Talk:List of horse breeds/Archive 1

Text from 2001 and 2002

Coupla questions...

• what's an Azteca?
• are palominos a separate breed, or a color?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JHK (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 November 2001 (UTC)

Palominos are a breed. A very nice breed also; I had one as a boy. --Dmerrill — Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 21 November 2001 (UTC)

New horse breed template--need your help

I need your help if you know something about horses. I've create a new template for adding a standardized infobox to each horse listed in List of horse breeds. The template is shown here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds and there's a sample with minimal information in American Paint Horse. The problem is that I don't really know what should or could go in the box. For example, for the Dog breeds template, we can identify specific major breed registry organizations. But for horses, is that true? And what else makes sense to go in the table--e.g., "type"? (Draft, pony,...what else?) Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse breeds. Thanks! Elf | Talk 23:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Manchurian Pony

Can someone tell me what a "Manchurian pony" is please, and if it goes by another name. Many thanks.--MacRusgail 01:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

NO clue. I have had moments of thinking I should just toss every red link on the page, but someone might want to create an article. I'd say if you can search the research links at the bottom and Google the net and not find anything, you might be able to toss that one if we can't find any evidence (other than some other list somewhere) that this is actually a "breed." Any help is always appreciated. Montanabw 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Red links should not be tossed out so easily, because I love to research about the different breeds and write about them! --Yamenah 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

American Saddlebred and Saddle Bred

I would like to know if the American Saddlebred and the Saddle Bred is the same breed of horse? Are they both the same breed going under the same name? I wanted to write about the Saddle Bred (which is a red link) but it seems as though the two were the same. --Yamenah 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Saddlebreds and American Saddlebreds are the same breed, I'll fix that, thanks.

Please be careful adding articles about "new" breeds, if you can't find enough data--and a source--to at least create a stub, please don't just expand the laundry list here. Also, be careful, there are some breeds with mulitple (sometimes common but incorrect) names, and other "breeds" that aren't "breeds" at all, they are just someone's marketing scheme to make money (like the infamous "bay horse" registry). I guess I only ask that no one add a red link to this page--there are too many inaccurate lists. If you want to add a breed, also search wikipedia thoroughly first. (Pottok pony had three different articles with different spellings for a while!) ? Also, be aware that certain sub-groups within a breed are NOT different breeds. Okey dokey? Thanks. Montanabw 02:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

External Link

The external link for "The Breeds List maintained by the International Museum of the horse" does not seem to be working. Could someone check into this?--Yamenah 02:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Go the the Kentucky horse park or international museum of the horse web site, they just rearranged everything and changed all their links. This is causing problems across all the wikipedia horse pages, Feel free to find the new pages and fix as you can, it would be appreciated. Montanabw 03:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy article for someone to write

I haven't the time to do this right now, but Bavarian Warmblood will be a pretty easy article to create, many legitimate links, here's a Google search on it: http://www.google.com/search?q=Bavarian+warmblood&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8 If you want to write your first article, this looks to be one breed that needs one -- just don't copy and paste, they'll slap you with a copyvio here...and remember to include your sources. Montanabw 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Above article now written. Yamenah 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Horse Breeds

After looking throughout the web it seems as though the Aegidienberger may only be a cross between the Icelandic and the Paso Fino. Does anyone know if it is truly a particular breed?Yamenah 03:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia indicates it is a new breed on progress. The cross breedings made are intended to eventually produce a true-breeding strain that will combined desired traits from both foundation breeds. P0M 05:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems the Ariegeois horse may actually be a pony breed? Does anyone know any better?Yamenah 15:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

13.1-14.3 hands The Encyclopedia of Horses & Ponies, p. 185.P0M 05:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a separate breed for the Batak horse? It seems there is a Batak pony (as is listed under ponies) but no horse of that name. Yamenah 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe someone else does. Nice job on the new articles by the way. I am a fan of cleaning up red links! Montanabw 03:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My Encyclopedia of horse breeds says the Batak is a pony, max. ht. is 13 hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick0Moran (talk • contribs) 05:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Google it and see if you can find a registry. Or, go to the Kentucky Horse Park/International Museum of the Horse site and see if they list it in their collection (If they have a page for it, there are usually sources and it is at least arguably a "real" breed. Montanabw 17:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

ARRGH!

