Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine/Archive 9

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Technical terms in articles

I would like to get feedback on the use and explanation of technical terms (jargon) in equine articles. I think almost everybody in this project will know that equine-related terms are abundant, but these terms are not always understood by lay readers, and I feel this needs addressing. The instance which has motivated me to write this is that over at Spiti Horse, the expression "cover" in relation to mating is used and to my mind, many lay readers will not know what this means. I edited the article by adding "(mate)" as an explanatory term, however this was deleted. So, I am asking whether we should be inserting explanatory terms. I am not on a mission here to wipe out technical equine terms - I am not even suggesting we delete them - but what do people think about placing explanatory, more every-day terms, in parentheses, to help readers more easily access equine articles. DrChrissy (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That seems to be standard suggestions during FACs (explanation of jargon in parenthesis). An article should be understandable to lay-readers. Note that I'm mainly interested in horses from a biological standpoint, "true" equestrians probably have different feelings about this. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with FM. I also check to see if the term has an article (I was surprised to see how many do), or if it may be included in defined terms in another article so I can wikilink it. For example "cover" is described well in the horse breeding article: Horse_breeding#Covering_the_mare. Atsme📞📧 18:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that - I will add the link. DrChrissy (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
We have several resources to help with this. The first is our (so far) 100% sourced Glossary of equestrian terms. There, we have links to other articles that also contain lists and definitions, such as the Equine anatomy article and others. We also have a ton of articles. In some cases, it is OK to tone down the jargon, but other times, we come under criticism from those who are knowledgeable if we don't use correct terminology. It becomes really clunky to constantly explain everything (i.e. "horse foo was foaled (born) in 1999. The gelding (castrated male horse) was a chestnut (reddish-brown-colored horse) sired (fathered) by Foobar and his dam (mommy) was Foofy. He was trained (had a person teach him to be nice to people) by Joe Schmoo, a former jockey (short guy who rides racehorses)... ) And so we spent a LOT of time getting the glossary going, and it always can benefit from having new words added. If there isn't a glossary of medical and veterinary lingo, we should look at creating one... though Wiktionary links can also work. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Like FunkMonk my interest in horses isn't that of "true" equestrians—in my case, the use of horses as motive power—but my attitude would be that if a more widely understandable term exists which doesn't degrade meaning, Wikipedia should always be using that. Remember, Wikipedia has a lot of readers who don't have English as their first language; plus, while I'm not sure how you'd test it, I'd be prepared to bet that a disproportionate number of readers of a lot of the horsey articles are people without technical knowledge—as well as the eight-year-old girls who like ponies, there are also going to be a steady stream of readers interested in the history of racing and cavalry rather than in horsemanship or animal husbandry per se. (Plus, of course, if the article is at TFA/DYK, it will be getting large numbers of readers with no background knowledge at all.) Thus, my inclination would be "born" over "foaled", "mated" over "covered", measurements in inches and meters as well as hands, probably even "mother and father" over "dam and sire", etc. (For the same reason, railroad articles say "dismantled" instead of "lifted", arts articles talk about "paint base" instead of "sizing", architecture articles say "rectangular stone blocks on the corners" rather than "ashlar quoining", and so on.) Write one level down and explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used are both explicitly stated in the MOS, and while I'm generally quite leery of treating the MOS as holy writ in this case I think the policy is sensible. (It was explained to me by Giano many moons ago as "always write as if you're explaining to a bright 14-year-old with no prior knowledge of the subject", which I think is about right.) ‑ Iridescent 08:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
While I agree that it is appropriate to write for the 14 year old, a 14 year old is generally eager to learn the correct words for a technical subject. (Heck, I actually learned most of these fancy horse words when I was about 8 years old, we horsey girls are that way...) I do think there is a fine line between using and overusing technical language, but on the bulk of situations, it is a disservice to the reader to go do absurd lengths to avoid it. On the horse articles we put hours of work into the {{hands}} template and its cousins so that we have full three-way conversion of all measurements. We also have a very nice glossary for all the weird words. As for other issues, we use extensive wikilinking to our technical terms -- in any WP article on a topic new to me, I always see some unfamiliar terms and use the links; it is possible to "dumb down" an article to the point of ridiculousness (and saying a boy horse instead of colt (horse) or a girl horse instead of filly -- or "mother and father" instead of "sire and dam" is exhibit A on that one). Frankly, we should learn about ashlar quoining (that one was new to me!). Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

White (horse)

Of note to project members, a title move request here:

Um, that's a link to a the move request on the talk page? White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I found it: Talk:White (horse)#Requested move 26 September 2016. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


I think I'm back. At least, starting to plow through my watchlist (Three weeks of relative inactivity! Eep!). Anyway, along the way, I found an article that is super low-hanging fruit for someone to clean up. Looks like a bablefish translation. Mare milk. Montanabw(talk) 17:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Question for a task force or project

I'm noticing more activity on the bucking bull articles (see, e.g. Chicken on a Chain) and they don't really have a project tag. It occurred to me that we might want to consider creating wikiproject rodeo, either as a "child" project of WPEQ or WP agriculture or both. Cattle need respect too! (LOL) Thoughts?

Why not? Atsme📞📧 20:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I would join! White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm new, hi all. Anyway, I'm going to be working on bullriding -bulls and performers- articles and perhaps other rodeo articles too at times. So count me in. It's funny you mention Chicken on a Chain cause I just finished rounding up some good source on him to add to the topic. Dawnleelynn (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

New section to ban-ei..?

I wanted to ask you before soldiering on and starting section about my biggest pet peeve:

What is clearest way to explain that ban-ei isn't breed(as claimed in several English-language horse books, that have been further found themselves being used as references and those references taken as literal truth...) but sport?

(I believe bona fide I can at least try....) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Race track question

