Talk:Percheron

Comment by Stu

Prince Imperial

I have information on Prince Imperial, one of the first Percheron's brought to the United States. What would be the best way to add the information? Stu 14:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Just add it however you want to and let other people change it if they think it's wrong. It's the Wikipedia way. --flyhighplato 19:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have bad news for you Stu. Prince Imperial is not a Percheron, He is French Norman. This may seem like a little thing to some best way I can explain would be.... What is the difference between a porsche and a volkswagon?

sorry! He was not a Percheron, He was a French Norman. A horse is a horse is a horse. A car is a car is a car. Right! Only if you don't have one.

Cleanup required?

The first sentence under the "History" section appears to require proofreading. I can't help, because I cannot figure out exactly what meaning is intended. Also, following the hypertext link to the "Forest Horse" article, it appears that the History section of the Percheron article may contain original research, since the role of the Forest Horse in giving rise to the modern domesticated horse is described in the linked article as the subject of some debate. Finally, the third sentence begins with an uncapitalized letter. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

Image

Hey D, I really dislike that new lead image of the percheron because he's fat, badly groomed and a bit dirty-looking. Would this image I posted here work OK? I suppose the other one had to go because it was of a team, but given that the only conformation shots in commons are terrible, this one I think shows the classic breed image better than the one that's in there. But this is your GA, so your call. Montanabw^(talk) 20:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Switched. This one is a better photo, and it looks better than I thought it would in the lead, because it's a bit bigger. The only reason I chose the other one was because the horse was closer to the camera, and not moving. It sucks how many bad conformation shots we have on commons, and how few good ones. I really need to get a trip to Equine Affair or the MSU breed expo into my calendar... Dana boomer (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I know the feeling. So you also have been known to go somewhere or do something just for photos in wiki? (LOL) I am probably going to put the state Draft Horse Expo on my calendar. Almost went to a PBR event a few weeks back, but my digital camera is terrible indoors, so never mind... and I think I need to make another trip to the tack room to dig some stuff I never use out of a trunk just to take photos...or else bring my camera to the farm and ranch supply place and have them ask me questions and look at me funny... ("what do you mean you need a photo of THAT?") Montanabw^(talk) 00:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Some numeric french sources

• Le cheval à paris de 1850 à 1914
• Les chevaux par Elwyn Hartley Edwards. But it contain some popular mistakes
• La bête noire : By an ethnologist. Excellent source
• Another breeds encyclopedia
• ...and another --Tsaag Valren (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

France imports american Percheron stallions for the crossing, in 1992, the black stallion Silver Shadow Sheik joined the Haras du Pin<ref>Mavré 2004, p. 36</ref> book is Marcel Mavré, Attelages et attelées : un siècle d'utilisation du cheval de trait, France Agricole Éditions, 2004, 223 p. (ISBN 978-2-85557-115-7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsaag Valren (talk • contribs) 09:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Work from (in French) wp

The horse project is aware that we will work together this article in English and French. I suggest we use this discussion page there, rather than the French one, after all, we learn English at school and if you understand what I write, it should be fine (lol!). Okay ? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this article already has WP:GA status here, and so all changes (other than superficial ones) need to be discussed so the article doesn't get its quality downgraded by things like poor source citations, too much foreign language citation, etc... Improvements can always be made, just carefully! Montanabw^(talk) 19:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem ! Actually, I'm translating your article ;) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Tsaag, I apologize for my extremely slow response - I have been very busy in real life, and while I have been watching the discussion here and elsewhere, I have had very little time to comment. I will try to get to your comments below as soon as possible (hopefully sometime this weekend). Please know that I have seen them, however, and that I am not ignoring you! Thank you for your continuing patience, Dana boomer (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It will be fun if we can have an AdQ in (in English) and (in French) at the same time ;) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Important informations who seem lacked (or lack ?)

Here are my (bad-bad-bad) translations from french about this article, so you can, if you want, add in the article after corrections ;)

• YFrance imports american Percheron stallions (in order to have foals less heavy),

• in 1992, the black stallion Silver Shadow Sheik joined the Haras du Pin<ref>Mavré 2004, p. 36</ref> book is : Marcel Mavré, Attelages et attelées : un siècle d'utilisation du cheval de trait, France Agricole Éditions, 2004, 223 p. (ISBN 978-2-85557-115-7) It's a very known fact.

• Added the first part in the 20th century section. As to the second part, how important is it that Silver Shadow Sheik joined the Haras du Pin? Is he a big name stallion, or is there something really important about him being sent to this stud? - DB

• Silver Shadow Sheik is a very popular stallion, It is the "leader" for the project of breeding Percheron "diligenciers" (the light Percheron) again, and symbolically it marks the end of the selection of the breed for meat. Another story I've hear one time (in the haras du Pin when when I visited it, 1992, that's why I heard a lot about this stallion) : Silver Shadow Sheik was imported soon after the opening of Disneyland Paris, as the park could not find enough light and bright Percherons to pull trams. Now the haras nationaux sold some horses to Disneyland Paris each year. I can show you the Google hits, first response is "Sheik Silver Shadow have international reputation", etc. It's strange for me to see it is unknown in the country where it comes from ? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Found another source that expanded on this and added it to the article. The new source says that he was gray and imported in 1993 - can you check your sources on this? - DB

