Talk:Boxer (dog)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Piccolo von Angertor lineage 2 Gallery and guidelines 3 Boxer as fight dogs 4 Neutrality 5 height, weight and deafness 6 Gallery is becoming excessive 7 Tempermant 8 Re-removal of certain images 9 English Bulldog 10 Health of White Boxers 11 Piccolo von Angertor lineage 12 Removal of almost all pictures 13 Disruptive behavior 14 Article Improvements 15 Userbox anyone? 16 Pictures 16.1 Early genealogy 16.2 Boxers in the first show 16.3 Early boxers 16.4 Boxer puppy ears tapped 16.5 Fawn 5 year old boxer 16.6 Brindle male boxer 16.7 Fawn flashy puppy 16.8 White boxer 16.9 Another white boxer 16.10 Brindle boxer co-existing with a cat 16.11 Boxer dog in agility show 16.12 Zygomatic arch (dog).jpg

Piccolo von Angertor lineage

I´ve discovered on http://www.americanboxerclub.org/boxer_history.html the lineage of the branch that resulted in Piccolo von Argentor. I´ll have to update the graph to reflect this, but I haven´t the time to do this yet. Did you think it´s best for the article to update the text only after updating the graph? Or some transient inconsistency is bearable? To summarize his lineage is:

• Alt's Flora II (not on graph) is sister to Alt´s Schecken .
• Alt´s Flora II mated with her father Lechner´s Box to produce Maier´s Lord (the first notable boxer sire)
• Maier´s Boxer was mated with Maier´s Flora of unknown parentage which produced Piccolo von Angertor

Regards Loudenvier 20:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Gallery and guidelines

We could incorporate a gallery of sorts with boxer pictures at the end of the article. I think that as a guideline the picture to be elligible for the gallery will have to come from Wikipedia Commons. This way it will not be only a gallery for vanity, but a gallery with images contributed to the public domain on the Wikipedia commons server which makes it possible to be used easyly in any other wikipedia in any other language. Of course, this gallery would have a limit imposed by common sense, but since I can't make sense of its preferable size right now I will not suggest any. Regards Loudenvier 14:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have started the gallery with a few nice pictures, including the nice pet that didn't make into the article itself. Please, do not add further pictures to the article unless they bring some new information along (a good picture of a white boxer is desperately needed...). Also add only images to the gallery that are from wikimedia commons, this will help reducing the amount of duplicate files among wikipedia projects. Try to include only high quality images on the gallery. Remember: When you upload an image it will go to the public domain and anything could be done with it after that. If you don't feel confortable with that, then do not upload an image. This gallery will hopefully help protected the undesired growth of pictures inside the article, rendering it unreadable. Regards. Loudenvier 03:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Boxer as fight dogs

I think its clear that the boxer, given his physical characteristics, was used as a fight dog. Many sources state that, but they aren't reliable enough for me to use them to back up the fighting dog "dark" side of the history of the breed. I think its politically incorrect to try to hide this fact. In light of present day Boxer temperament its unnecessary and perhaps derogatory trying to deny any aspect of the breed history. I think the fact here is that we need to make clear that while Boxers were used as fight dogs in the past, they weren't bred for fighting (in contrast with Staffordshire Bull Terrier), so they are not fighting dogs, only physically capable dogs that were used on dog fights. Some links to read: [1] [2]. But let me make something clear: I am totally against dog fights. If I know of someone who practices it, I would take the Sh#t out of him and take him to the police. Regards Loudenvier 14:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article needs some neutrality cleanup. Read through the sections on demeanor and tell me that's unbiased. Only positive facts are mentioned about the dog's demeanor and uses.

If by "demeanor" you mean the section entitled "Temperament", I suggest you read past the opening paragraph. There is quite a bit of information on the potential negative aspects of Boxer temperament: a strong personality; a challenge for a first-time dog owner; "headstrong"; a very long puppyhood and adolescence; high energy; needs socialization to tolerate other dogs well; a sometimes over-protective, territorial and dominating attitude; can be dominant with larger dogs of the same sex; poorly bred or trained dog is capable of seriously injuring or killing other animals.

Newcastle 16:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And most important: I guess he never owned a Boxer... :-) Just kidding. This article really isn't POV, it doesn't even takes a lot of good sense to realize that. It's also fully referenced, citing lots of sources. I would even say that this article is a little detrimental to the breed when it comes to the health problems that seems to be a litle exacerbated, and also tell of some general dog problems as if they are exclusive or more common on this breed. Regards. 14:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

height, weight and deafness

I've recently reverted an edit that changed those information because they were wrong. Alleged increased deafness rate in whites are still controversial, not unbiased studies surfaced so far that claiming whites to be MUCH MORE PRONE is going too far. 35 kg is far too much for weight, 32 kg is the accepted maximum (70 pounds =~ 32 kg). Loudenvier 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Gallery is becoming excessive

The gallery is obviously becoming full of unencyclopedic images which probably make loading the page an absolute nightmare for people without highspeed internet. I propose removing these images which I feel do not help to illustrate boxers in any way not addressed by the text and/or other images and are therefore unnecessary and unencyclopedic.

