From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Equine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Trot is part of WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource covering organismal biomechanics. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.



Isn't the "passage" image a pace, not a trot? Ciotog 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, on closer inspection the right hind leg is the one on the ground, but it's difficult to make out (on my system, anyway). Could this be replaced with a clearer picture? Ciotog 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gender pronouns[edit]

Is it convention that riders are referred to as "she" and "her"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Of course not. The convention for many years was to use "he" for unspecified individuals. Nowadays, many people like to use "she" as well, or even in preference to "he", as a sort of protest against this norm, I suppose. JudahH (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Trot animation[edit]

If you have a problem with an edit please comment on the content of it =).

Anyway, I don't think I am alone in thinking that the gif on the Trot article is a bit distracting. It's just that I don't think that jarring, repeating gifs should be included in the article. As you can see on the main page, videos should be stoppable and startable and should not just play over and over again, in my opinion.

What are your thoughts on this? Are there any videos you have that you could upload to Wikipedia instead of the gif? --mboverload@ 06:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The short length of the clip combiened with the background jump as it loops practicaly makes the opening section unreadable. The ideal solution is case would probably be an .ogg Theora video.Geni 10:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been WP:BOLD and removed the image again. I concur with Geni - it makes it unreadable. --mboverload@ 10:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Normally, when you are going to do something fairly drastic, it's polite wikiquette to check on the talk page FIRST! (smile) However, I won't argue that the image was jumpy. I'll replace it with a static image for the lead. However, these short clips are used throughout the wikipedia gait articles, as a video takes too long to load and doesn't work in this context. I will agree that this particular image is not as well done as some of the others we have. I'll see if I can find a Muybridge clip of the trot, may be smaller and less glitchy and put it farther down the page so it isn't the lead. But note the Animal Locomotion template uses an animation! Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok =) I like the page now. Good job with the new top image. --mboverload@ 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked through commons and could not find a Muybridge image of the trot nor were there any other animations of the trot. (I lack the technical expertise to do a proper animation, plus I have a slow dialup connection that makes it tough for me to review video, though if someone wants to collaborate, I would be glad to help find good stuff. Somewhere...) Anyway, what I just did was to restore the jerky video, but way down in the sitting trot section after all the other photos. And I kept it small. That should give those who care an idea of what the gait looks like but not bug everyone else. And you must understand that the horse is GORGEOUS and performing the gait nicely. I'm all for a less "tape loop" looking animation, but in the meantime, this one is at least using correct form. Hope this is a reasonable compromise. Montanabw(talk) 22:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
No still makes that section horrible to view. it should be posible to show a trot through a video.Geni 04:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If you can find one and replace the animation with something else, I'm OK with a replacement. But from what I've seen, videos don't load at all well over a dialup or other slow connection, so I don't favor using them for information critical to the article, just having them linked at the end as an additional external source is better. I guess it's a style question, but iffy quality beats nothing at all, IMHO. I find the image a minor annoyance, but it's small and easy to ignore, at least on my computer. If someone can find an Edward Muybridge clip of a trotting horse somewhere, those, though old, seem to come through without any problem. And they are probably free. I'm afraid I just don't have the time to go dig anything up. Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and on my computer, all there is is a little hitch in the image when it loops. I guess I am not really sure what the problem is here? What computer or OS are you using? (I guess I have no clue what IRC is or how it's different from main wiki...?) Montanabw(talk) 20:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
standard windows XP but that isn't the issues I've downloaded the pic and played with the timeings of the frames and can't find a way to make it less anoying.Geni 10:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, maybe we can find a Muybridge clip, he did a pacer, there must be a trotter too, as he documented the moment of suspension. I'm afraid I'm too busy with other brushfires to do so at the moment... Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to those who discussed this above, I came to this Wikipedia page hoping for a good illustration of a trot, and was disappointed to see as the main picture a still image, which obviously cannot illustrate a "two-beat gait". The actual animated gif illustrating it is buried so far down in the article that I would not even have known to look for it without having stopped to check the Talk page. I think it would be best to have the main image be either an animation or a sequence of stills that adequately illustrates a trot. Failing that, at the least, I think the animation deserves to be featured as part of a subsection near the beginning of the article. JudahH (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It makes some sense to have an animated clip higher up, though not as a lead image. IThis discussion was eight years ago when support for animations was weaker and we didn't have as much material. Montanabw(talk) 22:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. There were several competing arguments here. Trot (horse gait) is the clear primary topic in the world at large, it is less clear for wikipedia usage, where the dance is visited nearly as much, the other criteria mentioned at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is incoming links with 142 (gait) 92 (dance). The votes here are 9 support to 6 against. On balance argument for moving win out. Salix (talk): 22:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Trot (horse gait)Trot – I would move this page to Trot, and move the disambiguation page currently existing at that title to Trot (disambiguation). "Trot + horse" gets over a hundred million Google hits, while the next biggest return, "Trot + dance" gets about six million, and the dance itself is named for use of the word "trot" meaning a type of walk. relisted -- Mike Cline (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC) bd2412 T 12:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Clearly the primary usage as far as I can see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Might as well. Trot (disambiguation) already meets the MOS:DAB guidelines, minus actually linking to Trot in the first line. Steel1943 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Must admit my first thought was of Trot, which has nothing whatever to do with horses. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Not being an actual title match, that sense is not even on the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Possibly also because it's derogatory. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not censored, and nothing prohibits the inclusion of derogatory uses on a disambiguation page. However, there is no indication in Trotskyism that this term is used in such a way at all, and therefore nothing to support a line on this topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
            • None of which is relevant here, but once we dab, I suppose we'd need to add "the trots" - a euphemism for diarrhea? (LOL) Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARY. WPEQ would be happy about this. Will we have a big cleanup of incoming links that actually need to go to the dab, or is that a worry? Montanabw(talk) 21:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    • There are a handful of incoming links, but I suspect most are already intended for the horse gait. bd2412 T 23:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Will we have a problem with the same gait in dogs, etc...? I don't think dog locomotion has any articles at all. (After all, we don't ride them, so I guess no one cares?) Montanabw(talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was going to support but the page views (last 90 days) surprisingly show it's not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
[1] Trot (horse gait) 15991 views
[2] Trot (music) 12811 views
[3] Trot (Oz) 2952 views
[4] Trot (lai) 178 views
[5] trotline 7048 views