• Online read about Silver Shadow Sheik, noir means "black", but you've right, I've found photos of Silver Shadow Sheik, the 2nd et 3rd one, It's grey, but it was probably black in color when it was imported --Tsaag Valren (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• What you said above is true. My Grandpa is John C. Hertel and Silver Shadows Sheik was a black horse when he imported him. I can have him verify things, since he was the owner of this horse, and knows a great deal about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.177.229 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that he was black when imported doesn't matter - the horse was genetically gray. All gray horses start out dark and turn gray, but they pass gray, not black, genes to their offspring. All additions need to be backed up with reliable sources, and the fact that SSS was genetically gray is currently backed up by a reliable source. Dana boomer (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• YThe biggest european team of working Percherons is at Disneyland Paris since the 2000's. 30% of the horses in the parc are Percherons. They are buy during the sales of the french haras nationaux each year, and pull tramways (?) in the main's street in the parc<ref>Dal'Secco 2006, p. 9</ref> in this book : Emmanuelle Dal'Secco, Les chevaux de trait, Artemis Éditions, 2006, 119 p. (ISBN 9782844164599).

• Added in Uses section. - DB

• In 1966, trait du Maine, Augeron, Berrichon, Bourbonnais, trait de la Loire and Nivernais horse have been merged in the stud book of the Percheron, it's ok. But the breeders (?) of the Nivernais horse, whose horses were always black in coat color, has always demanded the separation of the Percheron breed. See François Portet, « Chevaux de trait : le retour ? », Syndicat Hippique Percheron de la Nièvre, 25/08/1999.

• I can't understand if the source is saying that there is a large section of breeders who want the breed to remain separate, or if it's just a couple of people. Also, does the French Percheron association separate the two in their studbook, or do some breeders just think they should? What is the association that publishes that source, by the way? My translation of it is some sort of a workhorse association? Are they a big thing in France, or is this more akin to a few people who like draft horses getting together and starting a small group? - DB

• YThe oriental origin of the Percheron are unverifiable, this is common to all the major draft horses breeds, at a time (XIXe) when the Arabian horse is in favor. If Marcel Mavré (in this book) does not deny that medieval chronicles relate crosses with Arabian horses, and can remain in traces, all "hippologues" agree that the ground and the grass in the Perche region has shaped the pattern of horses much more than this so-called supposed oriental horse origin<ref>Mavré 2004, p. 40</ref>. book is : Marcel Mavré, Attelages et attelées : un siècle d'utilisation du cheval de trait, France Agricole Éditions, 2004, 223 p. (ISBN 978-2-85557-115-7)

• Added a bit on this to the History section. - DB

Thanks --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• YPercheron is undoubtedly the most famous draft horse of France and the french draft horse most common around the world (Dal'Secco 2006 p28 et Edwards 2006 p.192)

• Added in the Uses section. - DB

• YOrigin of the breed is the valley of the Huisne, Normandy, surrounded by rich pastures : Jean-Léo Dugast, Sur les traces du cheval percheron, L'Étrave, 2007 (ISBN 2-909599-80-9), p. presentation of the book.

• Added to history section. - DB

• YThese horses are able to travel 60 km per day at trot : Dal'Secco 2006 p.28

• Added to Characteristics section. - DB

• Sorry, an important precision : in the 19th century

• Clarified. - DB

• YPercheron breed forms the majority of driving horses in Paris at the end of XIXe : Dal'Secco 2006, p. 59

• Added to History section. - DB

• YMany other breeds thave been crossed with Percheron, like Vladimir horse and the Ardennes : Draper 2006, p. 102 et Draper 2006, p. 42

• Added to the Uses section. - DB

• The success of Percherons in the United States is partly due to Mark W. Dunham, who own the Oaklawn farm in Illinois. He has over 100 stallions, used for breeding with local mares. In the 1880s, these animals compete with the features Shires, Clydesdales and Belgians in the center and west of the country (i don't know if it mean just Illinois or all the U.S.), established their superiority, so the company tram and bus to the Great Lakes and Mississippi basin just use Percherons : René Musset, De l'élevage du cheval en France, Librairie agricole de la maison rustique, 1917, p. 188, quoted by Bernadette Lizet 1989 (ethnology study), p. 112

• YIn the early twentieth century, the Percheron is considered as one of the four major draft horses breeds in the world, with the Belgian, the Clydesdale and the Shire (the Boulonnais and the Suffolk Punch are well represented, but not in a way comparable). The farmers (breeders ?) earns very substantial revenues with the Percheron. These horses compete with English horses to their native lands. In Canada and the United States, the best Percheron stallions are sold up to 25 000 francs in 1900 : Mavré 2004, p. 80

• Added to the 20th century section. - DB

• YThe export of Percherons since Normandy to U.S. is flourishing. A commercial line is created between Nogent-le-Rotrou, Le Havre and the United States : Dal'Secco 2006, p. 42

• I'm not sure what you mean here by "since Normandy"? The first thing that comes to my (American) mind is the World War II landings near Normandy, but I have no idea if that's what you're talking about! Also, below you say that a source says there have been no exports to the US since the 1990s - isn't this contradictory? - DB

• It's a bad translation, sorry ! I don't know the english for route commerciale : trade route ? before the World War I, a trade route is established between Nogent-le-Rotrou, Le Havre and the United States : Dal'Secco 2006, p. 42

