Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine/Archive 4

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Another one I'm trying to dump

FYI, for anyone who wants to weigh in, I got this dumped once, am trying to dump it again. This "breed" is listed in Hendricks, but it's basically one guy's crossbred program. To call this a breed is a stretch. Cannot find a source with more than about three sentences...this is kind of like that other guy who was trying to make some draft cross scrub mustangs in Oregon into a "breed."

What on Earth is this called, this winged car, this monstrosity?!


I surely know what I would call it in Finnish, but what's the English term? Didn't want to bother the Racing joint forces since I've gotten the idea they deal with the gallopy kind, not the sulky kind of racing. Pitke (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Check with User:Cgoodwin. I honestly do not know enough about harness racing to tell you, other than to say, yep, that's how they do it. I also don't know if US and UK English have different terms. I've heard "mobile gate," but no clue if that's correct. Help? Montanabw(talk) 01:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
My copy of Care & Training of the Trotter & Pacer says (p. 207) it's a "starting gate". He specifically says (in the context of introducing it to green horses) "On days that these horses are scheduled to jog, I will bring the gate out and have it circle the track slowly while they follow it along." Ealdgyth - Talk 01:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
...and I always have immense amusement at how people claim the hotbloods are somehow "spooky". The average TB or Standardbred puts up with more nonsense at the average racetrack than most "placid" breeds endure in their lifetimes! Montanabw(talk) 03:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a mobile starting barrier which is commonly used for starting pacers and trotters in Australia, at least. When the horses are in position the arms fold back and the vehicle speeds away. I imagine that they are used in the US, too. Believe me the Sbs usually have a much harder life than most Tbs.Cgoodwin (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
These gates are also used in the USA. (In fact, for harness racing, I don't think ANYTHING else is used) I think Pitke is looking for the English words we use to describe them... is there an "official" term? Would "mobile starting gate" be the best compromise that people in any English-speaking nation would understand??? Montanabw(talk) 21:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've only heard it called a "mobile starting gate" in the US. I don't think there is any other official term. - Josette (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Aaand is there any other way for a heat to begin? Other than with the car? Pitke (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Standing starts, but they are much less common here.Cgoodwin (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
=horses stand still, then they run? Pitke (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
In a Standing Start horses line up behind a tape barrier across the track, which is released to send the field away.Cgoodwin (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
So what's the term for a heat with the MSG? Also, you guys will be delighted to hear that at least in Finland and prolly in Sweden and Norway too the non-car way of starting is something Entirely Different. Again, there's nothing useful on the net, so I'll have to try and produce an illustration, but basically it's an elaborate ballet of horses and sulkies, where small groups do small circles in different ways and different places, and in the end, like it was magic, they end up in neat rows at the starting line. Pitke (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's always a "heat." I actually don't think that anything in North America other than non-official "bush races" at some obscure county fairs start with anything but a car these days. (though I am no expert on harness racing) And then, on this continent, we also have a few wild and woolly things like Chuck Wagon Races =:-O. Montanabw(talk) 21:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox invite

I'm thinking about dusting off the tack navbox I started a long time ago that was derailed due to various things. So inviting anyone who cares to go to my User:Montanabw/Tack_sandbox and feel free to comment, edit, etc. Eventually this could go on all the equipment articles if people thought it was useful. Montanabw(talk) 02:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Something I came across...

Gay Future. I'm thinking this is on the betting scandal more than the horse... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Another ... Going ... looks like a dictdef to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Kind of awk. Could we rename track condition and then expand? And how active is WP:TB racing these days, anyway? Montanabw(talk) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Follow up We also have some confusion possible with "way of going." I've also simply heard tracks mostly referred to as fast, slow, etc... absent the suffix, but maybe that's just out here. Montanabw(talk) 21:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The official track (surface) ratings which are recognised by all race clubs in Australia range from a Fast 1 to a Heavy 10. "Way of going" may also refer to the direction in which the races are run ie. NSW clockwise; VIC anti-clockwise etc.Cgoodwin (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the article needs a new name and some expansion. Any suggestions? Volunteers? Montanabw(talk) 21:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there is confusion over ther present naming. In OZ it is known as "Track ratings", See: [1]. I don't know what terms are now used OS, though. Cgoodwin (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I most often hear "footing" or just "track condition" here. For example: [2] What do they say in the UK? Montanabw(talk) 15:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thought: Would something like "track surface" work? It could encompass both track condition and maybe a bit on footing materials too? (Synthetic surfaces being a hot topic, among other things). Montanabw(talk) 02:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The article describes the normal British and Irish usage and definitions. If different terms are used elsewhere, I suggest that the lead para lists all the various names, and then the article has sections for the classification systems used in different jurisdictions, or a table, if they are directly comparible. The title of the article could stay as it is (with redirects from the others), or be changed to something that covers all of them – doesn't matter which (we have lots of articles named in one dialect and cross reffed from others). Not sure if it should cover track surface types as well as condition. Perhaps MontanaBW's Track surface would do it. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm. I see. I think the main issue is the title "going" is also ambiguous. (As in "way of going," referencing action or "going", a US slang for active use of the, um, loo....) In contrast, "cattle squeeze" or "cattle chute" are not going to be easily confused with anything else, so which dialect gets used is not really an issue. Somebody pick something, and then we can move, expand and improve? Montanabw(talk) 15:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Did it: track surface, made going a dab. Anyone want to dive in and improve, go for it! Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Eclectic Horseman Magazine

Hey all, I have no idea where to look to estabish notability for this magazine - a new user just created it so be nice if it ain't notable. Anyone heard of it? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of them, and never seen an issue. And I've been in a lot of horse tack shops... including in Colorado. Of course, that's not very helpful, huh? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This isn't real promising. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Prod tagged again. The creator hasn't been back, I still see no evidence of notability. Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible merge candidate

I came across these articles and think they may be a candidate for a merger into one article, but I can't figure out which one would be the target article:

I haven't tagged these yet, because I may be way off-base with wanting to merge these. Thoughts, everyone? Dana boomer (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijan horse would seem to be an umbrella term for the other two. Pitke (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I would tread very cautiously, as there are some major ethnic sensitivities in the region, (the whole Nagorno-Karabakh issue between Azerbaijan and Armenia) and Karabakh horse in particular has been targeted in the general spats out there. (Sort of like our little Slovenian friend on the Lipizzan articles, only people here are even more sensitive and in the real world they sometimes are shooting at each other) I would research it very closely. Possible that Daliboz could be merged into Azerbaijan without a fuss, but I'd be super careful about merging Azerbaijan and Karabakh because of the Armenian thing. Not opposed personally if it can be justified, just recommend treading with care and very good research. Maybe just merge Daliboz have good cross-links for now. Montanabw(talk) 02:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Help (sigh)

See edit history of Cribbing (horse) and now Talk:Cribbing_(horse)#Burnie.27s_car. The article is now under semi-protection and has gone to talk. Need some more people besides me over there. Tired of playing cop, and who knows, maybe I'm wrong and this is significant data for the article. (I doubt it, but I'm on the verge of getting snarky) Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

New item for all to watchlist for a few days, the BSDM crowd has hit crop (implement) with a bit of TMI. I tossed, they may not be back, but best to be ready to jump on this if they return. Montanabw(talk) 03:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Equine articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Equine articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Equine to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Equipment question

Is there a special name for the brown panels between stirrup and horse in this image? I'd need it for the last entry in this table. bamse (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! I have not seen anything like that. They appear to have a purpose that may be related to either protecting the horse's sides, or, more likely, a protection for the rider's legs from the sweat of the horse. The closest items I can think of are barding, which is not very similar, or the "fender" on a western saddle, but I would hesitate to use either term to describe these. I'm thinking that User:Tenmei, who does a lot of stuff with the Asian horse articles, or User:Ealdgyth, who is our resident expert on things in museums, may have an answer. Perhaps ask them. Montanabw(talk) 20:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. What you say matches this Japanese explanation: protection from horse's sweat and against mud (in reverse direction I suppose). It is a "ritual saddle" so likely not very practical. Will ask Tenmei and Ealdgyth, thanks for the links. bamse (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I've got no more clue than Montana, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Japanese sadlery

The following was copied from User talk:Montanabw#Japanese sadlery.

You may be interested an excellent image of a Japanese equestrian tack from the Kamakura period (1185-1333) here; compare graphic illustration here (scroll to bottom of page).

As general knowledge, you may also want to know about this:

At List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: others)#Harnesses, the following are explicit in the last entry of the table:

  1. flanchards (八子, hane); compare mawashi and sagari of sumo wrestlers
  2. crupper (尻繋, shirigai); strap running from the cantle of the saddle to the horse's dock
  3. braided reins (差縄, sashinawa)
  4. mud guards (障泥, aori)
  5. ornaments (雲珠, uzu); compare sutra case, decorative bolls on "roof" hips
  6. breastplate (胸繋, munagai); see NDL: 胸繋
  7. champron (銀面, ginmen) headpiece resting between the ears and along the nose ridge, supported by browband; synonyms: frontstall, testiere

Little by little, I plan to add Japanese sadlery terms to the relevant articles on horse tack. --Tenmei (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And toto too?

