Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine/Archive 3

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

Breeds

Throughbreeds are used for raceing and steeple chaseing they are very elegant and fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimalGirl1998 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Devoucoux at AfD

Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devoucoux (2nd nomination). -- Banjeboi 06:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Couple of images

There are a bunch of free Creative Commons images here, taken at an international competition. I guess there might be some good images of famous horses/riders. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-25 15:06

On the topic of posting images - Free personally-owned images are virtually impossible to donate to wikipedia. The rules are poorly defined for giving up any personal copyrights and allowing your images to be used in articles. I've tried this several times and my images have been removed without discussion or directions. It is not worth the hassle to try to determine the rules - which should be clearly defined but are not and to be merciless edited by the uneducated - It is worse when those who edit refuse to educate themselves in the topic they chose to destroy - but that is another discussion altogether! (More and more I see wikipedia becoming the domain of the teenager who thinks he is funny.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowesR1 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowesR1 (talk • contribs)

Having uploaded many images myself, the main way to "donate" to wikipedia is to make them free for anyone to use. You can upload them either released to the Public Domain, or licensed under the GDFL-CC license. Uploading over at wikimedia commons is even better, because that software will alert you if you use an iffy license. I agree that figuring out the protocols is a real challenge, but in essence, if you took them yourself and you only retain "copyleft" protection (essentially, other people have to acknowledge that you took the photo), they are acceptable. User:Ealdgyth here at WPEQ is also a good person to ask for tips on photo uploads, as she herself is a photographer. Montanabw(talk) 21:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not immediately go through the hassle of uploading all the images again and figuring out how to give my images away only to have them deleted again. As near as I can tell this wikiproject is a waste of time and hassle. What is the process of removing the SAMS wikipedia page from this project? This is a joke. I could navigate the processes of wikipedia and create a project of projects and rate this one low and see how the editors of this page like that! How does mounted archer rate higher than mounted shooting when they have ones-of-participants per year versus thousands? By the images and layout and content of their wikipage? Like I said, this is a joke - a bad one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowesR1 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Potential POV issue with rodeo related articles

Please see Talk:Rodeo_in_the_United_States and Talk:Animal cruelty in rodeo... I have tagged these new articles with {{POV}}. Interested parties are invited to comment. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Rodeo in the United States article is nothing but a POV fork from rodeo and as such needs to be merged and redirected. End of story, IMHO. There is a little bit of good material in the new article, some of which I attempted to integrate into the main rodeo article, but by and large, it is just a Content fork. Sigh. Montanabw(talk) 06:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Equine podiatry

I happen to have this page on my watchlist because I removed a proposed deletion tag from it last year. I've noticed that the standard of the article has declined from bad to atrocious since then, and it now seems to me, as a non-expert, to consist nearly all of spam for two organisations and one person who has written on the subject. Could someone in this project please try to write something neutral on the subject? I'm beginning to regret rescuing it from deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone here would have to care! LOL! It looks like WP:FRINGE to me, but if anyone else wants to take a peek, no problem. Personally, I have no problems with you going in and fixing whatever you see that needs fixing, but maybe wait a few days to see if anyone else pops in to comment first. Montanabw(talk) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

proposed: replace reqbreedphoto with reqphoto

I have proposed replacing {{reqbreedphoto}} with {{reqphoto}} on all existing pages. Please read my proposal at Template talk:Reqbreedphoto and add your opinions. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement project?

Hi gang,

Given the recent flap and the user who was blocked for making legal threats, anyone think we ought to do a major improvement drive on Andalusian horse? The article has been subject to any number of what I can only refer to as overemotional hissy fits over the last couple of years and I think that some serious cleanup and footnoting to good sources would do much to settle some things down. In the process this would require a brief overview of the "players" in the breed politics, and possibly a "controversies" section (I know everyone hates those), but by explaining each organization and their viewpoints, it might actually calm down the people who go to the article and have palpitations because the other faction's views are in there. Apparently there is even a lawsuit in the EU over who controls the studbook... Anyone game to try? I think we are all sufficiently neutral on the topic to be objective. Montanabw(talk) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This would probably be a good idea. It's something I've considered doing for a while now, but didn't really have the guts to jump in solo with all of the POV-fighting that happens on that article. I'm game to play, although my time online is somewhat limited right now and I may not be the most help in the world. Web sources and copyediting would probably be my contributions...all my hard-copy sources are halfway across the country right now... Dana boomer (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
When the flap started, I looked at my sources and discovered I have nothing. Nothing whatsoever on Andalusians beyond what's in the most basic of coffee table books. I'm afraid I won't be much help here. Arabians, Thoroughbreds, anything Western .. I can do. I even have some stuff on Standardbreds (I own an amazing amount of Wallace's Yearbooks.. picked them up cheap a while back) but nothing on Andalusians, weirdly enough. I agree it needs help, but not sure I can help much. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Everyone can help me on sourcing and formatting. Anyone can add in stuff from the IMH site, which looks like they cribbed it mostly from IALHA. And check typos! My eyes STILL have trouble reading a [ from a { from a | (the detached retina I had in 2007 has long healed, but with some minor macular injury, making straight lines look wavy, plus my having to wear reading glasses is still, well a thing! I have far too many typos in wiki, the editing window has very small text on my screen...  ;-P ) Our old friend Deb Bennett's Conquerers starts to come into its own with its chapter on the history of the Andalusian, some good foundation material there. (Her whole "thing" is the Spanish horse, mostly that's what the rest of the book is about from there forward) The IMH web site is as good as most of the "coffee table books" for the basics (much of which I had already used in the article earlier, though prior to the days when I "got it" about wikifootnoting). Discuss with me here the problems with using breed-specific sites as sources--obviously there is always the usual promo stuff, but where their info isn't contradicted by other sources or common sense, can the be used for some of the basics such as characteristics, etc...? I think I can figure out the politics in a way that basically says that there are multiple organizations with differing opinions. Montanabw(talk) 01:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me on the sources, and I'm sure we can find some online articles and stuff that have something to add. As for breed-specific websites... In this case, it will probably be best to have one section detailing the various registries, their politics, and the controversy. For this, we can probably use the association websites to source their positions, then try to find some third-party discussion (an article in a major equine magazine, for example) of the relationship between the various associations. Then, in the characteristics section, give an overall description that is agreed upon by all registries, sourced to all the registries, then give registry by registry specific details sourced to each registry with some sort of a "the xyz registry claims abc, while this other registry claims such and such" statement. It would be best to source as much of the article to third-party sources as we can, of course, but the registries are probably the best place to get information on their individual positions. Hope this makes sense...I'll try to do some digging for some third-party sources a bit later and post them on the talk page.
Another question, though - do we want to do the rewrite in the article mainspace itself, or use a sandbox so that our half-written rewrite isn't out there for all the association POV'ers to attack while we're still working on it? I'd prefer the sandbox, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm groovy with a sandbox. Link it to all of us once created. Montanabw(talk) 04:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've created the sandbox at Talk:Andalusian horse/Temp. I added a few more potential sources that I found yesterday to the external links listing, so hopefully at least a few of these will be of some help. Also, I posted a note on the talk page of the article, but I'll ask again here - Ealdgyth, there are quite a few scientific papers on Andalusians that have been published. I know that you have access to a lot of journals through your local university...any chance you can get your hands on anything good relating to Andalusians? Dana boomer (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not E, but I know that the mtDNA study on the link between the Barb and the Andalusian is at least available in an abstract. I think that I have it cited at Arabian horse. Montanabw(talk) 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I just got back Friday from U of I, so it'll be a bit before I get back. I'll try to look when I get to that point. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Question for the Project

