User talk:Montanabw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Animhorse.gif

WikiStress level
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Montanabw.

Navy binoculars.jpg Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.
7.2 This user has 7.2 centijimbos.
Question mark.svg This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

Traffic count!

Sandbox invite[edit]

Anyone may play in my sandboxes, in the archive list to the right, IF you promise to behave. This means:

  • No kicking sand
  • No hitting other people over the head with toys
  • No pooping, even if you are a cat and neatly cover it up!
  • It's my sandbox, so I can throw you out if you misbehave!  :-)
Typical talk page discussion thread

"[The] readers will not be privy to the massive undercurrents of dross that underpins WP. They require well written, well sourced, encyclopaedic material that can inform, enlighten and satisfy their interest."

—User:Leaky caldron to User:ThatPeskyCommoner

"We live a time when criticism, especially here on Wikipedia, is considered to be a personal attack, which is at the root of this nonsense. Yet without criticism we can't improve."

—The user formerly known as Malleus Fatuorum
The Signpost
23 July 2014

"Montana, you know I respect you greatly--you write FAs that have fewer adjectives than that outburst."

—User:Drmies

"Every edit, especially bold ones, is disruptive. Disruptive just means changing the status quo and because Wikipedia is in a constant state of evolution, it is in a constant state of disruption ..."

—User: Liz

Before you post on my talk page (humor)[edit]

Happy Montanabw's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

User:Montanabw has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Montanabw's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Montanabw!

Peace,
Rlevse
01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Awww, gee! That was really super nice! Thank you! Montanabw(talk) 04:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Mini pumpkins.jpg

'tis the season

Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Precious translates to the PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


Editing Horse colic[edit]

Hey Montana, I probably should post this in the talk page for Horse colic, but wanted your opinion on breaking it up into two articles since it is getting a little long and unwieldy. I was thinking about starting a new page for they types of colic. What do you think? I'm not sure if that would be OK as a stand-alone article. Open to suggestions. Thanks! Eventer (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

They eliminated the length limits on WP articles a few years ago. Right now, the question would be, into what? I can't really see a logical two-way split, more like a dozen, one for each type of colic, with this main article more of an overview or list. Let me take a peek at it and offer more comments there. I'm just so glad you're working on it! (You want to see long, check out my current FAC, California Chrome. Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You have to be the nicest wiki editor I've ever encountered[edit]

My subject says it all save - thanks for the pony. Stellabystarlight (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Given that I was just called a troll yesterday, your kind words are very much appreciated! Montanabw(talk) 02:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for being part of this:
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

30 June 2012: Precious appeared

and continued precious support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter[edit]

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

re MSU Library Project Userbox[edit]

BW, there's a bit of method to this madness. The MSU Library is going all out to improve the use (and editing of) wikipedia by MSU students, faculty and staff. The library dean is a great supporter of Wikipedia. They will be hosting a grant funded Wikipedia for historians workshop (Richard Jensen is running it and I'll be assisting) on July 19th. In October, the MSU Library is sponsoring a Wiki Editathon in collaboration with Colorado State University on the subject of Water in the West. I'll be assisting in that. MY fellow Campus Ambassador and I thought the userbox would be a good way to identify all the participants in these projects over time Especially those who are not really MSU alumni. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is fantastic. @Mike Cline: I'd actually like to pop down, what time and where? My little comment was meant with humor and in a spirit of fun. By the way, do you want to continue the review on your Brook Trout GA? Montanabw(talk) 22:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Montanabw,
Thanks for the input on the MSU Library Project Userbox. I'm always surprised by all the wide and varied views of Wikipedians, and the idea of "outing" just never occurred to me, but I'm glad you brought it up.
I don't think this particular userbox would fall into that area because it's a voluntary effort to alert other Wikipedians of the user's interests in the US and Canada Higher Education Project as well as the GLAM Project as they pertain specifically to Montana State University and it's library.
As a campus ambassador, I view userboxes as a gracious way for users, especially newbie Wikipedians, to informally introduce themselves and their interests on their talk pages. At first I thought the userbox should be just about MSU, but then I remembered the GLAM Project and our U.S. Archivist David Ferriero's talk at Wikimania back in 2012 about GLAM and the role Wikipedia is playing in helping facilitate open access to the U.S. Archives.
MSU Library and those Wikipedians who support the MSU library, the US & Canada Higher Education Program, and/or GLAM, regardless of whether they graduated from or are students at MSU, should have a userbox to put on their talk page to introduce their interest in those areas.
Having said that, maybe we need a Montana GLAM userbox for all Wikipedians keenly interested in Montana and all it's galleries, libraries, archives and museums.
Some collections in public institutions' archives actually have copyright restrictions that were put on them at the time they were donated to that institution. The Schlechten collection at MOR may fall under that category.
As for the "photos from the infamous 1933 annual" I'm not sure what you are referring to. 1933 was 81 years ago and I think copyright is only good for 75 years unless renewed. Also if the 1933 annual was published by a government institution then it may already belong to the public-domain because it was paid for by public taxes. I admit this is a slippery slope into public-domain ownership but I doubt this issue will go away now that the US Archives uploaded 100,000 images to the Commons and publicly funded museums, libraries and archives have collections with materials that the public wants to use in digital, free-access format. McMormor (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you read the Schlechten article? I suppose they don't keep the display about it in the basement of Montana Hall any more, but the "infamous" 1933 annual yearbook was this one and I believe copies are kept in the Renne Library: [1],[2] and a fun story here. My dad worked for Chris Schlechten back in the fifties. Montanabw(talk) 20:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You have to be careful with annuals/yearbooks, as they're often funded by subscription or sources other than tax dollars. Although it may appear to have been published by a public institution (the school), that may not actually be the case. Intothatdarkness 16:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...[edit]

