This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
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
You might find some help on the page you got it from. If you copied it from another page, I can help. Just give me the info that needs to go in there and I'll try to figure something out. Airplanemantalk15:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mhera! I just stumbled across this article, and as a major contributor to the Equine Wikiproject, I thought I'd drop a few comments by. First, we don't use the taxobox template for horse breed articles, instead, we use a specific horse breeds template. You can find the template syntax itself at Template:Infobox Horse, and can be seen in action on almost any of the horse breeds articles. It looks like you're making a good start on the references with a reliable, published book. As for your external links, if you are planning on using these for further references, I have a couple of thoughts. The first one (en.mimi.hu) is not considered reliable, not to mention it's deadlinking for me at the moment. The second link is the same as the reference, and you don't need to repeat links between the references and external links.
Here are some more places that you could look for information:
Do a thorough search of Google books. Look for things such as this, which has a brief mention of the habits of the breed.
Do a thorough search of Google scholar, see here for the first page. Some of the articles can be accessed for free online, most others can be found through your local library or university.
If you have access to a good local library or university library, take advantage of both their resources and the interlibrary loan program - you can get a lot more information this way.
Overall, you're doing a good job. It can be really hard sometimes to find information about these rare breeds, especially when they are from more third-world areas. For some examples of horse breed articles that are considered good and featured, check out Suffolk Punch and Thoroughbred. Banker horse would probably also be another featured article to check out, as it is about a group of feral horses in the US. I'll watchlist this article, so please let me know here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I've noticed your contributions. Glad you noticed this. The external links I put are not really going to be there when I'm finished. I put them there so I can get back for info. I've google searched stuff. Most of the websites are travel stuff and I'm just getting information about the horse. Those aren't really going to be there if I don't use them. If I do use them I will put them in references. Actually that book was put there by Airplaneman :) I try to go to libraries but can't do it often. But I mostly search online. I'm trying to find pictures and finally just decided to email. There are people with pictures that I have emailed to ask to use. I've only sent one so far. I doubt we will get any. This is my first article. I was wondering what stuff do you put in an article? I've noticed the height, history, uh....... and uses. That's all I can think of. :p I'm glad if anybody can give me some suggestions. Mhera (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you're definitely on the right track. As for what you put in the article, it's basically whatever you can find about the breed. It's going to be hard to find stuff about a breed as rare as this, but much easier for say the Irish Draft (I noticed that's on your to-do list on your user page). If you check out the links to the featured and good articles I listed above, you can get a general overview of what we put in articles when we can find it. You'll notice that a comprehensive article for a breed as popular as the Thoroughbred is much longer than one for a breed as rare as the Suffolk Punch (both of which are featured articles). If you can find it, the most basic things are history, characteristics (height, unique body features, colors, etc) and common uses. Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something to the references! I have no idea how to do it! Could somebody tell me how? Or fix it? Thanks. Mhera (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You generally add references when you've added new information. It looks like all of the information that is there is covered by the Hendricks book, so when you add new information from the new reference website, you'll need to add in the new ref, if that makes sense. To do it, you would put something like this <ref>{{cite web|title=(put title of website page here)|url=(put url here)|publisher=(put website publisher here)|accessdate=(put the day that you accessed the website here)}}</ref>. Does this help? Dana boomer (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not too much. What is the url? I looked at the website and it doesn't say the publisher. I accessed it 8-3-09 which is today. Mhera (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a lot better. ☺ Thanks. I see you put the references. ☺ I'm going to continue working on this. My mom thinks it's great that I'm contributing. Hehe. Mhera (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking around. I've had some experience in other places. I think I'll email some sites that have pics. I'm pretty sure they'll let me use some pics for an article. Mhera (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, don't toss info off of talk pages, other than to fix your own edits (and that for minor fixes within a short time). While you can toss stuff off your own talk page any time, the article talk pages are an archive and other than chat and patent nonsense or vandalism, we leave what's on them here. IF there's something you really regret posting or want removed forever, ask an admin to help. Otherwise, if it's a dead issue, just Use strikeout on your own stuff that's done and over. Enjoy! Montanabw(talk)22:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Am I allowed to take off sections I put on? Stuff I don't think needed? Hum my brother on his account put a cookie here and I really got on him. Mhera (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, basically, if you are done with your own stuff on an article talk page, strike it out or just leave it. It is OK to do stuff like toss the chitchat (like the cookie) or move it to your own page. It's also OK to toss vandalism or blatent chat or nonsense. (we dump a lot of posts that say "HORSEEZ ARE SO PURTY!! -- or something less flattering) No harm, no foul! Montanabw(talk)20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a great pic. I sent email and they let me use it if I credit them. But how do I get it on here??? Courtesy of African Bush Bird Tours in Namibia is what they want me to put. http://www.bushbird.com/our-tours/social-weaver.html This is the picture. It's of a mare and colt. Also Dana Boomer I'm not sure how to use the infobox......... Mhera (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the best at pics and their free and fair use rationales. I would suggest looking over Wikipedia:Uploading images, and possibly asking at one of the help pages listed on that page. You are probably going to have to use a WP:OTRS, since the permission is in an e-mail, but, like I said, I'd suggest asking at a help page to get a more informed answer.
