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

Wikidata property for riders' horses[edit]

Wikidata now has a property, mount (P3091), for people's horses (or other animals ridden).

Here's a bot-generated report, also showing images of horse and rider. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Will that work for multiple horses, such as for jockeys? Also, can you explain in really simple terms if we have to do anything special to make wikidata happen? I totally don't understand if it automatically propagates the way Google swipes from Wikipedia, or if we are supposed to do something. All the talk I see on it is so hopelessly techie that I don't get it. Montanabw(talk) 07:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Important discussion[edit]

Important discussion of interest to participants on this project: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Merge WP:VET to WP:MED as a taskforce/workgroup?. Montanabw(talk) 04:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Horses in wikidata[edit]

Hello. We're working on Wikidata to harmonize horse pedigrees : Have fun ! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

well I've signed up as I'm interested in the topic but I haven't got a clue about wikidata so I will have to click my way through a few tutorials before doing anything remotely useful. Tigerboy1966  10:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to you =). One of the aims of this project is to use all good equine pedigree databases worldwide to create an auto-generated pedigree template for the Wikipedia pages. We will work with the databases who give results of big equine competitions (races, jumping, dressage, etc...) It will be a long, interesting, and difficult job! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It probably needs to be WikiProject Equine, as we have it here... Montanabw(talk) 07:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it might be better to move this to WikiProject Horses, which would be the obvious name for it and that which people are most likely to look for. Why does this project (only?) have an adjective as its title? The dog project is not at WikiProject Canine, the cat project is not at WikiProject Feline, the United States project is not at WikiProject American, the opera project is not at WikiProject Operatic. Why the exception? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I guess because it covers mules and donkeys too. White Arabian Filly Neigh 18:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, equine is also a noun. ;-)
Yes. Way back when the person (not me) started the project, it was "WikiProject horses" There were two reasons it moved to "Equine." 1) The "ponies are horses too" problem (we have had, over the years, assorted annoying dramas -- the "ponies aren't the same species as horses" drama (easily disposed of but annoying) and the "ponies are just a breed of horse" drama. (And the "is it a horse or a pony?" drama... sigh) 2) At the time, we also had some strong donkey and mule advocates as well as some non-equestrian-but-literally-minded editors. Oh yes, and there are also the Zebra folks. While JLAN's point about cats and dogs is well-taken and JLAN has a point, I think that the sheer number of additional feline and canine species is one way to distinguish this from other projects. The truth is, Equus (genus) is relatively small. We already have all the evolutionary species and extant species under this umbrella and it does not appear to be overwhelming the project. That said, I have sometimes wondered if we should create a donkeys task force so the asinus articles can be tagged and given their own special attention. Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Technical terms in articles[edit]

I would like to get feedback on the use and explanation of technical terms (jargon) in equine articles. I think almost everybody in this project will know that equine-related terms are abundant, but these terms are not always understood by lay readers, and I feel this needs addressing. The instance which has motivated me to write this is that over at Spiti Horse, the expression "cover" in relation to mating is used and to my mind, many lay readers will not know what this means. I edited the article by adding "(mate)" as an explanatory term, however this was deleted. So, I am asking whether we should be inserting explanatory terms. I am not on a mission here to wipe out technical equine terms - I am not even suggesting we delete them - but what do people think about placing explanatory, more every-day terms, in parentheses, to help readers more easily access equine articles. DrChrissy (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That seems to be standard suggestions during FACs (explanation of jargon in parenthesis). An article should be understandable to lay-readers. Note that I'm mainly interested in horses from a biological standpoint, "true" equestrians probably have different feelings about this. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with FM. I also check to see if the term has an article (I was surprised to see how many do), or if it may be included in defined terms in another article so I can wikilink it. For example "cover" is described well in the horse breeding article: Horse_breeding#Covering_the_mare. Atsme📞📧 18:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that - I will add the link. DrChrissy (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
We have several resources to help with this. The first is our (so far) 100% sourced Glossary of equestrian terms. There, we have links to other articles that also contain lists and definitions, such as the Equine anatomy article and others. We also have a ton of articles. In some cases, it is OK to tone down the jargon, but other times, we come under criticism from those who are knowledgeable if we don't use correct terminology. It becomes really clunky to constantly explain everything (i.e. "horse foo was foaled (born) in 1999. The gelding (castrated male horse) was a chestnut (reddish-brown-colored horse) sired (fathered) by Foobar and his dam (mommy) was Foofy. He was trained (had a person teach him to be nice to people) by Joe Schmoo, a former jockey (short guy who rides racehorses)... ) And so we spent a LOT of time getting the glossary going, and it always can benefit from having new words added. If there isn't a glossary of medical and veterinary lingo, we should look at creating one... though Wiktionary links can also work. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Like FunkMonk my interest in horses isn't that of "true" equestrians—in my case, the use of horses as motive power—but my attitude would be that if a more widely understandable term exists which doesn't degrade meaning, Wikipedia should always be using that. Remember, Wikipedia has a lot of readers who don't have English as their first language; plus, while I'm not sure how you'd test it, I'd be prepared to bet that a disproportionate number of readers of a lot of the horsey articles are people without technical knowledge—as well as the eight-year-old girls who like ponies, there are also going to be a steady stream of readers interested in the history of racing and cavalry rather than in horsemanship or animal husbandry per se. (Plus, of course, if the article is at TFA/DYK, it will be getting large numbers of readers with no background knowledge at all.) Thus, my inclination would be "born" over "foaled", "mated" over "covered", measurements in inches and meters as well as hands, probably even "mother and father" over "dam and sire", etc. (For the same reason, railroad articles say "dismantled" instead of "lifted", arts articles talk about "paint base" instead of "sizing", architecture articles say "rectangular stone blocks on the corners" rather than "ashlar quoining", and so on.) Write one level down and explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used are both explicitly stated in the MOS, and while I'm generally quite leery of treating the MOS as holy writ in this case I think the policy is sensible. (It was explained to me by Giano many moons ago as "always write as if you're explaining to a bright 14-year-old with no prior knowledge of the subject", which I think is about right.) ‑ Iridescent 08:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
While I agree that it is appropriate to write for the 14 year old, a 14 year old is generally eager to learn the correct words for a technical subject. (Heck, I actually learned most of these fancy horse words when I was about 8 years old, we horsey girls are that way...) I do think there is a fine line between using and overusing technical language, but on the bulk of situations, it is a disservice to the reader to go do absurd lengths to avoid it. On the horse articles we put hours of work into the {{hands}} template and its cousins so that we have full three-way conversion of all measurements. We also have a very nice glossary for all the weird words. As for other issues, we use extensive wikilinking to our technical terms -- in any WP article on a topic new to me, I always see some unfamiliar terms and use the links; it is possible to "dumb down" an article to the point of ridiculousness (and saying a boy horse instead of colt (horse) or a girl horse instead of filly -- or "mother and father" instead of "sire and dam" is exhibit A on that one). Frankly, we should learn about ashlar quoining (that one was new to me!). Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I just uploaded....[edit]

