should be the first ones to receive your attention (meaning not that you should delete them, but that you should find them references).

And why haven't you deleted the "wunch of bankers"? A sense of humor?

In particular I find it strange that you shouldn't give me at least a month from the moment my involvement with this article became apparent to provide some references of my own. So no deleting any entries in the mean time, please. Again, excluding obvious misplaced entries. This borders on unprofessional conduct, enforcing your style, etc. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Wunch of bankers" is currently as valid as all of the others. That there is a joke that would explain the entry is moot. It is possible that there is truth behind it. I left it in place because it hasn't been there since September of 2002, unlike all of ones I removed. To remain consistent, you would have to restore it (as you have before) anyway, so what's the point?

That you find it strange that I don't give you at least a month to provide references is, in itself, strange. Why would I give you a month? Why not six hours or six years or some other arbitrary length of time? They've been there for 78 months already, but your involvment (which has yet to add a single source) somehow adds 30 days to the non-existant clock? I specifically asked for sources on these individually over a month ago. But you weren't here yet... Six month prior to that, I began similar work on a sister article that you haven't had a single thing to say about. It now resembles something we might hope this mess will look like some day. Or not. I'm all for sourcing material. I am not for running around trying to chase down fleeting references for pure drivel. If you wish to defend the drivel, good luck to you. If you have sources or entirely new entries, please add them. If you add anything new without a source I will revert it with no comment beyond "unsourced" and a generic warning on your talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Standards

I propose the following standards for this page.
1) All entries must be verifiable. If you add or return an entry, please provide a citation to a reliable source defining the term or clearly demonstrating the usage as a specific collective term for the noun in question.
2) Specific usages are out. A random listing of mountains is not a "range of mountains" nor is a random group of football players a "team of players". Five computers are not a "network of computers" unless they are networked together. No "ring of keys", etc.
3) Collectives that are not limited to usage for specific nouns are out. This rules out "pile of/handful of/bucket of/liter of" "peas/leaves/beer/coins" and such.
4) Please list each usage separately: "____ of As" and "___ of Bs" not "____ of A/Bs". This will ease the transitioning of this page to a sortable table and keep the references clearer. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with 2,3 and 4. Disagree with 1, as above. If it is challenged, it can be removed if no source is provided within a reasonable time, but if unchallenged, it shouldn't be removed. As per Wikipedia policy we both mentioned before. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1 restates a core policy. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." To wit: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". WP:V I will act accordingly. Your actions are your own, we'll hash it out as we go along. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you remove anything you challenge seriously, as you did here, and give a reasonable time to provide references - fine with me. If you remove just because it's unsourced, that's counterproductive.

Although... It may be argued that our case proves that removing unsourced material is very productive. :) Debresser (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I did some work, but I'm a little busy these two weeks. I'll need time till mid-April. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Load of drunks

As there was a wholesale removal of specific {{cn}} tags recently, I am restoring individual tags to individual items when I specifically challenge them, as in this case. I have found references that would support "loaded" to mean "drunk" and a "load" being the specific amount of EtOH consumed to result in drunkenness, but nothing reliable to show "load" as a collective term for drunks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As you see, I had no problem with you removing some entries, which is to say I agree with you. I hope this will increase the trust between us.

No problem with you challenging this one. I from my side would like a week to bring up some reference. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Found it. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You found two instances of people referring to a "load of drunks". One is from someone who "runs a household appliance store". With that standard, "load" is also the collective noun for fun, crap, handguns and rifles, mgs of statins, money, hot air, old rubbish, and several million other things. Basically, this demonstrates that "load" is a collective noun, but that it is not specific to drunks.

The other is a book that I haven't really looked at that refers to a "police wagon with a load of drunks". This fits nicely with "load" meaning "cargo: goods carried by a large vehicle".[1] Basically, we're right back where we were. There are probably thousands of "collective nouns", such as "load". We aren't (reasonably) trying to list them all. This article is meant to be a List collective nouns whose usage is limited to one or a few types of objects, which royally sucks as an article title. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It does. :) I agree these aren't the best possible references, but in absense of better ones, I think this is preferable to deleting a genuine and widespread example from the list. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The example of the "police wagon with a load of drunks" is amiguous, but that just shows you how these combinations come to live. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

sdzoo

I was about to begin a wholesale addition of terms from the sdzoo source (and had already added "nest of ants" blindly), when I bumped across an issue with a number of the listings. Much as 10 Jews in a classroom for Soc 101 isn't a "minyan of Jews", an assortment of ants from more than one colony is neither a "nest of ants" nor a "swarm of ants". Ditto, possibly, "troop of apes", "family of beavers", "colony of beavers", etc. The problem would be growth of the article beyond any reasonable limit.
Start with playing cards. We would need entries (sourced, of course) for deck, pair, hand, stack, spread, fan, rifle, etc. For people, we would have family, couple, reunion, staff, glee club, band, army unit, minyan, mob, party, gathering, pack, class, etc.
Essentially, I think we need to weed out the specific terms somehow and, for this source (and likely others like it) I don't know that we can do that without resorting to synthesis of some kind.
At rock bottom, we have a reliable source speaking somewhat informally. Yes, a mother mouse and her litter might be a "nest of mice" and yes, that is a "group name", but is it a "collective noun" in the sense we are using it? Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be modest and bold at the same time: bold enough to use the SanDiego Zoo source, but modest enough to use it only for those entries that we have so far. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We have no defensable reason to do that. How do we head the article "Here are collective nouns that were added anonymously that also happen to be in a source we have. We haven't included the others from that source because they might not belong here. The anonymously submitted ones, though, we are sure belong here because someone put them here."

