This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
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.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Montana, when you say "several Mustang subgroups" do you mean types or actual human-developed breeds? From my point of view, the book is probably correct in saying they are the first human-created breed, unless you have a source that specifically says differently. As I said before, Canada is not exactly well-known for their new-breed-creating abilities. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly being a grump, probably (LOL). But the other issue is if we even have a real breed here at all. My thoughts are that this is yet another example of somebody's crossbred that is getting called a "breed" so that all 52 animals can have a "registry" and be sold at premium prices. We can't seem to get the whole article deleted, it's been tried, but I would be happiest to just delete that little factoid because I think it's puff piece advertising. (For similar reasons, I have yet to decide if I really want to make an article on the "Montana Traveler" so-called "breed," I'm not yet convinced that it isn't just five people who are breeding crossbred gaited horses.) Hendricks is terrible about doing this, it's one of the reasons I don't like her book. By some standards, we are probably overgenerous about what is a "breed" just to avoid edit wars, but Hendricks seems to think that someone's stud farm can breed three generations of crossbreds and call them a breed, which is going too far, IMHO. So I'm being a curmudgeon. I guess it's your call, though. Also, keep in mind that the Nez Perce probably did occasionally travel into what today is western Canada...LOL! Montanabw(talk)01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True on the crossbreed front, but since this "breed" specifically has been worked into some Canadian legislation, I'd say it can probably say. If we let 4 different Soviet-bred draft "breeds" have individual articles, just because the USSR says they were seperate breeds, then why not let the Canadian government have an equal say, eh? *grin* I'll remove the sentence about the breed in western Canada, which will solve the whole problem, I believe. Dana boomer (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can live with keeping the article. We also have the eight different "Breeds" of Indonesian ponies, that all appear to come from similar souces and are almost indistinguishable, but hey they live on different islands, so who are we to argue? (See Java pony, etc...) So yeah, if the government calls it a breed, who are we mere wikipedians to disagree? (long sigh...) At least that makes more sense than how they want to declare the Huckleberry pancake the state pancake of Montana up at the legislature right now...(even longer sigh...) Life, liberty and property all at risk at the moment...Montanabw(talk)22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A state pancake? Wow...and I thought having a state children's book was bad here in Michigan (The Legend of the Sleeping Bear, the legend of the creation of the Sleeping Bear Dunes). I've never had huckleberry pancakes...I think I'll stick with blueberry and chocolate for now (not together, although that actually sounds kind of good!). Dana boomer (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huckleberry is actually tasty, if you like blueberry pancakes, you will probably like Huckleberry pancakes. But to waste taxpayer time and money on a pancake bill? Um... there is also a bill for a "state love song" which I think the author wrote in order to get it designated the state love song. Methinks I will grow dreadlocks and write the state reggae song, or maybe just get a perm and write the state "hair band" heavy metal song... But Oh! I have our nominee for state children's book: Who Pooped in the Park?! :-D Fortunately, the Montana legislature only meets for 90 days every two years. Some say they should only meet for 2 days every 90 years! LOL! Montanabw(talk)23:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
