Talk:List of animal names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)

Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.

Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of animal names article.
Article policies
WikiProject Animals
 List of animal names is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.
Animals Portal
List This article has been rated as List-class on the quality scale.
NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Animals To-do:

Contents

[edit] 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?)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] yak

I think "cow" and "bull" are backwards in the yak entry.

Fixed. Next time be bold and fix it yourself! Samw 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Asinine?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] "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.--HoneymaneHeghlu 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)

[edit] 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)
  • 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}}

[edit] 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.--HoneymaneHeghlu 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)