Talk:Horse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article has an assessment summary page.
To-do list for Horse: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Proper citations needed throughout entire article. Please use <ref></ref> tags so we have footnotes at the bottom.
  • If sections have their own article not already tagged with {{Main}} template, do so and merge long sections with the main article, leaving only a very short summary here.
  • Please do not expand this article without discussing on talk page, the article is bloated already. Create new articles with links here if you must add material.
  • Copyedit, Wikify, Update, and Verify as necessary
Horse was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 5, 2007
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Proposed general "Horse" WikiProject

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Horses for a project which would deal with all articles related to horses. It would however primarily limit itself to those articles which are not currently within the scope of any other active project. Anyone who might be interested in seeing such a project become a reality should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone else created Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine and did quite a bit of work on it. I've joined it, trying to improve it but I haven't worked on Category creation much, give it a look-see and see what can be done to improve it. Montanabw(talk) 08:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead image

I have an objection, which is why I changed it. By comparison, the original lead image is very small and of poor composition. The color collision of the original lead's backgroung makes it much harder to see, and the image I switched to is a Quality Image from Commons. Simply maintaining the status quo is not a reason for retaining content. Consensus can change on any issue, and I am unsatisfied with the current lead. If you have a reason why the new image I chose is unsuitable, I'd be willing to hear it. But reverting just to avoid change for its own sake is unacceptable. VanTucky talk 07:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The stable image currently leading article

The one you added that was reverted
OK, you apparently didn't read my ENTIRE edit summary. And your edit summary said something entirely different from what you said here. So, let me explain why the existing image has been stable for over a year and why it is superior to the one you replaced it with:
This is a "quality image" in commons too, but we wouldn't use it for the lead here, given the angle, eh?
This is a "quality image" in commons too, but we wouldn't use it for the lead here, given the angle, eh?
  1. What "color collision? One gray horse in a pasture against another gray horse in a pasture??
  2. The image you inserted (and I reverted) is misnamed as a "white" horse when it is obviously a dapple gray. That alone could mislead people and thus defeats the educational purpose of wikipedia.
  3. The horse in your image looks like a friendly horse, but is poorly conformed in the front legs, it toes out. In fact, it looks like it also has offset cannons and may be slightly knock-kneed, all things that lead to lameness. You cannot see its feet at all, hidden in the grass. It is also somewhat pig-eyed and stands too close behind
  4. The horse is ungroomed
  5. A 3/4 or greater frontal image is less illustrative of an animal that a full side shot (and the shot shows how bad those front legs are)
  6. A photo of a horse standing still is less demonstrative of the nature of horses than a well-done photo of an animal in motion
  7. the "quality image" tag on Commons is a general photograph quality tag, having nothing to do with the representative quality of the animal in the shot. And relatively little to do with the composition of the shot
  8. The blue bucket or tub in the background is distracting
  9. The image size as it appears on the page is scaled for an infobox, in fact, the stable image on commons is LARGER than the one you used, and at only 200 or 300 px wide, both are perfectly adequate for an infobox. That's just a bogus argument.
  10. Your edit summary commented on the breed of horse being identifiable and your desire to replace with more of a "generic" image. While an admirable goal, imagine doing that for dog--I mean, the image of the dog leading that article at the moment possesses clear breed characteristics, whether it is actually a purebred animal or not. The only way to hide some breed characteristics is to use an image of an ill-bred mongrel.
  11. The animal in the stable image has excellent general conformation and the photo clearly shows it. (If I were to nitpick, I'd say I'd like to see the hocks set down a bit lower and the animal is a touch long in the back, but not excessive for a gaited horse. The neck is a little heavy, but it's a stallion, and again, not atypical). Overall, it's a nice quality animal.
  12. And yet, you wouldn't know its breed immediately unless you looked up the photo. (You might say, "hmm, some kind of muscular Spanish-type horse, wonder which breed?")
  13. Further, while the horse is identified by breed on its image page and image name, the animal is also a member of a lesser-known breed in the USA (or anywhere in the English-speaking world) and as such doesn't stand out as being obviously part of any faction, that fact alone probably contributes to its stability. If the lead was any common breed in the USA, afficionados of various breeds would (and used to) be swapping photos to promote their favorite type constantly.
Hope this helps. If you actually find a truly better image, that is fine. But the one you added was not. My primary gripe with the existing image is that they did an amateur job of photoshopping some of the background to blur it, not a fatal error on an image intended to showcase an animal. Now, Merry Christmas and all that. Montanabw(talk) 08:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

the image shown on artical is not true for the image in which they call a horse galloping is wrong. thet horse is cantering. thet gate has 3 beats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.38.198 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) ...

