Category talk:Animals of Tasmania

Object to rename

• I object to the rename of Fauna of X to Animals of X (goes for the other states and territories) since it is known as "Fauna" rather then "Animals", "Fauna" is far more a better term and accurate. Bidgee (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• oppose according to w:Animal#Entymology The word "animal" comes from the Latin word animalis (meaning with soul, from anima, soul). In everyday colloquial usage, the word usually refers to non-human animals.[1] Frequently, only closer relatives of humans such as mammals and other vertebrates are meant in colloquial use.[2] The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the kingdom Animalia, encompassing creatures ranging from insects to humans.[3] my emphasis Wiktionary defines animal as 1. In scientific usage, a multicellular organism that is usually mobile, whose cells are not encased in a rigid cell wall (distinguishing it from plants and fungi) and which derives energy solely from the consumption of other organisms (distinguishing it from plants). 2. In non-scientific usage, any member of the kingdom Animalia other than a human being. 3. In non-scientific usage, any land-living vertebrate (i.e. not birds, fishes, insects etc) 4. (figuratively) A person who behaves wildly. all of which create ambiguarity over the intent of the category.
  Where as w:Fauna says Fauna or faunæ is all of the animal life of any particular region or time and Wiktionary is clear it says animals considered as a group; especially those of a particular country, region, time, etc. theres absolutey no ambiguarity with the term fauna. Also note that fauna is inclusive of time and place. The reason for the move is to make a whole category structure consistant but any move should be to accuracy rather than the inaccurate and ambigious term Gnangarra 15:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)