Jump to content

Talk:Bit (horse)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page name

[edit]

Why not put this at horse bit and avoid the dab? Snoutwood 09:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because we call it a "bit." When horse people are looking for info on the topic, they type in "bit." Montanabw 22:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But (generally) they're not going to type in bit (horse). They're probably going to go Bit → Bit (disambiguation) → Bit (horse). So if they're going to come here through the bit dab, why not have it link to horse bit rather than bit (horse)? That way, we don't need the unnecessary parenthetical dab, and I can imagine typing in horse bit as a pagename guess. Snoutwood 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champing/chomping at the bit

[edit]

Should some mention of this phrase be made on this page? That's actually the reason I came to this page. Doktor Waterhouse 06:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. A trivia section. Worth considering. Thanks for the idea! Montanabw(talk) 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with the statement on the page that "chomping at the bit" is mistaken. My reasoning is as follows: 'To champ' is an exact synonym of 'to chomp'. "Champing at the bit" is not a direct quote, unlike common misquotes such as "Play it again, Sam". By what measure is "Chomping at the bit" mistaken? Colloquialisms and idiomatic expressions are generally established by general popularity, so how can the majority of people be mistaken about a colloquialism, especially given its exact semantic similarity? Just because "champing at the bit" came first, doesn't mean that "chomping at the bit" isn't correct in the modern vernacular. I would suggest that it should say "alternatively", unless there exists a cited authority on the matter who classifies it as a mistake based on objective criteria. Westquote (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

[edit]

Montanbw, going to have to disagree with your last minor edit ("noseband or neck strap"). I don't think we need a disambig here, and also thinking the writing doesn't sound as good. Let's keep it simple. --AeronM (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Una gave me the idea by pointing out the neck strap thing (actually it's on one of your bitless bridle sites, should have sourced it at the time, will find it later). You do not own these articles any more than anyone else. So let's just leave these things be. Montanabw(talk) 05:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps your time might be better spent rounding up some sourcing needed in the Effects paragraph. --AeronM (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Bits

[edit]

Many show societies, sale agents and race clubs require lead horses to use a bit when they are paraded. In racing this is usually the anti-rearing bit. Sometimes colt ring or stallion bits are used but they are less fashionable now.Cgoodwin (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content

[edit]

I have removed unsourced (and at least partially inaccurate) information from this article, per policy. This section had been tagged since February of 2011, which is more than ample. Please abide by policy and do not re-add this content in violation of WP:V, one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Do not under any circumstances merely revert, adding in the incorrect spelling of "Champing at the bit (or mistakenly as chomping at the bit " - the correct spelling is "chomping", please look this up on Wiktionary at the very least. Blanket reversions to re-introduce longstanding unsourced content is not recommended. If you wish to include content, the onus is on you to locate the sourcing for it. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You offer no argument that the content is inaccurate. And do not template the regulars, nor give orders as you are doing above. Best of all: Get off your duff and IMPROVE THE ARTICLE, don't just remove things and lecture other people to do your work for you, I have 3,000 articles on my watchlist. If we delete everything unsourced from wikipedia, we will delete 2/3 of the encycopedia. Furthermore, you are utterly clueless to insist upon deletion of an entire section, when your issue is with ONE WORD. Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC) And hey, what do you know? I'm right! Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the person desiring the content to provide sources; for me to find sourcing for content you desire would be me doing your work, rather than the reverse. DTTR, as has been explained elsewhere, is an essay. V (see subsection WP:BURDEN) is a policy. I ensure policy is followed and take essays for what they are: opinion which is binding on no one. I appreciate that you have located for and placed sources for this content. It is a pity you chose to edit war and insult me before finally doing it, but as you have now done so I have no argument with the content. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the POLICY, as you put it, is that unsourced material 'may be' challenged and - IF not verified - removed, not just randomly blanked because someone else put an old tag on it a long time ago but let it languish forever and thus obviously was only noting that the section needed more sources. I don't think you were the person who put the ref tag on the section originally, but because you (incorrectly) disagreed with one sentence you tore down the house when you COULD have actually just rewrote the sentence with a source, but then, you'd see that it actually WAS correct. (and, years back, the section DID say "chomping at the bit," which someone - not me - changed and corrected to "champing") But no, you nonetheless blanked the entire thing, and failed to follow WP:BRD and discuss your concerns, instead, YOU chose to put in snotty, preachy edit summaries, then edit war with ME, ordering and demanding that I hop to your tune, when I happen to have a lot of other things ahead of this article in the queue. Now, I've said my piece, so please have your last word and let's be done with all this. Montanabw(talk) 04:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. Let's focus on being civil. At least on the articles that I work on, discussion in a neutral manner is always the most helpful to all parties, even in the face of hostilities. Just my 10c. Jesse V. (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Bit (horse tack)