I've been looking at the articles that we have on the World Equestrian Games, in view of doing some cleanup and expansion later this year, and I found that I had a question for the group. For the 2006 FEI World Equestrian Games, there are several articles that have been created for individual countries at this WEG. This include Antigua and Barbuda at the 2006 FEI World Equestrian Games, Bulgaria at the 2006 FEI World Equestrian Games and Georgia at the 2006 FEI World Equestrian Games. As you can see, these are very short articles with very little information. There are no comparable articles for other years, nor have articles been created for some of the major players at the games, most notably Germany and the US. Now, my question is - should we have these articles deleted, citing lack of notability; or, should we rename the articles so that they are something like Bulgaria at the FEI World Equestrian Games and add in information from all of the other years, which would then allow the article to be expanded with trend information, etc.? Or, should we just leave the articles as they are? Hope this makes sense... Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My thinking is to see what comparable articles exist for the Olympics themselves. Or, for other parallels, the Pan American Games, etc... in other words, if the Olympic folks frown on these for other events, we could toss them here too, or merge them to a form similar to what is done with other Olympic sports. JMO. But if they are just hanging out there, I see no reason not to toss... Montanabw(talk) 23:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The Pan Am Games have no country articles. The Olympics have seperate articles for each country, but they include all years and all sports. I'm thinking that one article for each country would probably be reasonable, and would give us a place to expand on the info in each year article with regards to individual countries. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I favor following the Olympic precedent. NOt that I'm going to be working on any of these articles anyway... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Probably the least controversial approach. With some, may only need to rename to remove the year, at least if that's the only article. Here I think "BE BOLD" is appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 02:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Allright, cool. Like I said, this was mainly a question for work later this year, but it's good to have other opinions now in case I get some extra time and effort. Dana boomer (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is training part of this? I have friend that is a trainer that can give me a few tips. Mhera (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, how-to articles go into other wikiprojects. Anything here has to be sourced to published works. And some of us already either are or have been trainers, so there is a pretty good knowledge base here. However, if you have suggestions to improve the articles, please do feel free to help! Montanabw(talk) 03:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ditto what Montanabw said. If you would like to work on articles such as Horse training and similar, please feel free to. We haven't had much time to work on them, and they could use extensive sourcing work, as well as expansion in some areas. However, as Montanabw said, everything has to be sourced to published works. This includes reliable websites, books, magazines and others - see WP:Reliable sources for more information on what makes a source reliable. How-to information doesn't belong, nor do word-of-mouth tips, but your trainer friend might be a good source of information on specific books and other materials that would make good references. Dana boomer (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
That said, speaking as the officially declared head of the Horse training task force (really, they did pick me-- before everyone else there left wiki! LOL!) I must note that the horse training base article is a carefully crafted overbroad overview, with all the various training methods having their own separate articles in order to avoid ideological battles. (i.e. Natural horsemanship, Dressage, etc...) The Natural horsemanship article needs a lot of help, it still sounds like an advertisement. Dressage is real thorough, but does need more sourcing and organizing -- it's long and has that "put together by a committee" feel that some wikipedia articles get. I agree with Dana that even just adding some good sources (and NOT commercial web sites, by the way) from books and magazine articles is a big help! Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Magazine articles I'd be a pro on. Lol. I'm subscribed to two magazines that help. Breyer and Horse Illustrated. I'll try asking my friend about it. Hehe but I'm about zero knowledge on Dressage. Anything Western, and racing is in my line. I'll try to help. Natural Horsemanship I should help with. Mhera (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
If you are into Breyer Horses, the articles on the whole model horse hobby are really weak and definitely need a LOT of help! And none of us have had the time to even do more than glance and cringe! I'd certainly encourage you to look into those. And as you may have noticed, the Horse Breeds task force (linked from here) has a number of "red links" for articles that someone wants to see in here that no one has had time to start. So that's another good place to help. (And oh please dear God, will SOMEONE clean up the disaster that still is the Gypsy Vanner article? LOL! )
As for the NH articles, anyone who can work on the base article, Natural horsemanship and/or the biographies of the major players, (Ray Hunt, John Lyons, Tom and Bill Dorrance, Clinton Anderson, Buck Brannaman Pat Parelli, Monty Roberts, etc.) without making them sound like a promotional brochure or a recruitment effort for a cult, your service to WPEQ would be immortalized with all the barnstars you could ever want! We have had no end of trouble with people who don't understand WP:SPAM on these and even more so, tend to have problems understanding WP:NPOV.
On the other hand, Horse Illustrated is a cute magazine, and if it has the occasional article on something where we have been needing some source, any source, it can help some. Overall, however, it's a beginner's mag, and as such I have noticed that a lot of its articles are not always as accurate as they could be, leave something to be desired, and I would add material from there with a great deal of caution. (I flat-out cringed when they couldn't even spell "Saddle Seat" as two words, which is the proper way its named in the USEF Rule Book!! But, yeah, I AM kind of anal)... Practical Horseman (English), Horse and Rider (Western), and any of the specialty magazines; Western Horseman, Blood Horse, Dressage Today, etc... tend to be stronger on riding info, with magazines such as Equus and The Horse being good on the health and science stuff. In short, surf around, there's plenty to do!!! Montanabw(talk) 04:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

New project

Maybe this is a task no one has time for, but I was inspired by Glossary of nautical terms to create a Glossary of equestrian terms. It's barely started, feel free to add, let's just try to keep things more or less mainstream and, if needed, citable. Party on! Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Horse Racing

Hello. I am not part of wikipedia. But I would like to tell you something about this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_racing

In the Italy section, there is a mention about Palio. That is not right. Palio has nothing to do with sport horse racing. If you go to the discussion page of that article, you will find a note about this. Thanks for the attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.226.60 (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible article for deletion