I'll admit upfront that this is me misusing this page as WP:Reference Desk/Horsey things and unlikely to ever end up in an article, but does anyone have any idea why Goshen (village), New York ended up with not one but two major racetracks (Good Time Park and Historic Track)? It's a tiny place in the middle of nowhere, and even horsey epicenters like Newmarket and Louisville get by with just one track. Is there some economic or political reason for this (the nearest place to NYC or Philadelphia to legalize gambling, or some such), was harness racing genuinely such a big deal back then that having two operational racetracks in a town you can walk across in ten minutes was economically viable, or is it something to do with needing tracks of different lengths for different races and it being more efficient to have them next to each other so the horses never needed to be transported out of town? (Incidentally, if press rumors are be believed, Good Time Park is set to become Legoland USA, so this article may start getting a lot more attention.) ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The article makes it sound like they built the first track, then needed a bigger one and instead of expanding it, built the second one which was longer. (I'm not an expert on Standardbred racing, but most races seem to be a mile long, so a half-mile track would mean two circuits.) I'm not sure exactly how popular Standardbred/harness racing was back then, but from contemporary sources it seems to have been much better known than now. A while back I read a source that made it sound like Thoroughbred/riding races were relatively unpopular before the 1920s or '30s, and most racing was done in harness. It's likely that was a matter of convenience, because a harness racer could also double as personal transportation by pulling a buggy (Amish people don't race horses, but I've seen them using Standardbreds for buggy horses and riding them), but some flat racehorses are extremely high-strung and therefore harder to ride to town or whatever. As for it being a little town, rural areas are obviously more conductive to horse breeding, so it was probably a matter of convenience. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding to what WAF said, my take on it is that since harness racing was the first "modern" sport in America [1], it was popular at a time when horses were the primary mode of transportation. My guess is that Historic Track, being a half-mile (900 m) track, was preferred for harness racing, especially considering the size & location of the stands vs spectator view. The track is also a financial feed for a couple of other related non-profit entities, so the incentive to keep it going under good management/marketing/promotion was there. It's also a non-betting track which was donated by the Harriman family in 1978 to a nonprofit group, so different rules applied to entry fees, purses, costs, etc. Good Time Park was a betting track, a mile long, accommodated a wider variety of racing, and was privately owned. Their problems might have stemmed from accommodations, and/or poor marketing/promotion/management, and a dependency on wagering at a time when few were gambling. Atsme📞📧 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The Historic Track article mentions parimutuel machines being removed, so it must have been a betting track at some point. I can see how the management would have been reluctant to close Historic Track, both because of the negative publicity from closing something dating back to the early days of the US and because of the knock-on effect on the Harness Racing Hall of Fame next door, but I still struggle to see how Good Time Park could ever have seemed like a viable plan. Presumably when it opened in the 1930s automobiles weren't common enough for day-trippers to come up from the cities in any great numbers, and the population of Goshen can't have been so horse-mad that racing at one track would have been particularly well-attended, let alone two, even if they were staging different kinds of race. (Anecdotally, I agree that harness hacing—or at least, sulky racing in some form—was the default form of racing in the US before the war. In any U.S. 1930s or 40s film, comic, etc including a racing scene—even Mickey Mouse—the horses are always pulling sulkies.) ‑ Iridescent 22:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
You're going back to its early history - there was gambling & people made bets, but not like modern times. Also keep in mind that it was a half-mile track whereas Good Time Park was a mile long and better suited for Thoroughbred racing - the sport of Kings. Atsme📞📧 22:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe that it was the original location of the Hambletonian Stakes, and I am pinging WilliamJE and Mateusz K for their input. And yes, we can be Horsey ref desk! Montanabw(talk) 21:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Newbie Help!

I straightened out the total mess of titleing and weird redirects on this article, but it's still a mess, is in babelfish English and I think we may have an earlier version somewhere per the List of Horse Breeds... Karachay horse. If I try to fix it, I will snark and bite a newbie, so perhaps White Arabian Filly or Horsegeek could do some basic cleanup! Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 20:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Horsegeek made some cleanup edits and what is there now is in good English. I'll do some research later and see if I can expand it a bit. White Arabian Filly Neigh 19:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm pinging Justlettersandnumbers to see what can be done about the rest of it; JLAN is very good with the articles on these obscure breeds with foreign language sources. I also am trying to figure out what that user did, as they seem to have carried over some permissions from and may have somehow moved or deleted a previous article we had on the topic... it's quite a tangle. Montanabw(talk) 08:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Equine/Archive 9 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Horse breed infobox

A couple of years ago, almost all the animal breed infoboxes were updated to use {{infobox animal breed}} as a basis. For some reason, {{infobox horse breed}} got left out of that. I've experimented a bit at Kathiawari to see what an updated version might look like, and now invite comment from others. The advantages that I see are the inclusion of parameters for conservation status, distribution, height, weight and coat colour(s), and the possibility of adding several different breed standards without endless repetition of "Breed standards". I don't have any opinion on the aesthetic merits or otherwise. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Distribution would be hard to figure in some cases, but I like adding height, weight and color and think those would really improve the box. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion at the template here: Template_talk:Infobox_horse_breed#New_discussion. Easier to be at the template. Montanabw(talk) 00:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
That seems a bit unnecessary after I'd already started one here, where more people are likely to see it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, so here's the rest of the discussion from over there moved back over here:

I do agree that adding several different breed standards in one place would be an excellent improvement and support that idea wholeheartedly. I think a height/weight parameter would be useful, but a single line for each and the range, not with the male/female breakdown, not only because it would bloat the infobox, but also because horses have relatively little sexual dimorphism, plus many breed standards don't break it down by sex anyway (the FAO does, but not really sure who else, and the FAO is doing a generic livestock thing with that, IMHO). Montanabw(talk) 5:58 pm, 21 December 2016, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

Yeah, I agree on there not being that much of a weight/height difference between the sexes with horses like there is with dogs and other animals, so one line should work for each. We might even be able to make weight and height appear on the same line on top of each other like birthdate and birthplace appear together in people articles. I'm thinking that Template:Infobox dog breed has a neat way of listing multiple breed standards that we can copy, and we can maybe steal a few things from that one as well as the one named above. I could add additional parameters if this isn't protected. White Arabian Filly Neigh 3:39 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)

Now, onward. Pinging Pigsonthewing for input on use of "wrappers" and parameter formatting, and RexxS who did a lot of work on the horse breeds templates in the past; but neither of them are project members. Montanabw(talk) 21:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

For discussion, here are the templates to compare the parameters. I can't make the columns balance with exactly the same width, if someone wants to tweak that. Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
<!-- Begin Infobox horse.  The text of the article should go AFTER this section. See: -->
<!-- talk:Infobox horse -->
<!-- for full explanation of the syntax used in this template. -->
{{Infobox horse 
|name          = 
|image         = 
|image_caption = 
|features      = 
|altname       = <br> 
|nickname      = <br> 
|country       = 
|group1        = 
|std1          = 
|group2        = 
|std2          = 
|group3        = 
|std3          = 
|group4        = 
|status        = [not recognized|extinct]
|note          = 
<!-- End Infobox horse info.  Article begins here -->
{{Infobox dog breed
| name     = 
| image    = 
| image_alt = 
| image_caption = 
| altname  = 
| nickname = 
| stock = 
| country  = 
| patronage    = 
| weight       = 
| maleweight   = 
| femaleweight = 
| height       = 
| maleheight   = 
| femaleheight = 
| coat         = 
| color        = <--! or | colour =  -->
| litter_size  = 
| life_span    = 
<!-----Classification and standards----->
| fcigroup   = 
| fcisection = 
| fcinum     = 
| fcistd     = <!-- or | fcistd1 =  and | fcistd2 =  -->
| akcgroup   = 
| akcstd     = <!-- or | akcstd1 =  and | akcstd2 =  -->
| akcfss     = 
| akcmisc    = 
| ankcgroup  = 
| ankcstd    = <!-- or | ankcstd1 = and | ankcstd2 = -->
| ckcgroup   = 
| ckcstd     = <!-- or | ckcstd1 =  and | ckcstd2 =  -->
| ckcmisc    = 
| kcukgroup  = 
| kcukstd    = <!-- or | kcukstd1 = and | kcukstd2 = -->
| nzkcgroup  = 
| nzkcstd    = <!-- or | nzkcstd1 = and | nzkcstd2 = -->
| ukcgroup   = 
| ukcstd     = <!-- or | ukcstd1 =  and | ukcstd2 =  -->
| notrecognized = <!-- or | notrecognised =  -->
| landrace   =  <!-- or | cross =  -->
| extinct    = 
| note = 
{{Infobox animal breed
|name                  = 
|image                 = 
|image_size            = 
|alt                   = 
|caption               = 
|status                = 
|alt_name              = 
|nickname              = 
|country               = 
|distribution          = 
|standard              = 
|use                   = 
|male_weight           = 
|female_weight         = 
|male_height           = 
|female_height         = 
|skin_color            = 
|egg_color             = 
|comb                  = 
|crest                 = 
|feather               = 
|coat                  = 
|type                  = 
|wool_color            = 
|face_color            = 
|horn                  = 
|color                 = 
|litter_size           = 
|life_span             = 
|fur_type              = 
|features              = 
|trait_label           = 
|trait_data            = 
|trait1_label          = 
|trait1_data           = <!-- etc, up to trait4_label / trait4_data -->
|classification_label  = 
|classification_data   = 
|classification1_label = 
|classification1_data  = <!-- etc, up to classification8_label / classification8_data -->
|notes                 = 
|vernacular_name       = 
|binominal_name        = 
|trinominal_name       = 