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Words of wisdom for the day[edit]

"my current and future approach to conflict is and will be moderated by my understanding of the value of reasoned discussion where possible, and formal dispute-resolution processes where necessary" (not written by me) Montanabw(talk) 16:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki project watch lists[edit]

There is not a replacement yet to the watchlists as far as I know. When they are all up and running I will make a template for them to add back to all the projects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talkcontribs)

OK, good to know that you'll be doing the repalcements, then? Montanabw(talk) 21:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep...I hope all is fine soon- all is just being tested will be online then off line - waiting for its permanent home URL's . Will make some template titled Template:WPTools for the project pages that will add back the reflinks, dab, watchlist etc.. with a "Main" link to the lads main page. I was under the impression it would be sometime...but things are moving faster then most believed. Need theses tools back ASAP as I know of many editors that only edit in that fashion. -- Moxy (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I"m lost without reflinks, personally. I never really believed it could be really gone, I figured all the side chatter was just the usual blather.... sound and fury, signifying nothing. Foolish me. (Oh god, does that mean they still are going to try and impose visual editor on all of us again? OH NOOOOO!) Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
OMG no Visual editor pls LOL. I have mentioned this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Help making a template.-- Moxy (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As of now[edit]

Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful interventions on the subject of "as of". Now, a real nitpick from me about formatting fractions. I noticed this in your excellent horse article as well. Rather than typing "1 -1/2 days' worth", type in "{{fraction|1|1|2}} days' worth", which displays as "1 12 days' worth". Isn't it cool? --John (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I do know about the fraction template, I'm just lazy 'cause that takes more keystrokes ... LOL! Montanabw(talk) 00:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Auvergne horse[edit]

Thank you very much for your edits to my translation of Aubergne horse. I was really hoping that someone who knew about horses would review the article as I was struggling a lot with the terminology since I know nothing about horses. It appeared next on my list of geography articles requiring translation although I dont see how its a geography article. I still do not understand the reference to hocks being clos in French which I translated as closed but you say this is wrong. Also there were a few words that defied translation which I left in the article: noyé (about withers), cordés, avalėe, and en pupitre. Do you have any clue what they mean in English in relation to the horse? There are also a couple of places where I used the word "kidneys" but later realised its supposed to be "loins". There is also reference to the horse being of "postier" type - does it mean the "Breton Postier" or something else? I hesitated to put in the word Breton in case it was wrong. Of course I had no clue what mediolinear meant but assumed that it meant something.