I'm considering putting Successful ISH Showjumpers up for deletion. My main arguments are that 1) we don't have have, and hopefully never will have, articles for successful members from other breeds in various disciplines, and 2) this criteria ("successful") is rather subjective. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, they actually have a pretty justifiable criteria in the lead for who is chosen, and it's certainly one that should pass notablity - generally human athletes that medal at the Olympics get articles. That would argue for a name change on the article. I'd be happier to see all the medal winning horses at the Olympics in one article, with "breed" given, until we get those types of articles so big we have to break them down, but I can't really see the need to not allow it based on the fact it's only one breed. The folks to ask would be someone connected to the Featured List process, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe check with the editor who created it or did a lot of the work -- they might care a lot, or they may be open to a broader list with a renaming, which I DO think is a good idea .. but .seems I recall that whoever started that was someone who at least once was a regular on wiki ... In general, I'm not a huge "list of famous horse" fan, but something paralleling the human version, maybe. Oh, and "show jumper" isn't a breed. Just like "reining horse" is not a breed (though some breeds excel at the sport more than others...) LOL! Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Allright, will do some more checking around before I AFD it. Also, I quite realize that showjumpers are not a breed. I guess I wasn't clear enough in my original post - what I meant was that we don't have other articles such as "Successful Trakehner Dressage horses" or "Successful Appaloosa Reining horses". Dana boomer (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL! Sorry that I'm a bit snarky today. What does exist are the various "famous horses" categories of various sorts (like where all the QH and TB articles are.) I don't know the answer here, so I'm just saying... sorry again for being snotty today. Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of articles that IMHO are in need of a prod tag, what thinks ye all about dumping Horse value and Classic equitation books? Montanabw(talk) 03:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The books one - prod. How are they defined? What makes a book "classic"? The value one sure looks like a definition to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Ealdgyth - the books one is definitely a toss. As for the value one, could it be merged with something else? Equine prepurchase exam maybe, or even Horse breeding? Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, prod on list. The other, well, when someone has the time and cares enough, go for the redirect?? By the way, sorry I was such a snot yesterday, not sure what was up with that (Or, "Wot wuz up wit' dat...") Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And, to add another, what about Riding Horse? Dana boomer (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That one's a legit concept, it's a term of art in the UK for certain types of horses or horse show classes. Maybe Richard or CG could weigh in and improve it. Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good photos?

Not sure if they're needed, but this photoset has some CC-licensed photos from the Irish National Stud that might be good to upload to Commons. I thought some of you horse nuts might have a better eye for the good ones. ;) Steven Walling 05:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alert! Alert!

The stub Vlaamperd has been slapped with a copyvio because apparently everything in it was a copy and paste from Okie State's site. Anyone wanting to fix it, it's a wide-open project. Montanabw(talk) 04:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured Portal Nomination

Hello everyone! I am just leaving a note here to notify anyone who is interested that I have nominated Portal:Horses for Featured Portal status. The nomination page can be found at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Horses. If you have the time, please stop by the portal, and feel free to drop your comments either on the portal talk page or the nomination page. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Roan cleanup

Just an FYI to all that roan (horse) has been created (thanks, CC) and we now have a whole bunch of horse breed articles to redirect from roan (color) to roan (horse). I've grabbed a few, but this is probably a group project. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Roan_(color) Montanabw(talk) 04:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the list is now OK. Pitke (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the list was taken care of within a few days of Montana's post, through the efforts of several equine editors. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Which we forgot to mention here... oops! Montanabw(talk) 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hambletonian 10

Hambletonian, already has a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambletonian_10 If SKS could merge I will have a go at sorting it all out.Cgoodwin (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh??? Explain the problem...Montanabw(talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
We have a Hambletonian and a Hambletonian 10 article which are about the same horse. This Sb sire was registered as Hambletonian 10, but often known as Rysdyk's Hambletonian. There is also a Tb Hambletonian without an article, but an image in commons.Cgoodwin (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll see what can be sorted out and tag accordingly, wouldn't be the first time wiki has multiple articles on the same topic. And "Hambletonian" is also the horse race. Montanabw(talk) 03:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
DId a quick merge and fix, the links indicated that Hambletonian is about the race, Hambletonian 10 about the horse. Not sure what to do about the TB, but I guess if he ever gets an article, it can be named "Hambletonian (Englahd) or something. Montanabw(talk) 04:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tidbit...

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-30/News and notes - do we need to check out this book stuff? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe. What are your thoughts on it? Montanabw(talk) 21:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I poked about a bit and don't see any Equine project pages that seem to have been converted to books yet. My opinion is we keep an eye on it periodically and see what's up. I've got enough to do without trying to make up books too! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at the books before - they don't really look that hard to make, but they don't really seem to have much of a purpose to us ATM, so I'd say to just leave them for now, and if any pop up we can add the book-class to our assessment scheme and toss a tag on them. Dana boomer (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I like the concept of giving our longest articles the book class tag (example, the Thoroughbred article) and seeing if others want to take it and run. What might be the criteria we'd use for tagging them as such??? Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a color infobox

Blue dun, Grullo
A horse with a brownish-gray body, dark head and legs, and with a layered mane with light and dark hairs.
A grullo Icelandic horse
Other namesblue dun, mouse dun, black dun, grey dun, lobo dun; grullo, grulla
Genotype
Base colorEE or Ee and aa
Modifying genesDD or Dd
DescriptionBlack + dun gene
Phenotype
BodyGrey or brownish grey
Mane and tailBlack. May have lighter guard hairs on outside edges
SkinDark
EyesDark
Other notesDark or black face. Dorsal stripe readily visible, other primitive markings common.

