User talk:Richard New Forest/Archive 2008

This page is archived discussion from User talk:Richard New Forest. It covers the period from January 2008 to December 2008 inclusive.

British Hunter

I don't see a loop. The redirect looks perfectly correct to me. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. What I saw (or at least thought I saw) was an actual redirect (not a note of one) – either there was a hiccup in the template at that moment, or more likely it was late and I saw something which was not there. I'd also not yet seen the disambig page you'd done, so I was trying to do it as without one. All looks good now – thanks. --Richard New Forest (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Query flushing before conception increasing birth weight.

I do not understand what you are asking regarding flushing sheep. I read the very interesting article sheep and did not know what it meant by "flushing". So I googled it and learned stuff and added to the article now linked. I learned that the term is used to refer to removal of embryos/eggs and also used to refer to giving some animals (goats, sheep, cattle, deer, and similar) extra nutrition in the two or so weeks prior to conception to increase fertility (number of eggs/offspring) especially, but also to increase birth weight. How long the added nutrition continues, I don't know - I guess it would depend. For example, if flushing were used to create extra eggs and to remove them, there is no need to continue the rich diet after they are removed. I suppose modern factory farms use objective scientific diet formulas for each stage (egg production, womb growth, milk production). One might think extra nutrients would be useful post-birth to help the babies, but modern farming tends to value the milk too high to waste it on non-humans. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, flushing is done before tupping to increase the number of eggs, and so increase the lambing percentage. On the other hand birthweight is controlled mainly by nutrition in the period before lambing (in fact large birthweight is not necessarily desirable, and the aim is to avoid both too-large and too-small lambs). See for example [1] and [2]. Did you find a reference that flushing before tupping can affect birth weight?

Thankfully sheep are not yet factory-farmed... Again, over-rich nutrition after birth may not necessarily be a good thing (see [3], under "overeating disease"). --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources I have specify that flushing can be done before/during mating, during pregnancy, and during lactation. Some choose to only flush during one or none of these periods, but it can and has been commonly done in all of them. VanTucky 03:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ewe liveweights were generally on target with less variability than the previous two years as a result of ewes being well-fed right through the lambing period."[4] WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But does flushing at tupping have an effect on birthweight? Richard New Forest (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Refs then please.--Richard New Forest (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Above copied to Talk:Sheep husbandry – can we continue any discussion there please, as the most relevant place.--Richard New Forest (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Thankfully sheep are not yet factory-farmed"

"Under the intensive sheep production based on a cut and carry system, sheep are kept in pens with grass and concentrate being provided regularly. Some flocks are kept on slatted floors, others on litter beds that are cleaned once or twice a year."[5]

Intensive sheep production in the near east

Section six of this is on intensive sheep systems

WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Madness! I wish I had remained in ignorance, poor things. As sheep are notoriously good at spontaneous dying, I find it hard to believe that they don't take the opportunity in this system. It's bad enough treating cattle that way.

It seems this intensive system is not covered by sheep husbandry. --Richard New Forest (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I started to add it to the article, but the section that seemed best (styles or some such section) appeared to be mere unsourced assertion after unsourced assertion, and probably should be rewritten from scratch using appropriate sources; which I am unmotivated to do; so I copied the above to its talk page. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Other sheep

My point with removing this was that these other species are named in English as sheep, but they aren't technically sheep, they are caprids. Only Ovids are scientifically sheep. These others members of different genus' (that are still in Caprinae) are named inaccurately as sheep, scientifically speaking. I thought about talking about this in the article, but I decided it's a little off topic. That would be a better discussion for the main Ovis article in my opinion. VanTucky 03:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah the "true sheep"... What else could you call a Barbary sheep though? It may not be a true sheep, but it's undoubtedly another legitimate use for the word (Ovis is a caprid too though). A musk ox is even less an ox, but it's still called an ox. Not at all sure that there really is a technical definition of "sheep" which is meaningful in this sense. The scientific definition is that of Ovis, but "sheep" is not a scientific word. Hard to find a significant thing which separates sheep (or indeed goats) as any more different from other goat-antelopes than the various goat-antelope genera are from each other. As far as I can see the term sheep is just used for any caprids which appear more sheepy than goaty, irrespective of their scientific relationships. I do agree that it's off-topic for that article... --Richard New Forest (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Chaff

Thank you for the clean up on the chaff page. Hardyplants (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on Shire Horse/Black horse

