Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine/Archive 2

Image used on Lead (leg)

 Done Hey. There was a request for a third opinion on whether the images on Lead (leg) are captioned correctly. I'm not nearly qualified enough to answer this one, but I have a feeling that someone here is. Can someone other than Montanabw and Una Smith take a look at this and give their opinion? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The question concerns the animation Image:Horse gif.gif: is the gait transverse or rotatory? (Both terms are discussed on Lead (leg).) --Una Smith (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be nice is if someone could break it down frame by frame. Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me to be cross-firing (aka rotatory). --AeronM (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Horse books?

Folks, totally open question: Should we create a category for fictional horse stories, authors, etc.? I was thinking of this in terms of articles like The Saddle Club (books). Not sure we want to take on more work, but maybe there should be a category? Whether or not the category would be tagged for WPEQ, I'd say no, but may be nice to have one-stop shopping for those who care? Just a thought. talk amongst yourselves... Montanabw^(talk) 21:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. And how about creating articles for other FHBs like Thoughbred? --UnicornTwilight (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Two different issues, the creating of articles on books and the issue of if horsey fiction is part of WPEQ. Both worth a short chat. We have a lot of stuff to deal with already, yet this MIGHT be in the scope of the project. However, we deliberately chose not to mess with the horse racing stuff at all because a) it's huge and b) WikiProject Thoroughbred racing is taking care of it. (Or is supposed to). There is a Category:Fictional horses, question is if horse fiction should be a category too. Another example: You're Different and That's Super.

'Nother mission for anyone who chooses to accept it

Gypsy Vanner horse. 'Nuff said. Read and weep. I took a run at it a long time ago, but gave up in despair. It needs a major overhaul. Maybe an entire rewrite. Seems to have no consistent active editor, various people sort of hit it for a couple weeks, usually adding all sorts of peacock terms, then cut and run, never to return. Thus, boldness in any constructive manner should be OK. Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fiddling around to see if I can fix it. Might just make it worse, but you never know. --UnicornTwilight (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Article at FAC

Easy Jet is at Featured Articles Candidates, feel free to weigh in and rip it to bits! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy of the Quagga

The taxonomy section of the Quagga article needs some work. Right now it presents the classification of the Quagga as a done deal, when in actuality it is anything but settled. Someone willing to spend some time on digging up the current citations should rewrite this section to be more up to date. Kaldari (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is "someone" out there? Any taxonomy experts? Kaldar, maybe skim the edit history in Equidae and Evolution of the horse, some of the active editors there may have expertise in taxonomy. Montanabw^(talk) 00:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Cleanup Listing

The user that created the listing of articles by notability has now created a listing of pages needing cleanup by project!!! Ours can be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Cleanup listing.

This listing will be re-run every few months, so we will have an updated listing. In the meantime, this listing can be edited, so as people work on the articles, it would be great if everyone could strike out, remove, or otherwise note articles that they have worked on and removed the tags from, so that we're not duplicating efforts.

I'll also be placing this listing on the main page of the project under the articles needing cleanup section. Dana boomer (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Hooray! Was that ScottAlter again? Give him a hug and a howdy! That is VERY useful! Now we have both a stub list and a cleanup list. And we have links to both here somewhere, don't we? Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was actually B. Wolterding, the same guy who did the notability listing. I've put the link to the cleanup listing on the main page, and I think there's a link to the stub listing somewhere...not sure though. Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think adding the link to the stub cat is a good idea, Go for it. I like a one-stop shop if possible. Montanabw^(talk) 04:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Some photos - identification needed

Hope this is the right place to do this. I made a few photos of horses recently, but do not have a clue what breed they are. There aren't that many photos around on commons, so if you think the images are good enough and useful, please identify and use them accordingly. --Rror (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do upload them to commons. The problem with commons isn't so much lack of photos but lack of organization. (Sighing). Based on the photos here, absent height measurements, location and other context clues, It's pretty hard to tell exactly what breeds these horses are, other than that you have correctly identified them as Draft type and Warmblood type. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. I thought the identification is easy - but those are probably not purebred, since the were 'parked outside'. A lot easier to identify plants :-P --Rror (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for all we know they could be retired world champs! And yeah, sometimes you can take a pretty good guess, but can't be sure without DNA or registration papers! Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

Next up

Well, Thoroughbred has its Peer Review, and with a bit of touchups and some new info I just turned up, should be ready for FAC within the week. Now the question is... what next? We should probably get Horse up to at least GA status. Others that are A class or GA class are: Domestication of the horse, Gelding, Appaloosa, Arabian horse, Equine nutrition, Horses in the Middle Ages, & Horses in warfare.

B class articles that might be worth pushing up (I'm sure there are others, these would be my choice): American Quarter Horse, Equestrianism, Evolution of the horse, Horse behavior, Horse gait, Morgan horse, Przewalski's Horse, Saddle, & Xenophon.

Any other suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the amount of work that goes into an FA, I'm all for moving more stuff up to GA. I think that continuing to tune up Horse for GA and ultimately FA is probably one priority. BTW, anyone notice that Lion was the featured article on the main page today? Should we check it out for any ideas? As for other ideas, Gelding is really just about ready for GA (I actually think it already IS ready for a nomination, though I suppose it could always get tweaked some more). We may want to ask Countercanter if she'd like us to take on warmblood or one of her warmblood breed articles -- she's done such good, hard work on those! Also, a while back, someone who was pretty knowlegable helped me work on Domestication of the horse, adding some really good research sources and info, and so it might be within spitting distance of GA faster than Evolution or some of the others.

As for my favs, I'd be all for tackling the Quarter Horse article as our next breed article because I think we have the best pool of mutual expertise for that one. I think Equestrianism is a disaster that may be on we want to nibble on in small chunks over time. Morgan has someone mad at me because I deleted their stuff and I'd prefer to wait until that is settled out (I don't know enough about the politics of the "Old type" Morgan-versus-glorified-Saddlebred- spat to really take it on, I only know the spat exists). We also don't have enough good Morgan photos. My vote is to work on Quarter Horse and Gelding. Xenophon would be fun, though a long ways to go. Saddle could also be fun.

I know that Przewalski's gets a lot of spats over taxonomy, and I'd like to get someone with some sort of zoological knowledge on board with us for that one, and likewise for the Evolution article...if we can recruit a scientist source (maybe Getwood can help? or some of the wikiproject veterinary med people?). I think horse gait may still be a little politically touchy right now, I'd let it settle as in a few more weeks we might be sure it's quieted down. There are also some organizational questions, like if we want to unify the titles for the individual gait articles, if we want to add the gallop stuff to the canter article and rename that, if we want to look at the whole "family" of gait-related articles (Maybe work on the category??) So that's my two bits. Montanabw^(talk) 05:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm in favor of the QH and Arabian breed articles going up soon, since my background is in those breeds. I like the idea of a warmblood too, but really should go with the plain Warmblood article, I think. Err, we do have one, right? I'm trying to figure out what books I need to take with me when I head out Monday for a month. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

QH will be, I think, the easiest one to tune up to GA status. Quick and satisfying. (Knocking on wood) We do have warmblood. It's very weak on citation, though, it's more a launching pad to all the other breed articles (Warmbloods are a "type" not really a "Breed") and I would definitely get Countercanter's "blessing" before we go in (says the person who mercilessly edits her stuff all the time, (oops) but she has really earned my respect with her depth knowledge on warmbloods! - and by the way, she's sharp on genetics, too). She has actually done more work on Heavy warmblood (which has some fascinating history.