[edit] Some ideas

After a preliminary perusal of this article, I had a couple suggestions for small tweaks: in the into para, it says the economic role of the horse declined after mechanization... I'd love a phrase or sentence that says why (the horse was relied upon for many types of work and transportation) or something like that. Also, the section on Hot/Cold/Warm bloods does not mention pony breeds, which are cold-blooded. Also, the order of the sections seems disjointed, mostly relevant to time.... current, then historical, then current, then historical... could things like Evolution and Domestication be moved closer to the beginning of the article? I think they are more important than, say, ages. Just my two cents after a quick read. --AeronM (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I think this is a high priority for the WikiProject, but I don't think anyone is actively editing it much. As long as what sourcing there is doesn't get lost (I spent a bit of time getting source citations for some of the sentences and would hate to see that work lost) I figure that the article is very much in need of editing and help, especially reorganization. (Is this where I cheer you on like a cheerleader?) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Always could use a good cheerleader.... I will make some careful edits. Let me know if anything looks funky. --AeronM (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved the horse care section down to sit before the riding methods article. This seemed to fit more logically to me. I think AeronM is right that the article seems a bit disjointed still. This edit is certainly not set in stone. If anyone has a strong opinion about it being the way it was, please revert. I also agree with AeronM about the evolution section.--Getwood (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm.. so maybe put the order as Evolution, Breeds, Biology, Behavior, Gaits, Horses within the Human ecomony (Perhaps rename to Horses and Humans?), Riding equipment, Horse care, Misc (maybe merge the common myths section in here?), Common myths, and then all the usual junk at the bottom. Does that sound workable to folks? I'm mainly thinking out loud here, so suggestions/comments/"hell no, you're off base!" etc are welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see it go more like that. or even Evolution, Domestication, Breed Origins, Characteristics (color, size, etc.), and etc. Is "Biology" needed as we already have a section (and a main article) on anatomy, and horse Ages seems less like Biology and more like terminology, IMHO. --AeronM (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably need at least some biology stuff in the article, just to serve as stub paragraphs pointing to the bigger articles on anatomy, etc. A characterisitcs section with the age/color/size subsections to go with a biology section with anatomy and reproduction (and others?) might work. So we'd be looking at Evolution, Domestication, Breed origins, Characteristics, Anatomy, Gaits, Behavior, Horses and Humans, Equipment, Care, Misc?
This sounds good to me. I like the order and I like the 'Horses and humans' title. I also agree that we need to at least mention many of the topics, but I feel that there is still some bloat that could be cut. For example, the sleep section IMO should be a sentence or two. Similarly, the breed registry section and therapeutic riding sections seem too detailed to me for a page titled 'Horse'. And, to me, the 'riding methods and equipment' section maybe doesn't even need to be here at all except as links. I think that all of these topics should be on Wikipedia, but maybe not here.--Getwood (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with reorganization as you all have suggested, but am making a few tweaks on edits. Note with the biology section, which does need to stay in some form, that many, many new articles were spun out from it, so (I guess this includes the whole article) be careful to keep any "Main" links and wikilinks, we need to remember that this article is a gateway to, literally, hundreds of other articles. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Blooded Horses

Most (if not all) pony breeds are considered cold blooded. Ponies, however, were not used for 'draft' work in general because they were too small, and their larger cousin the draft horse was better-suited. Ponies did do farm work, but also pulled carts, and carried people (both kids and adults) around the countryside. --AeronM (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Some fit the criteria (phlegmatic disposition, heavy hair coat, etc.) , others do not. Rather than reverting previous edits, you can work in something about ponies. I also tossed the bit about the origins of cold-bloods because it's already covered in the evolution section under the "four foundations theory" part. I am reworking the material to try and incorporate both views. Please edit further if you want, but please pay attention to the hard work that others have done and familiarize yourself with the entire article so you don't create redundant, or worse yet, contradictory material. Montanabw(talk) 02:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


