Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine/Horse breeds

How do I join?

I know a lot about horse breeds, and I probably have at least 3-5 books only on horse breeds. I dont have a ton of time to spend on this project but I do have a lot of information. Can somebody message me back?? --Runningcupcake03 03:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of horse breed articles here already, many written by people who actually work with a given breed. The problem is that they are uneven in quality. My suggestion is to start with the smaller articles and fact-check them, adding citations from your books to verify some of the information or to correct things that are not accurate. Also, some of them have a lot of "POV-pushing" and need work on neutrality. (For example, I am frequently going through various articles and removing things like "this breed is the most wonderful in the world," or "these horses suck"!)

However, do proceed with caution and check the discussion pages before diving in head first and making major edits. Sometimes there are land mines out there that have to be handled carefully. Many of the articles were created by people who are very knowledgable about the breed, just not real good writers.

Another thing that is needed are more public domain images uploaded to wikipedia. Any time you can find a good horse photo or diagram that is free to use, it sure helps to upload it and put it into category "horses" so we can access it. We have a real need right now for an image with the parts of the saddle...the one we had wasn't a free license and it got deleted!

Last but not least, we constantly need to remove links to "my horse farm" pages and chat forum pages per wikipedia guidelines.

Hope this gives you some ideas. Montanabw 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page

I have moved this page in accordance to customs on Wikiproject, it should have a big H in Horse breeds Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:20, 2004 May 13 (UTC)

Some advice

Country of origin is not always the same as 'The german horse' it can be from austria, there are some strange leagal reasons for this ( germany & austria are random examples, but this is true in at least one case )
I dont know what it's called in english but different horse breeds have different 'walking' that is there are usually four modes which they can walk in, there are a total of five and only one has all five ( icelanic ) the other ones differ amongst what four they have. Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:59, 2004 May 13 (UTC)

I think adding a small section about the temperament of the breeds would be an interesting addition! While many horses can't be "typified" or generalized, there does seem to be a relative pattern for certain breeds to be more aggressive, passive, curious, spooky, etc! Sandere0 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think in horse there is a discussion of overall temperament types. We sometimes note if a breed is particularly notable for a good disposition or some real weird quirk even the aficionados agree on. I personally hesitate to recommend it in general in breed articles though, because such things start edit wars, and are often unverifiable, or at least not backed by empirical evidence, particularly if we call a particular breed aggressive or spooky; there is so much variation amongst individual animals that only general comments are of any use. And of course, almost all breed registries like to claim that their breed is the nicest, calmest, best for tiny children and grandma horses in the world... :-P I wonder what the dog breed articles do with Dobermans, Rottweilers, etc... Montanabw^(talk) 22:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category stratgy

To whom it may concern: Please feel free to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/Categories because I think that structuring horse articles and Dog articles could take a similar tack--would be nice to use same subcategories for consistency. Elf | Talk 04:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New horse breed template--need your help

I need your help if you know something about horses. I've create a new template for adding a standardized infobox to each horse listed in List of horse breeds. The template is shown here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds and there's a sample with minimal information in American Paint Horse. The problem is that I don't really know what should or could go in the box. For example, for the Dog breeds template, we can identify specific major breed registry organizations. But for horses, is that true? And what else makes sense to go in the table--e.g., "type"? (Draft, pony,...what else?) Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse breeds. Thanks! Elf | Talk 23:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like the dog breeds don't use the template consistently. I know that it's kind of a PITA to edit. Over in the 50 states where the templates are used a lot, it seems more a distraction. But that's just IMHO. If it works, fine. Montanabw 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HORSE BREEDS HELP

Hi my name is laura and I know more than I need to about horse breeds. I just stumbled upon this site today (I have never been on here befor but WOW) and was very dissapointed to see there is no information on the BASHKIR CURLY which is a PONY BREED (not a horse). There is always limited information about them because they are a fairly old but unpopular/rarer breed. I was also surprised to see the PALOMINO listed as a "breed" which is very false. A horse cannot merly be a palomino; it must be a palomino QH etc. Palomino is merly a color as chestnut, dun, paint, roan, bay, etc... Anyways. if any info is needed about whatever the site you are working on is (I had trouble understanding what is was exactly was needed) let me know. spring_cutie@hotmail.com LAURA

Profiles should be created for breeds that can or must be double-registered. In the profiles any criteria required for registry as the particular breed should be identified. For example, the Palomino entry should not that the term can either identify any horse of a certain coloration or specificly refer to horses registered with the Palomino Horse Breeders of America. Similarly, entries should be made for each warmblood breed (eg., Oldenburg, Dutch Warmblood, etc.) despite the fact that the pedigrees for these horses often include horses from multiple breeds. Postscriptpct 22:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)PostScriptPCT[reply]

When doing breed proflies care should be taken to distinguish between a breed registry and a coloration of the same name. An Appaloosa is a horse registered with the ApHC. An appaloosa is a horse with appaloosa markings. The same holds true for Palomino, Pinto and Buckskin. Capitalization means the horse belongs to the breed (color) registry. Lower case means the color by itself. You can have appaloosa marked, palomino horses that don't belong to ApHC or PHBA. And you can also have an Appaloosa with secondary registry Palomino papers. too.Apphistorian 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good tip on the capitalization thing, though probably unenforcable. Many an edit war around here over what's a color, what's a color "breed," and what's a breed with a color preference or standard. (Just check out the edit history of the Friesian horse article...sigh) And its obviously impracticable to create two different wikipedia articles on a color versus a color breed... And this is complicated by the fact that wikipedia is worldwide...so people with Palominos - or palominos - in, say, Australia, don't give a flying whoop about the American registries, and I have to admit, they don't have to... Montanabw 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't boil down to breed registries, it boils down to what genetic researchers classify the genes that create different colors. This is why a background in color genetics is handy when writing or editing color articles. One of the best resources on color is The Appaloosa Project. They don't just study color patterns, they study color interactions. I've been a member of the Project list since its inception and they have certainly blown apart several of the old color myths. Of course breeding loud colored Appaloosas for 35 years helps too. Writing about Appaloosas for various stock horse publications has certainly broadened the range of information that I have about color breeds.Apphistorian 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breeders

Are we going to list breeders here? They are not part of the stucture of info for cats or dogs and think this wouldn't be suitable for here either if we are to follow the same logical order. LdyDragonfly 16:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Wikipedia says no commercial links...Montanabw 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I think the templates are good, but I had trouble using them--especially the breed standards, which always came out with a weird formatting. I think including breed standard in the template is worthwhile, but I didn't fill out any for the above reason.