Hey Richard, will you check out the discussion going on at User_talk:Montanabw#Black_horse? I basically stumbled across Old English Black, which is a low quality stub, but does appear to be a legitimate predecessor to the Shire horse, but finding reliable, verifiable info is a challenge? Can you lend a hand? (You did such a great job helping on Jenny (donkey), I now believe that you can leap tall buildings with a single bound. And you have a background with draft horses, AND live in the right country, so ... ?? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 18:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

the L in Olney

Why do you think that the L in Olney is not enunciated? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful instruction throughout my childhood... Not being local to there myself, I had understood that everyone said it that way, but see [6], which makes it clear that the L is now often pronounced. My family were originally from there, but several generations ago, so they obviously use the old pronunciation. As it seems it is said both ways, both versions ought to be given. I've changed the page & copied this to the talk page. --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I recently went crazy and moved Polled cattle to Polled livestock, considering that any horned livestock can be polled. I did a basic rewrite accordingly, feel welcome to make some edits. I'm going to add some source material soon. Cheers, VanTucky 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheep at LWC

Have any idea what breed this sheep is? VanTucky 00:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Must surely be a longwool of some kind: Lincoln, Leicester, Wensleydale or Devon; if one of the first three with wool about half grown. Perhaps not crimped enough for the last three. Or a hybrid of one of these. See [7],[8], [9] and [10]. My guess is Lincoln. I can find various mentions of sheep at the London Wetland Centre ([11]), but not of what they are (nor of whether they're being used for conservation grazing or just for show). They'd probably tell you if you asked them... I once removed the SSSI designation from the LWC when it was a clump of very dull urban reservoirs, but by all accounts it's now an outstanding nature reserve and it was made SSSI again in 2002. --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From checking out the breed association gallery and such, my guess is Greyface Dartmoor. Thanks Richard! VanTucky 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That does look a good candidate, though the wool coverage doesn't seem entirely consistent – those Greyfaces that have enough wool also seem to have rather more woolly legs, but less wool on the face – but the degree and pattern of woolliness does seem to be variable. The northern and Midland Longwools have much longer faces with a Roman nose, so I agree that it looks like one of those south-western breeds. I can't pin down a solid difference though between Greyface and Devon – and of course being from the same county they are presumably related. Both have the chunky face with dark nose, face free of wool but with longer wool round eyes. Now I think of it, I think Greyfaces have a reputation as conservation grazers, so that could well be more likely if they are being used for that. Perhaps I'll give the LWC a ring in the morning... --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You were right -- Dartmoor Greyface, used for conservation grazing. I rang them just now. Apparently they use Greyfaces because they are hardy and adapted to wet ground. They have some Highland cattle too. --Richard New Forest (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Corvus/Raven/Crow

Hi, Because of the recent discussion about the difference of Crows/Ravens (where you made very good points) I've created User:Plcoffey/SandboxCorvus (genus) which is currently a copied version of Crow; I'm hoping we can transition it into something resembling a representation of the entire genus (as per the discussion on Talk:Corvus (genus). My hope is that it would be a more inclusive article that would be a portal to the various species pages, and that it would allow us to eliminate some of the redundancy in the current pages. Any help or suggestions would be very welcome! Plcoffey (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Estuarine/alluvial on Romney Marsh

Hello, Richard re the Romney Sheep article. estuarine vs alluvial. The soils of the Marsh can I think be described either way correctly. Jill Eddison in Romney Marsh, Survival on a Frontier Tempus Publishing 2000 writes in Chapter 2 "The Legacy of the Ice Age" that the chalk of the Downs broke up in freeze-thaw cycles, releasing a slurry of flints carried down the valleys by seasonal flood water to the floor of the English Channel. That is clearly alluvial. She also writes (next page p 31) "indeed silt is still being deposited in the Rother estuary"; that's one in the eye for me. Let's leave it as estuarine unless you are moved to re-describe the soil of the Marsh as both.

It's a pleasure to correspond with someone who says what he or she is doing with Wiki and why.

I breed Romneys in the U.S., have for 25 years. My wife and I and enjoyed a visit to the Marsh in 2001 just before Foot and Mouth hit the fan. I got involved in the Wiki business early last year when planning an article on the breed for a Sheep Festival. Glancing at what wiki had then I thought it did not do justice to this important breed. The only other wiki article I have a personal interest in is the one on the Bradford system.

Have fun choosing a sheep breed for your farm. Keep in touch, cheers,--Sawyer12477 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the critical difference is that estuarine sediments are saline, and alluvial are freshwater – the sediments themselves may both ultimately derive from rivers, but they are chemically and structurally different. You are quite right that massive periglacial sediments from freeze-thaw flowed from the Downs and the Weald into the Channel, but those would mostly be gravels and sands ending up further offshore (with a much lower sea level), rather than the more recent silts which comprise most of Romney Marsh. There are in fact sands, gravels and shingle along the south coast of the Marsh – but those derive from wind (Camber Sands), and longshore drift (Dungeness etc).

