Talk:List of animal names

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Group names sources[edit]

Redundant and unsourced entries[edit]

@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)[reply]

Removing whimsical collective nouns[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sourcing oxen terms[edit]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:kine#English - kine is not a collective noun, but a simple plural.

https://www.britannica.com/animal/ox-mammal-Bos-taurus - Ox is a generic singular gender neutral term for cattle. Albeit, in sourcing this, there is a substantial amount of use of it for a bullock (Br. Eng) or steer (Am. Eng). Likely a later change to the use of the word, but language does morph. Speaking of bullocks...

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/bullock, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bullock, https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/bullock, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/bullock - bullock as a male term.

I see no issue with these changes, if cited on the article. The current content is not sourced and has been challenged, so open to being removed unless someone can source it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added cites to this from the above links. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated 82.11.195.62 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

leverine with no citation[edit]

Under hare, it has "leverine [citation needed]" dated 2019. I'm a newbie here & would like to understand how this works. Is the info deleted after some amount of time? How much time? Who does the deletion? If time is up & anyone can delete, is it ok for me to delete it? I could not find any info about this term when related to hares. Sunandshade (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no set amount of time; anyone can delete it at any time if they look into it and find that it's false. I'm guessing whoever put that [citation needed] tag there was tagging all of the unsourced terms and didn't have time to research each one. But if you've done that for "leverine" and found it to be unsupported, then please go ahead! Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did do an extensive web search & found nothing. But am I expected to do research for items that are not on the web? That would entail tons of books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Sunandshade (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, a web search is enough. If whoever added that wants it to stay, the onus is on them to dig up a source for it. Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generic terms vs Species/Taxon terms[edit]

Confused as to what goes in each section. For Generic terms, under Leporidae (rabbits/hares), for male is has jack. Does that mean both rabbits & hares can use this term? Or, does it mean only 1 can use this term, but the Generic table is to include ALL terms for all animals in that category? Sunandshade (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be the first interpretation, that the term can be used for any animal in that category. If it was the second, the table would be much longer and redundant with the "specific species or taxon" table. Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. On a related note, some cells have "-" & some have "?". It seems they should be the same. While they might have slightly different meanings (not sure vs unknown), I really don't think that was intended. Would it be a good idea to make them the same? I'm partial to "-". I'm not that proficient in html, but looking at the code, it doesn't seem too complicated. It would be nice to have a find/replace action but I can't find one for the html code. Is there one? Sunandshade (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I agree that "–" is better. The web editor has no find/replace feature as far as I know, but one can paste the code into a text editor, find/replace there, and paste it back into the browser. I just made that change. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"List of gender names" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect List of gender names has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 26 § List of gender names until a consensus is reached. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Human young[edit]

I see the following listed among the young of humans: baby, boy (male), child, girl (female), and infant.  I was always under the impression that kid was another of the accepted terms for human young.  Is this a misconception?  Is there a reason why kid is not listed?  allixpeeke (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though widely used, "kid" is still a slang term for a human child, not a scientific one. This being an encyclopedia, we do not intermix scientific and slang terms in our articles. General Ization Talk 04:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vultures[edit]

There are three different collective nouns for vultures (kettle, committee, and wake) listed on the wiki page for vultures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture), including a footnote for the source ([6] Hamilton, S.L. (2014). "Sky Burials").

I am sure the source is correct, but I cannot provide a second source. I had encountered those collective nouns elsewhere, but I forget where other than it was a website about word usage.

I am too inexperienced with wiki editing to know how to add a new line to the matrix for vultures. Rendel B. Moshe (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_animal_names&oldid=1218963592"