Zarcadia (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Updating
[6] Trot (horse gait) 17194 views
[7] Trot (music) 13553 views
[8] Trot (Oz) 3292 views
[9] Trot (lai) 188 views
[10] trotline , 7831 views

(probably all increases due to this discussion!)

The stats do seem to remain steady Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Primary topics are gauged by more than usage in Wikipedia. In the world in general, the Google results tell a different story. bd2412 T 00:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    And the stats above DO indicate the highest number of page views, by about 3K or so. Thus, I think the stats actually prove BD's point. Montanabw(talk) 19:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support--I don't think the stats are a compelling argument in favor but this is clearly the primary topic. Nobody would search for "trot" expecting anything but a disamb page or an article about horses walking semi-quickly. Red Slash 22:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
humorous comment - technically, "walking semi-quickly" is ambling, the trot is a bit different! (noogies) LOL! Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Surprisingly, the anemic difference between the horse gait and the Korean music page view counts indicates that the horse gait doesn't even come close to meeting the fundamental characteristic of a primary topic for a given term: that it be "much more likely than any other topic..." to be the one being sought by someone searching with "trot". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Page view counts are only part of the criterion. Frankly, while I could probably make an argument for fox trot, I'm sure I am not alone in saying that I've never heard of the Korean variant (and page view may well be due to curiousity of readers who start from the dab page and go "hmmm, what's that?"). I don't buy your reasoning on this one.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 21:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, the use of the term out in the world as determined by searching Google and Google Books leans for more heavily in favor of the gait. bd2412 T 22:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
But our concern is whether this use is much more likely to be the one being sought on WP by people searching with gait. There is no evidence that it is or would be. --B2C 20:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Which is why we would include a dablink at the top, such as is done for Secretariat (by your logic, the horse would be an equally good search) Montanabw(talk) 20:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The use of this meaning is considerably more common than the Korean dance. Bazonka (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: My close was not satisfactory to one of the participants, so I have reverted my close and relisted this RM. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment:Per discussion at Mike Cline's page, it was recommended that supporters lacked evidence, so here is some: Google show us this, trotting horses predominant overall, trot horse is 105,000,000 hits trot music is 26,900,000 hits and multiple dictonaries all put the horse gait first and formost, not mentioning the Korean music form at all; examples: [11], [12]. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTDICT. Unless we get a reasonable explanation for the relatively high view count of Trot (music) that justifies ignoring them, I don't see how to find this use to be primary for trot. Please note that Trot (music) is disambiguated, so it's not like people are getting there accidentally by searching for trot. When I Google trot, Trot (horse gait) appears first, but Trot (music) is second, while Trot (Oz) doesn't show up at all, so it's not like Google just lists all Trot WP articles at the top of the results; it obviously accounts for likelihood of what one might be searching.