Folks, some of you have been around long enough to know better! Don't just start putting in red links about some breed without checking to see if a) A variation of the name is already on the list, b) an article actually exists out there and hasn't yet been added to the list, and c) that you check both the horse and the pony lists. I had to merge THREE different articles on the Pottok/Pottock/Pottock Pony not too long ago. Let's just not do this, Okay? ARRGH! Montanabw 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting better, but now expand the stubs, and a few more tasks

Folks, things are improving, in that at least stubs are being created, but one sentence does not an article make. If you are going to the bother of making a stub, will you kindly at least wikify what you have (properly wikify, too...I spent weeks being sure I found the proper articles and learned to use piped links, you can too), and list FULL citations to the sources you contulted? (If you don't have a hardcopy book in front of you at the computer,then go to Amazon.com or something and swipe the citation material there.) Also, please don't just cut and past the horse infobox without removing the placeholders for sections for which we don't have material, it looks astonishingly bizarre if you leave them in. Yes, I know I'm anal, but I suspect we all are dedicated to making Wikipedia a legitimate and useful resource for everyone, yes? Montanabw 19:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and also, if anyone wants a job, the Kentucky Horse Park and International Museum of the horse totally revamped their site and in doing so changed the web URLs of all their breed articles without creating redirects. <grrrr...>, so if anyone wants to check the reference links that contain "imh" in them to see if they still go to a real article, that is something that has to happen sooner or later. The articles are all there somewhere, but have been moved and in some cases rewritten. (Don't get me started on the poor web etiquette of KHP and IMH in doing this, sigh) Montanabw 19:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, also found an interesting article on the DNA studies of Iberian horses that listed the 17 more or less "official" breeds of the Iberian Peninsula, and edited that article to reflect this research. We don't have articles on many of them, I don't know how hard it will be to find articles on some of them (and some may have an alternative name in English that we DO already have...) but they are now listed in that article if anyone wants to dig into it a bit. Montanabw 19:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

Instead of adding red links to the list for articles we want to start "someday," I am putting in a proposed new article idea I haven't had time to write, with some research links. If anyone wants to take the ball and run, feel free. Montanabw 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Montana Traveler http://www.montanatravler.com/ and http://www.bridgeroutfitters.com/horse.htm

Though Wikiproject horse breeds also has a to do list, it's complicated, this is faster and simpler. Montanabw 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding "breeds" - Sanity, please!

Can we create a policy of putting in breeds with the correct article name and any other names in plain text after the link? Can we avoid using piped links and redirects?

Also, could anyone putting in a breed with a red link commit to putting up at least a stub on that breed within a week? We are getting a lot of "breeds" that are NOT breeds in here from somewhere...?

And, if it isn't too much to ask, can we keep the pony breeds in the pony section and the horse breeds in the horse section (see the way Welsh ponies and Welsh cobs are handled, this CAN be done with minimal controversy--if a breed wants to be a "horse" according to its registry, we'll call it a horse (for example, miniature horses...) Montanabw 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that all of these ideas are good. Great thinking! I was thinking somewhat about this, too, because there are some articles about breeds without the correct name. People just don't think about this when writing the article. Also, I agree with you on the idea that if you submit a breed with a red link that you should write (at least a stub) something on it. I don't know why people don't do this, since they probably have the information to write an article with. I'm not sure about separating ponies and horses, though, because that might cause some controversy, but it is also a great idea. It would narrow peoples' search down more, and that would be good. Again, great ideas. I'm all for it. Swannie 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I did it all, a month ago. The Pony/Horse thing can be congtroversial, but read the text, I settled it by just basically taking whatever the breed people themselves want to call the breed. Including Miniature "horses." Whatever... As for the "correct" name issue, Ditto for the "correct" name of the breed--whatever the official registry wants to call them (and if more than one registry, then list both, but hopefully just one article) and making appropriate merges when possible. I am perfectly OK with redirecting articles as appropriate or creating redirects from common misspellings or misphrasing (I had to merge Pottock, Pottok and Pottock Pony, there are probably more variations out there); part of the reason that the other change I have been making to the list is to list the actual names of the article in question, without using piped links.