The shit hits the fan: We either need to rename this article or the floodgates are open. A reliable source gives us meaning for a collective noun[2]: a noun that is singular in form but refers to a group of people or things. This would include every example I've used so far re things I think we want to avoid. Yikes. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we don't have to advertise it. :) Debresser (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

By "Done.", it would seem that you mean you are done using some elements of the source while rejecting others. Given the completely arbitrary nature of the ones included, this does not address the problem. Rather, it chooses to ignore it. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not rejecting anything. I'm just providing sources. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

References

I've started providing references.

• Terms I tagged "dubious" may be deleted, as far as I am concerned. But do pay attention to the information I've added here and there in remark tags.
• Terms I tagged "citation needed" I hope other editors will be able to find a source for. I ask other editors to refrain from deleting them for at least a month, and preferably actively help out in finding sources. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you say http://www.britishbirdlovers.co.uk/articles/collective-nouns-for-birds.html is a reliable source? I doubt it.

The terms sourced from The Free Dictionary are from the Book of St. Albans (attributed to Dame Juliana Barnes, 1486). This site also brings them, and adds "Many of these are fanciful or humorous terms which probably never had any real currency. (Taken from the Concise Oxford Dictionary)". Do you think these terms belong in this article? The same question applies to this site with "Collective Nouns from the 15th Century". These are probably from the same source.

So far I have used these three sources, but I'm a little unhappy about it. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

At present, the article title does not represent an encyclopedic topic. This issue must be resolved before any meaningful progress can be made. Otherwise, there is absolutly no reason not to include terms like "pile", "bunch", "stack" and such, sourced to any hand dictionary. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What about "List of specific collective nouns by collective term"?

Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if you could relate to my questions. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

See Lists of collective nouns. I've come to the conclusion these articles (1, 2, 3 and 4)should be deleted, since there is no clear criteria for them. Not so List of animal names, List of collective nouns for birds, List of collective nouns for reptiles and amphibians and List of collective nouns for fish, invertebrates, and plants, that are well defined.

Nevertheless, I didn't go on with a deletion nomination, because I already image the result will be a keep, for unfathomable reasons. If anybody will take that step, please inform me. Debresser (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either for or against deletion. I find the list mildly interesting and have occasionally referred to it for information. I removed most of the unsourced items in 1 and 2. For the sourced items, I wonder which criteria for deletion you base your suggested deletion on? Thanks. Cresix (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article is far too broad. To fit the title we would need to include dozens of nouns for people alone: family, couple, reunion, staff, glee club, band, army unit, minyan, mob, party, gathering, pack, class, etc. Then there are the absurd entries: box, pile, stack, roomful, etc. of virtually anything. We need a new title for the article that covers unspecified collections of a specified noun. It would include a flock of birds but not a field of birds. Includes a deck of cards, but not a pile. Get it? Otherwise, we're stuck with a boundless topic of no merit whatsoever. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Although you make a good point that I agree with, unfortunately the term "collective noun" is broadly used for unspecified collections of a specified noun, usually when referring to animals. I think most people familiar with a few of those words (flock of birds, murder of crows) realize the general idea that it doesn't refer to every instance of a collection such as group, pile, etc. If someone can come up with another accurate title that is not awkward, I think we should change it. Maybe it's just me, but the only title I can think of is based on your phrase: "List of unspecified collections of specified nouns", which of course is far too awkward and virtually impossible to find using standard search techniques. Cresix (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge

I would recommend that this article be merged with List of collective nouns by subject I-Z to create a new article "List of collective nouns ...-Z".
Additionally, the article List of collective nouns by collective term A-K should be merged with List of collective nouns by subject A-H to create a new article "List of collective nouns A-...". (starting and ending the articles at whichever letter is best)

If all items were put in a sortable table, then the user could choose to view the list by collective term or subject.

This would cut down on the number of lists for these and would also help with future editing as currently items in the subject lists are not always updated in the collective terms lists and vice versa and also items are missing from one list or the other.

Comments welcome. Ozzieboy (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. After all the unsourced (many very questionable) items were removed, there's not enough left for several articles anyway. Cresix (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, a sortable list make separate lists a moot point. I haven't had a chance to go through the other lists at Category:Lists_of_collective_nouns. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there is some repetition in the other lists - I really haven't gone through them all either. I have made a start in my Sandbox on the alphabetic lists. Ozzieboy (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The job is bigger than I realised! And I can only work on it in my spare time. But I am still working on a merged article and hope to have it finished before the next millennium. Ozzieboy (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

New merged article is List of collective nouns Ozzieboy (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edited to remove link to changed User page Ozzieboy (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)