Just an FYI that I resurrected a former prod, Moorlands Totilas (aka "Toto"), now that the horse has achieved adequate notability (and notoriety) to get into wiki. Those who care may want to watchlist the article for trolls and vandals (or just the same devoted fans who put up the prod-tagged original version that may have included claims of walking on water...) because the horse just sold for a gazillion bucks from Dutch owners to a German (horrors!), the news crashed the Eurodressage web site and is generating considerable drama. I put in some info on it (may need to edit it out once the kafuffel settles down) to try and forestall more. Anyway, sorry that some of my cites are a bit sloppy, but at least they're cited. Get some popcorn and watch this show. Montanabw(talk) 18:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


FA - Jersey Act passed this afternoon. About as painless an FAC as you could want.... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on this! On a related note, I'm thinking about taking Haflinger (horse) to FAC soon, if anyone wants to look it over. Now that we've lost our copyeditor, I'm a little wary about going to FAC :( Dana boomer (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Lost our copyeditor? Malleus take another retirement? Montanabw(talk) 03:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Aye. But he seems to be slowly coming back, so I may just wait to see if he comes back up to full production in the near future. Dana boomer (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not an unprecedented pattern.  ;-) By the way, when youse guyz advance stuff to GA, can you be sure to add it to the portal, or at least tip me off to do so? I'm sort of maintaining it now that Dana has admin duties, albeit irregularly, but when I fell behind I couldn't remember all the new GAs (and neglected FAs that didn't get added when they went GA). By the way, should we add a section to the main WPEQ page where we list GA and FA articles (or leave it to the portal? I noticed a number of other wikiprojects do that -- or do we have a self-generated list somewhere that I don't know how to access? Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as the portal goes, it's not completely necessary to add all of the new GA/FAs to it - once it gets past a certain number it just gets repetitive, IMHO. But w/e. As far as the listing goes, I just use the WPEQ assessment table (at the top of this page). It has nice clicky links that show you all of the articles at every intersection of class and importance, as well as by just one or the other. If you want a separate page I guess we could do that, but it's just one more thing to maintain. Dana boomer (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh duh, at the top of the page (geez, I AM tired and cranky). I don't think the portal is overloaded yet, as the GAs are split between featured breed and featured articles, you did good to set it up that way, and more rotation makes it look more updated to the uninitiated, anyway! Well, let us know as stuff goes GA/FA anyway, it's fun when it happens. But when WILL we tackle Appaloosa? Montanabw(talk) 08:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Appys actually on my list as next after Haflinger - I'm just crossing my fingers about the copyediting. I had planned to get Haflinger to FAC much sooner than this, but RL intervened. As soon as that candidacy goes up, I'll drag my Appy books back out of storage. Dana boomer (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
RL? Oh my. Oh yeah. That!  :-P You mean that getting married and running for adminship all at the same time put you a bit behind? Gee, what's wrong with you, are yo an underachiever or sumthin'? (Grin). In particular, let me know if we're going to need any additional Nez Perce or Lewis and Clark stuff, that is where I can be of particular help, having all those kind of books floating around my house. We might also want to have Countercanter review the genetics stuff on the leopard complex, as it is in such flux. Montanabw(talk) 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grand_Prix_Dressage. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Also note that this user has nominated Category:Riding masters for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 27#Category:Riding masters. Dana boomer (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I have weighed in at both. My recommendation is to consider renaming the category rather than deleting it, as it does contain a lot of the historically significant writers/trainer/rider/instructor sorts that we study today. I also weighed in at the AfD, I oppose deletion, not that the article doesn't totally suck, but I think we do need something other than just the main "dressage" article. But we can chat further at the AfD. Maybe a merge and redirect would be OK for now. Montanabw(talk) 03:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


There's Hippotherapy, there's Therapeutic horseback riding and there's a new and apparently abandoned Equine-assisted therapy. Merge, redirect, ?? East of Borschov 16:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, they are different. And those who care REALLY care and make a big deal out of it. Hence, why we have three articles. The rest of us just sort of duck the issue.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 03:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


Guillermo Obligado? I'm not seeing anything in Google News that shows he won much. [3]. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably prod. The Olympics only confer notability if they competed, per WP:ATHLETE, not if they are just there as reserves. Dana boomer (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm OK with prod. Montanabw(talk) 03:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I've added a prod tag, let's see what happens. Dana boomer (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


An anon IP is quite upset over the claims that Secretariat's heart weighted 22lbs. (It wasn't weighed at death, the size is an estimate from a credible source) The material is properly sourced and nuanced to explain this (I just rewrote it to be sure), but the anon IP seems to be very concerned that somehow this shows disrespect for Phar Lap, who also had a large heart. If other WPEQ members could watchlist the article (It was also getting a little bit of vandalism since the movie came out, too, though that's settled down at the moment) and look over that section to see if it can be improved from what I did, it will help this not just be a two-person dispute. Montanabw(talk) 06:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter S. Gray

Seems notable, but definitely needs sourcing. I did a cursory Google look, but... ya'll are better at this eventing stuff than I am. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also Reuben Jones Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Also Richard Spooner (equestrian). I did ref Jan Youren! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
And we should probably mess with Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing/Unreferenced BLPs too, since that project's almost moribund. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I took care of a couple of the others earlier (Debbie MacDonald and the fence designer guy, Jollicouer). These folks here don't jump out at me, but if they check out as notable, I guess keep. But if not, no objection to prod, either. Montanabw(talk) 03:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Follow up: My humble opinion is Reuben Jones is a keep (gold medalist), I'd not cry over a prod tag on Spooner (but don't care too much one way or the other)--he won a lot of stuff, but... and Gray is sort of in a, well, gray Olympian, and we seem to do wiki articles on Olympic competitors in general, even ones that aren't of real particular note. Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Jones and Gray are automatically notable, per WP:ATHLETE, for competing in the Olympics. Spooner is a bit of a gray area - it could be argued that he hadn't competed at the highest level of the sport (generally Olympics/WEG for us), but a claim of notability could also be made from the $1 million winnings - according to the article only 10 riders have done it, so it actually makes it a smaller, more elite club than Olympic competitors. Dana boomer (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Jones is done. Keep an eye out - he was tagged with BLP, but doesn't actually meet the "L" criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Gray done now too. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And another .. although we're down to two articles in the unref'd BLP's for our project... Mikee Cojuangco-Jaworski Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Svick. So is this new tool automatically in place for us both here and in the Portal:Horses update section that was controlled by ArticleAlertBot (are you working with Arlen22 on that??, or do we need to do something special to make it "go"? Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
No, my tool is not a replacement for ArticleAlertBot, but of Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Cleanup listing. If you visit the pages I linked above, that's it – it's just a list of WikiProject Equine articles that are in some cleanup category, so that you can for example see what articles about horses lack sources. Svick (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, and thanks for all you do! I'm looking forward to that other one getting fixed too. Montanabw(talk) 21:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of cleanup

I just added all the various tags and templates from the Horse racing project here for easy cross-reference. In doing so, I discovered that there are at least five different stub tags for that project. I kind of think that's overkill. Anyone who is a member of both projects want to see if there would be any heartburn in reducing them down? Or is there an actual need and we'd best not scratch what doesn't itch? Montanabw(talk) 21:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The minimum for stub tag categories is usually considered 60 articles, and all of the ones listed are above that - US horseracing bios is the smallest cat, and that's over 80. All of the others are over 100 and several are 200 or more. Unless the cats are trimmed down (through expanding, merging or deleting articles) to under 60, there is no real need to upmerge the tags. Dana boomer (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. still, seems weird to have a zillion tags no one can remember, is there a top end to cats where they should be split? Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, usually when they get over about 600; they're in desperate need of splitting when they get over 800. Dana boomer (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
And yet, then no one can remember which tag to use from memory! LOL! (And don't we have over 1000 in horse-stub?) Montanabw(talk) 22:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Nope, there's only about 300 in Category:Horse stubs, which is populated by Template:Horse-stub. I think you might be thinking of Category:Stub-Class equine articles, which is populated by our project banner and is a completely different thing. Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
True but isn't one supposed to also have the other? (Or do we need to upgrade 700 articles from "stub" to "start"? ARRRGGGHHHH!) Montanabw(talk) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Many of the stubs are tagged with the equestrian bio stub tag. Between the two tags, there's about 700 articles covered. The other 400 are most likely a combination of articles that could be upgraded to start class and true stubs that just don't have a stub tag on them (probably mainly the latter). Dana boomer (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As I work through some stuff....

  • Ban'ei needs some work. I think we need to separate the type of race from the breed that does the racing...Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but is there enough information in reliable sources to make it worth having two seperate articles? I wouldn't mind seeing those laundry lists tossed, though. Dana boomer (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not. The sequel was, until I merged it into this one. Dana boomer (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
KILL BARBIE! KILL! KILL! KILL!  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 17:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yumm: BarBieQue-- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Holy, um, coworkers think I'm insane because I just started laughing at my computer screen... You guys have some major Barbie issues, you know? (My mom never let me have any, she said they promoted a bad self image - I got real live horsies to play with instead!) Dana boomer (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Right after my son was born, someone gave us a stuffed Barney (tm). We promptly hung it from our ceiling, complete with hangman's noose. Later, we stuck a katana in him (yes, a real katana). I was fine with Thomas the Tank Engine, but my son never saw Barney if I could avoid it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Nah, just dark sense of humor. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

**Spewing coffee out nose and onto screen!** In my case, after my mom inflicted Barbies on me in a vain attempt to make me more ladylike and fashion-conscious, I think I broke them trying to make them ride my Breyer horses. (I know it's OR, but Barbie cannot ride a horse, video games notwithstanding! Unless the horse has its physique warped as bad as Barbie's!) Eventually gave it up and begged for the Johnny West girl dolls! I'm also swiping that image before it gets deleted! Ha!Montanabw(talk) 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above...

Mostly. I've got my home studio back up and working, so are there any equipment/etc photos that we need taken? I won't make any promises, but am open to trying. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you have one handy, but maybe you can borrow...I'd kill for a photo of the mouthpiece of a true spade bit (with spoon, rollers, etc.) and, in a perfect world, the mouthpiece of a true "half-breed." If I had them, I'd be able to do a breakout article from curb bit on the spade, which I've been itching to do because it's such an interesting thing. Another idea: Looks like a group of anon IPs and one redlink user, possibly a college or 4-H group, are doing some much-needed work on equine conformation, though once they are done, we may need to do more overall cleanup. Though this is not a request for inside studio shots, I'd say if you have some blatently good or bad conformation images you can take and upload by anonymously isolating body parts, we need better illustrations over there! That, or know any place you can get some good conformation shots we can use to do the improvement drive on the Morgan and Quarter Horse articles? Oh, and I think we lost our Quarab lead image to a copyright problem..don't you own one?  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I own two ... one an Ali Jamaal grandson and one a Khemosabi grandaughter... does that qualify me for sainthood, putting up with them both in the same herd? And they have the same mom too... a cutting bred QH mare. For future reference - crossing Khemo on Cutting lines is ... scarily intelligent. I'll look, but the colt is only a yearling and at that "awkward" stage. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
You get the gold star! I agree, the Khemo/Cutting cross must produce one of those critters that is the equine equivalent of the border collie -- if they had an opposable thumb, they'd also repair your computer, cook your dinner, and explain quantum mechanics to you! The Ali Jamaal, though... that's just scary! LOL! I'll email you my story on that! (Involves conversation with BNT) Montanabw(talk) 03:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Montana, in regards to the editors on equine conformation, I just left what is apparently the lead account a fairly lengthy message. The article needs a lot of cleanup, and I'm hoping that we can get them to do some instead of having to go in behind them once they're done. Those bulleted lists need to go - I can't believe I'd never noticed them before. Almost the entire article is lists - it would be so much better done in prose. Also, I told the account about verifiable, reliable sources, so hopefully they start adding some. If they do some nice cleanup, that might be a future GA... Dana boomer (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
AH, footnoting, that's the bear. I only have something like five different books on conformation and more yet on judging. But ya think I can be troubled to tackle that monster? EEP! Montanabw(talk) 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox invite

