Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Equine (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Index · Statistics · Log

By request[edit]

I un-redirected Riding horse to create as a stand-alone article parallel to Driving (horse). This per request of some users. Totally a stub, feel free to expand. Montanabw(talk) 21:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability discussion?[edit]

Based on a conversation on my talk page, do we want to work on any additional guidelines to assist in assessing notability for horse people? I'm noticing a few more pr-type articles here lately and it might be good to have some sort of amendment to WP:NSPORTS#Equestrian sport, (WP:NRODEO and WP:NHORSERACING are pretty much done) that is akin to Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Notability. Basically thinking about standards for "these are pretty much slam dunks for notability in the field, "probably notable," here are the gray areas..." Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about additional guidelines because it varies so much from breed to breed. Some breeds have Halls of Fame; some don't. Sometimes people start out in the mainstream organization, accumulate a lot of wins, and then switch to the knock-off group because they get ticked off at somebody. Unlike racing where there's the Jockey Club, there's no one group most pros belong to--most of the hunter or dressage people will be in the USEF or USDF, most of the stock horse people will be in AQHA or one of the western performance groups, most of the gaited people will be in their own association. It might end up in a "my trainer is better than yours because they have more points" argument. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
My nickel's worth - I think a Hall of Fame inductee could be a consideration, but not a deal breaker. I agree with WAF regarding some of the variables, and I don't know why we couldn't have a dedicated official guideline for Notability (equine sports). With regards to people, HoF can be very political, not to mention the fact that some equine associations include administrative employees and financial donors; therefore, it's not only limiting it also doesn't necessarily speak to the notability of a sport's figure. I also think earners of'qualifying national & world championship titles in their respective associations are slam dunk notable. Perhaps along with a national & world championship title, we could also add finished the year in the Top Ten in their division, and/or finished the year in the Top Five in their respective region, and/or won a circuit championship. If a competitor isn't in the HoF, or hasn't won a National or World title, they may have other equine related achievements that might fill the gap, such as being one of 5 founders of a state equine association. We could also limit it to exhibitors/horses competing in the top 3 divisions of competition such as with the NCHA Open, Non-pro & Youth divisions. Winners (top ten) of highly publicized aged events with large purses would also be notable. Notability in the AQHA may be a bit tougher to sort through because there are so many different divisions and classes, but again, HoF, or qualifying National and World Championships would be notable. The Top Ten All American Quarter Horse Congress winners are also notable because of the scope and size of that single event which is not a qualifying event, but huge nonetheless. We also need to consider notability from an historic perspective so we're not dismissing some of the notable trail blazers in the equine industry that laid the foundation for the associations and competitions we enjoy today - maybe allow for primary sources as necessary. There are quite a few variables but even so, I don't think equine/equestrian notability should be any more restrictive than the guidelines set forth for other events in WP:Notability_(sports). Atsme📞📧 07:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
We do have a general guideline at WP:NSPORTS#Equestrian sport, but it is more FEI-focused. I do agree that we should try to recognize and acknowledge the major historic notable figures from the pre-internet era! That's a significant lack. But I personally don't think we want to even start down the road of granting GNG to annual national championship winners -- horses or people -- because across breeds -- and nations -- and disciplines -- there are thousands every year. (We could do something like List of National Champion foo horses for some of the "one horse wins this each year" things though...) We could do, for example, something like the Breeders Cup article for some of the biggest shows or List of foo winners- type articles the way they do in the horse racing project (e.g. Santa Anita Derby, etc...). WP:GNG is kind of the trump card -- outside, third-party notability. If, say, we have a horse like I Am Jose that does something not often accomplished, then yes. But in most cases, I think maybe we should be thinking lists... Montanabw(talk) 04:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Thousands? I don't think so, but even if there were, should it really matter? There are thousands of amateurs and professionals in other sporting events who simply have to show up for the game to be considered notable, whether they win or not. Why would we want to shortchange the horse industry's notables who actually won the titles? Equestrians who are competing for world and national titles work just as hard, if not harder, than any other athlete. Some have dedicated their lives to it. WP:Notability (sports) states: sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level. Winning a national or world show title in one of the highly publicized equine sporting events is surely what one would consider at the highest level. Look at the notability requirements for track & field. That guideline is why I mentioned adding a few other criteria to the qualifications for notability. I think we can hammer it out a little and make it meld right into the equestrian equivalents for GNG. Also had another thought - there isn't a whole lot more we can add to Jack Brizendine, so maybe we could consider a section devoted to starter rated BLPs - maybe add World Champion and National Champion categories, and an Equine professional category, etc.? Atsme📞📧 07:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, I think we can add articles on major shows, but winning individuals, maybe/maybe not... I don't disagree with your fundamental premise (that equestrians are athletes worthy of note!) I think that "the highest level" is the problem: Maybe we are discussing two different things - people versus the shows or sports? For individuals, I suspect that we have to narrow things down to meet WP:GNG; for example, take the Arabian National Championships, where they even give a "national champion" for walk-trot equitation. (in multiple classes. They also give little kids prizes at the Congress, too! Sorry, no, but I could not support creating articles about 20 or 30 children under 10 every year! No way would the GNG cops agree with us on that. So maybe we need to figure out how to determine "highest level." I mean, the Congress is a way bigger event than, say, the Missouri Fox Trotter nationals-- I presume they have them! But even for the Congress, is the champion barrel racing horse really notable? I think not... More discussion? Montanabw(talk) 08:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point regarding individuals and the many classes, but I'm not referring to limited classes (limited by age, etc.) which is why I suggested qualifiers as with Track & Field. For example, the two NCHA qualifying titles - World Champion Open and NonPro (riders), and National Champion Open and NonPro are different from each other and are much different from single breed events - there is only one Open and one NonPro (excluding the "limited" events), and both are international. The world shows and nationals require qualifying points to get there, and with the nationals, it usually requires a Top Ten national or area division title (out of 20+ divisions) to even qualify for the national work-offs. NCHA has only one Youth division unlike breed associations where it is broken down by age but I'm ok with eliminating the youth division because of potential age issues in Wikipedia. Most breed associations require a set number of points accumulated in qualifying events to be eligible to compete in a World or National Championship event. Congress is actually not a "qualifying" event rather it is a standalone international event. We can narrow down the Congress field to All-Around Champions and High Point Champions in their respective Divisions (Open and Amateur), excluding limited divisions that are not AQHA recognized. The American Saddlebred Horse Assoc. hosts a 5-Gaited World Championship, the NRHA has their major annual events, and so does Barrel Racing (and other NFR events). The most notable events and winners are published in local newspapers and/or get write-ups in their respective breed publications or industry related magazines and news sources. Maybe another qualifier can be notable enough to have made the cover of the association's publication. If a major manufacturer of horse tack builds a specific design of saddle, bit, spurs or halter named after you or your horse, it should meet one facet of GNG, especially if presented in combination with published articles in various equine magazines, newspapers, etc.Atsme📞📧 16:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
As a side note, I'm creating a list of the TWH foundation horses in my sandbox and going to create a list of the World Grand Champions either separately or as a part of the TWHNC article. All of them probably meet notability, although many were shown until they hit 5 or 6, then put in that class, and then retired to stud after they won the big stake--there's almost a set procedure most of the owners follow. The ones that need separate articles are the ones who made a mark as a sire or had such a weird story they got written about a lot. There are a couple more I'll probably do, and I'm looking into doing one or two of the now-dead early trainers and breeders as well. It would be interesting to do the Racking Horses as well, but they are so small it's nearly impossible to find sources. By the way, they do have a world show for Missouri Fox Trotters: [1]. Add, later: I put the list of World grand champs as a user subpage for now, but will probably end up moving it to the TWHNC article the way the list of Kentucky Derby winners are listed in that article.White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
My thinking is that we should start with lists, either attached to show articles or stand-alone. The most notable horses or people on those lists may wind up with their own articles. Whatever we decide, we have to remember that we are only offering guidance in how to interpret WP:GNG for horses; absent significant third-party coverage (I like the idea of noting if equipment -- or a Breyer horse model -- has been named in honor of the animal...) I have been following the talk at NSPORTS for a while, and there was recently a discussion over whether someone who played Major League Baseball was notable if the only coverage they ever had was to appear on a team roster and in stats charts. We don't (yet) even have articles on every winner of the Kentucky Oaks. Examples of what I'm talking about can be swiped from WP Horse racing, such as Kentucky Derby top four finishers or, in an article about the event, the list at Santa Anita Derby. Montanabw(talk) 18:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I have started a list of all the TWHNC winners in userspace here! I may put it as a stand-alone list once it's done, or maybe just use it as a part of the show article, the way winners are listed in the Kentucky Derby article. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to members[edit]