Obviously, some things like "wool" or "fur" we all agree are not needed. Horse breeds also have nothing like the AKC that creates a universal HQ for all breeds, either, so that's a mess. What we do have on the breeds template is that e. ferus caballus is already transcluded, so no need for a species name parameter. Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are the incompatibilities that I can see so far:
  1. Template:Infobox animal breed has a fixed headerstyle, so all headers have this background colour.
  2. Template:Infobox animal breed has no titlestyle or bodystyle, so the caption lives above the infobox, rather than appearing to be inside it as in Template:Infobox horse breed.
  3. Template:Infobox animal breed has only one image available; while Template:Infobox horse breed can accommodate two.
  4. Template:Infobox animal breed has one field for "standard"; Template:Infobox horse breed has up to six for "breed standards".
  5. Template:Infobox animal breed has no field for status (e.g. "Not recognized by any major registry") which is part of Template:Infobox horse breed.
In addition, Template:Infobox animal breed has no single field for height or weight, which the above discussion seems to think desirable. I'm not trying to pour cold water on the proposal – indeed, I'm all in favour of reducing the proliferation of templates – but I did want to make clear the amount of modification required on Template:Infobox animal breed to allow it to be the base for Template:Infobox horse breed. I'm guessing you'll also need consensus at that template to accept the modifications. --RexxS (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, RexxS. I know you've done work on the current template. Some things:
  • The animal breed template can accommodate any number of images. The syntax is [[File:Image1.jpg|frameless]][[File:Image2.jpg|frameless]] etc. There's an example at Swedish Polled.
  • It can accommodate any number of breed standards using {{ubl}}. The syntax is {{ubl|[url1 authority1]|[url2 authority2]}} etc. – example at Valais Blackneck. This has the advantage of avoiding the repetition of "breed standards" on every line under the "Breed standards" heading (see Lipizzan for an extreme example), and the disadvantage that the authority can't be wikilinked.
  • the status field of the animal breed infobox is free text, so does not restrict us to a couple of (rather rare) options; like other fields, it can accommodate several different status assessments using {{ubl}} (or a simple <br> if there are only a few, as at Valais Blackneck).
  • The current infobox breaks whenever it is stretched – the top doesn't expand to line up with the bottom; example here (of course I know that I caused that by using {{nobreak}}; but the infobox should be able to adapt to user errors).
  • I forgot to mention above that the current box doesn't have a "use" parameter either
  • Montanabw, if the horse breed box is updated to use the animal breed one as a basis, the irrelevant parameters such as horns, wool, comb etc obviously won't be activated, and will be visible only in edit mode; the species name will be pre-added to the trinomial name field.
  • Horses may or may not show sexual dimorphism (I'll get to that in a minute). But the fact is that there are documented differences in height and weight between the sexes in many breeds. Kathiawari is just one of many examples (it's based on a substantial statistical survey there). Our job is not to impose our own preconceptions on our readers, but to write what is reported in reliable sources. If the sources say that the mares are shorter, then so should we. But single fields for "height" and "weight" are clearly desirable too, as RexxS says, for those other cases. Just as an aside, my own speculation on this: in any environment where unpromising foals go to the butcher (which, let's face it, is almost everywhere in the world, with only a very few (mostly anglophone) exceptions), an under-sized colt is more likely to be eliminated than an under-sized filly, who may still make a good brood-mare. Similar effects probably operate in other animal breeds too; this kind of dimorphism as a result of selection pressure is obviously different from sexual dimorphism in wild animals. End of digression, sorry!
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, Justlettersandnumbers, but I was expecting to convert {{Infobox horse breed}} to become a wrapper for {{Infobox animal breed}} so that the present articles would not require to be re-written – after all, checking and modifying all 362 transclusions could be a chore.
The core template, {{Infobox}} makes provision for multiple images with separate captions and alt text, which {{Infobox horse breed}} makes use of. I would consider it a retrograde step to attempt to shoehorn two images into a single field. See Mustang for a clean implementation.
I do agree that the repetition of "Breed standards" in Lipizzan is a poor implementation. I'd re-write the display to be a list of what are currently the labels linked to the pdfs of the standards, to look something like this:
Breed Standards
 Verband der Lipizzanerzüchter in Österreich
 Lipica Stud, Slovenia
 Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Italy
 Lipizzaner Society of Great Britain
 Lipizzan International Federation
 Lipizzan Association of North America
I'm always wary of replacing fixed options with free text. The point of options is to help ensure that editors use the field in a consistent manner. Where only a few values are appropriate, then it's not an improvement to allow other stuff in that field.
I don't see any box breaking in Special:Permalink/755394718, but if the caption was unable to wrap in the same width as the infobox, I can appreciate that the border would misalign. If you can give me an example of where that happens in practice, I'll sort out a solution (like moving the border to a container div). Anyway, if you let me know what OS and browser you are using, I'll investigate further. If you place the caption outside the infobox, you encourage editors to resurrect the scheme where there's no caption but the first table row becomes the title, which is a step backward for screen readers.
I would expect to see fields implemented for height and weight for those animal breeds that have little sexual dimorphism. That shouldn't be a difficult job. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

My take:

  1. If by "wrapper" we can still just use the title Infobox horse breed and keep our special page -- somehow, I hope that will continue to be OK... I'm confused, I do find that {{infobox person}} with its dozens of parameters is hopelessly complex for someone like me to use; I like the specialty parameters pulled out for whatever subject we are dealing with. Just KISS, that's all. (I see that Swedish Polled uses {{Infobox cattle breed}} )
  2. We must fix the "The current infobox breaks whenever it is stretched" problem, regardless, so let's at least do that. I agree with Justlettersandnumbers that it's a problem, it happened at the Kathiawari article, as JLAN noted above.
  3. The "features" parameters is probably the most confusing to everyone. I think renaming it or being more specific what we are after here would help (maybe having a break ant the "traits" heading would help, just not with the ugly color stipe):
    Perhaps add instructions that what we are after is the "look? -- not height, weight or color, but why a 15-hand, 900-lb, bay Arabian horse is different from a 15-hand, 900-lb, bay Paso Fino, for example. It has to remain kind of vague, as there are a lot of different things that may make a breed unique. Thoughts?
    I am of mixed feelings about adding a "use" parameter, I think that if a breed has a distinct use, it would be part of the "features" parameter. If you build it, they will come... I fear laundry lists (like the infamous case of the barrel racing Percheron or the show jumping Tennessee Walking Horse (not that they can't, but that they shouldn't)
    We could add a "color" parameter, but may want to have instructions that we don't need to put in every last color unless specific colors are a breed characteristic (i.e. Friesian horses are always black]], Appaloosas have spots,etc.)
    I think that single parameters fields for "height" and "weight" given as an average or a range are appropriate; again, with instructions that they are optional; for those relatively few breeds that have actual statistical studies or breed registry standards that insist on differences between the sexes, those who care can just add them without a need for more parameters that people might artificially fill out when there is no need. (My aside: Studies indicate that gelding colts rather young allows them to grow taller but not as massive; JLAN is possibly right about canning culls, but only 10% of all males are supposed to remain intact to improve the quality of a breeding population anyway. I also think that selective breeding for sexual dimorphism is at best a very inexact science driven by human anthropomorphism more than logic)
    I do NOT think we want to get crazy with parameters for head, neck, hindquarters, legs, etc... that is what our standard "Characteristics" section is for.
  4. I think that the way to do the links to breed standards as a header something like RexxS proposed with as many or few labels as needed would work, but KISS because much infobox drama is because most of us aren't programmers. Maybe even make it collapsable by default so it doesn't overwhelm the box.
  5. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which has pretty much been trashed by the infobox wars, we are not bound by any decisions made for the animal breed infobox, though what they do right is worth emulating.
  6. The colors in infoboxes are bing phased out; they are a source of unnecessary drama. I am quite opposed to having colors as a default. I also loathe the pukey color used on the breeds infobox.
  7. I really dislike the title floating above the infobox boundary, but that is my own personal style preference; I'd like the title inside the border, but will go with whichever direction styles in general are going.
  8. I did the dual images at Mustang and I like the way they stacked vertically and allowed explanatory captions. There are probably some other breeds where something like this might be needed; few, but good to be able to do it that way. If more than two images are desired, the editors can probably create a "mosaic" like we did at Equus (genus)
  9. We have no need for a "subspecies" or other taxonomy parameter. All horse breeds are the same subspecies, hence equus ferus caballus is added by default on the existing template. The extant subspecies of the Przewalski horse isn't a breed, so it uses a different infobox.