Created User:Montanabw/Conformation sandbox for improving Equine conformation, or to be specific, redoing the whole article from scratch. Intended to be a group project like our (successful!) Glossary of equestrian terms. Everyone have at it. I put in a very rough outline. The only thing I have to say is please cite everything, easier to to it now than later. Photos needed too. Photos with proper licensing. Put in a gallery to propose images for inclusion. Montanabw(talk) 20:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Seems to be a "breeding farm started its own registry" type thing. Nothing really showing notablity here, the only reference is to the actual breeding farm. Prod? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Prod. Let those who care argue otherwise. I agree with your assessment. It's free advertising. Remember to pull it off the list of horse breeds, too. Montanabw(talk) 01:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Willis J. Powell

I cannot figure out WHAT this is about, someone wanna take this as a cleanup or prod project? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't prod it, it's early history "horse whisperer" stuff. Guys like Powell and Rarey were sort of the types that predated Roberts, Parelli, etc. (Some had remarkably similar showbiz approaches too...but I digress). That said, you know my general opinion of that stuff, and so my personal motivation to work on it is about zero. I'd support & help someone else who wants to do cleanup on it, though. There's enough historical significance to keep, I think. Maybe worth looking into a merge with the horse whisperer or John Solomon Rarey articles, but even that's more work than I care to put into it. (grin) Montanabw(talk) 01:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Exmoor Pony - breed history ? expansion

The article Exmoor Pony has a banner saying "this section requires expansion" in the Breed history sub section. I was wondering if this project had some guidance on what sorts of things should be included? or perhaps could advise whether the banner could be removed?— Rod talk 11:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My recommendation is to look at our Good and Featured articles and see how they are done. For examples in the UK breeds, Suffolk Punch would be a good one, as would Cleveland Bay. We have some general guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Horse breeds that may also help. The most important thing is to cite sources and find verifiable sources, as a lot of the breeds have myths and legends passed off as fact. The breed registries are a good place to start, but it helps to verify their origin tales from outside, more neutral sources. (They often seem to contain claims that breed X is faster than a speeding bullet and can leap tall buildings in a single bound! LOL!) Also, our resident Brit horse editor is User:Richard New Forest, and he may have some additional advice on this particular breed. If you want to make some edits and give us a heads up to review them, we'd all be glad to help! Also, you can mention things on the article's talk page and see if anyone who watchlists the article can offer further advice. Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Do I hear my bars being rattled...? Yes, also glad to help, though I'm afraid the Exmoor is not a breed I know a lot about. I agree with Montanabw that breed soc histories tend to be very far from objective, often with heavy doses of romance. I've found the best sources are those covering more than one breed, and those by proper academics, if these are recent. Older writers can be good for first-hand material, but they often repeat widely accepted folklore as fact – I've lost count of the number of British Isles breeds which were brought by the Romans/Vikings/Normans/Spanish Armada... One thing to remember is that the concept of the pure breed is itself quite modern. A lot of "traditional breeds" are 18th or 19th century "improvements", created by crossing a local landrace with a famous breed from elsewhere. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments & offers of help. The guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Horse breeds only have one line on Breed History: "explanation of the history of the specific breed. The older the breed, the longer this section is going to be." which isn't that helpful for someone with no idea about what it should include, but these guidelines do highlight that the structure of the Exmoor Pony article doesn't really follow the guideline. I looked at Suffolk Punch & Cleveland Bay, but couldn't see a section called Breed history, just a more general history. As these are "domesticated" (or more appropriate term) it would appear their history is more clearly recorded (but I did spot one said "the oldest English breed society" & the other "oldest established English horse breed" - the difference is lost on me). I'm afraid the discussion of the accuracy (or otherwise) of "breed registries" is not that helpful as I'd never heard of a breed registry before. I think basically I'm saying this is outside my comfort zone and anyone else who could improve the Exmoor Pony article enough to get rid of that tag would be wonderful. I only came across it as I'm working my way through the Somerset wikipropject cleanup list & I've got it down from 300+ to about 40 articles but these last few are really beyond what I can do.— Rod talk 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to do some work on this article over the weekend. Between my general breed books and web sources I can probably put together something that's solid enough to be able to remove the expansion tag. Stay tuned... Dana boomer (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Follow-up: I've done some work on it, and expanded/referenced the history section enough that I felt removing the tag was appropriate. Please feel free to tweak, and also let us know if there are other equine articles you'd like help on. Dana boomer (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks all! Dana, for taking time from admin hassles to still contribute content, and Richard, I do SO appreciate your comment on the development of breeds. We could so use your eye on the Spanish breeds, all of which, apparently, are the pure, untainted descendants of the horses drawn on the Lascaux cave walls with never a hint of outside blood or crossbreeding with the other Spanish breeds -- they ALL are the original one! LOL! Rod, thanks for your non-horse perspective, we sometimes do get to taking our terms of art for granted and forget we may sound like aliens to others! Here, "breed history" and "history" are interchangable, and a breed can be established long before someone got around to starting a stud book or registry. I may have to tweak that task force list. We all know what it means, but I can see how it could be confusing to someone new to this area!
Can I add my thanks to everyone especially Dana boomer for the edits.— Rod talk 11:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


Ok, Dana and Montana asked me to have a look at this article. Here are some of my comments, if I do not fix it myself. I will play devils advocate.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Breed characteristics section

This section is difficult to read. Like the first sentence: "The Appaloosa is known for its preferred leopard-spotted coat pattern and other distinctive physical characteristics." Technically, absolutely correct. But my first reaction, so the horse can have any color? The sentences following it makes also clear that they can have all possible shapes etc. That is not a breeds characteristics? That is every horse I know. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's a whine about the Appy registry ever since they passed the solid color rules. But also spinnable as "a versatile breed suitable for many disciplines."  ;-) The concept, basically, is that to be an Appaloosa they have to have the Lp gene, (except they only narrowed the DNA enough to develop a test this year and there's no test yet!) but to avoid being classed as a mere color breed like the (impossible to breed true) "Palomino registry", they add a broad conformation standard. And let in solid colored horses if they have a white sclera, skin mottling and striped hooves (and I've personally seen a few "breeding stock" Appies that don't even have that!) But because they have TB, QH, Arab breeding still allowed into the partially-open studbook AND historically have additional stuff in there -- including everything from the 16th century Iberian-descended horses, to 18th century spotted Neapolitan warmblood-type horses dumped in the west after the fad ended, to some draft horses that got tossed into the Nez Perce herds during the late 19th century in an attempt to force the native people to become farmers by making their animals into farm horses), the breed has a wide range of body types. You got it in one! So, any ideas if we can improve the way we say it without sounding snarky? Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, the old time vs new time stuff is confusing. I suggest first describing the positive characteristics of this breed, and how it looks now, and a separate paragraph with the characteristics of the old time animals. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Good point, keep an eye on what we do and see if we explain things better. Our biggest barrier is WP:V and avoiding accusations of OR, thus we are limited by what we can find in print. Basically the fight is between the "foundation" or "old time" breeders who had leaner, somewhat less typy "Indian pony" looking animals that were noted for being tough, smart and durable, though some people would say "ugly and scrubby", versus the modern sort, which is more attractive with a thicker tail and prettier head, but often criticized as being nothing but a Quarter horse with spots. Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Color and spotting patterns

I think the best way to proceed with the list of spotting patterns is to make it a table and have a drawing or picture of a representative horse showing the actual pattern. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

See this image as an example-- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hard to draw a varnish roan or a fewspot, but I get your point. We probably can find enough photos in Commons for an example of each type, the trick is how to do a table with little thumbnails that show enough detail but don't bloat the article. Know someone good at the markup language for tables? ...I made one about four years ago for horse markings. It kind of sucks ... can we create a model on the Appaloosa talk page and work out the glitches there? Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

List of plants poisonous to equines

I'm fairly sure that anyone who cares probably already has this watchlisted, but I figured I'd post here anyways :) I've done a complete rewrite and reformatting of this list, and expanded it to some extent. However, I'm sure there are some or many plants that I've missed, so I would like to put it out there for everyone to look over and add to. I think this would be a nice little featured list for the project, so my only request is that any new entries be cited to reliable sources - I'll even format them for you! Dana boomer (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Go Dana! Montanabw(talk) 06:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


Please watchlist if you don't already. POV edits on a GA. Editor "old" enough to know better. May have some potentially useful new material to add, but going about it poorly. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Finnhorse in Peer Review

Hi everyone, and welcome to help me out with the monster that is the Finnhorse -- it's now having a Peer Review, and any help at all will be appreciated. Pitke (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


This may explain some things... Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oy. They're mixing up types and breeds, of course. Left a comment there. Dana boomer (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the dog breeds project had a huge fight over this a few years ago. Will probably never be totally settled. Sigh. Montanabw(talk) 19:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


This one is just awful. We really need to clean up Mark Todd (equestrian) as he's one of the more important folks covered by our project. To say the language is like a magazine article is an understatement... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

All yours! (Grin) Montanabw(talk) 20:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay.. (again)...