• Added to history section. - DB

• Between the 1970s and 1990s, Percheron horse in France is just breeded for meat and breeding stallions are the largest and heaviest possible (a terrible time, I'd rather not talk about, French horses looked like piles of meat, in French we said "bêtes à viande") : source Mavré 2004, p. 31. From the 1990s, the growth of tourism gives new life to the Percheron breed. The Japanese import Percherons overwhelmingly for their competitions draft-tract (ref : Annick Audiot, Races d'hier pour l'élevage de demain : Espaces ruraux, Éditions Quae, 1995, p.26 (ISBN 978-2-7380-0581-6) (Edition Quae it's the INRA, Institut national de la recherche agronomique) at the same time, private french breeders buy U.S. Percherons, attracted by their height, their physical lighter and their faster trot (of course, never they have been eated so they are lighter, hop, I stop POV). French haras nationaux import American Percherons to ease (? or to allege ? I don't know the english for "alléger") the model of french horses (previously just selected for their meat), and to give them "blood" (Mavré 2004, p. 36) or hot-blood, I don't know how you speak about horses temperament ? We say your Percherons are hotblooded, our Percherons are coldblooded).

• Have expanded on this (and Silver Shadow Sheik) in the 20th century section. See what you think, or if there is more that needs to be added. - DB

• Société Hippique Percheronne anticipated the return of the growth of tourism and Japanese draft-tract by banning tail docking for Percheron earlier than for other draft breeds. No French Percheron was imported by the United States since the 1990s. source : Nathalie Pilley-Mirande, « Les traits français dans le monde » (french draft horses in the world), in Cheval magazine, no 371, october 2002, p. 62-65

• When did they ban tail docking in Percherons? When did they do so in other breeds? Are French Percherons still exported to other countries? Why aren't they exported to the US anymore? (Sorry for all of the questions - this translation just leaves me with a lot more questions than answers!) - DB

• No prob ;) In fr: it say : La Société Hippique Percheronne anticipe cette ouverture en interdisant la caudectomie en 1993, plus tôt que chez les autres races de trait (1996), à la demande des Allemands, et peut-être sous l'influence de publications comme Cheval magazine.

• I'll use Google translate : The Société Hippique Percheronne anticipates the opening by prohibiting docking in 1993, earlier than other draft breeds (1996) at the request of the Germans, and perhaps under the influence of publications such as Cheval magazine (in fr: Cheval magazine, biggest european magazine about horses). TV

• Ah, thank you. I've added this in to the history section. One question - what does "coll. Milieux" mean in the Roger & Beaune ref? - DB

• YA world congress of Percheron is organized regularly in countries where this horse is breeded. In France, the Haras du Pin was organized in 1989 and will organize in 2011. The national competition of the breed in France is organised each year in july in Haras du Pin : Dal'Secco 2006, p. 108

• Added to Uses section (used a different ref which gives a bit more on the history of the world show). - DB

• Also we need a chapitre about Percheron in popular culture. For an exemple when you play with Dungeons and Dragons the war horses for the humans are Percherons. And the Quebec singer Fabienne Thibeault wrote the Chanson du Percheron (The Song of Percheron) she sings, in partnership with the Haras Nationaux and the Société Hippique Percheronne, see http://www.fabiennethibeault.com/lesagriculturelles/lepercheron.html

• I'm not so sure about this one. In the English Wikipedia, "popular culture" sections are often frowned upon, especially in our featured article process. Things like "Dungeons and Dragons" are considered trivia, and are thought to not add anything substantial to a reader's understanding of the breed. Is "The Song of Percheron" an important song in France? If so, this could be tied into the History section, but if it's just another song that no-one really knows, I don't really see how it is important. - DB

• Ok, The Song of Percheron, I heard about on TV, Fabienne Thibeault become "chevalier de l'ordre du mérite agricole" (don't know the english for, something like "knight of agricultural merit", with a medal given by a minister), with this song, and its commitment to horses and cows at risk.

• I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources about this song in general, and about how this song specifically relates to the Percheron horse specifically. Basically, how does knowing about this song improve the reader's comprehension of the Percheron horse, and where is there a source that details that? - DB

• 
  Statue of Percheron Irene in Japan
• 
  The horse tamer or Stallion and Groom by C.D. Arnold, 1901

These statues must be mentionned too ;)

That's all for this time ;) What does it mean "that's all folks" in the end of the cartoons please ? I can write this sentence at the end of my sentences or not ? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL Tsaag! You could use that famous Looney Tunes phrase in this context, where it means, "that is all that we have for your entertainment this time, good people! "(but we sure hope you nice people come back later for the next one!). Montanabw^(talk) 22:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've started to work on integrating some of the information above. I've left comments underneath (signed with "DB") where I've worked on an individual point. More later. Dana boomer (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry DB; I'm very busy at this time (fr Wikiconcours) and can't answer you as quickly as one week ago :/ --Tsaag Valren (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem on being busy - I am too, as you can see by my further delay in answering! Please let me know if there is more you think should be included from the French wiki. I have four books that I need to get through inter library loan and check through for more information, and that probably won't happen for another month or so because of how busy I am. I know you are looking forward to the article being featured on both the English and the French wikis (congrats on your success on the French wiki, by the way!), but I am hoping you will be patient with me for a bit longer. I get the feeling that getting featured status is a bit more difficult on the English wiki - our reviewers are very picky about sourcing, prose, comprehensiveness, etc. and the review process often takes over 2 weeks, sometimes up to a month (not complaining, just stating facts), so I will want to put the article through a peer review and have it copyedited by at least one other editor before I go up for featured status. At this point my goal is to send it to FAC sometime in November or early December. Dana boomer (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting photos