So, bottom line for me is that I feel the strongest about: 1) No separate "male" and "female" parameters; if we have the height/weight parameters, just allow them to be expanded by those who care. 2) The colored headers are godawful, there has to be a better way. 3) Fix the breed standards area, and collapsable is good. Montanabw(talk) 20:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe use conformation instead of characteristics? That would allow us to note that an Arabian has a dished face and a Friesian has leg feather, but still not have a separate thing for each body part. I would be OK with adding use, but I think we'd limit it to the top 5 most common within that breed. Same with color. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
There are a lot of different threads going on here and we really need to concentrate on what you want. I can't see a broken infobox on any revision of Kathiawari, so I'd be grateful, MontanaBW if you could give the oldid of the revision that you saw was broken (and your browser if you don't mind), so that I can see what has happened. In the meantime, I'll implement a fix to {{Infobox horse breed}} that I think should keep the border together and a separate fix for the "breed standard" problem. Let me know how you find them. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
RexxS, this version displays as broken for me in Safari Version 5.1.10 under OS 10.6.8; it displays correctly in Chrome and Firefox under the same OS, and, in desktop mode, in Safari under iOS 10 on iPhone SE. In the Wikipedia app for iPhone the horse breed infobox always has a heavier frame over the title than round the rest of the box. I hope all this is now of only academic interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers. Now I know what OS/Browser combination is causing the problem, I'll try to find a satisfactory solution. There are a number of editors who prefer the caption/title to be inside the infobox, so I would prefer to be able to meet their requests if possible. Nevertheless, in the meantime, I suggest we revert Template:Infobox horse breed to an outside caption for now. I'll do that as part of the update. --RexxS (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


I think that, basically, we have a debate over what parameters from {{Infobox animal breed}} should be added to Infobox horse breed, and if any formatting changes should be made. First off, any obvious existing syntax errors need to be fixed. We probably should change the "features" parameter to something akin to the "traits" subheading, but not with the ugly color, and probably adding some specific parameters (maybe just "size" for height, weight, and whatever else, I don't know). I like what you did the breed standards bit. And then, figuring out how to make the existing boxes transfer to the new and improved design so we don't have to redo 300+ of them. Montanabw(talk) 06:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we can sandbox it:

<!-- Begin Infobox horse.  The text of the article should go AFTER this section. See: -->
<!-- talk:Infobox horse -->
<!-- for full explanation of the syntax used in this template. -->
{{Infobox horse 
|name          = 
|image         = 
|image_caption = 
|features      =  CHANGE THIS SOMEHOW; maybe "characteristics" or "traits"?
:Possibly adding the following parameters  (maybe) |use                   =   |height           =  (average or range)|weight           =(average or range) |color                 = (if notable as a breed characteristic)
|altname       = <br> 
|nickname      = <br> <--maybe we can merge this with altname?
|country       = 
| header20 = Breed Standards <--MAYBE MAKE THIS COLLAPSABLE BY DEFAULT?
|  label25 =  
|   data25 = [ Verband der Lipizzanerzüchter in Österreich]
|status        = [not recognized|extinct] <--not really sure we need this, though we DO have several extinct horse breed articles ( e.g. [[Narragansett Pacer]], etc.) 
|note          = 
<!-- End Infobox horse info.  Article begins here -->
Favory Pallavicina.jpg
A modern Lipizzan
Conservation statusDOM
Other namesLipizzaner, Karster
Country of originDeveloped by the House of Habsburg from Arab, Barb, Spanish and Neapolitan stock.[1] Today associated with nations of Austria, Croatia, Hungary, and Slovenia.
Distinguishing featuresCompact, muscular, generally associated with the Spanish Riding School
Breed standards
What I was assuming we were going to do was to change {{Infobox horse breed}} so that it no longer called {{Infobox}} directly, but passed all of its parameter values to {{Infobox animal breed}}, which would consequently need some modifications to accommodate the present set of fields used in {Infobox horse breed}. That would mean all of the present horse breed articles would not require any re-writing to display the same information. At the same time, I suggest we add |height= and |weight= to both templates to cater for animals that have little sexual dimorphism. The {Infobox horse breed} would not need to use all of the parameters available in {Infobox animal breed}. When all of that is done, we would then be able to add extra information to articles whenever they were re-visited (height, weight, conservation status, distribution, coat, and perhaps use?). I'll make sandbox versions of what I mean at Template:Infobox animal breed/sandbox and Template:Infobox horse breed/sandbox in a short while. --RexxS (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Update: Here's the infobox taken directly from Lipizzan using Template:Infobox horse breed/sandbox which is based on Template:Infobox animal breed/sandbox. You can experiment with the other parameters, namely:
  • | extinct =
  • | distribution =
  • | use =
  • | colour =
  • | color =
  • | height =
  • | male_height =
  • | female_height =
  • | weight =
  • | male_weight =
  • | female_weight =
Are there any more required? --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Das K.K. Hofgestüt zu Lippiza 1580-1880, Wien 1880
I like the modified infobox you posted above, but for some reason it's too wide for my phone screen. Normally the infobox fits neatly at the top of the article. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
@White Arabian Filly: It has exactly the same width of box, padding, border and margin as the infobox at Lipizzan, but of course the rest of the content here may be interfering. Would you have a look at Special:Permalink/756658995 (a mock up of the lead section at Lipizzan in my userspace using the modified infobox) and see whether that fits on your phone in the same way as at Lipizzan, please? That seems to fit for me when I use a generic phone emulator (480px wide screen). --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
The one in your sandbox shows up in the normal way. I guess it must be that we have too much other stuff here. 😊 White Arabian Filly Neigh 19:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
RexxS: Here are my comments:
  1. I would hope that we can still just use {{Infobox horse breed}} in some fashion, redirecting the sandbox or something?? I'd hate to lose it because it is so much clearer to have the sample to copy and paste (the animal breed infobox is hopelessly complex -- note we have spinoffs, {{Infobox cattle breed}}, etc.)
  2. I like the option of using US or UK spelling, that is very helpful.
  3. We don't need a "coat" parameter; color will do -- only one breed of horse (the Curly horse) has anything particularly unique about their coat. Some horse breeds do have feather (horse), but not that many to make it a parameter; it can go in the distinguishing traits list
  4. We don't need or want "distribution" because many horse breeds travel worldwide and we already have enough edit wars over the "country" parameter (the Lipizzan being a case in point).
  5. I also am opposed to the "male/female" parameters being in there because those amongst us at this project who care about these parameters can add them manually in a "height" section; I'm more worried about the cleanup that will occur when inexperienced users will try to insert them even with no source material. They are only used in very limited situations (basically 1) the breeds or nations that have a height requirement for studbook selection, which is far from universal, and 2) the stats of the FAO or other agricultural groups forcing horses to fit the same classification as other livestock, such as pigs or cattle, where there is a lot more sexual dimorphism.) Also, gelding a horse can alter the rate at which it grows, and so the "male" standard is almost always actually a "stallion" standard, though that is not said.

