Appendix talk:English collective nouns
I think this article is deeply misguided - does anyone need to be told that one says 'a team of football players'. Conversely, there are some things which are not proper collective nouns - 'a freakshow of emos' for example. I vote this article should be pruned right down. 18.104.22.168 17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This is funny:
Whether this article is legitimate or not, authoritative sources must be cited. The website, "dictionary.reference.com" is in no way a standard reference for any language, much less for English. Some small effort was made, I am happy to see, to make use of Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and other legitimate sources. Perhaps references could be found in actual literature -- you know, "books"?
As to the legitimacy of this article, I have to ask why an "appendix", as such, would need to exist in this media? If this is merely a list of fanciful collective nouns, then label it such; if it contains alternative, deprecated, obscure, obsolete or otherwise supplementary entries, those entries should be included (and labelled) in corresponding articles. Articles exist, like these:
- Lists of collective nouns
- List of collective nouns for mammals
- List of collective nouns for birds
- List of collective nouns for fish
- List of collective nouns for reptiles and amphibians
- list of collective nouns for animals
What can be done to fix this situation? (Miimno 20:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC))
Move to Wiktionary
- An article listing all types of collective nouns is now on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collective_nouns. You may now wish to consider deleting the Wiktionary article. 22.214.171.124 15:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it might be legit, but it's not on the dictionary page, so I scratched it. DAVilla 03:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.
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.
I have adding this page to RFM as a means of representing a request for moving this page to Wikipedia and deleting it from Wiktionary. The page was tagged for moving to Wikipedia in, on 29 December 2010.
I oppose deleting the page from Wiktionary. As an appendix, the page hosts a list of words, which seems to fit well into a lexicographical work. --Dan Polansky 11:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Also oppose, per Dan.—msh210℠ (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do we have provision for "copying to other MW projects" or specifically to WP? DCDuring TALK 12:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The Appendix: Glossary of Collective nouns are a whole lot better and a lot neater. It's words are in a sort of dictionaryish version. The words are in alphabetical order so I advise that you go there. The words are in one column unlike this jumble of confusion.
"A rhumba of rattlesnakes"
"rhumba: A rhumba of rattlesnakes" can't possibly be real, can it? 126.96.36.199 03:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- This whole page is rubbish, so it's probably rubbish. Some day we'll clean it up. It hasn't been a priority. Equinox ◑ 03:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Missing entry: "A crock of shit"
—This comment was unsigned.
Wikipedia used to be fun
This page used to be evidence that there was some fun left in wiktionary and wikipedia. Now that it is locked it is evidence that there is no longer fun in Wiktionary and Wikipedia.
Upon searching Google I have found the following for groups of zombies: 331 entries: "a horde of zombies" 328 entries: "a pack of zombies" 319 entries: "a mob of zombies" 305 entries: "a swarm of zombies" 285 entries: "a plague of zombies" 278 entries: "a gang of zombies" 154 entries: "an infestation of zombies" 141 entries: "a gaggle of zombies" 79 entries: "a flock of zombies" 71 entries: "an epidemic of zombies" 48 entries: "an apocalypse of zombies" 34 entries: "a stagger of zombies" 28 entries: "a pandemic of zombies" 24 entries: "a stench of zombies" jonrgrover