Talk:Murgese

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Horse breeds task force.

Murgese certainly is a real breed Malcolm Morley 00:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade[edit]

If the article is upgraded, be sure to note that this one has more sources than most, so per WP guidelines, do not remove sourced (i.e. properly footnoted) material except where you can replace it with a better and more accurate source. I am aware that Hendricks is not always the most accurate source, but it's "a" source, (and for many of these obcure breeds, the various encyclopedias are the ONLY English-language sources out there) and would pass WP:V as a tertiary source, so just an FYI that just saying "this article sucks and is inaccurate" is a waste of time without proper sources. I'm not saying that you can't work on the article, I'm just noting a caveat to think of. Sourcing is both a strength and a weakness of wikipedia -- bad sources do trump even excellent individual knowledge, and while I agree that usually sucks, it also has saved the day on things where there are WP:FRINGE problems. I personally have run into similar frustrations with the various rodeo articles at times ... many people who write about them are clueless and many people who know the topic haven't written anything, raising cries of "that's OR" from wikipedians... but it's the world we're stuck with here... Nonetheless, I must have wasted several hours of my life over a couple of weeks arguing with what turned out to be a sockpuppet editor that no, not every rodeo starts out with a parade down Main Street... sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uses[edit]

Even though trecking and draught are indeed uses, I like to mention that due to their genetics, and morphology, these horses should be most suitable for higher dressage purposes, potentially including airs above ground. I have no good source for this, and hence, like to mention it in the Talk section. Have been to the breeders' show trice, and hence, have seen several hundred young -and not so young- stallions, from which I can make a certain judgement. Thyl Engelhardt.213.70.217.172 (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be helpful if someone wrote a magazine article about this or something; we can't use original research, I'm afraid. Montanabw^(talk) 23:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only my own article in German language in the magazine "Hofreitschule", and some websites speculating thereon. At present, there is no single horse I know of that has been trained (or even been tried to be trained) to that high level. Some can perform a piaffe, but that's about it. Hence, only in Talk. Incidently, for the German WP article, I have provided some more "formal" images that I also put into Commons (Which I however could not link into the article for some reason). Maybe someone could incorporate one of them into the English version as well?! Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot me a link to the article if it is online, I'll run it through translate and see if the site passes muster for WP:RS. If it does, I can add the material because I didn't write it! (smile) It appears that the images in the de.wiki article are uploaded only on de.wiki and not on Commons, so that's the problem there (if they ARE in commons, post the URL here?). If commons didn't take them because they didn't like the copyright for some reason, then you CAN re-upload them on en.wiki with all relevant tags and such. They are nice photos, I'd like us to be able to use them! As for the rest, I agree with your assessment of body type, but unfortunately, we BOTH are engaging in WP:OR on that. Maybe some other web sites "speculating" could pass WP:RS, or are they just chat fora and blogs (which we can't use)? Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been printed at the beginning of 2011, but there is no online version. You may find it as a reference in the German Wikipedia. The problems I was having with the images in Commons were not related to copyright problems. I just could not link them in a way that the images were displayed. You should be able to find them in Commons by the same file names that they have in the German Wikipedia. Thyl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.217.172 (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually No, you can't. I just looked for them, and they seem gone. Or uploading failed. But since I tried linking them right after I uploaded them, I still don't think that there is a copyright problem. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try re-uploading them to Commons via that Upload wizard. Once they are there, you can use them here and I won't object if you insert them. I'm afraid I don't have the time to do this from my end. Be sure the German article on de.wiki has a FULL citation (such as required with the citeweb template here), including page numbers, etc., and we probably could sneak it in if you provide the direct quote from the German article (look at what we did with Finnish language-only sources at Finnhorse as an example). Montanabw^(talk) 20:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Murgese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]