			Possibly

I'm sure this will be met with resistance, but galleries shouldn't be a free-for-all of whoever wants to see their dog online. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a compromise here. The gallery exists for some time and it didn't expanded too far. Even without high-speed its impact is very low because its at the end of the article, and in a separate table (just see the mark-up generated). This means it will be rendered after the actual article, which in turn will not impact low speed connections. I agree it's not straight-forward encyclopedic, but it helps to illustrate the boxers in day-to-day life without making the article itself unreadable. And there's also a good side-effect to that: the images submitted are automatically into the public-domain, and this is a great by-product because now we have a few good boxer pictures that we could use anywhere without fear of copyright violation. Also, the pictures submitted to the commons can be shared without duplication across wikipedia projects... We could let the gallery grow and in a periodic basis we could clean it, keeping the best photos and those which shows unique moments: for example, there isn't a single picture recent-born puppets or really old boxers, nor competition photos, etc. Loudenvier 17:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we need/want photos of very young Boxers I just uploaded two pictures of four-day-old fawn puppies nursing and sleeping to the commons if anyone feels like putting them up here. Additionally, I've uploaded on of the few good photos of Boxers standing that show the whole dog and has decent lighting here, and a "pack" of Boxers here (including a white, fawns and a brindle). I may also upload this photo of a fawn puppy and/or this white six-month-old. I'm i the process of looking through the 1,373 phots that match the Flickr search for CC licensed that match the keyword "boxer". --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Amazing photos! I will update the article with the ones that add new info to the article. Loudenvier 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tempermant

Do we really need to plagiarize to describe their temper?

The character of the Boxer is of the greatest importance and demands the most careful attention. He is renowned for his great love and faithfulness to his master and household, his alertness, and fearless courage as a defender and protector. The Boxer is docile but distrustful of strangers. He is bright and friendly in play but brave and determined when roused. His intelligence and willing tractability, his modesty, and cleanliness make him a highly desirable family dog and cheerful companion. He is the soul of honesty and loyalty. He is never false or treacherous even in his old age.[12]

Sure, it is referenced, but I am sure their is a better way to write it without plagiarizing

Hereis the original work. --K8TEK 18:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to speed delete this article because of this alleged copy-vio? Give me a break. Tke your time to review the article history and all effort put on it and tell me that its a copy-vio article, ok? By the way, you have to use proper tags for copy-vio. If you think any copy-vio exists, be accurate in pointing it out and do not use a tag that marks the entire article as copy-vio. The aforementioned quote is just that, a proper referenced quote, which is allowed into wikipedia and is not a copy-vio. Regards Loudenvier 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, this article is one of the best referenced articles I have ever found in wikipedia. Loudenvier 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The original copy-vio tag was clearly intended as a disrupting vandalism. The page at worldwideboxers.com [3] is very different from this article. The last copy-vio brought by K8TEK is about a quotation from Gwen Bailey book which is perfectly accepted in wikipedia and is not a copy-vio itself. No need to alter it. The "original work" from the Australian Kennel Club is the one that is violating copyright by not citing its source (the Gwen book). Loudenvier 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add the speedy deletion crap. Get your facts straight.--K8TEK 17:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you so sure? The Copy-vio tag that was put in the article simply states that the article qualifies for speed deletion, so that was what I was asking you about... Do you want to speed delete this article? No, of course not! So do not put this tag again because that's what this tag will do to the article: qualify it for speed deletion. You should have read the implications of using such drastic means to bring a concern about sources... Regards. Loudenvier 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

kool! i am getting a white boxer dog! i am almost 10 years old.boxers are beautiful. it is 3 weeks old! its name is tito.

                                                   -taylor

Re-removal of certain images

I removed the two photos bc...

1). The puppy picture had a color already shown. Also, one cutesy puppy picture is enough for a couple-paragraph section.

2). Nursing puppies does not actually clarify the passage about the inherited disorders of Boxers.

It wasn't meant to clarify the passage, but it has much to do with health. Loudenvier 21:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I really support re-adding the picture (1). This picture is historical. It exists since the first versions of this article (even before I started working on it :-). If a picture was to be removed then it should be the other, not this. By the way its the most aestheticly good-looking picture on the entire article and good pictures are very hard to find. Also I do not found a clearly shown fawn-white boxer on the article that could make this picture redundant. Even if the puppy picture is present, a full grown fawn male picture is still missing, and fawn-flashy boxers are the trademark of the breed! Loudenvier 21:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If my memory does not fail me this picture was even used in the breed box to illustrate the breed a few years ago. Loudenvier 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Then put it back in the infobox or the A-framce pic if you want, but seven pictures is too many for such a small article. Especially another puppy pic. We're not just talking about usefullness here, there needs to be an acceptably low ratio of images-content. Even without that one it is really too many, but I let the rest slide (such as the historical breed photos) because they arent just more silly pet pictures. VanTucky 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is "such an small article". This dog article is one of the best dog articles I ever stumbled upon in wikipedia. It's concise though, which is good. We (active editors of this page) always strive to keep a low-ratio of pictures, and I really do not think that 7 pictures are much of a burden at all. This is wikipedia, not an ordinary encyclopedia, and we aren't running out of disk space! What strike me most is that I was the one removing all "silly pet pictures" from this article for a few years and then, suddenly, every single pet picture is deemed a silly pet picture by the wikiproject dog, which did not helped writing a single line of this article and even rated it just a B-class article... compare it to the Pug article, which is GA-rated :-). I think this is a deleterious behavior to simply remove all those pictures. (I can't believe I'm now advocating the keeping of pictures rather than the removal :-) Wikipedia is another kind of media. Pictures help attract readers and illustrate the articles. We also need to strive for picture quality. We need to find better pictures and substitute the current ones. That's what the wikiproject dog should be doing. Besides the gallery (which was an attempt to free the body of the article from "too many silly pet pictures"), there was never an overuse of pictures in this article. Regards Loudenvier 14:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're overreacting to the cleanup, and falling prey to the "I'm a regular editor of this article, how dare you come in and mess with MY article" syndrome. Not every picture is a silly pet picture and even some that are, such as the silly-looking bat dog A-frame one, stay because they are useful and relevant. And I'm not arguing that the images need to be deleted because of structural issues/ space needs in Wikipedia as a whole, I'm saying that excessive cutesy pictures that serve no good purpose (it is not needed to have a picture of every single color of boxer)) need to go because they crowd things and more importantly, decrease the encyclopedic credibility of Wikipedia by making it look like a boxer breed fansite written by/for pet owners. Furthermore, as far as comprehensiveness of coverage goes, this article is very small when compared to other pet articles. Check out Guinea pig, there is at least as much content/history about the Boxer breed as this small rodent. The Boxer article is very far from GA status, much less good and concise. VanTucky 17:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you didn't get my point(s)... But, anyway, I still think this article rates better than the Pug (to compare to only one instance). And this isn't "my article" and I don't need patronizing about that. It's an article that I really care about, and I always discuss changes, if you take your time to read the long discussion on the talk archive about the breed name you would notice that. Credibility in wikipedia came from citing sources mainly and this article cites lots of sources (could improve though). I myself almost never introduce any information without a reliable source to back it up. I also think that a picture of each boxer color would be great, mainly side by side, since this is encyclopedic (just like the progenitors pictures). Which pictures serves a good-purpose is a subjective matter, that's why I would hesitate before removing... Instead of labeling this article far from good and small a few suggestions would be greatly welcome, contributions even more. Loudenvier 19:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

