Talk:Animal epithet

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal epithet. 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/20160729032257/http://www.scb.se/sv_/Hitta-statistik/Statistik-efter-amne/Befolkning/Amnesovergripande-statistik/Namnstatistik/30898/30905/Samtliga-folkbokforda--Efternamn-topplistor/31063/ to http://www.scb.se/sv_/Hitta-statistik/Statistik-efter-amne/Befolkning/Amnesovergripande-statistik/Namnstatistik/30898/30905/Samtliga-folkbokforda--Efternamn-topplistor/31063/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Examples of Common Epithets
I recently added several examples of similes and metaphors to a table in this article, and which were reverted by Chiswick Chap on the basis that they were not in the one citation given and because they thought I was engaging in censorship. As I described in the original rationale, I “Replaced the vulgar version of profligate rabbit behavior with the more common version.”, viz. “fuck like rabbits” for ”breed like rabbits”. First, I used the term ”vulgar” as an adjective, like any good dictionary would, to distinguish it from the other term, “breed”. Second, the rationale is not censorship, it is education — using the more common phrase, the one given in the Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms, makes the example accessible to a larger audience. In the context of this article I believe this is a valuable improvement. If for some reason there was a need for a separate section on sexual similes and metaphors where this was placed in context, I would not have touched it. But because “breed” was not in the original article, I changed it a second time to another common synonym that *was* in the article, ”reproduce”. Once again, Chiswick Chap reverted it even though it now meets their criteria. So I appeal to the Talk page.

— Andy Anderson 10:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)