Thanks also for reformatting the article which I think is a great improvement. If you had time to review and correct the contents it would be much appreciated. Samrong01 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, and I appreciate the work you did! On wikipedia, @Dana boomer: has worked on several of the French horse breed articles and may be able to offer advice, though she is pretty busy IRL right now. @Tsaag Valren: is French and has helped us port over some other horse articles. I personally do not speak French, so I am of little help. I suppose I could run complete sentences through Google translate and see if something useful could be gleaned from context... Montanabw(talk) 02:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Nez de renard (fox nose) is a french espression fo a mealy nose, so it's the pangaré. Postier mean a horse for the "service des postes", in english, equivalent is the Mail coach. The postier Breton is the main horse breed used for this in France (with the mareyeur Boulonnais). So, it mean a carriage trotting horse semi-heavy. Noyé about the withers it mean there's a lot of muscles around the withers, so it look desappearing. In the fr-wiki we have a problem of copyvio with this article : the french association of Auvergne horse copied the fr. wiki article without mention of the licence (2013). We sent a mail and it as been cleaned, but some internet content in "cache" can remains. And the fr-article need an update. It has been written before the official recognizion (?) of the breed. Now there are new official sources. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Moved to article talk. Montanabw(talk) 23:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Traveler[edit]

Moved to article talk. Montanabw(talk) 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A Traveller of a different color[edit]

Although unrelated to the subject of this thread the title reminded me that I read Richard Adams book Traveller many years ago. Seeing the Civil war through the eyes of R.E. Lee's horse was a fascinating idea. It is long out of print but it might be available at a library or online if it piques your interest. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually own a paperback copy! LOL! And you are right, it was a fun book to read. Montanabw(talk) 04:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
That is great! I should have guessed that you would. I have the paperback as well though it is a a box in storage and it would take some digging to find it. Last time I read it was the original showing of Ken Burns Civil War documentary. Enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 04:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Heh, not sure where my copy is, either. May have loaned it to someone. Montanabw(talk) 04:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

California Chrome[edit]

Not to be a major pain in the _____, but I think this edit is a little ... not nicely worded in the "California Chrome is curious about everything around him". When I read that, I picture Curious George, which I don't think is the intention. I don't have a phrasing that's necessarily better, but just wanted to let you know how I read it. Maybe something like "California Chrome is interested in the world around him" or CC "embodies curiosity in his daily life" or something along those lines. I don't know; just spouting some suggestions. Your call. All the best, Go Phightins! 03:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to park the comment at article talk, maybe someone else can come up with a solution. And who knows? If the horse had an opposible thumb, well, George WAS curious...  ;) Montanabw(talk) 03:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Difference between "flaxen" and "silver dapple" genes ?[edit]

Hello Montana, I know you're a specialist about horse coat genetics... a, you help me for this case ? In french we have a prehistoric level of knowledge about horse coat color genetics (and an aberrant "official" classification of coat colors, where "noir pangaré" (litterally "black pangaré") correspond with the seal brown coat color ... so regularly, I have to clean and use scientific sources. Is there a difference between flaxen and silver dapple gene, or is it the same gene? We have a French page "crins lavés" matching flaxen, and a silver dapple page I translated from English. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tsaag Valren: Totally different! The genetic mechanism behind flaxen is yet to be mapped (as far as I know), but flaxen occurs on chestnut horses only. The silver dapple gene is a dilution gene that only acts on a black coat. Montanabw(talk) 00:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks ! Si I'clear the "crins lavés / flaxen" article ;) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. There's no english page about the flaxen gene. I think there's any sources to create it  : http://www.thehorse.com/articles/24245/flaxen-color-genetic-research-in-progress but it's a pay-for-read article :/ --Tsaag Valren (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Tsaag! Actually, The Horse online is a free registration site, I think, but I subscribe to the magazine anyway, so that is a GREAT source, found one other article from 2010 there, stay tuned for Flaxen (horse) to go live! Montanabw(talk) 18:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tsaag Valren: flaxen gene is now live! Any improvements welcomed! Montanabw(talk) 06:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

More horsey people[edit]

Maybe this person needs a welcome to or from WikiProject equines or something similar, to fill out their currently non-existent talk page? My welcome toolbox only seems to have cookies. Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 46#Pemoline --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey (hay?) thanks for the heads up, I'll trot on over and see what's happening. Montanabw(talk) 19:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling all stalkers[edit]

Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Chrome/archive1. Grab your popcorn and watch the show. Montanabw(talk) 22:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll see you one horse, and raise you a bird[edit]