Seem to be settling on Shetland sheep at the moment – we need something really tough which can live on heather and will eat scrub readily. --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bridles

Hey Richard, can you drift over to bridle and maybe also bit (horse) and see if you can add stuff on driving bridles and driving bits? We riding people realize that there is a need for the info, but we have insufficient expertise. Montanabw^(talk) 06:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I also re-added the surcingle term to the harness article, at least temporarily, many people with light harness show horses around here call the girthing system a "surcingle" here, but I don't know if that is incorrect terminology or regional terminology...if you can give me a chance to check on that point, I'd appreciate it. Certainly the core of a bitting harness is the surcingle...? Montanabw^(talk) 06:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I only know a surcingle as a strap for holding on a rug or racing saddle, or for use when lungeing (in what you call a bitting harness). I've never heard it in relation to driving harness – but perhaps that's my ignorance. Will see what I can find. Is your driving surcingle the whole thing, with the same construction (back band, belly band, girth and saddle)? --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You could be right and I could be wrong, take a look at the getup in fine harness and see if it is detailed enough for you to see what's there. If not, I can find some off-wiki photos (unfree images) that show the show ring harnesses seen a lot in the USA. Montanabw^(talk) 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tricky to see on that photo... As far as I can see there is a belly band coming down from the shaft, and something inside that which must be the girth. Then there's another looser narrow strap coming down just behind the leg – not sure what that can be. Looks as if it might stabilise the rear end of the breast collar (which incidentally is ever so narrow – he couldn't pull anything much with it). I'll have a look at a book I've got (unfortunately also not quite out of copyright, or I'd scan the pic for Horse harness). Posh harness in the UK is rather different to this, usually with a lightweight proper collar. The driving style is very different too – we'd not have the hands up round the ears like that. Though perhaps the horse has just jumped forward or something. Really posh driving is done with both reins in the left hand, in the lap, the right hand only being used to take up extra slack on tight turns (either rein). Personally I'm lazy and usually drive with both hands.

Horses are sometimes shown in a special type of harness, but I don't know the terms for that. Look at [12] (in particular[13]). I think I'd call it a posh surcingle. --Richard New Forest (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Elastrator

Thanks for changing cows -> cattle at elastrator. Silly me! NTK (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You could try it, but I don't think it would be very easy. A neighbour of ours was running his dairy cows through the parlour for milking one day and had the opposite problem – he was trying to get the cluster on our bull, who'd jumped the fence and come on a visit... --Richard New Forest (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And I noticed the other day that one of our neighbour's heifers (of about the right age) has the same colour pattern as our bull, so his visit was not wasted... --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Dab at Poll

I find you've violated NPA at Talk:Poll, and hope you'll consider how to remedy that.
--Jerzy•t 06:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry you should think that – it certainly was not intended. I did make it very clear that I considered your edit to be in good-faith, and I thought I had made my other comments in a spirit of friendly discussion – indeed, you generously commented that one para was "good-hearted".

I wonder if you were upset by my latest comment: "I see why you like short DAB entries. It's so you have words left over for arguing about them..."? I do hope not, as this was intended as no more than a mild and slightly teasing joke – I think you'll agree that your replies are even wordier than some of mine, and that this is ironic compared with your desire for short defs. In retrospect perhaps I ought to have made a longer reply, as short sentences are often easy to misinterpret.

Please accept my apologies for anything which caused unintended offence. --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it, and now i'm sorry, and i think no apology was called for. Standing alone it seemed, earlier, implicit that you thought the wordiness was just intended to ... filibuster, i guess, and deserved no reasoned response. In fact it's not a bad joke, bcz there is "irony" in the contrast, and gosh, i thought i was more teaseable than this. "No excuse, sir", but i am prescribing myself some more sleep. Thanks for responding better than i deserved.
--Jerzy•t 02:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries! --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Geier Hitch

Could you please take a look at this article and assess the suitability of it as is? Cgoodwin (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Is this genuine? I suspect an elaborate windup, or a legend not actually used in practice. I'd not risk my bull's future this way... I do notice that all the first hits on Google are WP itself or derivatives. Why not tie his nose to something less delicate, or use the traditional method of a short chain on the nose, so he stands on it when he ducks to snort? And anyway, what's to stop him running forward, nose, ring, string, bollocks and all? Or leaving the whole lot on the fence?