• FlickR have intereting pics. I've noticed : Mounted police on Percherons here, details of the head for carriage here a hoof here --Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you get them uploaded to commons? If so, let us know! Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I can try. I'll give you the link in commons so if you can correct the description in English ? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Done :

• 
  Percherons APD Mounted officers
• 
  Percheron head in Home Carriage Festival
• 
  Percheron's hoof

--Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me to categorize ? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Very nice and useful ones. Categorised. Pitke (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits

IMHO, the info on the allegedly tallest horse in the world (which changes frequently) is irrelevant trivia and not suitable for characteristics, particularly as Shires and Belgians also have claimed this distinction; and all of the record-holders are not necessarily what breeders want, they can have additional health issues. I can see the reasonableness of placing the French registry first in the list, but the different numbers between the French and American sources probably just needs to be outlined as such. However, all of the above can be discussed further. Captions generally need to be kept short and descriptive, geography or things like the names of the horses is often not needed to explain article text or the photo. Most of the source information and detail is on the image's page, not needed here. My tweaks to the article are for the above reasons. Montanabw^(talk) 21:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Point 1, the tallest horse: size is a notable feature of this breed; the record is sourced to a work already cited in the article. What sources state that "Dr LeGear" is not the tallest horse on record?

Point 2, units: I see the problem. Obviously the article as a whole will be in metric units; but the pulling records and so on are from US sources, and should I believe either be treated as "nominal and defined values" and give the exact values from the source first, or, in accordance with "avoid mixing systems" and WP:CONSISTENCY, use metric units as elsewhere. I had intentionally avoided converting those measurements, thus informally opting for the first of these choices; but am open to discussion.

Point 3, captions: no, that is not what WP:Captions says at all. The guideline is "Captions can consist of a few words of description, or several sentences."
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Percheron

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result:

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: keepThis was originally nominated due to stability issues, but the nominator was partly responsible for causing the instability. The missing references were covered in other sources and multiple sources are not needed for uncontroversial statements. Of the final list; the neutrality claim relating to regional bias is weak (France is mentioned prominently in the article), the units argument is not part of the criteria, the broadness criteria does not have to cover every major fact and raising exponentially as a peacock word is minor. As this looks like a disruptive nomination and no solid arguments for delisting are presented I am closing it as keep. Feel free to take any other concerns to the talk page or improve the article yourselves AIRcorn (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article no longer meets good article criterion number 5, "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". There has been edit-warring ([1], [2], [3]) over content between two editors, of which I regret that I am one. I suggest that it be de-listed until that matter is resolved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just looking over it quickly there looks to be less sources and references than I typically expect on a GA, and much less than on the other horse GAs.RafikiSykes (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, the cure for stopping stability problems when you are one of the problem editors is easy - stop edit warring (and discuss on the talk page). I've removed your unit tag because all units are given in hands, inches and cm for height and pounds and kg for weight - very balanced. Inches are needed for non-horsey American and other inches users, and hands are given first when the source does that. Rafiki, I've removed the cn tags you added. In all of the areas you tagged, the information is covered by the next reference - I know, because I wrote the prose and had the sources in front of me (since returned to the library, but I checked the history to make sure that nothing had been added later that wasn't in the source). We don't need references after every sentence, and everything in the article is sourced.

On a more general subject, Tsaag and I are working on the article (or will be, once I get a few free minutes), with an eye towards heading for FAC sometime this winter. While more information on all subjects needs to be added, I'm not sure that the globalize tag is justified at the moment. At this point, over 2,000 new horses are registered in the US every year. According to the French stud book, they received less than 800 applications for registration in 2010. While the breed originated in France, they also have an extensive history in the United States. There is also information on their use in Britain in the article, as well as their export to and use in other countries.

In summary, I don't think this GAR is justified. Also, the article is currently being worked on, with an eye on FAC, so it will continue to improve over the next few months. However, at this point, the article fully meets the GA criteria, in my opinion. Dana boomer (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems a POINTy move, it's unclear why you would jump to a reassessment rather than discussing this on the talk page Jebus989^✰ 15:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources - If thats the case then I would then say theres the risk of sections relying too much on one source. If possible it would be good to see statements confirmed by some references independant of the existing references. With some of the sources coming from the breed orgs themselves confirming more of the statements from less partial sources would seem fair. Like with the UK advertising and publicity statement the visibility of those areas would surely mean an additional example wouldnt be hard to find.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This particular request is not only made in extraordinarily bad faith, but judging by the editing patterns of JLAN and Rafiki, I believe we have a case of potential meatpuppetry. It has been a long-settled issue that units for measuring horses are given in hands, JLAN raised this issue at WPEQ and lost rather overwhelmingly, JLAN has also been exhibiting a strong tendency to raise issues that are opposed by others and then twisting the words and viciously attacking those people (particularly yours truly) when they disagree with him. This particular request is very "pointy" indeed, and should be dismissed. Montanabw^(talk) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

