Jump to content

Talk:Underdog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Could do with some mention of the psychology of favoring the underdog. 80N 10:05, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean with respect to betting? Ground 04:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The origin of the word

[edit]

The article is missing the origin of the word and other historical details such as usage and alternative spelling. One reference [1] states it is from 1887. Also I sometimes see it split in two words under dog, as in Agatha Cristie's story from 1926.


I have no idea how some of the totally inaccurate and off-base information gets posted on Wikipedia or how and why it is then accepted as fact, but the listed origin of the word "underdog" as a guy who gets covered in saw dust to explain why the word is used as a descriptive for a person, team, group, etc. not expected to win a contest is a good case-in-point example. While it may in fact be the origin of the word itself; it is not the origin of it's common usage.

The actual origin of the now common usage of the word "underdog" is based on the legendary race horse Man o' War. (March 29, 1917 Nursery Stud farm, Lexington, Kentucky - November 1, 1947, Faraway Farm. Man o' War is still considered by many, if not most, experts to be the greatest thoroughbred racehorse of all time. During his career just after World War I, he won 20 of 21 races and set I believe three World Records.)

The only blemish on his near-perfect career on the track was a single loss that came as a complete surprise. The name of the horse who shocked onlookers when he inexplicably handed Man o' War his only career loss? You probably already figured it out. "Underdog".

Doesn't that make a little more sense than the sawdust origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jess symgai (talk • contribs) 06:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would make more sense only if it were correct, which it isn't. According to Wikipedia's own page on Man o' War the name of the horse he lost to was Upset. The incorrect portion of Man o' War's entry should be removed. 97.84.191.2 (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stretches

[edit]

This article needs to cut down on the sports under dogs because some of them are ridiculous stretches especially the Astros

right, there is way too much recent underdogs...as if people add them because they saw it on TV or it concerns their favorite team. I also suggets the addition Goran Ivanišević's 2001 wimbledon victory as a wildcard.ErnestC 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sporting examples should be limited to 1. exceptionally famous ones and 2. ones which had an impact outside of their immediate sphere: e.g. in Cricket the defeat of England by Australia which led to the Ashes; in football (soccer) the defeat of England by Norway which gave rise to the famous commentator's monologue. I daresay every country/culture has prominent examples like these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.159.243 (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Famous underdogs missing

[edit]

The turtle [hare]; David [Goliath]; Rocky [Apollo Creed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.177.62 (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luxemburg football team away victory over Switzerland 2-1 in 2008 on the WC Qualifiyn is also a huge underdog...189.2.127.11 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Rodrigo Saggin[reply]

List of underdogs

[edit]

The list of underdogs is not particularly helpful. It could be millions of entries long in theory, so what is the criteria for the inclusion of these particular episodes? Maybe one entry in one or two different fields could be informative as examples (and these can be worked into the text), but really it just seems like an invitation for people to add their favorite upsets (for example, look at how many sports upsets since 2000 there are). I say remove it altogether. Any other opinions? Strikehold (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some serious cuts in the sports section. There are some there that remain questionable. Feel free to remove them if you see fit. DragonFury (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Underdogs In Films? And Wiley College Debate Team

[edit]

I know there are lots of sports films with underdogs, but I think that it's important to add a section about film underdogs because of there popularity in films. Could or (should) someone create a section of film underdogs. That is if people think its relevant.

If you think its necessary someone else more experienced could make a separate list on film underdogs instead of adding on to this page, that is if you think it might bulk up this page to much and needs to be separated.

First discuss if its relevant.

Suggestions include: Rocky Balboa (Rocky Series) Average Joe's Gym (Dodge ball)

Also In examples I Think you should add the Wiley College debate team. They were a African American debate team that challenged Harvard (a white team) it was the first time a Black/White debate occurred —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvernon199 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathy for the underdog

[edit]

This whole section is just ridiculous. It's trying to make some vague geopolitical point and is barely, if at all, relevant to the concept of underdogs. I think there probably should be a section detailing the general public support for underdogs, especially in sporting events, but the current section reads as though it was written by a stoned 14 year old who thought they were making some sort of deep and meaningful point and needs changing asap.