I will definitely take a pass relatively soon. Can you please take a look at blue nuthatch which I think will be my next FAC candidate? See if anything pops out at you as needing fixing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do! Heh, saw the headline and for a moment thought it read "raise THE bird" aka "flip the bird" aka the infamous USA middle finger salute! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much. It needs a fair bit of work, especially the lead, but now I have some specifics to address.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Usually another set of eyes is a good inspiration. Hope I helped! Montanabw(talk) 18:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Poultry[edit]

Today's beating of a dead horse[edit]

Yet another editor who has never touched the article in question has a RM request at Talk:Mustang horse. Sheesh. Montanabw(talk) 21:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For unstinting untiring value-adding to article space In ictu oculi (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hands[edit]

I still haven't done that documentation for {{convert}} and hands, but I'm working on it! Meanwhile I have been fiddling with how convert handles fractions, which required dealing with the anomalous use of fractions with hands, and that led me to notice the following:

  • {{convert|12+1/2|hand|in cm}}12 12 hands (48.5 inches; 123 cm)
  • {{convert|12.0+1/2|hand|in cm}}12.0 12 hands (48.5 inches; 123 cm)
  • {{hands|12+1/2}}12 12 hands (48.5 inches, 123 cm)
  • {{hands|12.0+1/2}}12 12 hands (48.5 inches, 123 cm)

I think you once told me that 12+1/2 means twelve-and-half hands (50 inches), so two of the above are incorrect. I suppose that detail doesn't really matter? I checked all usage of {{hands}} as at May 2014. There is only one like the above, and I'll leave it for you to decide if some tweak to the article should occur. Andalusian horse#Characteristics has:

  • mares average {{hands|15 + 1/2}} → mares average 15 12 hands (60.5 inches, 154 cm)

Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @Johnuniq: I think you already are fine (we have been through this, yes)(grin) Which article needs the tweak? Technically, 12.2 is "twelve and a half" - half of a four inch hand. And people might ifnormally say (on Craigslist ads) a horse is 12-1/2 when they mean 12.2, but that's sloppy. A horse that is 48.5 inches (12.0-1/2) we would say "twelve hands and a half inch." We want 15 and fraction one-half to equal 60 - 1/2 inches, and though decimals are more precise, the measurement system is entirely imperial, so fractions are better. Horse people might go 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4, but nothing more precise than that - horse hooves grow that much in a month, shoes can alter height too. Seldom is anything more precise than 1/2 inch used. Also, noticed the convert/2 template when used on a range only does the measurements at the end not after each number: {{convert/2 |77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}} gives 77 to 88 centimetres (7.2 12; 30 12 to 8.2 12 h; 34 12 in), but what we want is 77 to 88 centimetres (7.2 1⁄2 hands; 30 1⁄2 in to 8.2 1⁄2 h; 34 1⁄2 in) Does that make sense?Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The text that possibly needs a tweak (changing "15+1/2" to "15.0+1/2") is at Andalusian horse#Characteristics.
I think you are saying that the examples I posted above are correct and need no change. Very happy to hear that.
{{convert/2}} is not-my-department (it's part of the old scheme which, since December 2013, has almost entirely been replaced with the new {{convert}}).
Here is your example using convert (new), and convert/2 (old), for comparison:
  • {{convert|77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}} → 77 to 88 centimetres (7.2 12 to 8.2 12 hands; 30 12 to 34 12 in)
  • {{convert/2|77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}} → 77 to 88 centimetres (7.2 12; 30 12 to 8.2 12 h; 34 12 in)
Far be it from me to explain beauty to a horse person, but in my eye, the output from convert is perfect! Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You are correct! In all the tweaking of the tweaking, I somehow lost the "right" convert template for the "backwards" version. I'll fix my collection and make sure the

Talk:Brook trout/GA1[edit]

Montanabw, this GA review hasn't had any action since the end of May, and the article hasn't been edited since then either. A "hold" notice was placed on the nominator's page well over a month ago. It's probably time for it to be closed for inaction. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Cline: Mike? Are you going to work on this one? Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Equus[edit]