Hi, I just finished translating/adapting this horse colour info box. If you're curious the original can be sees in action at fi:Valkovoikko. I coded the original for Finnish purposes, so it has options for thing such as "obsolete synonyms" (which I think would be useful at least with some colours, take cremello for instance). I don't know if the anglophone world uses consistent colour abbreviations, so please tell me if this option is useless. I decided to separate the original "genotype" line into separate lines for the base colour and the modifying genes for clarity (and aesthetic reasons) and am planning to do the same in the fi version as well. Is there need for more options and lines? Pitke (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not know of any "consistent" abbreviations in use across breeds. Several breeds registries use abbreviations, but I don't think we can find any sort of secondary sources for say "ch." used as an abbreviation for chestnut. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The drawbacks of not having a centralised horse registry :P I'll remove the function now. Pitke (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I kind of like this, but one concern about an infobox (as opposed to the navbox we already have) is that there is a minor but genetically justifiable dispute over the question of when something is "color" and when something is a "color modifier." For example, the entire Pinto family...I say these are colors, but Countercanter makes a very convincing -- and genetically logical-- argument that we should treat them as great big horse markings. But if we did, we'd be getting ahead of the curve of the equine word (even if she's right) We do have a range of abbreviations, but nothing standardized across registries. We could maybe say "common abbreviations" (But then, in the Arabian registry, I think Black is designated by "K", so maybe we'd best let sleeping dogs lie.) Montanabw(talk) 03:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Or in the case of my filly, sleeping horses lie? I kinda favor an infobox (but I like infoboxes in general). But after the day I had, I'm not sure I'm thinking straight (said sleepy filly colicked and we spent the morning and afternoon dealing with said issue... blech. She's fine now..) Be good to hear from some others also though. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
True: articles that deal with a complex set of patterns like Pinto of course could never be treated with this box. Modifiers and single patterns can, if treated in a special way. I'll include an example. Edit wars about which colour will be the best-known example of a certain modifying gene or which expression and base sould be picked to reptesent tobiano will be inevitable though :P In this case having a picture may be omitted.
Responding to the concern about colour versus colour modifiers: genetically there are nothing but colour modifiers. Colours are what we are calling the different phenotypes caused by their respective genotypes. This template was created to sum up the basic info of any colour-pattern combination (and surely it could be used to illustrate, say, a silver-and-cream-diluted mouse dun sabino tobiano varnish roan) but also any colouring gene (patterns, dilution genes, even markings and shades if someone ever publishes what exactly causes sooty or flaxen etc.) Pitke (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
My concerns are mostly administrative: 1) An infobox raises the concern of oversimplifying nuances of color. I used to think color stuff was simple. I was really, really wrong. I mean just your example -- note how I just edited it! 2) If we ever could agree on the "modifier" versus "color" thing, do we benefit from an infobox that is only going to be used on maybe 10 articles??? Not saying yea or nay (neigh), just wondering. If we go with this, it's going to be a massive editing job to get everything precise to the nuance Montanabw(talk) 00:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The image_alt parameter is meant to describe the exact picture used; it can be omitted if it raises too many discussions, but I imagine the en version promotes using alts for pictures. The body part is meant to describe the- wait. Maybe it should be renamed "trunk", or split into "trunk" and "legs"? Because, well, of bays. And every dilution of bay. And duns. I'm doing it. Saving the body param. for now for colours that wouldn't benefit from separate entries for trunk ang legs. (I just love this BTW. Even if this proposition never caught wind, I can still get feedback and thought fodder to improve the original version. Fi wikipedia is nice and cosy but isn't much use when trying to improve things.)
Responses to some topics raised by Montanabw; the infobox actually should be the simplified, nutshell version. This is not to say it should oversimplify things to the point of being erraneous, but it could, and should be used to give a quick, general look to the colour on hand (while remaining truthful); to describe what is common to the horses of that colour. There are a million shades of mouse dun, of course, but almost any of them can be described as "grey in the trunk, black in the legs and face, with (...)", and those that cannot are likely marginal exceptions. The rest of the article exists to explain shades, mimics and details of genetics related to the colour. Something like palomino might be slightly harder, but they could be described in a general sense as well. They're all yellowish (talking about genetical palominos now in case someone's ready to tell me about chocolate palominos) aren't they now. From the lightest shades of mostly "someone put a yellow sock in my bedsheet laundry" to "rich tan", they are shades of golden/yellowish tan. And in case this isn't good enough for people, well, then it just has to be more like "often [typical shade], can range from [lightest shades] to [darkest shades]".
About the benefit of an infobox of relatively limited use; well at least there are at least about 10 articles (probably more, at least 15?) that would benefit from it. That cannot be used to approximate the number of readers who could benefit from it. And about the amount of work - I'm not afraid. If you feel you need a break from sweeping the tracks I (and all the other people like me) leave behind, then by all means have a break. It doesn't need to be perfect today. If there's an article someone is trying to radically improve (say, to attain an article status), I'm positive that person will "guard" the article. The addition of a template, in general, is not as massive as trying to systematically include all corresponding info embedded to the main text. Pitke (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I confused the Alt parameter with the description, that's a part that En. wiki wants us to add, so it's fair game (we have been having edit wars over alt parameters, bleech) There is no such part as the "trunk" of a horse in English. You are talking about point coloration, and I dinked around with the box to play with that. I'm neither in favor or opposed to others creating the infobox if its what everyone wants to do, I'm just a little concerned that it be done correctly not convey OR or misinformation. ~I kind of like how pretty it is, it does make a page more attractive when there is one. And it can highlight a particularly nice photo when we have them. Curious what others think as far as this project being something we give the green light to Pitke on to refine further, or not. Gang?Montanabw(talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest merging body and trunk, and doing mane/tail/points together too. Otherwise, it's looking pretty decent. Do we want to mention things like if there is a genetic test, homozygous, other stuff? Definitely need Countercanter to look at this and RichardNewForest. Cgodwin too, for the aussie perspective. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with something like this going ahead, and I agree with Montana that it does kind of spruce an article up, especially with a nice picture. I'm not into the color genetics part as much though, so won't be any help getting the right info into the boxes. I'd definitely see what CC has to say before having it go live, if she's around, as she's the guru on this sort of stuff. Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Can one of you drop the notes on everyone's talk pages? I'm back to the dialup for the rest of the weekend. May have to email CC, she's not on a lot lately. Montanabw(talk) 02:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing the code at {{Pitke/Horse coat}} and adding instructions. I'd still keep points separated to mane/tail and legs, and skin and eyes separated to keep the template as serviceable and flexible as possible regarding stuff like the silver dapple gene and spotting patterns. Pitke (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Montanabw(talk) 21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Jumping in, finally. I love organization. One thought I have about these is that while bay, chestnut, black, and gray have their own pages, things like silver bay, smoky cream (and that was my doing!), and red dun do not. They don't really warrant their own pages, because they are uncommon. Further, it would be difficult to apply this template to classes of colors, such as duns or champagnes. And how far are we going to take this? To dunalino? Silver bay dun? Buckskin pearl? Would wikidieties have a fit if we started making pages for these colors, especially colors we have no photos of, and I personally haven't yet seen? These are not rhetorical questions. I am interested in consistency, too. Countercanter (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh man. Buckskin pearl. You are right, and actually it could be even worse: How about Tovero Buckskin Pearl Dun? (Yes, possible) Or how about Dunalino Frame Sabino? Hey! That rhymes. Oh gawd... I guess my thinking is that I like our little coat colors navbox. I think infoboxes are pretty too, but this is making my eyes cross. I suppose we could just be sure that an infobox for the existing articles had a section for variations and mimics that lacked their own articles, I am not sure where to begin, though. This is actually a lot harder than an infobox for horse breeds... Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Something to shoot for...