@Rafiki - I'm confused. You placed one banner and two citation needed tags. The banner was in the "20th century and today" section and I am assuming (please correct me if I'm wrong) that it was referring mainly to the first paragraph, which is sourced all to one source. This source is a book specifically about heavy horses, written by a neutral third-party expert author. One of the citation needed tags was on another sentence sourced to that same book, and the other was to a sentence sourced to another book by a reputable (and neutral) equine author. Neither of these sources are published by breed organizations, nor do the authors (as far as I know) have any bias (either pro or con) related to the breed. Do you question the source on the UK advertising and publicity statement? There is no reason to add an extra reference just because, and this is (again, as far as I know) not a contentious statement. This author has been kind enough to sum up the Percheron's uses in a very thorough manner, and I see no reason not to use her to as the sole source. Again, there is absolutely no policy-based reason to use multiple sources for a non-contentious statement - just pick a good, high quality source (like the one currently in use) and stick with it. Are there any points sourced to the breed organizations that you feel are contentious? At this point, it rather seems that you are asking for more references just to have more little blue numbers in the text - you have yet to bring up a contentious statement or a reference that you believe to be false. Dana boomer (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• There is no basis for this ridiculous reassessment. I suggest that the nominator simply stops edit warring. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• As above, if we reassessed evert GA or FA for this level of disagreement the corresponding boards would be very busy places. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

So, if no-one has any further bilious remark to add, perhaps we could look at the article itself? I see the following problems:

• It does not remotely meet criterion 4, "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each". As it stands, it suffers from strong regional bias: quite disproportionate importance is given to the United States in this article on what is a rather famous French horse. Comments above by User:Dana boomer appear to confirm that this bias is not just acknowledged, but in some way justified. I disagree. Specifically, the second paragraph of the lead section begins for no obvious reason with a discussion of the American breed registry; inexplicably, priority is given in the Characteristics section of the text to the American breed standard over that of the country of origin; in the History section, about 90% of the 19th century sub-section and all of that on the 20th century deals with the horse in Britain and the United States.
• The question of units of measurement and conformity to WP:UNIT does not form part of the Good article criteria. However, the priority given in this article to a customary unit (which would be entirely appropriate in an article on a topic with strong regional ties to Britain or the United States) serves to reinforce the regional bias towards those areas.
• Although the material on the Percheron in the United States is extensive, it is also far from impartial. In particular, there is no account of the very interesting confusion and controversy over the registration as Percherons of draught horses of uncertain origin in the fifty years or so prior to 1934, as discussed in detail, for example, by Margaret Elsinor Derry, Horses in society: a story of animal breeding and marketing, 1800-1920; detailed but not necessarily impartial history of part of this period is in Sanders, A history of the Percheron horse. It is to be expected that the Percheron Horse Association of America, obviously an interested party, should make claims such as "Over 70% of the purebred draft horses in America were Percherons"; it is not to be expected that such claims should be copied verbatim here, particularly in view of the previous rather chequered history.
• On a trivial level, "exponentially" is a WP:PEACOCK word – unless of course there is a reliable source confirming that the growth may be described by the function y = e^x?

I see the following possible solutions:

• Rewrite, condense and reorganise most of the material relating to the Percheron in Britain and the United States into separate and suitably-titled sections, with another for the Percheron in the other 15 or more countries in the world where it is represented, and expand the remaining matter to cover the breed in general and in France. Or,
• As has already been suggested by User:Tsaag Valren, split this article into two, the present one and a new one for the American Percheron, where the criticisms of regional bias and so on above would have no relevance whatsoever.
  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, your continued use of language such as "bilious" demonstrates quite clearly that you still seem to have difficulties with WP:AGF. Please cease this tendentious, meaningless argument for the sake of argument. You are making distinctions without a difference where the breed has a worldwide impact and the different nations clearly recognize one another's bloodstock as purebred, even if they have varying priorities for the breed. Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Units

The units used in this article are not in accordance with WP:UNIT, which states quite clearly that:

• In science-related articles: generally use only SI units and non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI.
• In non-science US-related articles: the main unit is generally a US customary unit (22 pounds (10 kg)).
• In non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally a metric unit (10 kg (22 pounds))
• All other articles: the main unit is generally an SI unit or a non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI.

This is a breed of horse from France, so clearly #2 and #3 have no relevance, and the units should unequivocally be SI or SI-accepted. I tagged the article as needing attention, but, to no-one's surprise, an editor who knows better than WP:MOS has removed that tag, citing "balance". Nevertheless, the article required and still requires attention to units. Instead of starting another edit-war, I'm placing the tag here: {{Unit-attn}} but of course it is to be understood that it refers to the article itself, not to this talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You raised this at WPEQ and the consensus was against you, ALL the horse articles use hands as a measurement and you are merely engaging in WP:ASK behavior to raise it at a single article when you lost on the overall principle. To omit other nations breed standards is not the purpose of the infobox -- in fact, as at times different nations have a different standard -- and sometimes even more representatives of the breed than in their "home" nation -- it is entirely appropriate to have multiple standards for the major groups. Your comments are not helping the quality of this article and you are edit-warring against the consensus of other editors who have put most of the substantive work into this article. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, all English-speaking countries use hands, and wikipedia is written in English. Hence hands are ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is a logical fallacy based on an unsupported premise. How certain are you that hands are used in India, Malta, Fiji, the Falkland Islands? They may or may not be, I know I don't know. The fact that customary units of various kinds are used in various countries, English-speaking or not, does not in any way imply that those units should be used in this wiki, which, like every country in the world but one, uses metric units, with some exceptions as per WP:UNIT, which makes no mention of hands. There was an RfC on this matter recently. No-one was prepared to suggest that the MOS needed to be modified. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, you have raised all of these points when you tried this at WPEQ, consensus mostly went against you, and you need to just let it go. Bringing this up in another horse article is a classic example of WP:ASK, which you would do well to read. Further, it is OR in the extreme to go against the weight of the overwhelming evidence for this very common usage. And quite frankly, "every country in the world but one" does happen to include over 300 million people, so while we are sympathetic to the horse owners of Fiji, do show a little cultural understanding and respect please. Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sport use image

