Jump to content

Talk:Boxer (dog breed)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Boxer (dog))

The Boxer's ancestors, the war dogs of the Assyrian empire, go back as far as 2,500 B.C.

[edit]
But what we think of today as a Boxer can be traced to Germany of the late 1800s and early 20th century.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Henrykate.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too much Bullenbeisser in the Boxer summary?

[edit]

I recently edited the second sentence below to clarify that the crossbreeding mentioned in the second sentence Is referencing the Bullenbeisser (not the Boxer). Do we even need the second sentence? Seems like a lot of talk about a different breed in the summary of the article. Maybe it should be discussed in the history section instead?

From Boxer article summary:

The Boxer was bred from the Old English Bulldog and the now extinct Bullenbeisser which became extinct by crossbreeding rather than by a decadence of the breed. The purpose of crossbreeding the Bullenbeisser was to increase the white color of the breed, and the necessity of producing thousands of dogs for one of the most popular breeds in the world. Maxmaximus22 (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Traits"

[edit]

The size of the dog is listed as the United Kingdom Kennel Club target range for a show dog. It isn't reflective of the actual size of Boxers and undershoots even the American Kennel Club breed standards by around 15% by weight. I don't think the purpose of the article is to provide the British show dog judging criteria, so maybe it would make sense to edit the section to reflect the actual size of the dogs. The source of the 66-70lb weight range even specifies that it isn't indicative of the actual size of the breed, but their "ideal" dog. I'd be glad to do some more research to get a more accurate range. I was just looking for some input before I edit the page for accuracy's sake.