Laura--I know the palomino is a color not a breed, but apparently there are some (seems like a lot of QH folks) that are convinced it is. However, I believe there is a registration for it, which may be the cause of some of the confusion. Eventer

Palomino is a color. Any breed can have palomino as long as the presence of the Cream (Cr) gene is there. Palominos are created by breeding chestnuts to a horse with the cream gene. The result is a palomino. If you breed the palomino to another palomino you get a cremello. Cremellos, usually blue-eyed, very light-toned horses, were orginally thought to be Albinos. The cream gene changes various coat colors to lighter versions; Chestnut becomes palomino, black becomes smokey black, bay becomes buckskin, red dun becomes dunalino, yellow dun becomes dunskin. Add two cream genes and palomino becomes cremello, buckskin become perlino. The American Palomino Breeders Association is a color breed regsitry, just like the Pinto Horse Association. Color is what counts, not bloodlines.Apphistorian 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated issue – I used the {{Equidae}} template as advised when creating my one (and only) breed article, but it didn't seem appropriate; the {{Equine}} template works much better but I'm too chicken to edit the article just yet. Wi2g 22:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, we have the wrong one in the guidelines! It should be "Equine". (Long story, the Equine one was originally named equidae and has since been spun off.) I'll fix that. Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife Barnstar

There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Veterinary medicine project

There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to recommend strongly against posting anything but the basics for any veterinary article. Posting recommended medications, doses and or treatments could result in liability issues if the poster is not a licensed veterinarian. If the author is a licensed veterinarian they are still taking the risk of liability because they have not physically examined the animal with the problem. Misdiagnosing or misdosing by the pet's owner could result in fatalities. The limit should probably not extend beyond a list of diseases, with their most prevalent symptoms and then links to veterinary related pages such as the AAEP or the AVMA.Apphistorian 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Badbill, one of the tasks that would be useful is to just straighten out the categories and find the articles already out there, wikilink them to others and place them in proper categories so they can be located--there are actually a lot of articles on various horse ailments, but try finding them.... Montanabw 03:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breeds notability guidelines

There are currently a number of active discussions for deletion regarding some little known breeds of dogs. It occurs to me that there might occasionally also arise situations where the same thing is faced in horse breeds. It has been proposed that perhaps a guideline for Notability (breeds) be established. Personally, I have no acquaintance with writing such guidelines, and certainly am completely unqualified to write regarding horse breeds. If anyone who has some experience regarding this sort of thing would care to do so, I and I think several others would be immensely appreciative. Thank you. Badbilltucker 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a recognized breed, it is notable — no matter how widely known the breed is. If someone chooses to take the time to write about an obscure horse breed, there is no harm in it. The only harm might come when someone else wants to learn about that breed and can't find it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not paper! --Jpbrenna 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Curly Article

I would like to write another article about a breed of horse. I came across the American Curly on the list of breeds that need to have an article created for. I looked up the breed in my horse encyclopedia, but I found the American Bashkir Curly. Is this the same breed? Can I write the article on the American Curly using information from this article? I would like to know this before I start writing. Thank you. Swannie 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second... I just searched "American Bashkir Curly" on Wikipedia. On the search results it showed Curly Horse as one of the results. This is the same as the Am. Bashkir Curly and the Am. Curly. Can I delete the "American Curly" from the list that need to have articles written for? Thanks again. Swannie 22:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list is a disaster, I'd say anyone who wants to clean it up is on my good side already! If there isn't a redirect, create a redirect on "American Curly" too, that way no matter which name people search for, all paths will lead to American Bashkin Curly Montanabw 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the "To Do" Template

Hi. I just edited various problems on the "To Do" template. (on project page). There were many things that needed to be changed. Here is what I did.

I deleted all of the articles that have been written from the "Create" list.
I alphabetized all of the articles.
I changed wording and capitalization problems.
I deleted sections that were extraneous.
I changed the alignment of sections and lists.
I made things easier to understand. (levels of articles)
I added sections that I felt needed to be added.
I added articles to sections when appropriate.

If you add an article to a list, please make sure it is in alphabetical order. This way, it makes it much easier for people to find the article.

