Talk:Hanoverian horse

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.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lower Saxony (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Saxony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Lower SaxonyWikipedia:WikiProject Lower SaxonyTemplate:WikiProject Lower SaxonyLower Saxony articles

Links for the ambitious

Anyone wishing to improve this article may find these links helpful:

1. [1] WBFSH Interstallion survey. Data on populations, goals, procedures.

2. [2] WBFSH 2007 Jumping rankings. #3 thanks to Shutterfly (Silvio I) - note he was the top-ranked Grand Prix jumper of the year - Lantinus (Landkoenig), Checkmate (Contender), Goldfever (Grosso Z), Enorm (Escudo I), Legurio (Landadel)

3. [3] WBFSH 2007 Eventing rankings. #3 thanks to FRH Butts Abraxxas (Heraldik xx), FRH Little Lemon (Lemon xx), Air Jordan (Amerigo Vespucci xx), Schorsch (Sherlock Holmes xx), Dictus J (Drossan), FRH Serve Well (Sherlock Holmes xx)

4. [4] WBFSH 2007 Dressage rankings. #1 thanks to #1 ranked horse Satchmo (Sao Paulo), Salinero (Salieri), Warum Nicht FRH (Weltmeyer), Sunrise (Singular Joter), Elvis VA (Espri), Donatha S (Donnerhall)

5. [5] American Hanoverian Society.

6. [6] Hanoverian Verband. Good source.

7. [7] British Hanoverian Society. Good source, English translation of general German Warmblood standards - though tweaked to fit the Hanoverian - under "Breeding Rules" plus baldly states that other than solid black, bay, chestnut, grey are not permitted.

8. [8] IMH page. Secondary source but an easy read.

Countercanter (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another useful article: [9] H. Hamann, O. Distl. Genetic variability in Hanoverian warmblood horses using pedigree analysis. J. Anim Sci., doi: 10.2527/jas.2007-0382. Copyright, 2008, The American Society of Animal Science. Countercanter (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits?

Hey CC, wondering why you tossed this image: File:Hannoveraner Dressur Goethe 3 bestes.jpg and especially why replaced with a group photo? FYI, the wikigods prefer these breed articles to have an image of one typical individual, (and in a perfect world, one facing "into" the article, but that's somewhat negotiable). My thinking is to keep the old image as the lead (unless you can find a good conformation shot, which would be even better) and move down the Olympic one to replace the image that's there of the horse that is clearly wringing its tail... just a notion. Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I don't care about tail-wringing myself but I understand that some people do. :) There are some conformation shots in Wikimedia Category:Hannoverian but they make the fellow's head look a bit large. Countercanter (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tail-wringing beats numbing the tail (the big problem in the breed show world in some places...). But here the bigger deal is to find the nicest representatives of the breed. I agree that mule head photos are not desirable. Montanabw^(talk) 02:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

Hannoverian cavalry of 1762.
Hannoverian cavalry of 1812.
Hannoverian cavalry of 1830.

While I imagine that the focus is on the changes in costume, and the horses are far too light-framed, they are illustrative. Countercanter (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are the horses actually "Hanoverians" or are they simply cavalry horses of the Hanoverian military? All predate the stud book. Cool images, though. One could use them saying something along the lines of how the breeds were developed for cavalry use. I know from the research we were doing for Horses in warfare and Arabian horse and Marbach stud that 18th century cavalry tended to be smaller and lighter, lots of Arabian blood, then the horses were bred up to be a bit bigger as time went on and we get into the 19th century. May want to cross-read on the warfare article for ideas... drop a note on the talk page of User:Gwinva, she's our military history liaison with horse cavalry stuff. See also Horses in the Napoleonic Wars. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for recommending those articles. I can't believe I hadn't thoroughly read them before, but they were SO informative and interesting. As far as the identity of a Hannoverian cavalry rider's mount...the stud was established in 1735, as you know, and pedigrees were kept by about 1800. The purpose of the stud was to make - I hate to say "better" because what I really mean is "suitable to the times" or "fashionable" - stallions available to the farmers. Cavalry horses were directly recruited from the farmers, much the same way that the US military has contracts with certain industries. Thus, a man in the Hannoverian cavalry would have most likely been riding a horse sired by a Celle stallion (Celle eventually passed laws to limit the use of privately-owned stallions). Is such a horse not a Hanoverian? I don't suppose I need to caption any of those drawings with "...on his Hanoverian" but, there you have it. Countercanter (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Better" as in "horses more suitable to the times" works for me. The best way to handle the old images is to describe them as close to the intent of the published source as possible, i.e. "Hanoverian cavalry officer" or whatever... neither extrapolate beyond what can be derived from the original source, nor assume less... all I really know is that modern breeds as we think of them today were more loosely defined back then, as someone (maybe you?) once pointed out, a horse foaled at a stud in Hannover might be "Hannoverian" even if 100% Thoroughbred or something! They are wonderful images. Montanabw^(talk) 03:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

Overall, the article is a little too wordy. Think through how you can use wikilinks to reduce some explanations, and you may not need to have as many details on individual horses or specific geographic locations. It's your call. I think this article could make a trip to GA in time, as you have a lot of good research material to use. I'm minimizing my input for now to let you decide how to sort it out, but am doing one rearrangement of headings that I think organizes the section a bit better. Hope it helps. Montanabw^(talk) 21:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, and thanks for your temperance. It's totally wordy and pretentious, but I do find it easier to trim down an "end product" than to actually incorporate it into my drafting. I promise I won't let it lay around like a bloated I-don't-know-what. Countercanter (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm thinking of trying to do some work on this page, including adding more independent reliable sources, removing unsourced content, expanding the text and so on. If I were to do so I would change the reference format to the list-defined system – references defined in the reference section, not in the text – and to hand-written refs (without cite templates). I'll probably do that in a day or two if no-one minds, but will of course leave well alone if there's any objection. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object. List-defined references are okay; I prefer that style since they clean up the code and make it easier to read while editing. Hand-written citations are not acceptable and have gone the way of the dodo; they are tolerated only from neophyte editors who haven't yet learned the most common citing method, which is CS1. Current format for this article is CS1 citations such as {{Cite news}}, {{Cite web}} and {{Cite journal}}. Please do not remove or undo any CS1 formatting that has already been done. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My take is to prep an article as if it would be GA or FA. The citation templates are a superior method. I have no gripe with LDR, as it passes muster at FAC and works well. But the method of putting a ref in with the page number inline is a huge PITA for the reader because they don’t have the entire citation in the reference and have to jump back and forth in the article to find all details. It’s very clunky. The system has a learning curve (a new editor must learn all the abbreviations used by previous editors) and there are going to be occasional inline cites (much easier to add when just editing a section, but easy to fix later) Montanabw^(talk) 14:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I'm not sure what you mean by putting a ref in with the page number inline. Did you mean a page number after the citation number in the article text, ...like this.^[3]:247 ? Or in with the citation content, ...like this.^[3] with the citation line appearing like this: Adam Jones, Book About Whatsits (2002), Smith Publishers, p.247 ? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]