I smell trouble brewing. Let's figure this out before an edit war starts. I see a few issues here in dispute:
  • 1) Cold-blooded=stockier draft type vs. cold-blooded=origin in cold climates. I had learned it as the draft-type definition, but I have seen both definitions in use. I don't necessarily think they are mutually exclusive. While I think that the geographical terminology likely defined the core original breeds, with years of interbreeding this becomes messy. So many breeds have differing degrees of both types. For example, Warmbloods are not the only mixtures of European and Arabian blood. Wouldn't this strict definition mean that Quarter Horses would be a type of warmblood? My feeling is that we can say something like: "The hot-blooded/cold-blooded terminology originally related to the geographical origin of the breed, but now has come to refer to the overall character of the horse or pony."
Yes, I agree. I'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive, only pointing out that they are stockier and hairy-er due to their origins way back when, and yes, technically QHs are warmbloods. We used to joke around at the barn when we had a QH for sale and advertise it as an American Warmblood.  : ) --AeronM (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 2) Ponies (most if not all) are cold-blooded because they originated in cold climates vs. some ponies are cold-blooded because they are draft-type. Again, I think we can finesse this without saying that one is right or wrong. I personally think that most ponies are draft-type, and so could be considered cold-blooded, with certain hot-blooded exceptions like the [Hackney pony]. Although, really, come to think of it, lots of ponies are more like little warmbloods...
Agree again... both are correct. I was only taking issue with montana's tossing the entire pony portion of the cold blood section. --AeronM (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 3) Ponies were not used for 'draft' work in general because they were too small. As I understand it, some pony breeds flourished at times because they were useful as draft horses in the mines. For example: "when the coal mining industry became extensively developed in Britain in the 1800’s, Shetlands were imported in great numbers to haul coal cars in the 'pits'." (From "Shetland Pony")
Yes, that's true.... again I was only concerned because montana's version made it sound like all ponies were draft animals, which is not correct. --AeronM (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Just my two cents...--Getwood (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
My main point was that not all - or even most - modern ponies are really cold-bloods any more (traditional Shetlands, yes, Some M&M breeds, yes). And no, not all ponies are draft animals. That was not what I said, I was (not entirely clearly) trying explain which kinds of ponies could be classed as coldbloods. I share Getwood's position on this. And heck, you are into Connemaras, so you know they have "hot" blood in them. (and they are lovely riding ponies, IMHO). My other point is that the "cold bloods originated in cold climates" statement is excessively simplistic, and redundant, particularly given that a more thorough explanation of the body types origins is in the evolution section (and indeed the draft prototype was the progenitor of both the draft horse and the shetland pony). THIS section is only be about temperament. Originally someone, sometime, had a section on temperament of different breeds that was a mess, and what I basically did was drag out the somewhat dated, but still useful, Marguerite Henry explanation of the different breeds as a way to clean it up. (No, I do not "own" this section, I am only explaining its history; I've had this article watchlisted for two years now)
So final point is that this is a subsection on horse behavior that addresses temperament, it is not am evolution or breed origins section (there are other sections on breed origin and horse evolution). Now, can this section and the whole article be cleaned up and things made clearer? Sure. No problem. But let's look at the whole thing before we Balkanize sections in a way that may contradict other sections. Keep it all in context. That's all. Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I actually have to agree that by the old Marguerite Henry definition of "warmblood", QH's are indeed "warmbloods" (OMG, Aeron and I agree on something! LOL!)! Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah. Joe Hancock was the product of a Thoroughbred top side and a half Percheron bottom. And he's in the AQHA Hall of Fame! (grins) And there was one half Shetland mare that was bred to King P-234 and her descendants are still floating around. Arabians, Saddlebreds, Morgans, they are all there in the QH. Not that you hear QH folks talk about them much... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Just as an FYI, I'm going through and formatting all of the references with the same templates. If everyone could use the templates as they put in new citations, it would be wonderful! Please let me know if there is any problem with this. I'll also probably be working on referencing a lot of what's in here that doesn't already have citations, too. It looks like you all are getting a great start on making sure the article flows well and has the proper information in it...so just disregard my puttering unless I get in your way :) Dana boomer (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, all of the existing references should be properly formatted. If you see anything wrong, please feel free to tweak or let me know! I'm going to start working on referencing everything else now, but please don't take the fact that I referenced something to mean that I think it should or should not be in this article...feel free to add or remove whatever (based on consensus, of course)! Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Integration