Thank you, Swannie 19:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You GO! I'll just dive in and make a big mess of things whenever I can. Looks good to me. My life is being spent reverting vandalism these days, I think...beware, such can become the fate of any wikipedian! Arrgh! Montanabw 03:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Swannie 18:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihorses

Hello everyone! On Wikia I requested that there be a Horses Wiki. Guess what...it got approved! The new wiki is called Wikihorses, and it is an encyclopedia that aims to provide a better understanding of horses and horse-related topics. I am looking for people that would like to participate in this wonderful new wiki, because the more people we have contributing, the better the encyclopedia will be. If you would like to join, please go to http://horses.wikia.com/ (Wikihorses site) and start editing, or go to my talk page on Wikihorses, and tell me you would like to participate (optional). Thank you all for contributing so much to this encyclopedia with your knowledge on horses, but now let's go and create an encyclopedia specifically for horse articles!! Thank you!!! :) ɸSwannieɸ 02:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain Wikia? It looks like another wikipedia. Why should we care? Montanabw 02:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia is a MediaWiki webhosting site. It allows you to request a new wiki, and start one (if it gets approved). You should care, because Wikihorses is an online encyclopedia, but its main goal is to provide a better understanding of horse breeds and horse-related topics. It is specifically about horses, unlike Wikipedia. ɸSwannieɸ 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure how working on a separate horses wiki is a better idea than improving Wikipedia's horse articles, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay-I think that if someone wants to find info on a breed of horse, they would go to an encyclopedia specifically about horses. That is why you should contribute to this; to make it easier for people to find what they want. It is...in a way...a sub-encyclopedia of Wikipedia...this is my last try...Please help! Thank you :) Swannie 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Wikipedia articles on breeds of horses are missing or inadequate, make them better! There's no reason that this sort of content needs to be split off. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animals project proposal

I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following projects would come under the parentage of this project:

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

18 September 2007 - expires 23 September
- Arched legs (PROD by User:Montanabw ; Created in Jan 2006. PROD nominator states: "Article is an orphaned stub of an archaic term, describing--inaccurately--a condition of horse conformation now known as "buck-kneed"") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Agriculture and discussion of infoboxes

I want to let everyone know that the WikiProject Agriculture exists (soon to move from my user space to wikispace) and also we are discussing infoboxes for domestic animals in general. Looking to yours as a model but would like thoughts from anyone who might be interested in the broader topic OR have a better understanding of templates. Please join us on the project's talk page (and Sign Up!)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind is that we also have a relationship with Wikiproject Mammals, Wikiproject Horse training, WikiProject Horse Racing, Wikiproject Veterinary medicine, etc. There is also a wikiproject Dog breeds, and I think one on cats. There are EXTENSIVE wikiboxes on Thoroughbred race horses, they are the people to look to if you are looking for a project that actually is somewhat organized. As for what's happening with dogs, Ask User:VanTucky, he may be more up on this stuff. I guess my take is that there seem to be a lot of wikiprojects that are either at cross-purposes or at least wholly unaware of one another. I know that I have tended to ignore them totally and just focus on improving articles instead of talking about improving articles...but if you can herd us wikicats, go for it! Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion: List of equine topics

List of equine topics (via WP:PROD)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing this list, it was outdated and useless. The Categories need some organization now, but they will work if we keep plugging away at them. Montanabw^(talk) 01:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible expansion of project?