English Bulldog

I'm putting back English Bulldog instead of Bulldog since there are more than on "Bulldog" breed and outside UK the "bulldog" is known as English Bulldog. In Brazil, for example, the correct breed name is "Buldogue Inglês" (English Bulldog). Even the bulldog article itself makes this clear in the opening. There's no point confusing the boxer article: the boxer was breed to the English Bulldog, if we keep only bulldog then it could have been the French Bulldog, the Old Enlgish Bulldog, etc. For the sake of clearness I will maintain the English prepended to bulldog. We can discuss it here in the talk further. If there is consensus to the contrary I will gladly step aside. Loudenvier 14:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put in the Bulldog article that "English Bulldog" is specifically a colloquial usage, the correct breed name for most countries in in fact Bulldog, not English Bulldog (though there are a few countries which use local language to name the breed, the correct breed name is or should be unaltered).

The fact that there are many types of Bulldog is irrelevant due to the fact that Bulldog refers to only one of those types and not any sub-genus of the dog, or breed type. A Bulldog is a separate dog, and comparing to a French Bulldog is not consistent as French Bulldog is not a colloquialism but a correct breed name whereas English Bulldog is a colloquialism, therefore not suitable for Wiki. Also Dachshund, means "Badger Dog" in translation but we have retained the breed name from its country of origin which is the worldwide standard for dog-naming: see, Weimerarner, Shar Pei etc. This should also be applied for the Bulldog across articles as it is not ambiguous and refers to one type of dog in particular. The link itself refers to Bulldog, not any other kind therefore it should be using the correct breed name for the link as is the Wiki standard and as a result should be Bulldog, not English Bulldog.

By way of comparison regarding naming conventions, look at the German Shepherd. In certain countries, it was known for a long time as an Alsatian and still is to a certain extent in the countries noted in the article. However, that is not the correct breed name and a point of this is made in the article itself - the dog should be referred to as a "German Shepherd" and not an "Alsatian". The same should be applied to the Bulldog, as it is not an English or British Bulldog, but purely a Bulldog.

Summing up really, there is no ambiguity in using "Bulldog" as it refers solely to one specific dog and the link goes to the correct article which if there is any ambiguity, clears it up in the first line. However, the link should be made using standard naming conventions and the breed name is "Bulldog" not "English Bulldog" as it is not a correct breed name, translation or otherwise. As a result, for clarity and correctness it should be "Bulldog" in the article and not "English Bulldog". Drivenapart 08:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice reasoning and strong arguments. What can I possibly reply to you? The sources I've used to create/trace the breed origins, mostly printed books about Boxers, they all used the "colloquial" term English Bulldog. One of those books are from England. That's why I defended the use of English Bulldog instead of Bulldog. But since there's a "policy" to use the name of the breed as employed in the country of origin, despite not being the most commonly applied term, this, by itself corroborates your position. Thanx for the enlightenment. Loudenvier 15:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, I appreciate what you said there.

Regards Drivenapart 15:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved the whole Molosser statement to the Breed History section to be more consistent with other breed articles. Also, since "English Bulldog" is not appropriate, neither is "German Bullenbeisser" since that is not the name of the breed - instead, I've put that the Boxer was developed in Germany, from the Bullenbeisser and using Bulldogs from England (which were different at the time than Bulldogs from, for example, Spain); I also noted the direct ancestry of the smaller Bullenbeisser developed in Brabant in Belgium. Hopefully that will clarify the origin of the different ancestors and keep the naming conventions intact! Newcastle 20:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have put back more info on the lead to make this compliant with WP:LEAD. I think that the other breed articles should also expand a little their leads. Loudenvier 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Health of White Boxers

Loudenvier wrote (in "Reason for Editing" comment): "I do also agree that white color makes no correlation to health problems but we NEED to find external references to back this up..."

How do you find references to back up a negative? I'd be happy to provide them, but other than deafness, no one has studied health problems associated with the extreme piebald gene, because there's no evidence that there are any.

On the other hand, 66.177.191.246, there is ample evidence showing that deafness is associated with the extreme piebald gene. Visit http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/deaf.htm for a plethora of information on this fact.