Would it be allright with everyone if the "Miscellaneous" and "Common myths and terminology errors" sections were deleted and the information merged into other parts of the article where it fits? These two sections are small, with lots of one and two sentence paragraphs that have little or no relation to each other. What do you all think? Dana boomer (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think the whole page could use some de-bloating...--Getwood (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. --AeronM (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, these two sections have been merged and deleted. Please feel free to move the information if you don't like where I put it...I just tried to get it in the most appropriate section, but I may have missed something. Dana boomer (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Color section

I find the color section a bit confusing... especially the white/grey/albino (and let's not forget the blue-eyed cream) part. I don't know enough about colors to feel confident to work on this part, tho, so I'll leave it for someone more knowledgeable. --AeronM (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it. I will also update the UCD link (they rearranged their whole web site). I can work on the confusion. ("blue eyed cream" horses are, usually, cremello, by the way. Except when they have the champagne gene or the pearl gene %-P ) I would sincerely value comment here on what is not working, though as I've dove so far into the color genetics stuff I am not sure I can even talk about colors in plain English any more. (LOL) One problem was, like so much of this article, the color section is what is left after about 30 or so color articles have been spun off from it. (There is even a coat colors navigation template now that someone made for us!) So what should this summary contain, and what shall we just let people go to Equine coat colors for further reading? Montanabw(talk) 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe say something along the lines of: "Horses come in colors x, y, and z, with lots of variations. Some breeds, such as the Appy/American Cream Draft Horse, have specific colors/color patterns associated with the breed. The genetics are very complicated. See article Equine coat color for more information." Only prettier :) We definitely shouldn't get into all the genetics here, as that's not really what most people want to read about and it takes too long! If someone could find some sort of a picture chart showing different coat colors it would be awesome...don't know if something like this actually exists, but it might be more useful to show people than try to explain what color cremello is :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm.. maybe a table like this:
color body color points (mane, tail, lower legs) eye color and other characteristics
cremello cream and/or white same as body eyes blue
bay red, from very light red to almost purple black

Is that what you're looking for? (Only more filled out?) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was actually thinking something more like a color wheel, to actually SHOW the color itself. Not a description of the color in text, but an actual box (or circle, or pie slice, or whatever) of the color. Hope this makes more sense, sorry I wasn't clearer before. Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
PRoblem is that the colors can vary. Bay covers a WIDE range of reds, from almost sandy red to that deep purple red. You'd have to give a spectrum of colors and we're getting beyond MY coding abilities here. I like the idea though. Hm... do we know anyone who could do that sort of thing? (Our problem is that most horse people are a bit less adept at computers than most teenagers...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the chart above. Could we add that, plus some pics of the more common colors? Or would this be more suitable for the Colors article? --AeronM (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think a chart like that is better suited in the colors article, but I can certainly try to work something like that up for it, if folks like. I based that above off a chart I made up when I was still teaching riding, to help folks see how to classify horses. It's based on Sponenburg's (sp?) book, but I'm sure I could use the UC davis site for the more up to date information. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I like Dana boomer's coat color summary idea for this page. I do like the color wheel or chart for the Equine coat color page, though.Getwood (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For those that don't have Equine coat color watchlisted, I dropped a preliminary version over on the talk page for that article. Feel free to update it as needed, it's very rough. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I"m OK with what's in there for now. Also, on Equine coat color, I want to let everyone know that every single color listed in that article has a link to its own article (ScottAlter made a colors template for every article), and every color article has photos of that color if any can be found. Photos of every color in either this article or the coat color article will really clutter it up, IMHO. (Full disclosure: I have been the only person working consistently on the color articles for a very, very long time, so while I promise to try and really not take ownership on them, and god knows some need improving big time (I could only fix so many disasters), there is a logic to some of what was done there and I simply would like the opportunity to explain the underlying logic prior to drastic changes being made. That said, I CAN live with changes if they improve the article. (really, honest, I can, grin). Montanabw(talk) 16:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tag sprouting

I went ahead and tagged things that will need to be cited for GA, and especially FA. I can probably source a good chunk of these, I just have a lunch date and figured I'd tag first, and then source as I get the chance. I also think we can probably cut back the section on riding methods a bit, as it's more tangential to the actual horse itself. Not saying we should cut the section entirely, but it can be cut back some I would think, to be more the size of the horse care section. I'm still thinking the age section is a bit long, but can't figure out how to cut it back either, since there really isn't anywhere to put the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, an article with 82k of info should definitely have more than 50-some citations. Thanks for the fact tags...I'm going to go through now and do some of the biology, horse care, etc. stuff as I just raided my mom's shelves of veterinary and horse physiology material... Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm home from lunch, but if you're working, I'll leave off finding refs and go play with Thoroughbred or a bishop instead. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about the no response. I got sidetracked :( I doubt I'll be working on it much today, so have fun! Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh. It's finally dry enough here so I get to go help with pulling fence posts. So no work for me on wikipedia! Will possibly try tonight, depending on how tired I am after pulling fenceposts. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