I was wondering whether the members of this project would be interested in expanding the scope of their project to include all the articles in the Category:Horses. This project would probably be the most logical one to deal with the slightly greater number of articles in that category, doing so would give those additional articles an oversight body which they generally don't have right now, and might well draw more members to the project. John Carter 19:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been talk of creating a SEPARATE WikiProject:Horse, like the ones for cats and dogs. Note also that there is already also Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and WIkipedia:WikiProject horse training. And, for that matter, to say there is a "slightly greater" number of articles under Category:Horses clearly suggests that you haven't dug into all the sub-categories there, especially the equestrianism disciplines, Category:Horse coat colors, and Category:Horse tack (there are probably a THOUSAND horse articles in wiki--or god's sake, we have one on the curb chain!) So my take is that THIS project should not be expanded (there are already a couple hundred articles listed at List of horse breeds and Category:Horse breeds as it is and we aren't able to keep up with those. (Some of the articles on obscure breeds are stubs, others read like ad copy...). But if someone wants to go to the dicussion page for horse and propose the notion, what the heck. Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lordy, if someone wants to take on a life's work, just organizing the subcategories within Category Horses a little more logically would be a daunting task! Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like to understake things a little once in a while, having a rather sick sense of humor. This is partially because there's been talk at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture about maybe including horses in the scope of that project, and then thinking myself that an entirely separate horse project might be called for. And, for what it's worth, I do think that the horse racing/training projects should probably remain separate, as those are in effect "sport" projects rather than "biology" projects. But there is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Horses for a new "parent" horse project. If anyone who looks at this page is interested, they are more than welcome to indicate their support there. John Carter 20:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support up-scoping this project and renaming to the name of the proposed project. I agree with John that the sports type horse projects should remain independent subprojects, but breeds just doesn't make sense as a project by itself. People can always focus and we could even make "breeds" a working group/task force within the larger project. I agree also that Horses deserves an independent project from Agriculture.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing that we have 1,000 assorted horse articles, when you include all the disciplines, equipment, medical conditions, care and management, etc... The sport projects are the tip of the iceberg. I honestly think all these "projects" are rather a total waste of time because mostly people just jaw about things and don't actually do much, but if we must have one, then an umbrella "Horse" project" with some sister projects or shared parentage projects definitely makes sense.Montanabw^(talk) 16:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, though, a few thousand articles is generally thought to be fairly standard for any project. John Carter 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Agriculture has only been in existence a couple weeks and yet I find that the coordination there is already improving articles. Editors who have time to cruise several dozen pages a day but may not have time to fix major issues, or may not be sure how, can post the issues and other editors can either take up the cudgel or discuss possible solutions, it works, believe me. I just can't see two separate projects, I am on the list for this project because it's the most logical to be on right now for coordination with Ag and my interest in Horses generally. I have an interest in many breeds, particularly draft breeds, but also in horse anatomy (particularly the feet - I trained as a farrier). I doubt that there are many editors who are actually interested in editing all horse breeds but only the breed articles. Much more likely the average editor has a few breeds, or maybe even only one breed, that he or she has an interest in, but a general interest in horses may still be within his or her scope. If someone has no interest in the general horse articles but only in one or a few breeds, that's fine, but a project for the breeds just seems strange (even more strange than an entire project for a single breed, even with the very limited scope that would leave). I would be more than happy to assist as much as I can in upscoping this project, if editors are willing to go that route. See my further comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Agriculture. Thinking of volume of articles, consider all the articles under Agriculture!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the edits to list of horse breeds, and how much that little article has grown into far more than a list (I should rename it "horse breeds" actually), and by the past history of this project (It has been pretty quiet for the last month or so until now, but does pep up from time to time), my thinking is that we can create a wikiproject horse without needing to get rid of this one. I see no need to propose this for deletion. That's all. Oh, by the way, I put a message on the admins noticeboard about that fellow who is making things miserable over on the ag talk page, he has now threatened me twice. Following the advice of Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls, I am going to try and avoid further conversation with him, and advise everyone else to just let some admins you know be aware of the situation. Montanabw^(talk) 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one was even considering proposing the project for deletion. If anything, it was going to be moved to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Horses with the scope section expanded a little to include all the articles in the Category:Horses which are not already covered by the other extant projects. There was never any thought given to deleting the project. John Carter 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This project might also consider that part of the reason it "can't keep up" with all the articles is a lack of scope. There may be a lot of articles in this category, but the range of articles within the scope of this project is really rather limited. I am trained as a farrier and have a deep love of horses, but I almost didn't join this project initially because it focuses on breeds not on horses. I finally joined because you have the model breed box and coordination between this project and Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture is very important, especially for historical issues. You have twelve members including me. The Project has been around since early 2004. I suspect that some of those members are no longer active in this Project. If WikiProject Horse is created, I would immediately withdraw from this project because it's scope really has no interest for me, and join the new Project.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these things have people who are real active at first, then fade, just like clubs in the real world. Bottom line is that the various horse breed articles get a fair amount of attention (though the more obscure ones less so, obviously). No one ever bothers much to update this project page, though. Truth is, list of horse breeds is where the action is, not here. I honestly think these things are all just a big waste of time, but I feel a need to keep an eye on the horse ones just to head off trouble before it starts. A this point, I could not care less what happens here as long as the actual content of the articles is improved, not harmed. Truth is, what is needed big time is some organization of the horse categories, they are disorganized and possibly there are too many without a logical hierarchy. Montanabw^(talk) 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the intent was to try to convince that it was a good idea, not beat you into submission. It would be really nice if another member of the project would comment. I'll let it sit a few days. If nobody else comments, I'll make the move. Sometimes that's the only way to get people's attention.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think there's the level of interest to create Wikiproject Horse, but whatever. Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, let's hold the phone on any kind of move or merge. Thinking on this for a couple of days, I really do think that it is probably best to keep this as a spin-off from any Horse wikiproject. First off, as long as we are the only two discussing the issue, the old Robert's Rule of Order is that "if it ties, it dies." Second, two new people have just come on board over on the warmblood breed articles, one of whom is already nosing around in Category:Horses and I tipped him/her off to this page, I suspect he/she will be here in a day or two and this is someone with a definite focus on breed articles. Third, neither User:Eventer (who has probably started more horse articles than anyone here) and User:Culnacreann have weighed in (If you want to invite them to do so, go for it), and they are major contributors to these articles. So let's keep the status quo for now. Montanabw^(talk) 04:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I wasn't trying to force it, I thought you'd basically abandoned your opposition, so I thought I'd use the WP:BRD method of figuring out what consensus is. Part of my point though is that the interest in breeds IS interest in the WikiProject Horse. But we can wait a while and see if anything happens. I'd love for someone else to comment.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More that I just felt beat up from edit wars and don't want to start any new ones. Basically I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are some things here that need to be kept even if the project is folded into another. Like I say, there are some new folks getting into the horse breeding articles, so far they aren't here yet, but wikiprojects sort of are an "intermediate" user thing, the newbies don't always find them right off. I say let's just let this one sit for a bit, proceed with wikiproject Horse on its own merits, and if it works later to fold this project into, it, we'll have a better sense of things. Two things here I don't want to lose are the breed infobox template, which works quite well and is "official," in whatever way the wikigods make such things into templates; and the banner (which needs to go into more of the breed articles, but haven't had the time to focus on that.) There was also a bit of work done on a recommended layout for the breed articles (a layout recommendation widely ignored, but...) that reflects consensus of the people working on it at the time (I was peripherally involved) that is useful when people apply it. Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just hold off on the whole thing, the idea was to rename this as WikiProject Horse not "fold it in to" WikiProject Horse. That's much harder to do once you create Horse and I think the two would become redundant. If you renamed, nothing would be lost, the entire project would just have a new name. We're working on adopting breedboxes based on this project's breedboxes for all livestock, so don't worry about those going anywhere. As for the banner, there are a couple options if this project widened its scope: 1) just change the banner to say "WikiProject Horse", 2) continue to use this project's banner for breeds but have a WikiProject Horse banner for other articles in the topic, or 3) as with WP:MILHIST show the applicable working group "Breeds" as part of an overall banner. The banner doesn't do much on it's own. If you changed the template to say "WikiProject Horse", all banners everywhere would change because they are all transclusions of the template; but it wouldn't be "lost", in any case. I keep getting the idea that you think John and I are suggesting deprecating this project in favor of Horse, we are not! We are merely proposing that this project become WikiProject Horse. Nothing would happen except the main project page would change slightly to indicate the new title and broader scope.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, potentially, that the only change made be the name of the page, to Wikipedia:WikiProject Horses/Horse breed work group, and that the banner of the horses project, when made, be adjusted to include individual assessment for the horse breeds group. The same thing is being done currently for several work groups, and I set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Mustelids work group for such separate assessments recently. Feel free to look at that page if you want to see what some of the results are. John Carter 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I basically want to be sure we preserve the hard work of others and avoid reinventing the wheel. I also don't want to waste time jawing about this endlessly. Like I say, my impression is that most wikiprojects generate more raw text in discussing articles than actual substantive edits and are largely a waste of time and bandwidth. But if we have wikiprojects, then I really do think that preserving this project separately in some form is worthwhile and would prefer to see it continued. The form is not as critical as the content and access to the history. Montanabw^(talk) 03:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New research on brown