[edit]

Any opposition to moving the page to Bit (horse tack)? Seems clearer to me, as the article isn't about a horse named Bit. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, it's an awkward title and unnecessary detail. This is about something used by horses, the disambig (horse) is not used only for named animals. Rename this and you have to rename a bunch of similar articles. Now once upon a time, I said I'd personally prefer "horse bit" but I lost that one to the disambiguation police years ago. And we just had a big spat in another article over someone who thought we shouldn't say "tack" because it was, basically, a weird word. So please, let's just let this one be. Montanabw(talk) 23:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Rename this and you have to rename a bunch of similar articles." I don't think you're correct. If "(horse)" appeared to be the standard disambiguator for horse tack articles, I wouldn't have proposed the move, but I had glanced at some of the tack categories beforehand and the only ones I found titled this way were this one and Spade bit (horse) (which I would have gone ahead and moved if this one were retitled). "(tack)" seems to be the most common term, and I would be okay with that as an improvement on "(horse)". So if you are the only one objecting, and a main part of your objection is that it would lead to the retitling of many other articles, and another main part of your objection is that it would cause a big argument among theoretical other people who are not actually objecting at this time, I would request that you reconsider. I'm not passionate about this but I'm more likely to open a WP:RM discussion if the only objections here are ones that don't make much sense to me.
I'll also add the additional explanation that, as someone who works on disambiguation pages, titles that seem "awkward" to me are the ones where, when you list them on a disambiguation page, you have to add additional explanation, i.e., you have to say something like "Bit (horse), a piece of horse tack" when the article could just be titled Bit (horse tack) (or Bit (tack)) and then the title itself would indicate what the article is about, which is the point of the title anyway. Theoldsparkle (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the tack and equipment titles, such as saddle do not need disambiguation. Some do have the modifier (tack) on, (martingale (tack), is one) and of course, then you have to say "a piece of equipment used on horses" - so the problem exists in either direction. I will grant that consistency would be a beautiful thing. A quick review of Template:Horse equipment shows that if a modifier exists, (tack) is used, not (horse tack). Several others, such as saddle blanket and horse blanket, have the modifier built in (as that's what it's called anyway, most of the time). If memory serves, this article was once named "horse bit" maybe 4-5 years ago, and someone insisted on disambiguating it. Frankly, this is not worth an edit war to me, so either just make it "tack" if you must - but please do the cleanup too, and if you insist on "horse tack" then do be gracious enough to take it up over at WP:EQUINE first before filing a RM-- where you will see the discussion over the fellow (now banned) who was all upset about the word "tack." Also, we occasionally have spats with the donkey people who remind us that not all bits are worn by horses (big martyred sigh). Montanabw(talk) 18:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bit (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bit (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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bit (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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misnomer in archaeological literature?

[edit]

In the archaeological (and horse genomics) literature, the discovery of alleged "cheekpieces" is mentioned as evidence for domesticated horses. According to the description in this article, however, this is a misnomer, because cheekpieces either denote "bit shanks" (in fact only used with a curb bit), or rather the straps running down the sides of the horse's face. What they instead mean are the snaffle toggles or discs, corresponding to today's side pieces in the form of toggles, rings or olive-like thickenings of the mouthpiece, intended to prevent lateral slippage as well as serve to fasten the bridle and are technically referred to as "bit guards", if I have understood the description here correctly.HJHolm (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Switch first picture?

[edit]

I find it misleading that the first image in the article doesn't actually show a bit. Instead it shows a horse with a bit in its mouth, necessitating a disclaimer: "The bit is not the metal ring". Would it not be better to start with a picture of a bit on its own, and later have a picture of a horse with one? Ribidag (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bit_(horse)&oldid=1200087382"