Heh. I try to clean up and this happens. So much for THAT issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it didn't stop you. PITA drive-bys! =:-O Montanabw(talk) 19:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Vehicle missing, write it please

Farny 11.jpg

Didn't find this one yet. I'm meaning the thing the horse in the middleground is pulling. No dictionaries for me now. Pitke (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In the US I think we would call that a travois, for which there is an article. Do you call it something different? Dana boomer (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It is DEFINITELY a travois, and the painting is of people who are Native Americans. (the artist is doing a Charlie Russell knockoff, in fact.) I am absolutely certain on this one!  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 21:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Easy, the artist is a Frenchman who became American Henry F.Farny - famous painter of the era, who knew the Indians well. painted them from life, and was a great horse painter too.DarioTW (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Equestrianism mess

Hi gang, Pitke pointed out that Equestrianism is sort of lacking refs to certain sports if we want to use it as the "catchall" article for equestrian activity. Problem is, almost every reference to "riding" is linked to this article, which somewhere before my time (and "my time" is closing in on five years) was originally named something like "horseback riding". An edit war long ago (and I wasn't even there to start it! LOL!) changed it to its present title. I've had a "riding only" article languishing in my first sandbox for years that I've never finished. Anyway, my point (I have a point here, somewhere) is that maybe we need to clean up this thing. Maybe dump all the riding-specific stuff into my sandbox article, take what's left and make it a kind of annotated list or glossary that's a jump-off to the several dozen equestrian discipline-specific articles we have here. Thoughts? (And most of all, HELPERS???) Montanabw(talk) 01:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

First thing: shall we include both riding and driving sports, or just the things people can do with a horse and a saddle or maybe a vaulting pad? Pitke (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's take the discussion back to the article talk page, I answered some of your questions there. Montanabw(talk) 04:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I think all things equestrian should be under one roof; I like the idea of an annotated list / glossary as a jumping-off point - makes perfect sense. And should include anything that anyone does with horses. (So long as it's legal, that is ....... LOL!) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming fixes or raising wiki-fuss?

Hi gang, am finally putting my money where my mouth is and moved the "Breed name (horse)" articles to "Breed name horse". However, there are a few -- Belgian, Barb, Camargue, Clydesdale, Hackney, Haflinger, and Tori -- where there is an edit history and I can't move them. Because we are doing something weird, if I take these to an admin for a merge, there is apt to be a hue and cry about how we aren't following the general rule. So I have two questions: 1) Does anyone here object to this policy, and hence, will you all weigh in and support this if there IS a hue and cry raised? and 2) If no one objects to this policy, could we quietly ask an admin we know (Dana? Lar? Someone else?) to just discreetly do the moves, or is that bad? On an unrelated note, Salerno (horse) directs to an animal, and of course Salerno is a place, so I kept Salerno (horse breed) as is, even though it's weird. Anyone have a better solution? I'm also holding off on Mustang (horse) for the same "people will raise a hue and cry" concerns. Shall we also move it? (I'd like to) Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be perfectly sensible to do that - after all, the pony breed articles are named that way! And as for Salerno (horse breed),I personally would bring it into line by standardising it to 'Salerno Horse' as I don't really see any semantic difference to New Forest Pony. New Forest is a place name, too! (Same goes for Dales ponies, Fell ponies, Shetland ponies - all named after their native habitat place names.) And having "Mustang Horse" without the brackets would just be bringing it into line with the other horse and pony breed articles so there's a good and defensible rationale for that one. And can we standardize capitalisation throughout, and have the 'Pony' and 'Horse' capitalised (please)? It would seem to make more sense, particularly as loads of the breed societies include the word as part of the breed name, and having some with caps and some without just feels wrong! (Yup, it's that obsessive need to have things lined up straight, again ......... LOL!). As for question 2) .... I think it would be perfectly OK, not bad at all. After all, using an admin who knows the subject makes perfect sense, and why weigh down some other admin with the task when I'm sure Dana would be delighted to do it :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


The Napoletano is listed as an extinct breed, but it is not (or has been reborn!). According to, there were in 2005 20 mares and 4 stallions (if I remember right, they all or nearly all belong to one person). Standard is published by the AIA, breed register held by them in accordance with ministerial decree 24347 dated 05.11.2003. It's one of the 15 'breeds of limited distribution'. One was presented at Fieracavalli in Verona in 2008 along with a Salernitano and a Persano as 'three extinct breeds'. Suggest it be un-extinguished ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe put the details on the talk page of the article and we can all discuss what to do. I'm personally VERY dubious of these "reborn" breeds. They are simply new breeds that look like the old breed, kind of, and might have some ancestry traceable to the old breed, maybe. I have to admit that I'm not super impressed by the standards of the Italian organizations, they are quick to create new "breeds" out of assorted crossbreds. However, not knowing the intricacies of the AIA, I'll not say more. All I know is that in the USA we have a huge number of breeding farms wanting to label their crossbreds some kind of new "breed" when they are nothing more than a 2 or 3 generation crossbred with no true-breeding traits yet, and unlike the warmblood breeds with an open stud book, there is no quality selection process to improve the "new breed"-- it's all just people trying to make a lot of money. Drives me nuts. So I'm dubious. Montanabw(talk) 04:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How did the breeds infobox get messed up?

Hi all, someone changed the horse breeds infobox so it puts the breed name in smaller letters and right-justified. IMHO that looks unattractive, but more to the point, it wasn't done by one of us, I actually am not sure who did it or when, nor does it appear to be consistent with other animal breed infoboxes (the dog one still looks the way ours used to). Does anyone know who can fix these templates and can we ask them to restore the old version? Montanabw(talk) 07:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it may have been part of the Wiki-wide changes that happened a few weeks ago, because I can't see anything in the history that would have messed up the alignment and font. There have been a few changes recently, but nothing to that. Template:Infobox horse is the link, if you want to look - I tried an undo of the recent changes and it didn't really change anything (especially not the headers), so I reverted myself. Dana boomer (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you're right, there's some other template out there that is getting transcluded here. (I tried a revert to the 2009 version and it was unchanged!) I wonder who knows what this was and how to fix it? Montanabw(talk) 16:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
looks like they (?) have made some changes in the class="infobox biota" CSS. No idea where to fix that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Infobox suggestion: as nobody, including particularly me, seems to know where to put the original-language names of foreign-named horses, could an extra field be added to the infobox template for this? Just as an example, at the moment the TPR ("Italian Heavy Draft") has its full official name, Cavallo Agricolo Italiano da Tiro Pesante Rapido, which nobody ever uses in everyday life, in the nickname field, while the common name TPR is not shown at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
We have the "alt name" for now, which may work, particularly in situations where there are multiple languages. If the article you are looking at doesn't have that parameter, some of the breed articles have an abbreviated template, but the full version is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Equine/Horse_breeds#Infobox_horse_template. Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, having the full template does help, several articles seem to have an abbreviated version. Altname can get very crowded; what about inserting "Name in that country" below "Country of Origin"? Anyway, either there's something wrong with the template or there's something wrong with me (now, which is more likely?): can't get status to display whatever I do. Can anyone point me to one where it is displaying correctly so that I can see how it's done? For an example of one where it is not displaying, see Neapolitan horse. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nation of origin would not work for a lot of breeds with either multiple origins, alt can get a little full, won't be a problem for more than a couple articles. One of the biggest lists is probably for the Florida Cracker Horse, and it's managable. I'll peek at the Neapolitan article. We DO have some template troubles, and no one seems to know how to fix them because it isn't our template, it's something transcluded from elsewhere that we can't track down. (Where is a template syntax guru when you need one?) Oh, and we don't use the "status" parameter for breeds, I think it's a holdover from the species template, where the put "endangered", "extinct" etc... which I suppose is relevant to a few breeds...we've just never used it. Montanabw(talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I think I've found how to fix the Infobox header display. Before I go ahead and mess with the template, would people be kind enough to test and comment (example at Bardigiano)?
To test on another breed page, please change '{{Infobox horse' or '{{Infobox Horse', on the fourth line of the full version, the first line not hidden, to '{{Infobox horse test'. And yes, I believe there are two versions of the infobox kicking about. Obviously it'd be smart to preview but not save. Comments and feedback welcome, large cheques and cases of vintage port even more so. I'll work on fixing the status thing too, though that is a little more challenging. While I'm at it, is there anything else that needs changing? I suggest removing the second (and third, fourth, fifth etc. occurrences) of the words 'Breed standards" and just have the link there; it seems sort of repetitive repetitive as it stands, and would be a doddle to change. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The format itself is less of a problem than why the whole d**** thing got universally changed on all the breed articles. We don't need the "statue" thing, actually, I don't think, I believe it's a holdover from the species infoboxes. As for breed standards, I think we need to keep at least two and hidden text that more can be added, I know that for many breeds, there are slight variations in different nations (particularly when there's a US/UK split, as there is with, say Shetland ponies). I'd also like to see us compare this box to the one used by the dog breeds. But really, all we really need to fix is whatever is making the headline text so damn tiny and left-justified, I'd like to strangle whoever made this so complicated that normal people can't fix it. At any rate, I'd like more consensus from others before a completely new version is implemented, as the implications across 350 breed articles are significant... Montanabw(talk) 03:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Horse breeds of Italy navbox

I made a navbox for the horse breeds of Italy. Montana kindly fixed a duff link in it for me, for which much thanks, and also left various questions/suggestions around the place, which I'm answering here.

  • The three breeds that have a shared history with Austria are officially regarded as 'Italian', recognised as such by the Ministry of Agriculture. I don't know about all the others, some of which already had articles, but I don't think anyone is going to challenge those anyway. I intentionally omitted any reference to 'official' recognition; I'm not trying to make a nationalist or political statement, just a geographical one
  • I didn't include a flag for the same reasons; as for picture, well, after you've seen it a few times... KISS is my motto
  • I'd like to add the template to the pages for the Haflinger, Noriker and Lipizzaner, but don't want to appear to be trying in some way to 'claim' those breeds. I'm perfectly happy, for example, to make a similar navbox for Austrian breeds and add that first (as long as someone gives me a list, I don't know my Kladruber from my Knabstruppe). What do people think?
  • In answer to an earlier question, if you want something similar for Indonesian (was it?) breeds then I'd be happy to do that too, but would need the list even more.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Make the navbox collapse by default, if you can, as does the equine one. I'm of mixed feelings on national navboxes, we can see how Lipizzan could wind up with six, but I think it's overkill to do one for every nation. With the Italian breeds, it may make sense to help those with a strong interest. But we run the risk of overkill. Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Dibs on Finland! XD No, but ones for France, UK, USA, Germany and Russia would be of great interest for me. I love to dabble with templates so if my connection stops failing me, I'll draft something this evening. Pitke (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually I had wondered about taking it a little further, and using a navbox with collapsible groups to cover, say, each continent country by country. And then get the relevant group(s) to uncollapse automatically on each page... I don't think it would be impossible, though probably beyond my meagre capacities, and would solve once and for all the navigability/orphan question (I de-orphaned 3 articles just by doing Italy). Thinking ahead, if anyone knows how to do nested templates (I don't) it might be possible to do one to cover the whole world? Hmmm, maybe someone has already made one for some other topic, will look around. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Nested templates are easy. Default collapsed state is easier. As for nesting, you just need to define the main template to provide frames for the included templates, and make it include coding (if-clauses) that adds any wanted country template listed in the stated parameters. Pitke (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The International Museum of the Horse has a "horse breeds of the world" section where they break things down like this. However, some of their stuff is taken wholesale from registry web PR sites and as such is sometimes not entirely accurate, or perhaps incomplete. And I think they confine it mostly by continent. I am a little concerned about the "six navboxes for Lipizzans" problem, and I am also a little concerned that a navbox for a place like the USA (or, to be safe, perhaps North America) would be unmanagable as it probably would contain at least 100 breeds. But if someone wants to sandbox them and then give the rest of us a heads up to come play, I DO like the idea of better navigability at WPEQ. (I'm just having some PTSD from a terrible template war I got myself sucked into a few years ago, so still twitchy) But while you are all at it, anyone want to help/encourage/dissuade me to revive/from reviving my dead tack template that I abandoned during the template war? -- I THINK it also is what you are talking about by a "nested template" -- I swiped the syntax from the navbox used for all the Boy Scout articles... Montanabw(talk) 19:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool new list, thanks JLAN