Is the official position of this group that brown = liver chestnut? Say it ain't so! (Well, it's not.) Brown, including seal brown or black-bay (in German, schwarzbraun), is looking like it will turn out to be a distinct allelic "option" on (or near) the agouti locus. It appears to be analogous to black-and-tan in dogs and mice, but the gene hasn't been pinned down yet. I've heard some horse people speak anecdotally of a brown horse being brown all-over. However, no black-based horse has non-black points unless affected by some other gene. Smoky blacks and very dark liver chestnuts may appear "brown" but brown is brown...meaning black with tan on the muzzle, armpits and groin. The research is being conducted by Michal Prochazka of Pet DNA Services AZ. I'm sure he'd be willing to answer questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countercanter (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh heavens NO! Either that was misprinted of misread, will check and rephrase if necessary. I basically agree with you, though the way I understand Bowling and Sponenberg, Browns are basically dark bays, plain and simple, at least until they figure out if there is such a thing as the proposed "sooty" gene that darkens coat colors. Brown is indeed E and A genes -- a bay (I own two of them). However, some people call Liver Chestnuts a "seal brown," which is incorrect, but common. Will be interesting, I have heard one theory that "sooty" may be what darkens both chestnuts to liver and bays to brown. You may also want to take a glance at equine coat color genetics and see if any hiccups or mis-edits there. Montanabw^(talk) 00:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I see lots of hiccups. I'm drowning! Sponenberg is coming out with a new book soon, allegedly, as his is painfully outdated. Yes, there is some overlap in the brown and dark bay phenotypes, but at this time they are two separate things. Again, the agouti test does *not* tell us that the horse has the dominant "A" gene, only whether it has the recessive "a" gene. Thanks for your continued guidance, by the way! Countercanter (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I disagree there. According to the page about color tests at UC Davis lab, it appears they can detect the dominant A allele. If they could not, then there would be no possible way to affirmatively confirm by testing that a horse is genetically black and not just dark bay (As an Aa horse would be a bay, yet carry one copy of the recessive allele). I own a black horse that has had this test run and has been determined to be a homozygous black (EEaa). I would also like to actually see a cite for actual evidence for "at this time they [brown and bay] are two separate things." I have not seen anything to verify that. I keep hearing theories bandied about, the "sooty" gene theory making the most sense, but not one cite to a university research project or peer reviewed literature (ditto for the alleged "flaxen" gene that people who breed chestnuts are so fascinated about. No one has figured out that mechanism, either) Montanabw^(talk) 08:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send UC Davis an email. My university's database doesn't carry Mammalian Genome, but if you have access to it, you'd be looking for:

Rieder, S., et al. "Mutations in the agouti (ASIP), the extension (MC1R), and the brown (TYRP1) loci and their association to coat color phenotypes in horses (Equus caballus)" 2001 Mammalian Genome 12:6. 450-455. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countercanter (talk • contribs) 16:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I do wonder what has changed since 2001 -- I own a black that was color-tested, hmm. I would be interested in a clarification, because they are sure making the big bucks there with the promotion of their color tests. Boy, at this point, there is so much in flux with genetic research it's sort of a challenge to keep up...the work on those dilution genes alone over the last 2-3 years has been pretty amazing. Montanabw^(talk) 02:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associations

Should breed registries and breed associations, such as American Quarter Horse Association or Jockey Club fall under this project or under Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine? Ealdgyth | Talk 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if they are a breed registry, they go into wikiproject horse breeds, if a discipline organization like the USEF or USDF or NRHA, etc., those would be wikiproject Equine. If in doubt, like AQHA, which sanctions shows AND registers horses, we could tag for both. Will that work? Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should go under the breeds project if they are a breed registry, but if they are a club or organization they could go under Project Equine. Hjhunt (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notablity

I'm thinking we need to put our heads together and thrash out some guidelines on when a breed registry/breed is established enough to be listed. There are a LOT of new/refounded/crossbreeds being founded every day, and we need some sort of guideline we can point to to establish when they can be listed and whne they are too small or whatever. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we have also had requests for the "Warlander" and the "American Spotted Paso" (which appears to be one farm that started a "registry" for the horses it sold). Oh yeah, and "Cayuse Indian Pony" was another request (that isn't a breed, it's considered a racist slur out here, on both Indians and their horses).

There are people who cross their pony on a Friesian and call it a new breed. To take a more restrictive view, Countercanter makes an eloquent argument that the warmblood "breeds" aren't even really "breeds" other than the Trakehner, but for the purpose of wikipedia, we are calling them "breeds" anyway. Of course, being an Arabian horse person, I have to just take a deep breath on all of this because, after all, isn't EVERYTHING else just a crossbred? (grin, said tongue in cheek, for the humor-impaired who may see this discussion, understand that I am joking) LOL! :-D

I guess one way to look at it is this: Why is the National Show Horse now a "breed" and not simply a half-Arab? There seems to be no huge dispute even though it's only about 25 years old now. If it's because it has a "registry" at what point did the registry stop being Gene LaCroix's personal commercial venture and become something mainstream? Was it numbers, was it members, was it getting beyond the control of a single individual, or is the NSH not really a "breed?" I'd say for the NSH, getting its own section in USEF counts. Maybe things like either sanctioning competitions or something beyond just tracking pedigrees? Don't know.