User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle#Special edition WikiProject triple crowns. We're close... Montana and I certainly have them and Dana could. Just need to get two others.. (looks at CC and CG and RNF and Josette!) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. "five or more members who qualify for a standard triple crown." I like how you think. Yeah, Dana,has it already, just go get it! Dana-you may actually have one of the extra-special versions once Cleveland Bay goes FA, I got one of those. Cg has the FA for helping on TB, and just got a DYK, so maybe we help get Waler horse or one of Cg's to GA. CC has a GA for dominant white, which IMHO is nearly an FA already (can the same article count for the triple??), dunno about RNF and Josette... folks?? Yes, let's go for it, c'mon gang! Montanabw(talk) 02:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Same article can count for GA and FA, I believe. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Correct. I got mine for one article that was DYK, GA and FA (SS Christopher Columbus) ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I qualify, a couple of times over, but nominating myself has always struck me as a bit odd - a personal quirk I guess. A quick look through the contributions of RNF and Josette don't seem to show any horse related GA/FA/DYKs. Maybe see if Yohmom wants to do a DYK? She's already got a GA and FA for Banker horse. CC has a DYK too, for Dominant white, so all she would need is the FA. Seems to be a good thing to shoot for. Dana boomer (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The triple crown seems to be entirely self-nominated, but other people do the deciding, so toot your own horn dear, you deserve it!!! Montanabw(talk) 04:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for considering me as 'part of the group'. I don't have a lot to add to most horse articles because everything I know about horses I learned in a barn. Too bad we can't use 'the barn' as a reference. ;) - Josette (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Insert what you learned in the barn and I'll betcha actual money that Ealdgyth can source it! LOL! (At least, she saves my butt on multiple occasions. I have plenty of book sources, but a lot of them were published 30 years ago, I often update via the net). Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Echo! "Thanks for considering me as 'part of the group'". I don't know if this would qualify, Australian Equine and Livestock Events Centre for GA. There several old horses that I have contributed but it is limited as to what can be said about them and images are often poor. As for nominations I'm pretty hopeless at htis. It is only outside assistance that got me through the last attempt, for which I'm grateful.Cgoodwin (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, CG, you contributed quite a bit to the Thoroughbred article, stuff dealing with Southern Hemisphere stuff. So I'm pretty sure you would just need the DYK credit (which is pretty easy...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cg got the DYK for Australian rodeo. Go apply, deah! Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Um, I'm confused. I think CG was proposing AELEC for a GA status drive, because it's not currently a GA... Therefore, as far as I know, he doesn't have an equine GA, and therefore isn't yet eligible... CG, please correct me if I read that completely wrong and there's actually a GA in plain site that I haven't seen :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, looks like it. However, I think Ealdgyth is crediting Cg with both the GA and FA for Thoroughbred. Luckily, it's Durova who makes the final decision. And Dana, did YOU apply? (noogies). Montanabw(talk) 00:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, duh. I'm blind. And yes, I'm working on it right now. Dana boomer (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Before we credit CG with the GA on TB (I misread and thought they HAD a GA for the AELEC..) lets make sure they had edits to the article before the GA drive...Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like he made a few, adding some citations, prose tweaks, etc. Not sure if it's enough for credit though? Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the standard is 10 citations, so we're probably good on FA, but GA probably not. Guess we need to work on AELEC! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I was toying with the idea of AELEC for a GA status drive, because it's not currently a GA. I have not applied for any GA articles, and realy don't know much about the requirements, which on the surface seem variable. Would Waler or something else be a better target?Cgoodwin (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Dana and I do a lot of reviewing at GA, why don't we look at both of those in the next few days and help out some with letting you know how close they are. The requirements are much simpler than FA, but you do have to source most stuff and write clearly (not brilliantly like FA, thank goodness). I can usually get articles through GA without a copyeditor. I never touch FAC without at least one good copyedit by someone other than me. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
CG, I wonder if Waler horse or Brumby, or perhaps Australian Stock Horse wouldn't be a little closer to GA than AELEC?? Ealdgyth or Dana, you guys want to weigh in? CG's edits on all of these clearly qualifies already, so if they go GA, it's a strong contribution credit! The Waler horse article is particularly suitable, given their influence Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Brumby looks close, I didn't look too closely ... it's been a wild day here... 50mph winds, snow, dropping temps and very very cranky horses. Hopefully tomorrow...Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Ealdgyth that Brumby is the closest to GA at this point - the others need quite a bit of referencing work, while the references in Brumby are already extensive. I didn't go through it thoroughly, but if we agree that this is what we want to work on, I can look through it more closely. Weather here was about the same - welcome to winter in the midwest. Dana boomer (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Catalan donkey

Hi, folks. I just ran across Catalan donkey in Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color while cleaning up other articles. Since this is way outside my normal editing range, anyone else care to check whether or not this is a valid taxon? I couldn't immediately find any reliable sources suggesting it's some subspecies or variety and the article seems to be confused on that point, so I removed the taxobox. Thanks! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally breeds of equine are not separate subspecies, so thanks for picking up on that. We have a horse breeds infobox we use, but we haven't gotten into Donkeys much yet, even though they ARE equines! I'll put the breeds infobox in. Montanabw(talk) 19:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My present to myself .. and indirectly the project...

Was to order the following books for my present to myself:

  • Livingston & Roberts War Horse: Mounting the Cavalry ISBN 1931721211
  • Sidnell Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare ISBN 1852853743
  • Kelekna The Horse in Human History ISBN 0521736293
  • DiMarco War Horse: A History of the Military Horse and Rider ISBN 1594160341
  • Vamplew Encyclopedia of British Horseracing ISBN 0714682926
Hopefully these will help with Horse, Horses in the Middle Ages and Horses in warfare. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Oooohh, yay! Perhaps also with Horses in World War I, which I just dropped a major expansion into? Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yummy! We have two dead links in Horses in the Middle Ages, possibly these can help. Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Authentic

Could some people check out my article?? It's about Beezie Madden's horse, Authentic. I just wrote it (with a lot of help from Montanabw and the Arbiter! thank you so much guys!). I'd like some comments! YOu can go to it here. Thanks!! *dream on*dance on* 05:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Like we don't have enough to do already, but...

I've been thinking (yeah, that's scary all by itself): Should/could we discuss the consistency in breed naming conventions? i.e. we have a lot of breed articles that are named "XYZ (horse)" and others that are "XYZ horse". Obviously a few don't have this problem, "horse" isn't in the breed name and there are no disambiguation issues requiring it. What complicates this is that some breeds have the word "horse" in their breed name. Yet, wiki MOS appears to encourage parentheticals. I have no problem with most of the articles on colors or tack being (horse) such as Gray (horse), etc., but I am wondering if we should remove all the parentheticals from the horse breed articles that have them -- or add them to the ones that don't, other than the ones with "horse" in the name??? Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a similar question with the pony articles: Some have capitalized Pony in the name, others are lower case. There is also the same problem, some have the word "pony " as part of the breed name, others do not. For searches and linking, there is also the weird thing of a second word capitalized being treated differently than when lower case. So, question is, should we make ALL the pony breeds lower case "pony" or all upper case "Pony" with redirects when people use lower case letters? Folks often go through our articles and change them one way or the other. Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? For the sake of having a proposal on the table (I'm not terribly bonded to it), I will propose the following: 1) All "horse" breed articles that need the word "horse" in the title for any reason, particularly wikipedia disambiguation purposes shall be "XYZ horse" and not "XYZ (horse)." (i.e. Arabian horse) Any parenthetical names shall be moved and redirected. 2) Any horse breeds where "Horse" is part of the official breed name (i.e. American Quarter Horse), "Horse" shall be capitalized with a redirect created to lower case spelling if one does not already exist. When in doubt, the lower case spelling shall be used to simplify linking per wikipedia MOS. 3) All pony articles shall be "XYZ pony," for simplification of searching and linking. 4) All non horse breed articles, such as color, equipment, etc., that need the word "horse" can stay as is, with a preference to parentheticals (horse) when appropriate per MOS. Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I kind of like those proposals. They're fairly simple and direct, which is good. It's going to be quite a bit of work to go through and do all of the moves/redirects, but I think it will be worth it in the end. It would also be nice to be able to point to an "on-paper" WPEQ naming guide, when asked about it by reviewers and other editors. Dana boomer (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I think if we confine it to just the breed articles (defined as those breeds and types in the list of horse breeds for simplicity's sake), it won't be too bad; many breeds don't need the word "horse" in them (Appaloosa, for instance), many are already one way or the other, I suspect that at most about 1/3 of the articles will be affected by a need to actually change and move. Other thoughts anyone? Montanabw(talk) 00:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a horse-article question...