Newcastle 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Any unbiased study "could" show that just because a boxer has more flashy (considered white) he is not prone to deafness or any other disease. I used "could" instead of would because actually there may be a link and I may be wrong, I just don't think the studies used as reference were unbiased, and most of all the method employed seems to be too unscientific. What is the rate of deafness in non-white flashy boxers? What is the rate of deafness in solid color boxers? That's my point. There seem to be no unbiased studies after all. Loudenvier 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the reams of data on deafness connected to the extreme piebald gene, and the fact that multiple surveys of the general Boxer population support the deafness rates expected with zero, one, and two copies of this gene, there is very little chance that money would be spent on proving what we already know to be true. Instead, we Boxer folks like to spend our money on things like finding genetic markers for the heart conditions which cause a dog to drop dead at two years of age, and which have not already been studied and found in other breeds. :) Congenital sensorineural deafness in colored Boxers is surveyed to be at 1-2% - the same as has been scientifically found in Colored Bull Terriers (BT studies are very applicable to Boxers, because they have the same genetics of white markings and also have both colored and white in their general population). As far as I know that 1-2% has not been broken down between solid (no copies of the Sw gene) and flashy (one copy of the Sw gene) - however odds are the vast majority are flashy, because it is a non-pigment-associated disorder.

I know there are those who argue that since no studies have been done specifically on Boxers, one cannot say that the extreme piebald gene leads to deafness in Boxers as it does in every other breed studied. However, these are also people who accept without question standard vaccinations, dog foods, heartworm meds, flea-tick preventives, etc. - none of which have been studied specifically in Boxers, but all of which have been studied in animals with the same relative genetic composition. It is impractical to repeat studies on every single breed when the genes involved are the same and the observed incidence is the same. If the observed incidence were dramatically different in one breed, that would obviously warrant further study, but that's not the case here. Newcastle 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Piccolo von Angertor lineage

I´ve discovered on http://www.americanboxerclub.org/boxer_history.html the lineage of the branch that resulted in Piccolo von Argentor. I´ll have to update the graph to reflect this, but I haven´t the time to do this yet. Did you think it´s best for the article to update the text only after updating the graph? Or some transient inconsistency is bearable? To summarize his lineage is:

• Alt's Flora II (not on graph) is sister to Alt´s Schecken .
• Alt´s Flora II mated with her father Lechner´s Box to produce Maier´s Lord (the first notable boxer sire)
• Maier´s Boxer was mated with Maier´s Flora of unknown parentage which produced Piccolo von Angertor

Regards Loudenvier 20:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently working on creating another, more complete genealogy graph incorporating these changes and will update the article's text and graph when ready. Loudenvier 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to update the article now and upgrade the image afterwards. Collectonian 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of almost all pictures

Hi all. It's been a long time since I last contributed to this article, or to ikipedia in general, since I was taking a break from wikipedia. Of course, when I came back I came to visit "my" beloved Boxer (dog) :-) article. I was happy to see new people contributing to it, but I noticed that some actions were too drastic. The article clearly needed a clean-up, since it had way too many pictures, but now it has too few! I think a picture that adds to the article should be kept. I think the action was too drastic because it seemed to not have been based on a careful appraisal of each picture in the context of the article. For example, in the process, the picture of the first boxers in the first show was DELETED! Could anyone provide a rationale for that? It took a user:Njyoder had to actually put it back and back up it with a rationale regarding its milestone quality, or else it would be deleted again... The picture of the young boxer with the ears tapped was also REMOVED with no regard to the value it adds to the article. It's said a picture is worth a thousand words... Well, not in wikipedia, it seems. The nursing picture in the health section was also removed... What is the rationale? Load in wikipedia servers? Layout? I'm not advocating a bloated with pictures article, but overall I think the quality of the article is worse now than when I "left" wikipedia... There isn't even a decent fawn boxer picture, and fawn is the color we immediately links to the boxer. Loudenvier 16:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added the puppy with tapped ears picture to the article, and I think the agility picture, since it is a rare picture and also depicts one of the uses of the boxer, and since it will be placed in the bottom of the article, where no other pictures are near, is a good candidate for a come-back... I did not add it already because it could be considered a personal attack to the current "picture deleting" editorial trend. I would like to engage in a little discussion first, just like we had before with admin VanTucky Loudenvier 17:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The images excessive. The image of the boxer with its ears tapped is unnecessary. It would be appropriate in an article on ear cropping, but it is not necessary in this article and adds no real value because it is not unique to boxers. Ditto the agility picture. Put it in the agility article if it doesn't already have a good image. The rationale is WP:IMAGES guidelines, and no, in Wikipedia a picture isn't worth a 1000 words, 1000 words is :-) Wikipedia articles should not be glutted with images and the article in question does not support so many images, particularly ones that are not notable, mostly the same thing, and do not specifically illustrate the section they are added too in a way that is unique to the topic at hang (boxers). Discussion of the images was done with multiple other editors. I had originally removed almost all images, but the consensus was that the white boxer and the 18 month old well conformed were good for the article and they have been added the back. The rest were not. Both black and white pictures were also deemed unneeded, however in an effort to be at least someone compromising, I left the one in and removed the one with the COPYVIO notice. If the copyright investigation finds that the image is good, I'd recommend ditching the current black and white in favor of that one as the current one is too tiny and doesn't show much the dogs well. Collectonian 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think that you are really diminishing the value of the article. I fear that most of the editors of this article, those interested in the history of the Boxer will clearly recognize the value behind those pictures, mainly the black and white pictures. You are stating your opinion on the value of those pictures, and reverting my edits based on your sole opinion. I disagree with you and as I have the right. I've noticed you're labeling as vandalism some well intentioned edits in the past and you clearly violated the 3RR policy at least two times. Who deemed unneeded? This discussion is not in the article's discussion, not even VanTucky, the big "deleter" :-) deemed them unneeded. The copyvio tag was placed without any proper research. The pictures are from boxers around 1890, how come there is a copyright violation in place here? The first picture show the boxers in the first show for Boxers. It is of great historical importance. Tell me how many breeds of dogs have such a picture available? The picture I created with the first boxers is also historically important, and are of even greater quality. I don't understand the rationale behind removing pictures without pondering their actual value in regards to the article. I don't really understand why you simply deemed those pictures unneeded... That's certainly not unanimous, since at least I do not agree with you. This all creates unnecessary trouble to all of us, you tagged the pictures as copyvio wrongly, I've proved that to you, just read the history section and you'll see that those boxers died before 1900, so their pictures are 100+ years-old, and no copyright remain. I'll have to spend my hard earned time only to explain to you why you should not delete that picture, all that could have been easily spared if you had a little "discussion" first. I've read the guidelines for images more than once, and I can't find a rationale there that explains your behavior regarding those pictures. That was exactly the kind of behavior that made me take a break from wikipedia, I was very tired of having to spent hours, sometimes days, just to convince someone that they were removing important information. If pictures were not worth all encyclopedias would be text-based only... Loudenvier 17:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not MY duty to prove the copy provisions of an image, that onus is squarely on the person uploading it. I notice it was an image was made up of other people's photographs, I checked the image fair use rationale to see it was properly explained, and it was not. I tagged as is appropriate. There is nothing wrong in the tagging and you really shouldn't take it personally. I have had many images tagged for fair use rationale's needed. I followed the instructions to fix the problem, and it was taken care of. That is part of the Wikipedia process because copyright's are taken seriously. If you feel you didn't violate them, just follow the proper process to clarify that and let the system work the way it is supposed to. In the future when you upload those kinds of images, make sure you properly provide that info, and there wouldn't be any problem.