• 
  1) Current image
• 
  2) My suggestion to replace
• 
  3) Another version of 2

My points being:

• 1 is of bad, ugly quality. It's fuzzy. It's of low resolution. 2 is a nicely composed, good quality image with adequate resolution and sharpness.
• 1 looks suspiciously light. 2 expresses the typical heaviness of the breed.
• 1 features show jumping, a sport better known than barrel racing (featured in 2) throughout the world.
• However, 2 does not fail to show the horse in dramatic, athletic, high-speed action.
• 1 was added in late 2007, being one of the only images to pick from.
• 2 was uploaded two months after the article was reviewed for GA, so it wasn't decided against then. Pitke (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The other problem is that Percherons suck at barrel racing; it's a speed event totally in opposition to their breed's form and function. They can, perhaps, but it doesn't mean they should. OTOH, they can readily be crossed to make heavy hunters and do fine; hence jumping image is within the realm of possible. You can't crossbreed a Percheron to get a barrel horse, though. I'm all for an improved action photo, but not one of a nontypical use that makes the animal look ridiculous, and a barrel racing Percheron IS sad to say, ridiculous, especially to watch a draft horse live trying to run barrels (a Quarter Horse pulling a circus wagon would be equally ridiculous). The photo makes me cringe just to look at it. (I live in barrel racing country, trust me on this one, a bad barrel horse is almost enough to make you cry, "enough already") Montanabw^(talk) 23:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Monty, my duck, does this mean I'll have to remove the images of Finnhorses jumping, doing dressage, and being harness raced from the Finnhorse article, simply because the breed is (for now) physically incapable of being a "proper" dressage horse, showjumper, and racing horse at the international level? Pitke (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh heavens no! They CAN do these things quite well. Percherons can do a passable job jumping and some under saddle work, though it pushes the limits of what their form was designed to do. But a barrel racing Percheron, or a Percheron in any kind of speed event, well, If you had a photo of perhaps a roller-skating Finnhorse, that might be the level I'm talking about. A percheron in a western saddle as a trail riding horse, I'd consider within the realm (some guest ranches have draft crosses broke to saddle for carrying really heavy riders) but barrel racing. Well, here's a video of barrel racing the way it is supposed to work, and here's another. On the other hand, this is what Percheron barrel racing is like. You see the situation.Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to self, get photos of 1) that palomino roan 2) a barrel racing Finnhorse. Pitke (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Really, I'm not a huge fan of barrel racing, it's just that there is so much of it out here. There is seriously decent money in it at the top levels, but we non-rodeo people actually spend a lot of time convincing little girls in 4-H NOT to go "chasing cans" because doing so can really screw up a horse for other forms of pleasure riding (as you may have noticed with the behavior of the horses in the NFR clip). :-P Not to say that a savvy old barrel horse cannot successfully be repurposed, but they know little of collection or lateral aids. That said, we have already established elsewhere that Finnhorses can do ANYTHING, so maybe they can barrel race too! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Docking question

I don't know what the US Percheron registry says for their internal rules, but it is pretty clear that horses may still be having their tails docked in the USA, I just did some quick research when I did up that ear-cropping article a couple days ago, and the USA still seems reluctant to ban the practice. Also, DO see tail (horse) and docking (animal) for sources, there is an Animal Law journal piece as a footnote there that may help on that question in general. Also, I can provide some anecdotal OR, our neighbors have a docked tail draft horse in their pasture (see the black horse at Draft horse, whom his owner describes as a Percheron, though I admit I haven't asked to see his papers! LOL!). (The pair of Clydesdales up the road have intact tails, I think...) Montanabw^(talk) 18:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The US association doesn't say anything specifically (at least not that I can find), but it has numerous pictures of registered horses (including standing studs) with docked tails, so I'm assuming that they don't have a problem with docking. Horses in the US are definitely still having docked tails today (or at least were in the very recent future), as I saw a pair of youngsters (maybe 2 or 3?) the other day with docked tails. It would be interesting to know if the prohibition against docking in France is a registry thing or an actual law. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I reread some of the stuff I sourced for the tail article, I guess quite a few nations in Europe HAVE banned it and (as per the source) 11 states in the US. However, not sure if they are dogs and horses, or just one or the other. The info on dogs is here: Docking_(dog)#Legal_status. I suspect that for this article, the issue is if the various Percheron registries have taken a stand, in contrast to national laws affecting all horses. Montanabw^(talk) 21:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Milhist

Great article. Anyone have an objection to a Milhist tag? The connection is particularly strong for this breed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! No objections from me... Dana boomer (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My only concern is separating myth from reality. The draft breeds, per se, were NOT the Destriers of the medieval knight, which were animals more like the modern Andalusian horse. Some destriers may have been crossbred with work animals after the decline of the armored knight and thus be in the pedigree of some of the livlier draft breeds, such as the Percheron, which has more light horse ancestry than most. Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point ... I got that from "draft horse", but it might not be clear to some. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There's also the point that Percherons were used extensively in wars as a pulling horse (artillery, ambulances, supply wagons, etc), so I think that it has seen plenty of use in wars...just not necessarily as a riding horse. Either way, tag or not, no biggie to me. Dana boomer (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of photo changing

Wonder if any of these would be an improvement to anything already there? (Be nice to have one black) Montanabw^(talk) 23:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• 
  Dang, but his head doesn't show
• 
  Interesting full body shot
• 
  Another full body shot, not as good, but nice horse
• 
  I kind of suspect this is a crossbred, and photo not great, but definitely fun!
• 
  Always thought this was a lovely horse
• 
  Another lovely body shot, maybe this one could be reversed and used as the lead??