See List of Equestrian Sports. Thank you, JLAN for getting this off the ground. Montanabw(talk) 08:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No thanks are due, I didn't start it, I just found it lying around and added it to this project.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Mk.II

I've been fooling around a bit more with the infobox and have saved a Mk.II version. This

  • omits the repetitions of the words 'Breed standards', instead making the 'group' name into a link
  • rearranges slightly the order of some elements
  • makes the Conservation status visible when used, in line with other templates such as pigeon and rabbit
  • does not require any significant change to the Usage text.

If, most improbably, I have got this right, all existing infoboxes should display correctly in the revised format, with stuff remaining hidden unless used.

It can be seen in use at Bardigiano (I'll revert that in a few days) - which of course means that the Mk. I version mentioned above is no longer used there. I'd be grateful if people would test it on other breed pages, by changing "{{Infobox horse" or "{{Infobox Horse" to "{{Infobox horse/sandbox" on the fourth line of the full version (and in any case at the first opening double curly bracket), and give some feedback. This is just a trial run; I won't touch the present version of the template until and unless I'm asked to. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My only concern about "status" is that it's from a SPECIES template, not a breed one. And, with multiple, mostly non-governmental associations making these determinations, (a breed may have different status in different nations, too), I guess that if we are using this, we may need a "says who?" designation... Equus Survival Trust, ALBC, etc... I guess look at the dog breeds and see if they do anything for the rare ones... we seem to have cribbed a lot of their other stuff...? We also have the Named Horse Infobox (see articles like Go Man Go for an example) that you might also want to steal syntax from. Montanabw(talk) 04:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, actually this status parameter seems to have been designed specifically for horse breeds (I wasn't here so don't know for sure, but that's how it looks). It's built as a switch, with the two possible display values being Not recognized by any major registry and This breed of horse is extinct; you can look at it here. In this prototype I've changed it so that it is no longer a switch (which I couldn't get to switch anyway) but an open field to which any text can be added, including links if desired. I agree about 'says who?', thought about it too; if everyone agrees that it is necessary, I could attempt to make fields for several "status" and "status-assigning authority" values, like the present breed standards. But that would involve rewriting the usage and, I think, changing the infobox on every page. What I've tried to do so far is to change the appearance without altering the input, my idea being that the infobox might be modified but the individual breed pages would not need individual attention. I've tried it on about 20 pages so far without problems, and with results that I personally found an improvement, looking forward to some other comment. Oh, the status of the Lipizzaner is entered as DOM; what does that mean? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I honestly don't know, the infobox even predates me. As for the "sez who?" maybe just footnote it, perhaps with some hidden text for instructions. Dom, would be "domesticated," which is, like duh ... I'd toss that. (But it's an example of the species template crossover). By the way, you might want to compare the cat and dog breed infoboxes, such as at Maine Coon or Beagle. Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at all the breed boxes, about 7 of them, and also cheeses, blues musicians etc. Most of them are written a lot more simply than this one, though the dog one is a total nightmare. Anyway, until a few more people than you and me have commented I think it's on hold; I've left it in place for Bardigiano for now Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the template editors just went in and fixed ours, but the colors got lost in the process. If you can make sense of the syntax, want to collaborate with Thumperward on any further edits to the main one?? I think the rest of us are sort of helpless (at least I am) Montanabw(talk) 19:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that, now easy since the syntax is much simplified. But I still want to know if the appearance changes I made and still have on trial display at Bardigiano (the Mk.II version) meet with general approval? For comparison purposes only I have switched Tolfetano to something like the appearance we had until recently (the Mk.I version), which I happen to have saved. The main difference between them is in the display of the breed standards. Please cast your vote by adding    :* ~~~~    under one or the other (but preferably not both) below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mk.I, as at Tolfetano

Mk.II, as at Bardigiano

Centered text in the headers, nice colors so it stands out, and room for everything. That's all I really need. I felt there was nothing wrong with our old infobox and don't know why people out there in template land screwed it up for us. Montanabw(talk) 05:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


I've just been notified of this thread. It so happens that I completely rewrote {{infobox horse}} to use the {{tl|infobox} base class a few days after this proposal was announced: unfortunately that means that the sandbox code is out of date relative to the deployed code. I'll continue to monitor this thread and update the deployed code with the changes discussed here as thy are approved. I wouuld note that as the beige colour is arbitrary it is unnecessary and needn't be re-added. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If the people who understand templates have a plan that encompasses a broad consensus across the animal breeds articles, just help us out and keep us informed. However, we LIKE having the color, because it distinguishes the infobox from the text, on some of our smaller articles with little infobox material and no photo, the box isn't really distinct from the rest of the page. Can you give us color if we want it??? Montanabw(talk) 05:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Side-by-side comparison

I've now put up a side-by-side comparison of the two styles of breed standards sections at Template:Infobox horse breed/testcases. This is a better place to do it than on live articles. Can I go ahead and delete the old code at template:infobox horse test for now? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Neat! But since you have changed the sandbox version to look exactly like the main one except in one detail there's nothing much to compare. Will you revert it to my last version to allow people to make a comparison, or shall I do it? And in the meantime, no, please do not delete the previous code; you'd be shocked and horrified to know how long it took me to write, I would like it left for reference purposes until people here have made up their minds, or until about opening time, whichever is the sooner, if that's OK with you? Have you tried looking at the current version on a mobile device such as an iPhone, for a breed that doesn't have a picture? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
NP, I've done it, put the old versions there but didn't see where to change the captions. Anyway, Bardigiano shows Chris's new version and my Mk.II side by side, Tolfetano shows his new one and my Mk.I. My personal suggestion that unless there's a clear preference expressed here fairly soon we just thank him politely and go with the flow. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I like the existing version (the one at Infobox horse breed). Sorry, JLAN, but the pink boxes in yours are annoying and distracting, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Please don't apologise, I didn't invent the 'peachpuff' bars, in fact I didn't invent any of it; there was a call for help and did what little I could to answer it, no more.
What I personally like about Chris's version is that it is clean and simple; what I don't like is that the horse name is outside the box, and that it collapses to nothing and looks really weird when there isn't a photo or much text, and looks particularly weird on a mobile device; those are things he could probably fix in the time it took you to read this. What I personally like about my own Mk.II version is that it doesn't repeat the words 'Breed standards' over and over again (currently seven times at Lipizzaner), because the standard-setting body is a direct link; and that it shows the conservation status, which I feel is important. The other thing that is great about Chris's version is that the code is really straightforward so even someone like me could easily modify it at a later stage; but that will be true whatever the details of the appearance are.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the horse breed name outside the box is a real problem. See, for example Menorquín horse, where there is no photo. That does need to be fixed, somehow. On JLAN's version, I like the color stripes between the major sections because my middle-aged eyes can more easily pick things out. (I don't care what the color is, I just like having it) On the other hand, in Thumperward's version, I like simple code, it's clean, it's clear, and I like that the major subheadings are centered rather than right-justified. I think the larger photo size in JLAN's version is nice, but not critical. I like whichever method gives us more column space for the content, so the characteristics doesn't get squished into two-word rows of text. Basically, if we can put a line around the whole box so that the name "looks" like it is inside, and maybe run a line between the main sections so the eye can separate them, I don't really care what color it is, though color is also helpful to the eye (like mine) that is reading on a small screen with cheap reading glasses on middle-aged eyes! Montanabw(talk) 18:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Having the title outside the box is due to the new infobox using an HTML caption element to contain the table's title, which is recommended by the W3C's guidelines on table accessibility. If you fake the title bar by using a normal HTML header, which was what happened before, you lose the semantic advantage there. IMO that's a big enough drawback to override any perceived aesthetic appeal to having the title inside the table border. As for the image size, the new code uses the special frameless attribute for the image size so that it displays at the same size as your user thumbnail preference: this is 220px by default (only slightly smaller than the old 250px), but can go as high as 300px if users choose and, importantly, doesn't upscale images which are smaller than that (which distorts them). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Original research

Just so that everyone knows, I have reverted edits by Montanabw to the article Neapolitan horse in order to remove from it original research extrapolated from two conflicting sources. The reasons are I hope explained reasonably clearly in the talk page for that article, I'll be interested to hear any comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion to date:

Shales horse

Shales was a very influential sire in the Norfolk Cob breed, a grandson (I think!) of the Darley Arabian. I think there was a local idiomatic use of 'Shales horses' as a term for the improved Norfolk Cobs (way back when), but I really don't think it would be warranted to include it as a breed. The only thing one could reasonably do, to avoid someone else adding it as a breed, would be to create a re-direct to Norfolk Cob .... which doesn't exist yet, either, and it's unlikely we could ever garner enough about the Norfolk Cob to make it anything other than a stub, or at best a rather 'thin' C class.ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The wikipedia disambiguaiton MOS is not entirely perfect -- see [[bit] or shale. Our naming standards would be Shales (horse) for the actual individual named animal and things like bit (horse) for equipment articles, etc. but "Shale horse" if there was a type or breed, and sometimes it's a judgement call, see [[Moyle horse], which I have tried to delete twice, one with success, once without. (sigh) Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Shales Horse is listed as a (rare) breed by Hartley Edwards (1995), pp121-122 in UK edition. Bred by the Colquhoun family since 1922, the modern descendant of or equivalent of the Norfolk Trotter or Roadster. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, another "is it a breed or is it a breeder" question. Sigh... If we can find more than just Edwards, maybe we got us an article? (My personal minimum standard is Moyle horse, which I once successfully got deleted, but lost the second time around because there WERE enough sources to meet WP:NOTABILITY. I guess another "minimum standard" is Virginia Highlander or (ugh, I can't believe this managed to stay) Georgian Grande Horse. If there's as much as we have for those, I guess we have enough. Anyone have further thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 05:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't quite remember exactly where I came across the references to the 'improved' Norfolk Cobs being called 'Shales horses', but I may have turned it up when I was researching for the Dales Pony article. If I can turn up anything useful on either Shales (the horse, or the breeder), or 'Shales horses', or even 'Norfolk cobs', I will try to do something with them. But it's gonna be hard to find sources, lol! Pesky (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have the Edwards book, if you don't and that would help. I don't have much faith (in fact rapidly fading towards no faith) in what he writes about foreign breeds and in his speculations about the origins of the horses we have today, but he should be an authoritative source for a UK one I'd have thought. He gives a double-page spread to the Shales
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

[grins!] Heck, yer all just gonna love this ..... not! I am delving into ancient history, and have come across quite a few people who owned a horse (apparently) called the Norfolk Cob (iprobably in much the same way as we'd refer to a horse we knew as "Joe's Pinto Stallion"). And also at least three (counted so far) horses called "Shales", in one variation or another. I've also come across Norfolk cobs as a breed, as an animal, and by various other names, too. I do wish those old guys back then had had the faintest apprecitation of the challenges they face us with today! Here's a brief extract from the British Farmer's Magazine, 1856 (capitalisation, hyphenation and everything else as in the original):

"Phenomenon, bred near Horncastle in 1845, is by Old Phenomenon, out of a well-known trotting-mare (by a Norfolk Stallion), the property of the Honourable Charles Dymocke, of Screelsby. Old Phenomenon was by the celebrated "Bond's Norfolk Phenomenon" the best and fastest trotter ever shown in public - Bond's Phenomenon, by the Norfolk Cob, out of a Pretender mare, by Old Fireaway - and so on through a succession of Fireaways to Pretender, the sire of the first so-called. Pretender himself was a chestnut horse foaled in 1771, by Marske, the sire of Eclipse, out of a mare by Bajazet, a son of the Godolphin Arabian. The dam of the Norfolk Cob, or , as he was afterwards called by Mr Theobald, of Stockwell, the Norfolk Phenomenon, was by Old Marshland Shales."

Haha! I'll keep trying, but maybe only after my brain has unfried itself. Pesky (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's all you guys', this is making my brain explode! Montanabw(talk) 19:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
If i put everything I've read together, the best I can do would be to point out that there were several notable sires named "Shales" in one form or another, and that their offspring seem to have had some sort of recognition as "Shales horses" as the bloodline seemed to be recognisable to the eye.

(This is going to be much the same story as the Morgan horses, with the breed being named after Justin Morgan's horse, which was known quite often as 'justin Morgan' or just 'Morgan' itself, AFAIK.)

I think the people currently re-inventing "the Modern Shales Horse" are quite possibly barking up the 'rare breeds' tree without realising that it's most likely that the Shales Horse as an actual breed probably never really existed at all. I cannot find any contemporaneous source which suggests that they were a breed, and I truly believe that Edwards may have misconstrued some stuff. Sadly, it happens. Pesky (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few random bits I saved as I went along. :

The first Hackney as we know the breed today is said to be The Shales Horse, foaled around 1755. The Norfolk Trotter became the all-around travel horse of this time. In another area of England, the same breed was known as the Yorkshire Trotter. Both breeds were alternately called roadsters. It is common to see the term Norfolk/Yorkshire Roadster/Trotter in books describing the history of horses. Regardless of the name, all are the same breed of horse. ( re the Hackney Horse - find better source)

... The Sporting Magazine (Vol 9, Second Series, or Vol 84, old series) 1834 [4] has a letter on p 26 in defence of 'Norfolk horses'

... The Sportsman vol Vi. January to June, 1842 [5]

problem: free ebook doesn't seem to match snippet views referring to "Confidence, A Norfolk Cob'


The Farmer's Magazine 'Volume the Sixth' 1842, advertises Phenomenon (son of The Norfolk Cob) at stud. [6] ...

The New Sporting Magazine 1845 has an article on 'The Norfolk Cob" (as a horse, not a breed) complete with pic. (I have pdf of this) ...

and by SIR WALTER GILBEY, Bart., Published by Vinton & Co., 9 New Bridge Street, London, E.G.

He [Mr Phillips] sold several horses* got by Norfolk Cob, the sire of Phenomenon, as stallions to go abroad. * Among these was Kendle's Norfolk Cob (476), sold in 1845 or 1846.

Shales, the original (699), says Mr. Henry Euren after a painstaking review of the history of this family, was the first noteworthy trotting Hackney Stallion ; Shales is mentioned as " the fastest horse " of his day. With scarcely an exception, the Hackney sires of to-day descend in the direct line from this famous horse. The Darley Arabian begat Flying Childers (foaled 17 15), the speediest race-horse of his time, and considered by many a better horse than Eclipse ; Flying Childers begat Blaze ; and it was through Blaze that the county of Norfolk achieved fame for its breed of Hackneys. Blaze (foaled 1733) was the sire of the Original Shales, foaled in 1755 out of a Norfolk mare. Shales, so far as is known, had only two sons, Scots' Shales and Driver (187), the latter out of a mare by Foxhunter, by the famous horse Sampson.

Mr. Wright, of Tring, has a bay, ' Shales,' 16 hands, foaled 1851 ...

Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, (1863) refers to Norfolk cobs as a breed ("appear to be a cross between a coacher and a Norfolk cob")


‪The Offical Horse Breeds Standards Guide By Fran Lynghaug page 456 references the Norfolk Cob as a breed in the section on Dales pony‬ Pesky (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Whaddya think?

Worth a WPEQ tag or not? Tilly's Pony Tails. Montanabw(talk) 18:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If it has one, we'll need to hunt out the various other references to pony-book series and authors. Separate sub-cat of their own? Horsey-fiction? (I'm thinking of people like Ruby Ferguson, the Pullein-Thompson sisters, Gillian Baxter, and so on. And all the more modern ones, too.) Pesky (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling UK editors (Richard, Pesky, this means you) -- and anyone else interested

Hi all! JLAN is showing some interest in improving the ongoing disaster that is Gypsy Vanner horse. (Hooray!!) See Talk:Gypsy_Vanner_horse#Travellers_are_not_Gypsies. What we also have, though, is a proposal for a name change to "Irish Cob". Google hit search is not quite 2:1 for Gypsy Vanner, but Irish Cob IS also very common (and several other variants on both terms exist). I actually could care less, personally, and I have no idea if anyone here cares deeply, but it seems that the periodic "drive by" edits we get on the article are people with strong views (many of them sound like 10 year old girls, though). So just giving y'all a heads up and an invite to lend a hand, particularly looking for more folks from that part of the world to weigh in. Montanabw(talk) 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Eeeek! But the Traditional Cob / Gypsy Vanner / Gypsy Cob isn't an Irish Cob, lol! In the UK they're generally known as Trad Cobs so's not to infuriate the .... errrrm ... various titles of people it's best not to alienate :o) Pesky (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
How about we title it "Piebald semi-draft breed with fluffy white legs (when washed) that sells for ridiculous sums of money in the USA because people like spots and think "gypsy" is a romantic word for people that wear colorful clothes?"  ;-D Montanabw(talk) 18:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Lol! How about entitling it "Traditional Coloured Cob" with redirects from Gypsy Vanner and Gypsy Cob, so's not to infuriate the Roma, Travellers, other-type Gypsies, and still keep all the Trad/Gypsy Cob lovers happy? When all's said and done, they're a type, not a real 'breed', in most places. Pesky (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancient breed is NOT the unbroken line to the new breed, unless someone has proof otherwise . Trying to incorporate both. Take to talk

The above is one of Montana's edit summaries. So here it is in talk. What is there to say? There is no proof either way. The article was carefully phrased to reflect exactly that in my last revision, where the opening paragraph read as follows:

The Neapolitan Horse (Italian: Napoletano, occasionally [Cavallo Napoletano] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is a breed of horse originating in the plains between Naples and Caserta, in the Campania region of Italy. It has been reported that the original Neapolitan horse became extinct, its lines incorporated into other breeds, most notably the Lipizzan.[1] However, the status of the Napoletano was listed in 2007 as critical by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations[2] and it is one of the fifteen indigenous horse "breeds of limited distribution" currently recognised by the AIA, the Italian breeders' association,[3] under the terms of Ministerial decree D.M. 24347 dated 5 November 2003.[4] In 2005, a total population of 20 mares and 4 stallions was registered.[4]
  1. ^ Chamberlin, J. Edward Horse: How the Horse has Shaped Civilization New York:BlueBridge 2006, p. 164 ISBN 0-9742405-9-1
  2. ^ "Critical Breeds List 2007" (PDF). FAO. Retrieved Apr 2011. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ "Il Registro Anagrafico delle Razze Popolazioni Equine a Limitata Diffusione". AIA (in Italian). Retrieved Apr 2011. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ a b "Napoletano". AIA (in Italian). Retrieved Apr 2011. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

This paragraph makes no assumption as to whether the extinction claim is true, expresses no preference for one point of view or another, but states the facts. The word 'however' is open to criticism, as it implies a contrast between the first reference and the later ones.