The internal linked articles are, for the most part, at least somewhat sourced. I tucked in a source for the digestion section that verifies the vomiting thing. (Yes, I know I need a page number, am out of town, don't have the book with me) I know that the Thoroughbred article does or did have a source on the purebred/Thoroughbred thing, the horse anatomy articles have sources on various items there (or Getwood will have some sources!) and the Veterinary Owner's Handbook is a good general source for almost anything else in tha general area. Montanabw(talk) 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked your citation for formatting and added the page number for the vomiting thing. Also did some more referencing on some of the other biology-type stuff. Will do more later, maybe :) Dana boomer (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidation candidates

Would anyone object to removing the "Wild prototypes and modern species" section? The first sentence and main article link seem like they would be appropriate in the "Wild species surviving into modern times" section. Then the second senetnce and reference would not be needed.--Getwood (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)(from the Department of Redundancy Department)

I favor eliminating redundancy, as long as some basic reference to the four foundations theory stays. There is sort of a disconnect in how this article flows from evolution to the modern horse with a mention of living wild horses. Maybe merge them first and then we can cut the blatently redundant? There is spillover in a big taxonomy spat at Equidae and occasionally the evolution article too (this is why Horse gets neglected, a fix here exposes problems elsewhere and we get distracted). I guess what I am saying here is yes as long as we don't delete unique material. Montanabw(talk) 06:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I did the consolidation. No information was destroyed... :)Getwood (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riding methods

Ealdgyth mentioned above that she thinks we should consolidate the riding methods section. To quote:

"I also think we can probably cut back the section on riding methods a bit, as it's more tangential to the actual horse itself. Not saying we should cut the section entirely, but it can be cut back some I would think, to be more the size of the horse care section."

I agree with her, but would like to get some other input before taking action. Thoughts?

What we may want to do is make a very simple, weasel-y paragraph about riding with a link to Equestrianism or (maybe) Equitation. By the way, one of the projects I have had on my back burner for over a year is some kind of riding article, different from Equestrianism, see my sandbox. The other problems is, as in horse grooming getting a "this is a wiki- book how-to" slapped on the article. But do I think some mention of horsemanship (and, of course, driving) is needed in the horse article? Yes. Maybe look at how we structure the "horses and humans" section. (scratches head...) Montanabw(talk) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with a section on riding/usage in the horse article, but right now it's rather large: Maybe condense it down to :

Horses are usually ridden with a saddle on their backs to assist the rider with balance, and a bridle on their heads to assist the rider in maintaining control. However, many riders ride on occasion without a saddle and some horses can be trained to perform without a bridle or other headgear. From the time the horse was domesticated, a wide variety of riding methods or styles have developed, all of which balance the need to allow the horse freedom of movement in activities such as horse racing or show jumping and the need for security and comfort for the rider, precision of commands, and overall control. Activities such as dressage and reining require high levels of control, while horse racing or show jumping require that a horse have considerable freedom of movement. Worldwide, the most common modern riding style is referred to in the United States as English riding, which is a broad style that encompasses most Olympic Equestrian competition, and includes such specific styles as dressage, hunt seat, show jumping and saddle seat, among many others. Western riding is a popular style seen in North America, derived from the traditions of Spain, modified to fit the needs of cattle ranchers. A similar riding style is seen with the Stockman of Australia.

Which cuts out the "how-to" parts of the riding section. THis could be expanded somewhat, but I think we need to stay away from the nitty-gritty of how to ride in this article. Let's slap lots of "see also" things on it and leave it at that. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Nicely done! Getwood (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it too, but can you add something on driving that can link to Driving (horse) also? Montanabw(talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikilinked it is... Dana boomer (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Dana, drop a note here when you're done and I'll try to find citations after you're finished. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done for the moment on the main article...I've got some questions on a few sections that I'll have up here on the talk page in a minute. Dana boomer (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More questions on consolidation/trimming

There are several more sections that I think could use trimming and merging - I've listed them below. Let me know what you all think...