I did fairly, and without any bias, judge each and every image based on perceived value and appropriateness for the article. Those that did not seem to fit in-line with the WP:IMAGE guidelines were cut out. It is something I have done with many other articles, because lets be honest...articles about cute animals tend to get loaded with lots of cute pictures. I removed over six images from the meerkat article that added nothing to the article, ditto the red kangaroo article. When one user continued to disagree I took the issue to the Village Pump where editors who could also look at the article from a completely unbiased point of view weighed in. So this was not just my decision, but it was a consensus from among other neutral, well experienced editors. I agreed with their consensus and thus far only TWO editors to this article have actually voiced any disagreement, one of whom owned the dog whose picture was removed (and subsequently put back). In all honesty, you have already made it clear you can not look at this topic from a completely unbiased point of you because you own and love this breed. You feel the images add important information, while neutral editors did not. Collectonian 19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• The agility picture: few people have seen a boxer in agility shows. You'll see border collies, and smaller dogs, it was a very nice picture, when I first saw the article, a few years ago, this picture was a surprise to me, that's why, even if you do not deem it necessary, it is, since it was able to surprise a Boxer's owner :-)
• The tapped ears: It's irrelevant if this is not unique to boxers, keep in mind the user is reading the Boxer article, and this shows a boxer with the ears tapped. It is relevant, it's not redundant with other pictures on this article. It's more relevant than the brindle picture, which is not a very good specimen of the breed.

I also think it is too easy just to tag a picture as copyvio or remove a picture not bothering with all the effort behind finding the information or pictures. Instead of just doing that, it would be much better if one tries to find better replacements. I have said before that that picture used in the breed box is of boxers of low standard and do not represent the breed. I have, with a few other editors, tried very hard to find a replacement, but we were unable to, since the use of the commercial pictures we found weren't authorized by their copyright owners. Why don't we try again to do that instead of removing pertinent and important pictures from the article? You are not talking with an sporadic wikipedia contributor, but with one who takes this endeavor very seriously, and who dislikes very much seeing information being thrown away. Loudenvier 18:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the agility nor cropped pictures are necessary nor do they add value to the image. People don't have to see boxer's performing every possible activity they could be in, nor is it somehow necessary to show what a boxer looks like with its ears tapped up. This was agreed upon by multiple editors who are unbiased, so I think both should stay out. The cropped ears also goes over the number of pictures per section. The appearance section really should only need one image, but two was allowed, one for the main appearance and one for white boxers. I would personally prefer a single image in that section showing all the colors in one photo, similar to this one used in the collie article, but so far one doesn't appear to be available.

Other editors commented that the brindle in the appearance section was a well-conformed male, which is why it was put back. I'm not a boxer confirmation expert, so I deferred to other, presumably informed, opinions and the owner's assertions that it had had placed in shows before its death. It you disagree, please find a different picture to use (though I warn you, you'll probably get to enough the same week long edit war I did with the person who uploaded it that precipitated me taking the whole image issue to other editors which was not pleasant at all and is still somewhat on going). If you feel the picture in the infobox is a bad representation, find a better one. I think it is a good one because it shows both cropped and uncropped dogs, where as most boxer pictures only show cropped. Collectonian 19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you see the class A Guinea Pig article, there is a picture or more for each major section, and not all of them are non-redundant in my opinion. Loudenvier 18:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think one or two of the images that I think are excessive, but otherwise that is fine for that article. Most of the images fit their sections well and highlight something UNIQUE about the topic, not just "oh look, another cute guinea pig picture." Notice it is many times bigger, more detailed, and over all a higher quality article, hence its A rank. An article of that size and breadth can support more images.