Lucky for us our bulls are all pussycats (it's the cows you've got to watch...). --Richard New Forest (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the article when it began: [14]. I think the last sentence rather gives it away... Speedy deletion? --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of this hitch here despite a very long association with cattle of various breeds and types and think all of it is nonsense. The article should go. Cgoodwin (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put a request on the talk page for further information – let's see if anything turns up. I agree that it must be nonsense, but there is some chance it's interesting nonsense... --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Watershed (word)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Watershed (word), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Need your input

Hey Richard, would you care to weigh in at Horses in the Middle Ages. We are weak on the farm stuff there and we are trying to class the article up a bit (Ealdgyth wants to take it to FAC, but it has a ways to go). Need stuff on medieval farming and draught horses, if possible. Thanks for any help, even a read and overall opinion on how we could improve it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Forage

Thanks for the help with the forage page. I wrote quite a bit of the content, what do you think of it? Gabacho2 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rock Pigeon

There is absolutely no need to expand on what a domestic pigeon is on the Rock pigeon article. Following the Domestic pigeon link will explain what it is. The Rock pigeon article is rated GA. Please don't stuff it up by going on about differences in colours etc in the article when that information is clearly found at the other articles. Have you actually read the article? See the sections on Domestication and Feral pigeons? Go read them and add info there if you like. A lot of work was put into this article by people who actually know about the subject. The external link section can be done without as that pdf link is unnecessary.--Sting au Buzz Me... 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and what is "irridescece"? It's a new one on me!--Sting au Buzz Me... 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to provide a reliable source for males having more iridescence on the neck? I bet you can't. This is the biggest problem with Wikipedia. People who have absolutely no idea about the subject trying to add information.--Sting au Buzz Me... 11:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see response on Talk:Rock Pigeon --Richard New Forest (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Corvus (genus)

I wanted to ask for your continued input over at corvus (genus). Thanks! Plcoffey 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Naturmobil

Thanks for reworking the article. Please see Diff, I replaced the reference header. Not sure why you thought they were not references. Jeepday (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. They do look like external links to me... A reference supports a fact or claim in the text (and generally ought to be done as an in-line reference). These links are general information – how do they differ from the Fleethorse link?

I was pleased and fascinated to see this invention. As a schoolboy cycling uphill home from school I used to fantasise about a horse-powered vehicle much like this, though I had neither the drive nor the engineering skills to implement it. Nor a horse, at that time, though the Welsh Cob mare I have now would love it, if it was hard enough work.

It does need some improvements – the harness they are using is attached in the wrong place (not from the breast collar), and it does not look strong enough to cope with heavy braking. What holds the horse in on sharp corners? Also, the idea of putting a horse in a greenhouse is not the best one, and in Iran it's madness; the horse ought to be outdoors, with extra air scoops to keep the animal cool (as humans have in fully faired HPVs). Finally, I don't understand why it needs the drag of a generator and the weight of batteries and motor – if the horse needs a rest, stop for a bit! If you're going to have electric drive, have an electric vehicle charged off the mains and leave half a ton of horse at home... --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

External links can be references. The Fleethorse link is (appears to be) the home page of the Naturmobil, the other links are news articles and write ups that are the source of all the content in the article so that makes them references. I agree that the references should be inline and use correct formatting. These references also speak to the notability of the subject. I was kind of expecting the article to flourish a bit more. There are a number of other interesting facts and details in the references, like the relationship to Palm Islands and I expected the article to grow more in the first 24 hours then it has. My thought was the article would grow then I would go back and insert them as properly formated references and possibly submit it to WP:DYK. Jeepday (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not entirely convinced, but I don't think it makes all that much difference, so leave it be for the moment. --Richard New Forest (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for your help with the SAMM article. I have yet to figure out how to re-direct it. Thanks also for your comments on the sheep rolling bit. There have been quite a few people who disagree with this rot, but I suspect VT will will again. Cgoodwin (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Skid steer

Thanks for asking. Answered on Talk:Skid steer. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Front loader and Loader (equipment)

Do you think the Front loader and Loader (equipment) pages should be merged? Seems to me the latter is a good candidate for merging into the former. What do you think? Care to reply on Talk:Loader (equipment)#Murge with Front loader? --Roger Chrisman (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bog wood

Please go ahead with the merge. Ceoil (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will wait a bit for more comments. Above comment copied to Talk:Bog wood. --Richard New Forest (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There wont be any. Just merge. Ceoil (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Went down the road and shot some photos for Hampshire gate. Hope we ARE in fact discussing the same thing here! Take a peek. Montanabw^(talk) 04:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Spot on! I took some myself the other day (in central France – no idea what they call it there...). Yours is better though. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I straightened out the posts a bit before I took it, the neighbors probably thought I was nuts. Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Feed, fodder and all that jazz

Richard, I have a very extensive article at Equine nutrition that is GA but always room for improvement. Would you eyeball it and add any additional UK terminology that might be needed? I tried to get as many alternative terms in as possible, (NUTS??? They're PELLETS! Nuts are for squirrels! LOL!) but probably missed some. Note it's footnoted up the wazoo, so if you add anything of substance other than minor cleanup, please footnote it. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A few points on that article, which does look a good one.