All for now. I want to be sure that Justlettersandnumbers gets a chance to weigh in here because that's who kind of got this ball rolling in the first place. But I think there's a vacation notice at that user's talk, so a few days can't hurt. Montanabw(talk) 08:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: There's no rush; the sandboxes will still be ready to update the templates from in a week's time. To the specific points:
  1. Nothing I've done would alter how we use {{Infobox horse breed}} one iota. I could replace {Infobox horse breed} with the sandbox version and the only difference anyone would notice is a re-arrangement of the field order and the slightly closer spacing for the breed standards. Compare the lead of Lipizzan with the infobox on the right to see. The template would remain just as it is now; no articles would need to be amended.
  2. US/UK variations should always be factored-in. Are there any others?
  3. The whole point of custom wrapper infoboxes is that we can leave out unwanted parameters from the generic infobox. I didn't think you'd need a |coat=, so there isn't one.
  4. I'll take out distribution.
  5. I'll take out the male/female parameters, but leave |height= and |weight=.
How does that sound? --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on, RexxS. I'm relieved that you've chosen to make use of {{infobox animal breed}}, as that means that I should be able to make simple changes in future without needing to make more demands on your time and goodwill. My thoughts, based on what's been said above:
  • I agree that a simple |height and |weight parameter should be added to infobox animal breed for those cases where sex is not specified in the sources, thank you!
  • if you are adding |colour to that box, could you also add |skin colour, |egg colour, |wool colour and |face colour at the same time? I've been meaning for ages to ask someone to do that (it's annoying to introduce a spelling error into a BrE page just by adding to the infobox). I would then add those parameters to the other (non-horse) breed infoboxes as needed
  • You're right that it's prefereable for the box to accommodate several images without having to be jimmied into doing so
  • I don't care whether the breed name is inside or outside the frame; the possible problem that you mention with having it outside would presumably be avoided if the field defaults to the page-name?
  • delighted to get rid of all arbitrary colour
  • It's very common, but essentially pointless if not actually a bit silly, to say "we shouldn't have x because it might be misused". The same argument could apply to anything – articles, talk-pages, a national rail network, whatever. In Wikipedia we deal with misuse in the same way in every case: by undoing it, or by discussing until consensus is reached if there's disagreement. So I don't see this as a sensible or sustainable reason for not adding useful parameters.
  • the fields that are, in my opinion, missing from the current horse infobox are:
|male height
|female height
|male weight
|female weight
The first five I see as essential. Why?
  • "use" is a fundamental characteristic of many horse breeds, though not many have only one possible one; if they do, it's probably meat (Hispano-Breton)
  • Many breeds have a limited "distribution", or are found only in one or two places (Caballo de las Retuertas, Banker Horse, Cavallino della Giara, Chincoteague Pony etc); this is a fundamental and defining characteristic of many endangered breeds; it's not a field that's particularly needed for breeds with a world-wide distribution
  • There are many kinds and descriptors of conservation "status", not just "extinct" and "not recognized"; among them are those defined by the FAO, by the RBST, by the Gesellschaft zur Erhaltung alter und gefährdeter Haustierrassen, by the Livestock Conservancy; these are an important characterising feature of many threatened breeds, and a free-text field is needed to accommodate them (please see my "we shouldn't have x because it might be misused" rebuttal above)
  • single, non-differentiated, height and weight parameters are an excellent idea; however, we also need the sex-specific ones, because scientists around the world regularly and routinely observe that, despite what Montanabw has said, there are perceptible differences in height and weight between the sexes in horses; we can't just ignore what the sources say on this. Of course anyone with a minimum of knowledge can force display of the two values; but, following your own argument on images, why should they have to?
  • I suggest making a parameter for "coat" rather than for "colour", since it's actually the coat we're talking about; but I don't feel strongly about this
  • concern has been expressed that adding several new parameters will make the box too complicated; I suggest listing both a short version and a full version in the documentation so that those who don't want to use the expanded version don't feel obliged to.
  • I suggest getting rid of the |nickname parameter (unencyclopaedic), and of all the unnecessary hidden text
Thanks again for your help. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers and Montanabw: (1) I'm going to update Template:Infobox horse breed based on Template:Infobox horse breed/sandbox and Template:Infobox animal breed based on Template:Infobox animal breed/sandbox. I'll take the opportunity to add the optional "xyz colour/color" parameters to Template:Infobox animal breed. Would folks please let me know if any problems are encountered? - or just revert the update if need be.
(2) Could I ask you, Montanabw and JLAN, to see if you can find some consensus on the presence or absence of the |distribution, |female/male weight/height, and coat parameters in {Infobox horse breed}, please? The |use, |status, |height and |weight are already implemented - please try them out and see if they show up in the right place
(3) It's probably better to leave the documentation until the parameters have settled down. I ought to say that I've added to {Infobox animal breed} the "technical" parameters |headerbg= (the background colour of the headings, defaults to #D3D3A4 for backwards compatibility), and |innercaption= (which, if present, places the caption/title inside the infobox). --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers and RexxS:: I think we can have some guidelines for use of parameters, I don't like instruction creep any more than the next person, but we will need some help for newbies and to reflect this consensus (which will eventually be buried in an archive). Here's my take:

  1. I have no position on what's in the generic animal breed infobox, but fully support being able to choose UK or US English spelling in the parameters as preferred. (That should be universal in all infoboxes, IMHO).
  2. I agree with JLAN that a short and long version of the infobox should be provided in the documentation. We have a lot of newbies show up at the horse project, definitely need the KISS version.
  3. Agree with JLAN on the "status" parameter; maybe just remove the forced choice and replace with JLAN's explanation about threatened/extinct breeds. This one will need some instructions as to what it's for.
  4. "Color/Colour" is preferable to "Coat" unless one wants to say "coat colo(u)r"; seldom is hair texture a breed characteristic; color often is. (The Curly horse can have its odd hair coat listed as a breed characteristic. I suppose this differs from the animal breed infobox, but horses are in their own little world in many ways.
  5. I can live with "use," I just dread the "our breed can do everything (according to the breed society's claims)" problem. So in the spirit of compromise: JLAN, you get "use, but PLEASE help me out the next time someone insists on saying that Percherons can do barrel racing, deal? (I am serious, they DO try it; they shouldn't! [2])
  6. "Distribution" is a mixed bag: we already have country of origin; perhaps put it in the "long version" of the documentation; my concern is that breed PR puffery likes to say a breed is "distributed worldwide" as a marketing ploy, and that sort of use is not appropriate; where a breed is limited to a very small part of the world, as in rare breeds, the parameter is useful. But stating that the American Quarter Horse is "distributed" in Italy or Breed Foo is "distributed in 40 countries around the world? Eeek! Bleech.
  7. I can live with the "male/female" height/weight parameter, seeing as how we DO have a separate "height/weight" parameter too. I think that just the height/weight one be used in the "short" version of the documentation though; my concern is that the sexual dimorphism only be used where the breed standard actually mandates it or an actual study demonstrated it. Frankly, it exists in many breed standards only because requirements for stallions are often stricter than for mares (as few males should be allowed to be breeding stock). And, a lot of "scientists" have bad science on that one (small sample sizes, owner-reported stats, etc.), but oh well, NOR applies and verifiability≠truth.
  8. I can agree that the "nickname" parameter can go-- is another potential source of misuse; perhaps it can be merged into the "alt name (or altname)" parameter, I don't know how many articles use that parameter now, but a few do.
  • All in all, we are close to consensus if we can use "colo(u)r"-- I'll see if the layout at the new box works and comment on that there. Montanabw(talk) 17:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, as far as I can see that's full agreement. The status and use fields are already activated and in use. I've already said that I don't care too much about coat vs. colour – it'd make sense to be able to use the same parameter for the same thing in the various different animal breed boxes, but it isn't essential. I undertake to personally remove all unsourced references to barrel-racing Percherons. For that, as in everything else, we have the sources to go on. As it happens, there are a lot of Quarter Horses in Italy – surely far more than there are of many indigenous breeds or completely bogus "breeds" like the Cavallo del Delta (actually a small population of Camargue Horses) – but they aren't reported in official sources so we probably wouldn't want to consider them significant.
"Country" should be limited to countries. Until about yesterday the country field for the Zaniskari read "India, specifically Zanskar valley of Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir". Whatever that is, it isn't a country. I've moved all but "India" to the distribution field, but that isn't activated yet.
RexxS, thank you for all you've done here so far. A couple of comments/questions:
  • the "|colour" parameter doesn't actually seem to work – please see here – and I'm not smart enough to see why that might be
  • the height and weight values are left-aligned in the middle of the box. Was that intentional? Also, the words "Male" and "Female" in the height and weight fields seem to have shifted over to the left, which may not be an improvement
  • there's a big white space above the trinomial name at the foot of the box, about where you'd expect to read "Horse".
Thanks all round, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers and Montanabw: I've activated |distribution=, |male_height=, |female_height=, |male_weight=, |female_weight=, and removed nickname. Zaniskari is showing distribution now.
I've made the test for colour (and face/egg/skin etc.) explicit as it seems it needs that when the parameter is passed from a wrapper. Zaniskari is showing colour now (and |color= would also work).
The height and weight values are aligned with all the other values in the box. It's an html table and that is the second column. For male/female, I've put the words "Male:" and "Female:" in the second column and floated the corresponding values to the right of the infobox. That's how {infobox horse breed} placed the height and weight values, and how {infobox animal breed} placed the male/female height and weight values. I intentionally copied the behaviour of the previous infoboxes so that we minimised the visual changes to existing articles. Is there a reason for doing it any differently?
The big white space above the trinomial name is because {infobox animal breed} has a <br> tag in front of the span in its definition like this: {{#if: {{{trinominal_name|}}} | <br>''<span class="trinominal">{{{trinominal_name}}}</span>'' }} – that has been in {infobox animal breed} for a long time and I didn't touch it. That will always happen if |vernacular name= is not supplied, no matter what wrapper calls it. Do you want me to fix that? --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Excellent, that seems to have ticked every box on my list. A couple of closing suggestions:
  • if there's going to be a big space in any case, why don't we stick the vernacular name in it, as in other comparable boxes? The word "Horse" isn't going to make much difference either way, but the "wrong" look of the box looks unprofessional. Especially if we:
  • change the header background from none to pale grey (I suggest something like #d3d3d3). This divides the box into neat sections, but doesn't introduce any garish or vomit-inducing colour, which I think we unanimously agree is not wanted
These are simple changes that I can probably make if there's agreement for them. I imagine that Rexxs has other and more important fish to fry by now. Thanks again! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Just before I go back to piscatorial preparation, I thought I'd better fix that gap above Equus ferus caballus that's bothering you. Using {{ubl}} has the advantage of automatically omitting empty lines and it also marks up the list as a semantic list which is nicer for screen readers, etc. As a veteran of the Infobox Wars, I'm really not keen on adding anything non-essential to an infobox, so for me "Horse" isn't a good idea. See if you can live with the current version. If so, somebody ought to start thinking about updating the documentation – volunteers? --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I've already updated several articles with the new parameters! White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

RexxS, Justlettersandnumbers, et al: Sorry I've been so inactive here on this. Somehow the name of the breed is now outside the box instead of inside the box. Also, an we flip the order of height and weight? Height is far more noticeable as a trait in horses, weight generally correlates to height and bone structure. I can live with a VERY light gray if we really need dividers. We don't need "vernacular" as the name IS vernacular and alt name covers the rest... I think "veracular" is a carryover from taxoboxes, where there is a scientific name. Montanabw(talk) 19:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I just updated the documentation. See if I did OK with that, I did a "basic" and "full" version that I think has all parameters. I put in some directions, hope not too much instruction creep. Fix what I broke? See Template:Infobox_horse_breed/doc. Montanabw(talk) 20:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Montanabw: The name of the breed is outside the box because if we put it inside, then the border breaks for anyone using Safari Version 5.1.10 under OS 10.6.8 - I believe you mentioned this problem yourself. The order of parameters is now decided by Template:Infobox animal breed, so that's probably an issue to take up there as it will affect a lot more than just horses now. I could put a very light grey for the headers, say  this grey, #EEEEEE,  or JLAN's  darker grey, #D3D3D3,  - can you two agree on what is acceptable? I've set Template:Infobox horse breed so that vernacular is not a parameter. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I've done a quick tidy of the documentation. The only possibly controversial change I made was removing |status= from the "Basic" documentation, as I doubt that conservation status is likely to be a basic parameter. feel free to put it back – it's obviously still in the "Full" section – if you disagree. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. I get it about the animal breed wrapper (which is annoying, but I don't know if it's a battle worth fighting). I don't have a strong opinion about the color, just so long as it meets accessibility standards, is subtle and yes, not vomit-inducing. I'm happy enough with the box if Justlettersandnumbers is. Montanabw(talk) 17:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I've set |headerbg=#DDD which is  a compromise grey, #DDDDDD,  for you to see how it looks. Remember not all monitors are created equal (or even set to the same brightness!), so take any variations between what you and others may observe with a pinch of salt. Feel free to adjust it to anything that you or JLAN can agree on – it's obvious where the colour is in the sixth line of Template:Infobox horse breed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy if everyone else is. Good work, all and thanks to everyone for input! Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

WikiJournal of Science logo.svg

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:


  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal


  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M. "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


Hiya! Just popping in to note there is an equine article nominated for speedy deletion for Sandwich (horse) Since this may be of interest to ProjectEquine, I thought I'd let you know.

I've been able to determine that this horse was sired by Sansovino and is noted as one of the only important offsprings of that horse's otherwise disappointing stud career. Perhaps it's worth keeping, or incorporating? I'm happy to add a brief note to this effect/pedigree on the page. Can't hurt I suppose, if it's going to be deleted...could only possibly give it a chance to be kept.