  • External links section - are either of these two links really necessary? - Removed
  • Evolution section - Is there some way to combine the sections on wild species, feral horses, and other modern equids? These are all fairly short sections, and I don't think they should really be expanded.
  • Horses and Humans section - Products subsection - Would it be OK to transfer this into full sentence prose, rather than the bullet form it's in now? - Done
  • Horses and Humans section - Warfare subsection - This is a short section...could we combine it with something else, possible the work section?
  • Horses and Humans section - Assisted learning subsection - This section seems too long in relation to the rest of the article. Could we shorten it, and perhaps combine it with the work section? - Shortened, but could probably use even more trimming

OK, think that's it for now! *grin*

I think the external links can be cut, especially the breed one, as that is on the breeds article (or if it isn't, it should be there, not here). I'd think the section on "other modern equids" could go in the Equids/Equidae/whatever-its-named article, rather than here. The links to that might be best in the See also section? I think the wild and feral sections probably are best left as they are, though. Oh, always make things into prose when you can, rather than bulleted lists. If we want to go to FAC (which we should) lists are frowned on. Lists just make things look like a cobbled together list of trivia, at times. I can see both ways on the Warfare, combine it to a Work and Warfare section or leave it alone. I'm on the fence on this. Yeah, I agree the assisted learning subsection is rather large in relation to the other sections, especially in relation to the work section. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've re-worked the products section to take out the bullets. I don't think we should completely take out the "other equids" section, as I think a lot of people who read this article are going to be going "but what about donkeys, and mules, and, and, and". Is there another section we could combine this with? I'm going to leave the rest of the stuff, probably overnight, to see if anyone else wants to chip in! Dana boomer (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, reading talk before reviewing article diffs, speaking in theory, I agree overall with NOT expanding things and cutting where logical (grin). I agree; the external links are pretty much worthless. (I tend to view an external links section as a "what we aren't able to write about or cite in the article but should, someday" section) I'll split the baby and say that the "other equids" needs enough to not have other folks come in with the "what about donkeys" thing (the "horse-centric bias" edit spat seems to come around the horse articles at least once a year or so...sigh...), but it can be short with lots of wikilinking to main articles equidae, mule, zebra, donkey etc. (I don't think mules are listed in the equidae article, as they are a hybrid, not a species, so may want to check that). Agree that the wikigods don't like lists, so they should be minimized, though they sometimes do have their place. I like leaving warfare separate from work as it is more history than not (horses in modern warfare are pretty minimal and explained in the warfare article). The assisted learning subsection is too long, but you should have seen it BEFORE I did one of my snarky cut-it-down-with-redirect edits <evil grin>. Feel free to cut it further, but note the wikilinks-- there are something like fouror five distinct types of therapeutic use of equines (one of which doesn't necessarily involve riding), all with their own articles, and they all don't get along with each other, heaven forbid anyone recommend a merge, (I did - ouch!) so just a heads up to watch the equal time thing if you can. I ducked an edit war there, but mostly because I didn't cut as mercilessly as I could have. (Montanabw does wuss out sometimes). I'm with Ealdgyth that the wild/foundations/evolution section can be left as is, there was some consolidation from elsewhere already. Hope this helps. Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I've removed the external links and done some trimming/consolidating on the assisted learning section. It could probably use some more work, but I think it's better now. There is already an equidae section like you describe, Montana; what I was wondering is if it could be combined with another section because it's so short, or if it should continue to stand on its own. Dana boomer (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
How about combining the 'Wild species surviving into modern times' with 'other modern equidae' into 'Modern wild equidae' or something like that?--Getwood (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. The problem is figuring out the taxonomy question. This is an article about horses, not other equidae, (Zebras, Onagers, etc. all have their own articles) so maybe the other solution would be to make a passing reference to Onagers and Zebras with a link to Equidae, tossing the rest? Play with it, see what happens? Montanabw(talk) 03:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I favor that approach, as this is an article about horses. I can see having a wikilink or two to the other types, but we're a level down in the taxonomy scale here from other equidae. This is a species article, and the other equids branch off from the family. Did that make any sense? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other issues/concerns/quibbles/general all around queries