Hello, would you be interested in working on Equus for GA? LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd be glad to collaborate, I'm not a taxonomy expert, you may also want to ping @Justlettersandnumbers: as he is someone who works on a lot of the articles about non-horse equines. Maybe figure out who is active on the zebra articles and ping them too. Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The hardest for me with be taxonomy/evolution. I've heard conflicting reports on whether zebras are monophyletic for example. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that Equus needs to be an overview, and the debates can go to the individual animal articles. Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess we could take some text from here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's invite them too... maybe post a message at talk of that article. Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I found this. I'm having trouble figuring out the when the dates for the divergences of horse, zebra and ass lineages. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not much help there. Maybe post at Evolution of the horse and perhaps the individual talk pages of some of the more active editors. We need someone who know palentology, I think. Montanabw(talk) 04:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind, I think I can handle it. Should I keep the list of all the extinct and extant species? I was think of instead having a cladogram. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@LittleJerry: What's a cladogram? I'd say so long as there is a "one stop shop" for all of them in some form, I'm not picky on what form, but keep some single collection of everything, somehow. There is also a navbox you might want to look at, see Template:Equidae_extinct_nav, and Template:Equus, which probably should be merged and definitely need some work. Montanabw(talk) 01:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
For a cladogram, see quagga and look at the evolution subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Stalkers: FUN![edit]

I need a good hook idea for DAP Racing - DAP stands for "Dumb-Ass Partners". This should be low-hanging fruit for the "quirky" DYK slot, but I'm drawing a blank and no ideas to date are giving me that SCOMN feeling! Help! Montanabw(talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Mustangs, horses, and burros, oh my![edit]

Well hello there! Mighty comfy digs you've built for yourself, I must say. =)

Would it be OK with you if I cut the entire "Capitalization of 'mustang'" conversation from the article's talk page and paste it here? I'd ping the one other editor who commented as well. — Jaydiem (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's put it in a sandbox so as not to bloat this page and annoy my stalkers fan club! Go here: User:Montanabw/Mustang sandbox. Montanabw(talk) 17:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I moved it, but I thought it would make more sense to make it a subpage of your talk page instead: User talk:Montanabw/Mustang. If you disagree, feel free to move it elsewhere. — Jaydiem (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Mustang[edit]

I understand that you just want the title to be left alone, but as someone who has not worked on horse articles (which is true for almost all of our readers), I have to say that Mustang horse is grating. It's not natural. Mustang (horse) makes much more sense. I get that there is a convention to use "(horse)" to disambiguate the names of particular individual horses, and that adding "horse" to the title is reasonable for many kinds because that's done in reliable sources, but does it make sense to force that convention onto cases where it's not natural? I mean, the disambiguator "horse" is itself ambiguous with "individual horse" and "horse kind"... why can't it be used for both? In the rare case where a given name might be used for a notable individual horse as well as a horse kind, we can use a more specific disambiguator for both. What's wrong with that? --В²C 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep it at the talk page, we've explained it endlessly there. But, as I stated there (now and last December) the consensus on this was reached years ago based first upon on the guidelines at WP:NATURAL. Natural disambiguation is actually preferred to parenthetical disambiguation: "... we use the alternative but still common titles, English language and English people, allowing natural disambiguation. In a similar vein, mechanical fan and hand fan are preferable to fan (mechanical) and fan (implement)." Certainly we also might find "English people" a bit odd or grating, but if you remember your earliest days on wiki, and if they were at all like mine, parenthetical disambiguation is really really really weird-looking to the uninitiated! Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course we prefer natural titles, but how does that apply here? "English people" is natural - the phrase is commonly used in reliable sources. But "Mustang horse" is not natural - the phrase is not commonly used.

As weird looking as parenthetical disambiguation might be, we use it, including for disambiguating ambiguous names of individual horses. Why not use it for disambiguating ambiguous names of horse kinds when "horse-kind-name horse" is not natural? --В²C 18:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The best reason I can give you for that is because of project-wide consensus on articles about individual named humans. We don't title people articles "John Smith veterinarian" but rather John Smith (veterinarian)" Where possible, we might have "John A. Smith" and "John B. Smith", of course, even if no one ever calls them "John A" in real life. I really wish we could just drop this stick. Eight years ago when I started, the horse and pony articles were a mishmash of both types of titling. Over the years, we got them consistently titled. For one thing, many of the breeds are named Foo horse or (especially) Foo pony. To have some parenthetical dabs and others not would just make it even more confusing. Imagine the horror of "American Quarter (horse)". Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the use of Mustang by itself is something of a recent development. It's not uncommon in writing from the 1800s to see "mustang horse" or "mustang hoss" (depending on the writer). Mustang is, after all, an import word to the English language. And as a somewhat humorous/sarcastic policy comment aside, since when has things making sense or not being grating been any sort of requirement here? Intothatdarkness 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree with Born2cycle Mlpearc (open channel) 19:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Intothatdarkness, when a title is grating, that means it's not natural, which is contrary to WP:CRITERIA. That it might have been common in the 1800s is not relevant to how we title articles today.