You may have already seen it. Just a friendly head's up! Curdigirl (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I'm going to see if I can dig up any sources. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Better to post this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing, looks like that's who came to the rescue anyway... but they have the expertise, and several of them are Brits, to boot, which for this article is a help. Montanabw(talk) 00:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

We need at least a stub

I've run into a few diffs like this, where someone trying to get rid of links to Futurity is disambiguating horse articles to Futurity (horse race), even though the event in question is not a horse race. We probably need a new article about other horse competition futurities in general, in horse shows, cutting, reining, etc... Anyone interested? Atsme? Anyone?? Montanabw(talk) 09:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I may be able to do it tomorrow, not today because of the Super Bowl. (Go Julio Jones!) Should the title be "Futurity (horse show)" or something else...? White Arabian Filly Neigh 19:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, created a stub at Futurity (horse show). White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Another request for the cavalry

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Rodeo_-_Bull_Riding_Hall_of_Fame_notability_in_question. Project members may want to weigh in there. Montanabw(talk) 00:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sachsen Warmblood

Hey! You have a red-link breed article on your main page, "Sachsen Warmblood". Is this the breed you are looking for? I am a German native speaker and would offer to translate, if you still needed that article (although it might take a little time - life...) Fallen Sheep (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one, Fallen Sheep. It's one of about twenty German breeds we don't have a page on – see our List of German horse breeds. It's kind of you to offer to translate that page, but unfortunately it has no references at all, so little or none of the content would be kept here; but if you can turn up some references I'd be happy to collaborate in making a new page for it. Other breeds it might be cool to have a page on are the Hessian Warmblood, the Lehmkuhlener, the Leonharder, the Leutstettener, the Lewitzer and the Pfalz-Ardenner; I think de.wp has pages on all of those, but mostly with similarly few refs. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, good I asked, guidelines (or admins?) in the German WP are just very... different. "Everything is valuable. Let's keep it. I'm sure we can improve it in the future. Yes, of course that has relevance. Yes, we still need that."
Is there like a (thumb)rule of how many refs or sources you would have to supply? (Also, I'm travelling right now, so published lit would also be rather hard.) Or like a stub/start, just basically "thin" article (because of lack of sources), that you could provide me with to somehow sketch the "bar" here a little?
As for information which would be considered insufficent for a full article, I just looked through the list and maybe we could make use of the "Notes" section to provide the most important information, or another workaround solutiuon like that. To be honest, some of these breeds I have not even heard much of (or ever, even). We just happen to have maintained fairly independent territories and regions until the high 1800s and even after that, there was little nationalism in the people. So many breeds are either nieches from a very specific region that do not highly stand out from each other (think of all the German Warmbloods and Sporthorses). These still find usage because they were somewhat adapted to modern requirements and now show and compete, but the Draft horses, even though breeders and societies might still exist, are quite small and their importance is even smaller, even for us Germans (sadly enough).
For what it's worth, only the Lewitzer and the Hessian Warmblood really seem to ring a bell for me :/ Fallen Sheep (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Google Books may have something on the breed. I also have a breed book with a lot of fairly obscure European ones, and I can't remember if this one's included, but if it is I can provide a book cite. It's OK to start an article as a stub as long as you have sources. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The German Project seems to be a bit outdated as well, seems like there have been some reforms since the beginning of the century that are not fully sorted out here (e.g. the German Sporthorse which is just a loose branding given to horses from various (German) breeds when being mixed, from which some organisations now pulled into their own branding...). I feel like it might be somewhat more effective to update those in German beforehand, getting feedback from other German authors, then bring it all back to here.
About sources: do they have to be in English, as in "show relevance for the Anglo-speaking world" or do they just have to be sources, well, to have your writings sourced on something? (I'll check Google books, too, once I start working on it.) Fallen Sheep (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
It's OK to have sources in another language, like at Big Star (horse) some sources are in English and some in French. You're supposed to note the non-English language in the reference somehow, though. I'll look at that article to see how it's done. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


Do we have a Halls of fame category for horse people, such as the AQHA Hall of Fame, NCHA Hall of Fame, Hall of Fame by state - Oklahoma Quarter Horse Hall of Fame, or should it be a subcategory of Sports Hall of Fame? Also, how do we categorize past presidents and/or directors of equine organizations, such as the AQHA, NCHA, etc.? Atsme📞📧 10:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen those cats if they exist. (I've thought about creating a cat for people in the TWH HOF but haven't done it yet because I only have a couple of articles to put in it.) I'd think that the categories you're talking about would be named something like, "People in the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame". Maybe the breed Association folks could be in a cat like, "Presidents/whatever of the American Quarter Horse Association". Most of the categorization for people who are into the breed stuff as opposed to the Olympic sports is pretty bad or nonexistent. If don't exist, make it! 😆 White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Categorization, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." It's probably worth drawing up lists of articles that would be in each category you are thinking of creating and making sure that there are sufficient to make the navigation useful in each case. Don't worry if articles would appear in multiple categories – it works best like that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Soring article has new legal case and refs

Could someone with experience in editing equine pages take a look at the Talk:Soring page, please?

Briefly, there is a section on the soring page for legal cases, and the McConnell case is covered at length. The McGartland case is not covered at all, but it is currently in the news.

I have listed two RS news pieces with relevant quotes about the McGartland case. I could write a description and insert the refs, but i feel that a regular equine editor would be handier at the task. Thanks.

-- catherine yronwode, not logged in) (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Animal sanctuaries supporting equines

Recognising that there's only a partial overlap in interests here, I'd like nevertheless to put in a request: Among the animal sanctuaries listed in the List of animal sanctuaries there are a number which support horses. Any help in improving (or, in many cases, starting) these articles would be most welcome.

I am particularly disappointed that when I tried to start an article for Willows Animal Sanctuary, Fraserburgh, Scotland (a Scottish charity since 1999, much of that time as an Animal Assisted Therapy unit catering to the local authority,[1] as well as an animal rescue operation) it was speedily disposed of because (even after sorting copyright issues, and with several secondary source refs) apparently its notability was not established. If there's somebody out there who's better at getting the right 'slant' who'd like to have a crack at it I'd be most grateful. Here are some other refs...[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Yadsalohcin (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yadsalohcin, I would be willing to help. How about we start it as a draft, say Draft:Willows Animal Sanctuary, so more than one person can work on it and get it in hood shape before moving to mainspace? I think it's notable, the main thing is to try and be neutral (you can't look like you're promoting stuff via Wikipedia, even charities). White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
White Arabian Filly Neigh great start, many thanks. I have no connection with the place and was not intending to 'promote' it, but I can see that sometimes in one's haste to start an article it might look that way... Yadsalohcin (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the main thing is to use news or other sources, not press releases or that type of thing. I'll check Google News later. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Man o' War at 100

Anyone else interested in upgrading Man o' War for his 100th anniversary? Starting to see some good articles to use as source material. I'll dive in as soon as I finish my current round of updates on Dan Patch. Jlvsclrk (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Those Canadians...

Hola, me again. As I said, I started getting an overview and doing minor rearrangements in the German Wiki - which, at the moment, is fixing redlinks. Stumbled across the Canadian horse, but there are also links to the Canadian Pacer (as far as I learnt, a sub-sepcies of the former?) and the Canadian Sport Horse, using this picture. Turns out, that horse is registered as a "Canadian Warmblood" with the FEI... [3] I'm seriously lost. Are those all the same, are they different, different breed registries or... just creations from our side, maybe some mis-translations? Would be happy bunnies if anybody had any info :) Best wishes, --Fallen Sheep (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC) (Eh.)