For Arabian Horse to go from GA up to FA, we (probably me because I was the one who didn't do it right the first time) need to do page numbers for the dozens of refs to Gladys Brown Edwards and Peter Upton's books. Now, if you have either a copy of GBE or Upton and WANT to do some of that, I certainly won't kick (grin), (FYI, you usually ref the 1980 edition of GBE, I have the 1973, so page numbering for GBE may need to be to only one or the other unless there is different material in each, also, I have Upton in paperback, but there is also a hardcover edition) but seeing as how it was me who did it wrong, I sort of do feel like I need to fix it, though I admit that I haven't made any motions to do so... and I loathe those citation templates (since I had that detached retina surgery last September, {, [, and | all look almost the same to me and with my penchant for typos on top of it, it takes me five times as long to use the template as to just use the ref tags. Yes, I know, I'm whining...) I'm also a little nervous that the length will be an issue and that non-horse people will challenge some of the controversies stuff, even though its presence happens to have prompted AHA to put a section on genetic diseases on its web site -- citing wiki! (LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheat on the refs, follow what I did with Easy Jet, where the cite templates are only used once, and you use short refs with the ref tags in the article itself. Lots easier. I think we did that with Thoroughbred too. But, I'll pack up the QH books, I don't own Upton, I have GBE, and Borden and the Annotated Quest, and Arabian Exodus, Archer's Arabian Horse, Burt's Winning with Arabian Horses, Raswan's Drinkers of the Wind, the AK volumes, a bunch of history articles from back issues of the Khamsat and Arabian Visions, Conn's Arabian Horse in America and a few others, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll fix all the Upton refs then (arrgh, page numbers, page numbers) I have Burt, Wentworth, that new one on showing, the AHW bio of GBE and some others. Between you and I, we probably have all the big ones (Do you have WR Brown? I don't and the local library tossed their copy at some book sale! DOH!). I don't have AK, but I DO have the Raswan Index (not that it will help here much). Your assessment of sources overall will be valued, as always. What fun! Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I completely missed that this discussion was going on *grin*! Just to throw in my two cents... It would be great to get a couple of articles up to FA, and some more up to GA. Appaloosa and especially Thoroughbred are probably our best bets for FA at the moment, since they've become GA the most recently and have all up-to-date information and the citations are all nice and proper!

Arabian would also be good...but the citations really need some work... In just the quick look I took through the page, it looks like no citation templates are used and many of the website citations have no information besides a hyperlinked title.

Horse would be great to get up to GA and eventually FA. It looks a lot better than it did a couple of months ago, but still needs quite a bit of work. Gelding looks to have quite a few fact tags thrown into it and the references need templating and more information, but with all the work that was done on it a while ago it should be fairly close to ready for GA. The Quarter Horse article looks like it mainly needs work on referencing (both adding references and making sure all of the info is there on the existing ones). As a side note - I really don't like the lead picture in the QH article - although this may be more of a personal bias since I tend to go more for the leaner, quicker, cutting type, rather than the halter type.

Like I said, just my two cents. I can start working on references in these various articles over the next few weeks. I should start having some more time soon (famous last words) that can be devoted to this. Let's see if we can get all the references up to Ealdgyth's eagle-eye FAC reviewer's standards! Dana boomer (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On another side note, how did Lion get to be FA? It's got at least three citation needed/unreliable source tags and the reference style is all over the place...not exactly an example of WP's most shining work... (and that's just what I saw in a 30 second glance over.) Dana boomer (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So, as the worker bees in this hive, do we have a consensus to move Thoroughbred to FA and tackle Quarter Horse and Gelding for GA? That sounds managable if that is what we want to do! Ealdgyth? Earth to Ealdgyth?

I don't disagree that there are better Quarter horses out there (the animal isn't set up square, and is butt-high, plus I think the photo was taken in South America, actually), but unfortunately I have not been able to find a good quality color image that is characteristic of the breed in free wiki images. It will suffice for GA, but I wish we could find more and better images. I think Ealdgyth has the source books for that article, but I'm in for wordsmithing and finding stuff that no one has and everyone needs.

I can try to tackle the fact tags on Gelding if others can help with citation templates. And if you want to make suggestions for "more information" on the talk page of that article, I can sure go see if I can rustle up more stuff. Noting there that we want to put it up for GA again may lure in the veterinarians who helped in the past (Getwood will probably lend a hand).

And, ah, dear yes, it's true on Arabian, many links are to online articles that are just the titles (like all the internal pages on the AHA web site, for one) and, as the person who probably found 90% of the citations, I admit I hate citation templates, I can't read them when others use them, they are very hard for me to copyedit for typos and it drives me freaking nuts that they are the new standard when WP:CITE still says ref tags are OK. (whining). Yeah, I know I have to suck it up...sigh. If you want to look at the cites to the AHA web site in Arabian and see if you can tweak those, (all with URLs containing "arabianhorses.org" are AHA), that might be a small help -- the cite is going to be pretty authoritative for most of what is cited to it (what more than a breed registry?) but if the format can be improved, I sure wouldn't kick. I say follow your bliss! Montanabw^(talk) 02:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth is on the road (again) (Yes, I really do have a house. I just never see it) Tonight is Arkansas, don't you wish you were me. Luckily, I packed the QH books into the car. (Well, the ones dealing with QH history mostly, the horse ones didn't get packed, didn't have enough space.) If you want a Broodmare shot, I'm going to be with the QH mare for the next month with cameras, we can TRY to get shots. Keep in mind she's a broodmare, not a halter horse. Cutting lines too. I did NOT bring books for the horse and gelding articles, just QH and arabians. (I only had so much room for horse books in with the history books and the other stuff I needed for a month on a Texas ranch).

TB will go up probably Wednesday sometime. I have Hubert Walter up at the moment, but it's doing pretty good and can probably squeak TB in as a co-nom with ... Dana, Montana, and who else am I forgetting? If we co-nom, everyone who helps nom gets to join Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations (grins). So I want to make sure I get everyone. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listing, feedback

Roughly a month ago, I created a cleanup listing for this WikiProject. I have now updated the list with a new data snapshot of May 24. Also, the list format has slightly changed.

On this occassion, I would like to ask you for feedback about this kind of listings. (I am currently evaluating whether it makes sense to offer them on a larger scale.) Did you find the listing useful for your project work? Does it reasonably lead you to articles that you can clean up? What could be improved about the content or formatting of the list?

Please leave your comments at User talk:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied at his talk page.Dana boomer (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Newbie article, has potential

Hi gang, a new editor created Budweiser Clydesdales. It's a stub, but it IS a fun article idea and worth expanding. Anyone want to help? Montanabw^(talk) 23:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so just had a great time wasting a couple hours expanding the Budweiser Clydesdales article. Had a lot of fun surfing the super bowl commercials to do the bad thing and add an external links section. LOL! The rest of you may want to proof and tweak. And see if you can find MORE commercials (missing 2004). You do have to check out the streaker sheep ad...really you do... Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great work Montana! And you really shouldn't point out videos like that when I'm at work...I get weird looks when I almost fall out of my chair laughing *grin*! I'll try to go through it for copyediting later...but you're usually great at that! Nice work on the refs. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But that was my goal! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks

OK, I've drunk the kool-aid. What do you all want me to work on? What's on the top of the To Do list? Eventer (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Arabian horse is the next up on the platter for FAC. Appaloosa is probably next after that. I think we're pushing up Horse and American Quarter Horse as well as Gelding to GA status if we can. I'm sure there are tons of articles that need help just with sourcing... (Kool-aid, bah. Need Gatorade ... it's 102 here.. blech!) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back! You might also want to take a look at:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Articles Needing Cleanup - This is a listing of articles, created by project members, generally with no cleanup tags, that are important to the project and need significant cleanup work.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Cleanup listing - This is a page generated by an outside user of all pages tagged with cleanup tags that also have the WPEQ tag on the talk page.

• Category:Horse stubs - Many of the horse stub articles.