User:Montanabw, sorry, but your "best reason" is not very good. Yes, of course we use parenthetical disambiguation for individual humans. And it's a good idea to do so for individual horses. But that's not a good reason to not use it for horse kinds. In those cases, if natural disambiguation is, well, natural, then fine. Go au naturel! But if it's not natural, like "Mustang horse", then we should use parenthetic disambiguation, just like for any other ambiguous title that does not have a commonly used natural disambiguation. Just because we use parenthetic disambiguation for individual horses does not mean we should not use it for horse kinds, when appropriate. To not use parenthetic disambiguation for horse kinds because we use it for individual horses is simply a really bizarre and non-nonsensical rule. --В²C 20:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

All of that is, of course, your opinion as to what's grating and what isn't. It also falls into the great wiki-fallacy of wanting one magical standard to fit every situation and every eventuality. If consensus has gone against you, just let it go. That's usually the best route to take. Intothatdarkness 20:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
And it won't be resolved on my talk page, either, most likely. Montanabw(talk) 21:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
No, but I wanted to make sure I understood your position: you are simply supporting the convention to not use parenthetic disambiguation for horse kinds, no matter what, because we use parenthetic disambiguation for individual horses. Right?

User:Intothatdarkness, isn't "Mustang horse" obviously grating? Or at least obviously inconsistent with usage in reliable sources? And I'm not the one applying any magic standard here. The magic (and bizarre IMHO) standard being applied here is, "don't use parenthetic disambiguation for horse kinds because we use it for individual horses". --В²C 23:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No B2C, you do not - you are oversimplifying and misunderstanding. No, "Mustang horse" is NOT obviously grating, it sounds perfectly fine to me and not in the least inconsistent with use in reliable sources. *(Did you even read what ITD said above?). It is a perfectly natural form of disambiguation and completely logical. I think parenthetical disambiguation is very odd-looking, but sometimes unavoidable (as in John Smith (veterinarian) ), I view it as a last resort. Now, please drop the stick, there is no sense arguing about this any further. Parenthetical disambigution - a wikipedia invention as far as I know -is a very strange thing to be fighting for here. Montanabw(talk) 01:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Typical wiki-junk, if you ask me. Right up there with the whole DashGate crap. Intothatdarkness 15:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

John Walsh page edits[edit]

Thanks for your note. I think I'm OK on the references. In fact, one of my arguments against the edits another contributor was trying to make to this page yesterday and today is that he didn't format his references.

I'll look forward to the updates you make to the Walsh page. I forget whether I created it or was an early contributor to it, but it's starting to accrete a lot of new details, especially with the most recent news articles.

Billmckern (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of overdone for someone who has been in office less than a year; I think it's longer than Max Baucus, who was in office over 30 years. Montanabw(talk) 01:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Untapable[edit]

Before you tell me that Untapable is overdue for an article, I thought I'd let you know that I'm on it. Looks like another good year for the ladies as Taghrooda has overtaken Treve and The Fugue as this year's BIG HORSE in Europe. (btw it was good to see my boy Wicked Strong winning yesterday as well) Tigerboy1966  12:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If O'Brien thinks Australia could win the Classic he'll be there. Trust me the man is determined to beat the Americans on dirt. One horse you can definitely expect is Telescope in the Turf: his trainer Michael Stoute has won six BCs on turf and knows exactly what's required. Shame about Untapable at Monmouth, I didn't see many excuses, so it may be that the current group of US fillies just aren't that good. Tigerboy1966  20:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
SHe got caught wide and also had Social Inclusion acting up in the gate, plus Rosie is back early from a shoulder separation injury. Each alone not enough, but all together may have been. Still a disappointment, though. She's so dominant over other fillies. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

John Walsh[edit]

Hi! I had a question about one of your edits that I posted about here - Talk:John Walsh (U.S. politician) - if you'd like to comment on that. Thanks! (P.S. Cool userpage!) HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Mind the gap1.png

We invite you to join Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with users who are trying to identify gender bias on Wikipedia (including gender bias in articles, in editor interactions, policies and implementation of policies) and take steps to counter it. If you would like to get involved, just visit the Gender Gap task force. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the task force.