• Could do with something about grazing behaviour – the length of grass preferred, uneven grazing, and dunging areas.
• Teeters on the brink of "Howto" in places: eg "it is important to remember", "should not be kept from water".
• I've had a go at the units. Unfortunately the convert template can't yet do "10 to 12 gallons" in one go (though it does do lengths like that). Couldn't work out what the non-SI equivalent of KJ/kg was.
• A few fact tags & corrections – mostly physiological stuff.
• Some UK usage added. Actually should really be "British English" or "British Isles" throughout, rather than "UK", as Irish usage is pretty much the same as British. I suspect likewise US and Canadian usage will likewise be similar...?
• Nothing about poisonous plants (except a See also)...
• Nothing about parasites, which can also affect nutrition hugely.
• Otherwise a few general edits.

Richard New Forest (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Canadian usage similar to USA usage... EH??? (Hope you get that one; LOL!) Canadian usage is sort of a cross between UK spelling and US word use, which makes life particularly interesting. We Yanks are terrible, we joke and say, "Canadians are just like us--only a lot nicer!" LOL! Where I live, we get a lot of tourists from Alberta, so much good humor here! Usually we say things like that on purpose, just to make Canadians stomp their feet and insist how VERY different they are from "Americans" -- except they point out, rightly, that they ARE also North Americans. (Hmmm. Am I an "United Statesian??"). We tell them how much we love The Red Green Show and the McKenzie brothers. Then we get into MORE trouble!  :-D

But goofy Canadian humor aside, I saw your tweaks on easy and hard keeper and I'm surfing over to the Equine Nutrition article now. But to address a couple of your points. The list of poisonous plants is very long, I don't even want to start. We could, I suppose, do a super brief paragraph with a link to the list, but the topic is so complex, especially on a worldwide scale, that I'm a little scared to even go there. (I'm having enough trouble just sorting through the relative toxicity of stuff in my own area, complicated by the presence of certain popular but non-native landscaping ornamentals planted around the average house...)

Parasites are covered at horse care, I guess I didn't even think to discuss them in a nutrition article, as they are a non-issue with proper management. At least in the states - a wormy horse here is usually also a starving and neglected one owned by ignoramuses. Again, I suppose a brief mention could be useful.

The howto issue is always a tricky one. Basic guidelines versus how to. I suppose really it is mostly just word choice. I'll look at that at bit and think about what to do. The grazing issue could be a good new short subsection under forages as far as "poop spots" ("roughs"), dirt spots and grazing areas, but there is also a lot of regional variation in the details...I am thinking that a separate article on pasture management for horses might be more appropriate, as one can get into pasture rotation, grasses ideal for horses, and the whole "safer grass" issue that is now the hot topic in the USA. (see http://www.safergrass.org )

Anyway, that's my thoughts. Maybe take any further chat over to the relevant article pages. Montanabw^(talk) 05:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow up on equine nutrition. Is fermentation ALWAYS bacterial?? You made some good edits for flow and wording that I tweaked only a little bit. Most of the stuff you questioned was directly sourced, I commented in hidden text (sounds snarky, wasn't intended as such) or tried to fix, maybe look at the source itself and see what you think. If you see something that still doesn't fit the source, go ahead and tag again with comment and I'll look into it. Otherwise, if you question the content of the source itself, we can chat further on the talk page. I like your going in and spotting odd stuff, though, so thanks for all you did,even if I sound a bit touchy about it (LOL!)! Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewilding images

Richard; did you discussed before remove it? of course, them are montages of many different images. they are photographies that "I shoot" in the zoological ones from zacango, chapultepec, africam safari, reinoanimal and bioparque estrella in México. Apparently if somebody strives to offer a good quality work is better not to try show it in wikipedia. sorry the spelling :User:Sergiodlarosa|Sergiodlarosa]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiodlarosa (talk • contribs) 03:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Sergiodlarosa. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

One link per item in DAB pages

I think I finally see what one link per item in DAB pages means! Sorry to have been so slow to catch on. Thanks for pointing out this policy for DAB pages. I'll help edit towards it in the future. - Bevo (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Richard New Forest (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Bears in reedbeds

Dear Mr Richard, I do not understand why that you took away my EXTREMELY important warnings about reedbed safety. I happen to know that bears have attacked many of my friends who got too close to a bear infected reedbed. If only they'd have shouted, the bears would have gone away. I hope for the sake of your soul, that no more reed bed related bear attacks occur. Because you may become upset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divovska vidra (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Divovska vidra (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)divovska vidra

When I go into a reedbed I always wear a bear-charm to keep the bears away, and this seems to work very well, as I have never seen a bear in a reedbed here in Britain. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Conker(s)