Meh. On the last one, it's a really nice horse, but we're not supposed to reverse images. (I don't feel like digging up the guideline, but it was somewhere in the image pages, last I checked.) I don't know about some of the others...first doesn't have a head, next two have busy backgrounds, fourth I agree is probably a cross. Last two are quite nice. We could move the 1904 drawing up a section, add the driving shot in its place and replace the current shot of the stud partially obscured by the handler in the 20th and 21st centuries section with the last in your gallery above. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That would work, I think. Go for it if the licensing checks out! Montanabw^(talk) 02:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Augeron horse

• Oppose They are similar but distinct. Each race has its own society and studbook. The French Wikipedia has pages for each. Moonraker (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Moonraker, as the author of Augeron horse. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per moonraker.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This user has since been blocked as a sock. Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support as I see no evidence that this is truly a separate breed, the article explains nothing about how these horses are particularly distinct other than geographic location, only evidence is that there are two regional studbooks for horses of virtually identical appearance and ancestry and the one registry only seems to exist because the other wouldn't let them play in the same sandbox. Seems to be a purely political distinction related to bureaucratic issues only. Nonetheless, I am open to debate on this, but to be convinced, I need to see more and better sources than the mere existence of two registries. Montanabw^(talk) 16:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  Hello, I've worked the french article (IRL I'm a specialist of ancient french breeds). In my opinion you have all elements to create separate articles, and Augeron horse is not historically a Percheron, each breed has its own society and studbook like Moonraker have said it. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  Hi Tsaag, glad you have weighed in, and I am sincerely trying to sort out this question. So can you explain HOW this is different breed (we don't say "race" in English, we say "breed") from the Percheron? Having a separate stud book means nothing but politics... how are they actually DIFFERENT? Ancestry? The article says, "since its origin is from Percherons bred in Pays d'Auge, which have been slightly modified under the influence of the soil and climate over the years..." That has no genetic relevance. Has there been outside blood besides that of the Percheron? Have there been differences in original ancestral breeding stock? Or, at least, how did being moved a short distance way change the phenotype of the animal? Can you stand an ideal Augeron and an ideal Percheron side by side and tell the difference? What I'm looking for is what you see if you compare Percheron to Boulonnais horse, where you can read the history and see that clearly the horses developed somewhat differently. Here, I see nothing other than people moved their horses from Perche and so the Percheron breed registry wouldn't take them any more, so they went off and formed their own registry? Can you explain with more information other than, "there is a different breed registry?" For example, the Alter Real line within the Lusitano or the Carthusian strain of the Andalusian horse ARE the same breed, they are just different bloodline groups. Do you see where I'm coming from here? Montanabw^(talk) 18:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  It's difficult for me to explain in english ;) Augeron horse is an extinct breed now, sofinding genetic evidence it's difficult... There's a breed society "Société hippique du trait augeron", a separate stud-book, and a specific area of breeding. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  OK, so none exist today? Yet there is a separate stud book? Today? (Now I'm confused). I'll ask it this way: 1) Do the Percheron and Augeron have the same ancestors? 2) If so, when did they "separate" into two groups? 3) Does anyone know why?  : a) Was it "politics"? (Such as "We don't think those other people breed horses right, so we don't want to stay with them") or b) Different purposes? (Such as "We need plow horses that go fast; they need plow horses that can pull through muddy ground") 4) Did either group ever officially allow them to "crossbreed" back - have a Percheron breed to an Augeron or the other way around?

  None exist today, Augeron and Percheron horses have been merged in 1966. Historically the separate stud book have been created because Percheron breeders refused to have horses outside of Perche. But... according to Marcel Mavré (one of the french specialists of horse breeds) "The status of breed has been debated, since it come from Percheron horses bred in the Pays d'Auge, which are slightly modified over the years under the influence of soil and climate" --Tsaag Valren (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks. So, here are the en.wiki examples I would use that parallel this situation: Wielkopolski, where we merged Mazury and Poznan (extinct ancestor breeds) into this one. We also have Belgian horse, where we merged Brabant, even though some differences. But, we have Percheron and Boulonnais horse as separate articles, as they are quite different, even if they are both gray draft horses! So, with these examples, where do you think the Augeron should be? My own view is that the whole article could be moved into this one, as a subsection (I'd want to talk to Dana about how to do it though, and am in no rush, as Percheron is a featured article), not only as in Wielkopolski, but also as we have Andalusian_horse#Strains_and_sub-types to discuss the Carthusian, or Lusitano#Strains_and_sub-types to discuss the Alter Real (both examples have separate articles in some other wikis). Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  At the end of the day, all horses are horses, just as all dogs are dogs (indeed, they are wolves). So long as the Augeron was ever deemed to be distinct from the Percheron the acid test here is not whether it is distinct from it now, or even extant, but whether it meets the test of notability. So long as it is notable, it surely merits its own page. Moonraker (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not if it's a content fork. We've had debates over some other breeds where different nations have slightly different bloodline groups, but the same origins. Tsaag has some good things to say, but they seem to confirm the direction I am leaning, which is to have fewer strong articles than a bunch of content forks. But I am open to further input from those who study these sorts of things. Montanabw^(talk) 20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, likely supporting merge - I'm confused to as to an apparent contradiction in Tsaag's comments above: she said that it was an extinct breed, but also that it has its own studbook. Is the studbook still in existence? If not, what are horses that were previously considered Augerons registered as today? What does the French government (through the Haras Nationaux/National Stud) consider them to be? The French article says that the Augeron breed (and studbook) were folded into the Percheron breed in the mid 1960s. If true, I see no reason that the articles should stay separate. The Augeron can have its own section in the Percheron article and then we can have one really nice/comprehensive FA instead of a fairly comprehensive FA and an almost-stub start class article that's probably never going to get any bigger. Dana boomer (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Is there anyone else with an opinion here? I would still be interested to know if my understanding (that they were originally bred from Percherons and since merged back into the Percheron breed) is correct. If so, that makes them different from other articles we have on extinct breeds, which started out as their own breed and later died out/were merged into other breeds. Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I suspect that it's you and me and Tsaag. My take is that it is a sub-group of the Percheron, whether extinct or not, and best merged into this article, somehow, sort of like the Alter Real, though not precisely the same thing. Suspect it's a lot like French wines, same grape grown in a different province MUST be a TOTALLY different sort of wine! (LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 20:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose They are distinct. Each race has its own society and studbook.--Adri08 (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose : I've created the fr. article (GA) separated, with a good number of sources, and each breed has its own society and studbook. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Silver Shadows Sheik