• Category:Equestrian biography stubs - Stub article on riders.

Along with the ones that Ealdgyth mentioned, these are probably at the top of the list for work. Dana boomer (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eventer! Welcome back! We definitely need more sources and footnotes for horse. One article that I know you were involved with early on that is on the cleanup list is horse tack. You may also want to look at some of the stuff that has happened to bridle, we had a thing with people wanting to add every gee-gaw that occurs anywhere in the world and it's gotten a little messed up. Equine conformation is another. You may want to drop in and say hello to Getwood, who is a vet and has been tweaking the anatomy articles a bunch, s/he's been a gem! (I never am sure of gender on wiki sometimes...). Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Category cleanup

Hi gang, A new editor went and made a whole bunch of new categories. Most of them were deleted without problem, but the new Quarter Horse cat has generated comment. Can y'all go over here and weigh in on the issue if you care to? Frankly, I really don't care which they keep or toss, but given that the old version has been stable for years, may cause some hiccups. Ealdgyth and Dana, you guys may be particularly interested. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to toss in that I have read this...but really have no opinion one way or the other. Since this is the only breed category we have (there's no Category:Arabians or Category:Thoroughbreds) there's not much to go off of, so we're really navigating in uncharted territory. I would agree that it probably should be either American Quarter Horse or American Quarter Horses, but I'm really not sure which... Dana boomer (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire! We have about a dozen breed categories. Start at Category:Horse breeds and note the subsections under "famous horses." No consistency to names, but oh my...Arabians, Morgans, Warmbloods, Thoroughbreds, all have separate categories. Maybe these are sort of mis-categorized under Category:Famous horses-but as most go to articles about named horses, it kind of makes some sense, I guess. As Ealdgyth said a few months back "fumigating" the categories is yet another job. I actually think Eventer set a lot of them up originally, but the articles have grown and assorted other categories added, and now it looks like a tangled mess. Maybe we need to create a category task force one of these days and figure out if there is a more efficient way to organize what's there. Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooohhh...my bad. I had looked at the top category, but apparently hadn't gone in deep enough. Hmmm...there really is no consistency, but what there is appears to show that everything is plural (Connemaras, Arabians, Welsh Ponies, etc) rather than singular. I shall go make a post on the category discussion to that effect. Dana boomer (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Equestrian center

Could someone have a look at Equestrian center and see if you think there is any hope for it. Though it looks like a good faith attempt it's horrible at the moment and I think if I attempt to do anything to it I'll just end up turning it into a dic-def... -Hunting dog (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's rather horrifying, bless 'em. I put a prod tag on it. The concept of an "equestrian center" is really too fuzzy and broad for an article. If I was going to do anything with it, I'd redirect it to stable with a note that said, "some very large stables are sometimes called "equestrian centers." LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 03:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Horses into wikisource

I began some work into wikisource, since horsemanship old works are mostly interesting. I'm presently working about Equitation (1922) by Henry de Bussigny, and the booklet of John Solomon Rarey The_Modern_Art_of_Taming_Wild_Horses (1858) is ready. I hope that it could a useful idea. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 09:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain Wikisource to us, please? Montanabw^(talk) 05:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource is the exact opposite of wikipedia... it collects only original works (in PD - Public Domain or published under a documented GFDL or similar). It is a repository of articles, magazines, old books - something like a wiki Gutenberg project. The best contents are the original ones - t.i., first digitalizations of sources lacking in the web - but even e-books running online can be imported and rebuilded from the beginning, because quality of wikisource books is really excellent, much higher than other digitalized versions.

Just an example: the right place for On Horsemanship by Xenophon is wikisource, and not wikipedia. It should be moved there.

Since equitation and horsemanship are much more an art than a science, some old works are very valuable and useful today too, IMO.

I guess that any of you is hardly working here... some additional work is far from welcome I guess... ;-) ... nevertheless there's something I can't do: to validate my transciptions of single pages of Equitation by de Bussigny. Simply, to go into one of the pages, here the first page of Chapter I, to read it carefully for any mistake, to enter into edit window and to press the green (validate) radio button of "Page status".... a annoying work for anyone, but an interesting work for passionate riders I guess. Equitation is a really interesting book. And wikisource too is interesting by itself! I can't validate my own work: a different, registered wikisource user must do it. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 12:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a valuable project. I don't have time to look into it now, but if anyone else here on the wikiProject does, I sure encourage it! I glanced at the book, it is quite interesting, indeed! Montanabw^(talk) 06:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm presently working on a most interesting booklet: Image:Notes on equitation and horse training.djvu, a document used into US Army at the beginning of 20th century, from a translation of French Samour equestrian school. You see probably a "red link" since it has to be renamed from Image:Note on equitation.djvu, a bad and misspelled name. As soon as it has been renamed, any of you interested at wikisource could see the work "from the beginning" (the first step is the upload of djvu file into Commons) --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 21:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A "wow" new article

Gang, it's the quiet ones you have to watch! Countercanter has just done a WONDERFUL new article, Primitive markings. Check it out! Montanabw^(talk) 02:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, very nice job, Countercanter! Well written, well referenced - I wish more of the equine articles looked like this! Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up

For the next week or so I'm going to be pretty busy. Volunteer position I've been in a holding pattern on for a while just started training, and the intensive part is for the next week or so. After about next Friday things should be a bit less busy, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We shall allow you to have a real life, dah-ling. Just don't forget us! Montanabw^(talk) 06:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about importance scale

I hope I'm doing this right. Let me know if I'm not -- I don't fully understand all the Wiki formatting yet. Just out of curiosity, how are articles ranked on the importance scale? New user Majorsky - forgot to login before posting 76.105.42.173 (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be doing a great job so far. I just took a look at the article you created on the Tersk Stud, and it looks fabulous - amazingly well referenced. Just as a note, new sections on talk pages usually go at the bottom, so I've taken the liberty of moving your post down here.

As far as article importance goes, what we've generally worked out is this:

• Top priority are those that are the project - for example Horse and Equidae
• High priority are those that are still quite important but not right at the top - for example Equine anatomy and Horse breeding
• Mid priority include horse breeds, really important people, and 2nd level equipment and anatomy articles - for example Lusitano, Muscular system of the horse, Saddle
• Low priority are individual horses and people and sub-level anatomy and equipment articles - for example Bit ring and Bog spavin

I hope this helps. It's really fairly subjective. Just generally follow this outline, put stuff where you think it fits best, and if someone else disagrees with you, they'll move it! Dana boomer (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That explanation helps. :) I'm gradually getting the hang of things here. :) Does "low importance" keep an article from GA status?

I've posted a link to the Tersk Stud article on an active Akhal-Teke list and encouraged them to add details specifically about Akhal-Teke breeding at Tersk. I've also asked a well-known Dutch Arabian breeder who's dealt with Tersk for many years and may or may not be invested in the current privatized version of Tersk to provide post-Soviet Union info. I don't have much to draw from for those sections. Do you recommend I do anything else for filling out details like these? Do I comment-out a request (leave it only viewable in editing mode) for help with those sections? Majorsky (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

ETA: I haven't gotten any takers from the Akhal-Teke list or gotten a response from the Dutch breeder after a week. I hope to get someone to help me so the article can be more complete in those areas... Majorsky (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Use the talk page to post questions specific to the article. I would also add that only a few breeds are even "mid" status, many are "low" because they are sort of obscure. Low will not prevent an article from going GA, it just means that it isn't necessarily a top priority for the project to collaborate on. For example, an issue near and dear to my heart is cerebellar abiotrophy, (I own a horse that has it) but I also know that it's "Low" in the cosmic scheme of things. Don't worry if it's "low," almost all stud farm articles are going to be. It's not a quality assessment... the "stub," "start", B and etc categories indicate quality. I think we also have Marbach stud as "low." Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. :) Majorsky (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Horses on wikisource: update

