Talk:Lamb and mutton

Incorrect

The Lamb is the offspring of the sheep, not intrinsically a culinary term or type of food...

The Wiki Cookbook link at the bottom of the page points to Cookbook:Lamb (food). <Syntax?> It should point to Cookbook:Lamb. Can someone more wikicapable than I please fix this?

Who knew something so cute was so tasty? ^_^--Dangerous-Boy 07:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of mutton

Should "Female (ewe) and castrated male (wether) " read "Female (ewe) OR castrated male (wether)" ? Hope someone can help. Lambyuk 10:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think I did that edit which I've now fixed. Thanks. -- I@n ≡ talk 07:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Separate page needed for "mutton"

I disagree with the redirect of "mutton" to Lamb (food), because "mutton" has at least one other definition -- in South and Southeast Asia, "mutton" is used generally to refer to red meat, and specifically to goat's meat. I tried to figure out a way to work in a mention of this definition here, but it doesn't make sense to give an alternative definition of "mutton" when the title of the article is "Lamb (food)." Acsenray 14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The same thought had crossed my mind. Why not have a separate Mutton article? -- I@n 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a similar thought to the Mutton discussion page. --Paul Moloney 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is pretty nearly exclusively about lamb, and ends with links to lamb-related articles. I was trying to research mutton and this told me basically nothing. Atypicaloracle (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Extra link

Is the muttonbird link at the end really appropriate? It doesn't really relate to lambs. If we need some kind of disambiguation, shouldn't that be done at Mutton? 130.240.98.187 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom & Eire

I think this should be added to the list of places where lamb is an important/predominant part of national and/or traditional cuisine. It is! Plutonium27 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I can't find a dictionary that spells "Hoggett" so, but "Hogget" is an accepted spelling. Could we have a definitive answer?

81.174.151.35 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Seinfeld

Something should be mentioned about the episode where Jerry is on a diet and is forced to eat mutton by a date of his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.231.86 (talk • contribs)

I definitely agree! I tried to add this and wikipedia immediately deleted it, saying that it wasn't relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.87.60 (talk • contribs)

Sheepmeat is not a word?