...and this seems like the place to ask. Would it be appropriate to add a horse used to win an Olympic medal in the respective category? For example, Authentic won both gold and bronze medals on the US team. Should he be added to the categories Olympic gold medalists for the United States and Olympic bronze medalists for the United States? Angrysockhop (talk to me) 07:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good question, though I don't know the answer. Per the discussion between Sockhop and myself at Authentic (horse), so all know, I suspect that some people would say the rider wins the medal, but there is an argument that the horse AND rider as a team win the medal. And I (naturally) like the idea that the horse is noted in the category... but I don't know what the wikigods say on the matter. Of note, of course, is that the horse is the only animal that gets to compete in the Olympics. Thoughts anyone? Montanabw(talk) 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
No idea. I'd say post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics and get their take on the matter - they're the ones who maintain all of the Olympic categories and probably care the most about the subject. As for my personal opinion, I'd say that the horse was a major part of the winning of the medal (I'd like to see the competitors jump those jumps on foot!), so should be included in the category. Dana boomer (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh come on! You mean we humans can't do a respectable piaffe? And hey, I know my "leads" when "cantering", I started practicing that with my stick horse when I was four! Don't have the pirouettes down though...something about having only two legs and falling on my behind... (LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 00:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Surely the horse is the primary competitor in such competitions...? In eventing the same rider often enters the same competition two or even more times on different mounts, but each horse can only enter once. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics, still waiting on a response. In the meantime, I'm filling the tragically neglected category horses in the Olympics. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 07:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Olympics gave the go-ahead, I've started adding horses to the respective medal-country categories. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 07:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hooray for horse atheletes! Montanabw(talk) 21:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Stirrups

Stirrups.

English riding stirrups have generic and specific names. These names are recognized, not by their commercial value, but by the recognition of the general public, retail and wholesale tack outlets, and equestrian writers past and present.

My invention is of an English riding stirrup that allows the stirrup to be set at a traditional angle as well as a 45 and 90 degree position. As this type of stirrup is patented in the United States, Europe and Australia, no one can copy or duplicate this design. The name of this unique stirrup is the MDC Intelligent Stirrup.

This name is as accepted as a Peacock Stirrup, an Icelandic Stirrup or another other historically named stirrup, some of which are included in the Stirrup article on Wikipedia.

The editor of the stirrup page considers the name as commercial, while I contest that the stirrup he / she describes can only be called by its name, which is MDC Intelligent Stirrup. I edit, they delete my edit continually.

Can someone assist in resolving this debate so that my invention's name can remain on the stirrup page?

We are a part of invention, part of change and a part of history. We have a specific and unique name and want that name to be addressed.

My background includes over 36 years as an equine professional, two time Olympic Games judge and college lecturer on horses, bits and stirrups.

Thank you.

^^^^

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdcohen (talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I keep tossing off the patented name to avoid WP:SPAM and advertising claims. Wikipedia forbids advertising. For now, I am simply going to remove all reference to the design. It is my position that a patented design name applicable to only one stirrup from one manufacturer constitutes advertising. If "peacock stirrup" is also patented, then it should go too. Clearly "western stirrup" or "Fillis stirrup" are terms that are used by multiple manufacturers. But I am open to debate on the issue. Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion

Arrgh. Now people want to rename Equine anatomy. See Talk:Equine_anatomy#Another_move. I've weighed in, time for others. All I know is that we had consensus one way, now there's a bunch of editors I've never heard of wanting to go the other. I actually could care less other than not wanting to have to go and disambiguate links again, and I hate longer and more complex article titles. Anyone who cares please trot over there and weigh in. Even if you don't deeply care, weigh in anyway, there is a need for a consensus to arise so the discussion can be closed. Why is it this stuff always cranks up after the first of the year? (Once we get past March, things seem to settle down again...must be Spring Fever or seasonal affective disorder. Montanabw(talk) 03:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency much?

I've been looking through the the articles on the showy jumpy horsey things and I've noticed a good amount of inconsistencies regarding presentation and use of pedigrees and info boxes; also many are lacking info boxes entirely and instead have awkwardly placed in-article lists. Besides this there are a number of other style issues and occasional NPOV lapses. Not meaning to sound complainy, just suggesting another entry on what is undoubtedly already too long of a to-do list. I intend on helping out where I can, of course. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 08:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, consistency in the individual horse articles is something that we need to get around to at some point. At the moment, we just work on it when we've got a few extra minutes. With over 2,000 articles in WPEQ, and a lot of even the high-level articles in bad shape, we've just got other priorities at the moment. The individual horse articles have all been created by different people at different times, and so you are right that there is little standardization. It would be great if you could have a go at straightening them up, and if you need any help, please just drop a note here and we'll do what we can! Dana boomer (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes, if the horse has a unique name or is easy to figure out which animal is the famous one, the web source allbreedpedigree.com is a good place to flesh out pedigrees of well-known horses. Allbreed isn't perfect (like wiki, it can be edited by most anyone), but it's a good start. If anyone wants to work on this, I don't think there will be any complaints as long as they are accurate in their edits! Montanabw(talk) 01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for promising assistance then disappearing like that; my comp got a real nasty virus and I've been on an unexpected wikibreak. I'm mostly back, though, and I do intend on helping with general improvement of jumpy horse bios as much as my schedule permits, just so you don't think I stood y'all up. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 08:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
We still love ya! Want to peek at the BLP disaster that was dumped on us, below?? Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unref'd BLPs in your project in danger of immediate deletion

This list was produced by cat scan. It is more complete than what WolterBot produced.