I'm bold to tell you that our work : Notes on equitation and horse training (1908) can be read. I can't say that it is finished... no work on wiki is "finished"... nevertheness the rendering is complete and the booklet is really interesting in my opinion! --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 20:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

New update! there's a index page to collect horsemanship-related works on wikisource: Wikisource:Horsemanship. Some "wikisourcian" is generously helping me so I have to help them... working on a topic really different from horsemanship: the treatise of Maxwell on electricity and magnetism... :-(.. do ut des... wikipedia is a strange and exciting environment! --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 09:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Watch the 'Walkers

Hi Folks,

Looks like the anon IPs are once again out blanking the entire section on soring in the Tennessee Walking Horse article. Can we watchlist it and all keep our eyes on this article for a bit? The soring section is sourced, no reason to be blanked. This periodic blanking of anything about soring (or in the alternative, POV arguing that it's a wee little problem and no one really does it any more) has been going on for at least the time I've been on wiki and seems to especially flare up every year about the time the big major shows hit, particularly the Celebration, which is next month. This could be a problem year because the feds are out in force at the shows and have new tools to detect soring (thermal imaging among them). For the latest, here is an update from The Horse online: http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=12242 . Note that I have never seen this section blanked by a registered user, it's always anon IPs. Thanks all. Montanabw^(talk) 06:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Plants toxic to horses

I just added a section to Talk:List_of_plants_poisonous_to_equines. This page is not very helpful for the typical horse owner. I would be willing to redo the page in a fashion common to other pages with lists of plants toxic to horses (see my cites) but don't want to spend the time if the page would then be reverted because it is no longer in an approved fashion for "lists of plants". Can we get some support for a horse-owner friendly list in this talk page? Is there a proper way to go about making a plant list in a non-standard fashion? (Do we need permission from some PtB?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.103.134 (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the talk page of that article. Montanabw^(talk) 06:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bolting

There are various references throughout Wikipedia to horses "bolting" in various contexts. This behavious seems pretty vacant of coverage in Wikipedia; a brief disambig line at Bolt and a briefer definition at wikt:bolt. Should there be an article about it? It's unclear to me exactly what makes a horse bolt and why they are so hard to subdue. Seems like you people would be the best to ask about this. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why a horse bolts and how to control it would be better at whatever Wikimedia project it is that does how-to-works, I think. There isn't really a lot to the history of the term, and it's not that unusual, honestly. Most animals will bolt. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We have rearing and bucking and stable vices. I'll make a little stub or something. See bolt (horse). It was deleted at one time, I'll re-add. Montanabw^(talk) 07:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Horse murders article request for editors

Hello, all --

I realize that this is a distasteful subject to many in the horse field, especially among those with a love of show jumpers, but the John Edwards and Rielle Hunter affair currently in the news has opened up many, many questions on the subject of the late 20th century horse murders scandal. The reason for that, in case you don't know, is that Rielle Hunter was formerly Lisa Druck, whose father, James Druck, conspired to have her beloved show jumper Henry the Hawk electrocuted to collect the insurance money on him. This tragedy formed the background for a 1988 novel based on Lisa Druck's life, called Story of my Life by Jay McInerney. Later, in the early to mid 1990s, the actual horse killing scandal was exposed to the public through articles in the New York Times and Sports Illustrated, and then through a full-length book called "Hot Blood." An FBI investigation into the horse murders led to the conviction of a number of highly placed people in the show jumper and general equestrian sports world on charges of insurance fraud.

When Rielle Hunter's background was probed, due to her affair with John Edwards, it turned out that she and her horse were prominent victims of the horse murder insurance scam, and her own father was one of the orchestrators of the criminal activities. But in trying to link this information up to her bio article, it turned up that there wss no article on the subject of the horse murders at Wikipedia, doubtless because the scandal occured before the development of the world wide web. An article was just created today, but it is not comprehensive in scope and needs to be expanded greatly lest it be deleted. There is an article on the murder of the millionairess Helen Brach whose death, in 1977, was also connected to the horse murders scandal, and it too could use improvement.

I am looking for a few good editors who have the brackground to write the horse murders article, and to link it to the Helen Brach murder, show jumping, and Rielle Hunter articles. No need to reply to me -- if you are interested, you know what to do. I will try to help, also, as best i can, but the topic is far from my usual field of writing, and i would prefer to see it handled by those with the greatest depth of knowledge on the subject.

If you need sources to cite, you can find the best of them at the Rielle Hunter page in the section on her early life and family. Here are two more:

[[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0D8173FF936A3575AC0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all New York Times, On Killing Horses for Money: A Craftsman's Dirty Secrets, by Don Terry, Published: September 5, 1993]]

[[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E5DF1639F933A05753C1A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all New York Times, Horse Show; Equestrians Facing Competition and Lingering Scandal, by Robin Finn, Published: October 30, 1995]]

I am posting this identical request to a number of horse-rleated talk pages, so you may see it more than once, for which i apologize in advance.

Sincerely, catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we noticed that you posted the identical request to a number of horse-related talk pages! Message received. (grin). Montanabw^(talk) 05:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to imporove the article, Montanabw. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Boots

Now you know they do make a nice insulated winter riding boot that goes nicely with a pair of Carhart overalls, and won't get stuck in the stirrup. :) - Epousesquecido (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Ariat Frostbiters! I wear mine to death in the winter (sometimes even to my office job!) Your feet may get a little cold in them if you're just sitting around in the bleachers of a cold, damp arena, but I add good moisture-wiking insulated socks, (getting the boots a bit big so I can layer socks if needed) and while riding or walking, your toes stay nice and toasty! (Now, if only Ariat would give me a new, free pair for this plug! LOL!Montanabw^(talk) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert: Montanabw

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Montanabw. --Una Smith (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this Incivility? or intimidation? Montanabw^(talk) 06:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropriate place for this conversation, but I looked at the diff and I don't see anything uncivil or intimidating by User:Montanabw. Montanabw seems to be extremely knowledgeable (much more than I) in all things horse related and I have yet to see an incorrect edit in the areas I have been to. - Epousesquecido (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on the message board and also copied Epouse's message over there. (Espous, if you don't like that I've done this, then I sincerely apologize, and give you permission to go revert my edit that copied your comment over there). Dana boomer (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