American Revolution

[edit]

Considering the colonists were aided militarily by France, Spain and the Dutch, I don't really think this qualifies as an underdog moment. Britain defeating all four of them would have been the upset. I also think it's dubious to call the Battle of Britain an underdog victory; regardless of being outnumbered, the RAF was fighting on home soil, had better doctrine and also Britain also out-produced Germany in terms of aircraft. The RAF were hardly underdogs --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Underdog moved to Underdog (disambiguation). No consensus that Underdog (competition) is the primary topic. Miniapolis 21:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


– Clear primary topic; I feel most people searching for "underdog" mean the general meaning of "underdog", that is, the one that is not favored. Red Slash 22:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about Underdog (term)? That would make it clear that it's not about a competition called Underdog, and the disambiguator is already used in many terminology articles such as Backpacker (term), Power broker (term) and Overkill (term). Jafeluv (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good compromise. Green Giant (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me.--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Underdog (term)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 19:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Underdog (competition) → Underdog (term) – Clearer disambiguator, as proposed in the above discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – I'm not convinced that this is an improvement. What is the precedent for "(term)" as a disambiguator? Is the article really about the term, or is it about what the term refers to (I think more the latter). Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is in a terminology category, but it's a good question what the scope of the article should be. With the current content the most descriptive name could be something like List of victories by underdogs. I'm sure we've used stranger titles for list articles before :) Jafeluv (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Despite that the disambiguator "term" is already used in some terminology articles such as Backpacker (term), Power broker (term) and Overkill (term) to me the use of "term" as dab kind of goes against WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Is Backpacker (term) (groan, I just had a look at it) really about the term? or is it about Backpackers? The real problem here with Underdog stems from the fact that we have a basic self-defining term, underdog (like "Apple") and have then collected a load of non-encyclopedic junk and trivia "Subject (song)" "Subject (film)" "Subject (another song)" "Subject (band)" "Subject (album)" which overloads the "Subject (disambiguation)" page and which people search for and then by page views the actual subject is no longer the subject. It's bonkers. "Underdog" doesn't need a dab, because there's only one meaning of Underdog, = Underdog. The fact that we've just had a no-consensus RM suggests that WP:DAB and WP:AT are either (a) not looked at (b) unclear or (c) wrong, but I have no idea which. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed Backpacker (term) but now regret it. Should have just moved it to Backpacker Hip-Hop. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All uses derive from a dictionary definition. Whether dictionary terms generalised make good articles is a good question, but a different question. (I think that this is a pretty weak article, but weak articles standing should be appropriately titled) The "(term)" disambiguator clearly and appropriately marks the topic as one deriving from a term, and yes, one that is defined in a dictionary. I don't support deletion of this page because I think it will in time be reworked to something better, such as Underdog effect.

    I support Underdog remaining a disambiguation page because Wikt:Underdog prevents any other topic from being the WP:Primary topic for the term. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Underdog (disambiguation) moved back

[edit]

Jafeluv alerted me to WP:DABNAME (which recommends the ambiguous title if there's no primary topic), so I moved the page back to Underdog pending the outcome of the next RM. Miniapolis 23:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed

[edit]

The whole article needs attention: the examples are subjective and unrepresentative, and it is not clear what is the purpose of the article.Tffff (talk)

Infracaninophile

[edit]

Infracaninophile redirects here, which makes sense - but then the article should help the (non-latinate) reader make sense of this.--Nø (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 December 2017