Instead of arguing over pictures, why is no one actually bothering to work on improving the real content of the article? Wikipedia's focus isn't pictures with some text on the side, but text articles with some occasional illustrations as appropriate. If you really want this to be a high quality article that honors the breed, why not work on the real important parts, the contents, not the illustrations. Collectonian 19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you back, Loudenvier. :) I agree with you entirely, of course, and the only discussion I could find at the editor assistance board did not, in fact, reach a consensus about removing all the photos. Your comments about the cropped puppy and the agility dog are spot on. None of the numerous editors in the four-year history of this article felt the pictures were excessive, neither "neutral" editor at the assistance board felt they were excessive (one saw no problem, the other suggested adding three back out of five), at least four separate editors in the last couple of weeks have disagreed about the removal of all the pictures. Obviously, there is no consensus, especially among those who have been editing and contributing to this article for ages.

Collectonian, as far as why "no one is actually bothering to work on improving the real content of the article", I might ask the same question of you. Why spend so much time deleting images that no one but you seems to feel should be deleted? Why not work on (or, if you don't feel you have enough knowledge about Boxers, ask for help with) the improvements you feel are necessary, instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcastle (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Content wise, I'm working on other articles and don't have time to write another. I do, however, frequently do minor clean up on articles I stumble across to remove EL violations, excessive images, trivia/in popular culture type sections, etc. Unlike either of you, I edit a wide range of articles that are both of interest to me and that are not. I don't focus on just one or two articles of extreme personal interest. Other editors have left it because few editors actually pay attention to the breed articles. The main people editing it usually tend to be breeders and owners who are far from neutral about the article or issue. FYI, four separate editors have not disagreed, you make three (one editor is under sockpuppet investigation for using two log in names and two IPs to try and make it appear as if more editors are doing things) and as he owned the 18 month old brindle, his opinion probably should be discounted as extreme WP:NPOV.

I found it odd that so many breed articles on Wikipedia are so badly done, but I guess now I understand why. The breeders and owners collectively feel ownership over the articles and will gang up any editor that actually attempts to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and would like to see them grow in quality. It also explains why only two actual breed articles are at FA or GA status. I would point you to some of those, but I'm sure you guys would just keep arguing that somehow excessive pictures are good and fine and you must have those pictures that add no encyclopedic value to the article. I notice the English Cocker Spaniel article suffers from the same problem as this, lots of pictures, little content. It was nominated for GA status...but it failed badly. As a dog lover, it bothers me that so many have bad articles, but I guess it is to be expected with popular breeds. The pit bull articles suffer from back and forth NPOV issues, while the rest usually have little content and lots of pictures that editors make vague assertions of importance on which are agreed upon by other editors because they all are personal and emotionally tied to the articles. Interestingly enough, anime articles frequently have the same problem if the number of times they are brought for help to the TV Project and pump boards are any indication.

I guess if all you guys care about is having pretty pictures instead of a well formed article, that's your choice. I could keep fighting and arguing to get this article in line so it can continue to grow in quality, but I see no point in continuing to waste my time and energies when a bunch of breeders and owners who can't look at things neutrally are going to continue to try and own the article and keep it down. I have other articles that other editors also actually want to improve to work on, and I don't have the time and energies to deal with it for an article of little concern. So put your images back if you want. Enjoy having the article full of pictures that don't add anything to the article. Just don't expect the article to ever get above its B status rating until you can put your own personal feelings aside and actually work to improve the article. Collectonian 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note that at the time I returned the pictures to the article, this entire discussion was archived, the new discussion on images was not started, and Collectonian had withdrawn the objection to the images. I wasn't trying to override the talk process - there just wasn't one at the time! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.107.12.18 (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did NOT withdraw my objections to the pictures. I withdrew from the discussion of the objection. Collectonian 16:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior

I'm trying very hard to work with other people on this article but all I'm getting is disruptive behavior from one editor. I'm not trying to promote my view by doing the archival, it was a pain to simply load this page in my browser since it went way too long. Most of the discussions are already settled. Only the bulldog vs British spelling was really still active. The argument about pictures was discussed and it lead to nowhere, I've tried to substituted the bloated discussion with a cleaner, more democratic version that would encourage collective participation. My edits were considered vandalism, which is an injury to me personally as I never, ever practiced any act of vandalism in wikipedia (the worse that I did was to have violated the 3RR rule fighting a vandal, who later was blocked indefinitely from editing in wikipedia). Anyway, since that other editor demonstrated it's concern about the purpose of my archival process I have gladly brought back the long, fruitless conversation to the talk page, as seems to be her wish. And how could I be trying to promote my POV since it is not POV that is in question, only an article's layout? And I also opted for a democratic process, much less prone to POV issues than all those "far too bold" edits made to the article.

The automated archival of pages is way too automated, it's not selective and can't be used to keep a talk page concise, which is preferable. If a discussion is already settled and it is a long discussion, it can be summarized in the talk page and moved entirely to an archive. It's not against the guidelines:

Quoting the talk page guidelines:

When pages get too long

• Archive — don't delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, don't delete the content — archive it. See Help:Archiving a talk page for details on why and how to.

• Summarize ("refactor"): See Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages for details on why and how to refactor talk pages.

I have spent quite a few hours today editing the talk page, doing the archival, selecting what conversations should be kept on the current talk page, writing a substitute for the long, fruitless conversion I would left in the archive, etc. and then it was all reverted and labeled as vandalism. People who know me here will surely deny that I would behave like a vandal. I even reverted my own edits in the article to let it as Collectonian left it just to make sure my POV did not, in any way, affect the outcome of the "too many pictures" discussion.

I have done the archiving just like the one that was done in the Talk:Psychokinesis page. What I failed to honor was this:

If possible it is better to archive talk pages during a lull in the discussion, as it is best to avoid archiving in the midst of an active discussion so that the full context of the discussion is together.