New category on commons

Hi, can you please help me? I want to create a category Riding hall on commons. But I don't know if riding hall really is the right term for it: I mean de:Reithalle, you can watch the pictures there. Unfortunately there's no article on en. Thanks in advance --Klara (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In the USA, at least in the western US where I live, we call these a "riding arena" or sometimes "indoor riding arena." I am not sure about UK English or Australian usege. Katdib? Cgoodwin? Any of you guys able to help? Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Montanabw. Interesting. How would you name this in the US? Is this also a riding arena but outdoor? Reithalle (riding hall) places emphasis on the building i.e. that it is indoor. Comments from UK and Australia also very welcome. :-) --Klara (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the US (at least where I live), a general ring for riding in is a "riding arena" or just "arena",with differentiations for "indoor riding arena" and "outdoor riding arena". At horse shows you have the differentiation of "warm-up ring" and "show ring". What is in the picture would probably just be called an "outdoor arena", as it doesn't look to be at a horse show. Again, this is in the US, I don't know what it is to Brits/Aussies. Dana boomer (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, like Dana said, that's a riding arena, ring or "outdoor" riding arena/ring. I think some people might even use the term schooling ring. In English, there are also regional variations. The "Show ring" is called a (yuck) "Show pen" in a few disciplines. We Yanks fail to have the precision of the German terminology! LOL! Ask Katdib, Cgoodwin or Richard New Forest about UK and Au terms. Montanabw^(talk) 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the discipline (in the U.S.), you could be more specific, you could say Dressage arena or jumping arena for example. - Epousesquecido (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone, I think Riding arena would be a good choice, so outdoor and indoor pictures could be inserted into the category. Oh, I just see that there already exists a category commons:Category:Riding houses. But it seems that the creator is no native English speaker... Also there are only pictures of very old buildings inserted. For newer ones riding house wouldn't be adequate I guess. --Klara (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, indoor or outdoor, it would most likely be called a school. If more formal (and especially for dressage), we use the French word manège (or perhaps more often, but of course incorrectly, "ménage"). If you said "riding arena" we'd probably understand, though perhaps it would imply a public one. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see, it's not so easy. If I read Arena it seems to me that the word has to do with spectators who are watching something in the arena (cultural or sports). In German we use arena with the same meaning. As I said in German we have Reithalle (riding hall) for indoor. Outdoor it's Reitplatz (riding place). Moreover we have Dressurviereck (dressage quadrilateral). ;-) Well... perhaps some day I'll find a solution for the name of the category (or I just shoudn't worry so much). :-) --Klara (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally go with riding arena or riding school, maybe with a note on the page mentioning both ways of saying it. Indeed, an "arena" in English without a qualifier could be any kind of spectator venue -- not just a horse-related venue. Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To mention other ways of saying it is a good idea. Of course an arena is not only horse-related, I just wanted to say that we don't have many spectators in a Reithalle most of the time. People just ride their horses there if they want to do it indoor. Of course, if there is enough place for spectators (this is not the case for every Reithalle) there could also be an event inside (so that the Reithalle would be a venue), but that's not what happens there in general. The same with a riding arena? --Klara (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the same for "riding arena". There is usually very little space, or no space for spectators, especially if the arena is indoors. Some indoor arenas might have a small viewing room. There are exceptions of course. - Epousesquecido (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree. In my experience, more indoor arenas are public or at least quasi-public and have spectator viewing areas, though not necessarily fancy ones. While it is true that many private farms have indoor arenas with no real spectator space, the sheer expense of such a building in the USA often means that they are built big enough for public, money-making events and have some space for bleachers at least. I can't quote statistics, but at least within a 100 mile radius of where I live, I'd say it's about 50-50: Small, private indoor rings (often no more than 50 to 60 feet wide, often no more than 120 ' long) are built to cost as little as possible so are too short and narrow for spectators, versus 100' x 200' or larger indoor rings that are big enough to host competitions and make some money, hence have wings built on the side or extra room at the ends for spectators. Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it varies by region in the US. I am from the northern Midwest and mostly familiar with hunter/jumper/dressage facilities, where setting up a jumping course in a 100' x 200' indoor arena leaves very little room for spectators. Perhaps our experience differs, I would say in my area, about 90 percent of the boarding stables with an indoor arena, have a small viewing area (we call it a lounge) built mostly for the convenience of the riders who board there. Montanabw, I am jealous that you live in an area with grander facilities. :) - Epousesquecido (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be jealous! (grin) Basically "50%" means, per county, we are talking about the public indoor ring at the local Fairgrounds, the public indoor ring at the Big Rodeo barn, the Dressage Queen's barn where there is no spectator space but you can ride for free - if you join the clique (grin), and then 'dem two rich guys (often them infamous "outastaters")(grin) who have their own little arenas that they don't let other people use, ever! LOL! "Grand" facilities means that the fairgrounds ring brings in LOTS of metal bleachers for spectator events, like the High School Rodeo, but they have to be portable, because next weekend the same building is going to be hosting the Boat Show! Hee! Hee! (and wahoo!!) What I have seen in places like MN and WI is that if you don't have an indoor ring, you practically can't ride! (Isn't your state bird the mosquito?) (grinning, ducking and running...) Out here, we like to ride outdoors in the summer, but it gets cold in the winter, and no one can afford a heated barn, so hauling your critters down to the fairgrounds to ride with a bunch of other people, all identically attired to ride in insulated Carhartts and Sorel Pacs (no matter the danger that the lug soles will get hung up in the stirrups!) =:-O, is sort of our social life! The rules are simple: Ropers from 11 to 2, barrel racers from 2 to 3, and then the rest of us ring around the rosy people from 4 to 6, except the Team Penners have the ring reserved every Sunday, and absolutely NO JUMPING except on Wednesday nights! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I have created it. Category: commons:Category:Riding arenas, but more important: commons:Riding arena. Could you please check if I've described it in the right way. Thank you very much, I'll come back if I have further questions. :) If there's anything you need concerning the German Wikipedia or language, just ask me. --Klara (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Plains zebra scientific name

Wiki list the Plains zebra's name as Equus quagga is there any justifiction for this? 69.179.56.211 (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue. I avoid the Zebra articles, I have too many other articles to worry about. Maybe ask the taxonomy crowd. Montanabw^(talk) 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Equine

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this is our to-do list for the next couple of months. Guess we should get going, huh? Maybe we can get a couple more of these to GA before the due date... Some of them shouldn't be hard - Fox hunting, Horse and a couple of others are pretty close. Guess I'll get started :) Dana boomer (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in. Also note that I commented on the project page with ideas for inclusion and exclusion. Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, I hadn't see that you'd posted. FYI, I dropped in a note saying that I agree with all your points. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope we put them in the right place. Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Horse International

Some new contributors are trying to write Stolen Horse International, and could use some help. --Una Smith (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible project for someone

If anyone wants to tackle a breed article that really needs help, check out Mangalarga Marchador. 'Nuff said. If that one doesn't keep you busy, Gypsy Vanner horse also would benefit from some actual sourcing and POV checks. Enjoy! (heh, heh, heh...) Montanabw^(talk) 23:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I not a Wikipedian but I know a couple sites that may help any one who wants to make a breed article All about Horses ( [1] ) and Breeds of Livestock ( [2] ) :-) 209.112.196.82 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Konik

The "Konik" page was recently moved to Polish konik - now it's proposed to move it back, based on what the most common English name seems to be. Please comment on the article's talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Hi all. UnaSmith is doing a really useful thing, creating templates for some of the horse tack articles. See Template:Bits and Template:reins. I do really like the idea of a template to direct peoiple to related articles, and am in fact quite appreciative that she has the energy to start this project. However (surprise, surprise), she and I are having, as usual, a bit of a philosophical discussion. I believe that Una's position is that a lot of separate equipment templates are a good thing. Mine is that I think it would be better to create a larger "Horse tack" uber-template that, like Template:Equidae is broad in focus, incorporating the saddle and harness articles as all the bit, bridle, and rein articles. Or, as a compromise, maybe create a "horse headgear" template that merges the bit and rein templates with all the bridle, halter and hackamore articles. We are also having differences of opinion over the categorization of bits. Some outside help would be appreciated because, as is so well-known from the Horse GA review, the two of us may not have the best objectivity when it comes to the work of the other and I truly want to keep things going in a civil and productive manner. If no one else cares, the two of us can talk it out ourselves, but maybe, given our past history, some overseers of the discussion would be wise? Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, once again, I ask you to please "toss" your personal remarks. --Una Smith (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I am simply concerned that we have a "history," Una, and I mention this here expressly because I do NOT want to crank all that up again. It is completely appropriate to ask others to observe, and if necessary, mediate what otherwise is likely to turn into another dust-up over questions of undue weight and original research. You have already reverted my corrections on several articles and I have already found at least one source you took totally out of context in a footnote. Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, if you think a civil discussion of a proposed merge equals a content dispute so intractable that it needs mediation, please request mediation ASAP. Asking friends for help is not requesting mediation, nor particularly constructive. Once again, your personal remarks to me, and to others about me, are out of line. --Una Smith (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, asking outside opinions is generally one of the steps of dispute resolution, one that's suggested to happen before going to more formal processes such as wikiquitte or mediation. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, but as far as Montanabw's above accusations of incivility are concerned, no one here is an outsider. --Una Smith (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Errr...actually, from what I can see, Montana didn't accuse you of incivility. Really, she didn't accuse you of anything. She has just apparently brought matter to the attention of other people in the WP:Equine community, which is nice of her, since this is a matter that affects all of us and should not be done unilaterally by one editor. The two of you do seem to argue on a regular basis (not saying it's anyone's fault, just pointing it out), and so bringing other editors in quickly is probably a good idea, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Dana boomer, if you prefer, lets call Montanabw's ad hominem remarks here insinuations rather than accusations (I think insinuations are worse): insinuations that I lack objectivity, that I am incivil, that I revert "corrections", that I take sources out of context. --Una Smith (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How about we allow me to speak for myself and not put words in my mouth, or impute motives, OK? I have an interest in accuracy and avoiding OR. As most folks here know, I can be swayed by proper sources, used in proper context, and by logical arguments. So present them. End of story. Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss merging on Template talk:Bits. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts at the link above. Dana boomer (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason this can't be discussed here instead of spread over multiple article talk pages. But I also don't care. Wherever. Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