I've added the infobox, which can be expanded with a picture and other information as it becomes available. I've also done a little bit of work on the article. I've condensed some sections, since you shouldn't have multiple sections containing little tiny bits of information. These sections can be re-broken-out again in the future if/when more info becomes available. I also removed the reference to "brown" horses, since brown horses are generally either bay or chestnut anyways. Facts such as the statement on the number of horses left need citations, so I've added a cite needed tag after this sentence. Hope all this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The scoop on images is complicated to read and figure out, but at the end of the day, the basic principle is pretty simple: They have to be FREE. That means that if you read the directions on the image upload guidelines, you either have to do the GDFL license, the Creative Comons (CC) license or release it completely into the public domain. In other words, "permission for use on Wikipedia" doesn't work (I know, I tried it with someone's image, and it was tossed a couple months later), nor does "no commercial use" work because Wiki is mirrored all over the web and some of these other sites run ads. (I also tried that and failed when trying and failing to upload some images from Flickr). The easiest way to get photos is to either take them yourself, get the person who DID take them to upload them and identify the proper license, upload them from the relatively small group of images on Flickr or similar sites where the uploaders have already released the images for free use without restriction (other than attribution), or to get them from a limited number of other free sources. This sometimes can include official government-sponsored web sites, though only the ones that wikipedia explicitly says are OK -- for example, images owned by the US Government are usually OK, but images owned by state governments usually are not.
FYI, Dana is the goddess of the horse breed articles and her advice is generally excellent. I'm more the curmudgeon and wikifairy of the articles and tend to sort of zoom in and do assorted cleanup. Montanabw(talk)03:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if slightly off topic, there is a lot of information in the Bonnie Hendricks book (the first reference) that could still be added to the article. You may want to comb through there to get some more meat for the article, and you also may be able to replace some of the non-reliable references, such as the one that is published by the "Cardboard Box Travel Shop" and the one from "mimi.hu". Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr? Hmmm what's the website? Haha maybe we need a template for 'wikifairy.' I put the photo on the article. The tiny bits of information I was planning on improving. But I've found a lot of the info for all the google pages I've visited. Haha mom is getting kinda mad because it takes me a whole day to find some stuff. Lucky it's summer. Seems I'll have to ask around. Google doesn't say a single thing on the height on the horses. Mimi hu is a terrible website. I know. I got the colors from it and that's just about all. Lot's of the info I find are on websites that have tours and stuff. I'm going to do flickr and maybe that'll help. Think I'll ask the photographers and ask the height. Also the picture is kinda blurry??? Anything I can help with that? And also when I did it on wikimedia could you look at it? Here's the pic on wikimedia Check it out. My account on wikimediaMhera (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make that WP:FAIRY! LOL! One of many wikifauna. Anything on commons has passed muster and is probably "legal" on wikipedia, yes! In fact, I too have found it worthwhile to get my username up on Commons and upload images there, because if it stays there and isn't tossed, it's good on any wikiproject. Flickr is Flickr.com. There are a lot of images there, most are NOT free use, but if you can figure out the search parameters to search ONLY for free-use images, that narrows it down considerably. For some of these rare breeds, some of the United Nations-affiliated groups like the FAO (can't recall what the acronym stands for) can be a good source. Montanabw(talk)22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks more credible than the other material on past history, though the perfect source would be some academic peer-reviewed journal, which I doubt we are going to find without massive digging. I will tweak on the history section from that source, see what you think. Oh, and by the way, don't mess up footnotes: I created the one you changed to point to the specific page where the info was, and not to the generic home page of the same site, which is what you had...the wikigods like lots of footnotes, and they like really specific footnotes, even when to the same source in successive paragraphs! (This is similar to the standard needed for academic journals and even advanced level college term papers) We create and use a shorthand name for a cite and that syntax allows it to be more quickly cited in subsequent paragraphs -- one reason is that on wiki, we don't use id. for subsequent sequential footnotes because of the way a later edit can change the order of the citations. Hope that explains what I was up to. Citation and footnoting can be a real pain in the ass (PITA) but it's a necessary PITA, I must admit. Montanabw(talk)19:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn't know they were footnotes. (don't even know what footnotes are. It would help to know) I just thought it was something random somebody put on and put on the whole reference. It didn't show the date, publisher and stuff so I thought it was something that wasn't completed. Sorry. Mind telling me how to do it? Oh and there's something that says 'citation needed' What are we supposed to put there? I don't know the reference. Some bot came by and put it there. Mhera (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, footnotes are used in research papers and academic journals, as well as some books that have extensive research to pinpoint the source for a