And then there is the annoyance of Wikipedia capitalization conventions...I guess it was quite a fight to get "American Quarter Horse" from being moved and renamed "American quarter horse." Sigh...and then some links have been moved but the list not changed, we also have hanging breed articles that aren't in Category:Horse breeds, and oh lordy it is a big mess out there in wikipand! (sigh). Sorry to whine, you just sound sympathetic! My watchlist is now up to something like 300 articles, all on horse stuff! HELLLLPPP!! (grin) Montanabw 04:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have a book or two that I picked up off the "remaindered" tables in my local book sellers. They contain articles on various breeds. People who think they know of a breed to add could use some basic published source to get the names right, and, to get the name of the organizations that keep pedigrees of registered animals on file. If there is no such registry that ought to be a fairly clear indication that there probably isn't what we define as a breed. And as long as they have such a source to cite they could use it to give at least a stub on the breed.♥

BTW, I've been trying to find a picture of the Chinese "Guo Xia" breed. I don't know whether there is a registry, but there are historical references going back hundreds of years. They are really attractive animals. They have the conformation of a horse, but they are said to be "three feet tall" -- and that doesn't tell me whether they are that tall at the withers or at the crown. I found out that the name indicates that people could ride them under the branches of fruit trees. Horse and rider may have formed an organic "cherry picker." Anyway, Wikipedia Commons does not have a picture of one of them. (There is a recently added search engine that delivers pictures rather than file names, which is really neat. I've been looking for spiders, and sometimes very good pictures have filenames like wxz2207_in_Panama.jpg, so it is really important that people add category information when they upload pix -- expecially when the file name may be in Japanese or Arabic.) P0M 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm a bit late, but I didn't notice Paints on the list. While I'm aware that they're pretty much the mutts of the horse world, they're very important to most horse riders that can't afford to spend thousands on a horse that's barely gentled and have a crappy attitude. Brain sage (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New type of breed...?

I'm not saying this literally. I'm simply wondering if it would be probable to found a new breed by breeding Throughbreds, Friesians, Arabians and Palominos. I know that there might be a slight problem fine-tuning the muscle structure and the skeleton and all that, and the types of blood might interfere, but I'm willing to spend both the time and the money. Actually, it's been stuck in my head for a while, and I wanted to know if theres any breeders here who would know if the blood types interfere.Brain sage (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, first off, we have Paints on the list, see American Paint Horse. Second, Palominos aren't a breed, they are an incomplete dominant dilution color than can never become true-breeding (see equine coat color genetics). They already cross TBs and Arabs on Friesians, see Friesian Sporthorse. Everyone wants to start a new "breed" these days, note there are over 300 on this list. (sigh) Sorry to be snarky, I've just been on the team that is tagging and assessing all of these, and man some of the articles are a mess! Montanabw^(talk) 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

The annotations about alternate names, distinguishing remarks, etc do not belong on this list page. Instead, they should be dealt with on the pertinent article(s). --Una Smith (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, why is it wrong to have alternate names or other information on this page? Other lists (including featured lists such as List of Archbishops of Canterbury) are annotated. In fact, most featured lists require more than just a list of names. This isn't a disambiguation page, where explanations are discouraged. Also, what do you see about it that has a POV? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ealdgyth that this is exactly the place for alternate names. That way people are able to find whatever name they are looking for, even if it is not the most common name of the breed. I am also confused about the POV tag... Dana boomer (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I said the annotations do not belong there. Alternate names should be treated as regular list entries. The POV is in the structure of the list. This is a list of names of breeds; splitting the list into putative horses and ponies conflates the name with the classification, and requires POV choosing between horse and pony. Here is an example. There used to be a stud book for American polo ponies, so in that sense they were a breed. Now Polo pony is a type, but where does it belong in List of horse breeds as now organized: In the pony section, or the horse section? Most polo ponies are not pony sized. --Una Smith (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by annotations? Give an example please. As for the "POV" in choosing between the horse and the pony section, I think that you're overinflating the problem a bit. The breed is placed in whichever category the main breed registry considers it. Haflingers and Sorraias are often pony-sized, but their registries consider them horses, so they are listed as horses. As for your example of Polo ponies, I'm not sure that anyone would consider them a true breed, even if there was a studbook for them for a while. However, they would probably go in the "horse" section, because I believe the studbook considered them horses, rather than ponies, no matter what their name. If you have a specific breed that you believe is currently in the wrong category, please bring it here and give us examples, rather than just generic opinion statements. Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually can see expanding this list to give more information on the breed standards and stuff .. akin to the list of Archbishops I referred to above. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree, Ealdgyth. I am all for a systematic table with such comparative information as the date of founding of each breed's breed registry/stud book/etc., date of extinction (for extinct breeds), whether the registry is open or closed, and the breeds of its founding members. --Una Smith (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some entries that need cleanup:

• Andalusian horse some bloodlines also called Pura Raza Española (PRE) or Pure Spanish-bred

• Pura Raza Española, Pure Spanish-bred, and Spanish Purebred all should be redirects and included in this list. This is similar to the treatment of multiple common names of plants and animals. --Una Smith (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Appendix," see American Quarter Horse

• Here, I would use Appendix Quarter Horse, which at present redirects to American Quarter Horse. --Una Smith (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Australian Brumby, see Brumby

• This is intended to indicate the "preferred name"? It is a matter of POV, which should be dealt with on Brumby, complete with citation of sources. Rather than declare for one name here, simply list Australian Brumby, which at present is a redirect to Brumby. --Una Smith (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, names of horse breeds are common names, and other Wikipedia projects have similar large sets of common names. See Category:Common names for some of them. Note that on category pages redirects are in italics. --Una Smith (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Una and Ealdgyth: Can we have one crisis at a time, please? Can we please wait to review this list until we know what's going on with the templates and the categories? At this point, the list is stable, has rules and has some organization. It was created because, for one thing, there were once things like three separate articles on the Konik. For now an we just leave this be? PLEASE! Some of us do not live on wikipedia and as the primary editor of this page, I request that everyone take a deep breath and step back for a while. The list can be worked on later. Montanabw^(talk) 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry. I just figured I'd speak up and make my query about the tagging and stuff clear. As I agreed with Dana's request to not do anything quickly, I didn't feel the need to repeat myself. "I can see expanding this list..." does not mean "I'm going to start expanding this list asap." Like I have the time. However, I'll register a strong disagree (since obviously that went awry before) that anything be done precipitously. The list is fine as it is, in my mind, and improvements can be discussed in a logical calm, measured pace that allows plenty of others to weigh in. There is nothing earth shakingly wrong with this list, you know. I'm not convinced that we need to do anything and I don't recall ever saying anything here that anything needed to be done right this minute. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, Montanabw. Meanwhile, the tags can stay on the article. --Una Smith (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Una, seems you confuse me and Ealdgyth, but either way, I will go along with keeping the tags, but I am also restoring the categories. Article remains stable for now other than all of us fixing the usual vandalism as has been past practice or adding legitimate new articles that have been created (not redirects). Montanabw^(talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Expand scope to all equines?

Baudet de Poitou is a donkey breed. Probably there are others. Separate list, or expand scope of this one? --Una Smith (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Donkey breed list. Most donkey breeders consider their animals separate from horses, and I don't blame them. They are a different type of animal with different behaviors. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there already is a very short donkey breed list within the Donkey article itself. Until there are more breed articles than the few that exist, (I think there might be 5 or 6?) it really doesn't make sense to have a separate list elsewhere. But when the time comes, a separate donkey list is also fine with me. We can add it as a "see also" link here if that occurs. Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we can keep the scope here horse breeds only. To Horse breed#See also I added a link to the Donkey breeds section. --Una Smith (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Baschir horse is a seperate breed