By convention, merge proposals are discussed on one talk page, usually a talk page of one of the articles to be merged. Merge tag arguments are used to specify which talk page, but since Montanabw did not specify one, I did: Template talk:Bits. --Una Smith (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this is part of a MUCH bigger problem, Una, and that is that you have now started to rewrite about a dozen bit and rein articles, you have broken articles out into a bunch of stubs, you have deleted material without fact tagging it, have replaced solid material with OR, and in short, are creating a bunch of changes, many containing substantial OR, without any consensus from other editors. It is taking me HOURS to fix the mess you have made on longstanding, stable articles. It is one thing to make needed improvements to structure and style. It is also perfectly fine to discuss changes and point out problems. BUT, it is another thing to rewrite articles so that they contain massive amounts of unorthodox terminology, original research claims, and nonstandard classification systems. The template situation is only the beginning, and from the way you have structured the templates, I certainly have never seen a single book on tack or bits that uses the classification system you have devised-- if I am mistaken, please do provide us all with your source material. Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw requires a reliable source. Fair enough. Anyone who has an adequate classification from a reliable source, please provide it. Else I guess we can't have any tack navigation templates, or in fact any navigation templates. Montanabw, as you require a reliable source for a classification used in a navigation template, I am sure you will also be removing Template:Equidae from all the articles that use it. But to save you hours of work, I suggest simply blanking the template. --Una Smith (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Template Equidae was created a long time ago by the work of a number of collaborative editors, including yourself. There was consensus and collaboration. It was an entirely different situation from this one. Montanabw^(talk) 22:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates redux

Given the controversy over the tack template issue, does anyone object if I remove the bit/reins templates from the articles where they were placed until the issue is resolved and consensus reached? I'll give this 24 hours for comment and then start tossing. This will include Template:Bits, Template:Reins and Template:Tack. Montanabw^(talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gave it over 48 hours, no objection, so removed from all article pages. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, I think you got them all: one article using Template:Tack and 24 articles using the templates I created. --Una Smith (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolving template controversy

Per Dana's thoughts that there is a need for some sections about tack to be broken out a bit, I am wondering if this idea might be a solution to find a compromise between a really long and inclusive template and a more compact-looking template on the page. EIther that or we could have something that is big but collapsable, such as This one. Second question, per some of the articles linked on the rein template, is if or how riding techniques should also be linked on tack pages. (My own thinking is "not at all") Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 20:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Horse health?

There was a request to create an article titled "Horse Health." I created a redirect from Horse care, which covers a lot of it. There is also Category:Horse health. The editor who put up the request commented that there is dog health and cat health. What does anyone think? Do we need to create a new article or rename horse care? No big deal to me either way, just basically moving stuff from the WPEQ main page to here for any discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 06:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best to keep things consistent, and rename the article to "Horse health", but I don't think it's a huge deal one way or the other. I think we're going to have to get an admin to do the move, though, since it's over a redirect. Dana boomer (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect and discussion. I was the editor who requested the "Horse health" article. I think some of the information at "Horse care" would fit nicely under the "Horse" article (see "Dog" and "Cat" to compare) and the horse health-related information currently at "Horse care" could go under "Horse health." That would make the horse articles consistent with the dog and cat articles. Chiron2 (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Horse" article is very, very long already, and the care section was deliberately spun off from the main Horse article. What is tricky here are that the management issues for horses are far more complex than those for cats and dogs. I think there is something to be said for a split of health from management, but there is SO much overlap -- I looked at cat and dog health, both are far, far shorter articles than a horse health article could ever be...though some of the ideas there might work in a horse article. In short, I'm not opposed to the concept, just dreading the amount of work that will be involved...! =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 01:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Alert Bot

I've just tweaked the main page a bit to add a template for a neat little bot I just found. Ya'll may remember B. Wolterding (the guy that brought us the bot-run cleanup listing), and he's now created an Article Alert bot that tells us when articles under the WPEQ jurisdiction are up for deletion, GA, FA, PR, DYK, move request, etc. There's probably not a lot happening that we don't know about, since we're fairly small and between the main editors have most of the articles watchlisted, but I thought it would be a nice tool to have.

At the moment, there's nothing there but the template, as it will take a couple of days for the bot to kick in, but for the moment, if anyone has any comments or problems with this, please let me know. More about the bot can be found at User:B._Wolterding/Article_alerts. Dana boomer (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool! So where will the generated list appear? Here, or...? By the way, do we have all the organizational/maintenance pages linked of the main page here? Montanabw^(talk) 17:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the generated list will appear on the main page, or possible as a link off of the main page...? I'm not really sure...guess we'll see when it happens. I think we have all of the organizational/maintenance pages linked off of the main page, although if you know of one that we've missed please feel free to toss it in! Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So apparently we jumped in at a bad time. The bot is currently not running due to ongoing maintenance on the toolserver off of which it runs... :( The last run was on Dec. 30th, and it will be running again as soon as all of the servers are back up, according to B. Wolterding. Just thought I'd give everyone an update... Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot is back up and running. However, the tool server is running a few days behind due to the maintenance, which means that articles that have had changes made to them recently (i.e. the two GANs we've recently put up) aren't showing up in the alert template yet. Things should be back to normal soon, though. Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio tag on Heck horse

Heck horse has been locked down as a copyvio of the Oklahoma state site. I moved the text to the duly authorized subpage, Talk:Heck horse/Temp. I don't have the time to work on this, but am flagging it here in case someone else does. Basically, read the info on the original article page for instructions, and then just work with the editor who slapped on the copyvio tag, edit the text to remove the problem, and the article can be restored. It's just a start class article anyway, but one of some minor importance to WPEQ as it's about the attempts to breed back the Tarpan. We should save it. Anyone wanting an editing project, go for it! Montanabw^(talk) 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some work on it, but it will be late tonight or tomorrow morning before I get to it. I'll post a note to this effect on the article talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article with sources, and it's been all put back together by a helpful admin. Feel free to add in/change/whatever, I just grabbed the sources I could quickly find and threw it together. Dana boomer (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You are a goddess! Thanks for the hard work and the save! Kudos all to Dana (clapping!) Montanabw^(talk) 06:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

New discussion at Equestrianism

Anyone who cares, check out discussion ongoing at Talk:Equestrianism#Health_concerns and sandbox at User:Twinzor/Equestrianism health concerns. Montanabw^(talk) 08:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization of Equidae

For thouse of the project not watching the page, Equidae has recently been revamped, with all content relating to the genus Equus being moved to Equus (genus), while the remaining information has been shifted to discuss the entire Family. Please link to Equus for genus and species related linking and Equidae for family level linking. --Kevmin (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Or to be more specific, Equus (genus)|Equus, as "Equus" just goes to the disambiguation page. The taxonomists also seem to have solved the "equid" versus "equine" thing in favor of "equine," also, by the way. Montanabw^(talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny, when I type Equus (genus) into the search box it goes to a page labeled Equus (genus), no redirect. The page is an overview of the subgenera and species contained in the genus Equus and a general overview of Equus characteristics, crossbreeds, and images. This does NOT sound like a redirect to me.

