Talk:List of animal names

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?)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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

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)

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)

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

"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)

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}}

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/collective/?view=uk. 
"Dictionary.com Animal Names". http://dictionary.reference.com/writing/styleguide/animal.html. 
"Merriam Webster Dictionary". http://www.merriam-webster.com. 

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)

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)

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)

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)

Merge with List of animal sounds

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)

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)

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)