Someone forgot to tell the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, Ireland's Beef and Sheepmeat Fund and the USDA. Ewlyahoocom 06:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have looked in several dictionaries and none have the word "sheepmeat". Please find me one dictionary with this word to verify that it in fact exists officially in the English language. Robbie098 07:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to learn that such a word exists, but I think even if it is not a word found in the dictionary, the fact that various agencies around the world lends credence to the usage of the word -- and having a WP article named as such. Chensiyuan 07:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Obviously "sheepmeat" is not what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. I also had never heard of this word before. As far as linking goes, there are barely any articles that even mention this word, and none that link to it directly. So it is basically a direct contradiction to policy. Robbie098 09:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What is your suggestion for what the article should be called? Chensiyuan 12:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that though "sheepmeat" may be in bureaucratic use, it is not the common English name. How about "Lamb and mutton (meat)" (hoggett is a rather specialized and uncommon term)? --Macrakis 16:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it might be better to choose between the two (maybe Lamb (meat) vs Mutton). I am leaning slightly toward Lamb (meat), I think "lamb" is the most common name and "meat" is probably the best disambiguation word (much better than "food"). Robbie098 18:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Would Sheep meat (with a space in the middle) be more acceptable to you? Ewlyahoocom 19:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that naming conventions are that Wikipedia articles should be named according to what English speakers recognize and use most often. I have never heard anyone refer to lamb/mutton as "sheep meat". Like Macrakis said, this is simply not the common name for it. I believe that "lamb" is the word most people use, so that should be the name of the article. I agree that the original name of Lamb (food) was not very appropriate, so I support a move to Lamb (meat). Robbie098 21:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I was proposing "Lamb or mutton (meat)" because I thought that there might be areas where "mutton" was as common as "lamb". But the Google searches for lamb/mutton recipe on site:uk, site:au, etc. (e.g. [lamb recipe site:uk]) show that even in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, the term "lamb" in cooking contexts is much more common (6x) than "mutton"; "hogget", in turn is much rarer than "mutton". So I would support "Lamb (meat)". The opening paragraph, though, should definitely mention mutton and probably hogget. --Macrakis 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. The text of the article should mention all names, but the title should be the most commonly used one. So, any opposition to moving this to Lamb (meat)? Robbie098 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I oppose on the basis that it is imprecise. Ewlyahoocom 01:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Titles are bound to be imprecise, and in any case Wikipedia policy (cited above) leans towards familiarity rather than pedantic precision in titles. Sheepmeat is a useful term for bureaucrats and industry associations, but unknown to the general public. --Macrakis 15:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is Lamb and mutton -- mutton unambiguously refers to meat, so the qualifier (meat) probably isn't necessary. --Macrakis 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, like you said before, "lamb" is really the most used word. In everyday spoken English I would say it is used even more than 6 times as much as "mutton" is. I think even the most liberal interpretation of WP:NC justifies this move. Robbie098 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate: I oppose on the basis that it is imprecise. Please refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). And while the word "sheepmeat" may be unfamiliar to some, anyone that sees it immediately understands its meaning. Ewlyahoocom 02:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Some? This word is unfamiliar to most if not all. When I searched for "lamb" and found the page was named this I was utterly confused and did not "immediately understand" why it would be called a name I had never heard. And I understand what your argument is. Macrakis responded to it above: "Titles are bound to be imprecise, and in any case Wikipedia policy (cited above) leans towards familiarity rather than pedantic precision in titles". The very page you just linked to furthers our argument, since this word is not in any dictionary. And even if it was: "If a consensus is impossible to reach on precision, go with the rule of thumb, and use the more popular phrase." Robbie098 02:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED to Lamb and mutton, per discussion below. There were about six different titles on the table, of which the two most popular seemed to be Sheep meat and Lamb and mutton. The argument against Lamb and mutton is that it's a bit awkward, while the argument against sheep meat is that it's not common in English. It was a close call, and I decided to go with the more common name. If you have any questions, please let me know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Sheepmeat → Lamb (meat) — article covers lamb, hoggett and mutton, disagreement about what the article should be called —Ewlyahoocom 02:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support sheep meat (cf. dog meat or goat meat [a redirect]). Oppose the current title as it is evidently unknown to a number of English speakers. Oppose lamb (meat) or mutton because these terms are subsets of the whole topic. Oppose lamb and mutton as awkward. Oppose sheep (meat) because meat is not a disambiguator in this case; the topic is the meat of sheep. — AjaxSmack 19:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose if it doesn't come from the lamb, a stage in sheep development, it shouldn't be called "lamb (meat)". That would be like referring to beef as veal. 132.205.99.122 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• sheep meat per Ajax. Gets the whole set of lamb, mutton, etc. sheepmeat is odd. sheep (meat) implies disambig. I don't have any better options myself. Martijn Hoekstra 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Lamb (meat) or Lamb and mutton. "Sheepmeat" in English is limited to bureaucrats and industry associations. "Sheep meat" is unidiomatic and uncommon. --Macrakis 15:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Sheep meat, an excellent suggestion. Ewlyahoocom 09:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Lamb and mutton per Macrakis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Sheep meat, an excellent suggestion. Also support Sheep (meat) as that does dab from Sheep. -- quota (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support on the basis that Wikipedia does't use technical or scientific names as the title of an article when they're more unfamiliar than the common name, even when the common name is less accurate (i.e. Domestic sheep rather than Ovis aries). Rinkuhero (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Lamb and mutton per Macrakis and Septentrionalis, but not Lamb (meat) on its own. – Axman (☏) 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

How about: 'Sheep (meat)'? 'Sheepmeat' seems unnecessarily obfuscatory. quota 17:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That should probably exist as a redirect to wherever this ends up. 132.205.99.122 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question

Oh, I forget about this entirely and forget to comment. May I ask the two people who supported "Lamb and mutton" instead of "Lamb (meat)" what their reasoning was? I think the new title is an improvement but is awkward for no reason; as stated in discussion above, "lamb" is at least six times more common than "mutton" and is the primary name used throughout the article. I'm just wondering why, of the two names offered by Mackrakis, this one was supported instead (with no explanation). Robbie098 05:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I got the impression that it was because "Lamb (meat)" is imprecise, in that it doesn't refer to the entire subject of the article. I can't, of course, speak for those who supported "Lamb and mutton" above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, but technically "Lamb and mutton" is also imprecise since hoggett is also covered (to about the same degree as mutton in the article). Lamb, however, is clearly the primary subject and is the most commonly used term by far. "Lamb" was also the name of the article for almost all of its history (over 4 years). I would be curious to see the reasoning behind the comments of Septentrionalis and Axman. Robbie098 05:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed that more links come in via Mutton than via all the variations of Lamb (food), Lamb (meat), etc. I don't know whether that signifies that "mutton" deserves a spot in the title, but it may show that our internal usage isn't so slanted towards "lamb". -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Are you including links to the disambig page Lamb (many of which refer to the meat)? It looks to me as though usage is significantly slanted. Robbie098 05:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no. I hadn't seen those. I guess you're right about that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nutrition Data

Can we incorporate any nutrition data that maybe related to lamb meat? We see here the classifications between lamb and mutton, but no mention of its benefits or drawbacks to eating lamb meat. JoeHenzi (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Image changes