74.79.145.29 (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am the granddaughter of the man who owned Silver Shadows Sheik,and brought him to France. My grandpa would love to contribute some more information on Sheik if that would be possible. Thank you.

Renaming of section to "Augerons"

Reading the merger discussion, it's clear I was wrong to say "They are similar but distinct. Each race has its own society and studbook." It would have been better to say "They were similar but distinct. Each race had its own society and studbook." I stand by the word "race", which has been given such a use in English since at least the 16th century, and also by my view that notability is an important test. I don't like the words "subgroup" or "subtype", which seem to me to be rather alien here. Dana boomer said above "Augeron can have its own section in the Percheron article...", and I do not think such a section should be named "Subtypes". If any other related races of horse are to be covered in the article, each surely merits its own section. Moonraker (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Dana boomer (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the context clearly notes two other subtypes with other names subsumed under the Augeron. (BTW, don't lecture us on terminology, we call these differences a "breed" not a "race" you could, I suppose, also say "bloodline" here) It appears that the issue was that anything not bred in Perche couldn't be called a "Perheron," so there is no need, IMHO, for every separate bloodline bred in every separate part of the planet to get its own section. There is a similar precedent in other breed articles where a major subgroup or subtype exists that is a bloodline group within a larger breed. Montanabw^(talk) 18:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the other two were just different names for the same type, from my reading, with the Augeron being the most common name. Just like "The Poitevin, also called Mulassier," that we have in another article - same thing, just different names. For the moment, I think a subsection for the type is fine, since we just have the one. However, there may have been other types merged at the same time (in the 1960s), and researching this is on my to-do list. If this is true, then the section would have to be rewritten or added to include these other types, and the section header may have to be changed at that point. Dana boomer (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As the Augeron seems to me to be notable, even if extinct, I still think it merits its own page, but that's only my view. If a notable horse is to be merged here, I should have thought it deserves its own section. But again, only my view. I certainly agree with Dana boomer that only one kind of horse is dealt with in the new section at the moment. Moonraker (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I can live with that, I suppose. I only note that we don't distinguish the Alter Real from the Lusitanos nor the Carthusian strain under in Andalusian by named sections, both are discussed under "strains and sub-types." We have a precedent in the breed articles, and in those cases, they are also notable and their aficionados also once made much of wanting a separate (small, stubby) article on them prior to the merge. That's all. I just have a thing about people wanting to spin off new "breeds" when it's just a different bloodline...oh well. (On that note, anyone want to help me merge all eight Indonesian pony "breed" articles - where all eight have similar ancestry, just landed on different islands - into just one good article, BTW? LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Foster's rule doesn't apply here, but similar forces come into play from the choices made by breeders. To say "just landed on different islands" rather overlooks the dynamics for adaptation created by island conditions. Moonraker (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree there were probably some differences so long as the different herds weren't merged genetically, I just think ghat one good article beats eight stubs. Montanabw^(talk) 21:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

French article about Augeron is a good article. By the way, 7 disstinct beeds or types have been merged with Percheron in 1966, and 3 have their own article on the fr Wikipédia : Augeron (good article), Berrichon (good article, with drawings of the breed) and Nivernais (featured article, with a lot of photos)--Tsaag Valren (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Addition to Uses

You might also add a reference that the Percheron breed makes up the a large part of the horses used by the U.S. Army Caisson Platoon, part of The Third U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) for ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery and Washington, DC. Some of the larger "wheel" horses are full-bred Percherons, whereas many others are the offspring of Percherons cross-bred with Morgans and other lighter breeds. (Note: I report this from first-hand experience, having commanded that unit from 2006 to 2008.) Morin11a (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a source that we can use to verify this information, that would be interesting. We have to have an outside, printed source, though... does the regiment have a web site or anything like that? Montanabw^(talk) 06:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Percheron. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140110100545/http://www.percheronhorse.org/percheron/default.html to http://www.percheronhorse.org/percheron/default.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150210045033/http://www.percheronhorse.org/origin/default.html to http://www.percheronhorse.org/origin/default.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150210045037/http://www.percheronhorse.org/about/default.html to http://www.percheronhorse.org/about/default.html

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) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)