Talk:Canes pugnaces

Proposal to #Redirect article

• I propose this article be redirected to Dogs in warfare.Bless sins (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is just a Latin dictionary term; there's nothing notable about it.--Yolgnu (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree - Canes pugnaces, is a Latin phrase, which are allowed to have their own articles at Wikipedia. In addition, the Latin term is often used for a certain type of dog in ancient times, particularly Ancient Rome. It should have it's own article. Thanks Green Squares (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Latin phrases have their own articles at Wikipedia if they're commonly used in English. This just seems to be Latin for dogs in warfare, not a phrase commonly used in English, so merging this content into that article is appropriate. +Angr 05:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi An, would you please provide the link to the policy you are quoting. In addition, Canes pugnaces is used quite often in the English language, within the dog community. I notice many of the words in the category Latin phrase are less often used than the term Canes pugnaces. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quoting any policy, I'm quoting actual practice. There's nothing in the article Canes pugnaces that couldn't be discussed in Dogs in warfare. As for its usage in English, I have to wonder what on earth "the dog community" is. +Angr 19:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi An, the actual practice is that Latin phrases are allowed to have their own article. This Latin term Canes pugnaces has a definite meaning and is often used in English sentences to describe Dogs of War or Fighting Dogs, from antiquity. Green Squares (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not used that often according to a search of Google Books. About half the citations I found were in a list of words with a comma between canis and pugnax. Many of the remainder were sources in Italian that used the Latin phrase. I have yet to find the phrase actually used in a Latin text. This expression is purely a description in Latin, and not a fixed term, since the Latin pugnax means "fond of fighting". So, canis pugnax is (quite literally) "(a) dog fond of fighting". I agree that this article should be a Redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Well I get a fair number:

• Books 1 - 100 of 193 on Canes pugnaces. (0.10 seconds) and
• Books 1 - 100 of 414 on Canis pugnax. (0.13 seconds) Green Squares (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Most of those are quoting a single author, who says that dogs come in two groups: canes venatici (hunting dogs) and canes pugnaces (fighting dogs). Also note that many of your returns have the two components, but not together as a single phrase or even in the same sentence. When I do a search for the phrase I get 19 returns total [1], and some of those are separated by a comma. None of what you've presented does anything to suggest the term has any standing power in Latin or should be anything other than a redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here comes a guideline-based argument for merging: This tiny stub is a content fork of the relevant section in dogs in warfare. On neither side is there enough information for a full article; until that changes merging this stub seems to be the only reasonable solution. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with the redirect, though, frankly, the citations at dogs in warfare's history section of sources such as "Pitbull411.com" clearly indicates that cleanup is needed there. In any case, dogs in warfare is the logical place for the better content that we must hope for. Wareh (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. It might be harder to clean up the section in dogs in warfare, as we might theoretically face another unreasonable editor or two there. But the point of the content fork prohibition is exactly to prevent circumvention of such potentially tedious consensus-building exercises. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree as it is clearly a content fork of Dogs in warfare. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrase has been used by modern writers trying to distinguish between different uses of dogs in Roman times. It isn't clear, at least to me, whether any Latin author uses the phrase. It doesn't mean "dogs of war", anyway: it means "fierce dogs" or (if this concept is valid for Roman times) "fighting dogs". However, I wouldn't object to a redirect to Dogs in warfare. [Added afterwards: yes, Strabo says that the Celts used dogs in warfare.] Andrew Dalby 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)