I made several major image changes, for several reasons: 1. this is about a meat, not a live animal. the lead image is supposed to illustrate the subject of the article, and a live lamb doesn't do taht. besides, it's prejudicial to only have a lamb image as representative of the whole subject, this is about mutton too. 2. the leg image was poorly composed 3. the original loin dish image was poor composition and lighting 3. the shank image is much better 4. the new lamb image is placed next to a section which is speaking about age classifications of live sheep just before slaughter, which is more relevant placement VanTucky ^talk 20:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your judgment of the loin dish having poor lighting is poor. And having the shank image in the lead is equally misrepresentative, no? I can tell you hardly anyone in Asia eats shanks like that. And Asia has the majority of the world's population. You're the same editor who took away the calamari image at squid, citing (essentially) the reason that *one* image in the food section is sufficient... luckily that was reverted by someone else. I take your point here that the image may not have the best composition but in terms of clarity it's there (840kb v 70kb). Rest my case. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, what's wrong with having both loin and shank? The shank image is not exactly "much better"... sigh. Manderiko (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: putting a pic of a live animal. There is nothing irrelevant about that. In fact, there cannot be anything more relevant that what animal is the meat of, isn't it. If it is potentially misleading, a good caption will solve the problem. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Asia having the largest population doesn't make automatically it the most important to represent in any article. The top lamb-eating nations (see the ref in the main sheep article) are the Persian Gulf states, New Zealand, Australia, Greece, Uruguay, the United Kingdom and Ireland. All of those countries eat lamb shank, and its a better image than loin one not just because of lighting. The loin image includes lots of other things on the plate that distort what the main subject is. The shank image is just the shank, thus being a better illustration of the subject. This article is not about sheep, it's about the meat that comes from sheep. Thus, the sheep article has a picture of a sheep and this one has a picture of sheep meat. The rationale is pretty simple. Placing a live sheep image in the body, especially in a section that refers equally to the live animal like I did, is fine. But neither the beef nor pork articles use a live animal as the lead image, for good reason. Nor should this one. VanTucky ^talk 02:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

VanTucky said: "But neither the beef nor pork articles use a live animal as the lead image, for good reason." Care to share with us that 'good reason'? Seems entirely relevant. quota (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The pics aren't great. Those lamb-legs at the top don't look tasty at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point is to be informative about sheep meat, not look tasty. Neither this, the beef nor pork article uses a live animal because the articles aren't about a live animal. They're about meat. Thus, a picture of meat is most appropriate. VanTucky 19:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Easter and the Last Supper

Lamb is eaten all year round, there are many mideastern restaurants which serve it every day. The claim that it's most commonly eaten on Easter is wrong. There is even some argument about whether the Last Supper was a Passover (in which case they would have eaten lamb), or if it was vegetarian.

Cuts of lamb

This looks like a good addition.

Constructive comments ...

• Rather than using the picture colours to explain the jargon, it would be nice to explain in plain English (Wikipedia articles are supposed to be clear in the text rather than needed the image to be undertood, for accessibility)

• Also would be useful to include at least one other country's classification. quota (talk)

kashrut

The OA website notes that it's not possible to get kosher leg of lamb in the US -- the steps needed to make sure that cut is kosher require cutting the meat up into too many small pieces. Cute tidbit that might have a place in a more.. fleshed out article. +sj + 03:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The word meat.

I think the word meat should be replaced with the word flesh or muscle tissue. The definition of meat is a little spotty all over the world and is not as descriptive as to what part of the animal is being used. For example if you were to say "meat taken from the upper shoulder" that would be less descriptive then "*scientific name* skeletal muscle taken to the upper shoulder"

I'm just find younger people are often confused and think meat and flesh/muscle are two different things when in reality meat is mostly an industry term referring to animal flesh by different producers of livestock.

example is Meat in the united states is defined as meat from a mammal that has been raised. so technically Animals like Deer and wild game do not have meat since the term is only meant to describe livestock.

I'm not saying the article is incorrect I'm just saying maybe some illusion should be made that these different cuts of sheep are the muscle tissue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.216.52 (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of the meat article. --macrakis (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy?

Isn't the consumption of meat from non-adult animals a growing controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think most people know that lamb is to sheep, what veal is to cow. Also the controversy over veal, is more about how the cows are treated while alive than about when they are killed. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 06:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is quite clear in the second sentence of this article: "The meat of an animal in its first year is lamb; that of an older sheep is hogget and later mutton."; and the first sentence of the veal article: "Veal is the meat of a young cattle (calf)." What additional clarification are you suggesting? --macrakis (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mint Jelly?