Richard, I believe I had the talkpage and article both aligned and you appear to have reverted everything. Remember what Kipling said? Sarah777 (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah – you'd got the pages themselves straight, but the histories of the article pages were still swapped. If it's done properly (by an admin), each whole page is moved, history and all. In the past I've found that it just happens by magic once posted on WP:Requested moves – a worthy admin has just done it, as part of clearing the backlog. However your move does seem to have worked for the talk pages. In fact the first thing I tried was to move Conker to Conkers, but it wouldn't let me – which was why I went down the Requested Moves route. Sorry if I seemed to be messing up your work... Were you thinking of keeping one's head? I try, but I do find myself losing it sometimes... Richard New Forest (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You got it!! I was getting tied in knots (tanglies, tanglies, 1,2,3!) trying to sort it out :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We shall never go bonkers over conkers. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Chestnut (and conkers)

Hi Richard, you've got a note at the discussion page Talk:Chestnut. Massive overhauls are done with, thanks for letting me free field for the time it took to adjust eveerything. Basicdesign (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(It's taken awhile b/c was doing amendments on related articles as I was compiling info)

P.S.: conkers contain 1/3 of the opium in poppies. Or so it says on the net. No wonder Victorians planted conker trees all over, what with I think was 3/4 of them including babies, taking opium more often than a hypochondriac takes pills. Am trying to have my local park replanted with Sweet Chestnuts instead of conker trees. Horses are showy, okay they're nice and can eat the flowers (near got a bug in this year, though). But the flowers are not exacly nutritious compared to chestnuts, the conkers taste a lot less nice and you can't even get there without what boils down to too much work, since in any case one can eat better for a lot less work. Can play with chestnuts all the games one can play with conkers. Thank you for helping me promote Chestnuts ! :-)Basicdesign (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Calf

Would you please take a look at this article. I'm uncertain as to northern terms etc. TIA Cgoodwin (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Terms look pretty similar to Brit ones, though I don't know about American ones. I do wonder whether the article subject is a little mixed. WP articles should be about a "thing", not a word (which is why we have disambiguation pages for similar names). If we classify by name rather than thing, we end up with, say, fallow deer fawns in a different article to red deer calves. Perhaps make it about cattle calves (including bison, buffalo, yak etc?), with a minor ref to the others, as for bull and cow in the cattle article. Otherwise looks good – I'll have a tinker some time. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I had considered that but do not have much info on others. Any help appreciated, thanks. Cgoodwin (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

UK terminology

Hey Richard, can you hop over to Highland pony? There is a minor dispute there over coat color terminology. Aside from figuring out whether to listen to the registry's web site or the more informal breed enthusiasts' site, the real concern for me is just finding the correct words. You were helpful with the piebald/skewbald/tricoloured thing, so I'm coming to you again. In short, how are various shades of dun horses described in the UK generally, and does this article use the right lingo, and/or do the Highland pony folks have their own specialized terms the way the Fjord horse people do? In particular, what the heck is a "biscuit dun," a "fox dun" or a "yellow" "gray" or "cream" dun? You may want to skim dun gene and primitive markings first before answering. In short, in the US, a genetically bay + dun gene horse (tan with black mane and tail) is a plain old "dun", or else a "zebra dun," or "bay dun." A chestnut + dun is a "red dun" (creamy with a red mane and tail) and a black+dun is a "blue dun," "grullo," or occasionally "mouse dun." (gray or grayish-tan with black mane and tail) There is no real consensus in the US on what to call stuff when a cream gene gets thrown into the mix on top of the dun gene, but I suspect this may be a "cream dun" to you folks??? Anyway, any clarification is welcome! Thanks much as always. Montanabw^(talk) 06:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Goat

Your edit to “Goat” seems to have gone quite awry. —SlamDiego_←T 21:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks – I must have hit the wrong key. I did check the saved page, but obviously not carefully enough... Richard New Forest (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Crupper

Hi. Re crupper vs breeching on riding horses, see for example this. I will try to find an image that can be used on Wikipedia. BTW, are you absolutely sure that breeching on driving horses always includes a crupper? I'm not. --Una Smith (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the point with riding, at least Western-style. I wonder if that is (or was originally) largely to hold the saddle when anchoring roped cattle? A crupper (or tail) would not be nearly strong enough for this.

For driving, the breeching and crupper really have different purposes. The crupper in most harness does no more than hold the harness saddle in place. In very light harness with a very light vehicle a crupper alone is also enough to allow the horse to slow the vehicle – the horse pulls back with the saddle, with the braking forces ending up at the crupper. However, in a vehicle with any significant weight the horse's tail is not enough for stopping and so breeching is needed. Harness breeching attaches to the vehicle (not to the saddle or girth) and gives the horse something solid to sit back into when slowing.