      All the relevant evidence I see indicates people are looking for Trot (music) at a surprisingly high rate relative to the horse gait and other uses of "trot". --B2C 01:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

      B2C, the reason the music link is second on Google is because it's wikipedia link, and Trot (Oz) comes up different because it redirects from "Mayre Griffiths" and that search is what brings up "Trot (Oz)" as number one. So Goggle's page rankings for WP is probably not relevant here. And if an article is getting a high page view, we can't know the reasoning but I would note that the music is second on the list at the dab page, which suggests reason enough. May also reflect WP's readership in Korea. Montanabw(talk) 22:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      If Google listed Trot (music) high in the results simply because it was a WP article, then it would list Trot (Oz) high too. The fact that Trot (Oz) has a redirect to it, Mayre Griffiths is immaterial; Trot (music) has redirects to it too [13]. Google returns results in an order that is based on what people tend to click on when they search for the term in question. People searching with "trot" rarely click on Trot (Oz), so that's not shown high in the results. But the fact that Trot (music) is shown high in the results shows that it is often clicked on by people Googling for "trot". --B2C 00:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Having worked on incoming links to Trot, I can tell you that irrespective of what people are looking at, they are linking trot when they mean the horse gait. Suppose we carry out this move and put a two-target hatnote on the page saying This article is about the horse gait; for the Korean music genre, see Trot (music); for other meanings, see Trot (disambiguation). That way, the number one target for both links and views will be the article that holds the title, the number two target will be in the hatnote, and the comparatively minuscule remainder will continue to be found on the disambig page. bd2412 T 03:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
        Comment: Support the dab hatnote as fixing all possible issues. Montanabw(talk) 22:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
        Comment: The same thing can be done for the most popular use of any and all ambiguous terms - but any time there are more than two uses, we require that a topic meet the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria before we do this. --B2C 00:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
        True, but that is often because "the most popular use" adds up to only 15-20% of total use, and is only the most popular because ten other uses evenly split the remaining (compare Mercury, battery, bass). bd2412 T 03:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
        Sure but it is also often true that two of multiples uses of a given term are especially "popular", and in those cases we don't have a primary topic because neither of the two is "much more likely than any other topic" to be the one being sought, because of the other popular one. That's exactly what we have here. --B2C 03:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
        There is, however, an additional factor of enduring historical importance (which is why Apple is on the fruit, and not a disambig, despite substantial interest in the computer company). The trot of the horse has been significant to mankind for many hundreds of years, if not thousands. bd2412 T 03:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Precisely, B2C, you are cherry-picking WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. There are TWO aspects mentioned, to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term, AND "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." And of the three factors used, the horse gait is clearly the primary use on Google and on un-dabbed incoming links, the horse gait article "wins" over the music by about 80 links or so. I might also note that the music has other names, rather like Trot (Oz). Montanabw(talk) 23:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Not cherry-picking. I've consistently ignored the "long-term significance" criterion since it was first added in 2011. It's ludicrious to add a criterion to a rule or guideline which often contradicts the indication of the traditional criterion. What do you do when they do conflict, as they do in this case? Just go by the preferences of those who happen to be participating? Might as well toss a coin. There's no way to settle an issue based on a guideline that could be interpreted to indicate one answer or another. --B2C 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Definately appears to be primary usage. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - for being the most common usage by external and internal links, long-term significance, for being the term from which the second use derives, and for being the primary meaning at dictionaries (WP:NOTDICT is irrelevant here, since that policy is about what we include in articles, not how we name things). Also include the disambiguation hatnote to Trot (music) to easily correct false hits to this article for people looking for the music. Diego (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)*:
  • Oppose. Very short words with a myriad of dictionary meanings should be be used as unqualified titles. It is too easy to confusing linking. "Trot (horse gait)" is a very reasonable title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Every serious use of the word derives from its use with respect to horses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The whole article seems wrong to me because it only deals with horses. Don't other quad. animals trot as well? I assumed this when I used four frames of the Eadweard Muybridge trotting video in the animated reindeer I made for this video.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I actually see that as another good reason to move the article to just be "trot". To have "trot (quadruped gait)" is even more absurd, though in the equestrian world, we do have a lot of detail about the nature of the trot, as it is a critical gait and its quality judged extensively in some forms of competition. Montanabw(talk) 23:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, primarily per page view counts (I want to see a multiple for primary, not a 25% difference), but also per a couple of the other oppose comments above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Technical Comment A "trot" is defined simply as a symmetrical gait where the footfalls of the ipsilateral (same-side) fore- and hindlimb occur within 40-60% phase. In the broad sense, there are be both walking and running trots, as well as trots of organisms with more than 4 legs (crabs and insects, IIRC, can trot). However, what little I know of horses makes me suspect that "horse trot" is defined considerably more narrowly, with assorted sub-types and all manner of rules. This is why, on the disambiguation page, "trot" goes to the gait page I wrote (meant to cover all organisms), and then there's a specific link to horses, preventing the horse info from overwhelming everything else. HCA (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss technical comment: You are correct, HCA, it is. Diagonal, symmetrical, two beat gait, basically. And yes, an article just on trotting across species would be dominated by the nuances in the horse stuff. I like your gait page, also note we have horse gait, the overview article, and also ambling (speaking of a walking trot) and canter. It appears that leaping gait got merged into gait. I guess it's a big deal because we ride horses and worry about staying on! But don't crabs "scuttle"?  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 23:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To say that there is a primary topic requires clear and convincing evidence. The data above shows that none of the pages receives 50% of the hits so there is no primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Must admit I expected to support at first glance, but after looking at the stats I can't. To quote from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a topic is primary "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" and the stats prove that's not the case here. The other primary topic criterion is the ever-subjective "long-term importance" clause and, personally, I don't see the horse gait as being of clearly more educational value than the variety of kpop. Jenks24 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    Well, noogies at you for being urban-centric! The trot is what made civilization happen! Who gives a f**k about some transient pop fad? LOL! But seriously, when is wikipedia a source on itself? Page hits is but one criteria. That said, if this is not moved, I can live with the verdict. Montanabw(talk) 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Trot (gait) would be my pick for primary use, but limited to horses... nope. Not over an apparently important musical genre. --Pitke (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    I think the original reason we don't have Trot (gait) is because it would be 10% about other animals and 90% about horses. (There is stuff on trotting in animal locomotion I think) But not an issue to me. I do dispute that Trot (music) is even the best name for that article, as it seems to have other words that describe it. "Importance" is probably a completely subjective debate, so won't go there. Montanabw(talk) 17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, based on the page view stats. At any rate I'm not seeing hard evidence that this is the primary topic, as well as evidence suggesting it's not.--Cúchullain t/c 20:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The evidence I cited is not in Wikipedia page views (which are susceptible to fluctuations in due to temporary fads), but in Google hits and Google Books hits, which clearly place the horse gait (or animal gait, if you prefer) well ahead of any other use. Of course, the dance is derived from the gait, and the music style is derived from the dance directly, and from the gait indirectly. bd2412 T 01:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.