Happy editing, Lightbreather (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Pings[edit]

I have Ian's talk on my watchlist so I saw the message, but I haven't gotten that one or several of your other pings via the Notifications system, not quite sure why. (And not sure whether anyone else is being missed...). Unless we can work out what's going on with that, if I haven't responded to something within a couple of days, try pinging the "old-fashioned way" on my talkpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me, go ahead and take another swipe at it. And did this ping @Nikkimaria:? Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, actually. That's very odd. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Rare Breeds Survival Trust[edit]

Hi, I saw that you reverted all of my changes to the RBST article. I would like you to reconsider the revert:

  • the list is now incorrect
  • it is less wikilinked
  • many of the links are incorrect
  • three types of poultry are now not listed

If you have an issue with the lack of wikilinks for ducks, geese and turkeys, why did you not just revert the top edit which added those lists? Then the text at the top will also be relevant as there will only be chickens listed in the article. Kat (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You did a poor quality edit, I wouldn't have reverted if you hadn't screwed something up. I don't have the time to go through and correct everything, just try again and be more careful. Basically: DON'T remove wikilinks - or at least replace them if you redo something, DON'T remove citations unless you replace them with newer and better ones (formatted in the same way as the others in the existing article) - I can't even remember this particular edit,but I suspect you did one of those two errors, which is usually what prompts me to do a total revert. Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with photos[edit]

Hi Montanabw! Just want to apologize in advance, because I have no idea how to use this page- sorry!

I am an archival researcher, and am doing some research on the Montana State Hospital for a documentary movie. I am interested in the photos you've posted of the building here. Would you mind emailing me at susan.johnson@gmail.com so that I might follow up on this? I would be happy to use this Talk page, but it is so confusing!! Thanks so much, in advance- 71.161.192.107 (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Susan Johnson

I'd feel a bit more comfortable if you could just click on the "Email this user" link to the left of the screen and send me an email with your questions. I'll get the email through the wikipedia system and then reply to you from there. The photos I uploaded to Wikimedia commons are free use with attribution (cc-3.0/GDFL license) so you can use them if you want. I think I uploaded all that I took that weren't total duds, though I did do some color adjustments on them...if you'd prefer the original (dark, gloomy) versions... Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Re removal of infobox from Marias Massacre[edit]