Perhaps if someone is keen on putting in the work, they can create a specific section for the different breed standards by region and/or organization. I just think the information would be more useful if it gave people who are unfamiliar with the breed a better idea of what the dog is like. I imagine there are more people interested in reading the article in terms of finding a pet than there are people looking to enter dog shows. 24.116.97.236 (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 March 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to ___ (dog breed). Clear consensus against moving to ___ dog, but all but one !vote supported or did not oppose the move to ___ (dog breed). It also seems to be the best option for disambiguation. (non-admin closure) JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– per WP:NATDIS which favours an alternative common name over vague disambiguations as (dog) is often used for individuals such as Max (dog). Including references for every listed dog would be excessive but I have confirmed these names are in use in reliable sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move all to (dog breed) - (dog) is indeed usually used for individuals, which I think is a good way to handle it, but OP's WP:NATURALDIS alternative is very rare usage (I've never, for example, heard someone describe a "Chihuahua dog"... its just "Chihuahua"), so I'm offering a better parenthetical. -- Netoholic @ 20:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't rare usage at all, here is 'Chihuahua dog' used in multiple reliable sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Traumnovelle (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cherry picking, particularly the Google link - I could find just as many sources for almost any two-word combination. (btw refactored your sources to not use ref/reflist because it breaks up the thread. Plain links are sufficient for a talk page.) Most of your sources are devoted to specific dogs, not coverage of the dog breed itself. -- Netoholic @ 20:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [8] [9] [10] [11] all of these are specifically about the breed. It isn't a rare usage at all and many people would say 'I have a Chihuahua dog' when asked if they have any pets. It doesn't need to be as common as the other form for it to be a natural disambiguation title. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These constructions are very unnatural. —  AjaxSmack  02:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC) / No objection to the (dog breed) suggestion. —  AjaxSmack  23:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are natural, normal people don't say 'I saw a Harrier', most people would have no idea what you're talking about.
    For Boxer dog: [12] [13] [14].
    For Barbet dog: https://www.proquest.com/openview/fe25cbd38830ec276d58e55d1a2cd4a5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 [15]
    For Harrier dog: [16] [17] [18]
    For Chinook dog: [19] [20]
    For Talbot dog: [21] [22] [23]
    For St. Bernard dog/Saint Bernard dog: [24] [25][26] [27] [28]
    Traumnovelle (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say never used, I said unnatural. Your right about not saying "I saw a Harrier" due to confusion with e.g. Harrier jump jets or the birds called harriers, but that does not eo ipso mean that the phrase "Harrier dog" is common. Plus, this RM is a multimove with other titles like Chihuahua and St Bernard that are unambiguous in the phrase "I saw a...". —  AjaxSmack  15:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're simply incorrect to say it's unnatural, it's used in multiple reliable sources and violates no rules of English grammar.
    That very specific ngram doesn't change that 'Chihuahua dog' is used as a common name by multiple reliable sources that wouldn't allow for any unnatural phrasing to be published. The St. Bernard one shows that it's roughly 20% as common however which is definitely common enough to qualify as an alternate name for disambiguation. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. No objection to the (dog breed) suggestion. 162 etc. (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note similar ongoing RMs at Talk:Brittany (dog), Talk:Feist (dog), and Talk:Akita (dog). 162 etc. (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move all to "(dog breed)" disambiguation. The proposed titles, while they are WP:NATURAL disambiguation, fail that policy's instruction to avoid obscure names for the sake of naturalism; instead, using a DAB that more clearly identifies the article scope is the best solution. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's outlandish to suggest they're obscure, not only are all of these forms well attested in print, academic writing, news, and colloquial speech - they are also incredibly easy to understand to someone with absolutely no idea of the subject. No reasonable person is going to find the name [Breed name] dog as obscure as displayed by the dozens of dog and non-dog articles already using this style of disambiguation. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not obscure in the sense that people won't understand them, they're obscure in the sense that they're not widely used names for what they describe. I don't doubt that it's possible to dig up sources that refer to a "Boxer dog" verbatim, but the large majority simply call it a Boxer, and so it's more helpful to readers to convey to them the best-known name. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're used in a variety of reliable sources that I am happy to provide.
    >but the large majority simply call it a Boxer
    This is your bias, people in Mexico are more likely to say Chihuahua dog and people in countries where pedigree non-working dogs are uncommon are going to be more likely to say Boxer dog than just Boxer.
    >and so it's more helpful to readers to convey to them the best-known name
    That isn't what the policy on article titles and natural disambiguation suggests: see WP:NATDIS. The policy is to avoid ambiguous titles as well as parentheses when a less common alternate name exists. Readers will see the official breed name in the article itself or when hovering over the hyperlink and no information is lost to any reader because the article title is Boxer dog instead of Boxer (dog), Boxer (dog breed), or even Boxer; more information is actually conveyed by the natural title. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the arguments in favour of "X (dog breed)" are more persuasive. Also, we already have a worked example, looking at the article Dalmatian dog, just moved there unilaterally by Traumnovelle from the previous "Dalmatian (dog)" and it just looks peculiar. The resonance is "Downward dog", "Chilli dog", "Fire dog" (and indeed "Deputy Dawg) before the dog breed, so there is a WP:SURPRISE issue as well as the "Unnatural" point, with which I also agree. Ingratis (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dalmatian dog was approved by a previous requested move and consensus was never given to move it back. There are so many reliable sources using 'Dalmatian dog' that I cannot be bothered to prove you wrong but if you really are here in good faith you can read through yourself: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22dalmatian+dog%22&btnG=
    The notion that someone will see Dalmatian dog and think of something other than the breed because terms like 'hot dog', 'chili dog', and 'downward dog' exist is just unfounded. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF. You're also close to WP:DROPTHESTICK in that you are still refusing to understand the point being made to you. No-one - except you - is claiming that "Dalmatian dog", "Boxer dog" and the rest are not comprehensible as article titles but that they are not the commonest / most expected forms: "Boxer (dog breed)" is clearer, whether you accept it or not (and "Dalmatian (dog breed)" is more effective than "Dalmatian dog", which makes me, as a native English speaker, look twice: a dalmatian IS a dog, so what is "Dalmatian dog" adding?) My point above with "Downward dog" etc is especially relevant when it comes to odd combinations like "Chihuahua dog", which is so odd that I would genuinely wonder (until I started to read the article, obvs) if something like "chilli dog" were intended; again, "Chihuahua (dog breed)" avoids any possible issue. Ingratis (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NATDIS they don't have to be the most common form, said article policy also favours non-parenthetical disambiguation when a natural title exists.
    >which makes me, as a native English speaker, look twice: a dalmatian IS a dog, so what is "Dalmatian dog" adding
    Dalmatian dog is long attested and well attested in reliable sources. Claiming that it's unnatural and confusing is demonstrably false or it wouldn't be used in such a wide variety of reliable sources. A Dalmatian is in fact more than a dog hence the need to disambiguate.
    >"Chihuahua dog", which is so odd
    Multiple reliable sources would disagree with it being odd, it's a completely natural phrase and is how the breed would've been referred to before a standard and it's increased popularity.
    You accused me of 'unilaterally' moving a page despite consensus supporting said move, that is not good faith. Your argument isn't based on any policy or evidence but rather how you feel without any retrospective look at the wider audience of Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As said, I'm going for the WP:SURPRISE principle of least astonishment, based on my own knowledge of English - Boxer, Dalmatian, Chihuahua etc are what one expects to find - and not for the points that other people have already raised, since it serves no purpose to repeat them. From Talk:Dalmatian dog it appears that this is a perennial issue without a clear resolution and there is no mention there that you were intending to move the page, which one would have expected. Nevertheless I withdraw the word "unilaterally".Ingratis (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That applies to articles and not titles. I fail to fathom what kind of person could struggle to understand Boxer dog but have no issues with Boxer (dog).
    There's plenty of article titles that would confuse more people than Chihuahua dog ever could. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only suggest that you re-read all of the above. Ingratis (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boxer_(dog_breed)&oldid=1215672189"