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

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:07, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Need opinions of WPEQ members[edit]

This has been sitting around for awhile and now languishing. Need some more votes. (I supported):

Move request[edit]

Please note:

Proposed solution to some of the naming problems[edit]

One reason we're seeing push-back on the idea that "Foo (horse)" is a title for an article about a specific horse named Foo, and some people keep wanting to move Mustang horse (or Mustang or wherever it is now) to Mustang (horse) over the strenuous objections of several of this project's participants, is that we're also using "(horse)" as a disambiguator for other topics being disambiguated for hoses. Our sorta-convention is not consistent enough to be entirely convincing right now.

This can be resolved by changing the latter kind of case (articles about horsey topics, not individual horses) to disambiguations of the form "(horses)" – e.g., move Bolting (horse), to Bolting (horses) – in the cases where natural disambiguation (as in Horse breed) isn't practical. If this were done, every case of "Foo (horse)" titles would then refer to individual horses, and the convention would be entirely consistent. This would also be in keeping with the intent and practice of our parenthetical disambiguation practices more generally: WP uses the topic area as the disambiguator in such cases, and this is generally the general or aggregate term. "Horses" (more broadly, "equines") constitutes a topic area; "horse" does not. While such a disambig is not always plural in form, it very often is – e.g. "(sports)", and so on – when it's not adjectival. To make the concept as clear as possible, note that we have an article Bulling (cattle), which is at that title, not at Bulling (bovine) (which it could be, if it were applicable to bison, etc), nor (more to the point) at Bulling (cow), despite the fact that it's something only cows, not bulls, do.

If we get a micro-consensus of sorts on this here, I or someone else could propose a multi-page move of such articles to titles like Bolting (horses), and if successful, do the same with other animals and whatnot. There is no reason for Rare breed (dog) and Breed type (dog) to not be at "(dogs)" names instead. It more clearly would identify the article as something pertaining to dogs as a class, rather than an individual name for, or something to do with, some particular dog.

I want to be clear that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy forbids us from having, say, three or five people here agree this is a good idea and then declaring we have a consensus that applies against the objection of others. It's something that needs to go through proper WP:RM process. But I've also learned to be wary of engaging RM process, when horses are involved, without other participants in this project already having buy-in. The resulting drama has been a bit excessive, historically.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm not up on all things horses and am only familiar with the Mustang issue, how many problems do we actually see on this horse topic? Is fighting over the (horse) issue common at Wikipedia or is it mainly confined to the Mustang issue or maybe one or two others? If the former, this is certainly worth a discussion. If the latter, then it seems far more trouble than its worth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It comes up repeatedly with Mustang/Mustang horse/Mustang (horse), but has also come up with regard to other articles, with WP:EQUINE's reliance on "(horse)" as an individuals-only disambiguator repeatedly challenged (principally on the basis that it's not entirely consistent). Animal breed article disambiguation has been a hotbed of continual dispute for almost a year, pretty continuously, and sporadically before that. I'm suggesting that at least one aspect of it can be resolved in this simple manner, with this project taking the lead. I'm not sure what "far more trouble" you refer to; there are only a couple of handfuls of articles that would be affected, yet the time and productivity saved by forestalling future rancorous disputes would most likely greatly exceed that spent on moving a few articles around after a hopefully calm RM on the "(horse)" ones that aren't about individual horses.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the discussion. Thank you. The parenthetical disambiguation issue is, so far, only something that has popped up with drama for the horse breeds versus the named horses, and Mustang is the primary place it happens due to people who like the cars. However, SMcCandlish is right that there is, arguably, a consistency problem - Personally, I don't want to change 3000 article titles, but I DO favor natural disambiguation where possible. (we have Equine conformation, Horse blanket, Skeletal system of the horse, English saddle etc.). Montanabw(talk) 08:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For solutions, I personally don't think (horses) is much of an improvement over (horse) and is likely to just create more drama, though in some cases a thought out move to (equine) would work if the topic is also applicable to donkeys or mules. But some things are horse specific, like Driving (horse). The titles developed over a decade of work, so the inconsistency is understandable - before my time there were moves of things like bit (horse) to horse bit and so on, to the point that RMs are the only option. Basically, rather than hundreds of RM dramas, I'm all for coming up with something workable that can go in with wikiproject consensus, which may or may not matter to others, but could reduce drama if presented as a thought-out whole and not a piecemeal thing. Montanabw(talk) 08:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sadly, though, it's not a "handful" of articles, it may not be 3000, but I'm betting it's well over a couple hundred. I can't make the WP search engine confine itself to only article titles with "(horse)" and tagged only for WP Equine and not WP Horse racing (which has the bulk of the named horse articles), but a lot of the anatomy, equipment and other articles are so named... Montanabw(talk) 08:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere near that many. It's actually fairly hard to find examples. I can think of two horse and two dog cases that I know of (I think I mentioned all of those already), and nothing else is coming to mind immediately, e.g. with regard to cats or pigs or goats or whatever. It would literally take longer to go through the domestic animal categories to find the articles than it would to move them after they're found. And it wouldn't be necessary to do this programmatically. Just RM a few of them to set the precedent, then cite it when any others are found. Or maybe I'll get bored and dig them all up.
Checking a few categories:
  • Zero pig articles would be affected.
  • Zero goat articles would be affected.
  • Zero sheep articles would be affected (since singular and plural the same)
  • Zero chicken articles would be affected (though 3 breed articles need to be moved to natural disambig per the last 6 mo. worth of RMs on that issue)
  • Zero rabbit articles would be affected (though 2 breed articles need to be natural dab)
  • Zero cat articles would be affected
And so on. I've already done half the work. :-)