Of interest to this project: Talk:Equine-assisted therapy. Montanabw(talk) 04:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Based on what I've read, I don't understand why the articles should be merged. There is enough information for both to keep them as stand-alone. I see stubs all over WP that require attention but are being ignored, especially in the Project Med category. Why have these few articles garnered such attention? Atsme📞📧 22:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably because there's not enough editors interested in content creation. I also think those articles could have been left as stand-alones. Personally, right now I'm doing some work on the various guinea pig breeds, because they all redirected to one fairly bad article. (I own 4 piggies.) White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I read you loud and clear and at the same time, I remember a big stir over my attempt to merge dictionary definitions that were stand alone articles. In fact, my attempt to delete those definitions while I was in the process of creating a list for them along with trying to get them moved over to Wiki Species was the catalyst for a block; therefore, I'm inclined to oppose a merge since admins seem to think stubbies are A-OK. Atsme📞📧 23:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
At the moment, due to the low quality of the equine-assisted psychotherapy article, I decided to not fight that merge. The "equine therapy" article was even worse and I never opposed that merge. If you want to go over to the discussion linked above, there are several different threads going. My position at the moment is that the therapeutic riding and hippotherapy ones should stay separate from the overview article (which should have a summary), though perhaps an argument could be made that those two should be combined because there's a lot of overlap and confused terminology. My own interest is more the mental health side, which has the more difficult sourcing questions, but working to improve the riding therapy articles would be good practice in using WP:MEDRS- compliant sources; there's plenty of decent research out there on those fields. Montanabw(talk) 22:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Merging Murakoz horse and Međimurje horse[edit]