Regards. Pcap ping 08:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, guess we should get to work on this - I was afraid of it happening, even though the unreffed BLPs have been a problem for a while now. Maybe as each is referenced just strike it so that we know how much we've done? Dana boomer (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I say all the jockeys are WP TB racing's job to at least share the pain! Has this been posted there too? Montanabw(talk) 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed...there are more jockeys than others on this list. The same user who posted this list posted a brief message to the TB project talk page pointing them to this section - I may go over there now and point out the preponderance of jockeys on the list. Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Both prods have been removed. I'm still not convinced either really merits an article, but I'm not going to be bothered enough to worry about it. The Skeete one was at least reasonably ref'd with the removal, but the other (Larry Pierce) really needs some work, so if someone much more familiar with the AfD process wanted to steer it through, that might be good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I say whoever removed the prods can also take responsibility for cleanup and finding refs. If they wind up being deleted due to lack of refs, not OUR problem, IMHO. What about that one on the guy in India? I almost PROD tagged that, but on the dialup I couldn't really do the searching necessary to verify non-notability one way or the other...? 18:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I looked at him and don't think he's really going to be eligible for a PROD, as if he won a gold medal at the Asian Games, he's going to be notable. It's just finding the ref for that.. I searched FEI's site, and they don't have results from that far back... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Important WikiProject Notice

A note for future: it needs to be "yes"; the template recognises anything else as "no". Fixed it. Pitke (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Scaphohippus

Hi everyone, I just moved Scaphohippus, a Miocene genus from the Western United States, from my userspace to a live article and it should be looked over and assessed. I can always use wordsmithing and proofreading on my work so please tweek were needed. --Kevmin (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Will peek, it looks pretty good to me, but I'm no taxonomist nor a palentologist, so I'd also drop a line to Kim vd Linde if I were you, she is the taxonomy goddess around here (grin). And by the way, we need an article on the "stilt-legged horse" that we have redlinked all over the place, if you ever feel inspired. Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, from what I am finding it seems that "stilt legged horse" is a generic term for members of the Genus Equus without anything more specific, not a single species. I don't know enough to recommend where to redirect the links, sorry. --Kevmin (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
We have it redlinked a couple places, seems Kim's research indicated some references. If you can find out anything at all, we like to fix red links...? Montanabw(talk) 18:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Draft horse showing

I officially declare Montanabw pwned thus by this very barrel racing Percheron. Pitke (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Draft Horse Showing asserts that draft shows are primarily driving events. That has not been true for many years. Draft shows today in the US generally include riding classes. Those classes can include Western, English, Obstacle, Barrel Racing or others.

A recent survey of the membership in my breed association reveals that 60% of the membership rides their Shires. I'd expect a similar portion in other breeds. I've also heard draft breeders say that the majority of their sales are to people who plan to ride.

Simply ignoring or dismissing half or more of the people in the draft horse community is not helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tldoran (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tldoran, and welcome to Wikipedia. Part of the wonderful thing about WP is that anyone can edit - so if you have information you would like to add to the draft horse showing article, please do so, preferably with reliable sources. While we appreciate your concern, there are over 2,000 articles in the Equine WikiProject, and quite a few of them are in bad shape. We are slowly working to get them cleaned up, but there have so far been other priorities. It would be great to see someone with a true interest in draft breed showing come in to work on some of our draft horse articles - please feel free to have at it! :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Whoever started that article seemed to know what they were doing, but as Dana said, as long as there are verifiable sources properly referenced, go for it. I gotta say, though: Barrel racing Shires??? Montanabw(talk) 18:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Barrel Racing Percherons??? Well, OK, slightly more feasible than Shires, they at least have been known to canter voluntarily (I even saw one in an English class, and I know a Clydesdale who does western pleasure)...but still, something about that image is just a little disturbing (kind of like photos of a jumping Tennessee Walking horse...it's not that they can't you just wish they wouldn't)... though I have to say that from a safety viewpoint, probably not going to be a lot of shin cuts on the cans!  :-)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Archive 3/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Archive 3/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we prod tag??

Just spotted this. Thoughts on whether this is WP:FRINGE and not wroth keeping, or is it significant enough to tag for improvement? Horse Hair Whorl. I think the hangup on hair whorls is cuckoo baloney, but that IS my "POV" so because I can't be fair, I am tossing its fate out to the rest of the gang for input. Montanabw(talk) 02:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Moyle horse

An article that you have been involved in editing, Moyle horse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moyle horse. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Montanabw(talk) 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2008–09

Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2008–09, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Main page idea?

Anyone want to help figure out how to get Thoroughbred nominated for the main page, maybe on Kentucky Derby Day (or Preakness day or Belmont day if the Derby's too soon?) I ahve never been able to figure out how to get something on that page, it seems to be something that you have to be constantly checking. But anyway, is this a good idea and can anyone help? Montanabw(talk) 19:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The page for requests is at WP:TFAR, and I think the article would have three points for Derby Day. It does seem to be something that you would have to check consistently, and it's not something I've done before. I honestly don't mind waiting until Raul gets around to scheduling it - he'll do it at some point - but if you would like to do the request I'll be around to help clean up the article as the vandals hit. That's the main reason that I'm not really pushing for more equine FAs to be on the main page - the vandals are a pain, as are every POV pusher that comes across the article and wants to insert their particular view or style. Like I said, I don't really care either way, but if you get the date, I'll try to be around to help keep the article together. Dana boomer (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

WPEQ alert: Marwari horse at TFA

Calling all WPEQ members! May 17 (now for some of you) Marwari horse will be on the main page and the usual deluge of vandalism will begin, so if we can all watchlist and help out, I know it will be appreciated. Congrats to Dana for her second Main Page FA and a heads up to others that this particular article has been occasionally targeted by some folks with an unsourced POV and may be again today, so be alert to more controversy than some. I did a very minor edit earlier today, (changing pace to ambling in the infobox) so if you need a ref to the last "clean" version, look for my edit as a base; that or the admin move protection that occurred just prior. Nice job, Dana! Montanabw(talk) 01:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting place to look for images

Should anyone be looking for horse-related drawings there is a ton of unprocessed stuff in Commons that was donated by Pearson Scott Foresman. See here. Found a diagram of a man cinching up a horse had been placed into the horse images, I popped it into girth (tack). May be more out there if anyone wants to go image surfing. The up side: GOOD COPYRIGHT! Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Questionaire?

A horse called 'Questionaire' is referred to in multiple equine articles. Can someone please confirm if this misspelling is accurate or was the horse called 'Questionnaire'? --SciHound (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about the thoroughbred colt foaled in 1927 then the correct spelling seems to be 'Questionnaire'. See here [1] and [2]. - Josette (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide us the articles in question? Maybe someone will want to do a horse bio. Montanabw(talk) 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

May be useful in a number of articles

New article in The Horse about a Queensland study using GPS to track horses' movement: http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=16515

Another article on visual recognition: http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=16513

May want to add tidbits from these across any number of our various behavior articles. Montanabw(talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Our scope?