[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED Both sides argued mostly on policy - one side mostly argued on what the reader is looking for, and the other mostly on long-term significance, both of which are major aspects of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A supermajority of people put policy based rationales in support the move. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– This page is the obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Underdog". Almost every other work titled "Underdog" is based off the term. Pageviews aside, common sense would dictate that it would get the main namespace. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There are way too many popular entries on the dab page here for a primary topic. Looking only at articles called "Underdog" (i.e., not even counting the plural uses), the term comes in third, after the tv series and related film, with less than 20% of the pageviews. No need to misdirect viewers here - the status quo is working as it should. Dohn joe (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All other meanings are derivations of the term. bd2412 T 16:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BD2412: That's really not part of the PT criteria, though, right? Boston is named after Boston, Lincolnshire. Tons of derived terms are primarytopics on WP or point to dab pages, correct? Dohn joe (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are fundamental differences here. First, the concept of the underdog is more important in terms of cultural importance. There will be such a concept long after the films and albums named for it have become obscure. Second, while Boston is named after Boston, Lincolnshire, many other meanings of "Boston" are named after Boston, and would be named after that city even if the city had a different name, or if it were not named after Boston, Lincolnshire. If the original settlers of Massachusetts had decided to name the city "Flopton", today we would have the "Flopton Celtics", "Flopton College", the band, "Flopton", etc. This is not so for any meaning of "Underdog". They all refer to the concept of the underdog. bd2412 T 17:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is straight from the guideline, (with my example following): "Being the original source of the name does not make a topic primary." That's pretty fundamental WP naming guidance. And again, we see it all over the encyclopedia, right? Why make an exception here? Dohn joe (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you check WP:DABCONCEPT? This qualifies as a broad-concept article for purposes of the primary topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it does, actually. Dabconcept pages are for articles that address the same type of thing. Things that are not related to that thing do not belong in a dabconcept article. The example there is Particle, which is a dabconcept article discussing the scope of what it means to be a "particle" itself. As the guideline says, "Truly unrelated meanings, such as Particle (band), are only presented at Particle (disambiguation)." A band is not a particle - it is a band - so Particle (band) does not belong on the dabconcept page. Same here: a tv show, a film, and the various bands and albums listed are not underdogs themselves - they are tv shows, films, etc. They do not belong on the Underdog (term) page - which is why they are not in that article. Which is also why the normal primarytopic rules still apply here. Dohn joe (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Something doesn't have to literally be an underdog to be based on a broad concept. For example, the superhero Underdog isn't actually an underdog, but the name is clearly a pun based on the term. The vast majority of the titles are puns that were clearly inspired by the term that existed beforehand.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, but evidently not many people actually want to read about that term. Why should we inconvenience them with extra navigation? —  AjaxSmack  21:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The views have the potential to go up significantly once the page is in the main namespace. That doesn't prove anything.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they will go up because people will have to go through that page (i.e. the wrong one) to get where they want to go. —  AjaxSmack  20:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The related "top dog" first ngram dates ti 1737
The first google ngram of "underdog" is 1801
The oed.com cites first use in 1887, with uses clearly indicating preceding accepted use
Goog ngram shows rapid growth in use 1930-1945, plateauing thereafter.
Page views should always be used only with caution, and where there is a clear path of derivation adhering to the original use, page views are irrelevant.
"Being the original source of the name does not make a topic primary" does not make the opposite true. Being the original source makes it primary until a transformative change occurs. In all articles, the base meaning of "underdog" remains the same as the original usage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't disagree with your research but argue that, although "underdog is a very widely and deeply understood" word, this does not translate into encyclopedic interest. Pageviews confirm this. this is not Wiktionary. —  AjaxSmack  20:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

LovelyAngle gives as the entire rationale there is a show with the same title it's better to use term for it. Some other oppose votes also seem to think that the series is the primary topic.

My reaction frankly is "you're kidding, right?" The show didn't air worldwide and ceased production in 1967 after 124 episodes, many of them now quietly dropped from the reruns and DVDs, and inspired a failed movie and several other proposed spinoffs that didn't even get that far. Australia appears to be the only place it aired outside of the US, and as an Australian I can assure you it made no great impact here. And the rest of the English-speaking world doesn't even know (or probably care) that it exists.

I'm sure it has (and probably deserves) a cult following in the US, and gets some page views, but that seems to be as far as it goes. Andrewa (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wellknown Underdog: Donald Duck?

[edit]

I think the cartoon character Donald Duck is one of the most well-known underdogs. Why not mention him here?

Merge proposal

[edit]

Please use this space to discuss the proposed merge of Cinderella (sports) into this article. Pinging @Lee Vilenski:, who initiated the proposal. Joyous! Noise! 02:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Underdog&oldid=1212958676"