To let the full context together, I think it's best to let the talk page longer than necessary, but there are so many topics that were already fully settled... For example, the guidelines for the gallery, which was removed from the article as it is clearly not encyclopedic still exists in the talk... Why not archive it?

Loudenvier 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You selected which conversations should be kept without any input or consensus from others, which gave the impression that you just wanted to hide the conversations you disagreed with. I don't understand your dislike of auto archivers. I think they work very well and they can keep talk pages concise with proper configuration. They are also neutral, which reduces conflicts over what is archived. Setting one to archive discussions with no replies in 14 days (or some other time frame) seems much better to me than someone trying to decide if a discussion is done or still belongs. They are highly used by editors and admins a like, even on policy discussion pages.

As I mentioned on my talk page, I asked for editor assistance because I believe we are both letting our argument get too heated and towing the WP:Civil line. That is one reason I dropped out of the image discussion, because I am not a person who likes to argue and I didn't want to get any further into such a heated discussion. I do apologize for labelling your changes to the talk pages as vandalism, I clicked the wrong rollback link. No excuse for that other than being sick.

I do agree archiving is needed, it is the selective method that was used that I disagree with. By all means, anything from 2006 certainly should go to the archive, and probably anything that hasn't had a comment from before August. It was the removal of recent discussions that were not even 24 hours old that prompted my reaction. Collectonian 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm being civil, although I'm trying very hard to remain so :-) I agree to some extent with the auto-archiving after reading it's talk page, but it has a small problem: it is not selective, it's too automatic. For example, I've left the note about Piccolo von Argentor lineage in the talk page as a reminder to improve the information regarding the early genealogy. It does not have replies, as it's only a reminder... I left it in the talk page so that anyone really interested could do that instead of only me, that's why I did not left it on my talk page. In the autoarchiving process this will be archived, and no one would be able to read this important information not yet merged into the article itself. That's my complain about auto-archives. Loudenvier 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To keep something from being archived, remove or reformat the date and it won't be touched (thats why the archivers don't touch the templates and stuff, no dates). :) Collectonian 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... I didn't know that!!! I'm starting to like you :-) :-) :-) Loudenvier 17:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Collectonian wrote - "I do apologize for labelling your changes to the talk pages as vandalism, I clicked the wrong rollback link. No excuse for that other than being sick."

I'll assume that apology extends to labelling the changes Medusa911 and I made as vandalism, as well, and the accusation of sockpuppetry, and so accept (can't speak for Medusa, though). :)

I'd also like to add thanks to Loudenvier for taking the time to organize the images discussion; I wouldn't have had the patience (or, really, the desire given the history). Kudos to you.

No, that apology doesn't. It was specifically for Loudenvier and the changes to the talk pages which should have been done as a regular rollback not vandalism. There is a difference and I'll leave it at that. I still believe Medusa911 is using sockpuppets and that investigation will stand until an admin decides it. Collectonian 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How disappointing. I have commented on the sockpuppet claim page, since one of the IPs listed is mine and is absolutely not a sockpuppet for Medusa911. Nor was replacing images an act of vandalism. I chose not to report your violations of the 3RR rule, assuming good faith, but maybe that was a mistake? Ah well - too late for it now. Let's move on from here, shall we, and follow Loudenveir's lead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.107.12.18 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvements

To help in the process of expanding and improving the article, I thought it might be good to have a link to the dog breed style guideline here for easier referencing to help figure out what work is needed: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dog_breeds#Recommended_article_structure. Collectonian 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in putting the History section after appearance and temperament, but... I will yield to consensus Loudenvier 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but that seems to be common in a lot of style guides. In medical articles, for example, history is also one of the last sections. My rough guess is that is intended to be what was considered to be the order of importance on the topic. For dog breeds, while we might find the history fascinating, most folks probably want to read about appearance, temperament, etc first :) Collectonian 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. It seems that the most "wished for" information should come first. But it's not how an ordinary encyclopedia would approach the layout of articles, but wikipedia is not ordinary, it's extraordinary. Loudenvier 18:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So true :) Part of the uniqueness that is Wikipedia ;) Collectonian 18:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reorganized the article according to the recommended structure, I did also remove some pictures and added others, now the article has very few pictures, but all very pertinent... I'll expanding a few sections soon and then we'll have space for more pictures, as we wait for other editors to vote on those that we should keep and those we should keep removed :-). Loudenvier 14:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking nice, though may want to add labels to the two new pics. ;) Collectonian 16:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Userbox anyone?

Edit: I have added two new user boxes for Boxers :-). I have also organized them in the table bellow, including the already existing user box. Just use it if you find them nice Loudenvier 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

{{User:John Bot/UBX/User Boxer Owner}}	This user owns a boxer.	Transclusions
{{User:Loudenvier/User Boxer Couple Owned}}	This user is owned by a Boxer couple.	Transclusions
{{User:Loudenvier/User Boxer Couple Owned2}}	This user is owned by a Boxer couple.	Transclusions
{{User:Loudenvier/User White Boxer}}	This user really cares for the wellbeing of all White Boxers.	Transclusions
{{User:Loudenvier/User Boxer Owner}}	This user is inextricably attached to a Boxer.	Transclusions

Pictures

We had a heated argument regarding the use of images on this article. Its results were the removal of almost all pictures that were used in the article. This was a controversial edit though and the debate started again but would lead nowhere, since both parts disagree diametrically. The only productive way I see to settle this is to make an open, clear poll to see how consensus builds up. This should be done in the article's talk page so that it is available to both interested parties and neutral ones.