Of course, leader harness and plough harness don't need breeching, as these do not do any slowing. They do not absolutely always have a saddle either, and then they would have no crupper – so I was not quite right, it is possible to have harness without a crupper. However breeching would not normally be used without a crupper, as a horse that slows a vehicle will normally be a wheeler, and a saddle (with crupper) is needed to attach it to the shafts or pole. There is one minor exception – for teams used behind a very heavy vehicle to hold it on a steep downhill. These would have had breeching but would not have needed a saddle, so might not have had a crupper. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we copy this entire discussion, including the inline comment and edit summary that started it? To the article's talk page? --Una Smith (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK – copied to Talk:Crupper. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New article

In the process of the editing of crupper, I decided to make Breeching (tack) a real article, not a redirect. It's just a stub, if you want to add anything to it I'd be glad! I mostly did a copy and paste from your stuff at horse harness, and added a bit about packhorses and mule saddles, you may want to take a peek and see if I got it all correct. By the way, also look over crupper. Both Una and I have hacked at it quite a bit and I think it is now coherent but without unnecessary tangents. I noticed in the process of editing, that it is very tough to find many harness diagrams on the web, found a few, a lot of inconsistency in terms, even beyond the usual US/UK thing. For example, saddle versus back band versus back pad, etc... Bleech!  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 08:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I saw this. In light of that discussion, you may want to take a look at this. Montanabw^(talk) 06:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mole

Please see Talk:The Mole (TV series)#Name of page for an important point. Thank you. TheHYPO (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your user page

Interesting, I just read it, are your beef organic? - are you able to make any money doing that? I just wonder, I do have a vested interest. Do the unfortunate cattle get fed that nasty weedy low yielding discoloured stuff that passes for organic wheat/barley/protein. Just an idle curiousity. Giano (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Giano. No, not registered organic, although pretty near – we don't use any fertilisers, herbicides or pesticides, and only minimal veterinary treatments for parasites etc when needed. For us it's not worth the cost of organic registration for a minimal additional premium on the beef. We use the cattle (and now sheep) for conservation grazing on heathland and marshland. Income is from beef, from sales of live animals for breeding and conservation grazing, from the EU Single Payment Scheme, and from land owners, some of whom pay us to maintain their wildlife habitats. The animals eat entirely grass in summer and almost entirely heather in winter – we give a little additional high-protein feed in winter to cows and calves to let them digest the heather better. They winter out. So no, little cereals, organic or not, and very small carbon footprint. Killed at 30 months, hung for 4 weeks or so – proper beef. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dasher and Dancer, also Heffalumps

Thanks for your comments about the driving issue. Hm. Driving animal, versus separate articles on all the critters. We also have the issue of show driving versus heavy carriage driving, versus draught work, there is also an article on combined driving, etc. I guess I don't know which way to go on this. I know that when I created the article, per the intro, my intent was to focus on equines (not that I can "own" the article, of course! Just explaining). So I guess that I wouldn't kick about a rename to something like Driving (equine) because of the similarities of equipment (i.e. can't really use a yoke on equines, etc.) as that might help broaden it in an appropriately logical way. But if we were to do an article on Driving animals in general, I think we may want to make that a completely new and different article with this one as one spinoff. I actually think that ox driving (or draught cattle?? Don't forget the Water Buffalo!) IS worth its own article, even if we start as a stub and expand later. (Especially because I think that Ox currently redirects to the cattle article anyway...) We also have to consider if we want to spin something off of working animal, I think there is both a pack animal and a packhorse article, for instance. Draft and Draught animal redirects to working animal, however. That article has sections on harness animals, though about one sentence each. I wonder if there should be some sort of general organization of articles on working animals; the categories don't seem very well set up...hoo boy, I think we just stumbled into a whole bunch more work...!

OK, so, long story short, I guess I'd kind of like to keep the horse driving article focused mostly on equine driving, with splits between the styles as needed (draught work versus show at least), maybe more of a nod to mules and donkeys if we can, but sticking to equidae, and maybe a name change is needed. But I also think you are right that other animals are driven and need proper attention paid to them (well, maybe not heffalumps! LOL). The question is if we want to expand this in the working animal article or to do up a whole new one. Thoughts?? Montanabw^(talk) 22:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, see also Animal-powered transport. I think we may have just opened up a can of worms... Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Ricardo, me laddie, just a note

Note a bunch of uploads to commons I made for Dana's Suffolk Punch project: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Suffolk_Punch May have uses for your draft horse and harness articles. Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another

Legitimate globalize tag on this article; can you help? Draft horse showing. Oh and if we wanted to create some sort of collective category for all these, note also horse pulling. I would be willing to do the grunt work of tagging the various draft animal articles with a new category, but what to create and what to call it? We have a harness category, maybe it needs some reorganization over there... thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 22:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Puli

Hello!