Hi folks, open question: Is it within the scope of WPEQ to have articles included that include toy horses and fake horse mascots? I have no beef with articles on real horses that are team mascots, such as Traveler (mascot), but what about Buster Bronco (Western Michigan)? Similarly, while Breyer horses may be within our scope, what about My Little Pony? And, in particular Barbie Horse Adventures: Riding Camp. Likewise how much do we want to get into horse TV shows and movies (ie Mister Ed, etc.? I guess I don't really have a position if they are in or out, but it would be nice to have a group consensus of where we draw the line. Opinions? Montanabw(talk) 06:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WPEQ should, IMO, stay with real (and maybe mythological and fictional) horses. Our specialised knowledge concentrates on riding and driving disciplines and horse breeds, genetics, breeding etc. The scope of the project is also a question of what we can help others with. Including toy horses, mascots, horse video games etc. in the "official" WPEQ agenda doesn't seem reasonable to me. Their connection to real horses are quite slim. Pitke (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both of the above. The scope of WikiProject Equine is quite comprehensive enough now.Cgoodwin (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm OK with mythological horses and some fictional "real" horses (as opposed to magic horses or MPL...). I'm sort of thinking that in popular entertainment we sort of know it when we see it, but where DO we put Mr. Ed??? Montanabw(talk) 02:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


We will cut it down a bit if we can toss the WPEQ tag off of the Barbie game and Buster Bronco!! LOL! OK, so My Little Pony is out too? (grin) Maybe a quick poll as to the line. Just pop a "yes" if it's in the scope and a "no" if you think it's not -- or if there's a line that the list doesn't identify , just comment. I'll leave this up for a bit so others can comment, but in the meantime if no one objects, can we all toss the tags off of My Little Pony-related articles? Montanabw(talk) 02:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. Movies and TV that happen to include horses as a major plot element (i.e. Man from Snowy River (film), etc.)
  2. Movies and TV specifically ABOUT horses (i.e. Dreamer (film), Seabiscuit (film), Mr. Ed TV show, etc...)
    • Yes. Easy to determine, and might be of interest to some of the participants. Pitke (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. Dana boomer (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. Ditto novels about horses (i.e. Misty of Chincoteague, etc..) (I presume nonfiction books about horses MIGHT sometimes be in the scope)
    • Yes for nonfiction, no for fiction. Non-fiction about horses should be clearly within scope, fiction on the other hand has its own projects and could easily drift away from facts and reality. Pitke (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    Dana convinced. Can't hurt including them if it's important for younger (or older) participants, as long as horses are the main focus. Pitke (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes for both fiction and nonfiction books specifically about horses. Books such as Misty of Chincoteague (to use your example) play a huge part in the horsey culture, especially for kids. Books where horses are just a plot element, however, should be a no. Dana boomer (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  4. Video games, other than perhaps those specifically about horse shows or horse racing? Or even those?? (example that shows up a fair bit, Zelda: Ocarina of Time)
    • No. I don't see that our knowledge about real horses could be an asset here. Pitke (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. Kinda goes hand-in-hand with non-fiction horsey books. Gotta be focused on horses though. Horse characters in other games worth their own article could also be included. Pitke (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe - Again, if they just include horses as a plot element, then no. However, if horses are the main force of the game, then I can see an argument for including them. Not horse racing games, however, as those I think would fall to the TB Racing project, if they want them. Dana boomer (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  5. Realistic model horses, (i.e. Breyer horse. Peter Stone)
    • No. While they might be of interest to individuals, I doubt including them in WPEQ scope would help them. Pitke (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    My concerns remain, but I don't want to break consensus. Include them if you feel like it. Pitke (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. Again, a huge part of the horsey culture, especially to kids. Dana boomer (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  6. Shall mythological horses stay in? (i.e. Mares of Diomedes, etc.)
    • Yes. Easily defined, and interesting to many participants methinks. Pitke (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. Dana boomer (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes Montanabw(talk) 02:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  7. How about donkeys? Mules or other Equus hybrids? Famous individuals?
    • Yes, definitely. This is WP "Equine" after all, and so all equines, including horses, donkeys, zebras and their hybrids, should be included. Famous individuals as well, although TB racers should again be left to the racing WP. Dana boomer (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes agreed. We're a bit weak on our knowledge of zebras and paleontology around here, but no reason to exclude them. Montanabw(talk) 02:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Call for help on Commons

All you guys more knowledgeable of horse conformation (and especially the English terminology), please have a look at Category:Side views of horses. Most of the pictures there are "conformation shots" showing a horse's build nicely. It would be really nice if you guys could dive in, add image notes, and move to Category:Horse conformation if relevant. Further notes and checks on the stuff in Horse conformation would also be very helpful. Also, I'd like a small collection of really nice-looking horses of several types (warmblood, draughts, ponies, mini horses, Arabian, "other light saddle horses" etc, both light, heavy and semiheavy subtypes too)... They could be added to the gallery at commons:Horse conformation :) Pitke (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an ambitious project. Could also be useful to add front and rear views. If you want to take on a life's work, check out Equine conformation. We've all been circling it with dread. Montanabw(talk) 21:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
They have existed for a while. I just checked that article out, and liked the first half much more than the latter half. The latter half needs to have more sublevel titles. Pitke (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, the whole thing needs a massive redesign and rewrite with proper sourcing. But thinking through the overall structure and layout, especially in terms of how many images to use is a bit daunting (and the hue and cry that will undoubtably be raised by using certain images of bad conformation...we may need to crop some commons photos to isolate body parts... ) . It's not that I can't do it (I only own about 8 books on conformation and more yet on judging, sources not a problem), it that it's a job and a half! =:-O Montanabw(talk) 03:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Because lots of photos need to be used, and galleries aren't too good an idea, how about having similar topic subsections in columns as seen at fi:Hevosten värit#Rautias? Or make use of simple tables (straight-word description; jargon synonyms; picture)? Pitke (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Intriguing idea. Might work! Montanabw(talk) 19:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Offering a touched-up version of "THE Palomino Quarter Stallion"

Nice pic but we have a shiny bright board, a headless man, and a cone.

This picture is used widely on en.wikipedia, so instead of just replacing it with a cleaned-up version I thought to let you guys have some time to think if there's any reason to not use the new version. Pitke (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice touchup if the Commons gods are OK with it (the photo didn't have any restrictions on being altered, did it?) You want to swap it out every place it appears, I won't object!  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 23:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
A picture can't be in Commons if it has restrictions concerning altering btw. Going picture-swapping now. Pitke (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
And thanks for doing so, looks nice! Montanabw(talk) 01:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested...

I've submitted a request for a page for the Equine project similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Popular pages, which I think might be useful to us in figuring out which articles to work on next. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! Pitke (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed! Montanabw(talk) 01:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Brace for impact

The capitalization wars have started again, this time with all the Mustang articles where someone went through at least three articles and reverted all the caps. If someone really wants to revert capitalization and make all 400 breed articles lower case, well...anyway, here we go again. Montanabw(talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Follow up: Put in move request for Spanish mustang to Spanish Mustang, which could not have the move reverted, plus out of all of them, that's a "real" breed with a registry and everything. (The article itself kind of sucks, but the naming is correct). Please discuss there. Montanabw(talk) 23:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't be an issue as a quick search across the internet indicated that most breeds are capitalized (e.g. [3]). Looks like the rule is that if it is a registered breed, it is capitalized, and if it is not registered, it is lower case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's hoping. May want to add the above to the discussion at the article. Montanabw(talk) 01:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Equine/Archive_3&oldid=1083657405"