The subsequent version by Montanabw read as follows (since I don't know how to do red text here, I have emboldened here what is red in the edit history; this does not allow me to indicate what was removed from the previous version, however):

The Neapolitan Horse (historical Italian: Napoletano, modern [Cavallo Napoletano] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) refers to two different horse breeds. The historic breed originated in the plains between Naples and Caserta, in the Campania region of Italy. While the original Neapolitan horse became extinct, its lines were incorporated into other breeds, most notably the Lipizzan.[1] In the 21st century, a horse of similar phenotype, now called the Napoletano has been developed and is listed as one of the fifteen indigenous horse "breeds of limited distribution" currently recognised by the AIA, the Italian breeders' association.[2]

and later added this text, some of which is newly introduced but unaccountably does not show in red:

==Modern breed==
In the 21st century, a horse of similar phenotype, called the Napoletano was developed and it is one of the fifteen indigenous horse ... (then repeating parts of the same text as before)

My comment: The words modern and historical are both unsourced and incorrect, the names Napoletano and Cavallo Napoletano being commonplace in both times (this statement unreferenced, it's like Paris, everybody knows it, this is one of the most famous horse breeds of Europe); they introduce an error, which I am removing by reverting to the earlier version, the most recent by me.

The phrases

refers to two different horse breeds. The historic breed originated,
In the 21st century, a horse of similar phenotype, now called,
Modern breed and
In the 21st century, a horse of similar phenotype, called the

are not founded in any source but are simply a fanciful invention based on the evident incompatibility of the extinction of the breed and its current Critical conservation status. Of course, Montanabw's conclusion may turn out to be perfectly correct if and when the full history of these horses is traced. But in the absence of such documentation, they constitute ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which I am removing by reverting.

This comment was hidden in the article, I am moving it here for discussion: would be useful to explain origins, pedigrees, and mention that it's only one breeder so far If derived from some ancient Neapolitan ancestors, worth noting

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My opinion, based in part on what you have said, is that the so-called "Neopolitano" is a) ONE breeding farm that is b) trying to make a lot of money by claiming that they have "found' the ancient breed, just the same as 3) a bunch of people who have been breeding back primitive horses claim to have reinvented the Tarpan. So, absent actual proof that this new breed has anything to do with the old breed, the existing material is what is sourced. I am restoring footnoted material. I found additional sources that say it's extinct, there are three of them now. The highly dubious Equine Kindom site says there are still a few left. All your sources are in Italian, and Google does a rotten job of translating. Per dozens of repeated comments across several articles. DO NOT REMOVE SOURCED MATERIAL. Tag it and discuss the validity of sources. And please read WP:V. At the end of the day, we may have to split this article into "Neapolitan horse" (the historic creature, WIDELY considered extinct) and the "Neapolitano" (the new breed that probably has a wee bit of related breeding) My position is simple: Quit attacking me and start finding better sources. Montanabw(talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a talk page, so your opinion has a place here. Your position, too. Neither has any place in the article. Stating that the Napoletano is two breeds without any source to substantiate the statement, merely extrapolating from conflicting evidence, is original research. Splitting the article would constitute a recognition that the Napoletano of today is not the same as the Napoletano of yesterday, and that, in the absence of proper supporting sources, would constitute original research. Changing the conservation status from critical to extinct in the face of highly authoritative sources cited in the article is unscholarly and, in the circumstances, rather childish. The FAO Critical Breeds List for 2007 is written in English, and quite clear too; but in any case an editor's inability to inderstand a language can hardly be cited as a justification for introducing unsubstantiated opinions into an article. Please do not introduce any further original research, opinion, position or intentional error into this article.
And please do not give me orders, I am neither your servant nor your dog. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
If there are conflicting reliable sources - one (or more) saying the breed is extinct, and one (or more) saying it is not, the article should state both positions without picking one. I have no idea on the sources here but perhaps the best thing to do is to not delete ANYTHING sourced, no matter what other sources say? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Someone please explain that to JLAN who has, across multiple pages, been randomly removing or using hidden text syntax to cut out cites to Hendricks, Bogianni and other breed encyclopedias, but replacing the information with sources written entirely in Italian. I have edited the article a couple of times to include both the historic and modern type, JLAN argues, I think , that it's the same breed, but doesn't seem able to verify this, only attacks what's there. I have repeatedly explained about the use of "dubious" and "unreliable source" tags, to no avail. I have requested that this particular article be given temporary protection due to edit warring. I have THREE sources saying the breed is extinct, one stating 1950 as the date, another of which is the generally reliable Chamberlain book, which can be accessed via Google books. JLAN has an FAO site that lists a "Neapolitano" breed that exists and is critically endangered, no indication of whether this is even the same historic breed, and one Italian language site that appears to be a government site has a history section and a present day section that MIGHT be evidence that the breed isn't totally extinct, but he himself told me that the "breeder" of these fewer than 100 animals is precisely one stud farm. The highly dubious Equine Kingdom site suggests that the breed was reduced to very small numbers and it not extinct. So there is, in fact, room for a legitimate difference of opinion. Did a few horses survive what was considered breed extinction, or is it just something like the Spanish Jennet Horse that someone cooked up to "recreate" an ancient type? Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit summary from montanabw, moved here for discussion (off-topic for a moment, will return to it): "Tired of JLAN's attacks".
So show me one, in the history of any page of your choice. It is quite true that I posted a firmly worded reminder of some of the basic norms of behaviour in this wiki on your talk page after you had called me a pain in the arse on three different pages, but that was not an attack, it was a request to start behaving like a responsible and respectful member of what is supposed to be a community. I notice that you removed it from the page, as is your right, soon after it was posted; anyone who wants to look at it can of course do so by going back in the page history. I have chosen not to remove any of the occasionally quite remarkably discourteous messages that you have left on mine; they too are there for anyone who has nothing better to do to read.
I'd like to know, did I sign something on the way in here that said I had to take orders from the guy in charge? Because I've been getting them, thick and fast, do this, do that, don't do the other. And come to think of it, was I told that there would be a guy in charge? Isn't this supposed to be a collaborative project? I have been, I must admit, quite amazed at the degree of hostility, suspicion and discourtesy with which I have been welcomed here (and, within Wikipedia, only here). I'd like to thank the few people with whom I have managed to find any kind of intellectual companionship, however brief, it has been all the more welcome given the overall level of mistrust and harassment. Anyway, enough of that, back to the point:
Of course Ealdgyth is right, that is exactly what we should do. Actually, come to think of it, I think that is what I did, or at least what I tried to do. But even so, I don't think it's quite that simple. Scholarly research involves not just finding sources, but evaluating their reliability and the weight they should be given. It's my opinion after a short time here that this project really needs to haul that on board. There are some stupendously good articles here. But there are also a vast number of stupendously awful ones that rely on some really stupendously awful sources. I've been getting flak for trying to weed out some of the very worst of those (cowboy Jack and his dancing pony, EquineKingdom, the French collaborative one (Lexique du Cheval?) that's all over things), and maybe montana is right that any old rubbish is better than nothing, and that nothing whatsoever should ever be removed if it has a source, however demonstrably unreliable that source is. But I can't agree, and I don't believe Jimmy Wales does either; I'd be interested to know what others think. I wondered about looking into whether some sort of project guideline on sources could be worked out; and I wondered also if it would be useful to try to combine that with a collaborative core bibliography, which everyone could use as a source of ready-formatted ref links for stuff that is often cited, but where people could also leave comments on reliability. With a blacklist section too, for cowboy Jack and his friends. Anyway, enough of that, back to the point:
The sources for the article are set out above as if they were the troops in an engagement, I've got three detachments of sources, JLAN has the world authority on farm animal conservation status, the Italian government and 600 light cavalry hidden in the woods. But isn't really like that, because I don't have any troops, I'm not fighting against someone's point of view, I'm merely asking for intellectual clarity. I was asked to produce references that showed that the Napoletano is alive; when I did, I was asked for more. When I added them, there were complaints that they were all in Italian, even if in fact the FAO publishes in English, and also, well, you'd kind of expect the principal sources on an Italian horse to be in Italian. That is not collaboration, it is the defence of entrenched prejudice. No-one has the right to decide whether this a situation like the Spanish jennet, or whether the Spanish jennet is or isn't real, or to arbitrarily split the Napoletano into two Napoletani, one for each of us, or merge the Tolfetano into the Maremmano because they both come from Tuscany, these are not choices open to this project. But I think we do have the freedom to evaluate a source, and reject it if it doesn't satisfy. What I wanted to do when I came here was to fill in some gaps on the rare breeds of Italy. I still hope that some time I might be able to do that.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to point out in the gentlest way possible that statements like "But there are also a vast number of stupendously awful ones that rely on some really stupendously awful sources." seem to imply that every member of the project has been the one to add those awful sources. Keep in mind that a lot of the articles may predate the great "must have sources" divide that occured about 2007 or so. Prior to that, sources and citations weren't done on Wikipedia, really. If an article had a list of sources at the bottom, it was considered amazingly sourced, whether or not those were reliable sources. When someone comes in and starts saying things about how awful the articles are and why aren't they better... it really makes the already here editors very defensive and that sets a bad tone. Recognize that acting like we should have done something about all those articles is just going to make folks defensive. Personally, I hold myself to some pretty stringent sourcing standards, but I have found the best method for getting others to do so is just to quietly remind them that things need better sources. There really is a reason that the {{cn}} and related templates exist, if the information isn't libelous or demonstrably sourced to something that's utter rubbish, even if its NOT sourced, it makes more sense to tag it or move it to the talk page, rather than hiding it. Hidden text in the article is pretty frowned on, so tagging or moving to the talk page is considered more polite, and is actually more useful. And then asking if others have sources is also good. Flinging accusations, from both sides, just isn't getting anyone anywhere, is it? Hendricks is a pretty unreliable source, but the other US books are not considered unreliable, and when they differ from other sources, we need to discuss on the talk page, not just play edit war games and discuss in edit summaries. That's what talk pages are for. Yes, perhaps some Italian sources are better, but that doesn't invalidate published English sources and mean they can't be also used ...
Quite frankly, with this sort of blow up (from both sides) I just want to go do something else entirely. I have oodles and oodles of bishops I could be working on. When the enviroment in the Equine project is so nasty, folks are going to stay away, and the articles WON'T get improved, which is what I gather JLAN wants. Frankly, when folks complain about how bad the current editors work is... well, why should I bother? A little honey goes a long way here. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
JLAN, please do chill a bit; we really are trying to do our best with what we have, and WP prefers (wherever possible) to have articles written in English to cite sources also written in English. It's vital not to delete stuff that is sourced, whatever your personal views on it. Add a relevant tag, where appropriate, and then wait for a consensus before anything is done at all with it. In many cases, the best that can be done is to put both sides of the argument (or both theories, or both viewpoints, or however you'd like to call it), and let the readers decide for themselves. It's called 'teaching the controversy' - which just means letting readers know that there IS some controversy. As we can't re-phrase cited sources too closely (plagiarism), sometimes editors spend a long time getting to the gist of what is meant, and then phrasing it the best way they can. That's the best we can do, From my experience, Montana is a very careful editor in this respect, and I'd be very doubtful indeed that anything MT does could be labelled as either OR or SYNTH. It's vitally important that you become less confrontational if you want to collaborate with peole - collaboratin ghas to involve people who want to work with you. You have to make friends, and keep them, to be able to collaborate synergistically on a project of any kind. Please chill out :o) Pesky (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments, here and elsewhere, and all the good points you make. A few considerations:

  • I started using hidden text when I was shown how to do so, finding messages left for me in that format. In the last few days I have been systematically moving those messages, along with others expressed in edit summaries such as that in over-bold above, to the relevant talk pages for discussion
  • I can see how my "stupendously awful" hyperbole might make some people defensive; but not people who know that they have applied a reasonable degree of scholarly rigour to their writing and referencing. However, I really don't see how anyone could feel that that sort of rather silly remark is an implication of failure by existing editors. The number of articles and the amount of work needed to make even a small improvement to any one of them must exonerate all and any from any such accusation
  • That statement is nevertheless regrettably true. The 'sources' history above helps to explain why. I thought I might make a start on changing a tiny bit of that, in a dark and cobwebby corner where I happen to have a little first-hand knowledge, but that has been made virtually impossible by the continual intervention of one editor
  • I have of course tried tagging things, tried discussion on talk pages such as Pony, Italian Heavy Draft, Haflinger horse and many others; I have even, just briefly, tried being polite. I have been totally perplexed by the degree of resistance and indifference to any expansion or improvement whatsoever; it's almost as if the authors of those articles thought it more important to protect them from change than to improve them
  • I agree 100% about Italian or Spanish or other foreign sources being no better than English ones; but of course the reverse is equally true. One editor's declared inability to read those languages does not invalidate sources that use them, nor does the ability to read the English sources enhance their status. There's also the matter of context: if you are writing about, say, the traditional methods of casting iron tea-kettles in Morioka, Iwate Prefecture, Japan, you are likely to find that many of your sources are in Japanese; but you are also likely (though not guaranteed) to find that those sources are not just more numerous but also more reliable
  • The nasty atmosphere is the principal reason that I decided to bring this latest piece of idiocy to this page, rather than continuing it in obscurity. Just how many people have come here, thought they might like to be contribute, and been deterred by the kind of reception I have received? Why are there so few people active in this project, I wonder?
  • I really envy anyone who has mediaeval bishops to turn to instead. My own field of (very limited) expertise is the history of music theory, and tempo in particular. But there is just no point writing about music in Wikipedia as a definitive online encyclopedia already exists, and there's really very little to add to it other than tiny bits of original research. So I'm going to stick around here for a while at least, and hope that a storm will have helped to clear the air
  • I've been told over and over again that I should not delete stuff that is sourced. Well, that may be right. A few days ago I deleted from a forgotten article about a rare French horse (the Mérens) a breed description that began "the breed has a head" and cited as reference a dead link to this site. No, no, BAD boy, slap on the wrist. A few hours ago someone posted a properly referenced addition to the Equestrianism page. It has already been removed, and an unreferenced assertion made in the edit summary. So I'd really like to know why I'm getting told one thing when other people have clearly been told something quite different. But much more importantly, I'd also like to know what other people think are the chances that that editor will make a further contribution. Has anyone sent a message of thanks for the contribution, an explanation of why it was removed without discussion, an invitation to work on some less visible page? I suspect not. I've not reverted that last edit as in the circumstances I think to do so would be unnecessarily inflammatory. But I think someone should.
    These comments inserted above earlier post by montanabw for clarity following edit conflict Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

On this one, I'm just tired of these endless, useless debates. JLAN arrived here with an attack on the TB article the day it hit the main page, went on to try and start a fight with Dana at the Haflinger article, and when thwarted there, hid a large section of the Equestrianism article just because he disagreed with it. Each of these actions was supplemented by condescending, snarky remarks about how stupid and awful the existing content was, but providing no supporting sourcing or evidence for his own position. On the other hand, I will say that JLAN has done very good work to create about a dozen stubs on various Italian and Spanish breeds, plus two navboxes and some category work. All that is good. BUT, what JLAN also does is viciously attack anyone who questions anything he does, implying that the rest of us are too stupid and ignorant to dare interfere with him, Any attempt I make to try and meet in the middle is met with things such as the above rant, and, frankly, being told to go elsewhere. I'm tired of trying to educate this user. I shall continue to edit in good faith and do my best to treat JLAN the same as anyone else. In turn, I suggest that JLAN cease these personal attacks and start doing better research to support his contentions. Those who have worked with me in the past know that I will change my mind and my position on an issue when presented with solid evidence. So find some. Montanabw(talk) 19:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Follow up to the above post: JLAN, you are getting this treatment because you confuse what is fact and what is simply your own opinion at least some of the time, at other times, what you think is undisputed truth is actually highly disputed, but most of all you rarely provide ANY sources or evidence for your assertions, let alone one in English. And you also appear incapable of reading the good faith advice I have repeatedly left on your talk page. I think it's time for you to prove yourself by providing verifiable sources, collaborating for more than 48 hours before resorting back to snark, continuing the good work you have done by expanding the rare breeds articles in line with the breeds task force article guidelines (such as taking the breed standards, translating the Italian, and adding them to the articles you've created). It is considered something of an informal honor on WP to become the kind of editor whose edits are rarely even reviewed because everyone just says, "oh, that's [insert credible editor here]'s work, it will be no problem." Become that person. Montanabw(talk) 20:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I must thank you for displaying yet again precisely the level of courtesy I have come to expect from you. Taking your persuasively presented arguments in order:

  • The Thoroughbred article contained on the day it was on the front page an unreferenced and possibly incorrect assertion that the three foundation sires were Arabs, an assertion that several expert authors such as Elwyn Hartley Edwards and Brander (1971) are careful to avoid, using the words 'eastern' and 'Oriental' respectively to describe the origins of the three; their books are written in English. That assertion remains, still unreferenced, in the article; the discussion is still on the talk page
  • The Haflinger horse article is a very good article in many ways; it had a number of errors which I pointed out, one or two of which have been corrected. It still suffers from a far from neutral point of view, with entire sections being entirely about the breed in Austria. To take a single random example, the opening of the Austrian stud book is mentioned, but the 1931 mare register of the Deposito Cavalli Stalloni of Ferrara is not, even though I have provided the link to a reasonably reputable history of the breed and offered to help with translation and interpretation of the text. The discussion is on the talk page there; I'd be interested to know if others think that it reads as "trying to start a fight"
  • I reverted a bit of infantile vandalism on the Equestrianism page, the blanking out of the Horses on Coins section; saw and deleted a biased and unreferenced statement; and then noticed that the whole section had a Weasel tag on it that had been there for some time (since January 2009, in fact), and was in any case largely unreferenced, so hid the worst of the directionless chatter so that the author of the article could take care of it. The biased and unreferenced statement and the directionless chatter are both back in the article now of course. I do not remember describing that content as "stupid and awful", but let me remedy that oversight now. That article is not a good article, but representative of almost every fault imaginable in a Wikipedia article; it is formless, discursive, weaselly, unreferenced and biased, for starters. As already suggested elsewhere, might it not be more valuable to do something about that than to remove a hyphen from my spelling of north-western?
  • As already made clear on a number of occasions, I have no use for your personal remarks, whether intended to be complimentary or, as so much more often, not. I will say, though, that I have been able to do so very little here because of the constant, endless, nagging harassment of just one editor, the limitless time I have wasted producing unnecessary references for undisputed facts, the hours spent fiddling with pointless detail when I could, to the best of my admittedly limited ability, have been contributing to the project
  • In keeping with Wikipedia practice, you are invited to either reference or withdraw your suggestion that I "cease these personal attacks". Having not yet made an attack, I am not in a position to cease.
    Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
JLAN, you need to relax. Montana is not harassing you - she is attempting to help you learn the ways and means of Wikipedia, and to edit correctly and helpfully. Unfortunately, she is correct that at this point you often put opinion forward as fact and ask that information be included without providing good sources. To take the Haflinger article as an example, the reference you provided (I'm assuming you mean the Provincial Federation of South Tyrol Haflinger Horse Breeders ref) doesn't mention the information you discuss above. And, although you volunteered to help with a "compare and contrast" (not a translation) you have yet to come forward and actually do it. Although you have done wonderfully on many of the stubs you have created, in other areas you are unnecessarily combative, uncivil and denigrating of the articles that others have worked on and have attempted/are attempting to help you with. People keep telling you this, and you keep acting the same way. Being helpful, polite, trying to work within Wikipedia's guidelines and attempting to improve articles instead of removing references, hiding information and posting general insults will get you a lot further than the opposite. Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, one of us had the wrong link, probably me. Anyway, it's here. That site has a useful bibliography, too. I apologise for not doing the compare-and-contrast. Unfortunately I have found myself distracted by other concerns. As for removing references, I thought I was asked to when you wrote in reply to a post of mine "Equinekingdom is not reliable. It should be replaced or removed from all of the articles that it is used in (only around 30 I think, so not that widely cited)". I fear you cannot have both a full barrel and a drunken wife, as an Italian proverb says. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it should be removed it it's an external link and replaced if it's used as a reference. In places where someone has actually bothered to add a reference (even if it's a bad one), care should be taken to replace the reference and update the information if necessary, rather than simply removing the reference. If an unreliable source is used as an external link, it can simply be removed. The Haflinger discussion can be taken back to that talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we just stop this ...

I've pointed out my opinion, and obviously no one is greatly impressed, as I'm not seeing a great deal of change of behavior. I'm thinking of oil and water here. I don't care to play mediator nor do I feel like playing playground monitor. I am just going to continue working on my own projects. Switzerland am I! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of education over mediation, IMHO, but no sense beating your head against a brick wall. Someone needs a lesson in civility, and it isn't me. However, I appear to not be the person who can deliver the education, so I'm back to editing, with a cluebat if need be. Montanabw(talk) 01:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Chamberlin, J. Edward Horse: How the Horse has Shaped Civilization New York:BlueBridge 2006, p. 164 ISBN 0-9742405-9-1
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference napoletano was invoked but never defined (see the help page).