BW, I think this needs much wider discussion if indeed you think the military conflict infobox is inappropriate for this article. There are several other massacre articles: Wounded Knee Massacre, Bear River Massacre, and Sand Creek massacre that employ this infobox. I am sure I could find others as well. I don't think unilaterally deciding it is unappropriate for the Marias Massacre article is the right move. If you feel strongly about this, I would suggest surfacing it at the Military History project to see if there is wider support for removing the infobox from massacre related articles. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough but it's not the military project's decision alone. Does Warsaw Ghetto Uprising have a "military conflict infobox? Seriously. Shooting innocent civilians is a "military conflict? Worldwide? Montanabw(talk) 15:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually the Warsaw article does have a conflict infobox, as does Washita River, which bears some strong similarities to the Marias River attack/massacre. Intothatdarkness 15:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. That is batshit crazy. Seriously, will Columbine High School massacre also get one? Shooting unarmed people is "military"? Help me out here. Why not use {{Infobox civilian attack}} (as was done for My Lai or something similar that doesn't glorify criminal behavior as "military?" Montanabw(talk) 16:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Can't say I agree with some of the points. Sorry. I've worked from time to time trying to get the Marias article in better shape (even if I don't fully agree with Mike's citation format), and honestly don't care if there's a box there or not. I can see the utility, but didn't miss it when it wasn't there. I'm more interested in adding facts (like the scout intentionally misidentifying the village). Technically one might contend that a military box might be appropriate since a military unit was involved (not that I am advocating that, mind) and also take issue with the statement that the village was unarmed, but those are asides. The Warsaw article does need (IMO) a conflict box, since the Resistance groups were recognized by the Allies as armed combatants (Stalin's decision to encourage the rebellion and then stand by is one of the many crimes that can be tallied against him, IMO).Intothatdarkness 16:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess per Warsaw if a lot of people shot back, I can live with that. But if My Lai uses the civilian attack infobox, then I think the most obvious cases (Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, Marias) should as well. Would I be jumped on if I swapped the boxes? Montanabw(talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that I agree 100% with Marias being lumped into the same category as Sand Creek, honestly. But then again, I didn't mind that it didn't have an infobox originally. The whole Marias mess is a touch more complicated than Sand Creek (and there is also isn't any evidence I've seen of atrocities, which were the rule and not the exception at Sand Creek and My Lai). I wouldn't strongly object if you switched the boxes, but I also wouldn't support such a change as required in this instance. I would support it for Sand Creek, though. Intothatdarkness 17:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Not complicated in the least. Heavy Runner was unarmed and peaceful, but press at the time made it out to be otherwise. Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
He was peaceful (although let's be real...it's very unlikely he was unarmed), but not every element of the village was. There's also the issue of Cobell deliberately misidentifying the village (which was not a factor at My Lai). I'm not debating that Baker was a moron (he was), but he also was convinced (by Cobell) that he was attacking the camp of Mountain Chief (or at least the camps of Big Horn and Red Horn). No such confusion took place at My Lai. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Shooting a visibly unarmed man waving a paper should be viewed as problematic at the least. Blaming the scouts is not going to cut it. Pretty much like Wounded Knee being justified because one old man's gun went off when they tried to take it from him. Seriously, where's your Second Amendment street cred here?  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Read the accounts. Cobell (the scout who deliberately misidentified the village) later claimed he was the one who shot Heavy Runner (with the full intent of starting an engagement). I really think you're reaching here. Baker chose to believe Cobell instead of Kipp, which makes him an idiot. But that doesn't turn this into the sort of deliberate massacre you seem intent on finding. Intothatdarkness 13:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Which accounts? Most of the contemporary ones were loaded with "evil natives" propaganda. At least we agree that Baker was an idiot!  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 15:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ebe's book (which is devoted to the Marias Massacre) discusses the Cobell story, as does Hutton's piece in "Phil Sheridan and his Army." I specifically cited Hutton's account in the article (even though Mike took out the page number when he changed the citation style). Kim Scott's biography of Doane also touches on this a bit. And the contemporary accounts are divided between "evil natives" and "drunken butchers"...don't forget that the Marias was used by both sides (by both sides I mean within the Anglo community) for their own ends. I'm not saying that this was some sort of valiant battle or anything, but I do firmly believe there is a marked difference between what happened on the Marias and what happened at My Lai or some of the other examples you gave on the article talk page. Intothatdarkness 15:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Cannot locate Ebe on WorldCat - what is the title? In my view, it is not required that the noncombatants be wholly unarmed and unable to defend themselves for it to be a "civilian" attack. Contemporary analysis is pretty much universal that this was an attack on noncombatants: (for the short version). But, if we set this one aside due to the debate, tell me how you would view the same question for Sand Creek or Wounded Knee? Montanabw(talk) 17:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry...typo on my part. It's Ege, and the book is "Tell Baker to Strike Them Hard." Hutton's book came out after Malone's survey history, and most of the more specialist literature on the Indian Wars (Utley, et. al.) has a similar interpretation to Hutton. I though I'd already mentioned Sand Creek above, but I'd support a massacre box there. Likely the same for Wounded Knee, although there are some differences between it and Sand Creek. Sand Creek and My Lai are very similar in far too many ways. The biggest difference is that Chivington and his militia didn't really care who they were attacking, and there is ample evidence of widespread atrocities committed by the unit. With Wounded Knee, I suspect that the majority of the Seventh Cavalry (along with most of the officers who'd been with the regiment since 1876) really didn't care who they were attacking, either. At the Marias, Baker thought (or allowed himself to be persuaded by Cobell) that he was attacking the correct village when in fact he was not. He'd also encountered at least one smaller camp prior to Heavy Runner's and took them prisoner rather than killing them. Intothatdarkness 18:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for DAP Racing[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

not DA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)