Should there be any reference to mint jelly being a traditional sauce? 66.191.19.217 (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

gyro spindles missing

I came here looking to find out what those spindles of meat used in gyros were actually composed of. This needs some coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.162.26 (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you look in the articles specifically about doner kebab, shwarma, and gyros. --macrakis (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of content fork

Currently there is a content fork involving Primal cut on one side, and on the other side Cut of beef and Cut of pork. I suggest merging the duplicated content, preferably within the respective carcass articles (Beef, Pork). That will leave not very much content on Primal cut; perhaps merge it into Butcher, as a section. The section would then link to Lamb and mutton#Cuts of lamb. --Una Smith (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

feaure

(national cuisines) of the Western United States. In Northern Europe, mutton and lamb feaure

What is feaure?Is it spelled correctly?--85.146.64.222 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture

An editor has been trying to insert a picture of a baby sheep into this article about sheep as food, while removing a picture of the meat. Veal and Beef include pictures of the animal (but not first thing), Horse meat barely features a distinguishable horse mid-article, and Pork, Goat meat, Venison, Chicken (food), and even and Frog legs Dog meat omit the living animals completely. It may be appropriate to include a picture of the animal, but only if it is representative of what is likely to end up on the plate. A baby sheep taking its first steps is not representative of lamb one finds in the butcher's shop.

Any comments? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary -- there is a link to sheep in the very first sentence of the article, and that has plenty of pictures of sheep and lambs of all sizes. quota (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a single picture of mutton?

Doesn't appear to be~ --Nutthida (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's probably mutton in the Curry ... :-) quota (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Should include a picture of the live animal(s).

This addresses an obvious question of particular relevance to the topic: 'what animal does the meat come from?' The text clearly addresses this, but would still benefit from the image, considering the relative obscurity of the word 'mutton' and (sometimes) ambiguity in the use of 'lamb' in cuisine, especially for non-native english speakers (and whoever else normally benefits from supplementary images). Consistent with this simple rationale is the article for 'beef', which first shows a picture of a cut of meat, then a picture of the source (a cow). A convenient available image shows the sources of both mutton and lamb:

[File:Cheviot ewe with lamb.jpg|thumb|Cheviot ewe with lamb]

I agree that this shouldn't be the first image in the article, but omission appears almost deliberately uninformative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avcikral (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The very first sentence has a link to sheep, where there are several photos. Sort of agree that the title of this article should be "Lamb and mutton (meat)" or something like that, for clarity. quota (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

shanks

Under "Butchery ..." the article says "Lamb shank is a cut of meat from the upper part of the leg."

Shouldn't that be the lower part of the leg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.89.93 (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

ground lamb?

I'm surprised there's no mention under "Butchery ..." of what cuts are used for ground lamb, given that many lamb dishes use ground meat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.89.93 (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

South Asia vs. Southeast Asia

The article at time says Southeast Asia when it appears to mean South Asia. For example: "The husbanded sheep population in India and other SE Asian countries..." But India is not a Southeast Asian country. It is a South Asian country.

I have removed the word "other" in order to try to make this clearer. It still might not mean what the original author intended. Unfortunately, most of this is either unsourced or lacks inline citations, thus it is difficult to verify what was meant, other than by a journey to the region, which I will not be able to carry out for a few weeks at least. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lamb and mutton/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I rated this article as C-class for the following reasons: it has several {{fact}}/{{cn}}/{{citation needed}} tags It uses one source for information There are many red wikilinks --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lamb and mutton. 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/20110413052016/http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/livestock/livestock_00/lamb.pdf to http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/livestock/livestock_00/lamb.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Mutton isn't goat in Australia

Main discussion for this is at Talk:Goat meat#Not mutton in Australia. Pelagic (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This article doesn't say it is - mainly India uses this. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"incisor teeth in wear"

This prhase 'incisors in wear' desperatley needs definign bceause itt's not clear what it means to a non-rancher or sheepmeat industry professional . Mang (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Done, @Namangwari -- Frans Fowler (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Can someone fix the top?

"Pork" redirects here. For goat meat (South Asia and Caribbean usage), see goat meat. For other uses, see [[:Mutton (disambiguation</ref>)]].

This looks messy. Pork is not mutton. Condo951795 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Can someone fix the bottom?

At least on a desktop, the layout of the Environmental impact and See also sections combined is a mucking fuddle. Does anyone know a good way to untangle them, please? -- Frans Fowler (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2024

Lamb and mutton → Sheep meat – "Sheep meat" already covers both lamb (i.e. young sheep) and mutton (i.e. mature sheep), but it is more concise and avoids the "X and Y" format (which is awkward, and best avoided where possible according to the article title guidelines.) 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 19:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Not the WP:COMMONNAME by a very wide margin. Sheepmeat would I think be more common I think, but little better. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Both lamb and mutton are a lot more commonly used terms than sheep meat. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody calls it "sheep meat". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)