Did my edits answered your questions or do you feel that there are more unclear topics in the article?

Warrington (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Bearing rein

Hi. I added some photos to Bearing rein and noted that article needs expansion. Can you expand it? Also, I think a navigation template would be helpful, to navigate among all the "rein" articles. --Una Smith (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can't really do much to that – not really my expertise (which stops at knowing what the hook on the driving saddle would be for, if I used it...). Richard New Forest (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you run across anyone particularly well informed about troikas etc? I made the template, Template:Reins. --Una Smith (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thompson coupling

Hi, I started the Thompson Coupling page, and have had to defend it for some time. I would have preferred that the page included a more comprehensive explanation, but there have been critics who haven't understood the coupling, that have reworded, suggested speedy decline, etc. The coupling is difficult to conceptualize, even with animations, so a wiki page is probably going to struggle to completely clarify the operation anyway. I'd be happy to reword - what do you think? GrahamP (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What I noticed about the current wording is that it doesn't really explain what the principle is, nor how it differs from other universal joints. Perhaps a good way to illustrate this is to imagine the article with the identical wording, but with the title changed, to, for example, the "Richard New Forest Coupling" (a little something I've been keeping in my back pocket for a while...). I don't think it would need to be changed much.

I think the article needs more description of the construction and principle (though I do appreciate what you say about it being difficult to explain), and some explanation of how it differs from other solutions.

As to whether it deserves its own article, I'm not sure. As it stands, it could just be a section in universal joint, but that is already a fairly long article, and no doubt the Thompson coupling material will grow. Perhaps it will depend on uptake of the technology. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I did a rewrite - see what you think. I'll try to get an image in at some stage. GrahamP (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks much better. I can't say I fully understand it, but at least I have a vague idea of what it is I don't understand... I wonder how the Thompson joint compares with the "double cardans" used in heavy duty Land Rover prop shafts? These are used for the front shaft, especially in vehicles with jacked-up suspension, which of course have large variations in angle as the suspension works over rough ground. They are actually triple cardans, with a one cardan as normal at one end, then a pair back to back at the other. This pair does look somewhat similar to the Thompson joint, and has a similar gadget to align the axes of the two joints – however they are not concentric. What I don't understand is how an odd number of cardans can balance the input and output velocities.Richard New Forest (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Thompson joint is a difficult coupling to understand - it took me a while to get a handle on it. Triple cardans won't give you constant velocity - in drive shafts, an attempt is usually made to reduce the angles involved to reduce the shudder and vibration. I used to own a car with 3 cardans about 20 years ago, and there was a subtle but noticeable stop/start motion at low speeds. I thought the brake discs needed machining, but I discovered that it was because of the drive shaft setup. I think that car makers simply try to reduce the shaft speed variation as much as possible. Like you, I couldn't work out why they would use 3 cardans. There are methods to align the axes, but these all have their drawbacks, including friction and wear. The other problem is that even with correct alignment, the shaft or coupling that joins the double cardans still changes speed as the shaft rotates - one cardan induces the speed change, the other cancels the speed change out, provides a source of vibration and wear.GrahamP (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

From me

Thanks for your comment in the sandbox. Necessary perspective! Montanabw^(talk) 00:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Errors in even-toed ungulate

Thanks for correcting my errors in even-toed ungulates, sloppy writing I'll admit! Jack (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Breeching (tack)

Hi! Breeching (tack) lacks some links, due to missing content elsewhere. Could you help fill in the holes? See Talk:Breeching (tack)#Harness and false breeching. --Una Smith (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you use this "wow" photo? Harness breeching is visible on the wheeler. It looks like the side lines have loops around the horses' hind legs. What are those called? --Una Smith (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a fascinating photo... The breeching is there, though you do have to look quite hard. I think those loops around the legs are to stop the traces of the leaders flapping about. In ordinary harness this job would be done (if at all) by trace carriers, which hang down from the crupper strap – there would also be leader bars (whippletrees) behind each pair of leaders, and the traces of the leaders would only go back as far as these. Here the traces seem to connect all the way back to the carriage, making longer lengths needing to be controlled. This army harness seems simpler than either cart or van harness, I suppose to make it quicker and easier to work with in field conditions. (Are the horses' tails docked or just cropped short?) I wonder if the image could go in Limbers and caissons (military) (ie "gun carriage"). The photo is a good one – the action is frozen, so the exposure must be a 500th or less, fast for cameras of the time. It must have been set up for the occasion, with the carriage going over a good big bump in front of the camera. Richard New Forest (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)