PS broad generalizations such as "The taxonomists", which you include me in, are incorrect and not CIVIL, as I had nothing to with the Equid/Equine decision. --Kevmin (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Template Rename

In line with the reorganization of Equidae I ahve posted a discussion and proposal on Template:Equidae requesting the template be renamed to Template:Equus: or similar, as the template in its current form actually does not cover anything beyond the genus Equus at this point. This combined with the reorg. means that the template really should link to Equus or Horse. Please read the discussion and comment.--Kevmin (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: Template:Equidae has been moved to Template:Equine and there is a formal RFC now re its content and on what articles it should appear. The RFC also concerns navigation to Category:Horse breeds. --Una Smith (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move: Wild horse → Equus ferus

Please provide input at Talk:Wild_horse#Requested_move regarding a proposal to move Wild horse over Equus ferus, a redirect, in line with most other equine articles and preparatory to making a disambiguation page at Wild horse. --Una Smith (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Una, but you have no clear consensus as to your proposed move over there, and there is no consensus to make Wild Horse into a disambig. People, please just study talk page discussions before acting. Montanabw^(talk) 23:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw if you would take a breath you will see that in her first sentence she asks for input regarding the proposal. Chill!--Kevmin (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Kevmin, do not engage in personal attacks on me, read the article talk page. She makes a number of claims that are not true, one of which is that there is anything like a consensus. or that anyone but Una wants to make Wild Horse into a disambiguation, particularly when Wild horses is already a disambiguation. This is nothing more than an example of WP:ASK. Montanabw^(talk) 00:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This was not a personal attack, do not make mountains out of molehills. I have been watching the page since before this even started so I ask you not to assume otherwise. I would think that looking for the opinions of all the wikiprojects which the article is part of is what one should do if there are questions raised and no consensus. She contacted WP:Mammals, here, WP:Extinction and WP:Paleontology ALL of which the article falls under. PS WP:ASK does not have any relevance to this issue as it is a subpage of the Wikipedia help forums and refers to general questions about wikipedia and where to ask them. --Kevmin (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Kev, there are other mountains, see Talk:Sorraia, Talk:List of horse breeds, and Talk:Wild horse, just for starters. When you started to clean up Equidae, I was just wanting to be sure you knew what you were doing, and you convinced me that you knew what you were doing. When I initially opposed the Equidae template switch, I was trying to figure out where the taxonomy project guidelines were, ask about the legitimate question of Equine project navigation, and then once these issues were clarified, I softened my opposition, only expressing irritation that the switchover was made prior to true consensus being reached and then massive template moves were made, also without consensus. (Other editors can tell you that I DO change my position on issues once convinced by good, reasonable explanations or sound debate). So please understand this isn't about you at all. The problem is a long pattern of disruption by a different editor that has involved far more people than myself and far more areas than the horse articles. Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tarpan unilaterally moved without discussion

I just discovered that Tarpan was moved without any discussion to Equus ferus ferus, unilaterally by Una. I have requested the move to be discussed and undone if no consensus for the original move exists. See Talk:Equus_ferus_ferus#Requested_move -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wild Horse troubles

After digging more and more through the literature about the relatedness between Wild horses (Equus ferus: Tarpan and Przewalzkii's) and domesticated horses (Equus caballus), I think the current choice of wikipedia to treat them as two species is not valid. The Mammal Species of the World: Third Edition treats them as a single species already, which is the de facto rule for the wikiproject mammals. So, one solution that could solve all issues is to revamp the Horse, Wild Horse, Tarpan and Przewalski's Horse as follows:

• Equus ferus: Horse
• Equus ferus ferus: Tarpan
• Equus ferus caballus : Domestic Horse
• Equus ferus przewalskii: Przewalski's Horse

This would free Wild horse to be a explanatory page for the various ways Wild horse is used, aka Tarpan, Przewalski's and feral horse breeds. Any comments on this idea? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have often commented that I am no taxonomy expert. Basically, I have no problem at all with properly sourced, modern, accurate information. But we also have to acknowledge that in the horse arena (no pun intended), we have many, many general interest horse books that predate modern DNA studies. The Tarpan appears to be phenotypically quite distinct from the Przewalski's, it has been treated as a separate species or subspecies (whatever) for a very long time, and I have no idea if there are taxodermy specimens of the Tarpan from which DNA can be extracted. The Przewalski's has a different number of chromosomes than the domestic horse, and I have no idea is chromosomes have ever beet gathered from Tarpan remains or not...or if they can be. I guess my view is that if we do this, we need to be really careful about explaining what we have done and how this differs from "common knowledge" so that we don't have every 10 year old on wikipedia correcting us! (LOL!) For example,we could say something in the articles like, "Animal Z is popularly known as the "X". and has been considered different from animal "Y" for well over 100 years of taxonomic classification. However, recent studies by Dr. Bigschmuck has advanced the theory that animal Z and Y are actually the same critter or have common ancestors. therefore, current classifications are being reexamined." Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move per WP:Snow. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have formally requested that Horse is first moved to Domestic Horse after which Wild Horse can be moved to Horse. The reasons are outlined above, but in short, most current sources treat the domestic horse as a subspecies of the horse, which includes the Tarpan, Domestic Horse and Przewalski's Horse. Fo fix this, the requested moves are required.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

1. Support. Nominator. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per WP:NC WP prefers usage that most people use and recognize, and common names. Most people equate "horse" with the domestic horse. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose While the move to domestic horse I'm neutral on, I do not support the move of wild horse to the plain name. Instead write some filler article on the two of them. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

   Horse would cover the species Equus ferus, which includes both the wild horse and the domestic horse. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

4. To most people "horse" unqualified means a domestic horse. There are far more domestic horses than wild horses in the world (excluding zebras and suchlike). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

   And if my proposal would be included, all horses, wild and domestic would be under a single article as they belong to a single species. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose. As Born2cycle notes, the term "horse" is generally assumed to refer to the domestic species, not either of the two (critically endangered) species of Equus ferus. Compare our articles on the domesticated feline: cat, not domestic cat or housecat, despite the fact that the unqualified term is technically ambiguous. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

   Cat is its own species, domestic horse is a subspecies. That is the difference. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

   Cats are most certainly not their own species! They are a subspecies of Felis silvestris. In fact, the Wikipedia article says that they arose from Felis silvestris lybica right in the introduction, making them a subsubspecies. Domestic cats readily interbreed with wildcats--to the point of causing their gentic extinction. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Per Born2cycle and Zetawoof - Horse is most commonly (by a large margin) used to refer to the domestic horse. We can (and do) have short sections in that article pointing people to wild horses. When people type in "horse" they are probably at least 95% of the time going to be looking for the domestic horse, not a dab page or wild horse. Dana boomer (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

   Well, Equus ferus is not a dab page, but that has to stay now on Wild horse, which now includes both wild and domestic horses. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose As mentioned above, when our readers type in horse, at least 90% (probably a LOT more, but I'm being conservative on my WAG here) want the normal domestic horse, not a disambiguation page. WP policy is to avoid disambiguartion pages when that situation exists. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