I'd say the most marginal one I came across but kept was Camarillo White Horse which was just one guy's operation, but it has been around for more than a human generation and survived his death. That and a governmental entity made the breed (or whatever it is, as white is a dominant and lethal when homozygous, so can't be fully true breeding as it only exists in the heterozygous state, but I digress) their "official horse."

What I'd like to see is some source material out there that discusses this so it's not just our opinions or original research. The answer is somewhere between a fully closed stud book, true-breeding population and the "send us $50, and we'll "register" your horse (there is a "Bay horse registry" for pete's sake!) places that are just commercial rip-offs. I wonder if sanctioning shows or other activities could be a cut off (except that will eliminate a lot of articles). Another angle, for international breeds, at least, might be FAO or governmental recognition (which is how I found all those Indonesian and Japanese pony breeds, they are recognized by SOMEONE other than their own promoters). To take another example, would wikipedia guidelines accept that "halter horse" registry of people with HYPP positive horses that can't be registered with the AQHA? (YIKES!)

So, maybe the upshot is not so much a definition but a criterion that includes something like a stud book that is more than a horse generation old (the ones less than 10 years old can't possibly be anything but a collection of crossbreeds that could be incorporated into respective breed articles?), plus is acknowledged by some other authority (like Okie state or KY Horse Park, or the FAO, or endangered breeds trust or SOMEONE other than the six horse farms that started the registry.)

Perhaps we could apply an analysis to these two articles and see what we think: Friesian Sporthorse and Virginia highlander. Something in my guy says "keep," but not sure why. And why I am being so snarky about the "Spanish Jennet" people (other than the 10 millionth gaited horse with spots "breed" we have seen here) I don't know, but it just smacks of being one person's farm.

Well, all for now. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 05:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think actual incorporation would be one standard. Another would be governmental recognition (at least for Europe). Sanctioning shows is a good standard too. USEF recognition would count in the US. Length of time should count too. I hesitate to use numbers of horses registered, because that might actually cut out some like the Lippizzan or Andalusian, since their numbers are so small. And some small registries like the Mammoth Jack or Icelandic Horse might face problems with numbers registered too. Anyone else have ideas? Una? Counter? Dana? Ealdgyth | Talk 05:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that numbers aren't a good criterion, as indeed there are many endangered breeds (see those cross linked with various rare breed survival trust categories. I think even the Clydesdale is on one). I guess the question is if we rely on just the existence of a registry or if we use a registry AND one other "official" list? I don't know. Oh, here's another "breed" that hasn't shown up here yet that we could apply our analysis to. LaCroix's new venture, the "Renai horse." (eep that I even mentioned it). Montanabw^(talk) 05:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a combination of age and numbers? Something like: If a registry has been around for 30+ years OR has more than 1,000 registered horses, it's notable? That would allow old, smaller registries, and large, newer registries to be included. Possible also include some of the earlier things discussed: government recognition for foreign registries, or recognition by one of the large equestrian governing bodies... It could be that registries under a certain age/population could just have a paragraph in the article on their breed, as this is already fairly common. Just my thoughts. Dana boomer (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we are making a mountain out of a molehill. For example, the spat over the "Spanish Jennet Horse" article when I merged it into Jennet has been resolved in favor of keeping it separate. The editor did a good job of making her case and defending the article, expanding it beyond a stub. S/he also graciously accepted my edits that toned down the POV and even went out and found some good reference works! (Wish more newbies came up to speed this fast). I also got the "American Spotted Paso" thrown out twice on the grounds that it's one person's farm. The Tiger Horse article might be a bit marginal too, but there are actually more refs for its existence than for some of the others, even if it is mostly all the horses from one person's farm. (exceot there are two different "registries"--What is it about gaited horses with spots? We have 5 or 6 of these! Don't these people get along with each other or what??) Seems that maybe the use of merge tags, related discussions, and the wiki consensus process itself is taking care of this and we don't need a policy. I definitely think numbers alone aren't a good measure, one of the examples of a short article that needs to stay, even though there are less than 100 representatives,is the Misaki horse of Japan, a highly endangered feral population recognized and protected by their Government. Several Japanese language editors have popped in there and they seem to be glad we put it up. I guess at this point my thinking is for now to just be on the lookout for articles that are just two different names for the same "breed" and get those cleaned up. (By the way, thank you on that, Dana, you are a trooper!) I am also NOT thanking that Bonnie Hendricks with her book of "over 400 breeds." Judging by what's been going into wikipedia from that source, it ain't much of a book, it may in fact be just the articles off the Oklahoma State web site, but I don't feel like ponying up the $25 to get a copy, does anyone else have it?? Montanabw^(talk) 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think. Consensus seems to be working so far. If people care enough to argue and put up sources (as the user did with the Spanish Jennet and Walkaloosa), then it's fine to keep as a breed. The two main users who run around putting up new breed articles on horses that may or may not be breeds and may or may not already have articles don't seem to be the type to fight when we edit, merge, or delete their articles, so I guess that gives the few of us who are running around behind them and care about the horse articles the right to do whatever we feel is appropriate with the articles. My thought is that it would be the same way with breed association articles. On the spotted horse topic, there is a reason for the phrase "spots on the brain' (for both horses and owners). I own an Appy (the smartest and most opinionated horse I've ever met), so I'm allowed to say that, I think... Dana boomer (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Appy owner, eh? That explains much! (big grin). Actually, Appaloosa is within spitting distance of GA status, if you want to go over there and take a look. It needs some additional organization, a better intro (with "sparkling prose, WTF that means), more citations and such, but it's maybe doable. The history section may need more sources, I can help with some of that (lots of Montana/Native American history texts at my house) Ealdgyth has done a bunch of GA assessments (I did a few) and can also give some advice as to what it needs. Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sparkling" prose means vampiric. Twilight^TMey vampiric. A style that looks good and shiney but also taps all blood out of someone stumbling over to read the article so that they don't ruin the excellence that is the article by ever even attempting to tweak anything there. FA articles are required to be self-protecting :P Pitke (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viataka Pony