Just to be clear, this proposal would only affect articles that are not about individual animals, which would remain at names like Astra (horse). Articles like Driving (horse) make much more sense at names like Driving (horses) because it's about driving related to horses, not driving related to one specific horse. I wholeheartedly agree that natural disambiguation should be used, however, when it's, well, natural. That's a matter of policy, and we're mostly doing that already. All I'm talking about is a small number of article that seem to need parenthetical disambiguation (supposedly), but which are disambiguated in a way that implies each article is about an individual horse [or dog, or llama or whatever], not topics relating to horses [dogs, etc.] as a class.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: Bolting (horse) should definitely be at Bolting (equine), because as the first sentence says clearly, it applies to all equidae.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not opposed in concept, but I'm wondering if this is a solution in search of a problem? (Sincere inquiry) AFAIK, the only drama was to KEEP natural disambiguation for the horse breeds. That seems well settled. (I am hoping to stay out of the dog and cat dramas, livestock is plenty for me...). On one hand, I do kind of see your point about (horses) but I actually would be curious if people at other WPs are Ok with a similar approach at their articles... I like horses to be the cutting edge of highest and best quality, but I also hesitate to just dive in and do something too unique if it will just generate drama in the opposite direction. Montanabw(talk) 00:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is a link for a search of all WP:Equine tagged articles with "(horse" in the title. Plantdrew (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Cool- I didn't know how to do that! Not as bad as I feared; mostly named horses, but I have to say that I am not super-comfortable changing parenthetical dab on the colors or anatomy stuff. Hmmm. Montanabw(talk) 19:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American National Riding Commission[edit]

Anyone want to convince Signalfire2000 to post her sandbox article on this (User:Signalfire2000/Sandbox) onto mainspace (American National Riding Commission)? Needs a very tiny bit of TLC but looks like enough of a stub/start, and is already mentioned in several existing wiki articles so it should easily pass notability in my opinion. Montanabw? Justlettersandnumbers? Anyone? (Not me, I'm not an equestrian.) Softlavender (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll peek. The whole way that new pages have to be approved is just so daunting to new users! Montanabw(talk) 02:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah! I see the problem! It's still a total copy and paste from the "brief history" section of So right now it would get tossed as a copyvio. Help this user to rephrase it into her own words. Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh well, that's too bad. I don't have the knowledge to help her re-create it, but anyone who is a Reference/Electronic Resources Librarian at a college (see her userpage) should be able to do that herself and know how to write a sourced and cited fact-based article rather than a copy-and-paste. Show her the ref codes at the bottom of the editing window and she should do fine I think. Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

New article needs review[edit]

Lendon Gray needs review, project templating, etc. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Will need to be someone else other than me, I am kind of overwhelmed by wiki stuff at the moment (a FAC in the works and three drama board things). Montanabw(talk) 21:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries, JLAN got to it almost immediately. Rest up. I don't know why the long knives are out for you. I kind of made it worse on ANI lol; I've stepped away. Best of luck with all that. I don't know how they expect folks to keep WP clear of socks and vandals if we can't track them on non-visible user subpages. Softlavender (talk)
You were of help there, actually! That drama has now been closed, though a side issue at AfD is still got people going hammer and tongs, but at least not so directly at me (though the AfD is over a subpage I created). It's always a battle, and copyright issues are serious topics that need to be addressed quickly as they can get out of hand in a hurry. Montanabw(talk) 05:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to the graphics for Template: Medal[edit]

There is a template talk page discussion regarding the graphics used for medalists in infobox medals tables occurring at Template talk:Medal#‎Changing from gold/silver/bronze to 1/2/3. As this discussion is within the scope of WP:Equine, you are invited to make your comments on the recent graphics changes there. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)