The baschir, or baskjir horse, is nor related to the American curly horse. The baskjir horse has normal coat, not curly at all. Most horse allergic people can be around this horses, as they can with the curly ones. The baskjir comes from the Baskjirien in the Russian Federation. Where they use the horse for riding and driving as well for meat and milk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.150.104 (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If so, then we need yet another article. If you want to draft up something and post your link here, we can look it over and help you out. We seem to have Bashkir Curlies, American Curlies, and at least a couple other subgroups. If you can use English-language sources, that is best. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 18:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Less is more

I came away from this page knowing less than when I started. It is quite confusing to a layman looking for some basic information. There are far too many links to find what I want. For example; there is a sentence in the Arabian horse article that mentions its one of the top ten most popular breeds, a link to the other 9 would be handy. Just my thoughts :) 84.92.169.252 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Draft horses

The List of draft horse breeds, see User_talk:KVDP#Draft_horse_list. Although I agree that the list might have not been entirely up to standards, I still feel that at present, we miss a list/information allowing someone to immediatelly select a draft horse for his/her farm. I thus suggest that either we tag the appropriate draft horses with "Category:Draft horse", and then simply have the [[Category:Draft horse]] article to display the list, or we add additional information to the list of horse breeds article to allow someone to immediatelly see which horses in the list are draft horses. KVDP (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

How are we to determine which horses are draft horses and which are not? Individual horses of most breeds have been used for "draft" purposes at one point or another... Horses like Akhal-Tekes, Andalusians, Arabians, Trakehners and many of the others you have on the list are never considered draft horses by reliable sources, although some members of those breeds have been used for driving or farming at one point or another in time. What about a breed like the Cleveland Bay? It is used mainly for driving, but reliable sources all state specifically that it is not a draft horse? While some breeds are obvious, others are not. I don't really think that a simple laundry list of breeds would be much help for someone looking to select a breed for their farm - a list says nothing about how different breeds have adapted to various soils, climates, jobs, etc. I would suggest that improving the draft horse article would be our best bet at this point, as IMO a general overview article on draft breeds would be more helpful to the general reader than a simple list of breeds. There are even few enough true draft breeds that you could have a section that describes many or all of the breeds in prose, along with some of their defining characteristics, i.e. "The Soviet Heavy Draft and the Russian Heavy Draft were draft breeds developed in the former Soviet Union. They were mainly used for xy and z, and were developed because of a need for a, b and c". A quick description of each - perhaps that Suffolk Punchs are always chestnut and so are good for matched teams or that some other English draft breeds were developed for use in heavy clay soil - would probably be more useful than a general list. It would all have to be sourced to reliable sources, though, which was where your list was significantly lacking. Breeds that are debatable as draft horses (some reliable sources say they are, some say they aren't) could have their own subsection presenting the arguments on either side. Again, I think that work on all parts of the main article (not just the breed section) is probably the way to go, as it would be more helpful to both lay readers and those looking to begin farming with draft horses. Dana boomer (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. KVDP, I apologize if I was a little "bitey," but WPEQ has a LOT of problems with multiple articles getting created on the same subject and then it takes forever to get everything organized again. I DO very much appreciate that you came here to discuss. Dana is right: We DO need to focus on the draft horse article as the means to improve coverage on this type of working animal (speaking of another article that needs work!). I redirected the list because it was not only inaccurate and undisambiguated, also based on a poor source, but primarily because it's a content fork that is not needed. The problem is just that: what IS a "draft horse?" An article can explain the nuances, a list cannot. For example, the Finnhorse is a classic example, one breed, same ancestry, four different body types recognized within the same registry, one of which is a light draft type. Some categories, such as gaited horse are easy to create in a list, as the membership is small, but still requires narrative and explanation, though in the case of breeds like the American Saddlebred where some are gaited and some are not, there is room to argue (ditto some "ungaited" breeds, such as the Arabian, who have gaited individuals). Similarly, our articles on other "types," such as warmblood and stock horse need to be at least as much narrative as list. Even then, there are a lot of multi-purpose breeds where aficionados would want them on many lists to somehow promote their versatility. (I happen to know a 1/2-Tennessee Walker who was used as a stock horse. This doesn't mean that Tennessee Walkers in general are stock horses...! =:-O ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)