This is a Russian breed that has state studs to maintain the purity of the breed. Should there be an article?Cgoodwin (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already have it, just different spelling. Vyatka (horse), which, for some reason is in the pony section. (Must be pony sized?) Anyway, if it IS the same breed, may want to create a redirect if there are alternative spellings. Maybe a rename, not sure. Calling little horses "ponies" insults some aficionados...sigh Montanabw^(talk) 02:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same breed, with my old source calling it a pony! Thanks.Cgoodwin (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exmoor Pony

Can any of you experts on this wikiproject help? On Exmoor Pony an editor has placed an "Expand" banner on the "Breed history" section which makes it show up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset/Cleanup listing. I don't have the knowledge/expertise or reliable sources to do this and would appreciate any help you can offer.— Rod ^talk 16:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. We sort of plug away at all the horse breed articles as we can (there are only 300 or 400 of them), and they also pop up on our cleanup listings. We don't really have a timetable, but we will note that these UK Pony breed articles do need some good housekeeping. Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add some quick advise please

The horse infobox template would do well with a quick reminder about what the "main" picture used in the template is supposed to show: should it be...

a nice, pleasing shot with artistic value and maybe some "action" value (showing the breed in a typical activity, a thoroughbred at full gallop for example)
a clear picture that shows a typical animal of the breed, preferably so that the conformation can be clearly seen, even if the picture is not that pretty
or what is the standard here? I'm confused.

—Pitke (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, theoretically the lead shot on every article should be a well-set-up conformation shot, showing all of the primary attributes of the individual breed, in a high resolution, high quality photo, facing into the article (see for example Arabian horse and Ardennes (horse)). However, that's probably never going to happen, although it's nice to dream. The second best would be a nice action shot, for example the ones in Icelandic horse and Haflinger (horse). The lead image in the Fell pony article is also not bad, although it would be nice if the horse was facing the other direction. Basically, when we're trying to improve an article we sort through Commons to see if there's anything remotely nice, check Flickr and government websites to see if there's anything we can upload, and then choose the best of what's generally a bad lot. See, for example, the Lusitano article that I just re-wrote, which doesn't have a good shot in the bunch on Commons, yet I can't find anything else with the proper licensing. Also Suffolk Punch which is a Featured Article, but which still doesn't have a decent conformation shot, although it's better than it was since Montanabw found a bunch of stuff on Flickr. So, what we need is multiple people to go to large shows, breed expos, Equine Affair events, etc and get lots of good pictures of breeds, especially the rare ones. But until that happens, we just have to make do with what we've got :) I hope this helps, and didn't go into way more detail than you wanted! Dana boomer (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with Dana, the lead photo in a perfect world would be a conformation shot of an excellent quality specimen of the breed, in full color, well-composed, and the horse facing "into" the article (i.e. facing left). That rarely happens, unfortunately! (It does in Finnhorse, luckily!) But, the main point in my humble opinion is to first, make the best of a bad lot, but then when possible to show a GOOD example of the breed as opposed to a great photo of a crappy horse. The Friesian horse article addressed that question a while back. There were some rather nicely photographed shots, I think of the same horse, but the animal was posed in such a way that it looked like it was put together backwards! Consensus finally seemed to agree on an action shot of a horse facing the "correct" direction. (There were several very good conformation shots of other horses, but all facing the "wrong" way. I actually am OK with the "wrong way," but I lost that round and can live with what's there.) Sometimes, all we have are really terrible shots, though something that is not great is probably better than nothing at all. By the way, Pitke, thanks for your additions to the collection for Finnhorse, you can see what the challenges we face are! Montanabw^(talk) 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's massive! And it needs your help!

Hiyah folks, I'd appreciate if people other than Montanabw could go and have a look at Finnhorse. Montanabw is brilliant as always, but I'm concerned we two might be developing a serious case of home blindness. Any comments on the article are appreciated. Pitke (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um and yes, I'm aiming for A level or GA. As higher as possible basically, as the great majority of the sources available and used are in Finnish. Pitke (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Famous horse breeds

Hi guys, I saw your standing on naming real horses above, but I was wondering if the same applies to fictional horses too, eg. The Lone Rangers "Silver", Black Beauty or Mr Ed? I actually went looking into the horse articles to find out which breeds these three are but couldn't find any, also some breeds are mentioned in the game "Red Dead Redemption" which I was looking for to see if they were fake names or real breeds, the list of those breeds is here with pictures http://reddead.wikia.com/wiki/Horse_Breeds , if you cant add any of this to the article could any of you give me these answers? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.156.126 (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's within the scope here, but I suppose lists on fictional horses could expand to mention fictional breeds, there's a fair bit of it in fantasy fiction. Most mainstream fiction seems to use real breeds. (Though not stated, it is considered implicit that Black Beauty was probably a Thoroughbred) However, with nearly 400 real breeds here, we don't, figuratively, have the horses to pull a bigger wagon. So I guess while it's best not to house such a project here, if someone was into doing this, they could leave a message for anyone in WPEQ who wanted to help elsewhere. (Side thought: Maybe we need an equine fiction wikiproject. I for one, would love to discuss errors in the same! For example, why to all movie horse have to utter a greeting neigh when they rear? LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 15:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species

Hello WikiProject members and others. As part of a discussion at WikiProject Animals, a number of editors have indicated that the presentation of the current guidelines on the capitalization of common names of species is somewhat unclear.