given sentence or paragraph. When i was a kid, I learned to do them in high school English classes, sort of, and then had to do them correctly once I got into college and started doing certain types of research term papers. On wiki, they start with common footnoting syntax, but tweak it to make the wiki-software work. See WP:CITE if you want to be completely confused, but that IS where citation is explained (clear as mud). Basically the simple wikipedia syntax is that the <ref> and </ref> tags begin and end a footnote. Anything inside the tags goes to the footnotes or references page at the bottom of the article, where you put the {[reflist}} tag. If you find you are using the same source over and over again, the <ref name="nickname"> and </ref> tags create a template that can allow you to abbreviate future refs to the same source simply by typing the nickname like this <ref name="nickname"/> all other times you use that source. Is that clear as mud? Montanabw(talk)06:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second image is a copyright violation as the source image on flickr only allows non-commercial use, so I have deleted the image on Commons. Please do not attempt to upload it again. Royalbroil01:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't trying to bite anyone, just informing why I had to delete this image. I still don't see how my words are bitey, but if anyone reads them as bitey then I must have missed the mark. Please accept my sincere apology! So you know, Mhera, an image on flickr that uses non-commercial or no derivatives are not allowed on the English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. What matters is the copyright on the image itself; I saw and still don't see any indication on the image that commercial use is allowed. So the image is considered to be non-free in the Wikipedia/image sense. You can change this by asking Thys.4f on flickr to change the image. The uploader of an image assumes the responsibility of ensuring that an image has a free copyright, and that the free copyright is visible to anyone that checks. The image failed inspection by a certified flickr image reviewer at Commons. I verified the failure and deleted the image after removing uses on all of the Wikipedia projects. As an administrator on both projects, I am required to deal with image copyright issues like this one. I know that dealing with image copyright licenses is extremely complicated - it trips up almost everyone when they are new! Feel free to leave me a message at any time and I'll explain image licensing to your satisfaction. Royalbroil04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, the phrase "please do not attempt to upload it again" just sounded a little snarky (sort of an implication that someone was going to try it) unless she had already uploaded it twice or something. Minor thing, I just happened to know that here we're dealing with a younger user who is a computer whiz but new to running with the big grown-up dogs on wiki. That's why just a little trout whack. I usually use the Flickr bot thingy on commons myself, which will usually tell me if it isn't free. But yes, image copyright is absolutely a challenge to new users! I still haven't figured it all out yet. And I've been here like three years... :-P Montanabw(talk)04:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first image I had uploaded twice. The second I was going to use for teh infobox because it shows the profile of the horse better. I'll message Thys about it. Mhera (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like this[2] would be better for the infobox (or at least somewhere, it is a good one). You can hardly make them out on the present photo. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The horses tend to remain in above average condition, despite the harsh environment in which they live, with stallions generally averaging better condition then mares." What does "good condition" entail?
"During severe droughts, average condition decreases, but even then horses are found in moderate condition and the entire population is never in very poor condition." The word condition is used three times in one sentence, any way to reduce?
"However, though the horses have a genetic similarity to Arabian-type horses, they do not closely resemble them in outward appearance." Why, due to fast adaptation or some such?
I've re-written and expanded this section a bit. The study hadn't really been properly summarized, so it should read more clearly now. This was originally written by another user, and was the only section I didn't check closely before nominating for GAN - that'll teach me... Dana boomer (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Photo albums from the stud show animals with distinctive characteristics still seen in the Namib Desert Horse of today." Like what?
"Due to the lack of affect on vegetation by horses, it is unlikely that they significantly influence small mammal populations. The horses also appear to have no measurable affect" Affect or effect?
According to my closest style guide, affect is a verb meaning to "have an influence on", while effect is a noun meaning "a change that is the result of something". So, I think I have it right (in that both usages could be replaced by the word "influence"), but this is always the word pair that screws me up, so I could be wrong. Dana boomer (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the book under further reading not used as a source?
Because I haven't managed to get my hands on it yet. I'm hoping I can get it through ILL, and I'll definitely need to see it before I take the article to FAC, which I'd like to do. However, given that the main author is the author of the 200+ page PhD thesis that is currently a major source for the article, I don't think it will contain any significant additions to the article. The only thing I would guess at is updates to the population, but as far as I can tell, it's mainly a public-accessible book form of Greyling's PhD thesis, possibly with a few updates. Dana boomer (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Namib Desert Horse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
