Appendix talk:Animals

Meat of animals

I wonder, should we add terms for meat of animals in this table, such as the following:

pork

pig

beef

cattle

veal

calf

poultry

fowl (but actually means both live and food states of chicken, duck, turkey etc).

venison

deer

If you decide to add these words, please check them, don't just trust this list above.

mutton

sheep

– b_jonas 21:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

See also Category:Meats – b_jonas 21:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November 2020–January 2021

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Appendix:Animals, Appendix:List of fish, Appendix:List of flowers

Such a list is a bite off more than one can chew and doomed to failure from the beginning. The list of fish has been “kept” in optimistic 2007 with two against one vote. Speaking of a “comprehensive list”, as in that that deletion discussion, is in 2020 even more comical than it ever was, with all the costly specialist databases around to which the underpaid Wiktionary editors won’t be able to and should not offer a match. Fay Freak (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete fish and plants. If the existing categories like Category:en:Plants are insufficient we can add more. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete the lists of fish and flowers. Strong keep for the list of animals. This is not something that can be replaced by a category, nor is it likely to expand much. The purpose is not simply to list every species of animal. It is a thesaurus-type page listing the names of common animals, along with the particular name of males, females, and young, the normal word for the place they live, the usually onomatopaeic word for the sound they make, the adjective describing them (like "bovid" for cows), and so forth. This is an appendix page I have not only used but found useful. Please explain what you would replace it with should it be deleted. As it stands, the information is presented in a far more useful way than it is in individual entries, and, as I mentioned, it's simply impossible to substitute this with a category. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Vox Sciurorum, @Fay Freak Just curious what your reasons for voting to delete Appendix:Animals are, in light of my above post. I was wondering if perhaps you hadn't looked at the actual appendix and would consider revising your vote. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Andrew Sheedy: I found it chaotically formatted and deemed it inefficient; with the section “Terms to be checked” it also looks aborted, which indicates lacking interest. I think it is more justified to have a) a an appendix for animal sounds b) an appendix of names existing names of groups of animals, although note Category:Animal dwellings and Category:Animal sounds; this is more apt to serve all languages, as translation table appendices. I now find similar in Appendix:Hungarian animal sounds but this is not well formatted. On the other hand the pages of individual animals are the places to go to for all questions regarding whether and what terms there are for males and females, youngs, their abodes, calls, relative adjectives, and in other languages. For animals like the horse there will also be far more complicated vocabulary than can be shoehorned into such a panzootic table. I think it is wrong to have the animal first and then glean terms for groups, homes, males and females etc. of the animal. Fay Freak (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. I am bewildered at the fact that you find it chaotic, but fair enough. However, I think this sort of thing is very useful for language learners, or just for interest's sake. I've seen similar tables in encyclopedias. I don't think we should delete it just because you don't like it, or because it isn't regularly maintained. Perhaps it isn't maintained because there aren't any glaring omissions? There are, after all, a finite number of commonly known animals, and this covers most of the one's you'd be likely to come across. Anyway, I like it, so I'd rather you didn't delete it just because you don't. Nothing's stopping you from making additional appendices or categories devoted specifically to one column of the table. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't read animals, I extrapolated from the others. It is at least more useful. I abstain from animals for now and vote to delete the others. My comment above has been edited to add "fish and plants" after delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep animals, delete fish and flowers.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• As above, Keep animals, Delete List of fish and List of flowers.Urszag (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Since I can conceive the list of animals as useful and we haven’t spread it onto the individual pages or elsewhither for replacement so far I change my vote regarding it to abstention. Fay Freak (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Fish and flowers RFD-deleted; Animals RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Add audio file and image?

Let's also add sound audio and an image of each animal? Can be copied from w:List of animal soundsVis M (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)