We wish to clarify and confirm existing uncontroversial guidelines and conventions, and present them in a "quick-reference" table format, for inclusion into the guidelines for the capitalization of common names of species.

Please take a moment to visit the draft, and comment at talk. Your input is requested to determine whether or not this table is needed, and to ensure that it is done in the best way possible. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basic outline of horse breed articles

From the beginning of the horse breeds task force, characteristics has come before breed history. This makes sense for an encyclopedia because readers come to find out something (what is ______). History is an adjunct piece of information and does not describe "what something is", but is merely a story about how something came to be. It is secondary to "what is it?" and therefore should remain in the position below characteristics.

I propose adding to the outline a section for external links, which is missing from the outline. Acceptable for the section should be national-level breed registry websites for the breed.

Breed standards should be in the infobox, but only if the link is to a standard (no matter how informal), but never to the main page of a breed registry. The purpose of including a standard is to give more information about the breed. Links to main page of registries are by definition external links and should only be in the external links section.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a longstanding consensus that "Characteristics" should generally come first It's not something to edit war over, and my view is that occasionally IAR may apply where there's a good reason for history to be first (such as extinct breeds, as an example), but as a rule, I agree that we want to give readers what they need first. (FYI, the suggestions noted in edit history about using a proposal at WP:Animals cited to something never implemented as far as I can tell, and were not dictating a structural order anyway. Plus it was created by one person 10 years ago and hasn't been touched since) Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I disagree about the links to the breed standard. We used to do that but wound up going to the main registry page because of linkrot... registries are constantly messing with their web pages and we lose links all the time—and though we could use archived links, standards sometimes change too. All registries have standards, and so long as the registry exists and has a link to a breed standard, it's probably best to just link that. Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't favor an automatic external links section because they sometimes bloat beyond recognition. No reason people can't add one, but I would not mandate them. Hope this helps! Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't suggest mandatory external link sections, but a recent edit removed my links to the two main registries for a breed; I was suggesting language to indicate it was 'acceptable' to put them there. If the infobox 'standards' sections are for registries, then the wording in the template documentation should be changed to reflect that. Also the prompt that displays on the page should be changed from "Standard" to something else ("Registries"?). In which case, having them in the external links section would be superfluous. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read your post, Montana, and had more thoughts. It was because of the documentation for the infobox that I had been correcting some of those links in infoboxes to standards (or removing them when I couldn't find an actual standard), and dumping the registries into external links. It was a lot of work trying to find standards. But you're right, the website URLs do change (moreso than actual standards change). That said, external links do belong in their own section, per WP:EXTLINKS. The dog breeds do post links to standards in their infoboxes, however dogs have national and international level registries for hundreds of breeds in one place (AKC, KC, FCI) whereas horse breeds don't have such centralized websites. Maybe we should remove the standards param from the infobox, and just put registries in ext links (followed by a link to a standard if we find one). For example:

* Society of BreedX (UK) (breed standard)

* BreedX registry of America (breed standard)

This places the links close enough to each other so that if the standard has moved, but the domain name is the same, a reader can still find it easily enough. The current system of putting it in the infobox doesn't provide links to both. In some cases, even the domain name had changed. It's also easier to update ext link section URLs with archived links (than it is to poke through the infobox code). ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Knabstrupper § Reference format

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Knabstrupper § Reference format. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "dry" as used for horse morphology

I have only recently encountered the undefined term "dry" used in such context as "dry head" or "dry legs" and it is not referring to moisture. It is not defined in Glossary of equestrian terms, Wiktionary:dry, Dry (a disambig page), or in any online dictionary (I checked many). Searching for a definition has turned up bupkis! Though online AI search tools give an explanation, they will not cough up any actual source or citation for the meaning of the word—just proving the word is actually used, but not defined anywhere.

It is used in many horse breed articles, such as:

I even tried some of the horse breed encyclopedias through Open Library, and found only one which even mentioned it [1] but the others didn't use the term at all. I do not know if it is a new slang term that has caught hold in equine circles or a regional thing (American?), or what, but at minimum it needs defining in the glossary, properly cited. Failing that (or even with a definition source found), it should perhaps not be used at all. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know why it doesn’t turn up, as it’s extremely common when referring to a certain quality of refined heads such as in Arabians. It’s been used for a century at least. Let’s leave it be for now. I’ve got other fish to fry than to dig up its etymology, but if I find something, I’ll let you know. Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: about five minutes of googling gave me two examples, one citing an old source…neither are particularly fancy examples, but maybe the problem is not that it’s a new concept, but an old one. But anyway it’s not made up: see [2] and [3]. Montanabw^(talk) 05:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples show it was in use, but doesn't explain what it means. Maybe it was an Arabian-specific descriptive term from way back that has caught on in modern times. Your post gave me the idea to check Horace Hayes' Points of the Horse (1904), and I found nothing for "dry". If it was a commonly used term to describe morphology (of heads and legs) in 1900's England, it would be in there. Sadly, no. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does scope of this task force include articles of breeders or named horse articles?

I have Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Horse breeds/Hot articles on my watchlist, and lately I've started seeing articles of breeders and named horse articles showing up. Examples from just today: Homer Davenport, Rashidun cavalry, and Persik (endurance horse). I thought this task force was for breed articles—articles describing actual breeds, not everything related to horse breeds (which would be about half of the WP:EQUINE collection). Should breeders (human) and breeders (equine) also be included here? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If only there was an assessment table for the breed task force like the one for all WP:EQUINE (Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Assessment) that would help to sift through which pages have been tagged for this task force. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grorp: Definitely breeders, as many play a role in the history and development of a breed. Even those who may not have had major contributions may have helped advance the popularity or quality of the breed. Individual horses are trickier. Foundation bloodstock, probably, or at least maybe. Famous individuals within a breed, hmmm...not so much. Montanabw^(talk) 17:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]