Implicating bull_terrier → terrier
Link to implication

Reason:

Bull terrier is a type of terrier, just like the yorkshire terrier (which implies terrier, unlike the bull terrier)

Related implications

• american pit bull terrier → terrier
• boston terrier → terrier
• jack russell terrier → terrier
• scottish terrier → terrier

Related de-implications:

• boston terrier → dog¹
• bull terrier → dog¹

¹ Since terrier is already implied as dog, removing this implication would reduce redundancy.

Before analyzing these suggestions I need to ask something: What exactly defines which dog breeds are terriers or not?

I am asking this because some species names tend to be misleading (e.g. maned wolves aren't wolves, camel spiders aren't spiders etc.), so having a specific word within the name isn't an actual guaranty that certain species belongs to certain group.

edit: typo corrected ("named wolves").

O16 said:
Before analyzing these suggestions I need to ask something: What exactly defines which dog breeds are terriers or not?

I am asking this because some species names tend to be misleading (e.g. named wolves aren't wolves, camel spiders aren't spiders etc.), so having a specific word within the name isn't an actual guaranty that certain species belongs to certain group.

While it is true that names don't necessarily make an animal that animal, all of the above are considered terriers, which are wirey and generally small breeds of dogs.

American pit bull and boston terriers for example are "bull type" terriers, yorkshire is a "toy" type terrier, etc. They all are considered terriers, and not just terrier in name alone, ergo the implication suggestion.

I can understand asking tho, considering some species share a name with another without necessarily being that animal.

O16 said:
Before analyzing these suggestions I need to ask something: What exactly defines which dog breeds are terriers or not?

I am asking this because some species names tend to be misleading (e.g. named wolves aren't wolves, camel spiders aren't spiders etc.), so having a specific word within the name isn't an actual guaranty that certain species belongs to certain group.

You mean maned wolf, not named wolf, right!

Siral_Exan said:
You mean maned wolf, not named wolf, right!

The link leads to the right place, so it's most likely a typo.

BlueDingo said:
The link leads to the right place, so it's most likely a typo.

They used | in between, so yea, I'm pointing out the typo. I just don't know if it's a joke or not.

Siral_Exan said:
They used | in between, so yea, I'm pointing out the typo. I just don't know if it's a joke or not.

The | is there because the tag is singular and the label used is plural.

\named_wolves -> named_wolves

Plus the M and N keys are right next to each other so it's plausible that he simply hit them in the wrong order the second time.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
While it is true that names don't necessarily make an animal that animal, all of the above are considered true terriers, which are wirey and generally small breeds of dogs.

American pit bull and boston terriers for example are "bull type" terriers, yorkshire is a "toy" type terrier, etc. They all are true terriers, and not just terrier in name alone, ergo the implication suggestion.

I can understand asking tho, considering some species share a name with another without necessarily being that animal.

Then I will give a +1 to all (except to the 'yorkshire_terrier' one, since it already exists).

Siral_Exan said:
You mean maned wolf, not named wolf, right!

*facepalm*

I am sorry for that ...fixed.

O16 said:
Then I will give a +1 to all (except to the 'yorkshire_terrier' one, since it already exists).

Didn't mean to add yorkshire since it's already implicated to terrier lol... my bad

BlueDingo said:
The | is there because the tag is singular and the label used is plural.

\named_wolves -> named_wolves

Plus the M and N keys are right next to each other so it's plausible that he simply hit them in the wrong order the second time.

why are you telling me stuff I already know? Again, they could *edit, have been* doing it jokingly, I wouldn't say they intentionally did it.

BlueDingo said:
The link leads to the right place, so it's most likely a typo.

Pretty much that.

Siral_Exan said:
why are you telling me stuff I already know? Again, they could *edit, have been* doing it jokingly, I wouldn't say they intentionally did it.

"they"? I am only one.
You could use 'it', but I would prefer 'he'.

O16 said:

Pretty much that.

"they"? I am only one.
You could use 'it', but I would prefer 'he'.

I'm so used to playing WoW, I developed into using third party, gender neutral terms. I even know which admins are which gender, yet I always refer to them as "they" in their presence and most of the time when not...

O16 said:

Pretty much that.

"they"? I am only one.
You could use 'it', but I would prefer 'he'.

"They" can be used in the singular, y'know.

Furrin_Gok said:
"They" can be used in the singular, y'know.

No, I actually didn't. Is that a grammatically formal usage?

O16 said:
No, I actually didn't. Is that a grammatically formal usage?

For about seven hundred years, it's been used this way, mirroring the way we use "You" as a singular world despite it being for plural.

O16 said:
No, I actually didn't. Is that a grammatically formal usage?

It's basically neutral: for speaking, it is uncommon because you're either speaking to a second party or have seen them so you can use gendered pronouns; in writing, it is common to use third party because you're not interacting with a second party as often, and you haven't seen them to infer about gender. This was surprisingly abundant in MMOs, the undermining of any interaction in general or trade chats is by using he or she. Nowadays it's less so, but I'm an old gamer.

I'll keep in mind to use "he" for you, but my usage of "they" is so I am neutral towards others. I don't want to step on toes.

Siral_Exan said:
It's basically neutral: for speaking, it is uncommon because you're either speaking to a second party or have seen them so you can use gendered pronouns; in writing, it is common to use third party because you're not interacting with a second party as often, and you haven't seen them to infer about gender. This was surprisingly abundant in MMOs, the undermining of any interaction in general or trade chats is by using he or she. Nowadays it's less so, but I'm an old gamer.

I'll keep in mind to use "he" for you, but my usage of "they" is so I am neutral towards others. I don't want to step on toes.

It's why MMO's had the profile screen where you could state things like age an gender (optionally, of course); it'd allow others to know which pronouns to use.
It's also why I made a statement in my own profile here.

Furrin_Gok said:
"They" can be used in the singular, y'know.

And "he" can be used neutrally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Generic_he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He#Gender_neutral

Bumping. Also adding some missing suggestions:

Related terrier implications

• bedlington_terrier → terrier

Related terrier aliases

• american_pitbull_terrier → american_pit_bull_terrier
• pitbull_terrier → american_pit_bull_terrier
• pit_bull_terrier → american_pit_bull_terrier

• english_bull_terrier → bull_terrier

• amstaff → american_staffordshire_terrier
• staffordshire_terrier → american_staffordshire_terrier

• jack_russel → jack_russell_terrier
• jack_russell → jack_russell_terrier

• scottie → scottish_terrier

done