Hello. These breeds seem be the same. There's no Murakoz or Međimurje in Hungary in DAD-IS, and Murakoz is cited as a possible name for Međimurje. A magyar-speaker said Murakoz is just hungarian name for Međimurje. We are discussing the merging in french, but there's a Wikidata problem as in english you have 2 separated articles too --Tsaag Valren (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the merge is needed, since they appear to be about the exact same breed and one article even says that the other name is merely a different name for the same horse. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 17:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay ! I don't know how initiate a merging ask procedure in english... --Tsaag Valren (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed beetween Sumba pony, Sumbawa pony and Sandalwood[edit]

Hello again. Wikidata work is very useful for a "clarification" among horse breeds. There's a problem with your articles Sandalwood Pony and Sumba and Sumbawa Pony. According to the FAO, Sumbawa Pony is an individual breed (see : http://dad.fao.org/cgi-bin/EfabisWeb.cgi?sid=f7b81060b3e0fb484b1d3b079a87b143,reportsreport8a_50008503 ) and Sumba, or Sumbanese, just another name for the Sandalwood breed (see : http://dad.fao.org/cgi-bin/EfabisWeb.cgi?sid=c4b8d69138fe011b50981900db4b1439,reportsreport8a_50008502) . PS : There's a semi-automatization for inclusion (after human correction, of course) of data from DAD-IS about domestic breeds, that's what i'm working for now. I work also on Wikidata models for books (like : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22137019) Do you wish to join ? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

See Template:Horse breeds of Indonesia; it seems there is a good case to be made in either direction, plus most of these little horses appear to have very similar ancestry. I hesitate to merge these... (and also, the DAD-IS is often quite inaccurate --in both directions -- sometimes it has too manybreeds and other times too few!) Montanabw(talk) 00:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
According to this book chapter :
  • Bernice de Jong Boers, « The ‘Arab’ of the Indonesian Archipelago: The Famed Horse Breeds of Sumbawa », dans Breeds of Empire: The ‘invention’ of the horse in Southern Africa and Maritime Southeast Asia, 1500–1950, vol. 42 de NIAS studies in Asian topics, Copenhague, NIAS,‎ 2007, 263 p. (ISBN 8776940144 et 9788776940140), p. 51-64

Sumbawa ponies are divided into two types, the Tambora pony (almost disappeared with the 1815 eruption) and the Bima pony, who is considered as a variety of Sumbawa breed in DAD-IS (http://dad.fao.org/cgi-bin/EfabisWeb.cgi?sid=20bff429f78bd3add5cd230ef5903cd1,reportsreport8a_50009136), and have separate history from Sumba ponies. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Parelli Natural Horsemanship[edit]

Hi all,

There has been some dispute over deletions of cited, factual material on the Parelli Natural Horsemanship page. The disputes don't seem to be getting resolved. Whether you're pro-PNH, anti-PNH or indifferent, as long as you're impartial, you're officially invited to hop in and add your yea or neigh (pun intended) to the mix, if you're so inclined.

JackieLL007 (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, other members are welcome to discuss. Montanabw(talk)|GO THUNDER! 19:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The controversies over the editing could and should be used to improve the article. I think it could really go to GA if the right kinds of sources were used. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 17:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Made horsey userboxes[edit]

Just a note to members, some of you may be interested: I finally got tired of the fact that there were so few horse boxes and made a few of my own here. (I definitely thought eventing should have one, since it's in the freaking Olympics!) I also put them in the main galleries so others can find them. If anybody wants any more done, just ask, although I have plans for a couple more of the most popular breeds and sports, like Quarter Horses and maybe barrel racing. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, White Arabian Filly. Much appreciated! Also wanted to mention that I have a pretty nice barrel racing photo if you need it for a user box. Atsme📞📧 22:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)