Category talk:Horse breeds

I think we need to have all the Welsh Breeds on one page with redirects to that page. They are nor completely separate breeds and there is much repetition across the 4 pages. Malcolm Morley 06:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 23:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about the number of horse "breeds" that nobody will ever actually encounter in a lifetime. I'm also concerned about the excessive use of flowery language and the "absolute" nature with which contributors are describing horses. Horses seldom have breed standards as narrow as those for dogs, and I believe that our language ought to reflect that. For example, it is misleading to describe Wurttembergers as possessing "excellent temperaments." Good examples of any type of horse have excellent temperaments. This is particularly irksome in descriptions of warmbloods. Instead, I would like us to describe horses in terms of the goals of their registries (and thereby their breeders). This does, of course, entail reading the rulebooks for these registries. Countercanter 19:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject horse breeds there already IS a template and there was a pretty active project there for awhile that has been sort of moribund recently (in fact someone wants to merge it into a new Wikiproject Horse, would like you to weigh in there, it you could!). No sense reinventing the wheel. See Arabian horse for an example of the infobox in use. (And, I must say, a damn fine breed article, even if I got it there! (grin). I agree 100% with the peacock word problem in many of the articles, and have tagged quite a number myself, fixed a few. (Spend about a week on Friesian horse once and still am constantly monitoring it.), and tell me is there isn't a single breed, other than maybe the Baskir Curly that DOESN'T have a "silky coat"! LOL!

However, being a rare or obscure breed I do not think is a good criterion to use. In fact, true rare breeds probably need an article more than any of them! I think that short articles about obscure breeds is fine (I mean, the Chinese Guoxia?) See also my comments at the talk page for Belgian Warmblood. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see list of horse breeds for further commentary on what is and is not a "breed." What I have done over there is remove some proposed breed articles that are red links, if they aren't listed on a list of at least quasi-legitimate breeds, such as the list kept by the International Museum of the Horse or the one at Oklahoma State. I broke out separate sections for "types" of horses (like warmbloods) and color breeds. My concern with the categories here is that if we toss a link out here, say in the warmblood article, then people won't find the larger category and find other breeds.

Horse breeds

Navigation among the many horse breed articles is being discussed now on Template talk:Equine. --Una Smith (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC) nibba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.208.30.120 (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article text

some text at the top to specify extant breeds go in the main cat would be most usefull. Nirame (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes that is better thanks Nirame (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC) country/countries would be good perhaps for those with multiple or disputed Nirame (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing scope of Category to include land races and so called "feral breeds"

WP defines breed as:

"A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species and that were arrived at through selective breeding."

Land Races, especially so-called "feral breeds" have not had selective breeding. Please provide justification for including them here.

this source pp. 6-16 explains how fuzzy the definition of a "breed" can be. "The modern classifications of breeds are landraces, standardized breeds, modern "type" breeds, industrial strains and feral populations." p. 8: " Exactly where to draw the line between the genetic "breed" and "nonbreed" is somewhat arbitrary and frequently controversial." For wikipedia, categories are navigational aids to help the reader find articles. The "horse breeds" category is very broad and non-diffusing. There are subcats for landraces and feral breeds also. Montanabw ^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 21:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so why are you including "mustang" which is a generalized designation for dozens of potential land races? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because landraces are breeds (Per Sponenberg; we've discussed this elsewhere). In the case of mustangs, the main article is in the breeds category for some very important reasons. The first is that the overview article contains a great deal of critical history and will have more once we get it more complete; the separate articles on the unique bands like the Kigers and Pryors only focus on their specific history. The second is that there are multiple Mustang bands and registries, but some are relatively small and it makes no sense to make forks for overlapping groups and standards. Third is more pragmatic reason; the general public views Mustangs as a breed and will search for them as such. (We have done the same for the overview Warmblood article where there is no one "Warmblood" but rather a lot of different breeds, loosely related, sort of, classified as such) Categories exist to improve navigation on wikipedia and it really is not worth an edit-war over every last article to be in or out. I have no issue with the article being categorized as a breed, a type and a landrace, it's all helpful to the user of wikipedia. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]