Okay, we have the names for mares/stallions/geldings at the top in the Age section and also in the reproduction section. I think we can cut it from the reproduction section, anyone object? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one, I cannot find a single reference to POAs being allowed to be over 14.2 hands. I think we may need to take that out of the size section, unless someone else can find something. I have it cited, but it only covers the Welsh Ponies, not the POAs. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No objection to the cut in the reproduction section. For POA's, the official website here says that they're allowed to be between 46 and 56 inches, which translates to 11.2 to 14 hands. So, should probably take out anything that says they can be over 14.2 hands. Dana boomer (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Okies will do both while I'm down in the trenches, so to speak. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Okies, Im done for the day. I can only do so much of this before my brain rebels. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I'm reading talk before the article, looks like I better review the horse/pony/height thing, particularly in light of content at pony, arrived at after a lot of consensus-building quite a while ago. (Sometimes having institutional memory sucks). Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
We just took out references to POA, since their site says that they dont get over 14.2 hands. Nothing else got seriously tweaked. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm. I never missed its presence or absence! good call! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 04:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

My addition of the following link was reverted on the basis that it fails WP:EL under "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." Puting it here as it might be useful.

-Dodo bird (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feral Section

I have boldly added a mention about Chincoteague ponies. --AeronM (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Question

What would everyone think of changing the book and articles citations in the references section from what they look like now to something like we did in the Thoroughbred article, with a notes section and a separate reference section? This would make the references easier to read, I think, and would make the section look less cluttered and repetitive. Let me know what you all think, and if we decide to switch them over now, I can start working on it now, rather than waiting until we have the entire article referenced. Dana boomer (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've become convinced that the system in the use in Thoroughbred is the only workable one for large articles with lots of references. Otherwise you get so many cite templates on the page that it bogs down, and also the footnotes sections get too hard to read. I'd offer to help switch over, but am hitting the road again tomorrow. I THINK this is the last big trip before July, I hope. I'm tired of traveling! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't oppose it, especially when we have multiple cites to the same source. You know I also hate doing the actual work on it... (LOL!). But I can do my best to at least not screw up what everyone else is doing! Montanabw(talk) 17:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that separate note/reference sections are the best way to reference a big article like this. In fantasyland, I would love to see a Wikipedian referencing system that would allow multiple citations to the same reference and to different pages all on the same line. Maybe the page numbers would be listed numerically at the start of the line, with carets for each page reference that would link to the supported text. Maybe the text would have to be cited "1a" "1b" in order to direct to the reference and page. It might look something like:
1. ^^a p.17, ^b p.21-25, ^^^c p.34 Ensminger, M. E. (1990). Horses and Horsemanship: Animal Agricultural Series, Sixth Edition, Interstate Publishers. ISBN 0-8134-2883-1.
I haven't seen any pigs flying lately, so maybe we'd better stick with what actually works...  :) Getwood (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've started switching the references over. Due to the sheer number, this will probably take a bit of time, so the refs are going to look a bit messy for the next few days. Please feel free to chip in if you want! Dana boomer (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Oink! I'm flapping as hard as I can! Oink! (You can say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...) Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of Ponies?

Currently:

"Ponies of all breeds developed out of a dual need to create mounts suitable for children as well as for work in small places like mine shafts or in areas where there was insufficient forage to support larger draft animals."


Do not (some) pony breeds come from general riding horses used in ancient times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fell_pony#Breed_history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shetland_pony#History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.24.103 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ALL pony breeds come from various wild prototypes that were adapted by selective breeding to human needs, some in the form of a landrace, others with more deliberate human intervention. You pretty much have to go to each breed article for details. Some breeds are older than others, some still have landrace characteristics, but tracking them to the dawn of time is pretty tough due to insufficient written records. However, the sentence in question probably could be tweaked a bit for clarity, we will look it over. Montanabw(talk) 05:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Introduction of Horse to the Americas

I came here to find out about the horse and it's appearance in the Americas. Only found out that they died out after last ice age. I'm not a horse person, but think the story of the re-introduction (by Europeans ?) back into the Americas and the adoption and transference to natives and associated cultural impact is an important story. Hopefully some history buff will know more than I do.

206.174.82.201 (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Brad

It's worth considering. There is some mention of it in other articles, see Cowboy and (I think) Domestication of the horse for example. We need to be real careful how much info gets added to this general overview, but you make a good point that a brief history section may be worth doing. Montanabw(talk) 05:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section Reference

The section Reference should be subdivided into several part according to the topic talk in the source.

I also wish to propose one more source :

220.135.4.212 (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fun fact A horse can move/jiggle 1 peice of its skin to get off a fly