Fallen Sheep, the breeds reported by Canada to DAD-IS are these – obviously not all specifically Canadian. Canadian Pacer is reported as extinct, which is probably why that's a redirect (for now, at least). As you can see, neither Canadian Sport Horse nor Canadian Warmblood is listed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! That seems to be a good source, too, muchas gracias. Fallen Sheep (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a source that's as good as the data reported to it. Most countries do a pretty good job, but don't get Montanabw started on the reporting of US horse breeds! It looks as if the Canadians actually do know what horse breeds they have (or had); I had a quick look at the website of that Canadian Warmblood Horse Breeders Association, but didn't see anything to suggest that it constitutes a breed – it seems to be a place to register warmblood horses of various breeds that have been bred in Canada. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A comment: My copy of Simon & Schuster's guide to horses says the Canadian Horse is a stock or working breed, ridden by cowboys and similar to the Quarter Horse. There seems to be a Warmblood or sport horse breed from every country. I know the American Warmblood is basically just a cross of a bunch of different things right now, although at some point in the future it may become pure (after all, all breeds started with crosses). I'd bet Canadian Warmblood is in a similar position. White Arabian Filly Neigh 16:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
There’s another whole debate over whether some of the warmbloods are “breeds” or not. I also question if a "Canadian Hunter" is really a breed, either. But, on WP, if they have a breed registry or breed society, or listed in some reliable source, they are a breed. Justlettersandnumbers is probably right, the Pacer is extinct, but even the Canadians have some really bad reporters — Palomino is not a breed!  ;-O I must say that the Lac la Croix Indian Pony looks interesting though. Anyone want to do up that article? Montanabw(talk) 07:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


Does anyone know what this horse disease might be called in modern times? Every source I find on it is from like, the 1800s. I don't know a thing about horses or horse medicine but I would very much like to de-orphan this page, either by linking to it or merging it elsewhere. ♠PMC(talk) 07:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

WP Rodeo?

OK folks, after chatting about this for months and now that I finished up my part of creating the harness racing task force for WP Horse racing, it's time to turn to broncs and barrel racers and finally create WP:RODEO. I think that the best approach would be to create a stand-alone WikiProject Rodeo, as we have cattle as well as horses involved, plus a few goats and occasionally sheep. My thinking is that we alert the Sports, Ag, possibly Old West, and maybe other relevant projects to place this as a "related project" under a few different groups. Thoughts? Who wants to help? (Pinging Atsme, Dawnleelynn, Bri, and Karanacs who may not follow this project but who may have interest). For now, I would not create an overly complicated project page, maybe something akin to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horse_racing/Harness_racing. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 04:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm in! Atsme📞📧 12:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I think what you proposed sounds good, and of course I'm in. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd help too. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Categories that need sub-categories

I suck at categories, so anyone who can help tutor me, please do. For example, Category:American_Quarter_Horses needs help or subcategories, or something. Buttermilk doesn't belong there - should be in a subcategory like American Quarter Horses (famous). And then there's American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame - we need one for (people), and one for horses. And Azteca horse is a mixed breed, does it really belong in American Quarter Horses? National Cutting Horse Association needs subcategories, too. (I get totally confused reading WP how-to) Atsme📞📧 16:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have made categories before, I'll try to create a couple that should be what you need. Like Category:Individual American Quarter Horses. It looks like we have Categories American Quarter Horse show horses, AQH broodmares, and AQH sires. They might not be listed in the parent cat like they should though. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that the tree is the problem, as there are a LOT of QH cats out there... To some extent, this is a good point, but also, I hate to see subcats with only one or two articles in them, it can get ridiculous. The Azteca is there because it's a AQHA-derived breed... we could probably create a subcat of derived breeds, with maybe three or four articles for either the breeds with an open stud book to quarter horses, or a closed studbook with QH founders --- i.e Aztecas, Paints and Quarter Ponies...and arguably Appaloosas. As for Buttermilk -- we could do "Individual American Quarter Horses" or something -- but let's at least be consistent with naming as is done with other breeds... I think there are already a bunch of existing categories (possibly under the horse racing category tree -- we need to go look) -- usually HOF inductees are all in one category -- I realize that we have horses and people, but I'm not sure if we really need to split it that way unless we go clear into the individual categories -- breeders, trainers, horses, etc... ? Montanabw(talk) 02:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Of interest

AfD of interest to project members: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Fryar (2nd nomination). Montanabw(talk) 02:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Travel by equestrianism and horse driving

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Travel by equestrianism and horse driving.
Wavelength (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried to reply there and got edit conflicted, so posting here. You might find this book [4] of interest. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts. From your link, I saw "Result 1 of 1 in this book for horse bed and breakfast" and "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book."
Wavelength (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
That's strange as I was able to view a good bit in the preview. I've got that error message from Google Books before too though. Once it was on a book I had referenced several times. I think it must be some kind of bug with their software. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Link came up for me just now, may have been a software glitch. Montanabw(talk) 00:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I tried the link again, and I saw the heading "8. More Camping Options" and a two-paragraph introduction followed by the subheading "8.1 Bed, Bale, and Breakfast, or Ranch Resorts". At first, I could see pages 97 and 99 but not pages 98 and 100; a few minutes later, I could see all of those pages. I especially appreciate point 12 on page 98, about operations advertised on the Internet.
Wavelength (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This one needs work

Yanardag. Desperately needs work, I'm not going to be the person who does it, so posting here to see if anyone else is interested. Justlettersandnumbers verified notability and found another source here. Any interested editor, feel free to grab it. I'm noticing that Turkmenistan politics are pretty interesting (not necessarily in a good way) and their horses are tangled up in it. Montanabw(talk) 03:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It was really Softlavender who confirmed the notability (and who has already made inroads on the article). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Archive 9/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Equine.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Equine, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox horse trainer nominated for deletion

A template I made for you last year, Template:Infobox horse trainer, has been nominated for deletion because it's unused. If it's not going to be used, then we might as well dispense with it; but if it is going to be used, it should be in use somewhere by now. I can't remember, was there a reason it didn't get used? What infobox is being used on horse trainer articles now? --RexxS (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been using Template:Infobox horse person because it does include it all. Atsme📞📧 17:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

RexxS, can you please add the parameter "spouse" to {{Infobox horse person}}? I need it for Frank_Merrill_(equestrian) and tried to do it myself so I wouldn't have to disturb anyone, but it didn't work, and if I keep fritzing with it, I'm liable to screw up. Atsme📞📧 17:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I've added the |spouse= parameter to display between Resting place and Major wins/Championships – just a guess, as you didn't say if you had any preference for its position. I can always move it if it's in the wrong place. Test it out and see if it meets your needs. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Perfect!! Thank you, RexxS - much appreciated! Atsme📞📧 19:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Ooops - need one more - Infobox horse person Pleeeeaze? Atsme📞📧 19:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: Sorry, I don't understand what you want? What is Infobox horse person? It's a redlink. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry RexxS - you already fixed it. I was looking at a cached page. Safari sucks = shift reload doesn't clear anything. Question: does the parameter have to be placed in a particular order in the infobox or can it be moved closer to the top? Atsme📞📧 23:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: The parameter can be displayed anywhere in the infobox, but you have to tell me where to move it to. Look at Template:Infobox horse person/doc – on the right there's a demo infobox with all the parameters in the order they will display. If you say "move it between XXX and YYY" (where XXX and YYY are the names of adjacent parameters), I'll move it there. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Coat color discussion

Of interest to project members: Talk:Yanardag. Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw - I added the description of both the American Association and the International Association since they are two separate associations. I tried to clean-up some of the refs, but forgot to put the in-use tag on it, which created a bit of confusion. Since the horse is registered in the International Association, that description would prevail and the same would apply for the American Association. I just added the differences in how the colors are described so as not to confuse American readers. Atsme📞📧 05:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd say we have a discussion going at the talkpage, maybe pop in there and see the most recent discussion... I think we are 75% to a consensus... Montanabw(talk) 06:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)