...this video clip for Horse breeding if you'd like to add it. Also want to mention that I have more clips I can capture from the same documentary which can be used for Sultan's Great Day and possibly others depending on what's needed. For example, I have some training clips, running free clips, horses biting, rearing, etc. I'm waiting for an admin to check what I've already uploaded (local NonFree) to make sure I did it correctly. Atsme📞📧 21:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ask them for help on the license, I see they tag-bombed it. Using a cc-3.0 or 4.0 license should do the trick. Once the licensing stuff is squared away, put it in where you think it best and we can move it around some if we need to. Montanabw(talk) 04:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw see my TP for the explanation. Atsme📞📧 05:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Intent to delete[edit]

File:Clip breeding-foaling-A Celebration of Horses.webmhd.webm is being considered for deletion. Please see the tags below the image. We only have until September 8th to respond.

Atsme📞📧 22:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: The initial decision was to "keep" the clip as it passes the FU criteria uploader's talk page, but another editor has decided it needs more community attention and tagged it for deletion yet again: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_September_9#File:Clip_breeding-foaling-A_Celebration_of_Horses.webmhd.webm. Atsme📞📧 15:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This latest deletion nomination is pretty freaking ridiculous. I voted keep, because he's dead and we can't get any more video. Looks like somebody would get that that's acceptable fair use under the policy. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand it. If WP wanted to exclude all FU media, they wouldn't have the policy. The arguments to delete are fallacious and based on opinions that clearly reflect a lack of knowledge about horses in general, specifically stallions and what quality breeding programs contribute to the advancement of an entire breed of horses. I posted on Montanabw's user page hoping to get some back & forth going about the ambiguities in our FU policy as it relates to media uploads. The "upload police" tend to be overzealous - claiming it's better to err on the side of deletion - which is not helpful to the encyclopedia or its readers. They're deleting rare/historic/highly informative encyclopedic information that would definitely enhance the reading experience. I hope other Project Members get involved in this discussion because as RexxS mentioned, the outcome may help establish a new precedent. Anyway, thanks for staying on top of things, WAF! Atsme📞📧 15:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the silly attitudes are probably why we have so few articles with fair use images, even though so many horse articles in particular are about dead animals. Except for Honors and I Am Jose, and some Olympic horses, all my created horse biography articles are about dead ones. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I usually don't have trouble uploading images of deceased horses, I think the trouble with this one was... the "activities" portrayed... LOL! Montanabw(talk) 03:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

SPA on Honors (horse)[edit]

Not a surprise due to the controversy over him, but this editor keeps adding stuff that goes against the newspaper sources I used. The Shelbyville Times-Gazette says that the federal case is over with and ruled in McSwain's favor, and that's what I wrote in the article. (He's also named Keith, not Kevin.) But they keep adding stuff that makes it sound like the case is still open, and used pretty strong language accusing the owner (2nd edit). Also, Honors' violation was of the scar rule, and they are saying it was soring; the owners jumped through a lot of hoops to clear their names. page history If they are who their username says, they are a higher-up in one of the most anti-Big Lick/show horse/performance groups out there (I don't think this counts as outing because ...just do a simple Google search of the name, and you'll see). That makes them an SPA with a COI in my view. As for me, I like the horse, but I don't have any connections with him or any humans surrounding him. I really don't need the disruption on this right now either; the article is nominated for DYK and stuff is going on in my real life. I'd appreciate it if somebody else could keep an eye on the article. I also plan to contact the editor and explain the COI policy. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been out-of-pocket most of the day, but will look in on things tomorrow. Atsme📞📧 03:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I saw the issue. I'll jump on it as needed. You know I have pretty strong feelings about soring, but I have even stronger feelings about following the sources and sticking with proper citations (dang, guess I'm always the legal thinker first, LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 03:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thunder (horse)[edit]

There appears to be a relatively new editor who objects to the photo of the tunnel. I've tried to explain the reason for the photo, but that editor keeps reverting my edits. Considering the article is a FA, and has already been through the review process, I don't understand the objection. Atsme📞📧 18:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article. Seriously, I don't see why they think the picture is a problem. It shows how Thunder gets onto the field, for Pete's sake.😕 White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)