We should keep in mind that the use of images on articles must be rational and should conform to WP:IMAGES. While the guidelines are far from objective, leaving the amount and nature of images used to editor's discretion, it asks for relevant images, that give unique, non-redundant information to the article and in the article's context (e.g.: the same picture can be used in more than one article to illustrate the same or a different subject).

That said, it seems to be a mutual understanding that it is enough to have a single picture for each section of an article, but not necessarily that each section needs a picture.

Bellow you'll find the pictures that are in the article and those that used to be and you'll be able to simply vote by writing the following wiki bellow each picture:

*'''keep''': your rationale here... ~~~~
*'''remove''': your rationale here... ~~~~

which yields respectively:

• keep: your rationale here... yourname 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• remove: your rationale here... yourname 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Early genealogy

• keep: visual diagram of Boxer's early genealogy with the early boxers shown. Helps visualizing the convoluted genealogy of the first boxers Loudenvier 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep: excellent illustration and informative image Collectonian 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• "keep": For reasons already stated

Boxers in the first show

• keep: Rare picture; historical milestone of the very first boxers in the very first show with boxers. Loudenvier 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• remove: only one is needed and the other one is better; this is one is also too small and unclear
• keep: More than just significant early Boxers, this is as mentioned a milestone - the first Boxers exhibited in the first Boxer Club show.

Early boxers

• keep: Rare picture showing the early boxers depicted in the genealogy chart. Very important to help in the visualization of how different the early boxers were from the current breed standard (there's a copyvio claim, but it's a work published prior to 1928 for which copyright expired, so it'll probably be "fixed" soon). Loudenvier 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep: with the additional information you provided, I'm sure an admin will resolve the copyvio issue soon and of the two early boxer pictures, this one is the better of the two
• keep: But add Flocki's full name, Mühlbauer's Flocki. (I think this was an image you compiled, Loudenvier, wasn't it?)

Yes, it was a compilation I've made... I should have the source floating around on my HD, with all layers so that changing the name will be straightforward. If I don't find the source, I'll have to make the edit right over the flat image, but it can be done with not much effort :-) Loudenvier 17:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Boxer puppy ears tapped

• keep: image fits their section well and highlight something UNIQUE about the topic :-) Loudenvier 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• remove: unnecessary for the topic as cropping and taping are not unique to boxers; would be appropriate in the docking (animal) article which is sadly in need of images Collectonian 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep: Most people do not know that cropped ears need to be taped to stand, and do not know that they don't know that (so won't follow the link to the docking article to find that out).

Fawn 5 year old boxer

• remove: bad angle, not that representative of the breed, coloring not well discernible. Loudenvier 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• remove: too casual and unencyclopedic, adds nothing that other images do Collectonian 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• remove: but add to gallery

Brindle male boxer

• keep: high-quality brindle-flashy boxer picture. Perhaps it can be used as a source for a picture with all colors represented, which would eliminate the need for many other pictures, including the white boxer! Loudenvier 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is also an amazingly good-looking specimen!!! :-)Loudenvier 18:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep: Nice dog, good representation of a typical brindle (though I wouldn't call him flashy). Would prefer a standing/stacked shot, though, for a fuller view of the coloring and his structure, but lacking that type of photo this will do fine.

Fawn flashy puppy

• keep: high-quality puppy picture depicting the most immediately recognizable Boxer color: fawn-flashy. There are no other puppy pictures in the article Loudenvier 16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep: would fit in either health section, if its expanded to include breeding, or maybe apperance Collectonian 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep: Unless a better photo can be found (full body standing/stacked as an illustration of fawn color; or a litter (5-8 weeks old) of brindle, fawn, and white as an illustration of Boxer puppies); I'd call this one semi-flashy at best, the white on the face will shrink to a splash on the nose and a pencil-thin line between the eyes by the time this pup is grown up.

White boxer

• keep better of the two and illustrates a rarer color variety
• keep idem (but, again, it can be used as a frame in a single picture depicting the all color varieties...) Loudenvier 18:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep: Again, unless a full standing/stacked photo can be found.

Another white boxer

• remove: redundant, the other white picture is or greater quality Loudenvier 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• remove: redundant Collectonian 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• remove: But add to gallery

Brindle boxer co-existing with a cat

• Keep: a nice illustration for the temperament section
• keep: Whether Boxers get along with cats is a very common question; this is a good illustration that it is possible.

Boxer dog in agility show

• Remove: not a very good image (I honestly thought it was a corgi variety from the angle :P) and isn't particularly necessary for the section; maybe a better image would work better

Is this a better replacement? This picture captures a very powerful moment of a boxer doing agility:

Yes, I think that would be better. It illustrates boxers in agility as well as the signature boxer grin :) Collectonian 19:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep: One or the other; I personally like the flying ears in the first photo, and it calls to mind some of the work Boxers did during the war (scaling fences and walls), as well. Either would be fine with me, though.

Zygomatic arch (dog).jpg

This is an interesting addition to the appearance or health section, showing an unique information:

• 1 Processus temporalis ossis zygomatici;
• 2 Processus zygomaticus ossis temporalis;
• 3 Processus frontalis ossis zygomatici;
• 4 sutur between 1 and 2;
• 5 Meautus acusticus externus;
• 6 Crista supramastoidea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudenvier (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No opinion on this one yet - it's interesting, but doesn't really explain why it is unique to Boxers; an image of all three types of skulls (dolicocephalic, mesocephalic, and brachycephalic would be more illustrative - but then of course you get into the cephalic index article anyway. Though it might do well in an expanded section on the Boxer head/skull, which references the parts numbered and what is different about them for Boxers as opposed to other breeds.