   Well, Equus ferus is not a dab page, but that has to stay now on Wild horse, which now includes both wild and domestic horses. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

8. Vehemently oppose This battle also took place at sheep and, I think dog. The Przewalski's horse, the only living "wild" horse today has 66 chromosomes, how can it be the "same species?" It's a different critter, just like the Asinus or Ass. The Equus (genus) article/list covers a lot of this. I see no need for the change. Wild horse is an article describing both modern understandings of the word -- the "true" wild horse, notably the Przewalski's, and a brief bit of info (one paragraph) on feral horses, thought of as "wild" by many people. As such, it's an article for sixth-graders and laypeople seeking very basic info. We have Tarpan, etc for the wild types. The equus caballus versus equus ferus caballus thing may be taxonomically correct this week, but I see the danger of all sorts of edit wars if we tweak this one. Please oh please, let's leave this one alone. Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   Chromosome differences of the simple robertsonian type are relative common, happen even within single species. The central species concept is based on whether things can cross and produce fertile offspring. Przewalski's horse and domestic horse crosses exist, and are completly fertile. So, yes, individuals with 64 and 66 chromosomes can be of the same species. As for Equus ferus caballus, that one is already for some time stable, exactly because of the fertile off spring, and worse, because in each and every genetic study, the domestic horse samples and wild horse samples (using ancient DNA) are completely mixed, to the point it is even a question whether there are two subspecies. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose. A silly and very obvious misuse of the common name convention. older ≠ wiser 15:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose per WP:UCN. Wikipedia is not a treatise on "modern insights in the taxonomy of this group". It is an encyclopedia for a general audience so, a horse is a horse of course. — AjaxSmack 15:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose, the nominator's premise may well be false; I suspect the domestic horse is the true horse, and the Przewalski's and the others are the spinoffs. In any case, Wikipedia names things by the preponderance of common usage. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Moving the discussion components here. I guess that for wikipedia article naming, to me, taxonomy is trumped by common name understanding. But as for the rest, the "wild" horse and the "domestic" horse are quite clearly distinguishable, even in the case of feral animals. On one hand, Equine subspecies crossbreds are often sterile, case in point, the mule. (A rare few examples are not, but they are the exception) But the point here is that the never-domesticate horses living into modern times (Przewalski and now-extinct Tarpan) are in clear ways, at least in behavior and phenotype, substantially different from the domestic horse. Do they have a common ancestor found as recently as 5 to 7 thousand years ago? Probably. Do they share some DNA characteristics? Looks like it. Does this mean they are the "same thing" now? No. Is it possible that a very few ancient "wild" horses developed a genetic mutation that allowed domestication? Most likely. But did the family tree diverge at that point between domesticatable and undomesticatable horses? Apparently, but taxonomy probably doesn't really look at these things at that minute a level (hence, if taxonomists want to call the modern domestic horse equus ferus caballus, I won't argue, I'm not a taxonomist-- LOL!). Could some fertile wild/domestic crossbreds have been produced subsequent to domestication? Probably. Who knows how the genetics of a "domestication" gene work in the horse, dog, cow or whatever ... was it a dominant trait that passed on more often than not with a few "outlaw" recessives that still occasionally pop up in domestic horse populations today? Beats me. Anyway, that's my two bits here. Montanabw^(talk) 22:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Could some fertile wild/domestic crossbreds have been produced subsequent to domestication? Probably, Make that almost certainly: some mules are fertile, so this closer cross should have succeeded at least once. That nitpick aside, I agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! A very, very few mules. Montanabw^(talk) 05:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

To Do List

Would anyone have a problem with me moving Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Horse breeds/to do to Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/to do - basically turning it into a project-wide to-do list instead of a taskforce-wide one? After I completed the move I'd also be updating the list with current projects and requests and removing anything that's already been completed. This way, the template could be moved to the main page, where it would be seen by more people and would maybe do more good, rather than its current position of rather buried on a task force sub-page. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No concerns from me. (I'm still trying to unpack here.. no space for horse books yet!) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okey dokey, and while you are at it, do you think there is a way to transclude that list of articles people want to have someone create that is on the main WPEQ page too? Montanabw^(talk) 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Will see what I can do...I'm thinking my way through a re-structuring of our 8 different "things to do" pages that combines them in an easier format. I'll toss my thoughts up here for discussion when I've thought about it a bit more... Since there havne't been any raving objections, I'll start working on this stuff right now. Dana boomer (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's a few more thoughts:

• Delete the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Featured and Good articles, because the assessment scheme takes care of this listing automatically, and it's a pain to keep updated.
• Delete the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Articles Needing Cleanup, after moving the items to the new to-do list. Again, it's a pain to keep updated, and it's not really used.
• Removing these breeds from the creation list:

• Blumento - see here (yes, I realize it's a forum, but you get the idea)
• Lofot (Norwegian) Curly - can't find anything on this breed in books or online
• Latvian Snow Pony - can't find anything

I've also moved a few other random things (including the separate list of requested articles) into the to-do list, in an attempt to make the main project page more user-friendly and less listy. I've removed it from the horse breeds page and added it to the main page. Take a look and see if there's anything wrong... Dana boomer (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) All looks good to me. Still hunting books here... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Once you have it done, maybe do up some instructions with links for the to do section of the horse breeds task force page. Also any other handy instructions to guide around both the newbies and the oldies! Montanabw^(talk) 07:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the stuff over and added deletion tags to the two sub pages. After those are deleted, I'll work on cleaning up the instructions on both pages to match with the new changes. Now to get started on actually doing all of the stuff on the to-do list :) Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

New Project

I've been thinking about creating a Horses Portal for a while now. I've about gotten to the point of creating one, but thought I'd toss the idea out there for everyone else to mull over and give feedback on. Portal:Cats and Portal:Dogs are two that I'm planning to somewhat base the horses one on, especially as both of those are featured portals, which is sort of my goal. WP Equine has quite a bit of good content, so I think an FP wouldn't be too far out of reach. I've started gathering content and content ideas together at User:Dana boomer/Portal if anyone wants to check it out. Dana boomer (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How much ongoing maintenance will this need? I notice some portals are almost like the wiki main page with featured articles and such...? Can you tell us more? I sort of like the idea, I just wonder if, to pardon the pun, we have enough horses to pull the wagon? Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

From the research that I've done, you can set them up so that they basically maintain themselves. You give the bot/program that runs it a grouping of articles, pictures, DYK's, etc, and it cycles through them automatically. Once it's set up, it won't need much maintenance, except to add or removed articles, DYK's, pictures and other media as it is listed or delisted at the various good and featured processes, which isn't really that often. I hope this answers your question... Dana boomer (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Allright, it's begun. Check it out at Portal:Horses. Articles and pictures are automatically rotated through some lovely templates, and new good/featured work can easily be added to the mix. Now we just need to work on getting more articles up to par :) Let me know if there's anything that needs to be changed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Great start! Question: Do we want this singular or plural (ie, are the others dog and cat or dogs and cats?). Also a question, should it be Portal Equine, to not dis the mule and donkey people (who knows, even the pony folks may fuss)? I honestly don't care either way, just wondering...Montanabw^(talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The dog and cat wikiportals are at Portal:Dogs and Portal:Cats (plural). I made sure of this before starting the whole naming process with the horse portal. As for the Horses vs. Equidae: The dogs portal doesn't have anything about their wild counterparts, while the cats portal includes all members of the Felidae party. I figure we can add information on other members of the Equidae family to the portal as we get it up to snuff, but "Horses" is probably the more common term. This was my thought process, at least. The only reason that there's no content on anything other than straight horses in the portal at the moment is...the content sucks... Once we get it up to snuff, there's no reason it can't be included in the rotations. Dana boomer (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm groovy with it all, then. Nice Job! Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)