Talk:Campeiro

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Horse breeds task force.

Brazil Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This new page

Thank you, GabrielLGoes, for creating a page for a horse breed that was missing from Wikipedia, and for making sure that it had proper reliable sources – great work! However, there may be a problem here: I thought you might have translated this from pt.wp, but I see that you did not. It looks as if you may however have translated it from this website. Is that right? Because I'm afraid that is not allowed here – that page is copyright material, and cannot be copied into Wikipedia, even in translation, unless the owners of that website choose to irrevocably donate the content to us. Unless I have guessed wrong here, the content will need to be removed, and then rewritten entirely in your own words; I'm happy to help with that if you would like. Please let me know. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://cavalocampeiro.com/cavalo-campeiro/historico/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions

Per WP:UNIT: "Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "primary unit", displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by a conversion in parentheses ... the primary units chosen will be SI units ... or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)." And per MOS:CONVERSIONS, "Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided ... " While conversions are not mandated for "scientific" articles, broadly stated, they are not forbidden, and this issue has been hashed out at WPEQ in the past and the commonality of hands as a measurement modality in English-speaking nations that use both imperial and metric measurements is appropriate. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that it does say that. Someone seems to have been messing around with it. If I can be arsed I'll look at it tomorrow and try to work out who and why. It certainly hasn't been discussed.

Per WP:BRD, I'd prefer not to get into another round of edit-warring over this issue nor drag in additional people not familiar with the history of the debate. I would inquire if there is a middle ground to be reached. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to edit-war, why do you do it? You added (in good faith, I admit) mistaken content to the page; I removed it with an explanatory edit summary. Your next step, if you want to take it, is to discuss, not make the same edit again. Edit-warring is completely stupid and unproductive. Please refrain from it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same to you, but that would be unproductive, wouldn't it? We are discussing, that's good enough. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colours

(edit conflict) Montanabw has twice added incorrectly colours to this page, based presumably on the incompetent translation of a well-kown internet search provider. In relation to horse coat colours, "castanho" does not mean Chestnut, it means Bay. If I had been able accurately to translate the other two colours I would have added them to the page; unfortunately my Portuguese is not that good. This topic has already been discussed at Talk:Galician horse#Bad coat color, where the same editor was reluctant to accept the expert advice of a mother-tongue speaker. Google is not a reliable source; for that reason, we cannot rely on it. It gives wrong results, as here. Aside: I am amazed that you want to edit-war over this rather than discuss it. What happened to WP:BRD? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I now see that it was the Brazilian authors rather than Montanabw that got the translation wrong. That doesn't make it right. "Castanho" means bay; chestnut is "alazão" – see, for comparison only, pt:Alazão and es:Caballo alazán. "Baio" (Spanish: bayo) is some kind of dilution, but it's not clear to me which one; this Spanish source suggests that it is palomino, and for all I know that may be right. But in the absence of a Portuguese-speaking expert, these colours should not be in the article – better no information at all than wrong information. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes AGF, and I apologize that I did not include the URL in the original, as that MIGHT have ratcheted down the drama (if the authors can't translate properly, that is a different issue)? And perhaps let's lose words like "incompetent" because that most certainly is not helping matters any. The 2009pdf seems to suggest that the "bayo" dilution is the cream gene, hence palomino. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the photos es:Caballo castaño is bay... so I wonder if the translators just mixed up the order... ? Montanabw ^(talk) 00:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]